From 1919 to 1933, we conducted a national experiment in drug prohibition. The drug of choice at that time (besides marijuana and opium) was alcohol. The 18th Amendment made it illegal and sparked off a bloody war that only the 21st Amendment could bring to an end.

That is important to note. The only constitutional amendment in the history of our country to be repealed was the one that outlawed personal behavior.  Also, to outlaw personal behavior actually took an amendment to the Constitution, yet four years after the end of prohibition, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was passed.

More than 70 years after the marijuana witch hunt was started at the behest of Dupont and Hearst, our misguided and mismanaged "War on Drugs" continues to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives every year. We continue to lock up more people than any other country in the world, the vast majority of whom are non-violent drug offenders. We overload the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) to the point that white child molesters go free after only a short time in jail while a black teen can get decades behind bars for a little bit of weed.

All without a Constitutional amendment.

We seem to make it a habit these days to violate the Constitution whole cloth and then wonder why nothing works. We aren't following the blue print. We weren't supposed to spend a trillion dollars a year policing the world. We weren't meant to spend 500 billion a year locking up people for using drugs. We weren't given a blueprint to create a unitary executive controlling a huge federal government with little or no accountability to the legislative or judicial branches, let alone the 50 states.

We have become a police state at our own request. We begged them to save us by abrogating our rights under the Constitution. The marketed the fear of "criminals" and "terrorists" to the point that cops now look like they are in the military. I see some of them swaggering around with the automatic weapons and pants tucked into their "combat" boots.  It takes two cars to conduct a routine traffic stop.  They treat everyone like a criminal, even more so if you are not white.  It's actually kind of insulting to see them acting like being a cop is the same as being in the military.  Like serving on American streets is somehow on par with Iraq or Lebonon.  Many police do an admirable job each day, but the tone and tenor of some has become decidely agressive in recent years.

Most of this attitude is a result of the War on Drugs.  When you have been convinced that this is a war, even though all evidence points to the exact opposite, then it becomes easier to justify unacceptable behavior.  We need to practice broken window policing.  New York City didn't clean up its crime problem by turning out beat cops in SWAT uniforms.  They did it by cleaning graphitti off the trains and policing the stations better. 

We will never have a real solution though. 

Between our corporate controlled media and a Prison Industrial Complex that is making some people very rich. Politicians of both parties pass laws to prove they are tough on crime when all they do is make our city streets more lawless and thus feeding the system more kids.  It is pathetic and tragic and a huge waste of our country's potential.  This is a hemorrage in our body politic and unless we fix it, we will bleed to death at some point.  This cannot be sustained anymore than our cancerous "growth" in the stock market can be sustained. 

We're in a lot of trouble.

Is David Seaton the best troll McCain can send to TPM?  Come on!  Dude is a weak troll at best and kind of insulting to boot.  At least give us someone who is on par with the best of the Hillary trolls, who are now part of the progressive majority that will kick McCain's ass in the general. 

I had my issues with "Louisville1976" but he was entertaining and well informed about many things outside of our respective candidates.  Above all, he could turn a phrase and elicit a laugh every now and then.  Seaton is simply pedantic and not the least bit entertaining.  Not to mention cynical and pessimistic and detached from reality in any meaningful way for many of his posts.

I would suggest McCain actually invest some money in hiring better trolls.  Otherwise, the thumping he'll get in November will be both historic and embarrassing.

It is clear from the Constitution that we were not meant to have an enormous, world-straddling military.  That what military we did possess should used as a defense mechanism and not a tool of global dominance.  The founders were quite implicit in their writings and in the Constitution itself that we didn't want to be another British empire.

That was the whole point of founding the country in the first place.

As has been shown over the years, a huge military being sent overseas to project power has been one of the main downfalls of this country.  It is anathema to everything we stood for right up until World War II. We had zero troops stationed overseas prior to World War II. Now most of our troops are stationed around the world.

Yet, we never question our military strategy and tactics.  Has how we do things made us any better as a country? Has it made us safer?  It is quite clear from the available evidence that it has not.

Having served in the US Navy and gone overseas as part of a forward deployed battle group, I have seen first hand what an enormous waste of this country's time and energy our military strategy is.  Plus, it is wasting the time and energy of our most capable citizens!  Most of the countries we go to would rather we not be there, except for our tourist dollars. They are suspicious of our motives, as well they should be when a carrier parks off their shores with a full air wing and a battle group steaming behind. 

The military is huge waster of money and resources that could be better allocated elsewhere. 

When the International Community is facing an existential threat, such as World War II, power projection beyond our borders in defense of the common good is worthwhile. Attacking Korea or Vietnam or Panama or Grenada or Iraq in 2003 is not worthwhile. It is counter-productive. We "saved" southeast Asia from communism and turned them into Islamic countries instead, a new "enemy" to justify more military action.

Every foreign military action since the end of World War II has been unconstitutional and to our detriment. Most of our Cold War foreign policy was based on assumptions that proved to be drastically false or paranoid or naive - about ourselves, our allies and the Soviets.

I had no problem helping to rebuild Japan and Europe following World War II or responding to humanitarian crisis's with a well-trained and forward deployable military, but permanent military bases around the world have been not only a huge waste of resources, but it has contributed to the militarization of the globe. We sell and buy more military equipment than the rest of the world combined.

Eisenhower warned us about this shit and we didn't listen.  There is not a single thing our huge, forward deployed military couldn't have done if they were instead a more local force of state militias supported by a strong US Navy to project power if and when it is needed.

Wait.

There is one thing state militias and a smaller Navy/Marine Corps couldn't have done: Feed the military industrial complex.

Having served in the military for ten years, I would say I have a decent idea of just how much justification exists for the GIGANTIC military we have, absent some sort of contrived imperial adventure: zero.

Until we draw our military back inside our borders and project peace instead, we will continue to add to the misery on this globe and continue to be the only imperial force currently in operation.  I bet we spawn a couple more if we keep it up, though.  There is absolutely no reason to have any bases outside the US.  Further, it is a betrayal of our local communities to close bases in the US to open bigger and better bases overseas.  That money should stay in our local economies.  There isn't a single thing that shouldn't be changed about our military strategies and posture in the world.  We have caused way more grief than we solved.

Declaring war should be one of the hardest things we do and it should be an enormous pain in the ass to get involved in a war. World War II is a good example of that. We had to turn the entire manufacturing capacity of the nation to get into that war. The shit wasn't just laying around waiting to be used.

I would have 50 state militias that operate as independent units inside their regions until needed by the nation. They can respond to natural disasters and such, train for war, give the gun enthusiasts some automatic weapons to play with and generally be a good thing for each state.  I would support them with a much smaller Navy and Marine Corps on each coast that is available for rapid deployment overseas if and when needed.  Our military should cost no more than 10 to 20 billion a year to maintain. Our it military costs more than 50 times that and delivers and amazingly low return on investment.

We need to pull our collective heads out of our asses and come up with some new and innovative ideas for the future.

I am proposing is that we stop being the world's police force and start promoting a multinational force that can respond to these emergencies. I think it is about time we stop footing the bill for solving the world's problems alone. By spreading the responsibility for our common global security equally, we can drastically cut our military budget in the short term and move to a much slimmer force in the future that perhaps has other things as its primary mission than kicking ass and taking names.

We were all pretty damn proud to have come to the rescue of Miami following Hurricane Andrew.  In Guantanamo Bay I saw the camps that our now our disgrace as being a sign of our grace.  There is a way to do this stuff more effectively and humanely.  We need to kill the military industrial complex first.

I don't argue that we have done some good, but I feel the same (or more) good could have been done within the context of a more powerful United Nations or some other multi-national context that spread the responsibility among nations rather than investing it all in the US. Likewise, it would diffuse some of the criticism we get about being imperialistic in our aims. Our military as largely been an arm of our corporate and political strategies rather than being an option of last resort.

I am not really a military budget analyst nor do I know what the final make-up of that force might look like or what it would cost, but since the Cold War is over I suggest we stop trying to start a new one with "Islamic Terrorism" as our perpetual enemy vice the Soviets.  I think we could have four carrier battle groups, two on each coast, and be able to respond quickly to an emergency where we were requested. We could even have ships forward deployed on good-will cruises and the like. We currently have 11 that cost us billions and provide no noticeable value unless we plan on fighting two Iraq wars at the same time.

I would like to change the idea that we should ever be capable of fighting two wars of choice at the same time without a huge amount of national sacrifice as we saw in World War II.

No threat of lesser proportion should demand such an overwhelming response from American military forces.

I don't even think being a strict constructionist about the constitutional make-up of our military is the answer, but it is clear we have gone far afield of what the framers originally intended as the proper use of military forces and the separation of powers between Congress and the President with regards to the military.  I would love nothing better than to revisit the entire notion of how our military is composed, what will be its 21st Century mission and how does that become melded with our overall vision as a country.

Barack says he would like to change the very mindset that sent us to war in Iraq. I think a drastic reduction in our military forces is a good place to start that evolution of thinking.

At the end of the day, it will probably be a two-fold change with the US beginning to change its military stance in bits and spurts while the rest of the world comes together more often to confront international challenges. I think we will never begin those conversation, though, without the United States, admittedly the world's leading death merchant, changing its military posture first.

Our current military strategies all but say we are prepared to kick anyone's ass at any time for any reason whether the international community agrees or not. This is compounded by our economic policies that allow for a behemoth defense industry that basically keeps the entire world armed to the teeth. We aren't the only ones supplying the weapons to be sure, but we are by far the biggest.

Hard to advocate for peace and cooperation with such national priorities as those.

Once we change that mindset, then we start seeing the current military budget as huge honey pot of funds to take care of every item on Barack's agenda.  It becomes a huge pool of resources that we can channel into things that give us a return on investment that no amount imperialism can't provide.

We can fully funded the non-profit sector, then government wouldn't be providing the services best distributed at the local level and can counter a main criticism of your average republican.  In this way, the federal government would setting a standard and funding the efforts in whatever way maximizes effectiveness.  The non-profit sector has been very good at distributing social services at a fraction of the cost of government.  So, great return on investment with a series of well-funded and focused programs to bring the 80-percent of our country left behind for the last 40 years.  Check.

Likewise, a robust Fourth Sector (For Profit, For Good companies) with the right funding could quickly pursue the technology we need to transition to clean energy.  Subsidizing Oil and Agribusiness is not a good return on investment.  Subsidizing clean energy entrepreneurs and on-profit efforts provides a huge return on investment.  Slimming down the federal government, increasing state and local budgets and taking a more humble stance in the world all seemed doable by spending the money we already spend more effectively.  In fact, by doing things more efficiently and effectively, we would be able to alleviate the individual's tax burden in the long run, again countering a long-standing republican argument.

We are a constitutional republic that has finally devolved into a military dictatorship.  Sure, we have different terms – SWAT, Commander in Chief, FBI, DEA, etc.   Time for We The People to do something about it. 

First step in implementing an American Renaissance?  Elect Barack Obama in a landslide of historical proportions come November.

Next time I'll blog about the money wasted nationally on the War on Drugs and our Prison Industrial Complex.  Disgraceful.  Add that to money the national pile and all of a sudden the enormous investments we MUST pay for as a country don't seem so out of reach.

OK.  That may seem a little harsh, I know, but what else makes the least bit of sense?  Either that or he's a traitor.  Which is it Tim?  Stupid or sinister?  Chuck Todd, too.  There is simply no way these seemingly intelligent men with years of experience can possibly believe anything that is coming out of their mouths.  You can see it in some of their faces before the camera cuts away.  It is a transparent illusion with a manufactured narrative that is designed to change our perception of reality.  It is the start of the next Big Lie.

Both them, plus David Gregory and some red-headed chick I can't name right now and a couple of other dip-shits were on Meet the Press this morning playing electoral college games with assumptions based on stupidity and lack of context.  Why are these assumptions stupid?  They basically pluck John Kerry out of his 2004 race and insert Barack Obama. They do the same with Bush and McCain.  Now, the "board" is all nicely split into red and blue states, along with pink and light blue states.  Don't forget those yellow "swing" states Virginia and Iowa. 

This brain trust then starts to discuss how Barack will have a hard time beating McCain in certain places and go on about how close this race is as if the 2008 primary never happened.  As if Barack didn't get more votes by himself in Virginia than ALL the republicans combined.  He also got more than ALL republicans combined in Texas.  He got more votes than the top two republicans combined in Georgia and democrats have enjoyed a more than two-to-one turnout advantage in most states.  Three-to-one in many. 

Now these states considered shoe-ins for McCain because Bush "won" them in 2004?  That doesn't come close to astute or intelligent observation about facts and trends from this campaign season so far.  These clowns couldn't analyse the consistency of dog poo, let alone anticipate the trends of the general election at so far a remove if they didn't even understand the changing demographics of this primary season.  Whatever the case may be, they are some of the stupidest people we have ever put on TV (with Russert & Todd I am willing to stipulate that) and the mouthpieces for a widespread disinformation campaign as dictated by their corporate pimps.

This silly little people actually think we won't notice that they are once again trying to paint this race as much closer than it really is.  They don't think we'll notice that they did it with the democratic primary as well.  They think the Internet is "neat" and a great way to research without getting your hands dirty.  <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/politics-30.php">Otherwise, they don't get it and never will.  Barack gets it.</a>  They don't understand why this awesome tool is the reasons their efforts will fail this year as we put Barack Obama in the White House with margins in the 10 to 15 percent area in most, if not all, of the states and a turnout in the 70 to 75-percent range. 

That is what the primary numbers are telling us.  Between lackluster republican turnout and an excited and energized democratic party, the electoral map is looking to be rewritten for the first time since Ronald Reagan did it in 1984's re-election campaign.  Any intelligent observer would realize that this is a very real possibility given what we have seen so far in 2008.  Hell, an observer with an 80 IQ could see that this year.  So what is Russert et al's excuse? 

I submit that there isn't one. 

They are the Goebbels and Hearst's of our time. They have zero integrity and only seek to serve their corporate pimps.  They are so bought and paid for that the CEO of GE could call Timmy up and tell him to dance naked on his desk on live TV Sunday morning and Timmy would only ask, "What kind of dance?"

Where does that leave us?  Same place as before.  We need to be extra loud and extra talkative with our friends and family though.  Every time they say, "You know, the media says this is a really close race." you need to explain why that isn't necessarily so.  You need to mention the primary results from both parties and turnout percentages and historical presidents between primary turnout (low) and general turnout (high) and why that benefits the democratic party this year. 

You need to counter the myth that this election will be anything other than a complete and total landslide if the people don't let the media and polls dictate their reality again this year.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI&feature=related">We have to recognize that they are the illusion.  We are what is real.  Let's prove to them this year that the era of corporate propaganda is over.  We dictate reality, not the idiots on the tube.</a>