Tradition, Part 1: The Legalization of Marijuana

Greetings all!

This is the first part of my two-part closer for July, focusing on a domestic and a foreign issue in each part respectively. We begin with the domestic issue, one which I have remained mostly silent on in the past; namely, the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana. My reasoning for staying quiet on this one is because my thoughts concerning this issue have always been clashing with each other, and it has not been until now when I feel as if I’ve found a consensus within myself. This week’s quote comes from Joseph Stalin, a leader of the Soviet Union from Lenin’s death until his own. As a Trotskyist, I despise the man and his policies, but I do credit him with helping to end WWII. At the very least, I thank him for not giving up when the Nazis pushed east.

Moving on, my stance on marijuana and drugs in general has been a developing one for many years. This has been one of the most complex issues to me, because whenever I seem to find a good point of view to look upon it, another option opens itself up. It’s been this way for me for a long time, even before I felt that I was a communist.

My old stance was as such. I felt that, because marijuana is incredibly toxic to people and can put others in an unsafe environment (i.e. stoned drivers), it should be outright illegal. That way, society is kept safe from those that would abuse marijuana and we don’t have to deal with too many people that suffer adverse health effects from it. I felt this was the only logical conclusion given the circumstances; after all, marijuana is incredibly unsafe to ingest anyway. Why allow people to harm themselves that way, right? Marijuana has been proven to be harmful to humans (http://www.ukcia.org/research/AdverseEffectsOfCannabis.pdf), just the same as many other drugs have been. It’s not hard to find out that things like cocaine will destroy your body from within if used poorly. And so, my ideology of the past was shaped.

However, over the years I’ve begun to look at things differently. I’ve had to consider the successes of more liberal drug policies in nations like Portugal and the Netherlands (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-5156590.html), both of which have lower rates of marijuana usage than we do. My excuse for their successes was always tied to the fact that I believed having a smaller and better educated populace meant that they could enact these policies without as much trouble as we would expect were we to enact them. And yet, I have realized by now that peoples of other countries are more alike than we realize. Just because a nation does better on international education standards than we do, doesn’t mean they don’t have people that are just as stupid as some of our own idiots. And population sizes mean nothing as long as countless ideas and communication exist within a nation. In the meantime, I have had to view the failures of tougher drug policies both at home and abroad. We already know that our drug policy results in countless arrests and seizures which damage our country as a whole (http://www.justice.gov/dea/statistics.html). In Mexico and Brazil, the war on drugs has resulted in countless deaths and enormous amounts of violence (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/americas/mexico-updates-drug-war-death-toll-but-critics-dispute-data.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilona-szabo/war-on-drugs-brazil_b_1423864.html). All of this occurs because we are too strict on drug laws, and because we attack those who use them with prejudice. And so, my stance changed to a much more leftist one. One of the few things I could ever agree on with conservatives is now gone. Oh well.

Let me enumerate my full position, so nobody remains confused. I support decriminalization of marijuana, to a degree. In terms of possession, I feel like anyone carrying 10 grams or less of marijuana should not be penalized. Honestly, 10 grams of any substance is fairly little, and so this seems like a reasonable restriction. Because marijuana has differing effects depending on the person, we cannot now whether 10 grams would be too much or too little to be dangerous. However, I do believe that possession of more than the aforementioned amount should be penalized with a fine. The size of that fine would be dependent on how much over the limit the accused had on them, although I would set a minimum of 50 dollars. I believe that selling marijuana recreationally should still be illegal; you should not be able to sell marijuana on the street without regulations in place. I believe only restaurants and medical dispensaries should be able to sell marijuana to the public, and that neither should be able to advertise weed as a product. I don’t think they should be able to sell copious amounts of marijuana, and they should not be able to sell weed to customers younger than the age of 18. They shouldn’t be allowed to carry more than a set amount of marijuana on the premises of their business; after all, no business should be dependent on selling weed. I also believe that the sale and purchase of marijuana should be heavily taxed, at least in comparison to other commercial products. This would discourage casual sellers and businesses looking to cash in on “easy money”, allowing only dedicated and law-abiding businesses to get in on the sales.

No person should be arrested for possession of marijuana unless they are selling it without the legal right to do so; in that case, I would find arresting the accused to be more than acceptable. Depending on the severity of the offense, I would suggest a couple months to a year in jail for those selling weed illegally. I also believe that possession of hefty amounts of marijuana should warrant possible arrest, if at all necessary. Lastly, smoking weed should be illegal in public. I believe that, should people want to use it, they can do so within their own home or an establishment that is licensed to sell the drug. Marijuana is still a dangerous drug which can impair the senses, making users a danger to society if they are stoned in public. Oh, and I still think that, other than the 10-gram possession exemption, I feel that the laws concerning minors and marijuana should still remain fairly strict. Minors should not be able to purchase or use marijuana; this is one thing I believe I’ll never falter on.

And now, onto one final point I’d like to make, and that’s medical marijuana. I’ve always supported medical marijuana, even in the past. The reason behind this is because we’ve known for a while that marijuana can have health benefits for those suffering from some of the deadliest diseases known to man, such as cancer (http://www.articlefeeder.com/Diseases__Conditions_and_Treatments/The_Benefits_of_Medical_Marijuana_for_Cancer_Patients.html). The prime reasoning used for medical marijuana on cancer patients is that chemotherapy ruins a patient’s appetite, and that the consumption of weed can restore that appetite. This is helpful to the recovery process. As such, I am more than willing to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate as long as the drug can be used positively for those suffering. Why deny those hurting the worst something that might make their days a little better?

And that is all for this week. I should have the second portion of this month-ending post up by next week, so don’t be worrying about that. I hope I’ve provided the analysis and points everyone is looking for, along with a full explanation of my beliefs. If you have questions, criticisms, or otherwise, I encourage you to express them in the comments here. If you would prefer other means of communication, my email at zerospintop@live.com is open if necessary. My Facebook, Twitter, and Gmail accounts are open as well, along with my DeviantArt account. This is KnoFear, signing off. 

Announcements

Greetings all!

Unfortunately, there will not be a post on the blog this week, as special preparations are being made for the two part post for the end of this month. I’m sorry, but I will be posting a long treatise on my communist beliefs, and I need extra time to collect my thoughts and facts together. I assure you that there will be new posts shortly. This week’s quote comes from Friedrich Engels, a famous communist of the past who worked on the Communist Manifesto alongside Karl Marx. I feel that his position in the spot of weekly post is fitting, considering the post that is to come.

However, I won’t be leaving my readers empty handed this time. Instead of just moving on to my merry life with you disappointed, I’ve decided to select a few of the political works done by friends of mine which I would suggest you all read during this short break from activity by me. Please note that the opinions expressed by the authors I link to here are not necessarily my own, and that these people are simply friends with me on DeviantArt. I enjoy and sometimes agree with the works I’ll be linking to here, and I hope that you all will like them as well.

The Politics of Mass Murder by frankteller: http://frankteller.deviantart.com/#/d49h1r7

The Socialist Library by popov89: http://popov89.deviantart.com/gallery/35471470

A Red Machiavellian by DeathlessLegends13: http://deathlesslegends13.deviantart.com/gallery/35814908

Please note that the second and third entries have multiple parts each, and that they will likely require more time to read than the singular piece in the first link. I hope the original authors won’t mind me linking to their work here.

And for all of you out there, I hope you have a good week while I make my coming post. This is KnoFear, signing off.

Turning the Clock: How Elections Have Changed Our World

Greetings all!

This post comes at a unique period in time, at a point in the year where election cycles are either revving up like in America, or winding down like in several other nations. I’ve made this post not to speak in general about how elections have shaped our world through a large blanket of time. Instead, I plan on speaking solely of four elections, all of which have taken place within this year. I will take a look at the results and implications of elections in Mexico, Russia, France, and Egypt. This week’s quote comes from Daniel Ortega, who was president of Nicaragua from 1985 to 1990 and was re-elected in 2006. While a sometimes controversial figure, I see him as an important example of how leftists can function as beneficial and democratic presidents.

Moving on from that, I’m sure you’re wondering why I would group Mexico, Russia, France, and Egypt together for any reason besides the relative closeness of when their elections took place. I did not choose these nations to make one single grouping, nor did I intend them to be seen as the same in many ways. I chose them because they are so different, and because changes of tides in these nations points to new reflections about how people feel about politics today. However, it is not as though these countries have no similarities at all. Mexico and Egypt, for example, both have excellent regional influence. However, both of these nations rarely dominate global politics barring extreme circumstances, and both are widely considered developing nations. Russia and France, on the other hand, have enormous global influence due to their size and involvement in global political affairs. Both are fairly rich nations compared to the rest of the world, and yet both struggle with internal problems which boil over every now and then. I could go on, although I feel my point here has been made.

Now let’s look at the results of the elections in these nations. In Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI was elected by a fairly wide margin, taking the mantle of a party which was essentially discredited until now (http://mexicoinstituteonelections.wordpress.com/). In Russia, Vladimir Putin of the United Russia party won with an enormous margin, shutting out any idea of a credible opposition (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/04/us-russia-election-idUSTRE8220SP20120304). In France, Francois Hollande of the French Socialist party won with a slim yet definitive margin, becoming the second leftist leader of France (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/06/french-elections-analysis-le-huffington-post_n_1491228.html). And lastly in Egypt, Mohammed Morsi won with a noticeable margin, becoming the first democratically elected “opposition” leader in Egyptian history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/jun/24/egypt-election-results-live). But why do these elections matter, and how do they relate?

There is a reason I give for titling each of my posts. Most of the time, I let you, the reader, figure it out yourselves. After all, I’ve never made the meaning too hard to decipher. Sometimes, the title is not a metaphor or anything like it; sometimes, it just describes what the topic is on. This is not one of those times. By “turning the clock”, I speak in a metaphor not only of time but of place. In the cases of Mexico and Russia, I feel as though the clock has been turned back, putting these nations in a new position which may be harsh for the next few years. Yet in France and Egypt, I see the clock as having been pushed forward, allowing these countries to pursue a new and vibrant path should they choose to take it. In all of these nations I have chosen, there is the potential for beneficial change and steps forward. And yet, the peoples of those countries must choose to move forward, and that is the most important part.

I’ll start with Mexico. The PRI of Mexico was the ruling party of the country for decades. The Party of the Institutionalized Revolution was originally formed to end competition by differing interests in the wake of the Mexican revolution, and in its earlier days did represent a more leftist attitude towards governance. However, with every corrupted election and every push towards becoming pro-business, the party abandoned its leftism as time passed. Eventually, the true leftists of the party would break away and form the Party of the Democratic Revolution (the PRD). The party maintained control of Mexican politics until 2000, when a conservative current allowed the National Action Party (PAN) under Vicente Fox to win. And until the recent elections, the PAN managed to hold on to power, keeping the PRD out of presidential politics.

But there is a reason the conservative current has ended in Mexico, and that is the drug war. As we all know, Mexico struggles with drug-related crimes and homicides, just as it has for a very long time. Under Fox and Felipe Calderon, a full military effort was made to battle cartels and drug lords, resulting in tens of thousands dying (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/americas/mexico-updates-drug-war-death-toll-but-critics-dispute-data.html). The sheer death toll combined with an upswing in drug-related crimes have discredited the PAN, combining with general dissatisfaction about an economy that has resisted equalizing measures under right-wing leadership. Disgusted by the failures of what many Mexicans viewed as the first truly democratic party of Mexico, it’s not unreasonable to see why some would turn back to the PRI. Said party ruled with relative stability, although the means of such rule were more than questionable, with multiple allegations in the past of cutting deals with drug lords to ensure peace. However, the far more likely reason for Nieto’s victory is vote-buying and rigging. The PRI was notorious for their sub-democratic means of winning elections in the past. By paying off voters and stuffing ballot boxes, they ensured they had nothing to worry about come election day. It comes as no surprise to me that they would resort to these devilish practices once again, and then deny them when the PRD candidate Lopez Obrador accused them. The Mexican tide has turned towards an autocratic past, but that can be changed. Should the recent elections be exposed as the fraud they were, Mexico will have the chance to change for the better. If necessary, Mexicans could wait until the next election, and unseat the PRI once more to show just how strongly they are committed to fighting for Mexico’s future. No matter what happens, Mexico must not be allowed to return to the old ways.

And now, on to Russia. Russia is a special case due to the way its governance system has developed. We must remember that Russia had been the Soviet Union from 1917 until 1991; the country had not experienced any kind of true change in a very long time. Even prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, the tsars had dominated Russia. Having democracy thrust upon a nation which had never truly voted before seriously called into question what Russia would become. Under Yeltsin, Russia made the transition to democracy, albeit a fiery and restless one at that. Yeltsin became known for being the most unpopular leader in Russian history, leaving office with an approval rating of around 2%. By introducing economic shock therapy and rapid liberalization of the economy to end the practices of communism, Yeltsin neglected the fact that recovering from decades of stagnant bureaucracy does not happen quickly. And as such, a grouping of newly wealthy oligarchs rose in Russia, which angered the Russian population not long afterwards the 1993 constitutional crisis (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993). From 1999 onwards, Vladimir Putin would hold a fist over Russia, ruling either through the presidency or premiership since Yeltsin’s resignation.

Up until this year, not much resistance against Putin has been felt. His pseudo-cult of personality has gripped the Russian nation, making it hard to say that he is a poor leader. Exploitation of oil resources has kept Russia from falling too far into harsh economic woes, and Putin’s strong foreign policy approach has ignited nationalist fires which keep him popular among the traditional populace. And yet, the protests this year held against Putin’s unpopular economic and authoritarian measures have amassed numbers not seen in a very long time within the motherland. The Russian clock has not been turned back, but rather frozen in place. The issues confronting Moscow today are those of power, and not of political divisions. Although the Russian population is spread wide, it is more numerous than that of Mexico, and therefore has significant potential in terms of changing the way Russia is ruled. Russia must remove not only Putin, but the United Russia party in order to allow for a government which represents its people. The Russian people face an enormous task, but it is far from impossible. I doubt it will be done through elections, what with the rigging that United Russia is capable of. I hope that whatever change comes for Russia, not too much blood will be spilt. And I can say with absolute certainty that the communist party will have to be part of it. We must learn that communism can be a force for good once more in the land it was first raised.

With my two examples of nations turning to the past out of the way, I now turn my focus towards two countries with brighter prospects. I’ll begin with France this time. Much of French political history is dominated by conservative presidents; the Fifth Republic started off with Charles De Gaulle, a man who would prove to be an annoyance to America and to France as well. He pulled France from NATO and also repulsed American bases in France, ensuring a long-standing sovereignty coupled with a complex foreign relationship. He would be succeeded by Georges Pompidou and Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who despite some more liberal social stances (including lowering the age of majority to 18 and the legalization of abortion) was voted out of office after his first term due to poor handling of the economy. And so ushered in what I call the golden age of France under its first socialist president Francois Mitterrand. He would bring about many of the economic and social indicators that define modern French society that we are familiar with today, including a fifth week of paid leave and abolition of the death penalty. He was the single longest serving French president, having ruled for about 14 years, or two terms under the current constitutional definition. After stepping down in 1995 to Jacques Chirac, France would be dominated by conservatism for another 15 years, in which public unrest over social and economic failures would boil over into urban turmoil during some periods. And while Chirac did oppose the Iraq War, that does not change what he and Sarkozy did to France.

This year, for the second time in history, a socialist president has been elected in France. In a positive turn reminiscent of 1981, Francois Hollande toppled Sarkozy out of his first and only term in office, just like Giscard d’Estaing was removed all those years ago. Many criticize Hollande due to the time at which he has been elected. He is a leader with quite a grip on regional influence, and runs directly in counter to German chancellor Angela Merkel, a conservative and the largest voice for European austerity. Business leaders worry his leftist stance will threaten French finances and push an already indebted nation into further crisis. And lastly, world leaders worry that his foreign policy stance could weaken European unity measures and war efforts in nations like Afghanistan. Have we forgotten what it was like the last time a socialist presided over France? Mitterrand’s presidency was largely a success, achieving a modern French society which provides relatively equal benefits to its populace. A profitable economy was raised, along with numerous social grievances ended. I look at Hollande’s presidency with strong hopes that France will move forward once again, and that France will remain a nation which I admire.  It is my dream that the French people will allow the clock to turn ahead for them.

And lastly, I’ll be taking a look at Egypt. My fellow leftists and I have much to be wary about within the new president, Mohammed Morsi. He was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization notorious for its increasingly conservative stance in recent years. Morsi himself is religiously conservative, and has proven to be willing to defy military and judicial authority (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/morsi-convenes-egypts-parliament-in-defiance-of-court-and-military/2012/07/10/gJQAGHr9ZW_story.html). And yet, we must remember what he represents. Egyptians have never voted a leader into office before him. In 1952, revolution occurred in Egypt, and by 1956 Gamel Abdul Nasser had taken power. He was a nationalistic and Soviet-aligned leader, who strengthened Egypt’s stance on the world stage by dealing swiftly with the Suez Crisis and leading Egypt against Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. With his death, Anwar Sadat assumed the presidency by default. Sadat changed the Cold War alliance and shifted his support to the United States. Despite being an antagonistic force during the 1973 October War with Israel, he would establish peace with said nation through the Camp David Accords in 1979. He was assassinated in 1981, leading to the decades-long rule of Hosni Mubarak, the dictator deposed during the Arab Spring in 2011.

I am no fan of any of Egypt’s past dictators. The only respect I give for Nasser comes from the fact that he ensured Egyptian independence from imperialism and began the road to some well-planned economic policies. The only thing I’ve ever liked about Sadat was the fact that he established peace with Israel; other than that, I detest him, especially for his Cold War realignment strategy which bolstered unnecessary American influence in the Middle East. I hold nothing but distaste for Mubarak; he was an autocratic leader that modernized Egypt on the backs of both its poor and its resources. This is my prime reasoning for looking upon Morsi with hopeful eyes. He represents the first true strain of democracy for Egypt, and while it may be a strain I won’t always side with that doesn’t mean it can’t be a force for good. During the Egyptian election, I feared that Ahmed Shafiq would discover victory, and would plunge Egypt back into the days of autocracy. I was not thrilled about an Islamist president; but it is far better than a military dictatorship. Morsi has the opportunity to lead as a moderate, despite his past rhetoric. He is an educated leader; should he take the right steps, he can ensure that Egypt moves on a path to prosperity where the army isn’t always hiding in the shadows of the presidency. We just have to hope the Egyptian people selected the correct leader, and that they will continue to do so. They will be the ones to turn Egypt’s clock.

This concludes my post for this week, and I apologize for being a day late; this one took a little longer due to certain circumstances. I hope everyone has enjoyed, and that I’ve given a strong analysis towards my points. If you have criticisms, questions, or other feedback, I encourage you to post a comment here, as I will always reply. If you prefer other methods of communication, my email at zerospintop@live.com is open, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts. And lastly, my DeviantArt account by the name of KnoFear is open as well, so contact me if you wish. And once again, this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Caging A Lion: Iran and the Nuke

Greetings all!


This post is a request directly from my father, who accepted my suggestion that I explain my views on Iran's nuclear program after a discussion during dinner several nights ago. My view on the topic is one that is hard to get across, and I often receive flak for my position from multiple sides of the political spectrum for it. However, I do believe that I can provide solid reasoning for what I think, and with this post I intend to do so. I only ask that you keep an open mind on this touchy issue, and that you don't fire ignorant hate my way in the comments unless you've read the post and have a reasonable argument. Thanks in advance. This week's quote comes from Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the candidate for the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) in the Mexican elections which occurred recently. I have generally favored his policies and his attitudes towards modern Mexican politics, and like him I question the "official" victory by Enrique Peña Nieto, but that subject will be addressed in a different post.


Like I stated in the intro, my opinion on Iran's nuclear program is one that flies in the face of American interests and often contradicts the opinions of my fellow leftists. Personally, I would really like it if Iran never attained a nuclear weapon. I believe that nukes are wrong, and that any nation which uses nuclear weapons as deterrent is rightfully abhorred. I'm especially critical of the Russian and American stockpiles which have been left over since the Cold War. We're only human, and we should never possess that kind of power. We are not ready for it, neither individually or collectively. I'm skeptical of what Iran would do with a nuclear weapon. While I seriously doubt its usage as a full scale weapon of war, I do believe it likely that Iran would swing around more weight with a nuke in its possession. I question why an Islamic "Republic" would even obtain a weapon which its national religion normally would reject. And yet, I do not think they should not be able to obtain one.


Let me explain this from a more neutral standpoint. The wide majority of my readers are from America; the rest of my readers are also, for the most part, from first world countries. Just like most first world countries, the majority of my readers reside in nations which possess nuclear weapons. Some, like India, have relatively few. Others, like Russia, have more nukes than some countries do people. Either way, my point is that we have gotten used to having nuclear weapons. Normally, this is not a big part of our politics. Nobody questions whether free nations like Germany and the United States should have nuclear weapons. Pretty much everyone accepts that we have them, and that we always will. The problem with this state of mind is that not every nation has nukes. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to imagine being in the position of a country which doesn't have nukes. But I'd like you to try for a moment, if you can. You live in a country without nukes, yet has always been an important part of regional politics. For parts of your recent history, your nation has been destabilized and threatened. As such, your current rulers have refused to completely stop development of nuclear weapons. And while you feel like nukes may help your nation obtain some stability and weight in multinational decisions, many countries which already have nukes are denouncing you for even trying. One of these countries has even used nukes in the past, and yet still says that you don't have the right to possess even one nuke. Does that sound just or fair in any notion? It's obvious by now that I'm trying to put us all in the position of an Iranian citizen. And hopefully, my point is clear. The sheer amount of arrogance that the United States and other western nations have expressed to counter the Iranian nuclear program is appalling. Most countries critical of Iran have plentiful nukes, but have never used them. The U.S.A. is in a unique position, being the only nation to have ever actually used nuclear weapons during conflict. And yet we are the most adamant in our condemnation of Iran. We have actually killed people using nuclear weapons, yet we are the ones saying Iran can't even make one.


Many would argue that Iran should not be allowed to get a nuke due to their hostile tendencies of rhetoric which display hatred towards the west and Israel. It's true that I deplore the amount of antagonism Iran shows toward Israel. However, when we look at history, Iran under Islamic leadership has rarely engaged in actual war. Other than the Iran-Iraq War (in which Iraq under Saddam Hussein instigated a conflict), Iran has not instigated acts of true war against other nations. While Iran certainly has participated in terrorist actions in certain nations, it has never sent direct troops to further its own interests. It has sent weapons, this I don't deny; this is happening right now, as Assad uses Iranian weapons to mow down Syrian rebels. I don't support this, and I really do hate Iran for making money off of human suffering. And yet, words mean little in practice concerning Iran's foreign policy. We must remember that the Iranian president is not the one with true power in Iran, as that title belongs to the supreme leader, commonly referred to as the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah is commander-in-chief, has direct control over intelligence services, can declare war or peace, and has far more powers that are not immediately enumerated in the Iranian constitution (http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/supreme-leader). He also has influence over every branch of government, and by this point it is clear that he essentially chooses the president. What I'm trying to say is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is simply a figurehead; the Ayatollah has true power, so basing our policy towards Iran on the remarks of their president is like Iran basing its policy towards us based on what Joe Biden says. Back on to the subject of the Ayatollah, the current supreme leader named Ali Khamenei. He's been in power since Khomeini died in 1989, and has been effective at keeping himself in his position. He is an insecure leader due to his lesser religious credentials which Khomeini possessed, meaning he likes to show off in order to appear strong. This is why I believe he supported Ahmadinejad when he "won" the 2009 election. Ahmadinejad makes flashy speeches and draws world attention to himself, allowing Khamenei to work the government in relative silence. We must learn to base our policy towards Iran on the Ayatollah, not the president.


And now, on to the threat Iran poses to Israel. Officially, Iran is an enemy of Israel but not Judaism, as strongly stated by both Khomeini and Khamenei. Judaism is an officially recognized and protected minority in Iran, with a seat in the Majlis reserved for Jews (albeit with restricted powers). Yet, Jews in Iran are easily discriminated against, and the Iranian government rarely does anything to protect the Jewish minority. Iran has been known to support Hezbollah, the terrorist faction in Lebanon responsible for much of the death that occurred in the 2006 Lebanon War. Given this background, it is reasonable to suggest that Iran may be willing to attack Israel. Whether Iran would be willing to use nukes is the question here. I consider the use of conventional military force to be completely within Iranian limits and precedent; should tensions between Iran and Israel increase, I do not doubt that Iran would be willing to begin conventional warfare. Israel presents huge problems for Iranian hegemony in the region; if Israel were to lose in a war, Iran would be significantly buffered. Iran is no stranger to loss of life in war; Khomeini frequently used human waves to make progress on the Iraqi front in the 1980s. Therefore, even though war with Israel could lead to international intervention, I do believe Iran would go for it if the situation called for it. However, nuclear weapons are a different realm entirely. Khamenei knows the power of nuclear weapons; the ability to kill all of humanity rests inside our stockpiles alone. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, I seriously doubt Khamenei would be willing to use it in war, preemptive or otherwise. A single retaliatory nuclear strike, from Israel or us, would lead to a devastating conflict which Iran's fragile system cannot withstand. The Japanese can understand just how strong nuclear weapons are; they leave marks which last decades. Should nukes be launched against Iran, the Islamic Republic would not survive. The sheer loss of life and ensuing humanitarian crisis would be too much for such a strict regime. I can see two possible outcomes if this were to happen. The first, and less likely, outcome would be for the Ayatollah to abdicate and allow for a true republic to rise. The second outcome would be a spontaneous and huge turnout of protests that would effectively collapse the Iranian government, just like the Islamic Revolution all those years ago. Either situation is unfavorable to the status quo Iran holds now, and therefore I believe strongly that Khamenei would not allow Iran to use a nuke, even though he would be more than willing to produce one. The risks outweigh the benefits for him and his power structure, which I bet he would cling on to with his dying breaths. And so, to any Israeli readers, I beg of you: do not fear Iran. We are equals, at the very least. Israel is a strong nation, and has been fully capable of its defense for years. Iran is powerful, yes, but Israel does not need to worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon. It is a moot point, at least for now.


And that is all for this week. I hope I've cleared up my position, and that all of you understand it. I realize this is a controversial opinion, even among my fellow communists, so once again I urge you educate yourself before shouting angrily at me for this. If you'd like to pose a comment, question, criticism, or other form of feedback, I encourage you to do so in the comments section here. If you would prefer other methods of communication, my email at zerospintop@live.com is still open, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts, so feel free to contact me if need be. I am now also opening my account on DeviantArt to communication, seen here: http://knofear.deviantart.com/. Please note that that account is not solely for my political work, as I do other forms of art there as well. You have been forewarned. One last thing to note before I go, is that I have now changed my display name here to KnoFear. This change has been made in order to keep in line with my other online accounts, and also means far more to me than "SuperJew McLovin" ever did. The latter was simply a portmanteau of my two nicknames, both of which I maintain with regret today. The former is of my own creation, a name with two meanings that I feel is important. The meaning of KnoFear is that you should, based on the pronunciation of the name, have no fear. I deplore how fear is used to control society, and so I would much rather that people abandon their fears. The secondary meaning to the name is to know your fears, at least the ones you cannot conquer. If you know your enemy, you are better suited to face them, and fear is one of our greatest enemies, hence the name. I'm sorry if the name change disappoints anyone, but it is permanent. And so, for the first time of many, this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Great Fallacy, Part 2: The Merits of Government

Greetings all!


This post comes as June ends and the east coast recovers from serious storm damages, power outages, and record-high temperatures all at once. My power luckily returned within twelve hours of being lost, and as such I can bring you this piece. The theme of my post here is a conclusion to my previous piece about the faults of small government seen here: http://superjewmclovin.blogspot.com/2012/06/great-fallacy-part-1-faults-of-small.html; whereas now I will be writing on the merits of large government instead of the problems with a decentralized system. And throughout this piece, I will continue to tear up the notion that "a government is best which governs least." Let's begin, shall we?


Now, I'm not going to argue that bigger government is always better; this is simply not true. Increased government size can lead to corruption and inefficiency if built up through improper means. Authoritarian regimes can also use the scope of a large government to help repress dissenters in their nation, and to reward loyalists with power. However, I do not plan on refuting these points in the slightest, as they are true in full. We can see the extent of strong governments through modern monarchies like Saudi Arabia, where the royalty have so much power and control through the use of an all-encompassing police force which creates an Orwellian society. And as such, I'm always nearly always happy to see dictatorships fall; while control is important in some nations, the freedom and will of a people are almost always the deciding factor of my support when it comes to choosing sides. 


At the same time, a well-spread and effective government of reasonably large size is not only feasible, but beneficial to a nation. A centralized state with a certain degree of control over all national affairs may seem despotic to many, but we must consider the advent of trouble. In a decentralized nation, the regions have greater autonomy, which may make them appear freer. Yet, when disaster strikes, a decentralized state is far less prepared to mobilize national resources and to foster a solution. Here, I take for example Spain in the context of the European debt crisis. Spain is one of the most decentralized countries in the entire European Union, with multiple autonomous communities that lead to a state with large differences between regions. However, when the housing bubble burst in Spain and unemployment skyrocketed, it became increasingly difficult to negotiate the differences between regions in order to solve the crisis, leading to an unemployment rate near 20% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html) and borrowing rates which most Americans have trouble even envisioning. While the decentralization of the Spanish state model may not be the direct cause of the initial crisis, it has played a significant role in the failure of absolution of the crisis. Spaniards scream in the street about the poor economic conditions they face, yet in the past it was they that championed the autonomy of various Spanish regions. Spain may not have directly dug its own grave through these means, but the people certainly did little to stop the crisis through centralization. In order to further prove my point, I need to look no farther than Germany for evidence of the success of a centralized state. The German nation has sought to create a unified state ever since reunification in 1990, and as such centralization has played a key role in the development of the modern German model state. And just like we all keep hearing, German economic indicators are doing far better than the Eurozone average (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html), even with the west-east transfers that such a nation requires. Germany is not the only European nation to succeed in this way; Sweden is widely considered one of the most prosperous nations in all of Europe, and they also have an enormous welfare state at the same time. As such, we can see that centralized states can be wholly more prepared for fiscal crises than those with less control. They can also benefit the populace in a fully capable fashion, one which ensures equality far greater than that of the United States, which ranks a shockingly high 45.0 on the Gini Index of inequality (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=42#us), a rank worse than that of even Iran. 


I think most of you can see my main point now; the functionality of a centralized state is more than worth the extension of federal government size. I am no Stalinist; in fact I detest the very theory and the man who fostered it. And yet, it was the authoritative grip Stalin held over the Soviet Union which allowed him to complete industrialization across Russia. Without the power he possessed, that process likely would have taken quite a bit longer, and in the context of WWII may have caused the defeat of a key ally in the war. Had Hitler not been in complete control of Nazi Germany, he never would have been able to mobilize the German war machine so effectively as to invade and temporarily take over much of Europe at the time. I hate everything about Hitler, and yet I realize the effectiveness of the way he took power. By manipulating the populace and creating an air of offensiveness on the part of Germany, he was able to create a highly dedicated and patriotic force for his purposes. I do not think anything like what he did should ever be done again, but we must realize that Hitler did know what he was doing and was more than able to give himself the position he needed for his desires. 


That is all for this post, and thus I conclude this two-part essay on government size. I hope I have provided everyone with a proper analysis, and that you will walk away from this with some new thoughts about how government should be sized. If you have constructive criticism, questions, comments, or other feedback, I encourage you to comment here, anonymously if you must. If you would prefer other means of communication, my email at zerospintop@live.com is open for discussion, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts. To my fellow bronies at Bronycon, I hope it was as amazing as I've heard it is. And now, this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.