A Simple Change: Limiting U.S. Military Power

Greetings all!

This post comes on the last night prior to my school year starting, so I’ve decided to uptake a little something which I had originally created for academic purposes. I’m part of the Junior Statesmen of America, or JSA for short, a political debate organization across the nation’s high schools. The group has several conventions during the year, and for one such convention I prepared an amendment for debate. Ultimately, the amendment was denied in favor of a bill which had been prepared by one of my fellows, but that matters not within this context. This week’s quote comes from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American president during much of the Great Depression and WWII, and my personal second favorite among all presidents (Abraham Lincoln being in first place, of course).

The amendment I prepared for debate last year was one concerning U.S. military power and influence in the modern world. I have prepared the text of the amendment, so that you all know exactly what I’m talking about. So here it is:

An Amendment to Limit the Military Power of the United States

The United States government has authorized military interventions in countless nations in support of capitalism, freedom, and other similar monikers. However, these interventions have led to millions of deaths and have helped to put repressive dictatorships in power around the world, which not only worsen the condition for those directly affected, but also allow anti-American sentiments to burgeon. In order to prevent global suffering as well as to improve the United States’ image, the power and discretion of the U.S. government in deploying the military must be limited.

Be it amended by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, and upon approval of ¾ of the states, that:

Section 1. The ability of the president and Congress to deploy military forces anywhere not on U.S. soil be limited to usage only under these conditions:

           Subsection a. The foreign nation in question has directly attacked the United States in some way, shape or form. Offensive attempts will be treated as attacks, but threats will not be.

            Subsection b. The foreign nation in question has directly attacked an ally of the United States in some way, shape or form. Offensive attempts will be treated as attacks, but threats will not be.

            Subsection c. The United Nations has called upon the United States to engage in military action with the foreign nation in question. Calls made by NATO and other multinational bodies will be denied pending further review by the executive branch and the Congress.

            Subsection d. A majority of the populace of the foreign nation in question has asked specifically for intervention by the United States. Calls for foreign aid in general by the population in question will not be met unless other conditions here are met in kind.

            Subsection e. A humanitarian crisis is occurring in the foreign nation in question. A humanitarian crisis may be brought forth by genocide, direct and careless repression of citizens, widespread torture of civilians, or other qualifications met under United Nations classifications for humanitarian crises.

Section 2. The United States military forces may not be deployed outside the U.S. unless one or more of these conditions are met. Under no circumstances will the executive or legislative branches be allowed to use military force otherwise; including under previous justifications such as the protection of capitalism, democracy, freedom, or the disposal of leaders unfavorable to the United States’ interests, and those of its allies.

And so concludes my amendment, in all of its formality. Now, I’ll explain each part in order to make my case.

The introduction is obviously concerning U.S. military interventions during the Cold War. There are many that I could lay out, each with a deadly cost, although I’m sure many of us are familiar with at least a few of them. The most striking examples can be shown through the Korean and Vietnam Wars, both of which caused huge death tolls for little benefit. Let me stress this: we lost the Vietnam War. Our intention upon going in was to prevent the nation from unifying under communism, and in 1975 that was exactly what happened. We killed others, and we allowed others to kill us, in a fruitless endeavor. As for the Korean War, we were not at a complete loss of our intentions, although we did not fully succeed in our goals. North Korea still exists as a communist state today, and one that’s particularly angry at America at that. Due to the cost these wars and other interventions caused, it is only logical to at least put forth and effort to prevent these costs in the future.

I specify in section 1 both the Congress and the executive because both branches have the ability to use military force and have done so in the past, so an amendment limiting such powers must be extended to both branches. As for the first two subsections, I assume my reasoning is obvious and agreeable to most any party. The United States must be prepared to willingly fight back should it or its allies be attacked by other nations; this is a common tenet of sovereignty and alliances. When I say “offensive attempts”, this means any attempted attack on a nation, whether successful or not. For example, say a government sent a missile towards Washington, D.C., but missed and the missile simply went into the ocean. That would be treated as an attack, and the military could respond as such. However, I specify that threats cannot be acted upon because they give far too much leverage for military intervention. Because many things can be interpreted as threats, the leverage given to the government for military force would be too great. Attacks and attempted attacks, on the other hand, are clear to see and are not vague in definition.

As for the third subsection, I specify that only calls by the U.N. to action shall be met immediately due to certain ideas around the world concerning NATO and other organizations. Many people consider NATO to be an ideological organization that acts on the whim of Western interests rather than in a non-partisan way, and so I exclude it from an immediate list of groups to listen to. However, I also provide a system for such requests to be met; I allow both Congress and the executive branch a chance to debate and decide whether or not to listen to such calls to action. This way, such requests can be determined as either ideological or not, and responded to as such. The U.N. on the other hand is viewed in generally a good light and is enshrined as a place for all nations to come together and solve issues, and as such is considered to be a good source for calls to action. The U.N. does not have a huge record of being an ideological organization or as being one that is reactionary, and so it is given special privileges when seeking U.S. military force. However, the U.S. government still reserves the right to deny such requests if the circumstances call for such inaction; you’ll notice I never specify that the U.S. must comply with U.N. calls to action.

As for the fourth subsection, it is the vaguest, and for that I am sorry. It was originally struck from the amendment, but I decided to include it here so I could at least give my opinion. This subsection was written with the crisis in Syria in mind, which at the time had not been as severe or old as it is now. I noted that much of the Syrian rebel movement was calling for outside help. However, I also thought that unless the majority (at least over 50%) of the nation all wanted the same thing, it would be unfair to the remainder of the country to take action on minority request. The vague part I accidentally left out was how such a statistic would be determined. Countries in crisis generally are hard places to gather stats from, and such is the biggest issue with this subsection, and it’s one I don’t have an answer for. Should anyone be able to think of a way to wrangle out this issue, please let me know. I specify “calls for foreign aid in general” due to both the Syrian crisis and the Libyan revolution, both of which had the opposition crying out for general help from any willing nation. Since these groups were not asking specifically for our help, I felt it could be risky to intervene without knowing the particulars of the situation. Rebel movements may resent our presence and help, and as such I believe we cannot move in without knowing what we’re getting into if at all possible. As such, I try to give these movements the best possible chance by introducing a portion which allows intervention should any other subsection requirement be met.

The last subsection was created as I pondered the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The people of the region cried out for long, and many suffered, yet few did anything to help. This last subsection is intended to counter such situations, by allowing unilateral intervention on the basis of a humanitarian crisis as defined by the U.N., whose definition is generally viewed as fair and universal. It would appear to give us significant leeway in making interventions, however this is why I specify the use of a U.N. definition. Without that, we could invade on many more grounds which would be at fault. Because there are guidelines, the military is still restricted on a reasonable level.

The final section is intended to erase former excuses for interventions as possible future excuses. That way, we no longer make the mistakes of our past. It also keeps a tight grip on the military capabilities of Congress and the president, ensuring that neither can act without meeting correct conditions.

That is my reasoning for the amendment, and should it or something like it make it to Congress or the states, I would be more than happy. If you find any holes other than the one I already pointed out in subsection d, please let me know so that I may change the amendment to suit its needs. If you have any other responses to the amendment, I’d be more than happy to hear them.

That’s all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided a good sample of reasoning as to why I believe this amendment should be applied to our Constitution. If you have feedback of any kind, please feel encouraged to comment here or send me an email at zerospintop@live.com. You can also contact me through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, and Steam. Goodnight, and this is KnoFear, signing off.

The Pink Tide: Moving Forward In South America

Greetings all!

This week’s post comes a little late, mostly due to laziness and anxiety over the end of my summer vacation. With the start of my school schedule, I am certain that my blog posts will become more regularly on Sundays into the future. Anyway, this post concerns South America, a continent comprising of twelve countries and rich with history and culture. I always pay close attention to the politics of the continent, mostly because I see many of its countries as rising powers on the world stage. I intend to suggest what these countries need to and should do to increase their influence without neglecting their populace in the process. Namely, I intend to declare my support of the pink tide, which I’ll discuss shortly. This week’s quote comes from Nelson Mandela, the former leader of South Africa in the post-apartheid era and a highly influential politician who I admire strongly.

Anyway, the pink tide is a phrase used to describe trends in modern Latin American politics. Namely, the phrase symbolizes the increasing acceptance and implementation of leftist politics in Latin American governments. Because red is typically seen as the color of communism, pink can be used as the “color of socialism” and other far left movements which are not quite as extreme as communism. It’s quite an important change in current regional politics, and has swept several nations in Latin America. For this post, I will only be covering South America, but I assure you the pink tide has also affected several Central American nations. The current pink tide leaders include: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina, Jose Mujica in Uruguay, Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Ollanta Humala in Peru, and Fernando Lugo in Paraguay up until recently.

The reason I choose to examine the pink tide is due to the fact that it is a relatively new and promising movement. In the past, South American politics were largely dominated by military dictatorships and centrist leaders. If you’ve read my blog in the past, you likely already know why I despise what occurred. If you haven’t, let me summarize briefly: death, torture, repression, and suffering. Some of the world’s most brutal regimes existed in 20^th century South America, but things have changed since then. No longer do dictatorships mar the governments down south, and no longer do people die or suffer without governments trying to solve the problems. As such, I view the pink tide as a natural effect. South America is a highly diverse continent with a grievous past, which will seek to prevent its mistakes and promote change into the present. In order to expand the benefits of democracy and economic success to the poor and disenfranchised, it is undeniable that South American governments will turn towards the left in their efforts. We can be certain the right will not perform in that aspect.

There are many criticisms of the pink tide, mostly stemming from global conservatives. Some issues are of legitimate concern, however. I speak namely of the less-than-democratic means some leftist leaders have taken to promote socialism and the left in their native countries. The two most obvious examples of this are Venezuela and Bolivia. In Venezuela, Chavez led a Bolivarian Revolution from 1999 onwards which expanded his powers and abilities as president greatly, along with altering the constitution to fit a more leftist perspective. My biggest issue with the latter portion is that Chavez did not allow proper debate over the inclusion of leftist principles into the constitution; should he have allowed it, I’m certain Venezuelans may have agreed with him anyway. As for the former issue, I’m not a huge fan of Chavez; while I view him as important as a global influence against conservative strides, he does not rule in a way which benefits the people most. I would very much like to see fresh socialist and communist leaders take his place, initiating a more democratic move towards the left. However, I do realize that his position cannot fall to other opponents from the right and center. Venezuela controls significant amounts of oil; if they wish to preserve their sovereignty and prevent exploitation by oil companies and oil-obsessed governments, they must remain stable and unwilling to budge on certain oil policies they currently have.

Bolivia is a separate case. Bolivia’s past is dominated by several military regimes, along with CIA involvement against leftist insurgency (most notably the assassination of Che Guevara in 1986). In 2005, Morales and his party were elected with a full majority. Morales is also the first president of the nation to not be a descendant of Europeans. I’m more partial towards Morales than I am towards Chavez. Morales was elected democratically (both times), and has provided mostly successful policies. His presidency has been marked by good economic growth and a modest decrease in inequality. Bolivia is also now considered one of few South American countries to be “illiteracy-free”. My one major quip with Morales is over his process of constitutional approval. When the new constitution was being drafted, he changed the requirement for a two-thirds approval vote towards a simple majority vote, decreasing the democratic needs of a nation plagued by inequality and troubles. I would have preferred that he left the rule as it was originally and let the chips fall where they may; perhaps the protests in eastern Bolivia would not have occurred.

Other than these two leaders, I whole-heartedly support pink tide presidents/prime ministers. The indigenous population of South America has been neglected and pushed aside, and the left is responsible for ensuring their equality. It is our duty to preserve diverse and equal societies as simple and basic tenets of democracy. Seeing countries like Chile having income inequality that is worse than our own is disheartening, to say the least. However, socialist leaders have the opportunity to change the direction of countries. As the political importance and influence of South America grows into the remainder of the 21^st century, these countries cannot allow themselves to become nations which allow capitalism to run rampant on the masses as we did. We suffer now for it; let’s hope it doesn’t occur anywhere else.

That is all for this post, and I hope I’ve provided a strong and clear opinion on the issue at hand. Once again, your feedback is encouraged. If you have questions or comments, please leave them here. You can also contact me through my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or DeviantArt accounts. I also now have a Steam account by the name of KnoFearMLP (because someone had the gall to take KnoFear before I did), so feel free to contact me there as well. That’s all for this week, and this is KnoFear signing off. 

Power vs. Freedom: Authoritarianism and Libertarianism

Greetings all!

This post comes a little earlier than normal because I will be heading to Atlantic City on Monday, and I felt that it would be best to create my work before things got too hectic. My school year will be starting shortly, so expect my posting to become more regular due to a set schedule during the coming months. In this post, I intend to take a look at the two sides to power which governments exercise. As a precursor to this, I must denote the fact that authoritarianism and libertarianism are aspects of ideology that are independent of the left or the right. Either side of the political spectrum can exhibit characteristics of both, and governments past and present have done both. I only plan on examining both and providing my stance on which I believe is better, using both facts and opinions. This week’s quote comes from Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the former socialist prime minister of Spain. While I’m quite critical of some of his economic measures, I see eye to eye with him on some issues, and admire that he legalized same-sex marriage.

Moving on, I’ll be starting with authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the federal entity is very strong and often large, exerting significant control over smaller governmental bodies and citizens. Authoritarian governments typically exhibit few democratic rights, and are generally devoid of much political debate due to repression of the opposition. However, authoritarian governments can react much more quickly to problems (as there is no need for debate over what the solution will be), and can often ensure stability for nations that would split and suffer under more liberalized regimes.

I myself am highly critical of authoritarianism. There are certainly benefits to a government that exercises a strong arm, but that’s exactly it; these benefits rarely extend to the populace. I’m especially critical of military authoritarianism, the kind of government which is run by an armed establishment, void of any politics at all. These kinds of governments don’t even have ideological issues; there is only power, and those who wish to tear it down. I know that some of you may be confused; many of you likely think that because I’m a communist and therefore a supporter of big government, I should love authoritarianism. This is a false stereotype among leftists. Not all of us are fans of authoritarian governments, and as a Trotskyist I can definitely say that I prefer libertarian establishments. Most leftists believe in some form of mass democracy, and this belief runs strong especially among communists. Authoritarian governments on either side of the political spectrum can have problems, and I can be critical of both.

It’s fairly easy for me to attack authoritarian right-wing governments. These systems subjugate people in huge numbers, and destroy any sense of democracy in a flash. The most recognizable example of a government like this is Nazi Germany. We all know the terrible things that occurred under such a government, and why they were horrible. We know why the system crumbled as well. Nazism essentially called for endless war and conquering of territory in order to support itself, and once Germany hit a wall invading Russia the war machine began to falter. Pretty soon, there were people starving on the street, and there were Soviet soldiers taking Berlin. If you need more of an example of why Nazism and fascism were terrible ideas, see my previous post explaining it in careful detail here: http://superjewmclovin.blogspot.com/2012/05/worst-how-fascism-destroys-societies.html.

As for authoritarian left-wing governments, the case is a little different. It’s not necessarily harder to rail against these systems, but it must be taken at a different angle due to the way things are run. The clearest example of a leftist authoritarian government would be the Soviet Union under Stalin, one that I’m sure anyone born during the Cold War will know about. Stalin ruled the USSR without much question from the time of Lenin’s death in 1924 until his own in 1953. Certain things about his rule were incredibly poor; his collectivization programs forced peasants to rapidly industrialize an agrarian economy, leading to famine and suffering all over. The Great Purges severely put down opposition, ending any chance of moving towards a democratic model of communism. However, at the same time it was Stalin’s heavy hand and unwillingness to falter which allowed Russia to survive the German invasion during WWII, completing the goals of the Allies in the Eastern Front. It’s possible that had the Soviet Union been forced to deal with democratic process and debate over the war, the Germans could have entrenched themselves further, possibly making the war a lot more deadly or even creating the chance for Nazism to have won. Don’t get me wrong, I would have more than loved if Trotsky had become the Soviet leader after Lenin, and I don’t doubt he would have handled the war effectively, but we can’t know exact results when it comes to alternate history. Based on this model, I find that authoritarian left-wing governments can have some merit to them, but pale in comparison to more libertarian regimes.

And now I will move on to a look at libertarianism. Libertarian governments give more choice to their citizens and generally are quite decentralized, with full democratic processes. However, this can lead to issues over preserving sovereignty and in some cases political gridlock can occur. At an extreme, some libertarian governments suffer from the fact that without enough power to wield, government becomes useless and weak. These are the first signs of a failed state, and are particularly difficult to counteract.

Libertarian right-wing governments contain inherent flaws due to certain aspects of ideology versus control. For example, conservative ideology typically favors large scale spending on and support of national defense. This is ostensibly to serve as a buffer to threats and as a powerful tool for crafting international politics based on military strength. However, a libertarian regime will have trouble getting this kind of thing together due to decentralization of the state. Because the state cannot force money into the military by virtue of its own weakness, it must betray certain values of its ideological base simply to exist. A libertarian economy is also inherently faulty when combined with conservatism; laissez-faire policies have been proven to fail when imposed on a national scale (my example being the Great Depression: http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html). As such, I do not support libertarian right-wing governments; the notion that a society where a government should do so little for its people is simply wrong in my eyes.

I won’t be elaborating too much about why I support libertarian left-wing governments. I have done it before in previous posts, and I already intend on delving further into my own ideology in my next post. I wouldn’t want to spoil the fun of that, of course. I can say this: my main reason for supporting a leftist libertarian system is because it gives people freedom, along with all the benefits that leftism strives to guarantee. From universal healthcare to marriage equality, the ideology and the power structure fit well together. This is the cornerstone of my beliefs. Once people realize how much good the left can do, they will choose to side with it. I will say this: there is a limit to how libertarian a government should be. No matter how in line a government is with leftist doctrine, if it has no power then its goals will never be accomplished. This can create a failed state quite easily, so the government must be allocated enough power that it can enact laws without trouble.

That is all for this week’s post, and I hope I’ve provided all that is necessary for you to understand my point. If you have questions or comments, I encourage you to put them down right here. If you prefer to contact me otherwise, I would suggest doing so through my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or DeviantArt accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Tradition, Part 2: Good vs. Evil

Greetings all!

This post comes as the conclusion to my two-part ending for July (albeit a little late, perhaps). In this post, I intend to take on a notion which is widespread in the United States, but is also found in just about any country. We like to think of everything within the bounds of black and white, good and evil, and nothing more. There are innate problems with this system, and the very fact that we let it exist obstructs much of our policy efforts. This week’s quote comes from Bettino Craxi, the socialist prime minister of Italy during a good portion of the 1980’s. He helped to ratchet up Italian debt levels, but also made Italy into an economic powerhouse with excellent standards of living, health, and education, so I look to him with good grace.

As stated, we like to see politics through a lens of “this is either one thing, or the other, and nothing in between.” We can see it in many of our mantras: if you’re not with us you’re against us, we do not negotiate with terrorists, etc. We enjoy the simple nature of having to choose between two options; this allows us to avoid having scary things like complex situations arise. The biggest problem with this is that the world does not work this way. Things are not so black and white, and in fact there is far more gray than either extreme. And often, it is when we are presented with multiple choices that we make the best and most informed decisions.

I’ll make elections my first example. In America, we allow for third parties, and yet in every election the only parties which receive anything more than a negligible amount of the votes cast are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are two main reasons for this, and the first is a systematic disposition towards two-party elections. Because our constitution and election rules force parties to receive fairly large followings, it’s quite easy for our nation to settle into the swing between two opposing political groups. Since we fell into that pattern a long time ago, it’s a very hard one to break. But the secondary reason why third parties receive so few votes is because we do not want them to exist. Often, whenever third parties make an issue known, people will simply ask that one of the two major parties absorb that issue, and the third party is then moot. I’ll take the Green Party of the United States as my prime subject here: http://www.gp.org/index.php. While the Green Party itself has developed a full platform by now with an excellent candidate, most people view the party as simply existing to advance the environmentalism movement. This couldn’t be further from the truth, although the party was founded on such principles. However, we refuse to acknowledge them beyond their roots.

Now let me explain why this hurts us. A democracy flourishes with more ideas having representation in government and during election cycles. While this doesn’t mean a country should have tons of political parties, this does mean that a country with three or four typically ends up more vibrant than one with only two parties. Look at Israel, for example. Israel is the strongest democracy in the Middle East, and it has a multi-party system. From the extreme-right Likud party to the leftist Labor, Israel has formed a flourishing nation which does quite well for itself despite being strapped for resources and close to dangerous enemies. We consistently praise Israel for its democratic successes, and in many ways we are right to do so from time to time. Meanwhile we are stuck having our two main parties battle it out over all the issues, forcing both parties to adopt opposite stances or risk looking like “sell-outs”. This effectively filters moderates out of both parties, causing extreme partisan rifts that most Americans have decried. This, after all, is our prime reason for disapproval of Congress: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html. Having multiple parties means that members of each party can have views that do not all fall in line exactly, but still leaves them electable and important.

Another example of the poor effects of seeing things through black and white is our foreign policy, and this is one that several countries are guilty of beyond just us. In his 2002 State of the Union address, former president Bush declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be part of an “axis of evil” (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html). This notion that we as America are the great hero in an American story, and that these other countries are just evil villains, is foolish. This is what led us and the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq, causing a huge sectarian mess that we’re still paying for today. Yes, these countries aren’t the best places to be. That does not mean that we can decry them in their entirety, effectively ending any chance at diplomacy in a time of peace that most people would like to keep up. Take a look at this through the eyes of a citizen of one of the “axis” nations. Here you are, just trying to make a life for yourself, and one of the most powerful and important world leaders has basically just called you and everyone you know evil. How would you feel? The thing to remember is that just because people live in Iran, that does not mean everyone is allied with the current government system. Not all Iranians are extreme religious conservatives, and many are likely apathetic about politics in general just as long as their daily lives don’t get altered too heavily. A good lot of Americans could care less about politics; what makes us think that citizens of other nations are any different?

That is all for this two-part post, and I hope I’ve made my point in full. If you have questions or comments of any kind, I encourage you to post them right here. My email at zerospintop@live.com is still open, along with my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and DeviantArt accounts. And this is KnoFear, signing off. 

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.