Hump Day Roundup: Legalization Special

Today's roundup is all about the hot new political issue starting to generate more and more discourse and debate in American politics today. No, it's not the economy - too depressing. The wars? Nope, old news. Infrastructure? Meh, not sexy enough. Instead, fittingly, in a new year and a new political era, the body politic has decided that it wants to address fundamental reforms that are long past due in the area of MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION.

Item 1: Am I just ranting about the government's view of weed, as usual, or is this issue actually taking off in the broader political discourse of our country? Good question, Taylor. As it happens, marijuana legalization has led and continues to lead in Barack Obama's totally open, citizen-driven poll regarding the top issues that Americans feel the government should address. Even better, the competition ends this week, and it seems like something might actually get done with the winning issues, judging by this blurb on the contest's purpose:

"On January 16, Change.org and the Case Foundation are co-hosting an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to announce the top 10 rated ideas and then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress."

Item 2: Plus, the issue is catching on (finally) in the MSM. Perhaps you've noticed an up-tick in the amount of cannabis-related programming on your TV? If not, you will.

Item 3: Finally, even the Hill's blog, a pretty good gauge of the political pulse up around the Capitol, has been abuzz with legalization commentary lately (thanks in large part to NORML!). Jump on the bandwagon folks. Coming up soon on the Daily Taylor - the Top Ten Reasons to Legalize. Adios!

White Light

The Daily Taylor has been a bit light on sociological material of late, so I was glad to receive this thought-provoking article in The Atlantic featuring commentary by my uncle, Matt Wray, a professor of sociology at Temple. The article thoroughly explores the dilemma of being white in post-white/post-racial America.

My uncle has focused much of his whiteness research on the more reactionary segment of our demographic - those who, in a sense, retreated into their more comfortable conception of rugged, conservative white American individualism. Most of my experience, as a member of the later generation of the 80s/90s, has fortunately been with white people who are far more comfortable with racial and cultural diversity. Most - and I thoughtfully say most, because I can easily think of notable exceptions - of the white people I know that are in my age and socioeconomic cohorts are quite amenable to having ethnically diverse friends, neighbors and even family members.

What's more, I tend to think there's a significant subset of white Americans that genuinely buy into the sort of attitude or outlook embodied in the conclusion of the aforementioned article; they are as or perhaps more familiar and comfortable with many aspects of other cultures and ethnicities - like hip-hop, for example - than with aspects of culture that have traditionally been considered "white" - country/bluegrass music, for example. One social implication I'm tempted to draw from this observation is that, much like white light, white American culture in the 21st century will include all different kinds of cultural and ethnic wavelengths. White children will, on average, be as comfortable eating sushi as they will be eating hot dogs or apple pie. It's just an idea, not a set-in-stone Nostradamian prognostication, but I'll be interested to see if it bears out.

Tuesday Twofer: Savagery on Kos

Despite the fact that it's only Tuesday, Daily Kos is busy laying down some serious smack on people. What, you thought "the netroots" would be satisfied just because Barry got elected? Think again...

Item 1: The first victims, courtesy of Hunter, are two of the sleaziest, most neoconservative lackeys that the Bush administration overpaid: John Yoo and John Bolton. Tweedle-lawyer and Tweedle-diplomat put out an opinion piece in the NYT on Sunday that focuses on the the Senate's Constitutional power to ratify treaties. Why are these executive branch powermongers so concerned, now, about this congressional check on presidential power? Why because their patron, the eminent Mr. George Walker Bush, is no longer the president! Thus, it becomes urgent for them to "redefine" their "fundamental" neoconservative support for presidential power and rediscover the other two branches of government. As I noted, Hunter deftly points out the mind-boggling internal satire that emanates from this verbal cow pie.

As usual, the president-elect was correct when he noted that Republicans are much better at governing when they're out of power than when they're in charge. It is only then that they show deference (bordering on reverence) for the checks on executive power that so bedeviled their efforts when their man was sitting in the Oval Office. All of a sudden, it's not okay that the president is "the Decider," or that he alone should dictate and define American foreign policy interests, even though that was the norm for the last eight years, during which these bozos actually had power to make policy. Perhaps Yoo and Bolton would now be in favor of a special minority-party-only foreign policy committee in the Senate to approve all treaties for ratification, just to make sure that the Senate doesn't keep getting circumvented and to really bulk up that treaty oversight power? Just remember, guys, the Democrats get to use it when you're done...

BTW, I tend to agree with commenter Smiley Sam: The entire reason Yoo and Bolton wrote this hilarious diatribe is to cover their own asses and drum up anti-ICC support. Here's the choice quote:

President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate in effect rejected it. He also signed the Rome Treaty of 1998 that established an International Criminal Court, which would subject American soldiers and officials to unaccountable international prosecutors and judges for alleged war crimes (including, potentially, the undefined crime of "aggression"). Mr. Clinton did not even send this agreement to the Senate. Mr. Bush "unsigned" it. Mr. Obama might re-sign it and seek approval by only a majority of both houses of Congress.

Sounds like some people are scared of being tried as war criminals...

Item 2: The other solid piece of Kos-generated savagery I'd like to highlight is rightly directed toward Congress, that do-nothing-but-please-dear-God-try-to-look-like-we're-doing-something body that now has to deal with the domestic shitstorm left behind after Bush. Bill in Portland Maine has some choice words to share with the 111th Congress, many of which I wholeheartedly endorse - enjoy!

Cabinet of the Rainbow Fallacy

Hey John Aravosis, would you like some more cheese with that whine? Same goes for you, LULAC. I'm sick of these people setting up ridiculous, arbitrary quotas concerning the minority content of Barack Obama's cabinet. These are important posts, and they should go to people who have the best qualifications and the most impressive experience to bring to bear, not the right skin tone or sexual preference. If every agency would best function under an elderly, rich, white male then I would not want to see a single minority face in the cabinet.

There is absolutely no reason for the cabinet to be "reflective of America" as a whole. These are our political elite; they should be better educated and better qualified than you and me and 98% of the rest of the general citizenry. They should obviously be trustworthy and dedicated to the good of the nation, but first and foremost, they should be the best and brightest in their fields, not the blackest or gayest or poorest or Asian-est in their fields. This is a classic case of political correctness sabotaging political effectiveness, and it's something that I'm sad to see in an era where we have much, much greater challenges than ensuring that there is a minority representative from "each group" in the cabinet.

Blog Showcase: The Daily Beast

New feature: I'll be focusing on one website/blog on occasion, highlighting pros and cons and generally passing totally unqualified judgment. Today's winner: The Daily Beast. A relative newbie to the cultural/political blogosphere, the Beast is the brainchild of (former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor) Tina Brown and Barry Diller. Brown and Diller charged former WSJ editor Edward Felsenthal with coordinating and composing this non-partisan (okay, maybe a little progressive-oriented) pundit hub.

The Beast strives to separate itself from the vast morass of political/pop-cultural news aggregators with "sensibility, darling," in the words of it's co-creator. This is a classic case of former big-leaguers (vets from Slate, the Sun, the Wall Street Journal) striking out into the cyber-frontiers and searching for gold. Judge for yourself whether they've struck yet:

Item 1: Here's a nice Beast exclusive: a reminder about some of the more sordid and silly Bush scandals. Is Barry in charge, yet?

Item 2: Bernard Avishai sensibly admonishes Israel as much as Palestine for the recent and dramatic failure of the peace process. He's got a good point; for Israel to attain peace, they need to actually be concerned for the well-being and hopes of Palestinians.

Item 3: Meenakshi Ganguly contributes a level-headed review of Indo-Pakistani relations since Mumbai. Her last point is a good one - to really shake the faith of the Mumbai perpetrators, the two states should commit wholeheartedly to cooperation. Imagine if a terrorist attack spawned peace...

Welcome to 2009

New Year's Resolution: Blog better. Live Better.

Item 1: Corruption is certainly not limited to Republicans. It's too bad though; Mr. Richardson always struck me as an eminently sensible and effective politician. More complete info. on him here, if you care.

Item 2: Kudos to Neil Young for finally making the right argument - if the American people are going to bail the Big Three out, they should be funding the products of a new energy economy. Screw these 20,30, 40 mpg land yachts; the humans of the future (not to mention Mother Nature) need efficiency and convenience. Notice Mr. Young's plug, which I'll echo here, for Better Place. This company already has agreements with the governments of Israel and Denmark, and their plan seems like a good one. While we have these automakers over a barrel, why not mandate that they begin production on vehicles that fit this kind of plan?

Item 3: Pay attention to foreign policy! It can (and has) cost us much more in blood and treasure than many much-maligned domestic programs. Think the Vietnam, Drug War, Iraq, the myriad military bases of dubious necessity strewn across several continents (did you know AFRICOM just stood up in Stuttgart, Germany? The "dark continent" has yet to be imperialized...by America). Foreign policy becomes only more and more important as globalization progresses and we find ourselves entrusted with the roles and responsibilities of humanity's earliest "citizens of the world." [h/t Informed Comment]

Item 4: As always, an update on the marijuana legalization agenda. NORML's director is optimistic about opportunities for reform in 2009, but I think the first likely obstacle is already clear - Jim Ramstad, Obama's pick for drug czar. More info on Wiki. Maybe Bill Richardson shouldn't be the only one withdrawing his name... Time will tell, but I think Obama will need some reminding to stay true to his vision of fundamental change and reform in mind in all aspects of executive policy. Marijuana law reform would be a bold and potentially lucrative step toward bringing the role of government more in line with the popular will. Even Esquire is musing about the possibilities. although I agree with Jacob Sullum, that hopes for reform should remain realistic. Do it for the people, Barry!