Some Suggestions for Future Budget Cuts

As I wrote yesterday, I think the government shutdown is stupid. But so long as people are listing things that are no longer operating (that, it follows,we usually pay for), let's see if we can find some things we fund that we can all agree are a giant waste of time and money.

Government social media presence--Twitter, Instagram, etc. Why on God's earth do we pay people to update the First Lady's Twitter account or the White House Instagram feed? I'm sure the WH has a staff photog--and they should for history's sake, I think--but real time updates of what is going on in the Oval Office is no more useful than the pic of what my friends had for brunch on Sunday. At best it's useless, at worst it's propaganda. Chuck them.

The DEA: Seriously, they are worthless. Drugs are cheaper and purer than they've been at any point over the last 20 years. Billions of dollars absolutely and unquestionably wasted, not to mention the lives ruined and lost in the process. Kill it.

E-Verify: Doesn't work, costs a lot of money, is a blatant privacy violation, and is going to cost jobs when false positives reject American citizens from jobs for which they are eligible. This last bit will be due to some administrative snafu, which comes standard with any government program. We don't need a national ID.

Child Soldier Subsidies: No, really. Congress passed a law in 2008 banning financial and military support to regimes that actively use child soldiers. The White House just waived that ban for three countries that use child soldiers on Friday. Here, for once, it's perfectly reasonable to say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

There are plenty more, but even the most strident good government type has to admit we spend too much money on government that ranges from banal to deplorable. Surely we can cut some of this.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

My Very Brief Thoughts on the Impending Government Shutdown

Though I prefer the term 'classical liberal,' I'm a libertarian. I am highly skeptical of government, both in intent and general competence. I wish the government, and the federal government in particular, did a lot less than it is currently charged with. All that being said, a federal government shutdown will likely be a disaster and a mindless exercise of political self-mutilation.

For one, it won't stop ObamaCare or any other entitlement or longstanding government program. Thus, all this is about being obstinate for its own sake. It won't be the end of the world if it's shut down for a few days, but what will happen is that government services upon which people depend, rely, or otherwise enjoy will be unavailable to much of the public or otherwise crippled in their effectiveness. And who will get the blame for this absence/dramatic reduction in service? Tea party/libertarian/small government types because the people responsible pay hollow lipservice to their ideals.

This is the wrong way to sell smaller government.

Think of it this way: take an addicted cigarette smoker. You want to convince him to quit for his own good, but he's not ready. Well, instead of reasoning with him or convincing him there are alternatives to smoking--nicotine gums, patches, e-cigs, jogging, whatever--you just steal his cigarettes and prevent him from getting his fix by whatever means you can.

Now this guy is going to be pissed at you. This is because you haven't convinced him he doesn't really want that cigarette--you have just taken it from him and made him angry. Very, very angry. Even though smokers know the stuff is bad for them, many who may want to quit haven't found a way that works for them. You've now made that decision for them, but you know it's only a temporary one.

But as soon as you give this guy access to cigarettes again, he'll go buy another pack and may even smoke more. You haven't convinced him there are concrete steps he can take to get over his addiction--you just convinced him you're a stubborn prig who'll make other people miserable just to prove a point. You, and others perceived to be like you, will likely have much less sway with him from that point on because you were an unthinking, uncaring, self-righteous S.O.B.

The GOP is that S.O.B.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

An Open Letter to My Congressman, Jim Moran

I submitted this to Congressman Jim Moran's website just a few moments ago:

Congressman Moran, 

From what I understand, you intend to back the president on Syrian intervention. I implore you change your mind. You have encouraged me with your stand on marijuana and other social issues, but I see no reason why we should get involved in Syria without a measurable and articulable objective. 

Right now, the best the administration has done is to make the case to quite literally just throw ordnance at the problem. That is a waste of resources that takes no real account of unintended consequences. 

I urge you to reconsider your position, 

Jonathan Blanks 
Alexandria, VA

bellum medicamenti delenda est

It's Going to Take More than a Memo to Fix the Drug War

Today, the DOJ released a memorandum (PDF, hereafter "Cole memo") sent to all US Attorneys' offices to "update [the DOJ's previous] guidance" on federal policy as it relates to liberalized state marijuana laws. A lot of drug reformers are hailing this memo as a great step forward for the government. I'm less convinced.

As I've written elsewhere, we've seen DOJ memos on this topic before. Indeed, the opening lines of the Cole memo directly reference the 2009 Ogden memo and its 2011 clarification. The latter,  also written by Cole, effectively gutted the spirit of the Ogden memo's message to de-prioritize state-law compliant medical marijuana distributors: "The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law."

Looking at the language of today's memo, there is no concrete change in policy by the DOJ. Yes, it is encouraging  that the Attorney General wants to de-emphasize regulated marijuana distribution as a prosecutorial priority, from a politically symbolic standpoint. But U.S. Attorneys don't primarily operate within the realm of politics--they prosecute people for the federal government. They have the widest discretion imaginable and literally countless federal laws with criminal and civil sanctions from which to choose to prosecute any person in their jurisdiction. Those prosecutions cost money to investigate and they have finite resources with which to work--though much larger than the resources of the would-be defendants facing federal prosecution.

Living While Black: Anecdotes about Dealing with Police

Due to the genetic happenstance of my bi-raciality, I don't look black. This has led to more than a few "No, really, I'm black" conversations, but generally speaking, I can pass for white if I want to. Passing isn't a new phenomenon, but it does generally protect me from unnecessarily hostile contact with police and other authority figures that regularly harassed what Malcolm called "recognized Negroes." That said, I know racially biased harassment is very real.

Gene Denby of NPR Code Switch started a conversation about police interactions on Twitter last Thursday. I Storify'd it so you can read it here, but I want to delve further into why they are more than simple anecdotes of inconvenience.

Most countries have foundational myths that underlie the ethos of the national character. Much of our national myth involves freedom and Enlightenment liberalism: property rights, religious freedom, and the dignity of the individual are among the core values which under-gird our national identity. This narrative leads to national cliches like "If you work hard enough, you can do anything" and 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps' is the key to success.  The accompanying narrative overlooks what that actually looked like for much of our history including, inter alia, discriminatory legal regimes. This is important not, as many think, to enable a "victimhood" mentality among descendants. This is important to reaffirm that this country has only recently recognized that the "inalienable rights" explicitly assigned to all of mankind in our founding document apply to women and many people of color. This recognition is to understand that, since our country's inception, there have been parallel sets of rules and laws for  marginalized people that are distinct from and harsher than those for the majority. It also means "dignity of the individual" doesn't apply equally.

Southern Avenger, RIP

Jack Hunter has resigned from Senator Paul's staff and retired the moniker "The Southern Avenger." I don't revel in this because I never called for his job. But barring a full explanation of what exactly he repudiates from his years of race-baiting and Southern apologia, this is probably for the best. I am glad that he took the extra step of distancing himself from the moniker and I hope he lands somewhere he can be useful and further distance himself from his controversial past.

UPDATE: Uh, you know, this guy may just be a horrible human being. More from the Washington Free Beacon.On criticism of the movie, The Patriot, in which a South Carolina landowner fights for liberty but neglects to mention that teeny little problem the South had with liberty for all:

“Let’s convince the producers of the Patriot to reshoot a scene in which Spike Lee and [then-NAACP head] Kweisi Mfume are both tied to trees while Mel Gibson whips the hell out of them,” Hunter continued. “Mr. Lee and Mr. Mfume will get the pity they so desperately desire, and millions of Americans—especially the Southern Avenger—will get a real kick out of watching them squirm.”

Get it? Tying niggers to trees and whipping them for expressing an opinion is high comedy to this naive young man of...26. I'm sure since it's just talking about a movie about whipping them it's not really  racist. I mean, it's not like he wants vengeance for anythi....oh.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

One last comment on this latest Paul fiasco

The reason it's important that Rand Paul seriously reexamines his approach to race and his familial ties to neo-Confederates is because to ignore it is to implicitly say "I don't give a damn what black people think." Why should that matter?

Because it is societally unacceptable to openly say "I don't give a damn what black people think." Not because black people all think alike (we don't), or because black people vote overwhelmingly Democratic and thus aren't an important constituency to Republican politicians. It's because to say so is an unnecessary insult. People who are insulted for no good reason aren't going to be very open to what you have to say. And for those of us who believe what we do because we think it's the best thing for the country, and black people particularly, that the Pauls continually surround themselves with people who reject the historical cause for our ancestors' liberation and embrace the government of those who enslaved our people--in the name of liberty, no less--is a massive and repugnant obstacle to our goals of a freer society.

For decades, "states' rights," "liberty," and a host of other codewords were used by politicians and activists to preserve slavery, and later block anti-lynching legislation, desegregation, and the Civil Rights Era generally. As libertarians, it is incumbent upon us to be as inclusive in our messaging and in convincing people that we want more liberty for all people, not just the white ones. It's hard to make that case when the most prominent faces of libertarianism give speeches in front of rebel flags to say the South was right and have people who run websites called "The Southern Avenger" run their digital PR shop.

The Southern bloc that ran the Senate for so many years didn't need to wear sheets or say "nigger" to pass (or block) laws to the detriment of black folks. Likewise, that one of Paul's staff has put his mask away is of little comfort to those who still hear the echoes of the Old South in a Southern senator's rhetoric.

This is why Paul and Hunter should be more vocal in their denunciation of the "Southern Avenger" and fully come to terms with the GOP's problematic history with race, and their own.

bellum medicamenti delenda est