Morning Coffee (147)

Good Morning Readers. I hope that you are all managing to stay warm through the invasion of arctic air. It's even a bit chilly in my little slice of paradise. The thermometer actually reads 21, which is far and away colder than normal here.

The Coronation of a New Emperor:
Soon, Inauguration Day will come and go, and the "Transition to Power" as CNN likes to call it will be over. But not before we spend over $150 million in total on the event and declare a state of emergency. Yes, President Bush has declared the event a state of emergency. With up to two million people going to DC for the event, the costs are somewhat justified because the incoming President and all those people must be kept safe. But at the same time, it strikes me as a little extravagant considering the current economic climate. I've been unable to find a cost breakdown of how much the celebratory events will cost versus the additional costs of security and the like. Newsbusters estimates that Obama's inauguration will cost roughly $45 million, so that leaves $100 million or so for security, etc. For comparative purposes, Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million, possibly plus an additional, unknown amount for security. Certainly nothing like the $100 million that this year's will cost.

But the same Newsbuster article reminds me that Republicans received a drubbing from the press for the costs of that celebration. The Associated Press lamented that the sum could be used for:

• 200 armored Humvees for troops in Iraq.
  
• Vaccinations and preventative health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami
• A down payment on the nation's deficit.
  

The AP cited historical precedents in which Presidents scaled down or forwent inaugural celebrations completely, as in the case of Roosevelt's in 1945 and Wilson's in 1917 respectively. Even supporters of Bush, like Mark Cuban, wondered why it was necessary to spend such sums. We're still fighting two wars, our economy is a wreck compared to 2005, and our deficit grows. So why do we not see the same outrage at this sum? It seems to me that the money, then as in now, could be better applied. But we all know that obscene pageantry is necessary in the age of the Imperial President, expenses be damned.

The Imminent Collapse of Mexico:
Earlier this week, the Joint Forces Command issued it's Joint Operating Environment 2008 (JOE 2008), a document that takes a look at global trends and makes certain assessments on what those trends hold for the next 25 or so years for the Joint Force. Interesting stuff, if you care to read the 56 pages, although you probably don't. The important take away, however, is the JOE assessment on Mexico. The JOE states that a worst case scenario would be "a rapid and sudden collapse" of Mexico and/or Pakistan. For most Americans, Pakistan is a no-brainer; it's stability is tenuous at best and it's collapse would spell bad things for South Asia and possibly the world. But the status of Mexico surely comes as a surprise to those who rarely think about such things (i.e. most Americans). It seems impossible that Mexico would collapse...right?

The JOE states,

"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone." (JOE 2008, 40)

Criminal gangs and drug cartels. I do not follow Mexico as much as I apparently should, but I do know that criminal organizations are very powerful there, and do represent a threat to Mexican stability. Police officers and politicians are killed all the time. A large reason for the rampant criminal gangs issue is, of course, drugs. It got me to thinking about something. Is the issue of crime relating to drugs because drugs are intrinsically bad, or because they're illegal? I could ask the same question of the US drug problem, or the issues drugs cause anywhere in the world (Afghanistan/Colombia). Most would probably say that drugs are intrinsically bad (or even evil) and that is the reason there are so many problems relating to drugs. But I wonder if the problems are cause simply because they're illegal. Sure, one could make a case that they're illegal because they are intrinsically bad, but I think that misses the point of my hypothetical question, and assumes without examination that drugs are, indeed, intrinsically bad.

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment, and assume that drugs are no more inherently bad than alcohol, which I might remind you, kills a few people here and there. If these drugs were made legal and regulated in the same manner as prescription drugs and taxed by the government, would Mexico have the problems it does? It seems that if Prohibition in the US is any indication, crime, violent and otherwise, would go down if drugs were made legal. Crime associated with alcohol during the 1920s was rampant, and Prohibition made millionaires out of men like Al Capone who flouted the law and peddled illegal wares.

Prohibition was a complete failure, which even ardent supporters admitted. John D Rockefeller himself stated:

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

In 50 years, you could hear this a similar statement made by any opponent of legalized drugs. Like Prohibition, our "War on Drugs", which has been going on since 1971 or so, hasn't enjoyed great success, unless you count one million arrests and incarcerations a year stemming from drug related charges a success. The War on Drugs has neither cut down the numbers of drug users nor measurably decreased the amount of narcotics that cross our borders. Consider for a moment, this: we occupy the world's leading producer of opium, and we are unable to do anything to prevent record harvests every year. Instead, the illicit nature of the product generates massive revenue for its growers, none of whom are exactly do-gooders. Consider also, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), which through taxation of drug crops has been able to carve out of Colombia what is practically it's own nation; the FARC controls 20% of Colombia by some estimates. Has the FARC been able to do this because drugs are inherently bad, or because their illicit nature drives up demand and prices?

I think an argument could be made that a prime reason that Mexico is besieged by criminal enterprises is because of the illegality of drugs in Mexico and the United States. Maybe drugs being illegal is more of an evil than even the evil of drugs. I'm in no way advocating that we make all drugs legal (although we could have a great conversation on this), but I do think that we should closely examine the root causes of Mexico's predicament and see what policies we can implement that will help stabilize our southern neighbor. Considering the massive amounts of money we've pumped into the War on Drugs, to little success, it doesn't seem that money alone, such as the $1.4 billion over three years the Merida Initiative calls for, will effect the change we want. Can we really afford the collapse of Mexico?

Please Don't Ask, Just Tell:
It is certain that Barack Obama wants to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, which has been in place since 1993. Obama recently said that this might have to wait until 2010, when he can build consensus with the Pentagon on the issue, but Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), plans to introduce legislation within the next few weeks. Make no mistake about it, whatever your thoughts on gays in the military, this issue is controversial. Ending it may be a good thing or a bad thing, I really don't know. But I'm curious as to why no one has said anything on the possibility that repealing the policy will open the flood gates on litigation against the government by any of the 12,500 troops that have been discharged from the military since 1993. My particular interest is those individuals who might be discharged in the coming weeks and months prior to legislation being passed banning the...ban. Certainly, some military members use their homosexuality to get out of their contracts, but it seems likely that most of those discharged do genuinely want to serve their country. (I've never done a survey, so I'm only guessing.) With that being said, what recourse will these men and women have if they're discharged say, a week prior to the legislation being overturned? Will they be able to serve?

Also, I must supplement my above curiosity with a few observations. A few weeks ago I read a quote by some politician saying, in essence, that our men and women in uniform are professionals and that they'll embrace their fellow servicemembers regardless of their sexual orientation. Professional they may be, but I think this statement is a stretch. I believe that you'll see an increase in hazings and assaults in the military when this policy is overturned. Is this reason not to overturn the policy? I don't know. I don't get paid to make those decisions. But I can say as a former member of the military, openly gay servicemembers would not be welcomed with open arms. It's just not going to happen over night. It's something that uniformed gays, not the masses of non-uniformed gays, should ask themselves, because they're the ones that will have to live with the consequences. It may be that they do not want to serve openly anyway. It might be that they will eventually be accepted, because their contributions are equally as valuable, but there will be some difficulty, at least initially. Just ask African-Americans how easy it was to integrate into the military.

I'm not making this stuff up. A Military Times poll found that 58% of those surveyed in the military opposed changing the current policy. What's more indicative, 23% would possibly not re-enlist if the policy were overturned.

Don't mistake my truthful speak as being anti-gay. Personally, I believe you should be able to have sexual relations with and enter into social contracts with anyone you wish (so long as they're consensual and of age).

Word of the Day: Laissez-faire (adjective): The principle that business, industry, trade, etc. should operate with a minimum of regulation and interference by government. I'd also suggest that government's interactions with it's citizens should be laissez-faire in nature.

On This Day in History: Gaius Julius Caesar Octaviun is given the title Augustus by the Roman Senate (27 BCE). They had their own little inauguration nearly exactly 2,036 years ago. Also, Ivan IV (Ivan the Awesome (or Terrible)) becomes Tsar of Russia (1547). English Parliament outlaws Roman Catholicism (1581). The US ratifies the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, authorizing Prohibition (1919). The Shah of Iran flees Iran (1979). President Bill Clinton awards former President Theodore Roosevelt a posthumous Medal of Honor (2001). The shuttle Columbia takes off on its final mission. It would disintegrate on reentry 16 days later (2003).

"And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"