HorsesAss.Org

I’m on the air again today, filling in for Ken Schram on KOMO 1000’s The Commentators, 10AM to 2PM.  Tune in to hear me and John Carlson go at it on a number of hot button issues:

1oAM – Why won’t anybody challenge Greg Nickels for mayor?  You know… anybody of course, except Dan Savage, who joins us at the top of the hour to promote his alleged run for the office.

11AM – Is Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe”?  And even if so, should Rep. Barney Frank have said it?  What are the limits of religious tolerance?

12PM – Should convicted felons be allowed to vote?  WA state has some of the most restrictive felon voter laws in the nation.  A bill before the legislature might change that.

1PM – Should WA state ban online poker… and if so, is it even technically possible to enforce the law?

Oy.

It sounds like a proposed union organizing bill was in trouble even before a controversial e-mail killed its chances at the Legislature.

Gov. Chris Gregoire said Monday that she would have vetoed the so-called “Worker Privacy Act” anyway, because of its effect on Boeing.

So why did she, House Majority Leader Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown refer the email to the state patrol if she was going to veto it? Good lord.

Gregoire had an entirely different take on things when she spoke to the state labor convention in the midst of her re-election campaign:

Gov. Chris Gregoire, speaking at the WSLC 2008 political endorsement convention in May at the Machinists 751 Hall, says: ““Like you, I believe that employees ought to be able to know they can go to work every single day, they’re not going to be intimidated, they’re not going to be coerced, they’re not going to be shoved around about whether their political rights are intruded, whether their religious rights are intruded, or their right to organize is curtailed. We’re going to make that happen in Washington State. We’re going to lead the nation in that regard.”

Yeah, okay, I get it. Politicians have to be er, flexible. But come on. Regular people call that “lying.” Sure, the economy tanked big time last fall, so if Gregoire thinks a change in circumstances justifies killing the bill, she should just say so.

To make things even more fun, the governor had the following comment at a press conference this morning. From a partial transcription by Kathy Cummings, communications director for the Washington State Labor Council:

One thing is clear, this is not Chicago this is Washington state. I don’t impugn the integrity of the authors of it at all. I simply say that it was an unfortunate email, I don’t regret my actions, Washington state is transparent and clean.

Sigh.

We seem to have a generation of Democratic politicians who have so internalized right wing frames that sometimes they can’t help themselves. I mean, I guess we all do it at times, and maybe the governor was trying to quash the entirely predictable “unions are all criminal” crap the right inevitably resorts to.

Like all human-created institutions, unions had and likely still have their share of problems, but they not only have a legal and moral right to exist, they are also a key part of our coalition, and why any Democrat would bring up “Chicago” like that is beyond me. That is definitely doing the GOP’s work for them.

People didn’t vote for more Third Way neo-liberal triangulation anyhow, they voted to change the goddamn crooked system that favors big business, the wealthy and powerful, over ordinary citizens. The abuse of concentrated economic power is the very reason why we are in a Great Recession right now.

And by clumsily calling off a vote on the Worker Privacy Act, the leaders of the Democratic Party in this state exposed themselves to quite justifiable accusations that they are kow-towing to a large corporation in a way that would make some Republicans blush. It would have been better if they had just killed the bill without the state patrol drama; at least we would know for sure where they stand.

This sorry episode is potentially quite damaging to the Democratic Party in Washington state. Right after the election you heard a lot of concern trolling from traditional media types and Republicans about how “overreaching” cost the Democrats big time in 1994. But what I distinctly remember from that terrible year was a lot of outrage from staunch Democrats, especially labor folks, about NAFTA and other trade deals killing jobs here.

As we’ve seen, the destruction over the last 14 years has been massive. That’s not an argument for protectionism, it’s an argument for making sure trade deals have certain base-line standards on the environment and labor, a demand that was virtually ignored by far too many Democrats for far too many years.

As one long-time organizer I knew put it at the time, the rank and file was just going to sit on their hands. And that’s exactly what they did, as David Sirota pointed out in a column at HuffPo in 2007.

Another troubling aspect is that a vote on the labor bill this year was stopped because it was probably going to pass. I’ll say that again. It was killed because politicians knew they should vote for it, because it’s the right thing to do for workers.

Think about that sad fact for a moment. Your votes, your volunteer time and your small donations don’t mean jack if a corporate lobbyists makes the call, because the bill won’t even see the light of day. Hell of a way to run a democracy.

Court documents filed today, including a declaration from a University of Washington accounting professor, suggest the Building Industry Association may have illegally skimmed millions of dollars from retro-rebate beneficiary accounts over the past several years, and ask for a court order requiring BIAW to retain an independent third party to prepare a “comprehensive trust accounting.”

Professor Stephen Sefcik is a distinguished professor of accounting in the UW School of Business, and currently serves as the Associate Dean of Undergradate Programs at the Michael G. Foster School of Business.  He was retained by plaintiffs to review financial documents provided by the BIAW and its associated organizations, and to identify and estimate economic losses sustained due to mismanagement and other practices.

At this stage of my work, I have completed a sufficient financial analysis to support my general conclusions that a thorough independent accounting is necessary and that substantial interest has been skimmed from the Trust.  However, due to the opacity of the Trust’s bookkeeping, a sigificant additional work would be necessary to precisely quantify values.

How much money are talking about?  Between $600,000 and $1.3 million in skimmed interest over the past four to five years, plus an additional $3.6 million in principal and interest since 2003 due to an improperly calculated and paid “marketing assistance fee.”  That’s a lot of money.  And how did the BIAW accomplish this?

I have found that the Trust has allowed trust assets to be repeatedly placed in the interest-bearing accounts fo its for-profit affiliate, BIAW Member Services Corporation (“MSC).  While in such accounts, trust funds were repeatedly commingled with assets of MSC.

Huh.  How very Tim Eyman of them.

BIAW has long argued that its diversion of funds for political purposes is legal, an assertion contested by plaintiffs in this ongoing lawsuit, but skimmed (ie, stolen) funds are illegal no matter how you spend them.  If a third party accounting confirms Prof. Sefcik’s findings, the BIAW may have a lot more to worry about than a mere civil suit.

Which brings us to SB 6035, a bill which would require increased oversight and transparency for the retro-rebate, and which only narrowly passed the Senate on a 25-24 vote.  The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Commerce & Labor tomorrow morning, but despite known BIAW shenanigans, and recent revelations that retro has been overpaying participants by as much as $15 million a year since 1994 (due to a programming error), many Olympia observers don’t expect the House Democratic leadership to let it even come to the floor for a vote.

Why?  Well, I guess you’d have to ask the House Democratic leadership.

Canadians are not amused, and their government is rightly demanding an apology.

In the five-minute segment broadcast last week, Gutfeld mocked the Canadian Forces, noting Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie’s recent comment that the military may need a year to recover after Canada’s mission in Afghanistan ends in 2011.

“Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants,” Gutfeld said.

“I didn’t even know they were in the war,” panellist and comedian Doug Benson added. “I thought that’s where you go if you don’t want to fight. Go chill in Canada.”

The panellists continued by joking about invading Canada and also poking fun at the RCMP.

Canadian soldiers, who have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, have spent the last four years in the country’s most violent regions. On Friday, military officials announced that four more Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others were wounded in two separate roadside bomb blasts outside Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan.

Way to keep it classy, Fox, I’m sure the families of Canadian soldiers who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country really appreciate that.

As I always state, Fox has a First Amendment right to put very nearly anything it wants on the air, but that doesn’t mean they must put complete morons on the air, although it does seem to suit their target demographic.

And what is it with right wingers who insist on denigrating our allies? Shouldn’t we insult our enemies when there are two wars going on? Osama bin Laden smells like a goat! See, it’s easy.

I honestly don’t get it. Nobody with common sense believes Fox about anything, so it’s just there to attack things the conservative tribe doesn’t like, like a bunch of middle school kids who’ve been given the keys to a cable network and been told “make fun of the nerds.” Our tribe our tribe our tribe! You’d think people would get tired of the sheer repetition and servile drum-banging.

As always, apologies to middle school students everywhere for comparing them to Fox. Most middle school students I’ve met are way better than that.

(Props to MsLibrarian’s diary at Great Orange Satan.)

I’m on the radio now, filling in for Ken Schram on The Commentators on KOMO AM 1000.  Tune in.

When Republican wunderkind, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal gave his party’s response to President Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress, he decried Democrats for passing a spending bill “larded with wasteful spending,” including…

… $140 million for something called “volcano monitoring.” Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Of course, Jindal was roundly ridiculed at the time for this absolutely boneheaded comment.  Jindal is the governer of a state dependent on tens of billions of federal dollars to predict, prepare for and recover from natural disasters, and however exotic “volcano monitoring” may sound to his fellow bayou residents, he’s in no position to criticize disaster preparedness expenditures elsewhere.

But in light of today’s eruption of Alaska’s Mt. Redoubt, I’d say another round of ridicule is called for.

Alaska’s Mount Redoubt volcano erupted four times overnight, sending an ash plume more than 9 miles high into the air, but the state’s largest city has likely been spared from any ashfall.

[…] Using radar and satellite technology, the National Weather Service is predicting ash to start falling later Monday morning.

Dave Stricklan, a hydrometeorogical technician with the National Weather Service, expected very fine ash. … “The heavier stuff drops out very quickly, and then the other stuff filters out. There’s going to be a very fine amount of it that’s going to be suspended in the atmosphere for quite some time, but nothing to really affect anything such as aviation travel. The heavier stuff will filter out,” he said.

Still, Alaska Airlines on Monday canceled 19 flights in and out of the Anchorage international airport because of the ash.

Because ash intake can damage jet engines, causing planes to, you know, crash.  But I guess, as long as they’re not crashing in the bayou, it’s no big problem.

And Jindal is a guy Republicans tout as one of their rising stars?

Seattle Times executive editor David Boardman wants to let P-I loyalists know “who we are — and who we aren’t.”  But mostly, just the “aren’t” part.

Apparently, they’re not a right-wing paper, and they’re not a left-wing paper.  They’re not a suburban paper, but they certainly haven’t been the urban paper.  They’re not the establishment paper, but nobody in their right mind would ever label them an anti-establishment paper.

So then David… what the hell are you?

And perhaps, maybe, isn’t the typical daily’s lack of a clear identity, let alone a little personality, part of the industry’s problem?  I mean, criticize FOX News all you want (and God knows it’s easy), but they’ve been damn successful embracing both bias and personality… and at least most viewers know what they’re getting when they flip it on.

(Oh… and this conceit that reporters are automatons, unhumanly free of their own personal bias… or that of the guy who signs their paycheck and approves promotions… I just don’t think readers are buying it anymore.  Which may help explain why fewer and fewer people are buying daily newspapers.)

The truth is, apart from the masthead, most Seattleites couldn’t tell the Times and the P-I apart.  So I’m not so sure that promising readers you produce pretty much exactly the same product as the paper that just went under, is a sound, long term business strategy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6ar44Ecec[/youtube]

Can’t we all just get along.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky in an impressive 12 minutes. It was in Lees Summit, Missouri. This week’s is a tough one (I think). Good luck!

Now.

The bankrupt holding company for Washington Mutual has sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., alleging the agency has improperly denied potentially billions of dollars in claims against WaMu’s former banking unit.

The suit, filed late Friday in federal district court in Washington, D.C., also claims the FDIC improperly sold WaMu’s banking assets to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, rather than conducting a “straight liquidation” that could have produced more money for creditors — including the holding company.

And then (late last year.)

According to these accounts, pressure to keep lending emanated from the top, where executives profited from the swift expansion – not least, Kerry Killinger, who was WaMu’s chief executive from 1990 until he was forced out in September.

Between 2001 and 2007, Killinger received compensation of $88 million, according to the Corporate Library, a research firm. He declined to respond to a list of questions, and his spokesman said he was unavailable for an interview.

During Killinger’s tenure, WaMu pressed sales agents to pump out loans while disregarding borrowers’ incomes and assets, according to former employees. The bank set up what insiders described as a system of dubious legality that enabled real estate agents to collect fees of more than $10,000 for bringing in borrowers, sometimes making the agents more beholden to WaMu than they were to their clients.

WaMu gave mortgage brokers handsome commissions for selling the riskiest loans, which carried higher fees, bolstering profits and ultimately the compensation of the bank’s executives. WaMu pressed appraisers to provide inflated property values that made loans appear less risky, enabling Wall Street to bundle them more easily for sale to investors.

Earth to Congress, come in Congress. You got a bunch of regular people turning blue out here.

While it’s great fun to grandstand over AIG, and lord knows AIG has deservedly been a flash point, this is pretty nuts, too. The Banksters are now going after the surviving New Deal financial regulations. I honestly don’t know how much more the American public will take.

As Barry Ritholtz writes:

At what point do you just liquidate every last one of these sons of bitches — and throw their management in jail?

Everyone has the right to due process, of course. While conservatives spent decades disparaging “trial lawyers,” the corporate world is full of them and they are just fine with going to court. But justice requires that bad actors be held accountable, no matter their class or philosophy.

Justice often happens when people are charged with some kind of crime, to put it simply. So far only the most obvious individual Ponzi scheme offenders are being dealt with. The institutional corruption endemic to corporate America has received a complete pass.

The Obama administration and Congress have now been issued an historic challenge: either let the Banksters try to destroy the FDIC’s authority, or stand up on behalf of the American people. Obama has been pretty cautious to this point, but this would seem to force the issue. Either we have a government of, by and for the people, or we don’t. It’s really that simple.

Fox 13 News at 10 just did a story on the continuing outrage over Obama’s Special Olympics joke. And for the duration of the segment, I had more confidence that a mentally disabled person being interviewed would point out how stupid this story is than I had that one of the news anchors would.

Charlie Bermant writes in the Port Orchard Independent about the Bruce Olson trial and the attention it’s finally drawing to what’s been happening in Kitsap County. Olson is an authorized medical marijuana patient who was raided by the WestNET drug task force in 2007. Prosecutors claim that Olson and his wife were selling marijuana as well as using it medicinally, but the prosecution’s only witness is a longtime drug addict who they flew up from Oklahoma for the trial who claims he bought marijuana from the Olsons. The Olsons, and others who know them, maintain that they were not growing plants to sell on the black market.

I’ve written about this case a couple of times already, but Bermant’s article illustrates why this case has elicited so much anger from the medical marijuana community:

Both Olson and his wife are medical marijuana patients, but have faced the same distribution charge. The law about acceptable quantities of medical marijuana has been more strictly defined since Pamela Olson’s trial.

Pamela Olson is now serving probation, having pleaded out to avoid jail time. As part of her sentence, she is not using the medical marijuana that she claims is necessary to ease her pain.

The case has become a flashpoint for medical marijuana advocates, or what Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hauge characterizes as “a well-organized lobby whose purpose is to see the laws changed.”

Hauge is a major focus of the anger in this case. A lot of us who are trying to call more media attention to the Olson trial certainly want more changes to our current drug laws. No argument there. But the problem with what Russ Hauge is doing is that he’s openly trying to undermine the current medical marijuana law in the state of Washington.

The original medical marijuana law that was passed by voters in 1998 contained only an affirmative defense for authorized patients. What that meant was that law enforcement officials were still able to arrest patients, who were then faced with the burden of proving their innocence in court. More progressive prosecutors like King County’s Dan Satterberg recognized that hauling patients into court like that was a waste of both time and taxpayer money as well as being immoral and didn’t do it. But not Russ Hauge.

Even worse, the usual tactic from Hauge’s office has been to arrest patients, then threaten them with long prison terms into taking plea deals. This is what happened to Pamela Olson. And because of Department of Correction rules that don’t recognize medical marijuana, she’s not allowed to take medicine that her doctor has authorized for her while she’s home on probation. A second patient from Kitsap County named Jason Norbut has also found himself in this same situation. According to Norbut, the judge even promised him when he was offered the plea deal that he’d still be able to use his medicine while on probation, but was later told after he was sentenced that it was not allowed by the DOC.

Access to medical marijuana is rarely, if ever, a matter of life and death to patients. For most, it’s a quality of life issue (pain management, stimulating hunger during chemotherapy, etc), but that still doesn’t give any law enforcement official the right to overrule the judgment of doctors. Despite what Russ Hauge may believe he’s doing, what he’s really doing is undermining an existing voter-approved law and violating the human rights of the citizens of Kitsap County.

As medical marijuana supporters have been congregating in Port Orchard to oversee this trial, they’re slowly finding more and more victims of Russ Hauge’s crusade, including a quadriplegic by the name of Glenn Musgrove, who was recently wheeled into court on a gurney. Musgrove has a hearing scheduled for next Friday, March 27th. If anyone is curious about why Kitsap County is spending taxpayer money to prosecute a quadriplegic, the case number is 08-1-00937-6.

There are some high profile diplomatic meetings coming up regarding Afghanistan, but in Vienna over the past two weeks, a conference took place that could have far more of an effect on success or failure there. The United Nations’ Commission on Narcotic Drugs has convened for the last two weeks. Reuters reported on the first week of the conference:

U.N. members are expected to sign a declaration this week extending for another 10 years a “war on drugs” policy critics say is flawed and only feeds organised crime, helps spread HIV and undermines governments.

The U.N. drug strategy declaration, due to be signed in Vienna on Wednesday or Thursday, marks the culmination of a year of divisive talks among member states to try to agree a unified counter-narcotics policy for the next decade.

At the last convention in 1998, the slogan “A drug free world — we can do it” launched a campaign to eradicate all narcotics, from cannabis to heroin, by using law enforcement to tackle producers, traffickers and end users globally.

Needless to say, this effort fell far short of its goals. Hundreds of millions of people across the globe still use and sell illegal narcotics. As the Reuters article points out, the real consequences of this international circus act have been disastrous:

Drug policy campaigners, social scientists and health experts argue that strategy has failed, with statistics showing that drug production, trafficking and use have all soared during the decade, while the cost of law enforcement, both financially and socially, has rocketed, with vast numbers imprisoned.

In the United States, where illegal drug use is highest, the government spends around $70 billion a year to combat drugs. But illegal drug use has risen steadily over the past decade and a fifth of the prison population is there for drug offences.

Of course, that’s only a small part of the disaster. It has turned Mexico and our inner cities into war zones. It has created an atmosphere of fear and hostility between law abiding citizens and the police. And on the world stage, it threatens to undermine NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan.

One of the promises of the Obama Administration was to restore a commitment to science-based policy over ideological posturing. When it comes to drug policy, they’re moving in the right direction, but still have a way to go before truly fulfilling that promise.

Within international drug policy, the sticky point is the term “harm reduction.” Ideas like needle exchanges, safe sites, decriminalization for users and addicts, and the legal markets for cannabis are the main examples of harm reduction. In areas where these harm reduction methods have been tried, the negative overall effects of drug abuse – from overdoses to petty crime to street violence – have been reduced. It’s virtually impossible to find public health experts who’ve studied this subject who will say that these tactics don’t work. While the Obama Administration has been willing to endorse needle exchanges, they’ve been balking at endorsing other proven strategies:

In a statement explaining the White House opposition to harm reduction, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to the U.N. in Vienna, emphasized the administration’s support for needle exchange programs and “other evidence-based approaches to reduce the negative health and social consequences of drug abuse, including access to medication-assisted treatment for narcotic addiction.”

“However,” Pyatt continued, “the United States continues to believe that the term ‘harm reduction’ is ambiguous. It is interpreted by some to include practices that the United States does not wish to endorse.”

Such practices, according to State Department spokeswoman Laura Tischler, include drug legalization, drug consumption rooms, heroin prescription initiatives and programs to provide drug paraphernalia that has no tangible health benefit to the user.

By claiming that heroin prescription initiatives, drug consumption rooms, and legalization have no benefits, Tischler is very blatantly putting ideology ahead of science. Vancouver’s IN-SITE program, which allows for drug addicts to have a safe medical setting to feed their addictions, has been such a success in helping people get clean (and to reduce the collateral damage that generally comes with addiction) that an official from the Harper Government last year publicly rebuked the government’s attempts to close it. Everyone from Vancouver city officials to the police to health experts have been fighting to keep the program running. In Switzerland, their heroin prescription program has been so successful that voters there overwhelmingly voted to continue it. In Zurich, the number of new heroin addicts has plummeted by nearly 90% since they launched their program in the mid-90s.

Glenn Greenwald traveled to Portugal last year for the Cato Institute to study the effects of drug decriminalization in that nation. The Portuguese didn’t just decriminalize marijuana either, they decriminalized all personal drug use, including cocaine and heroin. Here’s what he found:

Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.

Yet in Vienna this past week, the United States sided with Cuba, China, Russia, and Iran in preventing the declaration from containing anything about harm reduction. In the eyes of the world’s most authoritarian regimes, “harm reduction” is seen as an encouragement to do drugs, even though the reality has long been that harm reduction methods have not led to greater amounts of drug use. This decision was made under the direction of the outgoing interim Drug Czar, Ed Jurith, and not the recently appointed Gil Kerlikowske.

The proper analogy here, as this Students for Sensible Drug Policy post on the conference points out, is that harm reduction is to drug use as birth control is to sex. The pursuit of both sex and drugs is a part of human nature. The idea that institutions can establish effective barriers against these human impulses has repeatedly been shown to be folly. The role that institutions should play is to ensure that these impulses have the least negative impact on others. That’s the point of harm reduction, and by every measure, it works far better than trying to use law enforcement to stamp out the behavior altogether.

This failure in American policy isn’t just resulting in more crime and more wasted taxpayer dollars. It’s also undermining our efforts in Afghanistan. As we continue to strong-arm our European allies to take a more hard-line (and ineffective) approach to reducing drug use, the Taliban increasingly profit from the inflated prices. They profit both by protecting traffickers (and farmers) from the law and by participating in the trade directly. Afghanistan still produces around 90% of the world’s heroin, which accounts for somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the entire nation’s GDP. Much of this profit goes towards weapons used to kill coalition troops.

Much of the exported heroin from Afghanistan heads west through Iran or northwest through Russia on its way west. As a result, Russia and Iran now have two of the largest heroin addiction problems in the world. Those two notoriously authoritarian regimes both make attempts to downplay the problem while also demanding the most authoritarian response. In fact, Iran’s drug war solutions tend to look a lot like ours:

According to the figures released by Iran’s Drug Control Headquarters, Tehran spent over 600 million dollars in the two years leading to October 2008, to dig canals, build barriers and install barbed wire to seal off the country’s borders.

The result is that while the troops who fight alongside us in Afghanistan are Canadian, Dutch, French, and British, our approach to dealing with the illegal opium trade is more in line with what Russia and Iran advocate. As a result, the number of coalition troops who’ve lost their lives there has steadily risen over the past five years, and our relationship with NATO allies has been strained. When it comes to how to deal with the opium, we’re agreeing with nations we tend to consider enemies, while our strongest allies are seeing their brave young men and women being killed every day as a result.

The Taliban of today is not the Taliban of 2001, which used both religious sentiments against drugs and western aid to massively reduce the amount of opium produced there. The Taliban today is much more driven by nationalism and much more willing to profit from this trade. As a result, they’re once again threatening to overtake the regime in Kabul. They also have strong ties to anti-western radicals within Pakistan, which has the potential to turn the problem in Afghanistan into something worse altogether.

It’s been encouraging to see more and more media outlets correctly illustrate the dynamics of what’s currently happening in Mexico. There seems to be a growing understanding that the alarming amount of violence there is driven by American demand for illegal drugs and cannot be defeated with a military response. What we can’t afford to have right now is the same dynamic playing out in the lawless areas of Pakistan, where a populace largely sympathetic to radicalism has been put in a position to profit handsomely from the opium trafficking that we’re trying to push out of Afghanistan.

Up until now, the residents of the border area of Pakistan have been able to keep themselves isolated from Islamabad’s reach, but they don’t currently threaten the government itself. That could change if control of the opium trade ends up in their hands. And that’s exactly what our strategy in Afghanistan appears likely to do.

Just as the drug crackdown in the United States – the one that has filled our prisons to record numbers – has done nothing more than create a war south of the border, our ongoing belief that victory in Afghanistan comes from defeating the opium traffickers rather than building up stable Afghan institutions will only result in the same thing over there – a war south of that border as well.

Limiting the amount of money being made through the opium trade can only be done one way – by limiting the demand. A number of nations, including some of our closest allies, are figuring out how to do this effectively. Unfortunately, America’s anti-drug officials are still fighting them on purely ideological grounds. They’re ignoring evidence and avoiding debate. It’s time that we have an administration that allows for a fully open discussion on these issues that values empirical evidence over fear mongering. If not, Afghanistan will most certainly be to Obama what Iraq was to Bush.

Three more last night.