In Support of New York City’s Soda Ban

Image Copyright Vanity Fair

On June 12, 2012, the New York City Department of Health will submit a proposal to the State Board of Health to ban the sale of non-diet sodas in any quantity over 16 oz. For those of you who are expecting me to go on one of my many rants about the “nanny state” and Government intervening in personal choice, I regret to inform you you will hear no such rants today.

Quite the opposite, actually. According to CNN, the city spends $4 billion per year on obesity related healthcare costs. The decision to ban large quantity sodas is a good start in the battle against the Agriculture lobby which has given us wonderful, useless goods such as high fructose corn syrup (the “sugar” used in most American sodas) and corn based ethanol. In his masterpiece of a book Republic Lost, Lawrence Lessig argues that much of the obesity epidemic in this country can be attributed to an over proliferation of high fructose corn syrup in prepared foods and soda. High fructose corn syrup was originally placed in foods as a cheaper alternative to real sugar, coming through farm subsidy policies that are relics of the New Deal era. This, Lessig calls “idiocy,” and quite frankly, he’s right.

While Bloomberg may not see it this way, I perceive a ban (in the most populous city in the United States, mind you) to be a check on the Federal Government that has allowed the poison of high fructose corn syrup to pervert our foods to begin with. This is a step in the right direction for reducing healthcare costs and getting real sugar back in our food. It’s certainly a less draconian policy than the individual mandate.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Simple Question For Obama’s Supporters

 

Dear President Obama Supporters,

On December 31, 2011, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA 2012) into law. Historically, this is a piece of legislation that grants funding for the Department of Defense and United States foreign interests abroad. This year, Congress and the President inserted language in the bill, Sections 1021 and 1022 specifically, which allow indefinite detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS without trial or due process of law. This of course, is a gross violation of your civil liberties. Not even George W. Bush made an attempt to usurp such fundamental American rights.

So, I have a simple question for you, and I would like a response that doesn’t place the blame on George W. Bush. It was Obama’s pen that signed this bill into law after all. My question is:

How do you feel about your President permitting  indefinite detention and how could you continue supporting a President who perpetuates such a fascist ideology?

Thank you. I look forward to your responses.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Drawing the Line: Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America

It was March 8, 2003. I was sitting in my room in Tampa, Florida playing videogames. I felt my phone ring. It’s my friend Stephen.

“Dude, I just got my driver’s license. Do you want to catch the new Bruce Willis flick?”

“Sure,” I said. I threw on some clothes and got ready for the night.

Growing up, I lived on a small island off of downtown Tampa called Davis Island. Two one way bridges brought travelers on and off the island. At the end of the bridges, a parking lot for a small business building separated the two streets. It was in this parking lot that I witnessed one of the defining moments of my teens—and perhaps my whole life.

Stephen and I drove over the bridge. At the time, we were into punk rock, and to date, I still remember “Fat Lip” by Sum 41 was blaring on his radio when everything transpired. We stopped at a red light.

“So is the driver’s test as big a pain as—“ I stopped mid-sentence.

“What’s wrong?” Stephen said.

“Look left man! There’s a cop fight!” I said.

A disheveled looking man lunged at a police officer. She stepped back, attempting to escape him. He overpowered her, and managed to withdraw her night stick from her belt.

The exuberance we first expressed over the action soon turned to deep concern. Though the light had turned green, we were frozen in our seats watching what was unfolding. The disheveled man began to cudgel the officer with the night stick, violently striking her blow after blow.

“Should we help her?” Stephen asked.

Before Stephen could finish his sentence, the first shot had been fired. The man flinched but continued swinging.

Then another shot.

The swings continued, but with less velocity.

Then another.

The night stick dropped.

And then another.

The man limped slowly; his shirt began to stain with blood. He breathed his last breath and fell to the ground, dead.

And then another. And then another.

Six shots were fired into Alan Houseman that night, and they still ring in my ears. I distinctly remember the sound of each bullet leaving the officer’s gun. When you see a man killed, any preconceptions you may have from watching films go out the window. There is no dramatic descent to the knees, no last words uttered, no emotional score in the background; and when you’re a man who looked like he’d been to hell and back like Houseman, there’s no one there to celebrate your life as you are in your final moments. As I watched Houseman’s body fall to the ground, I remember how much it looked like a marionette puppet’s strings being severed instantaneously.

Alan Houseman lay face down as the officer stood trembling above him, injured from his assault, yet scarred from the turn of events that likely began as a routine patrol and ended with the death of a man.

Houseman, as it turned out was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. According to his parents Ceida and David Houseman, he had been committed multiple times, never permanently institutionalized, and never with an order to stay on medication. The night he died, he was off medication. Perhaps the most tragic part of the story was that he had been committed via Baker Act just one day earlier, but the Deputy that was supposed to pick him up never came.

I don’t remember what the official story was. As I recall, Houseman had approached the officer’s vehicle suspiciously, and he had an episode when she approached him. Reasons aside, seeing Houseman murdered was something that took me years to get over. I would wake up in the middle of the night because I was traumatized over witnessing a man’s death. I can’t say I blame the officer for drawing her gun and firing off a round or two, but she was clearly emotionally wrought, which is perhaps the reason she reacted with such excess force. It’s hard to get that night out of my mind, and I don’t suppose it ever will be.

Fast forward to July 10, 2011. Kelly Thomas, a schizophrenic homeless man in Fullerton, California is approached by officers after a call that he was suspiciously peering into vehicles and trying to open their doors. A video surfaced just last week of Thomas’s beating and consequent death (Warning: Extremely Disturbing). It doesn’t take a genius to see that Thomas was the victim of excess police brutality. He was tazed multiple times, bludgeoned with heavy flashlights, and slammed into the ground. He can be heard yelling “I’M SORRY!” and “DAD! DAD!” in the video.  Thomas came out looking like this. The coroner ruled his death as “asphyxia caused by mechanical chest compression with blunt cranial-facial injuries sustained during physical altercation with law enforcement.” He fell into a coma and was taken off life support five days later.

No matter how you spin the facts of Alan Houseman and Kelly Thomas, one thing is clear: neither man should be dead. One bullet to Houseman would have perhaps subdued him, and a simple handcuffing of Thomas would have done the same. Thomas was sedentary in the video when his questioning began, and posed little to no threat to the armed officers who also were significantly more heavyset than Thomas.

The deaths of Alan Houseman and Kelly Thomas tell me two things:

  1. There is a serious schism that exists between America’s law enforcement and the mentally ill. We aren’t sufficiently preparing our officers to deal with crisis control in a situation where the Housemans and Thomases of the worlds are acting irrationally through actions that are out of their control. One in four persons arrested in Florida are mentally ill. The Tampa police force offers crisis intervention training for the mentally ill. The officer who killed Alan Houseman did NOT take this course. Conversely, our law enforcement officers—at least in these two cases have inadequately approached situations involving the schizophrenic. Physical punishment is not and never will be a suitable or fitting approach to resolving conflict with the mentally ill.
  2. We aren’t providing enough facilities or treatment for the mentally ill. We build plenty of prisons in this country, and we fill them up with more people per capita than anywhere else in the world. 730 prisoners per 100,000 people, to be exact. According to Mary Beth Pfeiffer, author of Crazy in America, the US has lost 57,000 hospital beds since 1990. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill gave the United States a whopping “D” in a report card. It often takes tragedies like the deaths of Houseman and Thomas to raise awareness on these problems, but both should show that the US has poorly addressed its mental health debacle.

Almost ten years ago I sat in a car and watched a mentally ill man shot to death in an excess show of police brutality. Just last week, I sat and watched every second of Kelly Thomas’s untimely death, and shuddered over the parallels between the two men—both of whom are gone far too soon. On September 21, 2011, Orange County District Attorney Anthony Rackauckas held a press conference announcing criminal charges against the police officers responsible for Kelly Thomas’s death. During the press conference, he said “The biggest shame about this case is the fact that it could have been avoided. This never had to happen, and it never should have happened…[w]e must do everything we can to make sure we protect that trust, including prosecuting police officers if they violate the law.” Rackauckas gets half of the story. The other “biggest shame” is that Thomas (and Houseman) weren’t institutionalized and under constant psychiatric care to begin with. Kelly Thomas and Alan Houseman died full of fear, alone, and on the streets that their mental illnesses condemned them to. I share the story of Alan Houseman—one that has deeply scarred me the last ten years because I wish to raise awareness with our mental health crisis. In no way, shape or form are we anywhere near a satisfactory state in the way we treat our mentally ill, both from a societal perspective, and from a law enforcement prospective. Let us not allow the deaths of Alan Houseman and Kelly Thomas to be in vain.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Zakaria: Is Mexico winning the drug war?

Reblogged from Global Public Square:

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

The drug wars dominate the discussion in Mexico and in many border states in America as well. There have been nearly 50,000 drug-related killings in Mexico since President Felipe Calderón began his six-year term. That’s more than twice as many civilian deaths in the same period in Afghanistan.

Calderón is widely viewed as having blundered in taking on the drug cartels.

Read more… 454 more words

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What Tax Day Means to Me

Yesterday, April 17 marked the final day that one could submit his taxes to the IRS. While browsing my news feed, I came across an article in Policy Mic titled “On Tax Day, Why I’m Proud to Give to the IRS.” With such starry eyed idealism, I would have pegged this article to be written by South Park’s Butters Scotch himself. The author, Tarsi Dunlop crafts statements such as “…I am still proud to pay taxes. I may not know exactly where my actual dollars go (although the White House has an interesting interactive graphic on their site to offer some insights)” and “Right now, I’d prefer to see my tax dollars invested in the systems I cannot live without as opposed to illogical tax cuts that do next to nothing meaningful for the middle class including myself. Elections are about values and I happen to value investment; I’ll be proud to vote on that basis in November.”

Despite our national debt surpassing $15 trillion, and our annual budget deficit continuing to spiral out of control, Dunlop seems willing and able to follow the crowd and submit her taxes under the ignorant pretenses that her dollars are being spent wisely, leading to more public good. Unlike Dunlop, I have begrudgingly submitted my taxes this year, as I err on the side of sanity and wish to remain unimprisoned and not pull a Henry David Thoreau. I have written many posts on the inefficiency of Government spending, so to avoid making repetitive statements, I’d like to share with you some of the flaws that exist in our tax code.

As Chris Williams stated in his article “The Tax-Code Mess,” there is a stable of politicians who are “class warriors” who “favor penalizing high-income tax earners with complicated provisions such as the alternative minimum tax and Obama’s new Buffett rule.” Most of these politicians fall under the so-called Progressive movement of the Left. Then, there are what Williams calls “subsidy warriors,” who push for tax breaks to their campaign donors and “favored industries.” Neither side of the aisle has any desire to put Americans on equal playing field, nor do they wish to “simplify the tax code,” which has become a political buzz phrase and a campaign promise that will never be fulfilled.

The United States tax system grows more and more inequitable with every page added to the code. With increased rhetoric from the Democratic Party calling for the wealthy to pay their “fair share” of taxes, the left has drawn a line in the sand, neglecting the facts that Atlas and friends already hold the overwhelming majority of the country’s tax burden. Going beyond the numbers of who our taxpayers are and who’s paying America’s bills, one may find further immorality in the manner in which taxes are collected—through coercion. The IRS has nearly 3,000 armed bureaucrats  (significantly less than the 16,500 that Ron Paul falsely claimed). And for those of you who idealize the Government as a benevolent, friendly body when it comes to tax collection, I think Penn Jillette said it best:

“People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes …When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force — literally, not figuratively.”

The progressive tax system in place has opened the door for more crony capitalism, more gaps in income inequality, and hindered the “American Dream’s” goal of upward mobility and equal opportunity to succeed. Paying your taxes is a coercive game of smoke and mirrors that you are forced to play down the barrel of a gun; and if the S&P’s AA+ downgrade on our Treasury bond rating is any indication, increased taxation will not lead to restoring the prestige of American credit; rather, it will enable the Government to spend more and line the pockets of its campaign financiers. The answer to our woes is not increased taxation on the wealthy through the Buffett Rule, which would only bring in an additional $47B in revenue in the next 10 years, but to reduce the size of Government and create a tax code where over 93% of the burden is not on those who have earned their wealth. A flat tax would be the best place to start– or scrapping the tax code altogether and starting from square one.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ballot or the Bullet: O’Romney Edition

“It’s either the ballot or the bullet.”

-Malcolm X

Friends, take a deep breath. With Rick Santorum dropping out of the race, you need not worry about the prospect of your gay, black, latino, and transgender friends being placed in internment camps, something Rick Santorum would have done in his first thirty days of office (I’m only kind of joking, but I’m not sure if I’m joking at all).

This leaves us with a boring race of Romney and Obama, or as I like to call them, “Barack O’Romney” since they are the same leaders with different rhetoric.

It became apparent after about two weeks of campaigning that my horse Dr. Ron Paul didn’t stand a chance in hell. Twenty debates later, it is all but certain that Mitt Romney will challenge Barack Obama for the Presidency. So who am I going to vote for come November? Well, let’s look at a comparison of these two wonderful executives.

I don’t believe in not voting, as many of my fellow Libertarian colleagues do. This leaves me with three options.

  1. Vote for Barack Obama
  2. Vote for Mitt Romney
  3. Vote for a Third Party Candidate

I am most likely to vote for Gary Johnson should he receive the nomination of the Libertarian Party, picking option 3. A coworker approached me the other day and said “If I put a gun to your head and told you had to cast a ballot for Romney or Obama, who would you pick?” I chose the bullet over the ballot. “Pull the trigger,” I said.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Supreme Conflicts of Interest

Today, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments for the controversial “Patient Affordable Care Act,” more commonly known in Conservative circles as “Obamacare.” This is no doubt the Super Bowl of Supreme Court cases, and perhaps the most notable decision to come to the court since DC v. Heller. For all nine justices, I suspect their decisions will ultimately be driven by politics, not existing jurisprudence or any inkling of constitutional law.

Two justices in particular– Justice Kagan and Justice Thomas have opted to take part in interpreting the “constitutionality” of the controversial law, a fact that should concern any American regardless of political leanings. According to The National Review,

…Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”

Kagan, as it turns out played a significant role in passage of the Health Care law while serving as Solicitor General. Anticipating her eventual ascent to the high court, Kagan did her best to annihilate any paper traces of her involvement in the law’s passage. Also from the National Review:

Kagan herself has admitted that she attended “at least one meeting” in which the case now before the Court was mentioned, but the e-mails show that she also was privy to discussions of the administration’s litigation strategy at least up until the announcement of her nomination on May 10, 2010. On March 18, Katyal e-mailed Deputy Attorney General Tom Perrelli and copied Kagan, discussing in detail and providing an Internet link to a draft complaint in potential litigation. He wrote: “For what it is worth, my advice (I haven’t discussed this with Elena, but am cc’ing her here) would be that we start assembling a response, [material redacted] so that we have it ready to go.” And at least one e-mail suggests that discussions of litigation strategy were deliberately not conducted in written form. On March 21, Katyal e-mailed Kagan to ask whether she would attend a key White House meeting on health-care litigation strategy. Kagan responded: “What’s your phone number?”

It’s abundantly clear what happened when Katyal and Kagan spoke on the phone and I would be insulting your intellect to draw it out for you. In a March 21, 2010 email exchange shortly before the law passed, Kagan excitedly professed “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” Simply amazing that we already know how she intends to vote. Simply amazing that she has the gall to sit on the bench with no recusal.

And then, there’s our old friend Justice Clarence “There’s a Pubic Hair in my Coca-Cola” Thomas, one of the more conservative Justices on the court. Thomas is married to conservative activist Ginni Thomas. Some of you may know Ginni for her drunk dial to Anita Hill. But for those who are a bit more learned, Ginni is the founder of not-for-profit “Liberty Central,” a prominent anti-Obamacare lobby. Congressman Anthony Weiner was a key proponent of calling for Thomas’s recusal, but then he showed his penis on Twitter and that came to a flaccid halt (see what I did there?). Justice Thomas hasn’t spoken from the bench in five years, a fine indicator of who actually wears the pants in the relationship between him and Ginni.

Are we really to believe that his wife’s lobbying activities won’t influence his decision on the court? No, and that’s why we have laws like 28 U.S.C. § 455 : US Code – Section 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. In section A, the law states “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Sounds to me like Thomas could not approach this case with an ounce of impartiality.

I understand that a recusal form Justices Kagan and Thomas would cancel itself out. But the point is, these two are blatantly guilty of conflicts of interest. The decision to recuse would simply be the right thing to do. Leave it to the other seven justices to let this law be a figment of our imaginations instead.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized