RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: A Modest Proposal Print
Sunday, 27 September 2015 13:22

Sedaris writes: "There it was, the headline story on the Times site: 'SUPREME COURT RULING MAKES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE A RIGHT NATIONWIDE.' I read it, and, probably like every American gay person, I was overcome with emotion. Standing on the sidewalk, dressed in rags with a litter picker pinioned between my legs, I felt my eyes tear up, and as my vision blurred I thought of all the people who had fought against this, and thought, Take that, assholes."

David Sedaris. (photo: Westword)
David Sedaris. (photo: Westword)


A Modest Proposal

By David Sedaris, The New Yorker

27 September 15

 

ondon is five hours ahead of Washington, D.C., except when it comes to gay marriage. In that case, it’s two years and five hours ahead, which was news to me. “Really?” I said, on meeting two lesbian wives from Wolverhampton. “You can do that here?”

“Well, of course they can,” Hugh said when I told him about it. “Where have you been?”

Hugh can tell you everything about the current political situation in the U.K. He knows who the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, and was all caught up in the latest election for the whatever-you-call-it, that king-type person who’s like the President but isn’t.

“Prime Minister?” he said. “Jesus. You’ve been here how long?”

It was the same when we lived in Paris. Hugh regularly read the French papers. He listened to political shows on the radio, while I was, like, “Is he the same emperor we had last year?”

When it comes to American politics, our roles are reversed. “What do you mean ‘Who’s Claire McCaskill?’ ” I’ll say, amazed that I—that anyone, for that matter—could have such an ignorant boyfriend.

I knew that the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was expected at 10 a.m. on June 26th, which is 3 p.m. in Sussex. I’m usually out then, on my litter patrol, so I made it a point to bring my iPad with me. When the time came, I was standing by the side of the road, collecting trash with my grabber. It’s generally the same crap over and over—potato-chip bags, candy wrappers, Red Bull cans—but along this particular stretch, six months earlier, I’d come across a strap-on penis. It seemed pretty old, and was Band-Aid colored, about three inches long, and not much bigger around than a Vienna sausage, which was interesting to me. You’d think that if someone wanted a sex toy she’d go for the gold, size-wise. But this was just the bare minimum, like getting AAA breast implants. Who was this person hoping to satisfy, her Cabbage Patch doll? I thought about taking the penis home and mailing it to one of my sisters for Christmas but knew that the moment I put it in my knapsack I’d get hit by a car and killed. That’s just my luck. Medics would come and scrape me off the pavement, then, later, at the hospital, they’d rifle through my pack and record its contents: four garbage bags, some wet wipes, two flashlights, and a strap-on penis.

“There must be some mistake,” Hugh would tell them. “You said it was how big?”

My iPad could get no signal at 3 p.m., so I continued walking and picking up trash, thinking that, whichever way the Supreme Court went, I never expected to see this day in my lifetime. When I was young, in the early seventies, being gay felt like the worst thing that could happen to a person, at least in Raleigh, North Carolina. There was a rumor that it could be cured by psychiatrists, so for most of my teens that’s where I placed my hope. I figured that eventually I’d tell my mother and let her take the appropriate steps. What would kill me was seeing the disappointment on her face. With my father I was used to it. That was the expression he naturally assumed when looking at me. Her, though! Once when I was in high school she caught me doing something or other, imitating my Spanish teacher, perhaps with a pair of tights on my head, and said, like someone at the end of her rope, “What are you, a queer?”

I’d been called a sissy before, not by her but by plenty of other people. That was different, though, as the word was less potent, something used by children. When my mother called me a queer, my face turned scarlet and I exploded. “Me? What are you talking about? Why would you even say a thing like that?”

Then I ran down to my room, which was spotless, everything just so, the Gustav Klimt posters on the walls, the cornflower-blue vase I’d bought with the money I earned babysitting. The veil had been lifted, and now I saw this for what it was: the lair of a blatant homosexual.

That would have been as good a time as any to say, “Yes, you’re right. Get me some help!” But I was still hoping that it might be a phase, that I’d wake up the next day and be normal. In the best of times, it seemed like such a short leap. I did fantasize about having a girlfriend—never the sex part, but the rest of it I had down. I knew what she’d look like, and how she’d hold her long hair back from the flame when bending over a lit candle. I imagined us getting married the summer after I graduated from college, and then I imagined her drowning off the coast of North Carolina during one of my family’s vacations. Everyone needed to be there, so they could see just how devastated I was. I could actually make myself cry by picturing it: how I’d carry her out of the water, how my feet would sink into the sand owing to the extra weight. I’d try mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and keep trying, until someone, my father most often, would pull me back, saying, “It’s too late, son. Can’t you see she’s gone!”

It seemed that I wanted to marry just so I could be a widower. So profound would be my grief that I’d never look at another woman again. It was perfect, really. Oh, there were variations. Sometimes she’d die of leukemia, as in the movie “Love Story.” Occasionally, a madman’s bullet would fell her during a hostage situation, but always I’d be at her side, trying everything in my power to bring her back.

The fantasy remained active until I was twenty. Funny how unimportant being gay became once I told somebody. All I had to do was open up to my best friend, and when she accepted it I saw that I could as well.

“I just don’t see why you have to rub everyone’s noses in it,” certain people would complain when I told them. Not that I wore it on T-shirts or anything. Rather, I’d just say “boyfriend” the way they said “wife” or “girlfriend,” or “better half.” I insisted that it was no different, and in time, at least in the circles I ran in, it became no different.

While I often dreamed of making a life with another man, I never extended the fantasy to marriage, or even to civil partnerships, which became legal in France in 1999, shortly after Hugh and I moved to Paris. We’d been together for eight years by that point, and though I didn’t want to break up or look for anyone else, I didn’t need the government to validate my relationship. I felt the same way when a handful of American states legalized same-sex marriage, only more so: I didn’t need a government or a church giving me its blessing. The whole thing felt like a step down to me. From the dawn of time, the one irrefutably good thing about gay men and lesbians was that we didn’t force people to sit through our weddings. Even the most ardent of homophobes had to hand us that. We were the ones who toiled behind the scenes while straight people got married: the photographers and bakers and florists, working like Negro porters settling spoiled passengers into the whites-only section of the train.

“Oh, Christopher,” a bride might sigh as her dressmaker zipped her up. “What would I have ever done without you?”

What saved this from being tragic is that they were doing something we wouldn’t dream of: guilt-tripping friends and relatives into giving up their weekends so they could sit on hard church pews or folding chairs in August, listening as the couple mewled vows at each other, watching as they’re force-fed cake, standing on the sidelines, bored and sweating, as they danced, misty-eyed, to a Foreigner song.

The battle for gay marriage was, in essence, the fight to be as square as straight people, to say things like “My husband tells me that the new Spicy Chipotle Burger they’ve got at Bennigan’s is awesome,” and “Here it is, Valentine’s Day less than a week behind us, and already my wife is flying our Easter flag!”

That said, I was all for the struggle, mainly because it so irritated the fundamentalists. I wanted gay people to get the right to marry, and then I wanted none of us to act on it. I wanted it to be ours to spit on. Instead, much to my disappointment, we seem to be all over it.

I finally got a signal at the post office in the neighboring village. I’d gone to mail a set of keys to a friend and, afterward, I went out front and pulled out my iPad. The touch of a finger and there it was, the headline story on the Times site: “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage A Right Nationwide.”

I read it, and, probably like every American gay person, I was overcome with emotion. Standing on the sidewalk, dressed in rags with a litter picker pinioned between my legs, I felt my eyes tear up, and as my vision blurred I thought of all the people who had fought against this, and thought, Take that, assholes.

The Supreme Court ruling tells every gay fifteen-year-old living out in the middle of nowhere that he or she is as good as any other dope who wants to get married. To me it was a slightly mixed message, like saying we’re all equally entitled to wear Dockers to the Olive Garden. Then I spoke to my accountant, who’s as straight as they come, and he couldn’t have been more excited. “For tax purposes, you and Hugh really need to act on this,” he said.

“But I don’t want to,” I said. “I don’t believe in marriage.”

He launched into a little speech, and here’s the thing about legally defined couples: they save boatloads of money, especially when it comes to inheriting property. My accountant told me how much we had to gain, and I was, like, “Is there a waiting period? What documents do I need?”

That night, I proposed for the first of what eventually numbered eighteen times. “Listen,” I said to Hugh over dinner, “we really need to do this. Otherwise when one of us dies the other will be clobbered with taxes.”

“I don’t care,” he told me. “It’s just money.”

This is a sentence that does not register on Greek ears. It’s just a mango-size brain tumor. It’s just the person I hired to smother you in your sleep. But since when is money just money?

“I’m not marrying you,” he repeated.

I swore to him that I was not being romantic about it: “There’ll be no rings, no ceremony, no celebration of any kind. We won’t tell anyone but the accountant. Think of it as a financial contract, nothing more.”

“No.”

“God damn it,” I said. “You are going to marry me whether you like it or not.”

“No, I’m not.”

“Oh, yes you are.”

After two weeks of this, he slammed his fork on the table, saying, “I’ll do anything just to shut you up.” This is, I’m pretty sure, the closest I’m likely to get to a yes.

I took another ear of corn. “Fine, then. It’s settled.”

It wasn’t until the following day that the reality set in. I was out on the side of a busy road with my litter picker, collecting the shreds of a paper coffee cup that had been run over by a lawnmower, when I thought of having to tick the box that says “married” instead of “single.” I always thought there should have been another option, as for the past twenty-four years I’ve been happily neither. I would never introduce Hugh as my husband, nor would he refer to me that way, but I can easily imagine other people doing it. They’ll be the type who so readily embraced “partner” when it came down the pike, in the mid-nineties. Well-meaning people. The kind who wear bike helmets and use the word “conversation” in that new way that I hate. It occurred to me while standing there, cars whizzing by, that the day I marry is the day I’ll get hit and killed, probably by some driver who’s texting, or, likelier still, sexting. “He is survived by his husband, Hugh Hamrick,” the obituary will read, and before I’m even in my grave I’ll be rolling over in it.

That night at dinner, neither of us mentioned the previous evening’s conversation. We talked about this and that, our little projects, the lives of our neighbors, and then we retreated to different parts of the house, engaged, I suppose, our whole lives ahead of us.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Bernie and the Holy Father Print
Sunday, 27 September 2015 10:38

Galindez writes: "I just finished watching Pope Francis speak truth to power before a joint session of Congress. I, like Bernie Sanders, was filled with hope as the Holy Father spoke of the accomplishments of Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. While I also deeply admire Dr. King and Abraham Lincoln, it's not as frequent for world leaders to hold up the lives of Day and Merton."

Pope Francis waves to a crowd from the speaker's balcony at the Capitol on Thursday. In his speech, Francis lauded two Catholics: Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters/Landov)
Pope Francis waves to a crowd from the speaker's balcony at the Capitol on Thursday. In his speech, Francis lauded two Catholics: Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters/Landov)


Bernie and the Holy Father

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

27 September 15

 

Bernie and the Pope

Bernie Sanders spoke about being moved by Pope Francis at the Latino Heritage Festival in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday, September 26th.

Posted by Reader Supported News on Saturday, September 26, 2015

just finished watching Pope Francis speak truth to power before a joint session of Congress. I, like Bernie Sanders, was filled with hope as the Holy Father spoke of the accomplishments of Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. While I also deeply admire Dr. King and Abraham Lincoln, it's not as frequent for world leaders to hold up the lives of Day and Merton.

When I was a young man searching for what I believed in, I met Phillip Berrigan. During preparations for one of the demonstrations I participated in with Berrigan and the Atlantic Life Community, he referred me to a book by Merton that I have to this day, “New Seeds of Contemplation.” I have never been a very religious person, like Merton I have always been searching for my mission in life and to be honest have probably not done a very good job of it. In “New Seeds of Contemplation,” Merton wrote: “Instead of hating the people you think are war-makers, hate the appetites and disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed – but hate these things in yourself, not in another.”

My commitment to nonviolence is based in those beliefs. I always try to take a step back and look at what another’s motives might be. Even if I believe another person is wrong, I try to understand that they may have motives they believe are just. I don’t always succeed, and have been known to place blame on people I disagree with, but Merton’s writing has influenced me to not always succumb to that weakness.

Thomas Merton himself called out evil in people. In a very famous quote from a letter he wrote to Ernesto Cardinal, a famous liberation theologian, Merton said, “The world is full of great criminals with enormous power, and they are in a death struggle with each other. It is a huge gang battle, using well-meaning lawyers and policemen and clergymen as their front, controlling papers, means of communication, and enrolling everybody in their armies.”

Merton saw the same injustice that Senator Sanders sees. I am drawn to support Senator Sanders because I believe he is committed to fighting for social justice. When Bernie went to Liberty College he told the crowd of mostly Evangelical Christians that, despite their differences, they could find common ground on issues of injustice. It is a rare thing for a leader to recognize the good in the opposition. That is why Senator Sanders has never run a negative ad in his political career. It is the greed, the tyranny, and the injustice that Senator Sanders is campaigning against, not the individual opponent. Even when Bernie calls someone out, as he has with Donald Trump, he calls out the actions not the individual.

I was not surprised when Bernie was pleased to hear the Pope praise the life’s work of Dorothy Day, the founder of Catholic Worker movement. I have worked with and have many friends who are Catholic Workers. Dorothy Day’s work is continuing today through some of the best people I have ever known. They dedicate their lives to serving and living in community with the poor. They also fight for peace and justice in their activism.

So when Bernie wrote, “The fact that the pope singled out Dorothy Day – a fierce advocate in the fight for economic justice ­­– as one of the leaders he admires most is quite remarkable. We are living in a nation which worships the acquisition of money and great wealth, but turns its back on those in need. We are admiring people with billions of dollars, while we ignore people who sleep out on the streets. That must end,” I gained even more faith in the man I hope will be our next President.

When Pope Francis told Congress, “If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort,” I thought, well the Pope just endorsed Bernie.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Kick Out the Kooks and Bigots Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 September 2015 08:05

Reich writes: "Following months of a Republican presidential primary filled with racial and ethnic bigotry, abject narcissism, and obscene amounts of campaign money, comes a Pope reminding us America has been a nation of tolerance, humility, and fairness."

Portrait, Robert Reich, August 16, 2009. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, August 16, 2009. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


Kick Out the Kooks and Bigots

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

27 September 15

 

’ve often been accused of being too optimistic, but consider:

Following months of a Republican presidential primary filled with racial and ethnic bigotry, abject narcissism, and obscene amounts of campaign money, comes a Pope reminding us America has been a nation of tolerance, humility, and fairness – and all but asking us to reject Trump, Carson, Huckabee, and the rest of the terrible lot.

After years of a growing civil war in the Republican Party between right-wing whackos and big-business conservatives, the GOP begins cracking up. The Speaker of the House resigns, big business Republicans are up in arms, and the rest of America sees just how phony and unprincipled the Republican Party has become.

Bernie Sanders continues to surge. (Yesterday I met with Latino and black students who told me more and more are watching his speeches on YouTube and backing him because he’s the only candidate who will make real change in America.)

The fight for a $15 minimum wage continues to gain ground. The NLRB has decided franchise workers can organize and negotiate with franchise owners. Courts across the land are siding with workers who have been misclassified as "independent contractors." Cooperative businesses and "B" corporations are thriving.

Okay, maybe I am being a bit too upbeat. We have a long way to go before remedying what’s wrong with America. But I've always held to Martin Luther King Jr.'s belief that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” I have enormous confidence in the basic decency of this land. History shows whenever Americans understand what we’re up against, we put ideology aside, roll up our sleeves, kick out the kooks and bigots, and get on with the hard task of making our economy and society work for the betterment of all.

I think the rightward tide that began with Ronald Reagan is now turning. What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Edward Snowden Inspires Global Treaty for Online Privacy Print
Sunday, 27 September 2015 08:04

Excerpt: "The documents leaked by Edward Snowden made crystal clear how far surveillance had gone off the rails in the United States. The same is true internationally."

The treaty would address privacy concerns globally. (photo: fStop Images/Epoxydude)
The treaty would address privacy concerns globally. (photo: fStop Images/Epoxydude)


Edward Snowden Inspires Global Treaty for Online Privacy

By David Miranda and Joseph Huff-Hannon, Rolling Stone

27 September 15

 

Activists hope to enshrine fundamental rights to privacy against illegal mass surveillance for people around the world

emember when John Oliver joked with Edward Snowden about the NSA's ability to collect dick pics? "The good news is there's no program named the Dick-Pic Program," the whistleblower reassured Oliver, and perhaps we should take that as some form of cold comfort.

The bad news is that two years after Snowden's leaks started ricocheting around the world, and despite some notable gains — a mass surveillance clause in the Patriot Act struck down, an ambitious new Internet Bill of Rights passed in Brazil — the surveillance state is fighting hard to hold on to the ability to vacuum up calls, emails and data on on all of us.

Last month a U.S. federal appeals court reversed a judge's order to stop the NSA from bulk collecting telephone data on hundreds of millions of Americans. Meanwhile, in Colombia, a recent investigation found intelligence agencies illegally collecting vast amounts of data on innocent citizens without judicial warrants, using American technology. And across the pond, UK intelligence services are lobbying hard for a new expanded "snoopers charter" to enshrine greater surveillance rights and data collection into law.

Dedicated program or not, that's a hell of a lot of dick pics sucked up by the surveillance state.

It's kind of funny, but not really. Because what we're watching is an entrenchment by governments across the world who, once they've developed a taste for the ever-expanding grab bag of affordable snooping technology, have no intention of kicking their mass surveillance habit.

It doesn't have to be like this. Whistleblowers who bravely show us how states work in the shadows are a public good, and the documents leaked by Edward Snowden made crystal clear how far surveillance had gone off the rails in the United States. The same is true internationally: Angela Merkel, Dilma Rousseff— nobody is safe and secure in their communications.

Now we have a chance to change this, on a global scale.

Looking at the arms trade for lessons in international regulation isn't an obvious place to start, but it's instructive. A global treaty to regulate an industry used to working in the shadows started out as a pie-in-the-sky idea, and the betting odds were slim. With arms pouring into war zones in Central America and elsewhere, leaving death and destruction in their wake, former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias wondered how the global arms trade, fueled by profit-hungry arms manufacturers, could ever be held to legally enforceable human rights standards?

Late last year and many battles (literal, rhetorical and political) later, Arias watched his idea became international law, in the landmark Arms Trade Treaty. Signed by more than 130 countries and ratified at the UN, the treaty is designed to make it more difficult for arms dealers to ship weapons to conflict zones rife with human rights abuses. The agreement is imperfect, with major arms-dealing nations like China and Russia opting out, but it's a massive step toward reigning in one of the shadiest businesses on the planet.

This is a case study the surveillance state may want to pay attention to, because lost causes turn into wins when people and movements set their hearts and minds on bringing about change. This week a group of privacy activists and campaigners, including the authors of this article, are previewing another pie-in-the-sky proposal — a global treaty to enshrine fundamental rights to privacy against illegal mass surveillance. The idea took flight in the wake of the revelations by Edward Snowden, whose work inspired the proposal, and it feels as urgent as ever given that governments large and small continue to be addicted to the cheap thrill of illegal mass surveillance.

Why a a global treaty? Because surveillance is abstract until it's personal. A drop of inspiration for the treaty came from the 2013 arrest of one of us, David Miranda, by UK intelligence services at Heathrow Airport, in an act of retaliation against the Snowden leaks. As the scope and scale of the snooping kept making headlines, and Snowden's initial temporary visa ran out the clock in Moscow, the two of us worked together on a campaign with global civic network Avaaz to push the government of Brazil — one of the more outspoken governments on the issue — to grant Snowden asylum there.

But it soon became clear that despite president Rousseff's public bluster against the NSA (her own calls were intercepted by the agency, it was revealed), it was going to be politically impossible for Brazil to go out on a limb on its own. With the mass surveillance genie so far out of the bottle, no single government is equipped to go up against it, much less set protocols for the protection of whistleblowers who reveal surveillance or other government crimes. A problem of this global scale requires a global response — an international legal framework to protect all of our privacy.

Wishful thinking? Maybe. But the idea is incredibly popular. When polled, majorities worldwide say they want something done to protect citizens against mass surveillance, and tech giants like Apple and IBM are already way ahead of the curve, encrypting user communications to protect against government snooping. The core principles of a treaty are already the topic of serious conversation at the United Nations; last month the UN's new special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci, spoke on the need for a Geneva Convention-style law to safeguard our data and combat the threat of surveillance.

A draft of a treaty is circulating to a handful of sympathetic governments already, and in the coming weeks and months it will be circulated among other experts and civil society groups, to build out a bulletproof document. Last week author Naomi Klein even passed a copy to the pope's office (the two are now climate change activism allies), and the office has requested a copy in Spanish for review. The pontiff has a lot on his plate these days, but this issue strikes close to home; after all, the NSA spied on his communications during the Vatican conclave that elevated him to the papacy.

Papal blessing or not, the cat is out of the bag on this proposal — and soon, hopefully, the NSA and its partners in global surveillance will no longer get a pass on hoovering up our data, dick pics and otherwise.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Republicans and Democrats Agree: End Mass Incarceration Print
Sunday, 27 September 2015 08:02

Chettiar writes: "Research has conclusively shown that mass incarceration is not necessary to keep down crime. While bipartisan agreement on this has grown in recent years, 2015 has seen a number of leading politicians speak out on the justice system's failures."

CNN Republican Debate, at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, September 16. (photo: CNN)
CNN Republican Debate, at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, September 16. (photo: CNN)


Republicans and Democrats Agree: End Mass Incarceration

By Inimai Chettiar, Al Jazeera America

27 September 15

 

The election should put criminal justice reform at the top of the national agenda

ast week’s second Republican presidential debate demonstrated a remarkable shift in the politics of crime and punishment.

At the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a building named for one of the country’s most staunch advocates for the war on drugs, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — the son of another drug war backer — stated on national television that he had smoked marijuana. He didn’t give any qualifications; he didn’t claim to have disliked it, done only it once or not inhaled (though he did apologize to his mother).

More noteworthy, Bush and other leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination used the debate stage to call for criminal justice reform. Businesswoman Carly Fiorina was perhaps the most strident, noting that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Libertarian favorite Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul sharply but expectedly called for more rehabilitation and less incarceration for drug crimes, and other candidates, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Bush, touted the benefits of drug courts and treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Christie called the war on drugs a “failure.” Implicit in this discussion was not only agreement that we have too many people in prison but also a competition for the most effective solution.

On the other side of the political spectrum, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are beginning to unveil their criminal justice plans. Clinton called for an end to mass incarceration in her first speech as a candidate. Just last week, Sanders unveiled a plan to ban private prisons and reinstate federal parole.

This is an encouraging change from past presidential elections. At least since Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign, politicians have tried to outdo one another as to who could be harder on crime and criminals. Perhaps most infamously, George H.W. Bush‘s Willie Horton ad helped secure his election by pushing the narrative that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was to blame for the release of a violent criminal into society. The ad sealed into conventional wisdom that politicians must be tough on crime to win elections.

This logic wasn’t unique to conservatives. Bill Clinton promised harsh responses to crime during his 1992 campaign and delivered two years later with his crime bill, a piece of legislation that contributed to today’s mass incarceration problem by giving states billions of dollars to increase their prison populations and expanding federal three-strikes and mandatory minimum laws. By now, even Clinton has stated that the bill “made the [mass incarceration] problem worse.”

Research has conclusively shown that mass incarceration is not necessary to keep down crime. While bipartisan agreement on this has grown in recent years, 2015 has seen a number of leading politicians speak out on the justice system’s failures. In April, 10 presidential candidates from across the political spectrum wrote essays arguing for an end to mass incarceration in a Brennan Center book, “Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice.” This summer President Barack Obama became the first president to visit a federal prison — an opportunity he used to urge justice reform — although there’s still more he could do even without Congress’ help, such as ending expanding clemency for nonviolent drug offenders.

We’re still a long way from implementing the large-scale reforms needed to meaningfully roll back mass incarceration. Much of what the candidates have offered so far — more body cameras, police training, drug courts, reforming civil asset forfeiture, legalized medical marijuana — won’t go nearly far enough. We need bigger, bolder solutions.

Treatment instead of incarceration for those with drug and mental health issues is a start. Laws should be changed to prioritize treatment in such cases, along with other alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent crimes. Probation, community service, electronic monitoring and psychiatric or medical treatment have all been proved to reduce recidivism while being less expensive than incarceration.

Also, the U.S. must reduce or eliminate overly harsh mandatory minimum sentences. Bipartisan bills to do so have been introduced in Congress, and presidential candidates should register their support. Of particular note, the Smarter Sentencing Act would roll back mandatory minimums, decreasing the federal prison population and setting an example for states. At a time when nearly half of state prisoners are behind bars for nonviolent crimes and half of federal prisoners are serving for drug crimes, it’s time for a broad reconsideration of whether long prison terms should be the punishment of first resort.

Foremost among any reforms should be eliminating financial incentives that fuel mass incarceration. As it stands, the way federal funds flow to states and cities encourages them to prioritize more arrests and convictions even if there is no public safety rationale. A bill that provides federal dollars to states to reduce their prison populations while keeping down crime would be valuable and could appeal to both conservatives and progressives. It would likely have a far broader impact than Sanders’ plan to close private prisons, which hold only 8 percent of the nation’s prisoners.

Mass incarceration is a pressing national issue and should be given the attention it deserves in this election. What is most important is that political leaders — including presidential candidates — shift from broad rhetorical support for change to public endorsement of clear policy solutions. And voters will have to hold them accountable for what they do in office.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Next > End >>

Page 2323 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN