My question: why is cannabis illegal when both the politicians who make the laws and the folks who elect them use it? With all the network coverage on Michael Phelps and his astounding record-setting eight consecutive Olympic-sized bong hits, it’s about time we ask ourselves whether the drug laws in this country have kept up with the drug culture in this country.

Unfortunately, this is a question with a long history in the United States. As early as 1914, laws in Utah and New York included cannabis on their list of prohibited drugs, and by 1931, twenty-two states had enacted similar laws. As the temperance movement swelled in our country, culminating in the Volstead Act and the 18^th amendment, the anti-drug movement followed suit. The Boggs Act of 1951 and other subsequent legislation throughout the remainder of the century gave rise to the myths that using marijuana lead to anger, violence, insanity, and of course the use of other, more potent drugs.

Since its introduction into American society, however, marijuana, as a drug, has always been a drug of lower- to middle-class citizens. Polls conducted between 1878 and 1924 showed that there was little racial disparity in use, similar use between males and females, and a strong middle-class presence.  Today, marijuana is a common man’s drug, available at street corners, sleazy dives, strip malls and coffee shops across the country.

It is a trend across the globe, however, to demonize and outlaw the common drug of the working class.  In 17^th century England, parliament chose to ban the sale and consumption of gin – a drink seen as a lower class drink, making men prone to violence and insanity – while beverages like beer and whiskey went untouched.  Likewise, current federal punishments for possession are vastly different between cocaine and its cheaper, more accessible cousin, crack.  Arguments regarding the oppression of poor Americans or growing racial tensions because of the differences in sentencing between cocaine and crack are beginning to shed light on the drug culture here in America, and what we think is acceptable.

It is important to note what is deemed acceptable by the voting American public – and, in fact, the law itself.  There is no doubt in my mind that the American public, in it’s might and wisdom, would ostracize and demonize a politician who admitted to stealing a car in his youth, or robbing a bank, or using crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, PCP or other traditionally poor, urban drugs.

However, we continue to elect and appoint those who can be called criminals under the current system of drug laws – like the criminals listed above.  This shows, frankly, that Americans are not as worried about the corruption of society that marijuana allegedly creates as our politicians and our laws lead us to believe.

Why do we forgive our politicians of their marijuana use and allow them to go scot-free while lower- and middle-class Americans pay fines and go to jail for it? Since we continue to elect leaders who have admitted to committing a crime, it is time to revisit those crimes and amend our laws to adapt to modern societal views. Perhaps the corruption of our society and our republic should not be blamed on marijuana, but rather our own, public fear of working class people enjoying the same freedom endowed to those in the leisure class.

Now is the most important time to think about politics, government, and what we, as citizens, can accomplish.

This is, as you may have heard, the beginning of a historic chapter in our nation’s history, and you are living smack dab in the middle of it. President-Elect Barack Obama’s landslide victory is only one facet of the dynamic change we saw on November 4. More Americans voted in this election than in any election before it, more citizens registered to vote than ever before, and early voting and absentee ballots were at all-time highs. The Democratic Party, as a whole, dominated this race from local town and city elections right up to Capitol Hill and the White House – a fact that could alter not just the next four years in Washington, but the next 50 or more years in America.

Obama made a lot of promises over the course of the campaign. His speeches were inspirational, his election was historical…but what about that $4,000 you promised college students? What about those tax cuts for the middle class? Will he deliver on his promises of health care and going after Osama bin Laden? These are questions that every American should be asking over the coming months (regardless of how you voted).

With the balance of power askew in favor of the Democrats, how can we be sure that liberal agendas and personal vendettas won’t get in the way of what’s best for the country? How will Americans stand up and voice their concerns if and when something gets pushed through the Democratically-led Congress, straight to the Democratic White House that is not in the country’s best interest? Likewise, how will Democrats handle bigger issues, in these partisan times, if the Republicans attempt to filibuster?

It is our responsibility, our duty as American citizens to hold our leaders accountable to the promises they make. Our government is designed for accountability – every few years we get the chance to overthrow any leader who is not holding up their end of the social contract. However, it is the time in between elections that our responsibility to make sure our politicians are being responsible becomes that much more important. But how?

Keep an open ear and an open mind, think about the issues, and write to your local, state, and federal politicians when you think something is amiss. Write to the media, organize events, and exercise your right to voice your dissent. As Thomas Jefferson said, “When a people fears it’s government, there is tyranny; when a government fears it’s people, there is liberty.” Ensure your liberty by exercising it.

Both campaigns are gearing up for the long haul ahead, the big final stretch before September 4^th, when the media lets us know that we have only two months left.  Then it’s only 30 days until October 4^th, the last home stretch before the last week of campaigning, and then October 28^th, and then finally November 4^th.  Then we sit around until January waiting for “Dubya” to let go of the reins of his train-wreck of a presidency, and then we do our best to look forward.

Since both Barack Obama and John McCain have been trying to see who’s taller, in respect to who can change this country for the better, looking forward doesn’t sound so bad.  The issue is that for the next 99 days, both candidates will have to show Americans what they have to look forward to – whether or not they win.

What do we have to look forward to? Both candidates have issued their plans to tackle some major issues in this country, from the economy and gas prices to the war in Iraq and the showdown in Iran. Both candidates talk about change, and both argue that the other is the wrong kind of change (or, simply not a change at all).

What hasn’t changed, however, is how the end message.  Sure, the two major candidates have pushed their own agendas, but the end message is this:  Barack Obama is inexperienced, naive, and an unsuitable choice for president, and John McCain is an old, war-mongering, Bush-style, typical Washington insider who is just unsuitable for the presidency, so vote for the other guy.

Unfortunately, in American politics, the common message in most political campaigns is “Vote for this guy, and your lives will be caught up in a mire of debt, war, disease, famine, pestilence, etc, or you will pay out the ying-yang in taxes, or you will be trapped in a room full of chocolate chip cookies without a glass of milk…” – you get the idea.

What ever happened to voting for the candidate you feel has the best qualities, qualification, charisma, experience, etc., to lead the nation? When did Americans start voting against candidates, rather than for them?

Let’s look past the negative campaigning, the swift-boating, the mudslinging and the muck-raking to get down to what the true issues are, and pick a candidate based on their ability to address those issues.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, often called “Madiba” (an honorary title given to him by clan elders) in South Africa, celebrates his 90^th birthday today. He was the first fully-represented democratically-elected President of South Africa, and was a strong opponent of the apartheid system there. He was imprisoned from 1964 to 1990 for his part in armed conflict against the South African regime in the 1960′s. His time in prison was spend learning through correspondence with the University of London, and performing hard labor in a lime quarry. He was released in 1990, wrote his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, and was elected President in 1994. Since that time, he has won over 100 awards and honors, including a Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent work against apartheid, worked in combating HIV/AIDS and poverty, and promoted the Olympic Games.

As I was listening to NPR this morning (Morning Edition, for my fellow NPR fans,) I heard Mandela’s speech given at his trial in 1964, crackling from age and burning with passion:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

These few lines give credence to the necessity of equality, from South Africa to New Orleans, and the importance of keeping those ideals alive. In our own country, however, the issue of race is still a touchy subject; one that even the most intrepid of columnists are hesitant to bring up.

Polls by Newsweek, Gallup, CNN, et al. all show that race relations are viewed differently between blacks and whites in America: white respondents felt that relations were much better than the degree to which their black cohorts responded. This, unfortunately, leads to only one conclusion: We’ve accepted the idea of equality, but we still have not achieved it.

For the first time in our history, these past few months have seen the most diverse group of candidates to ever compete for the highest office of our national government, and, for the first time, an African-American man is the presumptive nominee for a major political party.

Across major news networks, the question has come up: Is America ready for a black president? Race has been brought up numerous times, from primary season to the general election campaigns, and still we ask the question: Are we ready? Are we ready to embrace the ideals described in our Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal?” Are we ready to celebrate diversity while promoting unity? Are we ready to ascribe ourselves to the vision that great men like Mandela lived?

I am not endorsing the idea of voting for a candidate based on race, or gender, or, frankly, anything other than their qualifications to perform the duties of the office. In contrast, I entreat you to look beyond racial boundaries, beyond gender, beyond age and any factor other than the candidate’s ability to lead, and do your part to promote equality between all people.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Mandela, and thank you.

Interesting…Last I checked, Bush was against sitting down with Iran.

But, more importantly for the Barack Obama and the Democratic Party is what this does for him. Understand that William Burns will meet with an Iranian official. There are no conditions to this meeting. Wait a second…This reminds me of an ad that John McCain had appearing on a lot of major ad networks. Actually, you might have seen it here.

The ad states: “Is it OK to Unconditionally Meet With Anti-American Foreign Leaders? Yes or No.” Looking at that ad, it suggests that it is horrible to sit down and have diplomatic conversations with anyone that does not follow our rules. Basically, if you don’t agree with America, we won’t sit down and talk with you. John McCain, time and time again, was on Obama’s case for this. But, Senator Obama continued to say “it’s good to sit down and talk. We need to talk. Diplomacy before war.”

And it seems that Obama’s arguments have worked. Because John McCain stepped behind George Bush on the notion of having no sit down with Iran, McCain is now in a situation where he needs to walk carefully. If he suddenly says, “Yeah, let’s meet with Iran!” then he looks like a flip flop. But, more importantly, it is ammunition for the Obama campaign to say, “Look guys, he’s following Bush some more…Do we really want a third term?”

However, Americans are afraid of a war with Iran, so if McCain doesn’t do something and continues with his argument that we can’t sit down with a nation without some sort of conditions, he can come off as a war-monger and that will hurt him too.

So what does McCain do?

What he does will be incredibly important. Despite how he responds, this hurts his campaign. He has made himself out to be the firm, erect man who will not back down to America’s opponents. We don’t meet with enemies without them following certain conditions. Now that Bush has done it, it suddenly boosts Barack Obama. How McCain responds will be very important.

America is tired of war. America is tired of high gas prices. And America knows that if we go to war with Iran, we get more death and higher gas prices. These sit downs will help America, but it will McCain. What will he do? We’ll have to wait and see. This is great news, though, for Obama. Score one for diplomacy!

It becomes a boost for Obama.

Last week, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suggested that it was time for Americans to develop a time table for withdrawal. This is great news for those that think that the War in Iraq is a bad idea. But…It’s not great news for everyone. Here’s why.

For Barack Obama, he has been saying for a long time that he wants to get out of Iraq. He suggested throughout the entire primary that within sixteen months, we would be out of Iraq. That’s good. That’s very good. Americans are fed up with this war. I’m fed up with this war. It was a war that was unnecessary and now that we have the opportunity to pull out, we have to.

But for John McCain, this is bad news. He has time and time again used the War in Iraq as one of his biggest issues. “We will win!” he proclaims. Well that’s great, but if they want us out, we have to get out. But when you base your campaign on victory in Iraq, it can hurt you when the Prime Minister of Iraq says “time to go.”

So, what does this mean?

It means that now is the time to focus on what we need to focus on. America cannot become an imperialistic country. We are not Rome. As much as people suggest that we are like Rome, we are not. We cannot afford to invade countries. We are so many trillions of dollars in debt because of this war and we need to stop spending it.

I pose a question to President Bush and Senator McCain: are you conquerors or are you liberators? Do you want to be at war to expand American territory or to ‘do great things for the Iraqi people?’ If your answer to those two questions are the latter, then you must understand it is time to withdrawal.

Fortunately, one of the candidates is not a war monger and understands the need to withdrawal. Barack Obama seems to be focusing his attention now on the need to withdrawal. A time table is necessary.

With the Iraqis saying it’s time to go, I say it’s time to go. And this is only going to help Barack Obama. If he can focus in on how the Iraqis are saying that it is time to go and if he can really expand that, it will definitely make him look like the less war hungry of the two candidates. And at a time when the economy is in the toilet, that’s definitely something that will make people happy.

So, President Bush and John McCain…Are you conquerors?

I spent some time looking at some polls and some graphs this evening and I began to realize that there was some very interesting things that were happening in the political world.  First and foremost, I realized that according to polls, every single state that John Kerry won in 2004, Barack Obama was currently leading in.  That’s great news except for one problem: John Kerry lost.  But, this is 2008, not 2004.  Different polls show something else appearing.

Six of George Bush’s states in 2004 are not in John McCain’s hands.  The states that have suddenly flip flopped from Republican to Democrat are: New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio.  When looking at how many electoral votes that is, we see something that, for Democrats, is very exciting.  John Kerry won 251 electoral votes in 2004.  Add those six states and you now have 316 electoral votes for Barack Obama.  Last I checked, all you needed was 270 to win.

However, this isn’t a for certain for Barack Obama.  It’s only July 1st…The way I see it, he has quite a few more months to potentially screw up, so he needs to be careful not to get arrogant.  The interesting thing, though, is his battle strategy.  I wanted to touch on that a little bit…

According to him, he intends on campaigning in all 50 states.  That’s great, but it’s very costly.  But then I realized that his tactic was to try to outspend John McCain.  It’s going to be a tough one, though, especially since he is not taking money from special interest groups and McCain is.  The way I see his tactic working is this:

He has no intention of winning in very red states.  He knows that he cannot win in them, but is going to spend money anyways.  By doing this, John McCain will have to spend money in those states as well.  The less money that McCain has for swing states, the better the chances that Obama has to win the general election.  I see it working.  If Barack Obama can fundraise and raise enough money to fight hard in all of these states then I see him being a very formidable threat to John McCain in states that, in previous years, Republicans could take advantage of.

However, in the end, only one thing matters: who can get to 270 first.  A full, 50-state war for votes?  It’s going to be interesting.