Meals From The Marketplace

            Sarah Palin is riding high on her current book tour.  The book, “Going Rogue,” is not the reason.  Ms. Palin could have published a book of children’s rhymes and still gotten the same reception she is getting at her non-campaign stops (she isn’t running for anything, and, in fact, isn’t even an elected office holder at this point) across the heartland of America.

            Pundits of all political stripes this side of Fox News are convinced she has reached her high water mark.  They see her drifting into a Dan Quayle state of political nothingness as soon as the excitement of her best-selling “tell all” memoir wears off.  They are wrong.

            The “Palin Phenomenon” is not going away anytime soon.  In fact, despite every practical reason why she should not get even close to a presidential nomination in 2012, the odds at this point favor just such a possibility.

            Ms. Palin is viewed as a joke by the mainstream media, and by every traditional measurement, she should be.  Her campaign for vice-president would have been a complete embarrassment were it not for the instant love affair she formed with her constituency.  That constituency might best be described as a mix of lower middle class soccer moms, mid-American Christian fundamentalists, and ultra-right rank-and-file Republicans.

            Those folks flocked to Palin as if she were the next best thing to the second coming (of Christ), an event many may secretly believe she pre-ordains.  They refuse to see the woman as she is, instead envisioning her as a modern-day Ronald Reagan (another icon about whom the reality is far less rosy than the image) who has come, as they would assert Reagan did thirty years earlier, to save the country from a Godless socialist agenda, promulgated by a cabal of anti-Americans.

            In other words, the Palin troops (already more than willing to do whatever they need to do to get her elected) are your common everyday tea-baggers: political know-nothings, who are mad as Hell and aren’t going to take it anymore.  That kind of passion is gold in politics, as someone named Barack Obama proved only a little more than a year ago.

            Absent that passion, the assertion that Palin has no political future would be entirely correct.  Consider the argument that the pundits make. 

1.  She has shown no ability to grasp the major substantive issues of the day, and, from all indications, she has no interest in doing so.  Over a year after her unveiling as a governor who thought she had foreign policy expertise because she could see Russia from her state, she still doesn’t show any more understanding of the world scene. 

In a recent interview with Sean Hannity (hardly a hostile questioner), she continually confused Iran with Iraq.  (Hannity ignored the mistakes, rather than calling attention to them by correcting her.)

2.  Midway through her first term as a governor, she resigned, incomprehensibly claiming she was not a quitter as she did so.  That kind of political suicide makes “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore” look like a brilliant strategic statement.

3.  She is still engaged in a silly finger-pointing exercise with members of the McCain staff.  These attacks are aimed at folks most people have never heard of.  They do nothing to enhance Palin’s status within her party.  Quite the contrary, they suggest she would have great difficulty assembling a professional political team.

4.  The insiders in her own party see her as unelectable.  They don’t trust her (the maverick label can work both ways), and they don’t want to let her take their party even further into the abyss.  They can be counted on to mount a fervent “anyone but Palin” campaign, to avoid letting her take control of their party.

5.  Democrats would pounce all over her in a general campaign.  Were she running for president, the gloves would come off.  Instead of treating her with bemused respect, as they did in the last election, they would come at her with everything available (and there would be plenty) to show she was completely unqualified to have her finger on the nuclear button. 

            But passion counts for a lot in politics, especially when the politician eliciting that passion is loaded with charisma, as Palin most definitely is. 

            So, what’s the likely scenario leading to a Palin presidential nomination in 2012?  It starts with a continuing economic crisis, or at least an economy that can be interpreted as being in deep trouble.  If unemployment is still hovering near 10% two years from now, the number of disgruntled voters (even a large swath of ’08 Obama voters) will be ripe for the plucking by a Palin insurgency.

            The initial viability of a Palin candidacy would probably be dependent on the 2010 mid-term election results.  Ms. Palin would need to support a handful of upstart nominees who wrested Congressional seats from Democrats: the kind of wins that would get national headlines.  If she were seen on election night and in the days thereafter standing with anti-establishment, ultra-right victors whom she had supported, her political stock would suddenly soar.

            It would be propelled by the absence of any strong mainstream contenders within the Republican Party.  That eventuality is not hard to envision.  Recall that John McCain emerged as the nominee last year despite having far from commanding support within his party.  He won the nomination primarily because no one else claimed the party’s base.  Palin, engendering a lot more passion than McCain ever did, would be much more likely to jump ahead in an otherwise lackluster field.

            Of course, this quasi-prognostication could prove to be laughable as events unfold in the months ahead.  Ms. Palin may well continue to slip on her own ineptitude as a politician.  Ironically, though, the more she slips, the more endeared she becomes to that angry, know-nothing base. 

             And if that base continues to grow, if, perchance, President Obama through his own slips (for which the electorate will be a lot less understanding) increases the size of that base, then all bets are off, no matter what the pundits are currently claiming.

            In his sixth major pseudo-documentary film, Michael Moore essentially attempts to summarize the underlying thesis of all of the others.  “Capitalism: A Love Story” is anything but an ode to the American form of the economic system of the title.  It is, rather, a loosely scripted and altogether mean-spirited screed in which Moore shows his disdain for anything that rewards human greed.

             The problem with the film is not in its entertainment value.  As with all Moore polemics (including his several books, which largely speak to the same theme), this film is all about finding a way to make misery funny. 

              Moore is nothing if not a consummate entertainer, and, while his shtick (seeking out the “bad guys,” microphone in hand, to try to get them to “confess” their sins) has grown just a little tired since he first introduced it in “Roger and Me” two decades ago, it still works fairly well, even when he tries to corral Wall Street traders as they hustle out of the New York Stock Exchange.

             As with most of Moore’s cinematic “studies” of a subject, he is all over the place, both figuratively and literally.  In “Capitalism,” he is on Wall Street one minute and in D.C the next.  He rails against inside traders and on-the-take politicians.  He despises corporate greed and human greed.  He uses the down-trodden and those dealt a cruel hand by fate as props, including the weeping widow and the homeless family as victims of the nasty system he scorns.

             It is easy to see why Moore is despised by those on the political right, although in this film he is no less hard on many on the left.  Connecticut’s Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, in particular, gets hit very hard for an alleged ethics violation that may have bordered on criminal conduct, if the charges Moore presents are true.  (Dodd claimed it was an innocent, albeit stupid, mistake when it was first revealed in the mainstream media.)

             Moore never pulls a punch.  He’s like a heavyweight boxer who only knows how to throw haymakers.  When they connect, those blows are potent.  When they miss, you can chuckle, shrug, or just dismiss him entirely.  Too often, in this film, you’re only left with those three options.

             In a large sense, Moore misses his mark because he mistakes what he should be aiming at.  It isn’t capitalism, per se, that is the problem; it’s capitalism in twenty-first century America that is. 

              Stated more precisely, it’s capitalism cum corporatism that is the evil Moore’s wrath should be directed at.

             Capitalism, lest we forget (as Moore apparently has), is what provided many Americans with a better life in the years following the Industrial Revolution and, even more meaningfully, in the decades between World War II and the Viet Nam War.  The ability of many entrepreneurs to benefit from their own enterprises during those years led to an explosion of wealth that elevated the lifestyles of a large percentage of American workers as well as the owners of the businesses in which they worked.

             When it is thoughtfully regulated and controlled, capitalism can provide an effective means for satisfying individual greed, which, lest we forget the many failures of socialist “experiments,” is an endemic part of the human condition that must be acknowledged and appeased.  “Keeping up with the Joneses,” was the catch phrase of the 1950s, not because the Joneses were evil, but because everyone wanted a larger piece of the pie, and if the Joneses could get it, why shouldn’t we (everyone else)?

             But somewhere along the way, capitalism in America got twisted.  We don’t talk about keeping up with the Joneses anymore, because the focus of our current form of capitalism isn’t on the individual.  It’s on the corporation. 

              Thus, we see Congress passing laws, not based on what is good for the consumer (or the worker) but based on what is good for mega-corporations.  And they, in turn, serve only themselves (i.e. their top managers and corporate executives first and foremost, their shareholders almost as an after-thought, and the public only if it can’t be manipulated into submission in most cases).

             Freedom of choice (for consumers), a key element of capitalism at its best, has been replaced over the last forty years with freedom from restraint (for corporations). “Don’t tread on me,” is much more likely now to be a cry from corporate board rooms than from individual citizens.

             If Moore had approached his subject from this perspective, he would have focused on the strange legal construct that American capitalism now serves.  Think for a moment about the nature and existence of a corporation.

             It is, by law, given all the rights and immunities of a real person, with precious few of the concomitant responsibilities.  It cannot be thrown in jail, and any and all efforts to punish it are met with cries that the innocent (shareholders and workers) will be the ones who suffer most if it is (an often all-too-true fact).

             And the larger a corporation gets, the more indestructible it becomes (as witness the bailouts for the largest banks and automotive companies just this year).  Corporations largely control our legislative agendas.  They donate heavily to politicians who desperately need their “contributions” to attain (and stay in) office, and they are most effective at lobbying Congress and state legislatures, largely because they can afford permanent staff for just that purpose.

             Corporations increasingly control the information Americans receive via their news media.  You think you get all the news, fair and balanced, that’s fit to print?  Check out the ownership of your favorite news source.

             Put it all together, and you have a system that worships at the feet of institutions that care only about themselves, that seek to control what the masses want, that ignore the needs of society and the future of the planet, that, in sum, represent the worst that humanity can be.

             We live in the Golden Age of the Corporation.  It is the fatted calf of our decadent society.  Corporatism is the evil.  Capitalism is just the vehicle.

            Nine years ago, a young Sacramento Kings star, Jason Williams, was suspended at the start of the NBA season for testing positive for marijuana.  Williams was a big fan favorite at the time, and his suspension (the Kings were then a legitimate title contender) was a blow to the team’s chances in the upcoming season.

            I wrote a column at the time about the incident, including in it the various reactions that were prevalent in the Sacramento community.  In the pre-9/11 world of the year 2000, steroids had not yet emerged as the major issue they were soon to become, and marijuana use was still a significant federal crime, in spite of the passage by California voters four years earlier of the nation’s first “medical marijuana” law.  (The same kind of law, permitting the use of marijuana with a health care professional’s authorization to combat the effects of illness or disability, has since been enacted in twelve other states.)

            In the years since, the world has changed dramatically (just compare security at airports then and now if you need to be reminded), and views on marijuana use have changed perceptibly (with occasional news of use by professional athletes more likely to elicit a yawn than the community outrage that accompanied the news of Jason Williams’ use).

            We know more about the effects of marijuana now than we did in 2000, but we still know (or acknowledge) precious little.  Back in 2000, as I documented in my column at the time, the revelation that Williams was a “doper” led some to attribute the excessive number of turnovers he was inclined to commit to his use of the drug.  Others (albeit far fewer) opined that in moderation the drug is no more harmful than a six-pack of beer.

            Around the same time as the Williams suspension, a study reported in the Journal of Immunology concluded that smoking marijuana may put one at greater risk of contracting lung cancer than smoking tobacco and that the major psychoactive component of “dope,” tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), may promote the growth of other tumors as well.  (Studies since then have linked smoking the drug to cancers of the mouth and throat.)  The report, based on a study by the Jonsson Cancer Center at UCLA, raised significant questions about contrary claims that the use of marijuana may actually be desirable on medical grounds in certain instances.

            With so much controversy continuing to surround this most ubiquitous of drugs (the word “weed” is certainly descriptive of its availability if not its effect), and with the Obama Justice Department recently announcing it will no longer prosecute medical marijuana users in states (like California) where such use has been legalized, it’s probably time to try, yet again, to shed a little light on the drug of choice of so many superstar athletes (and regular folks, too). 

            First, a little history: Marijuana (which is derived from the dried leaves and flowering tops of the hemp plant) has been around for a long time.  In fact, for thousands of years it has been used as both a medicine and an intoxicant in many parts of the world.  Laws against the use of the drug have existed for not quite as long.  In the United States, state and local laws prohibiting its possession were first enacted in the early 1900′s.  The first federal law against it was passed in 1937. 

            Dope use in the U.S. was “discovered” by the beat generation (its virtues were extolled by the likes of Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg) in the 1950′s, but it was during the anti-war movement and the sexual revolution of the late 1960′s when grass became something of a social phenomenon.  It was first adopted by hippies, who “dropped out” by getting stoned, and then became part of the scene at rock concerts (think Woodstock), before it finally found what seemed to be a permanent home on just about every college campus this side of Bob Jones University.  And, as those college students graduated and moved into mainstream society, they brought their dope with them, leading to pot-parties and other forms of casual use among many young (and, with time, not-so-young) middle-class couples.

            And then came the “Just Say No” campaign led by Nancy Reagan, which seemed born of the rather retro idea that marijuana was indeed a “gateway” drug, meaning that it led, inevitably, to more serious abuses (with cocaine and heroin being the most commonly mentioned).  As a direct result, for a number of years marijuana use may have leveled off (actual figures and statistics are somewhat problematic, since survey results on this question may not be reliable).  With the emergence of the Millenials (of either the Gen-X or Gen-Y variety), however, the drug seems to be enjoying a resurgence, and its use and acceptance now may be higher (pardon the pun) than ever.

            The strain of dope that is smoked by current users bears little resemblance to the relatively innocuous green leaves that stuffed many a joint during the “make love, not war” period of its former heyday.  In response to the tremendous demand that exists, growers (annual revenue from this underground economy is estimated to be in the billions of dollars in California alone) have become highly sophisticated in their methods, creating crops that are bud-laden and resin-heavy.  The THC concentration in these new and improved strains of the plant produces far more intense and sustained “highs” than boomers got from much greater quantities of the stuff a generation ago.

            And what, exactly, is that “high” and what makes it so appealing?  Is this drug capable of altering consciousness or of creating a physical addiction?  Can it assist those suffering with disease or increase the risk of life-threatening illnesses?  Does it enhance one’s perceptions or dull one’s senses? Is it the path to enlightenment or the road to ruin?  What is the truth about this much maligned, misunderstood, mysterious drug?

            According to the most currently-available figures, over a half million Americans are regularly incarcerated on illegal drug charges.  Of this number, approximately twenty percent are imprisoned for violating marijuana laws.  The annual cost of incarcerating these “criminals” is in excess of ten billion dollars! (Obviously, as a national policy, we take the issue of drug abuse very seriously.) 

            Here is a little relevant information (compiled in a 2000 report by the Justice Policy Institute, an organization committed to reducing incarceration for all crimes) to place this “primer on pot” in perspective: In 1986, 31 out of every 100,000 young people were in state prisons for drug offenses.  By 1996, that figure had risen to 122 per 100,000.  (More recent figures are not available, but are unlikely to be any lower.)  Not surprisingly, states with the highest rates of imprisonment, the Institute’s study found, also had the highest rates of drug use. 

            So, what have we here?  More than a full generation after it was popularized by the counter-culture movement of the sixties, marijuana continues to confound and perplex our society, even as it now enjoys perhaps its greatest degree of popularity amongst the mainstream of today’s youth and continues to be enjoyed (albeit perhaps not as frequently) by aging “baby boomers.”  On the one hand, pot is reviled as a “gateway” drug, while on the other, it is deemed a social alternative to alcohol, producing a much less dangerous and much more enjoyable “buzz.”

            Herewith then, some facts, scientific and medical findings, and “expert” opinions on the dangers and delights of the ubiquitous weed:

            o Marijuana does not produce a physical addiction.  Unlike tobacco, which contains the addictive chemical nicotine, and unlike heroin and cocaine, the repeated use of which leads to severe symptoms of withdrawal, thereby creating a physical need for the drugs, marijuana is “safe,” in that one will not become physically dependent on the drug.  But …

            o Marijuana use can most definitely create a psychological need, wherein the user becomes “hooked” on the desire for a high.  (More on this point in a minute.)  This more subtle effect may be irrelevant to the social user, but it is reason enough for concern in the minds of policy-makers, because …

            o Marijuana is a mind-altering substance.  Inhalation (or ingestion) of it creates a “high” in which the user experiences an altered sense of reality.  The most common example of this fact is the “munchies,” which refers to the need that those high on marijuana develop for large quantities of food, preferably of the tasty/flavorful variety. 

            This heightened sensory awareness and sensitivity is one of the many pleasures attributed to the drug (and is also offered as a medical benefit in diseases such as cancer which rob sufferers of their appetites), but it also evidences the effect marijuana has on one’s mental alertness, because … 

            o There is clear evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) which suggests that the greater focus on the singular experiences or feelings that marijuana promotes also results in a loss of attention to everything and anything else.  Thus, those on a marijuana high will often exhibit short-term memory loss, as in forgetting where one put one’s car keys (even though they are often in a very obvious place) or neglecting to change a baby’s diaper (even though the little one is crying loudly in the next room) or failing to pass on an important phone message to a spouse (even though the user took the message only five minutes earlier).  Every regular marijuana user has experienced these or similar instances of “forgetfulness,” but they invariably accept the trade-off, because …

            o Marijuana users claim that they see things more clearly when they are stoned.  This aspect of the marijuana high may differ only in degree from that experienced by other hallucinogens (psilocybin, hashish, mescaline, LSD) or opiates (cocaine, heroin), but it is perhaps the single-most appealing effect of the drug.  In simplest terms, marijuana users experience a sharpened appreciation for whatever they choose to focus on while they are stoned.  Hence, users claim to have greater insights, more meaningful discussions, stronger emotional reactions, even better sex, while they are high.  But, as with all artificially-induced states, …

            o There is a sense of depression that follows the high, which has both a physical and an emotional component.  Physically, the body has had a workout of sorts (most evident in the increased heart rate users experience) which is followed by a sense of lethargy that is palpable.  Emotionally, there is often a feeling of ennui, probably due to the “return to reality” that is perhaps similar to that experienced in returning from a vacation.  This depressed state passes quickly in most users, and some will claim they do not even experience it at all, but it can create the psychological dependency mentioned above.  And, too, …

            o There is now clear, scientific evidence, that marijuana is a carcinogen.  As reported recently in the Journal of Immunology, smoking three marijuana cigarettes (joints) is equivalent, in terms of subjecting one to the risk of lung cancer specifically and to the development of malignant tumors more generally, to smoking a pack of unfiltered tobacco cigarettes. 

            Of course, with today’s highly-developed strains of dope, no one needs to smoke even one joint to get as high as one could ever want to be, but with many young people developing significant tobacco habits to go along with their use of marijuana and with many also undoubtedly smoking marijuana in far greater quantities than necessary to get high, the health factor cannot be ignored.

            So there you have it.  As much dope on dope as you’d probably want short of engaging in a little experimentation of your own.  Should you choose that route, though, be advised that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a citable (non-criminal) offense in California.  And it is still a potential felony, regardless of the amount possessed (or, in all but 13 states, the medical justification) in the federal courts and in 23 states. 

            Caveat emptor!