Follow Up to the Follow Up Question about Pot

Update :: Thursday, April 2, 2009 --

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal - by Glenn Greenwald

The article includes a link to the just published article in the Time's by Joe Klien advocating marijuana legalization. Greenwald also details why President Obama is not releasing the "torture memos" as ordered. That's of interest to the Report because of Taser use and torture.

Citing Failed War on Drugs, Former Seattle Police Chief Calls for Legalization of Marijuana and All Drugs

Here is an interesting interview on Democracy Now with Norm Stamper about why drugs, specially marijuana, should be legal in America. Norm Stamper is a thirty-four-year police officer who retired as Seattle’s chief of police in 2000. He is an advisory board member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He is the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing."

Here's an excerpt relating to his common sense efforts to reform marijuana laws:

NORM STAMPER: I actually support the legalization of all drugs. And in fact, the more dangerous or sinister or sensationally reported the experience of certain drugs, the greater the justification for the government, as opposed to drug cartels and street traffickers, to regulate that commerce. There’s been more harm done by the drug war than good. We have spent a trillion dollars prosecuting that war since Richard Nixon proclaimed drugs public enemy number one and declared all-out war on them.

And what do we have to show for it? While rates can fluctuate, drugs are more readily available today at lower prices and higher levels of potency than ever before. So it’s a colossal failure. And the only way to put these cartels out of business and to restore health and safety to our neighborhoods is to regulate that commerce as opposed to prohibiting it.

*****

NORM STAMPER: Last week in Minnesota, before a state house committee, a committee that is considering medical marijuana, I was accused of disrespecting police officers. I quickly corrected that police chief, who was wearing a yellow tie with the language “police lines, do not cross." I apologized if I gave the impression, because I have the deepest respect for frontline police officers. They didn’t make these laws. They are victims of the tension and the hostility that is associated with enforcing or prosecuting the drug war. So it’s not our frontline cops that we need to be concerned about.

The vast majority of police officers, I believe, would legalize marijuana today. They have varying views on the other drugs. Many officers, including police chiefs and sheriffs, have whispered their support to me. When I say, “Well, may I quote you?” the response is, “What have you been smoking? No, you cannot do that.”

You know, some have suggested that President Obama’s dismissal of the marijuana issue last week in the online town hall meeting was done because it’s the third rail. Well, we’ve made it that. Americans have, in fact, bought the propaganda of the drug war. We can’t conceive of it as a public health issue, this whole issue of drug use and drug abuse and prevention and education and treatment, as well as enforcement. We need to rethink it. We need to have the courage, the will and sort of the analytical take on the systemic implications that are associated with the drug war and recognize that there is a much better alternative out there. And I think a whole lot of cops understand it. Certainly, the 10,000 members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition get it.

Read the complete interview here.

Any government truly sensitive to the spoken needs of the people would certainly understand that the father-knows-best approach to government imposed by the conservative elite went out with the Dark Ages. The Democratic principles embodied in a "representative" form of government requires responsible, enlightened (certainly informed) maturity in the majority of those doing the picking. That is, if the system of government is to work as Constitutionally designed. The electorate certainly do not need some wet nurse telling them when, where and how much in between diaper changes. The change in thinking observed in a few courageous people in this country is hopeful. Unfortunately, it's 40 to 50 years too late when you see the legacy we've all inherited.

--Joe

Follow Up to a Question About Pot

This article pretty much sums it all up:

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.

By Austin Cline: The question of decriminalizing some or all illegal narcotics, to a lesser or greater extent, then regulating and taxing the ensuing trade is a serious matter. There are fair arguments on all sides (because there is range of how far we could go with this, there is arguably more than just one "side") of the debate, but it cannot be dismissed as a pointless, irrelevant, or trivial matter. Yet that's precisely what Barack Obama did at a recent town hall meeting where, based on the reaction, he was surrounded by like-minded apologists for the current structures of power and liberty. Way to break outside the beltway and take it to the people, Mr. President.

Let's run quickly through some of the reasons why it's reasonable to regard the current "war on drugs" as causing more trouble than it solves. Both the violence and corruption associated with illegal drugs are more directly connected to the prohibition of drugs than to the use of drugs. The failure of drug laws to eliminate drug use has encouraged politicians to pass ever more draconian anti-drug laws, thus leading both to unnecessary suffering through harsh sentences for non-violent offenses and a decline in respect for the law when people see police and courts consumed with these cases.

Prohibition also undermines basic constitutional liberties by encouraging police to circumvent laws regulating search and seizures. No-knock warrants combined with paying for tips has led to innumerable raids on the homes of innocent people, including quite a few deaths at the hands of some over-zealous police who no longer seem to care very much about "protecting" and "serving" the public. Prohibition is a nightmare for national security, enriching those who already have a grudge against America and fueling resentment in others who are harmed by American efforts to suppress drug production.

Prohibition damages public health because there is so much resistance to the very idea that any illegal drugs might have any benefits — the prohibition mindset allows for only one response to drugs, no matter who might get harmed in the process. Prohibition is just as bad for the budget, consuming huge amounts of government resources, damaging the productivity of people caught up in the prohibition web, and excluding entire sectors as possible sources of revenue.

These reasons may not be enough to convince someone to support ending prohibition, but they are more than enough to cast doubt on prohibition and deserve stronger arguments in response. To put it another way, they are serious and substantive enough to earn something equally serious and substantive in return.

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that Obama was asked about a policy which is still viewed with suspicion and even fear by so many people in America. The case against prohibition may deserve a serious and substantive response, but that's hard to do when so many people's have been taught to react to drugs in a one-dimensional way: just say no. Opponents of prohibition thus have two hurdles: before they can convince people of their arguments, they must also convince people that any arguments should be considered at all.

Support for varying degrees of decriminalization and/or legalization has grown in recent years, but it's still a relative minority position with fierce opposition. That, however, is an argument for Obama to not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea — it's not an argument to dismiss it as a joke. Remember, decriminalization and legalization aren't just about eliminating one isolated restriction on people's liberty. It's not just about allowing people to get high as legally as they get drunk, though that's what so many tend to think about.

The question Barack Obama was asked ties into medical questions, sustainable farming and manufacturing (with hemp), new sources of tax revenues, and more. His dismissive and even flippant response suggests that he's unaware of all this; a serious response, even in the negative, would have indicated that he understands the complexity of the matter and simply arrived at a different conclusion. Something along the lines of "I understand why people argue for this idea and they make some good points, but I just don't agree with their conclusions" would have been a reasonable, respectful response. It would have avoided scaring apologists for the failed war on drugs while signaling to supporters of legalization that they should keep working on their arguments to make a better case. So why didn't he do that?

Sadly, that's a question which a lot of progressives have been asking on a lot of issues. Barack Obama has been touted as a progressive president, but it's hard to find examples which support such a label. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — the largest ideological group among Congressional Democrats — is the only major faction which Barack Obama has not met with. Obama has managed to find time to meet with conservative and moderate Democrats, all of whom have been working against progressive policies, but not with the more reliable supporters of progressive policies.

Yes, I know it's necessary to reach out to less reliable supporters in order to make a political agenda work, but that doesn't require ignoring or taking for granted your regular supporters. It's not a progressive value — or even smart politics — to present yourself as a progressive who somehow keeps ignoring other progressives. This, combined with Harry Reid whining that liberal Democrats shouldn't pressure moderate Democrats to stop standing in the way of progressive legislation, leaves the distinct impression that Democratic leaders across the board are consistently looking for ways to ditch progressivism in favor of a more conservative agenda.

--Joe

A Question About Pot

There seems to be a general across the country priority issue with legalizing marijuana that found it's way to trump President Obama's agenda for his fancy cyberspace town hall meeting as reported on Politico: Pot takes center stage at townhall. One of the most popular questions was about legalizing drugs.

Politico's Josh Gerstein says, "While Obama’s answer was unequivocal, it was also dismissive and didn’t explain why legalization was unwise."

The question and the President's comment:

“There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high: that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation,” Obama said, with a chuckle. “I don’t know what this says about the online audience.”

“This was a fairly popular question — we want to make sure it was answered. The answer is no. I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow our economy,” he said to laughter and applause from the live East Room audience of union members, teachers, business leaders and others.

We all know how a large number of local's feel about this issue. There was a lot of happy blogging recently when everyone thought President Obama actually heard the voices, wants, and needs of the people, to quote:

"Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would defer to state governments whether to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes."

I wonder if they all feel so full of hope today? I doubt it. It seems more and more that there's one heck of a big difference between what President Obama says and what he does. Here's his latest shot at a California Marijuana Medical Clinic: Drug Agents Raid SF Medical Marijuana Clinic.

Then there's his promise to take ALL combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010. Today, we learn he's been feeding everyone a line of bull right from the start. You can read about this in the interview on Democracy now with Gareth Porter: Report: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

Nearly four weeks ago, President Obama declared that US combat operations would end in Iraq by August 2010. Despite Obama’s pledge, new evidence has emerged that the US plans to keep combat brigades in Iraq, but they will operate under a different name.

You can read his complete report: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq here.

Wouldn't it be nice, for once, to have a President of the United States everyone could trust and honestly believe that he's working for and defending the interest of ALL people? It took the country a while to see President George Bush's true colors, but this President is laying it on the line coming right out the gate.

IRAN - Smarter Than the Average Bear

Yep! They know a slicker when they see one.

Even Yogi knew a rat when he smelled one.

Did Yogi smell an "overture"? Joe doesn't thinks so.

You can read it here: Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures

"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech ..."

"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.

For its part, the Obama administration must take practical steps such as lifting a ban on selling Iran spare parts for passenger aircraft or considering unfreezing Iranian assets in the U.S., (a prominent political analyst Saeed) Leilaz said.

"They say we have stretched a hand toward Iran. ... If a hand is stretched covered with a velvet glove but it is cast iron inside, that makes no sense," Khamenei said.

Sometimes it takes a preacher to know a preacher.

UPDATE :: Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Lebanon perspective: Dialogue of the Deaf
The following is an excerpt:

It is for this reason that the Iranians want "deeds" in addition to words from Obama. They are intelligent enough to notice the change in the type of discourse Obama is adopting with them. But what comes after this? Can the black President offer them the apologies which they demand, for more than half a century of the US dealing with them badly, from toppling Mossadegh to protecting the Shah to supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against them? In other words, can he erase half a century of the history of the country that chose him as its President?

The new US President wants to give the impression that his policies are different from those of his predecessor. But a change in the language of discourse on the part of the White House will have no effect if it is not accompanied by a change in the type of response to such discourse on the part of the recipients of US messages. Without this such discourse would become a dialogue of the deaf, which is what currently seems to be taking place between Washington and Tehran

On the one hand, there is a tendency on the part of the Obama Administration to put an end to previous conflicts and to deal with international crises with a new mindset. On the other, such a step is being interpreted as the result of the defeat of the US's plans, which entails that such a defeat should be exploited by Iran, and that it should strengthen its influence in the places where it feels it has achieved victory. Obama's problem with Iran is that he is not willing to submit to such Iranian victories, nor do his country's interests allow him to do so. [For the complete article.]

--Joe

The Creeping Crud

A police state with doilies and lace curtains

Humboldt County (Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Branch) and local retail merchants are currently conducting classes in how to breed a Police State mentality in the innocent, our children. You militarize their environment and then criminalize them with knee-jerk laws ostensibly* for their protection and benefit. In other word, you make unauthorized and in some cases illegal conduct, common place.

[Some examples that come to mind were the universal 55 mph, mandatory helmet laws, seat belt and recently cell-phone laws, no smoking, growing or selling marijuana laws and lets not forget underage sex laws.]

Case in point however, starting with the Wednesday, March 11, 2009, Times-Standard Editorial: Show you care, show your ID is a classic example of do-gooder knee-jerk mentality that's really a pretense to inure** people to more loss of freedom and rights.

This fine group of people, this "editorial board made up of recovered, recovering and current smokers" says, in part:

It can actually be quantified -- the war against smoking is making headway. Fewer people are smoking, and fewer will be dying, as a result, from smoking-related diseases.

But the war is not over. Each and every time a minor starts puffing, it's the wrong start to a person's life. Immediately they set themselves up for a health disadvantage, and will have to dedicate years, if not decades, to recover, if and when they quit.

Did you notice that this is a "war"? How do they say we should fight this war? By getting "people to show their IDs when buying cigarettes, without being asked." -Make showing IDs common place.

Why?

"The logic is that if clerks start seeing people always showing their IDs when buying cigarettes, they'll begin to expect it. Thus, when a minor can't produce one, or produces one that looks fraudulent, the clerk will be on guard and thereby prevent the youth from buying the tobacco.

The campaign also aims to send a message to kids: You're outlawed from buying tobacco -- take the hint." (Emphasis add)

That editorial was followed up with the article, "County campaign reduces minors' access to tobacco" by Donna Tam where she explains the criminal rewards for selling cigarettes to minors. She identifies a do-gooder organization, Tobacco Free Humboldt and its Project Director Jay McCubbrey. This organization has enlisted use of 15 - 16 year old kids to see who will sell them tobacco and to "get the anti-smoking message out." One of these brilliant 15-year old kids says, "It's telling kids, 'Yes, people are looking for this so you shouldn't try to do it.'"

This is not about "telling kids" anything. This is pure indoctrination of children and adults alike! And it has absolutely nothing to do with anti-smoking. But, if it does, it's only peripheral, if not, incidental.

These teenagers see elder adults showing their ID "just to send a message" and they'll laugh the old fools right out of the store. And that IS the message sent. Certainly NOT what some adolescent teenager's take on life is.

The real crime done to these children, who are surrounded by smokers of every age and size is this statement,

The campaign also aims to send a message to kids: You're outlawed from buying tobacco -- take the hint."

with this nonsense,

We as a community have a responsibility to do the best we can by the next generation, and doing so in this case means making it hard, if not impossible, for a kid to get cigarettes. Let's set the example.

This is how you TALK to kids? By making them criminals? Penalizing everyone that smokes and forcing "store clerks" that have no say in the sale of tobacco to police our children? It was this kind of activity that produced these people, "Hitler-Jugend" 89 years ago, commonly known as "Hitler Youth." (Emphasis add)

This is what you quietly get today, Friday, March 13, 2009:

Updating the Militarization and Annexation of North America

- by Steve Lendman - Here's an excerpt:

... In other words, homeland militarization and occupation are planned using troops trained to kill.

The pretext is national security. In fact, they'll be on-call against another major terrorist attack, real or contrived, as well as civil unrest given the gravity of the economic crisis, its affect on millions, and likelihood that sooner or later they'll react. Armed combat troops will supplement militarized local police in case security crackdowns are ordered or martial law declared.

"Catastrophic Emergency" procedures are in place to react to situations, "natural or manmade," according to DHS/FEMA's March 2008 "Preparedness for the Next Catastrophic Disaster" policy paper. Should conditions warrant, initiatives to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law are in place, but militarizing America for business is also at issue.

It all started somewhere. So, lets set a real example.

---

Joe Blow, just to be clear, is for reasonable laws and law enforcement. Legislating morality, using laws, the police and juries to send messages and educating our youth with a club is out. Children learn the truth by observing who and what we are and comparing what we do by what we say. If you don't want your kids smoking tobacco then teach them what self-respect and personal responsibility means. Then give them the tools they need to be able to use that self-respect and be responsible. Problem is, you can't teach what don't have or don't know.

---

Creeping Crud : Malaise:
1. a condition of general bodily weakness or discomfort, often marking the onset of a disease.
2. a vague or unfocused feeling of mental uneasiness, lethargy, or discomfort.

* Ostensibly:
1. Outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended: an ostensible cheerfulness concealing sadness.
2. Apparent, evident, or conspicuous: the ostensible truth of their theories.
** Inure:
To habituate to something undesirable, especially by prolonged subjection; accustom

--Joe

Gerbils and the Dumb-Down

If anyone thinks that what's happening in this country and to the World economy was caused by simple lack of oversight, moronic screw-ups or some other philosophical malaise, try thinking again. Since Ronald Reagan the Republicans have doubled the debt in their predetermined massive transfer of wealth to their enabled elite. What's happening is NO accident.

Here's one of my posts for Friday, August 8, 2008:
How The Stupid Rule

The Wrecking Crew: Thomas Frank on How Conservatives Rule

Frank writes, “Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction.”

Read the interview to learn how Ronald Regan and GHW Bush dominated Bill Clinton's agenda and how G. Bush Jr. has setup the next President.

Then there's this interview for Thursday, March 12, 2009, on Democracy Now with Michael Parenti that makes my case once again. Only it's his assessment that the goal is to make America and Western Europe just like Indonesia. According to him their doing a pretty good job, so far. You can read who they are in the complete interview here:

Michael Parenti: Economic Crisis the Inevitable Result of “Capitalism’s Self-inflicted Apocalypse” Here's an excerpt:

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the Democrats and Republicans. You said you’re infuriated by the Republican response, because they just want tax cuts for the rich. But what about the Democrats—I mean, just now we were playing for you Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary—and the approach to this crisis?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Oh, it’s insufficient. I mean, that’s what’s coming out with your questions. It’s insufficient. They’re not dealing with systemic questions. There’s all this debate about the stimulus package. Hardly a word has come out about the Federal Reserve giving away two-and-a-half trillion dollars, just giving it away unaccountably.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that.

MICHAEL PARENTI: The Federal Reserve just went—while we had this $750 billion stimulus package, which was passed by Congress, the Federal Reserve printed up—it can print up money and create money—and handed out over $2 trillion to the financial community in America, with no accountability, no debate in Congress and very little notice.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what’s the significance of that?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Well, the significance is that we’re going to—I mean, that’s our money, that it becomes real money when it becomes debt, and we’ve got to pay it. You see, the Republicans were never against debt; they were the biggest debt spenders there ever was. When Ronald Reagan came into office, the national debt was $800 billion. When he left office, it was $2.5 trillion. I mean, it was OK with him to spend. He also put in the biggest tax program that ever was, but it was a regressive tax. It was a Social Security tax on tens of millions of people. When George Bush, Sr. came in, the national debt went from $2.5 to $5 trillion. Clinton—I’ll give him credit for that one thing—he did try to go for solvency. But when you got to George Bush, Jr., for eight years, the debt has gone from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. And these Republicans were voting for that all along. All these spending bills were theirs. So, you see, they don’t mind debt, because debt is really a way of upward distribution. You tax the common people, and you give the money to rich creditors. It’s a very regressive way of redistributing wealth upward. So debt is fine with them.

Don't you just love these Republicans? Tell me this wasn't their longterm goal.

What do you see is the future of capitalism?

MICHAEL PARENTI: I see it as a future in which there’s going to be a lot of
suffering. I see it—the goal is to have more and more Indonesias and fewer
Denmarks and such.

And that means?

That means that even in the social democracies in Western Europe, there are going to be cutbacks, there’s going to be privatization, deregulation, greater—growth of inequities, rollbacks of human services and such, in countries that were pretty decent, countries where capitalism was reined in and held in line, to some degree, anyway.

Well, Indonesia, I mean it’s a free market paradise. They talk about free market. In
Indonesia, there are no consumer protections, there are no regulations, there is
no public medical care, there’s no public education. People just die younger.

If that's not enough you can read, Capitalism’s Self-inflicted Apocalypse by Michael Parenti.

Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer.
He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts. His highly
informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of
audiences in North America and abroad.

---

Here's a related commentary on SoHum Parlance II in his "WTF???" post about this subject. -- Well, when prodded just a bit he wasn't exactly at "a loss for words." A valid point, neverthe less:

March 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Eric Kirk

In spite of this, progressives trust the gov’t more than private industry (which they can hold accountable). Go figure…

Um. Well. The problem here is that government did not keep tabs on private industry. So let’s just say that the culpability is less. The private industry ripped us off. The public sector was negligent in preventing it.

--Joe

Eureka SWAT - Business As Usual?

If this doesn't give every law-abiding conscientious homeowner in Humboldt County pause for thought, I don't know what will.

Yeah! We know. It's carte-blanche for the police when it comes to the proliferating criminal element and all the low-life scummy trash-types. But, what happens when you're not a criminal, never were a criminal and support the law, judicious law enforcement and believe in the universal right to self-defense and someone falsely accuses you? Now it's open season on you buddy! You, your family and your poor dog, if you're unlucky enough to have one or two.

---

Maryland Senate Holds Hearings on SWAT Transparency Bill

Last week, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee held hearings on a new bill that would require every police agency in the state with a SWAT team to issue quarterly reports on how often the teams are deployed, why they were deployed, what happened during the warrant service, and what was found. It is a small but vital step toward allowing for a proper assessment of just how often paramilitary-style tactics are being used in Maryland, how often things go wrong, and whether they’re being used as advertised.

Several witnesses at the hearing described yet more terrifying wrong-door raids, in cases never before reported.

Karen Thomas told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee that she heard Howard County police shoot and kill her dog in her Ellicott City living room in September 2007, while she lay upstairs on the floor, surrounded by police who had not identified themselves.

“In my mind, terrorists had just killed my son and they were going to kill me next,” she told committee members.

Thomas said that police were searching for drugs, but none were found…
Choking back tears, Boyd Petit told committee members that during an April 2008 raid on his Highland home, a police tactical team had handcuffed him and his family outside his home, at gunpoint and in front of his neighbors, while other officers searched his house.

“Our collective lives flashed before our eyes,” he said.

Petit claimed the raid on his house was prompted by a former customer, who made false allegations about him to police. He said police were searching for a specific weapon, but it was not found.

Right now, it looks like the bill will get through committee. It’s being pushed by Cheye Calvo, the Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor who was subjected to a particularly violent but mistaken raid on his home. (Compliments of the Agitator)

--Joe

The Untouchable Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, in her sweet deprecating way, sounds just like Golda Mier. Clinton's attitude is revealed to be totally condescending and utterly disparaging to the Palestinian people. It is an insult to any decent, moral person that calls themselves a Christian. This is the kind of thinking that justifies waging war on women and children. The question:

What if Chelsea Clinton were Palestinian?

Kralev on Diplomacy (View Blog)
POSTED March 04 2009 6:47 PM BY NICHOLAS KRALEV

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked an unusual question during an interview on the popular youth television show "Ali Soutik" during a visit to the West Bank Wednesday.

The interviewer read a query submitted by a young girl from a village near Ramallah: "What would you do if your daughter, Chelsea, were unfortunate enough to be born under occupation and to be born deprived of freedom and liberty?"

Here's Mrs. Clinton's answer:

"I would do what so many parents here in the West Bank and Gaza do. I would love her, I would take care of her, I would get the best education I could get for her. I would never lose hope. I would never give up of the dream of a Palestinian state, no matter what happens, no matter what people try to do to derail my dream. I would tell my daughter, and I would hope my daughter would believe with all of her heart, that she has the same opportunities for the best future that any child living anywhere does. That's what my goal would be."

This is the NEW HOPE for peace between Israel and Palestine. Hope for a two-state solution is worth about as much to the Palestinian people as it is for the American middle-class poor that think they finally got some recognition in this country; a new state of being. Read some reality:

The “S” word by Alastair Macdonald. Reuters Bureau Chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories.

--Joe