The Drug War has been going on since well before I was born, and is likely to continue in its present state well after I die. Given the current tactics, the Drug War is absolutely unwinnable and it is our current drug policy that is responsible for the violence on the Mexican border. The moniker Drug War, like the War on Terror seems to be a euphemistic term, but it is only euphemistic in that in both wars, the United States is not doing what's necessary to win, we are not going all in.

A war is as black and white as it comes, you're either on one side or the other. Trying to paint the War on Drugs in shades of grey dooms us to failure. As a society, we need to make a decision about what we will tolerate and what we will not. What we do tolerate needs to be made fully legal, what we do not needs to be criminalized and penalized harshly. The extremes are the Dutch model of legalization, and Singapore's model of zero tolerance, we need to pick one for each drug, and if we do so, we will win the Drug War.

As an example, marijuana is widely used and widely available as an illicit drug. Society might decide that it is tolerable and legalize it. Heroine on the other hand, is dangerous and intolerable, we need to criminalize its sale with a mandatory life sentence for selling it. We need to attack supply and not demand. With such a harsh penalty, the cost of selling the drug would go through the roof and as a result the quantity demanded would fall dramatically.

Opponents of mine would say that my policy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and assume that the prison population would skyrocket. They would be wrong on both counts. Because of the cost of selling, transactions would likely move off of street corners and be very secure. We would have fewer arrests, not more. Additionally, we would eradicate the street drug dealers and dry up the revenue stream of local gangs that terrorize urban neighborhoods as the cost of using a middleman would be too high. In terms of cruel and unusual punishment, there's nothing cruel and unusual about jail time for a crime, particularly one as insideous as selling drugs.

Our issue now is that we are still criminilizing drugs, but the punishment is not requisite to act as a deterrent, particularly given the fact of overcrowding of prisons. Sentences are often extremely short and prisons in California serve as a breeding ground for further gang activity. Unfortunately, overcrowded prisons benefit prison guards, as other economic factors complicate the simple task of winning the Drug War.

Finally, the Mexican drug cartels and all gangs should be treated as domestic terrorists. We need to give the police the tools to effectively defeat the gangs, and those tools include the increased use of force and property seisures. All individuals who are in the United States illegally and engaging in gang activity, particularly the selling of drugs, need to be reclassified as enemy combatants and detained at a facility like Guantanamo Bay. We can win the War on Drugs, but we need to utilize the tools at our disposal and we cannot blur the line between the good guys and the bad guys.

supply-side economics has been rendered. The era of multiculturalism and internationalism is upon us. That's what the mainstream media and the liberal Democrats want everyone to think and that's what they will bombard us with over the next several months. They will say that Obama's election represents a fundamental shift in American politics and that the financial crisis that we face is a result solely of conservative policies. While the secular-progressives have taken the first round, the fight for the future of the United States of America is far from over.

Make no mistake, the groundwork for Tuesday's victory has been in the works for decades, and a confluence of events has led to the election of the most liberal American president in history. The bulk of Obama's base lies in the youth, a base that has been cultivated through decades of carefully crafted influence in schools. In America's education system, secular-progressive values are championed and taught as the norm. Rather than an unambilvalent appreciation of America, our civics, our history and our Constitution, educators, who heavily supported Obama this year, have been systematically bombarding our youth about the ills of America. Rather than discussing Columbus's discovery of America, they teach about the maltreatment of the Indians, instead of discussing the greatness of the American Revolution, the focus is on the oppression of minority groups, and instead of discussing the great victory over tyranny in World War II, they talk about the destruction caused by the bombs that ended the war. Rather that focusing on the rich culture that has developed in this country, we celebrate in schools the holidays of other nations, such as Cinco de Mayo, and the Chinese New Year.

In addition to the revisionist version of American history, the left uses the schools to promote their athestic values and their multicultural vision of the world. Students are discouraged from making value judgements and are encouraged to refrain from judging actions in general. The basic concept of right and wrong is being distorted in schools, with right supposedly being "tolerance" or acceptance, and wrong being the ability to stand out from the crowd or to make judgements. We even see this in sports, as participation awards have largely supplanted awards for achievement. The over-arching theme of acceptance and tolerance is the norm, except towards those few souls who challenge the norm, where the swift result is ostricization and isolation. The result: unquestioning conformity and general debauchery.

At the high school in San Francisco where I coach baseball, there was a recent mock-election in which Obama won 95% of the vote among the students, and CA Prop 8, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, was defeated by an even larger margin. A player on my team told me it was almost like a communal school effort to get Obama elected. Although this is a private school, these statistics of conformity are alarming and can be devestating to the country at large. This school is not a learning center, it's an indoctrination center.

The battle for our country must begin with reclaiming our schools. The internationalist agenda has been taught for too long, and it's time that we learn again to appreciate the value of America, the last, best hope for the rest of the world. Conservatives must fight for America, and we must preserve our culture, which is under seige.

Thomas Sowell in this article writes a great analysis and illustration of the election.  It does seem that Americans are being hoodwinked by Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media.  It is amazing that the Democrats, whose hands are all over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose policies many have said have propped up the companies, escape this scandal with virtually no culpability.  It's further amazing that a man like Obama, the second highest funded politician by Fannie Mae, with its CEO as a policy advisor, who advocates similar policies as those that got us into this crisis in the first place, benefits.  It speaks to the lack of political capital of the Bush Administration and the inability of the GOP to communicate to the public about who Obama really is.

Right now, the United States is deeply divided.  There are two Americas a traditional America and an urban America and each America has its own distinct set of values and an unhealthy contempt for the other.  Both sides are polarized, and moderates tend to be frowned upon in both places.  Traditional America strongly supports rugged individualism, religious values and nationalism.  Urban America believes more in collectivism, secularism and internationalism.  Traditional America dominates old media, such as talk radio, whereas urban America dominates the blogosphere, Hollywood and network news.  These differences, and the mistrust of the other side are tearing us apart as a nation and preventing us as a country from pursuing the most rational and beneficial policies for all Americans.

I live in San Francisco, but I side more with traditional America, so the problems on both sides are clear to me.  More than anything, urban liberals have a deep seeded fear of religion and religious people.  Their sense of morality is systemic rather than religious, and it prods them to try to institutionalize remedies for past injustices.  Their fear of repeating those injustices leads them to advocate for, and often pass, legislation that gives preferential treatment to those who were once downtrodden.  Affirmative action, bilingual education and "affordable housing" programs (many of which led to subprime mortgages) are past examples.  Current examples include the DREAM Act, universal healthcare, gay marriage and opposition to laws against sex offenders such as Megan's Law.  Close to dogma among urban liberals is the woman's "right" to abort, often taken to the extreme so as to allow late term and partial birth abortions, to the point of denying treatment to babies born during intended abortions (as Obama did in the Illinois State Senate).  Also close to dogma is the idea of comprehensive sex education in schools.  In many respects, urban America has more in common with Western Europe than with the middle of our country.

Traditional Americans typically respond very adversely to these types of "progressive" ideas, and often their responses reflect this backlash.  Worried about the diminishing role of religious values in public life, traditional Americans try to preempt progressives by institutionalizing these values.  Examples include support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, English only policies and creationism being taught in public schools.  Rather than comprehensive sex education in schools, traditional America tries to make "abstinence only" sex education the law of the land.  In essence, in order to heed off unpalatable "progressive" values, traditional America has committed the sin of using the government and the law to impose their values in order to prevent those institutions from being used to impose upon them "progressive" values.

At the heart of the problem is big government and the fact that both sides are actively using government to impose their values on society.  The left started the ball rolling in the 1960s, and over time, the right has learned how to use the government in exactly the same way.  In both cases, this type of big government intrusion is a bad thing and it's polarizing our nation.  At the heart of the problem is the Pandora's Box that was opened by judges making legislative decisions from the bench.  Roe v. Wade is at its root a terrible decision because it judicially created a Constitutional right to abortion, a right that is written nowhere in the Constitution.

 The idea of a "separation of Church and State," has been argued in courts and taught in schools for so long that most believe it is a First Amendment right, a right which is at the heart of the secular-progressive movement.  However, the Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  In other words, everyone can worship freely, but the State will not establish its own religion (as did England with the Church of England) or be subservient to the interests of a religious leader such as the Pope.  How does that cover whether there can be prayer in schools or if "Under God" can be in the Pledge?  These judicially imposed, subjective standards have clearly led to a backlash.

The problem here is not that people have different views and philosophies, its that they try to impose them on others.  The left fears Sarah Palin because they think she will impose her "crazy religious values" onto society.  The right is equally fearful that Democratic victories will lead to the imposition of more progressive values onto society.  It is clear as a country that on both sides, big government is the problem.  People in this country should be allowed to live, wherever they are, according to their own values.  Government at all levels, needs to return to the role that the founders intended for it, to make laws and protect us from enemies while staying out of our daily lives.

Amid much fanfare John McCain and Barack Obama held their first debate tonight at Ole Miss which was a spirited exchange, but will likely produce little movement in the polls.  The enduring image for me in the debate will be the contrast of the two candidates, McCain as the experienced old hand and Obama as the eager up and comer.  McCain came across in the debate as a stable leader, measured, experienced, trustworthy and understated.  Obama came across as very eager to prove that he is a credible leader, with change at the heart of his message. 

In a way, the debate reminded me of the movie "In Good Company" where a hot shot 24 year old took over an advertising job from an older guy who'd worked in that job for decades.  The hot shot had some pretty interesting ideas and strategies, but he was out of touch with the industry and eventually had to rely on the older guy's experience.  Obama in the debate was awfully eager to defend himself at every turn and get the last word, and he came across as someone trying to desperately prove that he belonged on the stage.

In terms of how the debate went, Obama was stronger on the economic point of view because McCain failed to challenge Obama's tax and spend policy and his notion that 95% of the people would get a tax cut.  McCain cannot cede that point in future debates.  On foreign policy, McCain clearly was the stronger candidate, but he allowed Obama to get away with repeatedly saying that al Qaeda is strengthened.  Both of these points, unchallenged, allowed Obama to score points with undecided voters, enabling Obama to get away with a push in the debate.

Forget about debates, ads and interviews, the 2008 Presidential election will be decided by the outcome of the battle over the bailout plan.  As President Bush said, we are currently facing an economic crisis of potentially disastrous scale.  Right now, the US economy is like Humpty Dumpty because if it breaks, which it's teetering on the edge of doing at this point, it will be impossible to put it back together again.  Failure to act swiftly by the Federal Government will lead to a domino effect that will end up wiping out people's jobs and life-savings, spiraling us into a depression.

While polls suggest that the American public believes that something should be done, they balk by nearly 2-1 at Paulson's bailout plan.  Conservatives are particularly wary of the 700 billion dollar price tag and the accompanying increase in the size and scope of the federal government.  Aware of the polling data, the bailout has been treated like a political football, both sides acutely aware that a deal must be made, but neither side wanting to "take credit" for passing such an unpopular bill.  Senator Reid even said earlier in the week that there is no way the bill would pass without McCain's approval.

The two candidates have staked out polar opposite strategies on this issue.  Obama has taken the safe route, trying to distance himself from the process, and its inevitable result, and maintaining focus on his campaign.  McCain has dropped everything and injected himself into the crisis.  In doing so, McCain has bet his entire campaign on his ability to get a working bill passed in short order that will be palatable to his base, the American people and Wall Street.  The rancor at the White House meeting reinforced the notion that McCain, almost alone now, is in charge of the crisis.

The House GOP split at the White House, and McCain's apparent endorsement of that split essentially means that McCain will essentially be able to pass his own bill.  The Democrats currently have the ability to push their amended Paulson plan through, but doing so would hurt them politically because they would have to own up to such an unpopular plan.  If the GOP plan seems more palatable to the people, they would have to support it, lest they block a popular bill at a time of peril, or worse, if nothing happens, the point would be moot because we will have lost the patient.  If a bill gets passed, McCain will be seen as a leader, coming in and refusing to accept an unpopular bill and bringing people together to pass a more palatable relief bill.  If the market collapses before a deal is reached, McCain will be seen as someone who blocked needed legislation for political expediency, and finally, if the plan fails, so will McCain's campaign.

The likely result?  Tomorrow a bill will get passed that combines the Paulson approach and the GOP approach, one which infuses capital into the market, but not 700 billion dollars and bridges the gap by extending insurance benefits.  We will likely see a cap on executive compensation while at the same time some of the tax breaks and regulatory reforms asked for by the GOP.  Both sides are too extreme ideologically, let's hope we get a working bill somewhere in the middle.