Posted on by Nathan Riley

If It’s Fun, It Must Be Illegal

If it’s fun, it’s illegal—a common conviction of my youth. Often said in jest, in the 1950s as I grew up it was folk wisdom. My parents were 11 years old when Prohibition took full effect in 1922 and drank in their teens illegally and with glee. Hence the folk saying if it’s fun, it’s illegal was grounded in history.

By 1932 their rebellion became legal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt downplayed his support for repealing prohibition, and he suffered no backlash in his landslide victory. My parents never supported prohibition and spent little time justifying their view; prohibition made government do bad things. Virtually everybody in New York City agreed.

But the specter of prohibition stayed with my parents; they never thought marijuana should be illegal. They were quick to realize cigarettes caused cancer years before warning labels. My mom compromised and smoked 3 cigarettes a day, my father, whose willpower I found awesome, simply stopped. It was an individual decision. Government’s obligation was to do research and to dispute tobacco’s propaganda, but the bottom line, the decision was up to the individual.

My parents and I do not object to government expressing strong viewpoints about personal habits. My objection is to the use of government coercion. The application of punishment is rarely fair. Marijuana is illegal, but nobody bothered the fans at a Grateful Dead concert. They were clearly getting high and the police stayed away. The Dead, in turn, made sure caretakers were immediately available to help people who had bad trips.

Yes there was potential for harm, and the sensible response is helping people who are in trouble. It was manifestly obvious that most people were having fun and weren’t in trouble. The law was not enforced.

But these laws are aggressively enforced against spurned groups, especially the black and brown communities. White people with ties to the community skate when drugs are found, but the courts all too often bring down the hammer and police sweeps arrest thousands for doing the same thing that white people do without punishment. Even when it came to the tricky question of selling the illegal drugs, whites find legal exits that are denied to black and brown. There is no racial justice in drug enforcement or, for that matter, prostitution enforcement.

Forcing the law to accept individual choices would end these racial injustices. Clearly, imprisonment is unjust and doesn’t fit the crime. The push for legalization is a push for equal justice. Some people who do drugs need help. They should be able to get medical care, counseling, and other assistance without court orders insisting on little evidence that it is necessary. Medical care should not be guided by the Drug Enforcement Agency and the courts. It’s a private matter between the patient and the doctor. Doctors should be free to use their best medical judgment on the proper treatment. That would clearly include allowing patients to use drugs while attention is directed at other problems.

Legalization would bring additional medical impacts. The corporations making drugs would have to adhere to safety rules. Bad trips, fentanyl poisoning, and other ill effects would be reduced dramatically. Perhaps the most important benefit is that users will get safety information that stays the same because the product is uniform and its dose is standardized.

Under prohibition, unskilled people willing to risk arrest are forced constantly to change their preparations. Law enforcement in its fruitless efforts to stamp out drugs frequently bans an ingredient. These legal interferences mean drug users often are forced to take a new drug they are not used to. It is a dangerous form of government interference.

These legal strategies encourage additives like fentanyl, which have a big kick but often catch users by surprise. A little bit of fentanyl can produce a big high, but, as we well know, it also brings overdoses. The legal manufacture of drugs is a safety precaution for users.

The public is well aware it can buy dozens of different kinds of alcohol. But they only select drinks they like. The fact that the currently illegal drugs would be available and uniform would not require the public to buy them. We know for a fact that people exercise choice when it comes to getting high. Adding legal drugs to the list is not a big step.

It would be irresponsible to say drugs have no risk. Carl Hart, the Columbia professor who has spent his life studying drugs has found that 70% of legal users would enjoy their habits without ill effects. At the same time, he also clearly states that 30% have trouble. Making something legal does not mean it would be safe. Football is legal, but it is fraught with injury. Smoking is legal, but many smokers get cancer. Driving is legal, but hardly safe without drivers paying close attention and following the rules.

Making drugs legal will not make them safe unless the users exercise caution. But making drugs manufactured according to uniform standards would make the exercise of caution much easier and allow users to tell other users about safety.

And perhaps the most important benefit is racial justice. We don’t have to depend on police learning new habits; they will not be allowed to arrest gamblers, drug users, prostitutes, porn watchers, and other habits that are the private business of the individual.

I must renew my plea for somebody to offer help. Everybody I have approached has declined. I’m 83 and nearly blind and need a functioning adult to help me get this project off the ground. Interested? Contact me by email.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

New Name, Same Policy

Today is my day to feel stupid. My friends at Google tell me that twenty year ago Democrats set-up a PAC called Freedom Democrats.

For those of you who want to tell me I should have done this in the first place, all I can say is, “You are right.”

So now is the time to change names. Henceforth, this group will be called the “Whatever Democrats,” signifying its welcome to people regardless of their private habits. It remains unstinting in its objective of legalizing drugs, sex work, pornography, gambling, and support for LGBTQ+ persons.

So that’s it folks. Henceforth, Freedom Democrats will become the Whatever Democrats.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Ceasefire Would Benefit Israel and Iran

Throw a party, that is what Freedom Democrats should be doing. They should be getting stronger and finding new supporters.

Get everybody together, the election is over, the Democracy is safe. Donald Trump’s days of overthrowing the government and falsifying election results seem finished now that he has won. He wants to be boss and leave his mark on history.

Wars in Palestine and Ukraine agitate Freedom Democrats. War is the opposite of freedom. In war the powerful tell the weak what to do, and the soldiers kill to prove they mean it. President Kennedy said that peace does not require some fantasy of harmony. “It requires only” that nations and groups “live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.”

Freedom Democrats favor peace. Got a complaint take It to a lawyer or a diplomat. Don’t shoot and be a brute.

In Ukraine and Palestine, bullets and bombs are flying;  families are crying. Young men with lives to live are robbed of their future; tens of thousands are dead or their bodies mangled.

Israel is bringing out a blood lust among its own people and leaders in the United States. Trump’s love of Israel is part of a larger movement in the U.S. accepting all-out war. To be a supporter of Israel requires tolerance of brutal warfare.

Trump’s choice for Defense Department Chief, Pete Hegseth, argues there is only one way to fight, that is fight to win. In this view, wars are not a popularity contest where local groups can be persuaded to support our side. The objective is forcing an invaded nation to submit to our policies or face fatal consequences.

When we left Afghanistan, the people we thought were on our side fled and in a matter of days the Talian took control. We thought that supporting women’s rights, schooling, and other services would win popular support. But the Afghanis realized that without U.S. soldiers the Taliban were going to rule and Muslim Sharia law would prevail.

Hegseth’s view is that soldiers must be warriors and should have the full backing of the U.S. government and fight until they win. Afghanistan is 2.5 times larger than France. Pacifying, or perhaps the word is “subjugating,” such a large country would cost billions. The number of soldiers required probably would prevent the U.S. from fighting anywhere else in the world.

Thus, Hegseth’s ideas lead to two potential conclusions: Afghanistan is not that important and shouldn’t be the United States’s number one priority. In this case the argument leads to nonintervention. Or, alternatively, the size of the U.S. military must be drastically increased, and the U.S. budget must pay for all-out war.

People in the United States are not joining the military in large numbers. The U.S. avoids confronting this issue. It adjusts its targets down to coincide with new enlistments; only with this sleight of hand can the D.O.D. claim its targets were reached. Why all-out war in a far-away nation like Afghanistan would increase enlistments is beyond my comprehension.

Hegseth’s nomination is controversial. He is not crazy and Republicans may well unite to back him, and it might be possible to split the Democratic minority in the United States senate, giving Hegseth additional support.

The downside to his view is that American public opinion should accept an extraordinary level of violence. The movement towards an American security state and away from democracy would proceed by making the country accustomed to all-out war. This is a dangerous prospect.

This article is being written before the Israeli cabinet has agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon. Stopping the killing is a victory for Israel; it means that the Palestinians are abandoned. Iraq accepts Israel’s domination of this people and the increase in Israel’s size to include Gaza and the West Bank.

Presumably, Israel should curb its hostility towards Iran. Iran in turn will likely accept Israel’s right to drill for oil and gas in the Mediterranean off the Lebanon coast. In other words, Iran and Israel will benefit from the ceasefire and the Palestinians get nothing.

Hamas will have left the Palestinians crushed. No other Middle East nation is willing to risk Israel’s wrath by going to war in support of the Palestinian cause. Undoubtedly, this is a lesson that the United States and Israel hope will be accepted by the Palestinians. Rather than think of Hamas as heroes they will be convinced that Hamas’s adventurism has harmed their lives. Surely, this is a lesson that Israel and the United States support.

If there was world government, then Palestine could take its complaints to the United Nations and try to end the apartheid separation between Muslim and Israeli. Unhappily, the ceasefire will demonstrate to Israel and the Middle East that policies deemed genocide by the International Criminal Court prevail.

The Palestinians will be left to suffer without any meaningful international support. World government could produce an opposite result without death and destruction.

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 4 Comments

Making the U.N. Sovereign

In the last two articles, I have shared my enthusiasm for President John F. Kennedy’s goal of strengthening  “the United Nations,” as an “instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system—a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.”

President Kennedy wanted the U.N. to create “a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of Law.” That should be the objective of Freedom Democrats: “insuring the security of the large and small.”  The destruction of Ukraine after Russia’s attack and the gut-wrenching bloody clash between Israel and Palestine clearly demonstrate why the U.N. must protect “the large and small.”

Kennedy put his faith in the two world powers of 1963. He assumed cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States could bring peace and world disarmament.

His fear was that nuclear war would bring the end of humanity. Sixty-one years later, we believe it unlikely that atomic weapons will be used. My vision of world government goes far beyond disarmament.

In my opinion, it is likely that each nation will have armed forces, but the dominant power must be the United Nations. It should have a monopoly on atomic weapons and armed forces for enforcing its decisions. Bloody conflicts become unlikely; U.N. armed forces aren’t destroying a nation. They have a more practical objective: arrest the leaders who are fighting international decrees. Clearly, these leaders may have followers, and the U.N. armed forces, acting more like police than soldiers, must dissuade these supporters from turning to violence. Should a serious military challenge arise, the U.N. armed forces should be bolstered by calling on other nations for assistance. Just as the U.S. Constitution gives the central government the power to enhance its strength by calling on state militias.

Should a country file a complaint about another country, both nations must appear before a U.N. tribunal and make their case. It would be illegal and lead to possible intervention by the U.N. for a nation to ignore the complaint.

Minority groups, be they tribes or political parties, confronting genocide could also file complaints. Pol Pot’s mass murder of his political opponents in Cambodia should be within the U.N. jurisdiction.

In other words, the U.N. would be the Earth’s sovereign nation. Its mandate would be far larger than world peace. It would supervise the cooperation of nations confronting climate change; it would issue money and prevent countries from being unable to pay debts because the value of another country currency, like the dollar, soared, it would soften free trade’s impact on worker’s wages, and it would raise money for vital infrastructure projects. In an emergency, it would protect populations from famine. In short, the U.N. mission will be peace, “Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living,” in President Kennedy’s glowing words.

This change has historic examples: Italy in the 19th century turned its city states into one nation. At the end of the 18th century after the United States established the Constitution, the former colonies became a new nation under the authority of a central government capable of collecting taxes and organizing armed forces to protect every colony and prevent the colonies from going to war against each other.  In each case small bodies gave up their sovereignty so that a larger sovereign could improve life. A U.N. world government would yoke the separate nations into a common body that will, in President Kennedy’s glowing vision, “build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will the Democratic Love-Fest Continue?

The worriers were wrong. The Democrats replaced Joe Biden without a fight, without disruption. Sixth grade civics won out: the President is sick, the Vice-President takes over.

Party unity was jolted, fed by enthusiasm. Kamala Harris for President was greeted by Democrats with an immense sigh of relief: she looked healthy and able to do the job. Almost immediately, stories leaked about what the Wall Street Journal called her ten-hour telephone “marathon” after Biden pulled out of the race. Over one hundred calls, so the story went, and it carried a double message. She was organized, had the phone numbers, and could reach hundreds of Democratic decision-makers. She asked for support, and as everybody has heard, they gave it to her. Her energy also made it clear that she could reach out and help party members with their problems. Her White House would be accessible.

The fast turnover made it clear that supporters of an open convention, where candidates would have an opportunity to be heard, were offering bad advice. The doctor would have been prescribing chaos. Instead, Joe Biden endorsed Kamala and, more to the point, turned over his campaign staff and hundred-million-dollar bank account to her. Hickety-split the turnover fell into place.

Kamala is talking the language of continuity. For the left, there is hope that their friends at the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission will continue their policies for another four years.

Foreign policy will divide Democrats: Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not chosen peace, but in these places it has chosen sides. In the Ukraine, it is the pro-Western government; in Gaza, it is Israel. The results are catastrophic. Gaza is being demolished, and Ukraine’s infrastructure is crumbling. It seems certain that U.S. foreign policy will receive sharp scrutiny. How Democrats cope with these decisions will be a major problem for the next President. Trump or Harris will confront this grave predicament.

The left appears committed to peaceful solutions. It can make friends or in an extreme case look unreliable. Turning American foreign policy in a new direction is no easy matter. It should provide many opportunities for gaining friends and entering into mutually beneficial arrangements. Plainly it will be a dominant issue in January 2025.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Protect Women Make Sex Work Legal

In San Francisco, decades ago heroes of the legalization movement—like the scarlet harlot Carol Leigh—popularized the ingenious phrase “sex work.” She and her fellow radicals curbed the disgust conveyed by taunts like “whore” and “hooker.”

The new phrase replaced contemptuous words directed at the women but sheltered the men buying sexual favors.  Such language stigmatized relationships without evidence. Carol Leigh’s punchy slogan, “Sex work is work” took the mystery out of these sexual contacts by reminding us that buying and  renting are mundane daily activities.

This approach developed during the sexual revolution, when women’s right to their bodies and sexual pleasure became socially acceptable. This social change brought many positive benefits, including making same sex attractions legal and granting freedom of speech to pornography. It was an imperfect solution that It led to an increase in STDs and fostered the spread of AIDS.  Proving no good deed goes unpunished.

When it was illegal, pornography had been labeled prostitution. After all, the performers were paid to have sex. The sexual revolution increased the public’s recognition of the variety of sexual behaviors.

One obvious result: a worldwide multibillion-dollar industry centered around pornography.  It became a big business with local economic impacts and jobs. It offered vicarious sexual pleasures to the elderly, the timid, and the obese.  Of equal importance, in the United States it offered employment to drug users and people released from prison. There is testing for contagious diseases. These jobs are open to anyone. High school diplomas are not required. There is no drug testing.  No check of criminal records.  It is a unique job opportunity open to everyone, unlike most work in the U.S.

 Clearly the requirement of sexual availability limits the number of persons willing to do sex work. This activity isn’t for everyone. But it has attractions. The preparation for this work has a pleasant side: what do I wear, what make-up, showering and douching.  The sex worker is a performer. But there are serious differences between those who live a middle-class life and work by appointment, and the poor desperate for money. All over the United States there are unemployed individuals who don’t live paycheck to paycheck, but survive day to day. For a person trapped in this situation sex work is often humiliating. There are threats of violence and encounters with the police whose enforcement efforts target people of color living lives of quiet desperation. For the street walker, one sex act may not provide the money to meet daily expenses; they must find multiple partners.

All too often, they must turn their earnings over to a panderer, who confiscates most of their money. But even this nightmare scenario has complications. An older woman can hire a young man to perform chores including protecting the women they work with from violence. In this arrangement, the woman with experience runs the show. The young man follows the woman’s lead. Figuring out who is the sex trafficker isn’t obvious. The hostile phrase “sex trafficker” is a problem; this is a dangerous criminal activity. This hostile rhetoric ignores the accomplishments of people who rent their bodies. They are graduate students, comedians like Carol Leigh, marathon runners; there is more to their lives than sex work. But these words generate hostile public opinion. It is a right-wing movement trying to ignite hostile reactions.  For example, these groups call queer and trans individuals pedophiles and groomers.

Sexual arrangements are as varied as the capacity for human invention. For those groups hostile to sex work the nightmare scenarios predominate; the sex workers are victims—the exploited poor. They can’t and they don’t argue that the women who spentd time with wealthy men are “victims of sex trafficking.” Their rhetoric would have us believe that sex workers walk the streets living in fear of violent pimps. They favor using existing laws making sex work illegal. Their conclusion that the criminal law will bring positive results is not compelling. They believe this approach will get women off the street, protect children, and curb the social menace of “trafficking.”

They eagerly shut down brothels where women work a set number of hours, servicing the customers who walk through the door. All too often these women spend a workday earning a share of their fees with the brothel owner. Because sex work is illegal, these women can’t complain to the government or seek changes in their working conditions. These complaints would backfire: the women lose their job, the brothel is closed, and rules that will improve relationships between the customer, the sex worker, and the brothel owner are buried when they should flourish. Making brothels illegal, makes reform difficult; the only legal option is shutting the business down.

These establishments charge fees within the reach of working men, often immigrants or travelers who are separated from their families. Discussions of sex work should acknowledge class distinctions. A business charging customer $50 has different problems from the sex worker who earns $1000 in a night. Such acts occur in the privacy of an apartment or hotel room and are seldom investigated by law enforcement. The brothels that charge lower fees and depend on a volume business ask their women to have sexual encounters constantly throughout the working hours. Working conditions in a legal environment could give women more control over the number of customers and curb greedy brothel owners. Ideas for giving women autonomy in these situations receive little publicity and are seldom part of the public dialogue.

In many states, the injustice of arresting women while men avoid prosecution have led district attorneys and legislators to support decriminalization of sex work. This is clearly a positive first step. It combats racism and male chauvinism in law enforcement. Arresting men doesn’t really end the injustices. All too often the men’s needs are simple, and their choice of a transitory sexual encounter is free of criminal intent. The hope that arresting men will control prostitution seems dubious. Sex work for people with little money has always been an underground affair. The most likely outcome is that only a few customers will be arrested while the sex work industry finds ways to avoid prosecution. The legality of paying for sex is a contentious issue. The public will never unite and support one policy. The number of customers and women are greater than the resources of law enforcement, which must focus on other priorities like violent crimes and preserving public order. In short, law enforcement is unlikely to stop this illegal activity. And of perhaps greater importance it is unlikely that the public will give enthusiastic support to a crusade against prostitution. Consequently, only some sex workers and some customers will be ensnared by the legal system. The arrests become discretionary and unfair. Why should a small minority be punished while the majority go scot-free.

Legalization doesn’t mean approval, and it doesn’t mean a loss of social control. Cigarette smoking has been greatly diminished even though it has remained legal. Making alcohol illegal provided criminals with huge amounts of cash and left the police dealing with corruption. But once it became legal, drunk driving enforcement, and reminders that drinking water is healthy reduced alcohol consumption. The legalization of sports betting has diverted profits from criminals to businesses. Sports betting has brought professional basketball money for players’ salaries and the creation of midseason playoffs with big cash awards for winners. Making sex work legal would give women a platform for changes and greater protection. If their work is legal, they can call the cops to stop violence.   Small changes that cumulatively have a big impact will bring positive results with legalization.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Child’s Closet

Having Friends is what is most Important to a child

When Florida Gov Ron DeSantis and his allies assert they are protecting the young from groomers, drag queens, doctors and parents who accept that gender is not biology then it is time for us to seek protection from Gov DeSantis. His claims are false, even cruel.

There is nothing new about boys who act like girls or girls who act like boys. The young always bent gender limitations. How often has a girl boasted to a boy that she can throw a ball further and harder?

Malevolent conservatives wave the flag of parental rights and appeal to a daydream that parental influence will make children straight. Or even worse their goal is to bring back the days when heterosexuals were normal while homosexuals and trans persons were deemed immoral and sick.

In 1952, my mom caught me having oral sex with another ten-year old boy, warning me only fairies do that. Seventy-one years later, it remains a searing memory, a moment of terror and shame, I wished a trap door could open and let me disappear.

In a flash I knew I was a fairy. Accepting a negative identity came easily, and it is a warning that the “don’t say gay” crusade will not protect  children but could easily leave lonely children miserable. Making these identities a bad thing won’t stop the young from fooling around; it will only make them feel pain for doing it.

I achieved loneliness at an early age. In nursery school I would walk across the room and kick over other children’s building blocks. I did not play well with others. I was a troubled child, meaning I caused trouble.

I paid a heavy price for this hostile behavior. I didn’t have the support of friends. Where most kids went out to play after school, I headed for the library.  A bookworm who checked out a book and tried to finish it before bed.  Books like the Hardy Boys, sports stories by John Tunis. However entertaining, they emphasized my athletic weakness and failed to raise my spirits. They were reminders I was terrible at sports and physical activity; my insecurities deepened. There were no books written for boys like me.

The “Ban the Books” movement might bring back the pain I suffered as a preteen. I’m delighted that children can read books showing that it is ok to be gay. Books like this would have changed my life. Books are probably the only way I could learn that my dark secret wasn’t so dark. They would have quieted my fear that anyone who knew would shun me.

My fear of being found out shut me off from others and made me stupid. It stopped me from knowing what other people believed. My nightmares and anxieties went unquestioned and achieved the certainty of truth. Having no friends that I truly trusted stopped me from appreciating people who were supportive. Nor did I learn the smart answers to stop mean remarks that hurt. Stupidly I felt certain that I had to hide my inner self from everyone. Seeking a magic solution, I stopped using the word “suck.”

Looking back, I believe the banned books could have rescued me from the harsh conviction that I was disgusting. Only in books, in the privacy of my own room, could I have accepted the idea that my life had hope and that my loneliness was unnecessary.

My isolation meant I lost the benefit of early childhood friends; learning what banter is friendly and what banter is mean and should be ignored.

Books don’t make children gay. Parents don’t make children gay. Teachers don’t make children gay. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking children are malleable and informed by adults. Each student comes to school with his or her own needs and personality, paramount among these is finding friends.

In school, students have favorite teachers and others they resist. Even the young aren’t surprised that adults have disagreements. It is a mistake to think that teachers dominate children. Teachers constantly complain, “They just won’t listen.”

Florida’s Parent Rights law popularly known as “don’t say gay” is tone deaf to these realities. Good teachers watch children’s developments with a kindly concern.

Hard right conservatives who ignite parental anger ignore the social side of schooling. These adults make the teacher’s job difficult when they should be supportive of a teacher’s effort to make children happy.

END

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Suspicion of Trump’s coup is a Federal matter

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg  took the smart and appropriate action by backing away from prosecuting Donald Trump on the  local issue of manipulating his business records.

By Nathan Riley

Remember these are not consumer fraud cases. Lenders to Trump are not John Q Public. They have lawyers and appraisers. They possess specialized knowledge that suggests what looks like fraud is probably  standard business practice understood by the lenders and the borrowers. This would have been a very difficult case to prove, and would have focused media attention on a much less consequential matter. Taxes are minor league stuff relative to treason and insurrection. 

Trump’s business practices are small potatoes comparted to fears that Trump tried to use the attack on the Capitol to prevent Biden’s from taking office.

In the weeks after the mob forced members of Congress out  of their offices a political interpretation circulated. The Republicans wished to “sow doubt in our elections in order to justify voter suppression efforts in the future.”

But that interpretation is being replaced. The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is asking did the former President wanted to stop the certification of the electoral college vote and force the election into the House of Representatives. 

This alternative procedure does not rely on the votes of individual members of Congress-each state casts a single vote. There are 27 states where Republicans are the majority in the state delegation. 27 state where a poll of Representatives would back Trump. 27 is a majority of the 50 states and Donald Trump would emerge the winner if the House rather than the electoral college picked the winner.

An active member of the House Investigating Committee has concluded: “This was not a coup directed at the president,” Rep. Jamie Raskin said of the insurrection, according to NBC News. “It was a coup directed by the president against the vice president and against the Congress.”

Others have reached this conclusion. The Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research called it an attempted coup on Jan 27, 2021. They study the history of coups all over the world.

The Select Committee and the Justice Department are the appropriate bodies to investigate the federal crime of insurrection. Mr. Bragg wisely stepped aside.

Politics is a blood sport, and the right wingers slamming Bragg were going for the jugular. They denounced Bragg for being a liberal and then added he was incompetent. They claimed dropping the case against Trump was proof that the new DA was not up to the job.

But the  latest news surrounding Trump continues to raise serious questions. Was this an insurrection? Was there a plan to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college votes? Did Trump want to stop the electoral college count so the House could poll its members and make Trump a winner? The facts are not all in, but the suspicions seem well-founded. Federal investigators are the appropriate  people to sift these accusations, not the Manhattan District Attorney. Alvin Bragg acted correctly.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Do Not Fall into the 9/11 Nostalgia Trap.

By Nathan Riley 9/23/2021

Keep this in mind: Al Qaeda attacked three buildings and killed 3,000 persons. The deliberately theatrical coup amplified violence besieging the Muslim World since before World War I. Osama Bid Laden must have been surprised; only in his wildest dreams would his plan knock down the World Trade Center skyscrapers. The attack outstripped a 1993 terrorist triumph after the Desert Storm war. A truck packed with explosives blasted the World Trade Center garage with the force of a bomb. Six were killed; 50,000 fled smoke and fire. 1,000 were wounded. 9-11 was one ambitious terrorist outshining another master. Bid Laden’s hijacked airplanes surpassed the truck bombing. His attack crushed thousands, was broadcast on worldwide television, and collapsed the two tallest building in the fifty states.

This brutal provocation led the United States into a reign of error and atrocities. Were Bid Laden-Robin Hood provoking the Sherriff of Nottingham the mistake would be obvious. The Sherriff’s men would chase the merry men into Sherwood Forrest and be ambushed. Roaring with fury and giving little consideration that harsh policies might increase the popularity of the opposition, the United State declared war against terrorism all over the world. Elevating a group of guerrillas into a test of U.S. power.

This gung ho response led to a victory for Islamic insurgents caused by American’s confidence that it could crush the enemy in Afghanistan the way Desert Storm overwhelmed Saddam Hussein’s soldiers. By September 18, 2001 every member of Congress except California’s Barbara Lee voted for war against “against those nations, organizations, or persons” involved the attack. She was the only voice backing “restraint” and “caution.” Her vote gained her a place in history. The terrorist operating on a shoestring budget provoked the United States into a costly 20-year war.

The network of Radical Muslims, almost all Saudis, raised approximately $250,000, sacrificed their lives, and flew the planes into the buildings. They ignited this war, but the United States provided the fuel to keep the engine running. By the time the U.S. left it spent $2.3 trillion, and still lost to the Taliban.

This is a defeat. A defeat of such magnitude that it calls into question the competence of our leaders. Popular fury fed Washington’s conceit it could crush the furious hostility of radical Muslims battling the “Great Satan.” Unfortunately, the United States was trapped into being the bad guys-the invaders.

From this perspective the Taliban’s speedy takeover at the close of hostilities reflected popular hostility against the NATO forces but also sound judgment by Afghan Security Forces eager to avoid the grave danger of a civil war.

Undoubtedly, we will hear stories of Kabul Army leaders pocketing corrupt payments – turning government positions into private fortunes is practiced all over the world. But money should not obscure important point. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan speaking to the BBC expressed his concern that the civil war might return. The collapse of the Kabul forces brought domestic peace. The surrender of the pro-American soldiers ended the war.

Afghani supporters of the U.S. were left in a dreadful position; the only way women’s rights and intellectual freedom could be saved was by going to war with the Taliban. A bloody outcome that would have prolonged the agony flooding the region with refugees. Lindsay Graham, the South Carolina Senator, vehemently supports guerrilla war against the Taliban. A Republican victory might make his proposals carry the day.

Normal relations with the Taliban government would allow the United States to match the growing influence of the Chinese. If the U.S. traded and provided aid, Washington could gain a perch that might help women and people trained in the sciences. Punishing the Taliban with sanctions and brandishing U.S. power puts these cosmopolitan groups in the difficult position of being identified with a hostile nation.

Afghanistan has many non-terrorist features that might be accessible if normal relations are established. A huge copper mine supplies international markets. Lithium, the stuff that make the batteries in cell phone and electric vehicles work is another Afghani asset. If the American government swallowed hard, maintained its aid to the Taliban, it could make a claim to these natural resources.

This policy would place the U.S. in direct competition with the Chinese in their backyard but without the antagonism that Washington seems to prefer. In fact, the Chinese Silk Road expansion is laced with major construction projects that might attract American business.

China is waiting to pick up the pieces left by the U.S. departure. Afghanistan is in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. CPEC is a $50 billion Pakistan component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Talks are starting about including the Taliban government. Continued hostility towards the Taliban helps China.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A competition over who builds the improvement on the silk road from Europe to Beijing makes the United States try to win loyalty of Muslim nations with public works not weapons. It turns the Chinese challenge into coexistence. That would transform the Taliban victory into a happier moment.