Newfound appreciation for the lives of young black men - In praise of the Supreme Court

When I was a kid, my father used to drive us from Boston to a family house in Darlington, S.C. during school vacations. He thought the relaxed pace and small-town charm was a nice change from life in the big city where we lived, so my younger sister and I would spend a couple of weeks every year riding our bikes around town and playing the Pole Position arcade game outside the Piggly Wiggly.

As I got older, the physical and social segregation became less and less quaint and more and more annoying. By the time I was 13, I had to stop making the trips, partly because I had a bad habit of saying what was on my mind to whatever audience was listening with no regard for (or knowledge of) the historical context of our interaction. Believe me when I tell you that white men in a town famous for its NASCAR track are not used to hearing a black teenager with a Yankee accent say, "Excuse me, there's a line. And I'm next."

I'm sure there weren't too many local black kids talking back (or even to) adult white men in the Darlington of the mid-1980s, or anywhere else in the South, and I'd be surprised if much conversation between the two demographic groups is taking place now. I do know that thanks to a historic ruling by the United States Supreme Court, there is at least one southern state with a newfound appreciation for the lives of young black men.

In the landmark case of Graham v. Florida, the high court ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime. In other words, as long as he doesn't kill anyone, a kid who breaks the law can be rehabilitated and has to have a chance at a life outside of prison. For young black men and the people who love them, this beginning of a change in perception has been a long time coming.

I won't make any excuses for the defendant in the case, Terrance Graham. He made the choice to go along with his friends and attempt to rob a BBQ restaurant, so he was partly responsible when one of the kids hit the restaurant manager with some kind of metal pipe. He was also responsible for making the choice to go along with some friends on an armed robbery/home invasion some months later while on probation for the restaurant assault/attempted robbery.

But is he responsible for the fact that he was born to crack-addicted parents or for the fact that he was diagnosed with ADHD in elementary school? Should the fact that the group of teens (Graham was 16 at the time but tried as an adult) didn't actually take any money in the failed robbery have been taken into consideration? Or should he have been hit with a violation of his probation after the home invasion, been given the maximum sentence of life behind bars for the botched robbery in a state that had abolished its parole system (by a different judge than the one who originally granted probation), and been sent to die in prison? In a country that prohibits punishment that is either "cruel" or "unusual," the answer is clear.

Yet the judge in the case, based on limited professional contact with the defendant (and probably zero contact with anyone resembling the defendant in his personal life), decided that the teenaged Terrance Graham was of no use to society — and never would be. He said, "Mr. Graham, as I look back on your case, yours is really candidly a sad situation. You had, as far as I can tell, you have quite a family structure. You had a lot of people who wanted to try and help you get your life turned around, including the court system, and you had a judge who took the step to try and give you direction through his probation order to give you a chance to get back onto track. … And I don't know why it is that you threw your life away … . But you did … . The only thing that I can rationalize is that you decided that this is how you were going to lead your life and that there is nothing we can do for you … . I don't see where I can do anything to help you any further."

That kind of patronizing, casual dismissal of a young life perfectly demonstrates why we have to end the 20th century model of race relations: because it dehumanizes people.

Despite the fact that many white people will refuse to acknowledge anything other than blatantly obvious race-based discrimination as "racism," our country's history is rife with it. From separate but equal back through Jim Crow, Reconstruction, the Civil War, to the whole "three-fifths of a person" thing, our nation's history is rife with example after example of institutionalized, legalized, or socially accepted apartheid. Acknowledging that black teenagers who run afoul of the law might actually have some value to society as something other than grist for the mill that is the corrections industry doesn't make up for that painful past, but it's a step in the right direction.

Tired of BP's B.S. - Making polluters pay

Do you know how much crude oil and natural gas is leaking out of the well under the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico? If not, you're in pretty good company. Experts have estimated that anywhere from 5,000 to 200,000 barrels of viscous, toxic crude oil are rushing into the gulf every day forming a nebulous blob of a 3-D spill that's as big as the island of Manhattan. It's threatening marine life, it (combined with the canals and trenches dug to extract it) could devastate coastal wetlands, and it's only about two weeks away from joining the Loop Current and being carried toward the Florida Keys.

To call the situation catastrophic is to underestimate the damage the spill could end up causing. It makes me want to ask fossil fuel fan and former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, "how's that 'drill, baby, drill' thing workin' out for ya?" Except unlike her, this isn't a joke. If she lived or earned her living in or around the Gulf of Mexico from Corpus Christi, Texas to Miami, her answer would have to be, "it's working out badly — and it will get much worse before it gets any better."

In the coming weeks and months, we are going to be overwhelmed by the aftermath of this one explosion on this one oil rig as the slick it generated becomes a part of our daily lives and our government debates the best response. We have to remember that the gulf is home to 170 more rigs like Deepwater Horizon; and they produce a whopping 80 percent of the oil harvested by offshore drilling in the U.S. Their lobbyists are going to be well-funded and well-connected, and ready for battle — as evidenced by the fact that they've already killed a unanimous consent decree in the U.S. Senate. Despite the inevitability of another partisan battle, and in large part because of the fact that BP is only capturing a pitiful 20 percent of the escaping crude (a full month after it unleashed the environmental apocalypse on the United States, Mexico, and Cuba), Congress should pass a law removing the cap on BP's liability for economic damage. Maybe once the cash leaking out of the company's coffers corresponds to the crude leaking out of the hole it drilled in the ocean floor, these people will prioritize properly.

Caribou Barbie and her merry band of free-marketeers will argue that passing a law that punishes BP retroactively is illegal because it would be a bill of attainder and would only apply to BP. They'll say that BP is doing everything it can to stop the leak and clean up the spill, and they'll say that the bill is unnecessary because the oil giant (currently enjoying record profits) has already said it will pay "all legitimate claims" for damages resulting from the spill.

They'll be wrong on all counts. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, passed to punish Exxon in response to the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989, was upheld in 2002. By mid-June or so when the spill joins the Loop Current, Mother Nature is going to take over the clean-up operation so the treasure trove that is the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the Dry Tortugas isn't too badly damaged (though BP's dispersants/magic detergent might help a little). And there are students in law school right now who will be arguing the meaning of the word "legitimate" in court on behalf of BP for years to come, while fisherman and their families face the economic uncertainty of the "free market."

At the risk of being repetitive, an event of this magnitude once again raises the critical question when it comes to public policy: should the people have protection from their government or the protection of their government? In this case, the deep-pocketed Fortune 500 company would clearly have an advantage over an individual seeking relief in court, so it's completely appropriate for government to put a thumb on the scale of justice to balance it out. That's why this law needs to be passed — like yesterday.

If there is any kind of limit on the exposure to financial risk connected to exposure to environmental, ecological, and macro-economic risk, the energy industry of the next century will simply behave the same way as the energy industry of the past century. Companies will just factor in the fines/fees/penalties as a cost of doing business and pass it onto the consumer. Billions in quarterly profits and the very real prospect of a return to nearly $5 per gallon gas justify massive expenditures on exploration that is increasingly dangerous. All the evidence has shown that's exactly what we don't need; especially when you consider that over one billion people, more than the combined population of the world's wealthiest nations, live only on energy provided by nature.

When we finally have a market that won't bear $100 fill-ups for the family car or waterfowl befouled by thick, black tar, companies in the energy business will find a different way to provide it — or they'll die trying.

Take the money and run - Are you there, SMRR? It's me, Kenny

A couple of months ago, I asked 600 people to join me in forming the New Energy Caucus within Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights, the tenants advocacy organization turned political party that controls Santa Monica's City Council, Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and Santa Monica College. I would have been happy if two or three people had agreed to come along, so getting as many people together as we did was both exciting and motivational. But for me, the fact that the address where I dropped off my application and $25 membership fee (the same address listed on SMRR's website) turned out to be a UPS store did not inspire confidence in the organization and previewed what was to come over the next six weeks.

A few days later, the cash was taken out of my checking account. I took that to mean that my application had been approved and that I was now a card-carrying member of SMRR, the most powerful (and only) political party in town. So I started checking my mailbox for my official SMRR membership card, or my official SMRR membership packet, or my official SMRR welcome letter accompanying my invitation to the SMRR platform meeting on April 25. After a while, I had adjusted my expectations downward to the point where I would have been happy if they had just sent me a receipt for the 25 bucks (I was never invited to the platform meeting). As of the time this column went to print, neither I nor anyone else in the New Energy Caucus has had any contact at all from anyone connected to Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights. This leads me to believe that the organization has no orientation process for new members or it doesn't want (or doesn't welcome) new energy. Either way, it's all bad for our city's future.

The thing to remember about Santa Monica is our demographic eccentricity. Some 70 percent of us live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom apartments, 70 percent of us rent instead of own, over 70 percent of us aren't moving (or aren't moving very far if we do), about 70 percent of us don't have families, some 70 percent of us have college degrees, and over 70 percent of us make at least $50k per year. We're mostly childless apartment dwellers, so it's understandable that a tenants' rights group would be the most powerful (and only) political organization in town. But the fact that we're also educated, and affluent means we're likely to recognize a long-term problem — that our city's power structure is controlled by one political party — and organize to solve it.

On a personal level, I was surprised that my application was approved. Back when I thought SMRR actually used the U.S. Postal Service, I thought for sure I would be getting a rejection letter. And I was OK with that. To paraphrase the great Groucho Marx, I wasn't convinced that I wanted to be part of a club that would accept me as a member (especially after I called the organization Machiavellian). At the same time, I promised my readers I'd be there at the platform meeting. So I kept checking my mailbox, and I kept coming up empty. Numerous calls placed in order to confirm my membership in advance of the April 25 meeting went unanswered and unreturned and I was reluctant to discover the hard way that my check had been cashed by accident and that my membership application was not accepted. Because I didn't know for sure that I would be welcomed, I didn't attend. But make no mistake, I wasn't happy about it.

For SMRR, my membership is a perfect test case. My experience is the experience of the person moving into Santa Monica. If this is what it's going to be like for all new arrivals, then SMRR should get ready for a local revolution once the newcomers realize they're not being represented and they have to have a path to representation other than SMRR membership. Or, if a newly minted Santa Monican decides there is no way to effect local politics, he or she might just tune out. I have to think it's a better idea to have more people engaged and invested inside the SMRR tent.

With this being an election year, I want my fellow SMRR members to know they can count on seeing me at the Aug. 1 convention. In the two months between now and that meeting, SMRR Steering Committee members can look forward to answering direct questions about the organization's policies, procedures, and the general perception that it is neither open nor transparent. In the three months between the convention and the election, SMRR candidates can count on being contacted directly to get their positions on the issues on the record. And once your Santa Monica Daily Press holds our usual "Squirm Night" candidates forum, readers and voters can look forward to getting all the information they'll need to choose the best future for Santa Monica.

Legalizing pot will help save patients, California's economy - Official Grounbreaking Prediction of 2010

From week to week, there are five basic topics that a columnist covers. In ascending order of importance they are sports, pop culture and the arts, local politics, national politics, and predictions. Depending on the reader, there is some debate about whether local or national politics is number two, but there is no question that the most important skill any good columnist possesses is the ability to accurately forecast the future.

Naturally, my 14-months-before-anyone-else 2007 Official Groundbreaking Prediction that Barack Obama would be elected the 44th president of the United States followed by my alone-among-my-peers 2008 Official Groundbreaking Prediction that the Obama inauguration would be the "cultural, social, and political event of a generation; like Woodstock meets the March on Washington" cemented my status as America's smartest columnist.

My Official Groundbreaking Prediction of 2010, encompassing all five of the columnist's main topics, is that the voters in the state of California will once again lead the nation by making lawful the personal possession, processing, sharing, or transporting of not more than one ounce of cannabis — as well as cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis. In other words, Californians are finally going to legalize it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I first became interested in cannabis before I really knew what it was. The late, great John Hughes made a movie called "The Breakfast Club" in which a bunch of high school kids from different cliques stuck in an all-day Saturday detention together become friends after they smoke a few joints and let their guard down. As an eighth grader I remember thinking that anything that could bring jocks, metal-heads, freaks, geeks, and princesses together must be magic.

As I got older I got educated and I learned that it's not magic, it's medicine. That isn't to say that cannabis isn't abused as a recreational drug or that we should encourage its use by young people, but the fact remains that the Food & Drug Administration has approved it to treat nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and wasting. If a breast cancer patient wants to use cannabis to stimulate her appetite and help her keep food down so she doesn't waste away, Californians (when given the chance) aren't going to tell her she can't smoke a joint in the privacy of her own home because somebody somewhere might use cannabis just to get high. This November, voters will ignore the tired, old arguments about what message legalization sends to kids — at least until we talk about binge drinking in movies — and try to understand that the best message we can send is the truth: that cannabis helps sick patients get well. It will also be argued that the decriminalization measure will open the door to scientific research (and the accompanying grants) that can't be done in any other state. And it will pass.

Speaking of sick patients, California's economy — the eighth largest in the world — could also stand to get better. Right now we waste untold millions of dollars arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating non-violent cannabis crimes; with four out of five being simple possession charges and one in five being a kid under 18. Proponents will successfully argue that decriminalizing cannabis would save us that money, spare us the opportunity costs of taking a law enforcement officer away from the investigation/prevention of real crime, and have the added benefit of saving hundreds of thousands of our fellow Californians from wearing the mark of the convicted criminal for the rest of their lives.

The most persuasive argument is going to be the economic benefit of cannabis tourism. When the hypocritical moral dispute is rightly tossed aside (since nobody can logically say that cannabis is more dangerous to society than alcohol), then we are left with the geographic reality of the Golden State — which is that in addition to southern California's wine country, the lush Central Valley, and northern California's wine country, we have the Emerald Triangle: Trinity, Mendocino, and Humboldt counties. Throughout the world, these places are as synonymous with premium cannabis as Sonoma and Napa are with fine wine. Cannabis is already a $40-plus billion per year industry, the legalization of which could lead to an additional $1.5 billion in tax revenue for California — and that's before tourists from the 13 other states where it's legal for patients start arriving.

Back in March, Debra Bowen, California's secretary of state, certified that the question would be on the ballot for the Nov. 2 general election after a random sampling verified that the required 433,971 valid signatures had been submitted. For the record, the actual number of qualifying signatures counted was over 694,000 when the tallying stopped — indicating broad support among voters and a smooth road to passage.

When California voters see past the inevitable ridiculous arguments in support of the same policies that incarcerate our people, hurt our economy, and prevent scientific breakthroughs that could help terminally ill patients, we will literally grow our way out of this recession — one cannabis plant at a time.

Remember where you read it first.