MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT DEATH

A WISE PERSON wrote recently (I do wish I'd saved the clip) that we are in
the 10th year of the Bush administration.

The sagacious author was talking about foreign policy, making the point
that there is no difference at all between the Bushian New World Order and
the Clintonian No Name Defense except the name of the man making the vague
and unhelpful speeches.

We bomb Iraq; we make covert deals with drug lords in South America; we
make the world safe for American corporations to use cheap labor; we favor
free competition because we're the strongest guy on the block; we develop
and maintain a nonsensical ad-hoc China policy; the list goes on.

The same is almost true in the domestic area. Clinton gutted the welfare
system in a way that must have made Bush green with envy. Clinton defers to
the Defense Department and the congressional demands for lots of pork in
the defense budget, just as Bush did. Both advocated campaign finance
reform; both made sure it never happened.

Clinton talks about ``compassion'' as a fine virtue for other people to
develop; Bush's son, the GOP presidential heir-presumptive, is nattering on
about ``compassion'' almost every day.

This is one reason why the muck-dwellers on talk radio are so laughable

- --they rant on about Clinton as an ``ultraliberal.'' He's not. Except for
sundry matters of style and personal behavior, he's the same president
we've had since 1988.

Molly Ivins was asked, ``Should we have a third political party?'' She
answered: ``I think we should have a second political party.''

NOWHERE IS THIS more true than in the War on Drugs, which will from now on
be known as the War on Some Drugs, or WOSD. It is nonsensical on its face;
it has resulted in miscarriages of justice; many parts of it are clearly
unpopular; and yet it continues.

People vote to decriminalize marijuana, or to allow its medical use, and
yet somehow people continue to be arrested for possessing and selling
marijuana. Other medicinal herbs are offered over the counter without FDA
approval (because they are not ``drugs,'' they are ``natural,'' as though
that were a distinction that meant anything), but marijuana is still a
villainous weed.

Valium and vodka are good; marijuana and mescaline are bad. Defend that
position, using any criteria you choose. You may already be a drug czar.

AS I SUGGESTED yesterday, one reason to keep the WOSD going is that it
works so well as a covert instrument of foreign policy. From Afghanistan to
Colombia, from Thailand to Mexico, we can get tough or look the other way,
depending on certain concessions.

But the WOSD has also served as an excuse for an unprecedented erosion of
civil liberties. The protections granted by the Constitution and judicial
precedent are being slowly destroyed, all in the name of saving the
children. Already, people can have their property seized without due
process, their homes searched without warrants.

Because of a decision made in the '80s and enthusiastically endorsed by
ultraliberal Bill Clinton, it was decided to concentrate the WOSD in the
black neighborhoods. Which means that, disproportionately, it was the civil
liberties of black people that were violated.

Maybe even somebody you know, or somebody who leads a life that resembles
yours in many important particulars. Movies and TV have led to certain
images of the behavior and morals of people arrested in drug raids, but
these images are not the same as the facts.

Fear is generated; driven by fear, the electorate fails to notice the
changes in the laws. Bad things happen only to bad people; everyone knows
that. Only the guilty are sent to death row, and the guilty should fry like
bacon if their crimes are bad enough.

Not true, not anymore. The WOSD has made the death penalty too much of a
lottery. Until the laws change, I'm against it.

Still the ghostly voice asks, `Which side are you on?' You have to keep
answering.

The man who ran looked a lot like jrc@sfgate.com.