What a difference a century makes for Trib on controlled substances

It was heartening to read the Trib’s editorial from March 27, 1919, condemning the upcoming start of Prohibition a hundred years ago January 17. The Trib got it right in the 1,100 editorials published during that sorrowful epoch of American history, calling Prohibition “an unwarranted government intrusion into people’s lives…a futile exercise in legislating morality…primarily benefiting bootlegging mobsters and corrupt officials.

But it was dis-heartening to realize the Trib offered not a single editorial opposing the century long demonization of cannabis that produced the same type of societal dysfunction that Prohibition of alcohol produced. Cannabis prohibition ensnared tens of millions of the hundreds of millions of us who have used cannabis while it has been illegal. According to the ACLU, 8.2 million Americans were arrested for minor cannabis violations in this century’s first decade. According to Forbes, minor cannabis arrests rose from 653,000 to 660,000 to 663,000 from 2016 to 2018, even though recreational cannabis became legal in 9 states.

But during the entire 2013 to 2019 Illinois legislative drive to legalize recreational cannabis, the Trib was AWOL from its historical history of libertarian enlightenment on alcohol as a matter of personal choice. In lockstep with their favored governor Bruce Rauner who opined legalizing cannabis ‘wouldn’t be prudent’, the Trib channeled Chicken Little on cannabis rather than legendary Trib publisher Col. McCormick who wrote many of those 1,100 editorials excoriating Prohibition in the name of libertarian freedom.

Of course, once cannabis became legal, the Trib’s news coverage jumped on the cannabis gravy train, giving prominent coverage of legal weed to prevent a single enlightened reader from turning to another source of cannabis coverage.

The Trib Editorial Board might consider a mea culpa editorial on Prohibition. How about “Last century right on alcohol; this century wrong on cannabis”?

We came, we saw, Libya died

The US Secretary of State is charged with leading US diplomacy to promote peace by avoiding war. But back in 2011, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton substituted war for diplomacy in Libya, turning it into a failed state for the last nine years. Libya’s wily ruler Moammar Qaddafi had made peace with the US eight years earlier by ending terrorism, missile and nuclear development. He even became something of a darling to US hawks such as Sen. John McCain. But opposition that rose up against strongman Qaddafi in 2011 during the Arab Spring uprisings promoted Secretary Clinton to concoct a phony threat of genocide by Qaddafi against his people to change out the Qaddafi regime. President Obama and the UN bought into the false Clinton narrative, resulting in bombs away against Qaddafi's forces. The resulting rebel victory ended with Qaddafi dead from a grisly bayoneting...and the disgusting Clinton quote "We came, we saw, he died."

Turns out the victory was a catastrophe for the hapless Libyans who were not under threat of genocide by their longtime leader. Instead Libya quickly degenerated into numerous factions, including ISIS, fighting for control of this vast, oil rich land. The current battle lines pit the weak incumbent General National Congress government against the insurgent Libyan National Army led by Khalifa Haftar. As with any country the US destabilizes, neighboring countries far and wide jumped in for political and economic reasons. Rebel leader Haftar has garnered support from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE and the biggie Russia. The incumbent General National Congress is supported by Italy, Qatar and their biggie Turkey which is threatening to send in troops to protect Turkey’s interests. The US, after setting off the unfolding disintegration of Libya, has largely been on the sidelines, communicating to both sides, “Can’t we just get along?”

Hillary didn’t quite get it right when she gloated “We came, we saw, he died.” She should have substituted “thousands” for “he’”.

US cruelty to Cuba enters eighth decade

In the last year of the 1950’s, the US embarked on a campaign of cruel economic sanctions to overturn the Cuban revolution which was necessary and inevitable. On January 1, 2020, the US entered its eighth decade of such cruelty, continuing punishment of 11 million Cubans and millions outside Cuba from enjoying this small, poor but still wonderful island country. The Trump administration’s latest jab at human decency toward Cuba involves banning charter flights to Santiago and eight other cities outside Havana. Charter flights to the capitol itself are being reduced. Why? According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, it’s to further strangle the Cuban economy as punishment for the government’s treatment of its people and its support for socialist Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro. That represents a twofor as the US wants to change out both socialist regimes to ones subservient to US capitalist exploitation and subservience. Why is reducing charter flights so harmful? Simple. Cuba is not blessed with remarkable interstates like America. Travel becomes treacherous on poorly maintained and dangerous roads, taking 12 hours just to go from aforementioned Santiago to Havana. The charter flights greatly facilitate such countrywide travel.

Come to think of it, the US has really entered it fourteenth decade of economic and political cruelty against Cuba. It all started in 1898 when the McKinley administration launched an illegal war to steal Cuba away from its imperialist overlord Spain, replacing it with imperialist overlord America. US freedom and democracy extend no further than the US shoreline. Ninety miles out it’s “Our way or no travel for you.”