There’s really no other word that would accurately describe the behavior of the many agencies that stormed through Boston and its suburbs this week. Thousands of State and local police, sheriff’s deputies, FBI SWAT employees, Homeland Security Shock Troops, and National Guard soldiers conducted a massive search – virtually none of it in compliance with the 4th Amendment – in search of a single teenager. They practically ordered an entire city “locked down” and were presumably prepared to begin arresting residents who refused to comply with what amounted to martial law.

Now, just for a moment consider what the effective lock down means. As Charles W. Johnson presented the situation on Facebook, lockdown is “from the vocabulary of prison wardens, referring to a condition in which inmates are temporarily completely restricted in their movements and confined to their cells, in order to allow prison guards to conduct searches or contain and control what the inmates are doing.” He then asks these two questions: “If the police have the power to put a city ‘on lockdown,’ then what does that make the city? And what does it make the innocent people living in it?” Well, it would make the city a prisons and the residents would be inmates, naturally.

Now, had the search not ended as early as it did, one question that seems appropriate is, “what about the 3rd Amendment?” Perhaps the least-addressed of all the amendments in the bill of rights, it’s no less relevant to the situation. While it refers specifically to soldiers, little distinction exists in light of these two photographs. The individual on the left is, according to the source, a member of the FBI, who helped in the search. The individual on the right is a soldier in Afghanistan. Note the similarities in the uniform, the equipment, and the weapons. Whatever legal differences exist between the military and civilian law enforcement are at this point irrelevant.

As a matter of routine we would occupy a home during operations in Iraq. Not only did the Iraqi people not have so much as a fig leaf of a bill of rights, but how were they to resist if they didn’t feel comfortable with our presence? The same goes for the people of Boston. Despite having the supposed protection of the bill of rights, it’s rather obvious that it either authorized the operation or was powerless to stop it, to borrow a phrase from Lysander Spooner.

Wilton Alston asked on the LRC blog “Didn’t The Terrorists Win A While Back?” He wrote:

Armored police vehicles. Tactical teams. Everyone under house arrest. Soldiers and/or other armed enforcers roaming the streets. House-to-house searches. We call it, ‘Terror in Boston!’ In any one of the several places the U.S. has invaded and/or is currently deploying drones, they’d call it, ‘Tuesday.’ Perspective. Stated differently, maybe the ‘terrorosts’ (sic) won a while back?

This is the larger point I hope to convey. The United States has, rather quickly, devolved into a totalitarian state that in terms of its militarized law enforcement is not much different at home than it is abroad. Of course the tactics are much more heavy-handed overseas, the police and military still do a reasonably good job not shooting innocent people here. Trigger-happy LA cops notwithstanding, they’re not nearly as dangerous here as they are in places like rural Pakistan or many parts of Yemen. Villagers are routinely preyed upon by drones launching hellfire missiles at children collecting firewood, wedding parties, and those brave enough to try and rescue survivors of those attacks.

A number of commentators have mentioned this already, notably Scott Horton, that all of this despotic martial law was worthless in terms of actually apprehending the suspected bomber. (I hope you’ll forgive my quaint use of the word “suspected.” Indeed he’s more than likely to be treated as an enemy combatant without rights.) As it was reported in the news media, within minutes of the lock-down being lifted a man stepped outside for a cigarette and noticed the boy hiding in his boat. He immediately alerted the police, who then proceeded to engage in a spectacular show of force, throwing grenades and reportedly firing hundreds of rounds at the wounded suspect. Thankfully no one has been reported injured by the unnecessary gun battle.

This raises another question related to the lockdown. Presumably it was in order to make it easier for the police/military to locate the suspect, Mr. Tsarnaev. But given how much effort the government put into the search, and how little exertion was necessary to actually locate him, one wonders how soon this all could have been over had a million pairs of eyes not been shuttered inside their homes for the better part of the day. We can’t know for sure, but it does seem to be a reasonable question, given the facts.

The residents of Boston and its surrounding communities are celebrating the heroic work of the police/military, and they’re expressing thanks for capturing the kid. Of course they’re not likely to feature testimony from residents who may be shocked at the extreme level force or the total disregard for existing law related to probable cause and those antiquated warrants. Many no doubt feel much safer. But should they?

The government claims a virtual monopoly on security and defense services, and yet three people were killed and as many as one hundred and seventy six were injured by the bombings. If they’re supposed to protect people from violence, they failed. Not only did they not prevent such an attack, they couldn’t even capture one of the suspects without some random guy Jonesing for some nicotine. It’s also noteworthy that the younger the suspect, the one captured alive reportedly ran over the older one after he’d been shot by police, after which he was captured. Had he not been run over, one wonders how long it would have been before he too was found.

Most aren’t considering the implications of what just took place and what sort of precedent has been set for such a situation in the not-too-distant future. To be sure, this will become a standard procedure likely to play out in cities and towns across America, albeit on a smaller scale and with less reporting. A murder suspect will be on the loose and a city’s police department will invoke the “Boston Rule” or some such phrase, and they’ll lock down a part of town, storm into people’s homes, pull them into the streets. It’s not so much a question of when, but how often and under what circumstances. No doubt much of the actions were the result of the high profile case, but such is the way with government. Once it gets a taste for new power, the state uses it, early and often. Chances are good this will become the new normal. “It worked, didn’t it?” they’ll say. And just like the two hundred SWAT raids a day that grew out of a single city’s decision to specially arm and train one unit, this will be repeated until it’s so common as to be unremarkable.

Of course the constitution is no guarantor of liberty, and its amendments are equally powerless to restrain the state. But given its purported function and that it’s supposed to represent the highest law in the land, it’s instructive to compare the actions of the state – and the people’s reaction in general to government action – with the laws. Watching it all unfold and seeing the mostly positive response makes me feel a bit like Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski, wondering if I’m the only one who cares about the rules.

Motive, too, is an important element that seems largely overlooked. It’s too early to know exactly what lead these young men to allegedly set off bombs at the Boston marathon. Assuming the remaining suspect survives (as I write this on Saturday morning he’s still with us) the details of his plot will be revealing. There is some speculation as to the role the FBI played in all of this. The aunt of the two suspects indicated the FBI had been involved for as long as three years, and Daniel McAdams raised the question of what role, if any, they played on the LRC blog. These are reasonable questions, considering the FBI was involved in the Christmas Tree bomber, the Newburgh Four, this guy, this guy, and these guys, among many others.

Is it so hard to imagine that at some point these operations could get out of hand, and someone who has been radicalized by the FBI actually pulls off an attack? Fortunately they were able to control those other situations, but had they not been involved in such activities we’d all be better off. It serves no legitimate purpose for them to concoct an attack, spend years molding a patsy into carrying it out, and then come rushing in to save everyone at the last minute.

There is of course blowback as a possible motive, one that seems entirely likely given the long-standing policy overseas. And it could simply be that whoever was responsible for the bombing is someone with sociopathic tendencies. However it turns out to be, the lessons that come from the events in Boston this past week are that the police state we live in is unable to protect the people of this country. Furthermore, the people seem content to live in these circumstances and are actually thankful to do so. Here’s to hoping that at least a few more people saw this for what it really was – totalitarianism – and will begin to question the motives and tactics of those involved.

Recently by Joel Poindexter: Mocking the State in the DigitalAge

It's popular among Christians (at least in the conservative evangelical circles I mostly travel in, though I can't speak for everyone), to suggest that each time a person accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, heaven throws a party. The idea being that the body of Christ has grown, and there will be yet another seat at God's heavenly table following Jesus' second coming. Similarly, it is often said that another celebration occurs after the passing of a believer, as that person has finally made it home. For him there will be no more death, no more pain, and no more tears.

I've never heard it put this way, but I imagine the opposite is probably true as well. That is when a non-believer is killed, Lucifer must be pretty pleased. The death will mean there's one more soul he'll eventually lay claim to, and one fewer spirit going to meet his Maker.

This is why it's so offensive for such large numbers of professed Christ-followers to be so enthusiastic about war. The Great Commission, as described in the gospel of Matthew, has been perverted by these Right-Wing warmongers. It's gone from a mission to “go and make disciples of all nations,” to go and invade all nations. Instead of encouraging people to help spread the Word, so often we see them advocating the spread of death and destruction, thus condemning the victims to an eternity in hell.

Admittedly, I was once of this mindset. I saw no contradiction between my role as a flesh-and-blood soldier, serving in the infantry, and as a Christian who was supposed to be fighting spiritually in the Lord's army. Indeed, I saw my role in the military as one wholly compatible with Biblical teaching. The reason I arrived at this disjointed conclusion so easily was that I never questioned it. I never gave pause to consider the moral implications of walking into some foreign land with a gun in my hands, rather than a Bible. The blame for this is entirely my own.

For its part however, the church has done little to quell the appetite for war among its members and the public at large. The situation is so backwards that it's practically considered laudable when a pastor ignores the military and doesn't go out of his way to celebrate the troops at every opportunity. Too often Sunday services — in particular those around the state's designated war holidays: Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day — become a celebration of all things war.

Instead, the church, particularly pastors, should decry the warfare state. It should refuse to give any deference to an institution that virtually every day robs its members of the opportunity to spread the message of Jesus. Laurence Vance, a leading opponent of the modern church's promotion of war wrote that "It is a terrible blight on evangelical Christianity that our churches have sent more soldiers to the Middle East than missionaries." Indeed, what a shame this is.

In some ways this is why Barack Obama's use of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Bible as a political prop ought to be so offensive. In the first place, for any person to swear an oath on a Bible should give Christians pause. But given that the president is so committed to drone bombing innocent civilians — including those far from any battlefield — using a Bible once owned by a man who dedicated his life to opposing the state's foreign conquests is profoundly grotesque.

Of course prayer has become a single-minded affair as well. I've never once heard a prayer in church that included both American soldiers and those who live under their boots. Prayers are routinely offered up to keep "our" soldiers safe, as they move about one of the half dozen countries occupied in one form or another by the Pentagon's army. Even after I began questioning the wisdom and morality of occupying the Middle East in the name of fighting terrorism, I didn't think much of the subject.

It wasn't until I came across Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" that the detestable practice of praying only for the safety of soldiers became so clear. In it, a man beseeches God to protect the soldiers, and pour misery down upon those who lie in their path. Twain's use of the language is so powerful that reproducing a whole section of his essay is worth the space:

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

Not to be thought irreverent, the old man then humbly asks that "in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen." Sadly, it would seem that Christians pray only for what is seen, as Frederic Bastiat might put this; that is they offer prayers for their soldiers. The unseen, the suffering and misery wrought on the victims of war, is never considered. At best it is repressed deep inside the souls of those who give well-wishes to the troops. Dwelling on the consequences of carpet bombing, cruise missile bombardment, and signature drone strikes just isn't done.

In the short story the man is ignored, and everyone believes him to be crazy. Such would no doubt be the case if any person were to stand up and say something similar in any of the thousands of churches across the country today. Not only would one be shunned by conservatives who worship the government's military, but it's just as likely for the so-called progressive churches to be intolerant of such an opinion.

The mere suggestion that the United States government would entertain, let alone carry out, this sort of reprehensible action against human beings is offensive to them. The fact that such barbarity goes on isn't what offends them, clearly. Having to reconcile their fantasy image of the state and its current figure head, the president, with reality is intolerable. This explains, at least in part, how otherwise intelligent people don't see what is really happening with our money and in our name overseas.

So as a Christian and former soldier who fought in Iraq, I challenge fellow believers to consider the moral consequences of supporting the state and its wars. Ask yourself how killing Muslims does anything to further the kingdom of God and grow the body of Christ. Ask also how or why torturing people, destroying their homes, and kidnapping them is compatible with the teachings of the Prince of Peace. Look not at immediate effects of the United States' foreign policy, but also on the long-term consequences regarding the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you're a Christian and thinking about joining the military, don't. It's not an environment conducive to your spiritual growth. If spreading the message is part of your concern, there are plenty of ways to accomplish this that won't be under the condition you promise to kill if ordered to do so. Know also that as a soldier you will be prohibited from proselytizing when you deploy, and can be subject to legal punishment if you disobey.

For pastors and chaplains in particular, and anyone considering this approach to military service, find another way to serve your Lord. In the early church, one could not be both a soldier and a leader in a congregation; the two were considered irreconcilable. It's too bad this changed. I don't recall ever finding a passage in which Jesus urges his disciples to join the Roman army in order to evangelize to them. It's not even necessary, you just have to be willing to move to a military town and get creative in your approach.

Finally, if you're a Christian and you're in the military, leave at your earliest opportunity. I would suggest that if you take your faith in Christ seriously, look into conscientious objection. At a minimum, refuse to become a tool of the devil, killing people before they've had a chance at salvation.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student of economics and part-time writer; he is a columnist for the Tenth Amendment Center and a contributing author to Voices Of Revolution: Americans Speak Out For Ron Paul. See his blog.

Recently by Joel Poindexter: State by State, a Nullification DominoEffect

In what is best described as a thinly veiled attempt to further indoctrinate children, the Playmobil and Maisto companies have introduced several toys over the past couple of years that promote drone warfare and police-statism. One toy is TSA-style airport checkpoint, designed for children age four and older, complete with a body scanner and an x-ray machine. The other toy is a drone aircraft. It seems you have to buy burning, torn apart and terrorized villagers separately, though. Seriously, check them out, Amazon sells both.

If nothing else, this is certainly one of the saddest indicators of just how far American culture has slipped into despotism, that implements of war and state control are being marketed to young children. Not that G.I. Joes, green army men, and toy police handcuffs — which have the same effect — haven’t been sold for decades. But given the totalitarian nature of drone warfare, and the callousness with which it is executed, the drone toys are certainly worse. It’s long been understood that sexual predators often use toys as a means of manipulating their victims, so the connection in this case is equally repulsive.

It’s not just kids who are barraged with media that conditions people to become more and more comfortable with, and accepting of, the state’s control. Adults are subject to advertising that in one way or another lends some legitimacy to the TSA and the state’s goons. For years advertising firms have been using airport security motifs in commercials selling everything from auto insurance and chewing gum, to shoes and casinos.

Searching through these commercials, most of which can be found on YouTube, several dominant themes emerge. General harassment of travelers abounds. In virtually every example, passengers display nervousness and unease in the face of intimidating and power-hungry bureaucrats. Some commercials use this discomfort to sell a product that is supposed to counter this ugly feeling, in one case it’s a quality power tools to give you peace of mind. It's clear that not all passengers must face the state's gauntlet however, as those deemed "more equal than others," to borrow from George Orwell, are given an easy pass through security. This FOX Sports ad demonstrates the concept, where the rich and powerful aren't subjected to the same despicable treatment as the lowly serfs.

Sexual harassment and molestation is, naturally, frequent in these ads. In some cases it appears less coercive than in real life, if not at least awkward for the victim. In other instances the crotch-grabbing and privacy invasions are not portrayed in such a light-hearted way. It’s quite obvious the victim-traveler is being assaulted and is in no way comfortable with the experience. See the spot for a men’s body spray, or power tools mentioned above for an example of each.

No portrayal of the nation’s “Thieves and Sexual Assailants” would be accurate without showing plenty of cases of the DHS’s thugs pilfering people’s stuff and confiscating their property. Food items seem to be the most common property taken by the TSA in these commercials, no doubt a tribute to the complete madness of prohibiting the possession of bottled water, snacks, and even shampoos and lotions by air travelers. Though not as frequent in the commercials, the thievery that takes place in American airports is staggering. Perhaps remarkably, ABC News aired an investigation that revealed the "Top 20 Airports for TSA Theft." It’s not just soda and chocolate candies that are taken; computers, iPads, camera equipment, and many other expensive and important pieces of property are lifted by TSA employees’ sticky fingers.

Such influential components of pop-culture as children’s toys and advertising, which are helping to normalize totalitarianism, is not going unchallenged, and there is reason to be optimistic about the future. The Internet has allowed for the great disbursement of information, but it also provides a vehicle for individuals to respond and provide feedback to existing media that is unprecedented. Browsing through the product reviews on Amazon for the above toys, it’s quite clear that consumers are not pleased with these items, and are more than happy to say so. Many are quite humorous, openly mocking not just the products and their manufacturers, but taking head on the state and its sociopathic functionaries.

Some reviews are short, but stinging nonetheless. See this comment from M. McKnight, who wrote that “This toy would be a lot more realistic with about 350 people standing in line for an average of an hour. It still makes a nice set with the interrogation room.” And one of my favorites, worth quoting at length, comes from someone using the name “loosenut.” He writes:

I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5-year-old son pointed out that the passenger’s shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger’s scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said ‘that’s the worst security ever!’ But it turned out to be okay, because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the Playmobil Hospital.

The best thing about this product is that it teaches kids about the realities of living in a high-surveillance society. My son said he wants the Playmobil Neighborhood Surveillance System set for Christmas. I’ve heard that the CC TV cameras on that thing are pretty worthless in terms of quality and motion detection, so I think I’ll get him the Playmobil Abu-Ghraib Interrogation Set instead (it comes with a cute little memo from George Bush).

Another clever attack on these products, and thus the government's authoritarian system, are the customer-submitted pictures.

The drone toy faired equally poorly, if its reviews are any indicator. Vanessa explained that her son spends “countless, blissful hours simulating massacres of weddings, funerals, and other family gatherings of brown skinned foreigners! He even realized that if he circled the drone back around on the first responders, his effective kill rate soared! Neat-o!” Being a responsible parent, Vanessa wanted an educational aspect to her child’s toy, and was equally pleased. She thought that “Educationally, this toy can’t be beat – inculcating a predilection for indiscriminate, imperialist violence against non-combatants from oppressed and marginalized communities is precisely in accordance with truly ‘American values!’ U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A!”

The education theme seemed to run through many of the reviews. Alex “really wanted to show [his] toddler that it’s okay to murder people and still come out a ‘hero’ as long as you’re in an air conditioned trailer remotely operating a Predator Drone 10,000 miles away in Pakistan.” After all, he reasoned, “If the government sanctions murder, it must be ok, right?” Robert gave a brief review, but no less scathing in its indictment of the imperial state: “Whether [you're] violating constitutional rights at home, or bombing children abroad, this toy’s perfect for all clandestine missions! Double tap strike to triple your pleasure and casualties!”

It’s difficult to know how popular these toys actually are; one can only hope they’re not flying off store shelves or being added to Amazon’s digital shopping carts in large numbers. It’s also hard to know how effective the TV commercials are, and again, there’s reason to hope they don’t catch on with other firms. In some cases it’s possible the ads serve as a form of social commentary, that they too are an indictment in some way of the police state. This seemed to be a popular interpretation among many of the YouTube comments. If this is true, it would be nice, but often these commercials appear only to condition viewers to the new reality of the increasingly Orwellian world in which we find ourselves.

At least for the time being, this is the new normal. But thanks to the Internet and the rise if the digital age, and because of organizations like the Ludwig von Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com, and the desire of freedom by so many, it will slip into obscurity. Historians will one day come across these toys, and digital archeologists will stumble upon these commercials, and be shocked at the depravity of the modern American state.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student of economics and part-time writer; he is a columnist for the Tenth Amendment Center and a contributing author to Voices Of Revolution: Americans Speak Out For Ron Paul. See his blog.

Recently by Joel Poindexter: State by State, a Nullification DominoEffect

Greatly overshadowed by the manufactured "fiscal cliff" crises, another controversy is brewing in Washington, D.C. This lesser-known argument is between the various interest groups squabbling over where the official monument to the First World War will be located. This is because the centennial of the "Great War" is approaching, and lovers of war need an officially-sanctioned location to throw their party.

For years various groups have been lobbying for one to be built on the mall in Washington, to be located amongst the other memorials that commemorate the state's greatest acts of plunder and mass murder — World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Opponents argue that another monument on the mall will clutter the place up, and other locations around D.C. would be better suited. One such site is Pershing Park, named after General John Pershing, commander of U.S. forces in Europe during WWI.

The disagreement over location isn't limited to Washington however, as the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri has been home to a World War I museum and monument for many years. Just a few weeks before the "fiscal cliff" deadline dominated the news cycle, the House passed a bill to designate the Kansas City location as the official memorial site, but the Senate failed to concur. Living near Kansas City, I've noticed this discussion has been closely followed by the local news media, as most everyone here is hoping that congress will shower the city with prestige — and loads of money — to be divvied up amongst the politically well-connected.

I hadn't given it much thought until just the other day, when I wondered what all the fuss was over the WWI centennial. To be sure, it takes an awfully long time to get congressional legislation passed through both the House and Senate. Everyone tries to stuff their own special interest amendments into the bills, then they're bickered over in one committee or another for weeks on end. Eventually they get signed into law, then myriad contractors swoop in to gobble up as much of the appropriated money as possible.

But still, I thought, we're five years away. And then I realized they aren't getting ready to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the end of the war. They're about to throw a bash in celebration of the outbreak of one of the most destructive wars in human history. It's bad enough that Armistice Day, a holiday meant to celebrate the cease-fire, has been turned into a day to glorify soldiers and the wars they fight in. But it's absolutely repugnant for anyone to glorify the start of a war that killed nearly 17 million people, and ushered in the rise of fascism and Bolshevism throughout Europe. Indeed, without World War I, World War II and the subsequent Cold War, with all of its battles, would never have come about.

Only a sociopath would laud the beginning of a war that introduced mustard gas, battle tanks, greatly-improved machine guns, and aerial bombardment. World War I consisted primarily of protracted trench warfare, interrupted only by the occasional rush on foot across no-man's-land, resulting in the death and injury of tens of thousands of conscripted soldiers at a time. Memorializing such an event is shameful, and is nothing more than a blight on humanity.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war I'm ashamed to admit I participated in. No doubt, Americans will also be inundated with coverage of that catastrophe, and plenty of air time will be dedicated to the opening of that ongoing crime against humanity. Another sad aspect of the undeclared "war on terror" is that it will never officially end. Not only will the killing and destruction of property continue for the foreseeable future, but there won't be a particular day in which we may one day celebrate its conclusion; at least World War I eventually came to a close.

So enough with glorifying war! The monuments of the state's greatest contribution to the world — death, dismemberment, torture, suffering, and pestilence — must be smashed. No more celebrating the war machine, no more tributes to the fallen "heroes" who needlessly fight and die to consolidate the power of politicians and monarchs. If anything related to the First World War is to be held in high esteem, it should be the Christmas truce of 1914, when the common soldiers displayed enough humanity to lay down their arms and meet one another face to face, that is a centennial worth remembering.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student of economics and part-time writer; he is a columnist for the Tenth Amendment Center and a contributing author to Voices Of Revolution: Americans Speak Out For Ron Paul. See his blog.

The Best of Joel Poindexter

Recently by Joel Poindexter: An Alternate History of the Benghazi Consulate Attack

Throughout the Cold War, the prevailing fear of United States government was the domino effect. Simply put, if even one country fell to communism, it could start a chain reaction that would quickly consume the remainder of the free world in a totalitarian dragnet. This led to a doctrine of containment, wherein the U.S. government would intervene in virtually any country, by any means necessary, to prevent the transition to a communist system. There were full-scale wars in Korea and Vietnam, coups in Guatemala, Iran, and the Republic of Congo, and a host of other clandestine operations meant to undermine Soviet influence around the world.

In much the same way, the U.S. government has been engaging in a doctrine of containment — or at least they’ve been trying — for the better part of four decades regarding the drugs. They’ve militarized state and local police forces, launched full-scale military operations, and employed the U.S. Coast Guard to combat drugs. They capture drug dealers in sting operations, prosecute young and old alike, and have jailed millions of non-violent individuals, all in an effort to stamp out freedom of choice and rights to private property.

The first indicator that some of the dominos were going to fall happened during the 1990s, when people began buying and selling marijuana for medicinal use. Starting with California in 1996, a number of states even partially decriminalized the banned plant when they realized that containment would be ineffective. Over the course of the next decade eighteen states and the District of Columbia passed legislation that meant medical marijuana users would be left alone. That is to say the state governments wouldn't harass users, but the Feds kept up the pressure, and continued with their futile attempt to control that sector of the economy.

And then the people of two states, Colorado and Washington, decided to up the ante. Earlier this month they passed legislation that would allow pot smokers to freely use marijuana without the threat of kidnapping and prosecution from state bureaucrats. Almost overnight prosecutors in Colorado and Washington began dropping cases that solely involved possession charges.

King County, Washington for example, is dismissing more than two hundred and twenty cases, as The Washington Times reports. In Peirce County, the prosecutor said u201Cabout four dozenu201D cases will be dropped, when he was asked about how the law would impact his caseload. It should also be noted that in both states, one ounce is the u201Clegal limitu201D for possession, so if there were no arbitrary limits, it's likely that many more individuals would be released and could go about their business.

Not only will these individuals be free from prison, but the various levels of government can go back to fighting actual crimes again. It also stands to reason that taxpayers will be relieved of the added burden of paying for the housing, feeding, guarding, and other expenses associated with the prison system. However, this last point will certainly be a tough issue, as governments rarely give up what they've previously taken.

Now, all of this is to be celebrated, for sure. But the really good news is just around the corner. Already legislators in four states, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, have indicated they will present similar legislation in the coming session to follow Colorado and Washington. It was two years before another state joined California, and four years before six states had partially decriminalized marijuana.

Said Robert Capecchi, who works with the Marijuana Policy Project, u201CWith these thoughtful legislators in at least four states planning on introducing sensible proposals to remove criminal penalties and regulate marijuana… it's clear that ending marijuana prohibition is gaining momentum.u201D Truly, the dominoes are falling.

Another positive aspect of these changes to the legal code is that we ought to see even fewer cases go trial, and not just those involving possession of one ounce. The Seattle Times reported that in King County, where Seattle sits, the prosecutor plans on leaving u201Ca buffer for those whose scales are less than accurate.u201D And in Boulder, Colorado, the District Attorney said that the new law would have a minimal effect, u201Cbecause his office already considers marijuana a low priority.u201D This should become the trend, where prosecutors become increasingly reluctant to charge people who are close to the limit, since it is after all an arbitrary number.

Obviously, in a truly free society regulation of marijuana would exist only in terms of market actors agreeing to mutually beneficial terms, but the latest developments are entirely in line with how a federal system is supposed to function. There is nothing related to drugs or alcohol within the constitution, therefore the states or the people are to be left alone and decide for themselves how to handle such issues, and they have.

It's also important to note that none of those states allowed medical marijuana, or gave their permission for individuals to use it, and nor did the voters; individuals own their bodies and have the freedom to use them in any way they choose. The coming months should be exciting, as the citizens of Colorado and Washington begin to enjoy some of their freedom once again, and others begin to join them. As they say, u201Clet a thousand (cannabis) flowers bloom.u201D

Joel Poindexter is a student working toward a degree in economics. His writing has been published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com and the Tenth Amendment Center. He lives with his wife and daughter near Kansas City. See his blog. Send him mail.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student of economics and part-time writer; he is a columnist for the Tenth Amendment Center and a contributing author to Voices Of Revolution: Americans Speak Out For Ron Paul. See his blog.

As might be expected, the Right wing is in a frenzy of self-righteous indignation over the latest details to come out of the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. For weeks the Obama administration has been under increased pressure to explain exactly what was known prior to, during, and immediately after the assault that left the U.S. ambassador and three other American agents dead. Initial reports were that protests over a film defaming the Muslim prophet Mohammed had gotten out of hand, and the consulate was overrun.

Though superficially plausible, this narrative quickly crumbled when it became clear that even if there were protestors that night, another group had planned an attack on the consulate. Questions were raised and it soon became apparent that many of the important details were being left out, and that perhaps a cover-up was underway. Within a month, details emerged — and U.S. officials began to acknowledge them — that indicated the attack had nothing to do with the poorly-produced video, and that a pre-meditated assault had taken place.

During the second presidential debate, which took place on October 16th, there was a heated exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, in which the former lambasted the latter over his refusal to declare the incident a terrorist attack. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, came to the defense of the president, fact-checking Mitt Romney’s statement. She did however acknowledge later that there were some inconsistencies in the official story. Despite such tensions, and the fact that more questions were being raised on the subject, it was ignored entirely during the final debate. The fact that this last debate focused on foreign policy made this all the more curious.

This past week, a series of e-mails was released, which shed more light on the attack. The Obama administration, say Republicans, made a series of terrible mistakes, leaving the Ambassador and his staff vulnerable in such a dangerous situation. Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security in the weeks prior, perhaps sensing that increasing tensions in the region could put him and his team at greater risk. The administration denied Stevens' request.

Once the attack was underway, CIA operatives who were staying in a nearby safe house requested permission to assist the Ambassador, knowing how exposed he and his staff were; they were told to stay put. It is also reported that two reconnaissance drones were circling overhead, broadcasting a live feed of the events back to Washington, and that an AC-130 Spectre gunship was nearby to provide close air support, if needed.

For Republicans, these decisions not to increase security border on negligent, but, as they're saying, it's the cover-up that's worse than the crime. Had the Obama administration been upfront about what they knew and the choices they made, this would be tragic, but perhaps not so egregious for many on the Right, or so they say.

Let's not forget however, that we aren't dealing with two unbiased factions here. These are two groups engaged in a perpetual PR battle to stay in the favor of American voters, and there's a big election in less than two weeks, to boot. Regardless of how president Obama and the bureaucrats in Washington handled this, the GOP was going to be extremely critical. They almost always are.

There is perhaps one case in which the Right wouldn't be so outraged. It's possible to imagine events unfolding in a manner far different, though no less tragic, and the American Right being fully supportive, if not right congratulatory of the president.

Indeed, when it was announced that Osama bin Laden had been found and killed inside of Pakistan, hardly anyone seemed to mind one bit that the U.S. had violated the territory of another sovereign nation, and murdered a woman in the process. The thought of how we might respond if the reverse happened was never considered by a significant majority of the public. Instead, people took to the streets and chanted USA! USA! USA! When Ron Paul addressed the issue, suggesting there may have been other ways to handle the situation, he was ridiculed.

So let's consider a similar scenario, one in which Ambassador Stevens and his staff come under attack and the president reacts with unrestrained military force.

It's the evening of September 11, 2012 and a band of well-armed fighters begins an assault against the U.S. consulate in Libya. The ambassador evacuates his office, makes his way to the safe house a short distance away, and holes up. The group is followed by the militia and fighting continues into the night. The CIA agents request permission to intervene and are given the green light.

The Special Operations Task Force that has been moved into southern Italy for just this contingency is scrambled and boards aircraft from Naval Air Station Sigonella. The AC-130 Spectre gunship is launched and begins orbiting above the city. As the operators from the CIA approach the scene of the attack they begin coordinating fire with the Air Force, painting targets with an infrared laser. The crew of the gunship zeros in on the fighters below and immediately begins pouring death from their 105mm howitzer and 40mm cannon.

High explosives rain down on the city, tearing apart those laying siege to the consulate and innocent bystanders without regard. Militant fighters are gunned down along with women, children, the elderly and anyone else not quick enough to make their way out of the fire zone. The drones circling above record and broadcast the carnage back to Washington, as the president and his national security team eagerly watch with grave concern over the lives of half a dozen Americans.

As the dust and smoke clears from the demolished buildings nearby, the dying and wounded attempt to crawl to safety. And, just as with the attacks in Pakistan, each time survivors attempt to make a rescue, the drones catch their movement, prompting another volley of cannon fire. Again, high explosives tear through the neighborhood, taking more life, disfiguring more innocent human beings. Families are decimated, livelihoods are crushed, and the loss to private property is staggering.

Confident that the attack has subsided, the gunship's weapons systems are silenced, but the aircraft remains in its methodic orbit. Living up to its name, the Spectre haunts the city's residents, who are paralyzed with fear. Afraid to leave their homes for fear of being mistaken for an enemy fighter, and knowing their simple dwellings afford them virtually no protection from state-of-the-art weaponry, they huddle in groups, praying to God they'll survive the night.

Just before dawn breaks, the Special Operations Task Force arrives in Benghazi. Heavily armed men swarm what's left of the compound and surrounding blocks, extracting the Ambassador and rendering first aid to the wounded American embassy staff. One of the CIA operators was killed while directing fire and his body is recovered. A small child is found nearby, though critically wounded she somehow survived the onslaught and is taken up by the Special Forces unit to receive top-notch medical care in a U.S. hospital.

The president shaves, puts on a fresh suit, and walks out to brief the news media and the American people. He describes the thwarted embassy attack and the heroic rescue mission, albeit he gives a sterilized version, so as not to reveal too much about U.S. tactics, or the extensive loss of life. The agent of the CIA is lionized as the one American to heroically give his life in defense of his fellow Americans, their mission, and his nation. The president concludes by explaining that despite the wounds — both physical and symbolic — good triumphed over evil, and that U.S. resolve is unbroken.

In the immediate aftermath, the news media rush to be the first to interview top officials in the administration. Major networks and cable channels quickly produce documentaries and detailed computer animations of the ordeal. Regular programming is pushed back to accommodate hours and hours of news specials and exclusive stories. There’s the usual talk of a film based on the events and the public eagerly awaits the many books that will be written on the subject. Hollywood film studios and publishing houses salivate in anticipation.

Conservative politicians and pundits once again praise the president's decisive action, each trying to outdo one another in their approval of the way in which the situation was handled. Though a few in the media raise questions about the number of Libyans killed, and what exactly motivated the assault in the first place, they're either shouted down as traitors to the American cause by the neoconservatives, or drowned out by the sycophantic press corps. The wounded girl we soon learn has become an orphan and is thrust into the spotlight, becoming a celebrity in her own right. Western news media follow her recovery in detail, and provide the public with frequent updates.

None of this is difficult to imagine. The American people are treated to such narratives all the time. The U.S. government intervenes in some remote country (often on behalf of large corporations, veiled as strategic interests) and innocent lives are lost. Many of the locals understandably resent this, and some respond violently. The U.S. government reacts with overwhelming military force, many more innocents are killed, and the U.S. corporate state emerges victorious. The Left and Right pretend to unite — if not temporarily — and the American media reports everything from the perspective of the Pentagon and the White House.

Meanwhile there is more resentment, more outrage over the deaths. Not only were so many lost, but their deaths go completely unreported, or brushed off as collateral damage. Hatred builds, and years, maybe decades later, there is finally retribution. The cycle repeats, over and over and over.

As for what exactly happened in Libya, we don't really know, yet. There has been speculation over the role of Ambassador Stevens and whether he may have been trafficking weapons to rebels in the region. The question has also been raised as to whether Stevens was acting as an intelligence agent, which wouldn't be much of a surprise either. Both are plausible, and indeed likely. It may be many years before the truth comes out, but eventually it will. And when it does, it's crucial that the American people understand cause and effect, and demand an end to this disastrous and reprehensible foreign policy.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student of economics and part-time writer; he is a columnist for the Tenth Amendment Center and a contributing author to Voices Of Revolution: Americans Speak Out For Ron Paul. See his blog.

Recently by Joel Poindexter: 90 Million Americans Can't Be Wrong

In yet another appeal from Republicans, Brady Cremeens, writing for The Right Sphere, is urging libertarians to set aside their differences and vote for Mitt Romney. The piece is so full of political clichés about “American prosperity and strength,” how destructive another Obama term would be, and how Romney “gives us the chance” to save the republic, that I got half way through it before realizing he wasn’t writing tongue-in-cheek. It seems he actually believes what he writes, or at least makes a pretty decent attempt to convince us that he’s serious.

I’m certainly not the first to point this out, but it’s important to note how utterly disrespectful the Republican party and many of its members treated the very group they are now pleading with to vote for their candidate. I’d like to believe that had they not excluded Ron Paul voters, used police violence against them, changed party rules ex post facto, and employed other dishonest tactics, that libertarians would still have rejected the GOP. But assuming they (the GOP) weren’t so bent on repressing the libertarians, they might not be so desperate for their support now.

Before moving on it’s important to define libertarian in this context. It’s unclear exactly what definition Cremeens uses, though most likely it is the big “L” Libertarians, those who are registered as such and plan to vote for Gary Johnson, along with the droves of Ron Paul supporters that are now mostly split between Johnson and not voting at all.

From the first sentence Cremeens heads down the wrong path. He laments the prospect of Obama winning as a result of “the Right’s divided front,” as if the libertarians he writes to are part of “the Right.” Libertarians are not part of the Right, and thus the real problem facing the GOP is a failure to nominate a candidate who can inspire people and thereby increase party rolls.

The GOP had an opportunity to bring in young members because of Ron Paul’s membership and the influence he had with millions of young people. But this would have required the Republican party to abandon the policies dearest to them: war, torture, surveillance, sanctions, secret prisons, police-statism, prohibition, protectionism, central economic planning, and a host of other evils.

With Ron Paul and his fired-up base excluded, and the former now retiring from politics, their opportunity has passed. There are still a number of “Ron Paul Republicans” who hold onto the delusion that they can change the GOP from the inside, but that’s only going to result in one of two outcomes. Either they’ll remain with the GOP and become part of that which they’re fighting now; or they’ll realize the corrupting nature of politics is too destructive and abandon political activism for more enriching and productive endeavors. (For everyone’s sake let’s hope it’s the latter, and quick).

Simply put, libertarians are not part of the Right and they are not part of the Left, though many have come from both, they are altogether different. The Left and Right fight over who should be in control of the state; hardcore libertarians reject the state entirely and want no one “in charge.”

Cremeens suggests that “the only justification for voting third party or abstaining altogether is a belief that Mitt Romney would push Marxist principles as aggressively as Barack Obama has and would – an opinion I hope we can all agree is ludicrous.” I can agree this is somewhat ludicrous, though surely not as enthusiastically as Cremeens does. But what is more ludicrous is the belief that voting against a supposed Marxist, by voting for a Fascist, is any better. With the GOP’s extensive history of central planning, Romney’s endorsement of the regulatory state, and his running mate’s long corporatist record, it’s hard to see how their administration would be any better on the economy than someone we’re told is trying to install a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Again he appeals to libertarians to put aside their principles and vote for Romney because, he believes, “‘Any non-Romney vote helps Obama’ rings ominously true.” This, he says, is the case “because the liberal vote is united.” And again he suggests that libertarians and conservatives are all part of the same group, as if everyone is under some magical “big tent.” Perhaps at one time many libertarians did identify with the GOP, but that's no longer the case. Most have concluded that both parties are a scourge on humanity, that neither group has anyone’s interest at heart but their own, and that there is an alternative, even if the parties don’t recognize this fact.

He refers to another piece he wrote, in which he argued that “beating this incumbent in this election is more important than maintaining allegiance to staunch ideological principle.” Cremeens then claims that normally this isn’t the case, but now is a special circumstance. Of course this is a farce; anyone who watches politics knows that every election is The Most Important Election Ever. One sure thing is that party hacks never come out and say: “we’d like for all of you folks to vote for us, but if you decide to stay home we understand; after all there isn’t a whole lot riding on this election, and if we don’t win it won't be the end of the world.”

Every decent American knows that each election is dire. At the end of each term we’re on the brink of collapse, and the only person that can save our country, nay, civilization as we know it, is candidate X. That’s how this whole corrupt system works. It’s dependent on maintaining the illusion that one side represents the polar opposite of the other, and that an individual’s vote counts.

Now, there is one sense in which this is plausible, that elections are vastly important, though it has nothing to do with partisanship. Every election is more critical than the one before only because the federal government has grown more powerful and poses a greater threat to civilization than it did during the previous term. For the candidates, this means the stakes are higher; they’re playing for a larger share of power. For everyone else, it means we have less freedom, less wealth from which to live on and dispose of how we please.

Cremeens reminds his readers that the next president will likely be nominating several judges to the Supreme Court, and suggests that "there's no argument that Romney's [nominees] would be further right than Obama's." He writes this as if it's a good thing, as if we should be excited Romney will be nominating judges like John "A Fee is a Tax" Roberts, as Romney famously said he would, shortly before the court ruled to uphold the taxing power of the Affordable (sic) Care Act. The fact that he will look for judges on the Right is not a selling point at all; it's exactly the opposite.

Throughout the rest of his piece, Cremeens tries to convince libertarians to vote for Romney by appealing to reason. He rather smugly suggests that since libertarians “fancy [themselves] bastions of logic and rationality,” he hopes they will understand the logic of his argument. Too bad not a single argument he presents has any grounding in logic.

In his zeal to draw libertarians into the voting booth for Romney, Cremeens contradicts himself by first suggesting that voting third party, or abstaining altogether, isn’t actually principled. This is because doing so would make “Obama’s re-election path easier.” Later however, he sympathizes with libertarians and acknowledges the “ideological compromises” they’d have to make in order to vote for Romney. Bashing libertarians for not being principled, and then asking that they compromise their principles, is hardly an effective way to convince them of the soundness of your argument.

Only a fool could be convinced that voting for a police-statist, warmonger, and central-planner could possibly lead to real freedom, peace, or prosperity. That Romney’s supposed to be the lesser of two evils is no consolation, largely because he’s lesser only by degree, and only on the margin of certain issues. Further, it should be noted that voting for another candidate — even one nominated by the Libertarian party — does little to stall, rollback, or smash the state, as should be every libertarian’s goal.

Libertarians should instead avoid the polls, and convince as many others to do likewise. If any election is rife with voter discontent between the pool of candidates, and the economic situation dire enough to require radical solutions, it is this one. Surprisingly, when I tell people I have no intention to vote in November I’m met with more sympathy and agreement than I ever imagined. Given the typical reaction one receives upon professing a denial of the State Religion, this is profound.

Indeed, I’m not the only one getting this sort of reaction. One of my family members works in the government school system and at least several of his co-workers are to the point of not voting. This voter malcontent is a wonderful opportunity to expose the false Left/Right dichotomy and start moving more and more individuals toward the idea of a new liberty.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student of economics and part-time writer; he is a columnist for the Tenth Amendment Center and a contributing author to Voices Of Revolution: Americans Speak Out For Ron Paul. See his blog.

Recently by Joel Poindexter: The Real War Heroes

Those who vote in presidential elections often describe the action as being part of their civic duty; it's something every good citizen must do. Others consider voting to be a right, and elections are something which every American should participate in. After all, they remind us, not everyone has this right in other countries. Still, there are others who see voting as both a duty and a right, as if it could be both at the same time.

So when voter turnout was abysmally poor during last week's primaries in Kansas and Missouri, many were upset. Talk radio hosts, Internet pundits, and members of the media all commented on the low participation rate, and quite a few were disturbed by the numbers. Kansas City, Missouri for instance, had a voter turnout of only 15%. Now, it's generally understood that primaries and midterms have lower voter participation rates than presidential election years, so this ought not to surprise anyone, but there is some hope this year's elections will have the lowest turnout of the last fifty.

When asked by USA Today and Suffolk University why they’re not planning to vote this November, respondents answered that: “They’re too busy. They aren’t excited about either candidate. Their vote doesn’t really matter. And nothing ever gets done, anyway.” All are excellent reasons, especially the last two, for they lay bare the great lie that elections solve anything. The results of the poll indicate that some 90 million Americans have no intention to vote in this year’s presidential election; let's hope that number swells over the coming months.

Curtis Gans, who is director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, had this to say regarding why so few are expected to vote:

There’s a lot of lack of trust in our leaders, a lack of positive feelings about political institutions, a lack of quality education for large segments of the public, a lack of civic education, the fragmenting effects of waves of communications technology, the cynicism of the coverage of politics — I could go on with a long litany.

As far as a lack of civic education, this may be true, but it’s not for a lack of trying on the part of the government school systems. In every election cycle students in government schools vote on the national candidates; being homeschooled I never participated in such conditioning, but I distinctly remember my second-grade friends voting in the 1992 election for Bill Clinton. Students even hold their own elections, to choose from within their own ranks politicians who're supposed to advocate for them with the administration, in order to get longer recess, treats in the cafeteria, and who knows what else. It’s one of the more disturbing attempts to indoctrinate children in the civic religion of democracy. But it’s not always successful.

One of those polled, Jamie Palmer, 35, has never voted, and good for her; if only I had could have such a clear conscience. When asked why she hadn't, her reply was “[politicians] say the same things; they make promises; they don’t keep them. It’s ridiculous. If I vote, nothing is going to come of it. It’s just going to be like it is right now.” Fortunately, she was never fooled by the teachers shilling for the state at her school.

When discussing the issue of politics most people will argue that if you don't vote it's because you're lazy, unpatriotic, or part of the problem with society. These are people who were taught what to think, not how to think.

As for the lazy charge, it may be true in many cases, but certainly not all of them. The USA Today poll indicated that at least some people didn't want to take the time to follow politics or go to the polls, so not voting was less a deliberate choice as opposed to simply being a low priority. But for the vast majority of non-voters that I know, it's a conscious choice they've made based on sound principles. They have clear and well thought out arguments against voting, but in no way could they be considered lazy. They are instead wrapped up in educating others, they are journalists, organizers, activists, and dedicated to fostering parallel institutions to compete with and hopefully replace those of the corporatist/statist system now in place.

It is indeed true that many who vote are patriots, but sadly their priorities are skewed. They conflate the government with society, believing the two are synonymous, and that to insult one is an equal affront to the other. In some ways they are correct, but only because government has fully usurped the authority of civil society and dictates virtually every human action. But this is not how things ought to be, for the state has no legitimate function in a free society. Voting only entrenches this concept, further legitimizing government as benevolent caretaker, or arbiter of justice; nothing could be more wrongheaded.

Since I've come to realize what an immoral institution government is, the idea that those who don't support it by voting are part of the problem seems ever more ridiculous. Americans are taught to believe that they "are the government." This no doubt comes from Abraham Lincoln's declaration that we have a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Given this misunderstanding of the state, coupled with the reality that no sector of our lives is free from its meddling, the logical conclusion is that voters, i.e. "government," are the problem. After all, they voted for all of this. So if they're unhappy with how the economy is being ran, how the environment is being neglected, or justice administered, it's really their own fault, and non-voters should be found blameless.

Of course "we" aren't the government. Strictly speaking, the bureaucracy is the real government, for it is the vast apparatus which carries out the daily operations of Leviathan, not some rent-seeking no-name congressman sitting in an office in D.C. But as mentioned above, electing that no-name congressman lends some credibility to the state. Without the blessing of the populace, the government would have no claim of consent, and lose any semblance of legitimate authority. This alone would not free us from sociopaths in capitols all around the world, but it would be a reflection of the attitude that the state is irrelevant.

By and large people vote because they (wrongly) believe that government is a necessary feature of society. They are unable to envision a land that doesn't rely on a government body to provide a court system or roads, so their only option, as far as they can see, is to vote. But a population that rejects the state will also reject the idea that voting is a duty, or a right, or, incredibly, both simultaneously.

Obviously not everyone surveyed is an anarchist who has chosen to opt out of the state, but the study revealed some encouraging data. For instance, one thing gleaned from the story is that barely half of those polled disagree that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.” Exactly how many agree that no real difference exists is not clear, but knowing that so few see a difference is a positive sign for liberty.

Some other good tidbits: 40% of respondents said they won’t vote “because my vote doesn’t make any difference anyway.” Sixty percent of those polled only have high school diplomas, an indicator that less time in the Academic-Indoctrination-Industrial-Complex may translate to a diminished interest in voting. Another sixty percent said they pay no attention because “nothing ever gets done.” This is true to one extent, usually nothing good gets done, with a few rare exceptions.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter. See his blog.

The word hero is bandied about so often that it’s all but lost its meaning in the American lexicon. Virtually everyone is a hero; policemen, firefighters, and “first responders” are heroes, teachers, government workers, and other “public servants” are heroes, soldiers, sailors, marines, and drone operators, too, they’re all heroes. The result of declaring everyone heroic naturally devalues the word and we end up in a world where the true heroes are ignored, forgotten or never even considered in the first place. Virtually no one in the mainstream lauds the innovators, the ones who make civilization itself possible. And the businessmen and individual employees, the ones who slave day in and day out to satisfy their fellow man, they're never celebrated (except of course when the latter is pitted against the former to advance a particular agenda).

This is certainly the case in the military, perhaps more than any of the other categories mentioned above. In fact, the sense of ubiquitous heroism runs so deep that when my wife mailed me a t-shirt that sarcastically read “I’m a Hero,” the irony was lost on all but just a few of my friends. When I returned from my second deployment there were of course many signs welcoming home the “heroes,” but one in particular stuck out as exceptionally ridiculous, it read “I gave birth to a hero.”

Given this idolatry and misplaced reverence for soldiers, I thought it important to tell the story of a few actual heroes. These are men who, despite making the mistake of joining the military gang and allowing themselves to be used in that way, distinguished themselves, both on the battlefield and in garrison before and after deployments. Note that I’ve taken care to use other names in order to protect their privacy, but all other information is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge.

The first man on the list of heroes is Specialist Davis. He was assigned to a mechanized infantry unit during the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, and carried a light machine gun. At one point during the push north, Davis’ platoon was clearing an area and came into contact with a dismounted Iraqi Army unit. Davis was ordered to open fire on the Iraqis as they retreated, but he refused. He said he wouldn’t murder retreating people. The courage it would have taken to stand up for the lives of those retreating cannot be overstated. Soldiers can be prosecuted under military law for refusing orders or “misbehaving” in front of enemy troops. Worse still, they’re isolated from the other soldiers, made to live and work in even less comfortable conditions, and humiliated publicly. Though not prosecuted formally, Davis was certainly punished for his decision not to mow down those Iraqis.

Number two on the list is Private Anderson, a deserter who fled the army just weeks before he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq in early 2005. Many suspected that he was acting out of cowardice, and were he not so weak-kneed, would have stayed to fight. Whether Anderson chose to flee from fear or for some other reason is irrelevant in my eyes. Regardless of his motives he was unwilling to participate in the war — which was certainly a dishonorable and inhumane endeavor — and this is all to the good. The fewer the individuals offering themselves up as sacrifices to the State and its wars the better. Last I heard, Anderson was living with friends of his mother, some anti-war activists who took him in when they heard he was on the lam. Though not as dramatic as Davis’ actions, Anderson assumed a fair amount of risk in leaving. Deserters can be executed under military law, though that doesn't happen anymore; the more likely outcome is some jail time, or worse, being sent off to war.

Specialist Lee exhibited the third case of heroism I’m aware of in my time in the army. He joined the military, for what particular purpose I have no idea, and quickly discovered he had made a mistake. (Oh, that more Specialist Lees would recognize what a terrible choice the military is). He eventually filed for status as a conscientious objector and was moved from the line, where he’d been an infantryman, to a position in the battalion headquarters where he worked in an administrative role and no longer carried a weapon. It was here that he stayed until his enlistment ended and he could leave the military. While not as radical as simply leaving without permission, formally objecting to war on moral grounds sends a powerful message. The conscientious objector, for the most part, denies his critics the ability to paint him as a coward the way deserters are when they dare to say no to war. As far as I know, Lee wasn’t publicly disparaged for his beliefs; though I’m sure many thought less of him for his principled opposition to war.

The final hero in this list is Specialist Kirk. He too found the military wasn’t all it was cracked up to be and wanted out as soon as we returned from Iraq. As far as I know he was never opposed morally to war or military service, but he nevertheless hated the environment. The bureaucratic nature of government, the ineptitude and slothfulness that so many rail against in places like the Post Office and the DMV is amplified a hundred times in the military. Tasks that should be remarkably simple, and in civilian life are, become depressingly complicated and needlessly tedious. This is due in part to the inane rules and regulations that dictate virtually every facet of military life; but it’s also the result of the military’s strict adherence to the Peter Principle and the attraction the military has on socially awkward and immature individuals. Kirk’s initial enlistment was for six years, meaning that by the time we got back he’d likely have to endure two more year-long deployments. His overall hatred for life in the military grew to the point where he decided using forbidden drugs as a means of being discharged was worthwhile. While I don’t support drug use in general, I also recognize his right to do so. He took an extended leave, unapproved of course, and tested positive for one or more drugs, repeating this cycle until about six months had passed and he was granted a discharge.

Each of these men is a hero, in that they didn’t blindly follow orders, stood up for the rights of others, and refused to participate in an immoral organization. They each used different methods for achieving their ends, but never violated anyone’s rights in the process, and likely helped to preserve human life, in at least one case. One thing these men did have in common was that they were all junior enlisted soldiers. It is indeed rare to see such behavior in higher ranking members of the military, although sometimes it does happen. For the most part, those who advance enjoy the lifestyle, either because they're sociopathic or too ignorant to see what's really going on.

There are exceptions though, as in the case of Sergeant James Circello, who wrote this pointed letter to the president and other figureheads of the State, denouncing their wars and refusing to "be the fool that enforces [U.S. foreign policy]." Another such refusal was made by First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the only officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq. He believed the war to be illegal and immoral and, rather than be party to war crimes, resigned his commission. His opposition was not as steadfast, as he requested to be sent to Afghanistan, where he believed an invasion to be justified. But he didn't back down, even when threatened with legal action, including the possibility of jail time. He was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and eventually dismissed after his court martial was declared a mistrial.

I wish now that I’d left too, not boarded the plane and just went home. Better still would have been never joining the army in the first place. At least now that I've gone through it I know the truth. It was during my first deployment that I learned that war is bad policy. I saw it as too expensive, that it could only make things worse, that it would incite others to join forces in order to avenge the deaths of their loved ones and repel the invaders. In the struggle for hearts and minds I like to think of this as helping to change my mind about war. In my second deployment I saw war not only as bad policy, but as evil, morally bankrupt, and dehumanizing. I saw the terror in the eyes of a woman whose husband I helped abduct, and it bothered me in ways I had always repressed before. In this way, and others, my heart was changed about war.

The real heroes aren't those who take the most lives, who destroy the most property, or who never question the morality or legitimacy of a given policy. True heroism involves defending innocent life and standing up to protect fellow human beings. It means refusing to participate in violence and aggression, and it involves questioning — and openly challenging — the State and its wars.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter. See his blog.

Let me be the first to say, congratulations, Mr. Stein! One of the best things that could ever happen to you was made official Wednesday. After you violated the Pentagon's rules banning free speech (itself a violation of the 1st Amendment protections to the same) the Marine Corps unceremoniously discharged you.

I know nothing of your military experience, whether you witnessed personally the horrors of war. My hope is that you did not. In either case, you will no longer have to participate in the Pentagon's ruthless and immoral wars. You will never again be used as a pawn to enrich the political class and their cronies in the Military-Industrial-Complex. And never again will you be sent to kill other people's children, paid with dirty money, all the while treated with contempt by the politicians, officers and senior leadership that sent you.

I also know nothing of your life's ambitions; I can only assume that because you stayed in beyond your first enlistment that you planned on making a career out of the Marines. If that is the case, I imagine you're not as thrilled as I am that you won't be reporting for duty tomorrow morning. While you may have enjoyed your job in the Marines at least slightly more than I endured my life in the Army, being free from the clutches of the sociopathic warrior class will do wonders for your mental and emotional health. All that stuff they told you about being a hero, answering a call to defend your country, being better than the sorry civilians who refused to join, it was all lies.

They tell everyone who joins that they're heroes. It continues throughout your time in the gang. It's all part of the conditioning process to make you believe that you're doing something worthy of admiration and reverence. My guess is that you know many Marines who don't exactly fit the description of "hero." You probably witnessed plenty of acts which, were they performed anywhere but within the ranks of the military, would be reason to bring criminal charges against the perpetrator.

You're not a hero. Neither was I. We were thugs with guns who, when ordered to invade another country who posed no threat to us we willingly went. We participated in an unjust war of aggression. I am deeply regretful for having done that, and I hope you too will realize that participating in large-scale murder is not heroism. Refusing to go is heroic.

From my own experience I know the reality is that your life in the military was little more than a semi-voluntary indentured servitude. You were subjected to all matter of verbal abuse and likely suffered physical abuse at the hands of your fellow Marines and immediate supervisors. Had you been a female member of the armed forces there would have been a good chance of you being sexually assaulted, since one in three women report being molested or raped. Even males aren't exempt from that torture.

You likely carved your identity out of your military "service." You were a Marine first. You had decided to join an organization out of a desire to be "part of something bigger than yourself," or whichever line the recruiters tried to dupe our generation of Marines with. Had I stayed in I would be approaching my tenth year. Thankfully, I left before then.

When I was transitioning out they told me I would miss life in the military. That was a lie, too, of course. My response was that any job where they're required to tell you not to kill yourself every three months isn't worth it. That people don't listen and commit suicide at increasing rates is tragic. It's no wonder they do though, in light of all they're put through. So many hundreds of thousands suffer from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress from serial deployments. Countless numbers of service members and veterans are prescribed heavy doses of psychiatric drugs. I trust you're not among them.

What you now have to look forward to is a fulfilling life in the productive class of society. As a government employee all you ever did was consume what someone else was forced to provide. You contributed nothing of economic value and relied only on the hard work and entrepreneurship of others to fund your lifestyle. You may have not even thought of this, it wasn't until the last year of my time that I realized what a parasite I was. Now you can move on and get a real job.

Something else you might find encouraging about life outside of the bureaucratic mess of government is that people in the real economy can get fired. Having never been in the Marines I can't accurately judge the caliber of their ranks. But at least within the Army there were a number of soldiers who, had they been employed by someone forced by economic laws to earn a profit, wouldn't last through lunch.

As someone who chose to reenlist I'm assuming you were never stop-lossed, that is you never had your enlistment extended for more than a year like mine was. That's another great thing: you can leave when you want, and your former employer won't have you arrested for quitting.

So, now that you're out, many opportunities lie ahead. Enjoy your freedom. Find a fulfilling and productive job. Discourage everyone you know from joining any branch of the military, for any reason. Tell anyone who will listen of the realities and barbarism of war.

Sincerely, Joel Poindexter

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter. See his blog.

Recently it was announced that a number of Evangelical Christian leaders met in Houston to choose their candidate for president. This group decided to endorse Rick Santorum, a decision that mirrors your own the week of the Iowa caucuses. It is my hope that the two of you will reconsider your choice of candidates this election season, and instead of backing Santorum, use your influence in support of Dr. Ron Paul. Below I’ve outlined many very important reasons why Dr. Paul is the best choice for Evangelical Christians.

I’ll begin with an issue very dear to our hearts: the subject of children. A family man, Dr. Paul has been married to his wife Carol for more than fifty years, and together they have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. As you may know, Dr. Paul is a medical doctor, specializing in obstetrics. During his career in the medical practice he’s helped deliver over 4,000 babies.

A champion of the unborn, Dr. Paul believes that “unless we understand that life is precious we can’t protect liberty.” Because he recognizes the federal government never had the proper legal authority to decide the issue, he has repeatedly proposed legislation to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction. Such an act would effectively and immediately overturn Roe v. Wade. Working to appoint sympathetic justices to the Supreme Court who will hopefully overturn that decision at some point in the future has been fruitless thus far. Also, it is constitutionally speaking, not the proper remedy. We can't hope to have lasting change by circumventing the legal system and forever having the prospect of another court ruling overturn the previous decision.

A constitutional amendment is also, practically speaking, a difficult if not impossible task. Instead, Dr. Paul believes it is with the states that the issue should be dealt. Ultimately however, it is up to the traditional, as well as Biblical, pillars of morality — the Church and the Family — to change the culture. In the Book of Jeremiah we are told that: "…Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm…." Dr. Paul writes in The Revolution that “[w]e seriously mistake the function of government if we think its job is to [...] supplant the role of all those subsidiary bodies in society that have responsibility for forming our moral character.”

It is perhaps adherence to the constitution that most sets Dr. Paul apart from his peers in the congress and the remaining presidential candidates. He holds his oath of office in the highest regard and has never supported any measure which cannot be justified under that charter. Whether it is in matters of foreign policy or domestic legislation, nothing which he votes for violates his oath to support and defend the constitution. In this way he has remained faithful to the instructions in Numbers 30:2: "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."

As you're aware, Article 1, Section 8 prescribes in detail the specific powers granted to the federal government. In this way, arbitrary rule is meant to be curtailed. Dr. Paul notes the importance of this when taken in the context of 1st Samuel, Chapter 8, where Israel asks to be ruled by a king. God warns that by rejecting His rule and looking instead to man, that is arbitrary governance, much hardship and suffering will follow. He warns the people of Israel that war, conscription, taxes, and slavery will be imposed by the king. In the same way, without respecting the limits enumerated in the constitution, the very same problems will blight the American people, as history has shown.

The principled protection of innocent life does not end with abortion, but is consistently applied to foreign policy as well. A subscriber of St. Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory, Dr. Paul reserves his support for committing troops only when such actions are in accordance with the doctrine. The action must be purely defensive in nature, have clearly established objectives, target only those responsible for aggression, and be lawfully declared by congress. In accordance with this he voted to deploy troops in Afghanistan to bring those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice. In such matters he believes the U.S. government must observe the Golden Rule and keep in line with the teachings from Matthew 7:12: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

Israel, and America's support for her people, is a principal issue in modern politics. Again, Dr. Paul is at the forefront and, perhaps counterintuitively, is the most supportive of the Israeli people. Often criticized for his strict opposition to foreign aid, detractors infer that cutting such aid will jeopardize the security and wellbeing of the Israelis. This is hardly the case.

It's important to note that as a whole, Israel's neighbors, some of whom are hostile, receive vastly more aid from the U.S. than does the Israeli government. Eliminating aid to all countries, as Dr. Paul advocates, would on net benefit Israel, which has a much more vibrant economy. Our aid payments make up a small fraction of that country's Gross Domestic Product. And, like other forms of welfare, the aid only encourages dependency. Such dependency on foreigners runs counter to the principles on which the present state of Israel was founded, namely Independence and Self Reliance.

During the 1980s tension between Israel and Iraq came to a head, and when the U.S. congress addressed the conflict, Dr. Paul was the only congressman who voted in favor of Israeli sovereignty. If Israel is to be an independent nation than the U.S. should not be dictating her trade relations, the terms of her treaties, or under what conditions she may defend herself.

As with many other issues, Dr. Paul has been virtually alone on the national stage in his support of home schooling. In fact, he’s the only candidate to list the freedom of parents to be in charge of their children’s education as part of his platform. His dedication to protecting the rights of home school families is unmatched among the presidential contenders. This comes from a fundamental belief in the family being essential to the education and upbringing of a child.

During his time in congress he's sponsored legislation to provide tax credits for home schooling families in order to help pay for school supplies and tutoring. Additionally, he has put forth legislation to ensure the diplomas of home school graduates are recognized at the federal level. As president, Dr. Paul promises to veto any bill which interferes with the rights of parents to choose the educational path for their children.

For too long the federal government has been living beyond its means, and like a household, it must be disciplined to prevent insolvency and ensure independence from outside control. Dr. Paul understands all too well the wisdom found in Proverbs 22:7 that “…the borrower is servant to the lender.” For this reason he has proposed one trillion dollars in budget cuts his first year in office, with the goal of a balanced budget by year three.

No other candidate has proposed such dramatic cuts, nor have any contenders displayed such a principled position regarding government finances. In all twelve of his terms in the House of Representatives not once has he ever voted for an unbalanced budget and he has never voted to raise taxes. Out of principle he refuses to participate in the congressional pension, returns unused funds from his congressional office budget to the Treasury each year, and as president will accept no more than the median U.S. salary of $39,336.

Lastly, Dr. Paul is a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. He writes that he "[has] accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate." Raised in the Lutheran Church, he is now a Southern Baptist. When asked about his faith Dr. Paul will at times demure, having said that he "[doesn't] speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain." He instead lets his actions reflect his faith, and "[lets his] light so shine before men, that they may see [his] good works, and glorify [our] Father which is in heaven," as we are called to do in Matthew 5:16.

I admire the example each of you set as Christians, as loving parents, and as a devoted couple. I hope to continue learning from your example both on your television show and in your writing. I urge you to further research Dr. Paul's ideas by visiting his website, viewing his speeches on YouTube, and reading his books, The Revolution, and in particular, Liberty Defined. Thank you for taking the time to read my appeal.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter. See his blog.

This essay is based on a letter I sent to a conservative organization. They were soliciting donations of hygiene products for an event they sponsored in support of deployed soldiers. I have updated it and edited it for this site.

Among the principals held by conservatives are limited government, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the constitution. How any group claims these tenets as principals and yet supports the state's wars of aggression is beyond my understanding. If "war is the health of the state," as Randolph Bourne wrote, then conservatives are the health of war.

Limited governments, if such a thing could exist, cannot wage perpetual war; only a leviathan state can do so. A truly limited government would be unable to expropriate enough money through taxes, borrowing, and printing to fund these foreign conquests. A limited government would also be powerless to conscript an army for its machinations, or coercively retain those already in the ranks. This last item is especially important now, as nearly 100,000 service members have had their enlistment terms involuntarily extended in the past ten years, including the author.

Wars are not fiscally responsible; they come at an incredible cost, both in terms of human life and in treasure. The U.S. government right now is spending trillions of dollars on no less than seven undeclared, open-ended, no-win wars. None of which serve the interests of the people in whose names they are waged.

None of the dozens upon dozens of military engagements the U.S. government has undertaken in the past seven decades has been constitutional. Without exception, each has been a war of aggression. Each was fought at the prerogative of the president, who has behaved more like a King, and who was never meant to have war-making powers.

Many suggest they are not supporting the wars, only the troops. This is patently wrong. Anyone who glorifies "their sacrifice," necessarily supports the wars these soldiers are fighting in. Likewise, to espouse the false claim that these men and women are "defending freedom" is to endorse current U.S. foreign policy, including the wars.

It is either tragic naïveté or willful deception to assert that these wars are meant to defend freedom. The vast warfare/national security state that has been erected in the past ten years has done nothing to promote freedom here, or abroad. To date, the U.S. government has suspended Habeas Corpus; it has detained many thousands of people and held them without charges in secret prisons all around the world. It violates the sovereignty of other nations and summarily executes their people. It convenes panels in secret, drafting lists of citizens to be hunted and killed without due process, or even so much as the pretense of judicial oversight. Children are not even free from such tyranny. It has callously butchered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, displaced many millions, and destroyed billions of dollars of private property. Torture, or its equally disgusting euphemism, "enhanced interrogation," is considered by many to be perfectly acceptable, even virtuous. Of course when they do it to us it is considered barbaric.

It is precisely this moral relativism that perpetuates our problems. By refusing to see the humanity in the people whose lives are destroyed in the name of "freedom" we only ensure that others will be driven to take up arms against us out of retaliation. Vengeance is the single greatest factor in motivating terrorism; not an abstract hatred of our lifestyle. It is shameful that so many in this country hold one American citizen in higher regard than one person from another country. Our value as human beings is not determined by which government claims legal authority over us, nor is it by which arbitrary set of boundaries we are born within. Our value is the same in the eyes of our Creator, and is derived simply from our being His.

The federal government has claimed the right to take nude photos of anyone wishing to travel by airplane in this country, and to unnecessarily subject them to potentially dangerous levels of radiation. Those who object are instead treated to what in any other case would be considered sexual molestation. Not even the disabled, the young, nor the elderly can escape this abuse. Our persons, property and effects are no longer secure from federal agents, as warrants issued upon probable cause are from a bygone era. This is the freedom they are fighting to defend, and which these conservatives support?

I would prefer they actually support the troops. This can only be done by relentlessly fighting to bring them home. And by closing the 900 U.S. bases around the world, ceasing to support corrupt and repressive regimes, and by ending the U.S. Empire and all such intervention. As a veteran twice over from the occupation of Iraq, I can think of no better gift to the men and women of the U.S. military than to bring them home. Somehow a toothbrush and a bottle of shampoo just doesn't measure up.

Nothing says "I support the troops" more than declaring that from this point forward, none of them will die needlessly, thousands of miles from home, fighting unlawful wars of aggression. That they need not fear horrific injuries, nor have their minds irreparably scarred by the trauma and horrors of warfare. Nothing would be better for their families as well. Oh that they can find peace in the knowledge that their father or mother, brother or sister, husband or wife, son or daughter will no longer have to leave for extended periods of time, fearful they'll never return.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter. See his blog.

I had no desire to attend college after graduating from high school. Though I'd worked regular jobs, I was restless and looking for something more exciting. Like most kids my age I'd seen plenty of movies that romanticized the lifestyle, and I was attracted to it, so I joined a gang. I'd been told that if you could handle it, there was good money to be made, and if you were really good at it, room to advance.

The gang had international ties, and because of its overseas network I spent a couple of years working abroad. The particular syndicate I was part of would operate mostly in third world countries. It was easier to get away with our crimes there. We'd move into one town or another, and after pushing out the local gang, occupy the prime real estate.

We relied on local contacts, which acted as informants and low level muscle, and helped us to establish dominance on the street. In order to cover for our unlawful activity we had to operate under various front organizations. Usually we posed as security agencies or construction companies, and were in the employ of corrupt governments and big businesses. Our PR was world-class.

I remember doing "security" patrols in the downtown area of one city. Frequently we'd find people, mostly kids, selling "black market gas" on the roadside. This part of town had only a few gas stations and they could never keep pace with demand. Some enterprising guy would stand with a jug on the side of the road and sell a gallon or two to whomever came along. The kids selling gas usually came from broken homes, most had absentee fathers, and were trying to support their mothers and younger siblings. But the gas station owners didn't like competition, so they had their politician-friends tell us to run them off whenever we saw them.

On one stop my boss recognized the kid from another such encounter. Now, the first offense was usually met with having your gas dumped out in the street and a stern warning not to do it again. This time my boss had had it. He slashed the jugs open with his knife and told us to kidnap the boy, who couldn't have been older than 14. He was blindfolded and placed in the back of our truck. Terrified, he urinated on himself and began to cry. My partners laughed at him and joked that he was probably afraid we'd shoot him.

Instead, we took him across town to the house of our local partners, who were known to be more ruthless than we were. The conditions there were miserable. One man who crossed those guys withered away, suffering from an untreated gunshot wound to his abdomen, a row of nails driven into his arm by a nail gun. Lord knows what happened to the kid after we left him with those sadists.

For the most part we operated with impunity, but every once in a while someone would get caught. One time, I remember a few guys working for another ring got sloppy. They got busted for extortion and had to pay some fines. Nothing too serious, but enough to make sure they wouldn't be able to move up. The bosses didn't like it if you got caught.

We ran that town. You parked where the bosses didn't want you parking? We'd bust out your car windows, just to show you who was in charge. Your neighbor been giving you grief? Call us, we'd bust into his house late at night and break his stuff, maybe haul him and his sons off. We'd drive through the markets, maybe pull some telephone wires down, tear up the roads, or break little vendor's stands.

We'd kill anyone trying to compete with us. Look at one of us the wrong way, we'd pull you out of your car and rough you up a bit, put you in your place. We probably spent millions of dollars in dirty money to shore up key alliances and keep our rivals at bay. When one neighborhood got out of line we encircled it with trucks and went door to door for hours, intimidating the residents and promising worse if they didn't do as we said. It seemed to work, so we did it again, and again.

I was good at what I did. I could have moved up in the organization if I wanted to. But I realized after I started, that the life of crime wasn't all it was cracked up to be. The movies didn't tell the whole story. The guys that got me in didn't tell me everything either, they left out the most important details. I learned the hard way that being "part of the family" was really a despicable way to live, that it was dishonorable, immature, and shallow. I had come to view the people in the places I worked as objects, sub-human. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the name of the gang I joined was the U.S. army. I was called a soldier, but really, I was just thug with a gun.

Joel Poindexter [send him mail] is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter. See his blog.