20070831

Taxing the Super Rich

Private-equity billionaires—the new Masters of the Universe—often pay far lower rates than the rest of us. But Washington is trying to change that. Get ready for a fight.

July 23, 2007 issue - In Wall Street's pecking order the partners in private-equity firms are the true aristocrats. With their English tailored suits, country estates and oriental rugs, they have a taste for the trappings of gentry (even their secretaries, it seems, have English accents). Global in reach, able to marshal billions to buy big companies, they float above the grasping traders and get-rich-quick hedge-fund operators. Private-equity partners are not just in it for the money (though the successful ones make tons of it), but for the power to reshape whole industries. Unlike corporate CEOs, who are shackled by the short-term focus of shareholders, private-equity managers can swoop in and transform a troubled industry to create efficiency and growth. Private-equity managers see themselves as the new industrial statesmen, throwbacks to the age of J. P. Morgan a century ago, when an unregulated Wall Street was in many ways more powerful than Washington.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement

There is a catch to all this public-spirited, high-policy grandeur, however. The very rich in America pay taxes at a lower rate than most working people, and, due to a wrinkle in the tax code, private-equity partners enjoy some of the lowest tax rates of all. At a Hillary Clinton fund-raiser in New York last month, Warren Buffett, no stranger to wealth, told an audience filled with bankers and real-estate developers the system was, in effect, rigged. "This is what Congress in its wisdom did: the 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter." Buffett (who is a director of NEWSWEEK's parent, The Washington Post Company) offered a million dollars to any fellow magnate who could prove he had higher tax rates than his secretary.

It Can’t Happen Here

Source: Ron Paul
December 20, 2004

In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?

The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency– including TSA at the airport.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain– anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.

After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can’t happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

The Rip-off in Iraq: You Will Not Believe How Low the War Profiteers Have Gone

By Matt Taibbi

How is it done? How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other wrapped around a chilled martini? Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful contractor in Iraq.

You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat: in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion. You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003, when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private construction company looking to do work in Iraq.

Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been promising her all these years. The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good -- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless careers. On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start living that private-sector good life.

A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to house and train at least 4,000 police recruits. But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning police academy but one of the great engineering clusterfucks of all time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that its walls and ceilings are literally caked in shit and piss, a result of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.

You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of the Saw movies: "We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that "during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an assessment team member's shirt." The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.

When Congress gets wind of the fiasco, a few members on the House Oversight Committee demand a hearing. To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this kind of contracting operation for the government. So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of shit.

You blink. Fuck if you know. "I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan answer.

The room twitters in amazement. It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all might have gone.

Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your company's compensation. Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total costs on the deal. The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a hell of a lot. But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off. "So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and say, given what has happened in this project … "

"No, sir, I will not," you snap.

"… 'We will return the profits.' …"

"No, sir, I will not," you repeat.

Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home, take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the little woman… . A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina. But the house you bought for $775K is now assessed at $929,974, and you're sure as hell not giving it back to anyone.

"Yeah, I don't know what I expected him to say," Van Hollen says now about the way Robbins responded to being asked to give the money back. "It just shows the contempt they have for us, for the taxpayer, for everything."

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they fuck things up.

And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureaucracy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profiteering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

It was an awful idea, perhaps the worst America has ever tried on foreign soil. But if you were in on it, it was great work while it lasted. Since time immemorial, the distribution of government largesse had followed a staid, paper-laden procedure in which the federal government would post the details of a contract in periodicals like Commerce Business Daily or, more recently, on the FedBizOpps Web site. Competitive bids were solicited and contracts were awarded in accordance with the labyrinthine print of the U.S. Code, a straightforward system that worked well enough before the Bush years that, as one lawyer puts it, you could "count the number of cases of criminal fraud on the fingers of one hand."

There were exceptions to the rule, of course -- emergencies that required immediate awards, contracts where there was only one available source of materials or labor, classified deals that involved national security. What no one knew at the beginning of the war was that the Bush administration had essentially decided to treat the entire Iraqi theater as an exception to the rules. All you had to do was get to Iraq and the game was on.

But getting there wasn't easy. To travel to Iraq, would-be contractors needed permission from the Bush administration, which was far from blind in its appraisal of applicants. In a much-ballyhooed example of favoritism, the White House originally installed a clown named Jim O'Beirne at the relevant evaluation desk in the Department of Defense. O'Beirne proved to be a classic Bush villain, a moron's moron who judged applicants not on their Arabic skills or their relevant expertise but on their Republican bona fides; he sent a twenty-four-year-old who had never worked in finance to manage the reopening of the Iraqi stock exchange, and appointed a recent graduate of an evangelical university for home-schooled kids who had no accounting experience to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget. James K. Haveman, who had served as Michigan's community-health director under a GOP governor, was put in charge of rehabilitating Iraq's health-care system and decided that what this war-ravaged, malnourished, sanitation-deficient country most urgently needed was … an anti-smoking campaign.

Town-selectmen types like Haveman weren't the only people who got passes to enter Iraq in the first few years. The administration also greenlighted brash, modern-day forty-niners like Scott Custer and Mike Battles, a pair of ex-Army officers and bottom-rank Republican pols (Battles had run for Congress in Rhode Island and had been a Fox News commentator) who had decided to form a security company called Custer Battles and make it big in Iraq. "Battles knew some people from his congressional run, and that's how they got there," says Alan Grayson, an attorney who led a whistle-blower lawsuit against the pair for defrauding the government.

Before coming to Iraq, Custer Battles hadn't done even a million dollars in business. The company's own Web site brags that Battles had to borrow cab fare from Jordan to Iraq and arrived in Baghdad with less than $500 in his pocket. But he had good timing, arriving just as a security contract for Baghdad International Airport was being "put up" for bid. The company site raves that Custer spent "three sleepless nights" penning an offer that impressed the CPA enough to hand the partners $2 million in cash, which Battles promptly stuffed into a duffel bag and drove to deposit in a Lebanese bank.

Custer Battles had lucked into a sort of Willy Wonka's paradise for contractors, where a small pool of Republican-friendly businessmen would basically hang around the Green Zone waiting for a contracting agency to come up with a work order. In the early days of the war, the idea of "competition" was a farce, with deals handed out so quickly that there was no possibility of making rational or fairly priced estimates. According to those familiar with the process, contracting agencies would request phony "bids" from several contractors, even though the winner had been picked in advance. "The losers would play ball because they knew that eventually it would be their turn to be the winner," says Grayson.

To make such deals legal, someone in the military would simply sign a piece of paper invoking an exception. "I know one guy whose business was buying weapons on the black market for contractors," says Pratap Chatterjee, a writer who has spent months in the Mideast researching a forthcoming book on Iraq contracts. "It's illegal -- but he got military people to sign papers allowing him to do it."

The system not only had the advantage of eliminating red tape in a war zone, it also encouraged the "entrepreneurship" of patriots like Custer and Battles, who went from bumming cab fare to doing $100 million in government contracts practically overnight. And what business they did! The bid that Custer claimed to have spent "three sleepless nights" putting together was later described by Col. Richard Ballard, then the inspector general of the Army, as looking "like something that you and I would write over a bottle of vodka, complete with all the spelling and syntax errors and annexes to be filled in later." The two simply "presented it the next day and then got awarded about a $15 million contract."

The deal charged Custer Battles with the responsibility to perform airport security for civilian flights. But there were never any civilian flights into Baghdad's airport during the life of their contract, so the CPA gave them a job managing an airport checkpoint, which they failed miserably. They were also given scads of money to buy expensive X-ray equipment and set up an advanced canine bomb-sniffing system, but they never bought the equipment. As for the dog, Ballard reported, "I eventually saw one dog. The dog did not appear to be a certified, trained dog." When the dog was brought to the checkpoint, he added, it would lie down and "refuse to sniff the vehicles" -- as outstanding a metaphor for U.S. contractor performance in Iraq as has yet been produced.

Like most contractors, Custer Battles was on a cost-plus arrangement, which means its profits were guaranteed to rise with its spending. But according to testimony by officials and former employees, the partners also charged the government millions by making out phony invoices to shell companies they controlled. In another stroke of genius, they found a bunch of abandoned Iraqi Airways forklifts on airport property, repainted them to disguise the company markings and billed them to U.S. taxpayers as new equipment. Every time they scratched their asses, they earned; there was so much money around for contractors, officials literally used $100,000 wads of cash as toys. "Yes -- $100 bills in plastic wrap," Frank Willis, a former CPA official, acknowledged in Senate testimony about Custer Battles. "We played football with the plastic-wrapped bricks for a little while."

The Custer Battles show only ended when the pair left a spreadsheet behind after a meeting with CPA officials -- a spreadsheet that scrupulously detailed the pair's phony invoicing. "It was the worst case of fraud I've ever seen, hands down," says Grayson. "But it's also got to be the first instance in history of a defendant leaving behind a spreadsheet full of evidence of the crime."

But even being the clumsiest war profiteers of all time was not enough to bring swift justice upon the heads of Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles -- and this is where the story of America's reconstruction effort gets really interesting. The Bush administration not only refused to prosecute the pair -- it actually tried to stop a lawsuit filed against the contractors by whistle-blowers hoping to recover the stolen money. The administration argued that Custer Battles could not be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. government because the CPA was not part of the U.S. government. When the lawsuit went forward despite the administration's objections, Custer and Battles mounted a defense that recalled Nuremberg and Lt. Calley, arguing that they could not be guilty of theft since it was done with the government's approval.

The jury disagreed, finding Custer Battles guilty of ripping off taxpayers. But the verdict was set aside by T.S. Ellis III, a federal judge who cited the administration's "the CPA is not us" argument. The very fact that private contractors, aided by the government itself, could evade conviction for what even Ellis, a Reagan-appointed judge, called "significant" evidence of fraud, says everything you need to know about the true nature of the war we are fighting in Iraq. Is it really possible to bilk American taxpayers for repainted forklifts stolen from Iraqi Airways and claim that you were just following orders? It is, when your commander in chief is George W. Bush.

There isn't a brazen, two-bit, purse-snatching money caper you can think of that didn't happen at least 10,000 times with your tax dollars in Iraq. At the very outset of the occupation, when L. Paul Bremer was installed as head of the CPA, one of his first brilliant ideas for managing the country was to have $12 billion in cash flown into Baghdad on huge wooden pallets and stored in palaces and government buildings. To pay contractors, he'd have agents go to the various stashes -- a pile of $200 million in one of Saddam's former palaces was watched by a single soldier, who left the key to the vault in a backpack on his desk when he went out to lunch -- withdraw the money, then crisscross the country to pay the bills. When desperate auditors later tried to trace the paths of the money, one agent could account for only $6,306,836 of some $23 million he'd withdrawn. Bremer's office "acknowledged not having any supporting documentation" for $25 million given to a different agent. A ministry that claimed to have paid 8,206 guards was able to document payouts to only 602. An agent who was told by auditors that he still owed $1,878,870 magically produced exactly that amount, which, as the auditors dryly noted, "suggests that the agent had a reserve of cash."

In short, some $8.8 billion of the $12 billion proved impossible to find. "Who in their right mind would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone?" asked Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. "But that's exactly what our government did."

Because contractors were paid on cost-plus arrangements, they had a powerful incentive to spend to the hilt. The undisputed master of milking the system is KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary so ubiquitous in Iraq that soldiers even encounter its customer-survey sheets in outhouses. The company has been exposed by whistle-blowers in numerous Senate hearings for everything from double-charging taxpayers for $617,000 worth of sodas to overcharging the government 600 percent for fuel shipments. When things went wrong, KBR simply scrapped expensive gear: The company dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert because they were too short, and left the Army no choice but to set fire to a supply truck that had a flat tire. "They did not have the proper wrench to change the tire," an Iraq vet named Richard Murphy told investigators, "so the decision was made to torch the truck."

In perhaps the ultimate example of military capitalism, KBR reportedly ran convoys of empty trucks back and forth across the insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for its phantom deliveries. Truckers for KBR, knowing full well that the trips were bullshit, derisively referred to their cargo as "sailboat fuel."

In Fallujah, where the company was paid based on how many soldiers used the base rec center, KBR supervisors ordered employees to juke the head count by taking an hourly tally of every soldier in the facility. "They were counting the same soldier five, six, seven times," says Linda Warren, a former postal worker who was employed by KBR in Fallujah. "I was even directed to count every empty bottle of water left behind in the facility as though they were troops who had been there."

Yet for all the money KBR charged taxpayers for the rec center, it didn't provide much in the way of services to the soldiers engaged in the heaviest fighting of the war. When Warren ordered a karaoke machine, the company gave her a cardboard box stuffed with jumbled-up electronic components. "We had to borrow laptops from the troops to set up a music night," says Warren, who had a son serving in Fallujah at the time. "These boys needed R&R more than anything, but the company wouldn't spend a dime." (KBR refused requests for an interview, but has denied that it inflated troop counts or committed other wrongdoing in Iraq.)

One of the most dependable methods for burning taxpayer funds was simply to do nothing. After securing a contract in Iraq, companies would mobilize their teams, rush them into the war zone and then wait, citing the security situation or delayed paperwork -- all the while charging the government for housing, meals and other expenses. Last year, a government audit of twelve major contracts awarded to KBR, Parsons and other companies found that idle time often accounted for more than half of a contract's total costs. In one deal awarded to KBR, the company's "indirect" administrative costs were $52.7 million, and its direct costs -- the costs associated with the actual job -- were only $13.4 million.

Companies jacked up the costs even higher by hiring out layers of subcontractors to do their work for them. In some cases, each subcontractor had its own cost-plus arrangement. "We called those 'cascading contracts,' " says Rep. Van Hollen. "Each subcontractor piles on a lot of costs, and eventually they would snowball into a huge payout. It was a green light for waste."

In March 2004, Parsons -- the firm represented by Earnest O. Robbins -- was given nearly $1 million to build a fire station in Ainkawa, a small Christian community in one of the safest parts of Iraq. Parsons subcontracted the design to a British company called TPS Consult and the construction to a California firm called Innovative Technical Solutions Inc. ITSI, in turn, hired an Iraqi outfit called Zozik to do the actual labor.

A year and a half later, government auditors visited the site and found that the fire station was less than half finished. What little had been built was marred by serious design flaws, including concrete columns so shoddily constructed that they were riddled with holes that looked like "honeycombing." But getting the fuck-ups fixed proved problematic. The auditors "made a request that was sent to the Army Corps, which delivered it to Parsons, who then asked ITSI, which asked TPS Consult to check on the work done by Zozik," writes Chatterjee, who describes the mess in his forthcoming book, Baghdad Bonanza. The multiple layers of subcontractors made it almost impossible to resolve the issue -- and every day the delays dragged on meant more money for the companies.

Sometimes the government simply handed out money to companies it made up out of thin air. In 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers found itself unable to award contracts by the September deadline imposed by Congress, meaning it would have to "de-obligate" the money and return it to the government. Rather than suffer that awful fate, the corps obligated $362 million -- spread out over ninety-six different contracts -- to "Dummy Vendor." In their report on the mess, auditors noted that money to nobody "does not constitute proper obligations."

But even obligating money to no one was better than what sometimes happened in Iraq: handing out U.S. funds to the enemy. Since the beginning of the war, rumors have abounded about contractors paying protection money to insurgents to avoid attacks. No less an authority than Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, claimed that such payoffs are a "significant source" of income for Al Qaeda. Moreover, when things go missing in Iraq -- like bricks of $100 bills, or weapons, or trucks -- it is a fair assumption that some of the wayward booty ends up in the wrong hands. In July, a federal audit found that 190,000 weapons are missing in Iraq -- nearly one out of every three arms supplied by the United States. "These weapons almost certainly ended up on the black market, where they are repurchased by insurgents," says Chatterjee.

For all the creative ways that contractors came up with to waste, mismanage and steal public money in Iraq, the standard remained good old-fashioned fucking up. Take the case of the Basra Children's Hospital, a much-ballyhooed "do-gooder" project championed by Laura Bush and Condi Rice. This was exactly the sort of grandstanding, self-serving, indulgent and ultimately useless project that tended to get the go-ahead under reconstruction. Like the expensive telephone-based disease-notification database approved for use in hospitals without telephones, or the natural-gas-powered electricity turbines greenlighted for installation in a country without ready sources of natural gas, the Basra Children's Hospital was a state-of-the-art medical facility set to be built in a town without safe drinking water. "Why build a hospital for kids, when the kids have no clean water?" said Rep. Jim Kolbe, a Republican from Arizona.

Bechtel was given $50 million to build the hospital -- but a year later, with the price tag soaring to $169 million, the company was pulled off the project without a single bed being ready for use. The government was unfazed: Bechtel, explained USAID spokesman David Snider, was "under a 'term contract,' which means their job is over when their money ends."

Their job is over when their money ends. When I call Snider to clarify this amazing statement, he declines to discuss the matter further. But if you look over the history of the Iraqi reconstruction effort, you will find versions of this excuse everywhere. When Custer Battles was caught delivering broken trucks to the Army, a military official says the company told him, "We were only told we had to deliver the trucks. The contract doesn't say they had to work."

Such excuses speak to a monstrous vacuum of patriotism; it would be hard to imagine contractors being so blithely disinterested in results during World War II, where every wasted dollar might mean another American boy dead from gangrene in the Ardennes. But the rampant waste of money and resources also suggests a widespread contempt for the ostensible "purpose" of our presence in Iraq. Asked to cast a vote for the war effort, contractors responded by swiping everything they could get their hands on -- and the administration's acquiescence in their thievery suggests that it, too, saw making a buck as the true mission of the war. Two witnesses scheduled to testify before Congress against Custer Battles ultimately declined not only because they had received death threats but because they, too, were contractors and feared that they would be shut out of future government deals. To repeat: Witnesses were afraid to testify in an effort to recover government funds because they feared reprisal from the government.

The Bush administration's lack of interest in recovering stolen funds is one of the great scandals of the war. The White House has failed to litigate a single case against a contractor under the False Claims Act and has not sued anybody for breach of contract. It even declined to join in a lawsuit filed by whistle-blowers who are accusing KBR of improper invoicing in Fallujah. "For all the Bush administration claims to do in the war against terrorism," Grayson said in congressional testimony, "it is a no-show in the war against war profiteers." In nearly five years of some of the worst graft and looting in American history, the administration has recovered less than $6 million.

What's more, when anyone in the government tried to question what contractors were up to with taxpayer money, they were immediately blackballed and treated like an enemy. Take the case of Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, an outspoken and energetic woman of sixty-three who served as the chief procurement executive for the Army Corps of Engineers. In her position, Greenhouse was responsible for signing off on sole-source contracts -- those awarded without competitive bids and thus most prone to corruption. Long before Iraq, she had begun to notice favoritism in the awarding of contracts to KBR, which was careful to recruit executives who had served in the military. "That was why I joined the corps: to stop this kind of clubby contracting," she says.

A few weeks before the Iraq War started, Greenhouse was asked to sign off on the contract to restore Iraqi oil. The deal, she noticed, was suspicious on a number of fronts. For one thing, the company that had designed the project, KBR, was the same company that was being awarded the contract -- a highly unusual and improper situation. For another, the corps wanted to award a massive "emergency" contract to KBR with no competition for up to five years, which Greenhouse thought was crazy. Who ever heard of a five-year emergency? After auditing the deal, the Pentagon found that KBR had overcharged the government $61 million for fuel. "The abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR," Greenhouse testified before the Senate, "represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

And how did her superiors in the Pentagon respond to the wrongdoing highlighted by their own chief procurement officer? First they gave KBR a waiver for the overbilling, blaming the problem on an Iraqi subcontractor. Then they dealt with Greenhouse by demoting her and cutting her salary, citing a negative performance review. The retaliation sent a clear message to any would-be whistle-blowers. "It puts a chill on you," Greenhouse says. "People are scared stiff."

They were scared stiff in Iraq, too, and for good reason. When civilian employees complained about looting or other improprieties, contractors sometimes threatened to throw them outside the gates of their bases -- a life-threatening situation for any American. Robert Isakson, a former FBI agent who worked for Custer Battles, says that when he refused to go along with one scam involving a dummy company in Lebanon, he was detained by company security guards, who seized his ID badge and barred him from the base in Baghdad. He eventually had to make a hazardous, Papillon-esque journey across hostile Iraq to Jordan just to survive. (Custer Battles denies the charge.)

James Garrison, who worked at a KBR ice plant in Al Asad, recalls an incident when Indian employees threatened to go on strike: "They pulled a bus up, got them in there and said, 'We'll ship you outside the front gate if you want to go on strike.' " Not surprisingly, the workers changed their mind about a work stoppage.

You know the old adage: You don't pay a hooker to spend the night, you pay her to leave in the morning. That maxim also applies to civilian workers in Iraq. A soldier is a citizen with rights, a man to be treated with honor and respect as a protector of us all; if one loses a limb, you've got to take care of him, in theory for his whole life. But a mercenary is just another piece of equipment you can bill to the taxpayer: If one is hurt on the job, you can just throw it away and buy another one. Today there are more civilians working for private contractors in Iraq than there are troops on the ground. The totality of the thievery in Iraq is such that even the honor of patriotic service has been stolen -- we've replaced soldiers and heroes with disposable commodities, men we expected to give us a big bang for a buck and to never call us again.

Russell Skoug, who worked as a refrigeration technician for a contractor called Wolfpack, found that out the hard way. These days Skoug is back home in Diboll, Texas, and he doesn't move around much; he considers it a big accomplishment if he can make it to his mailbox and back once a day. "I'm doing a lot if I can do that much," he says, laughing a little.

A year ago, on September 11th, Skoug was working for Wolfpack at a base in Heet, Iraq. It was a convoy day -- trucks braved the trip in and out of the base every third day -- and Skoug had a generator he needed to fix. So he agreed to make a run to Al Asad. "If I would've realized that it was September 11th, I never would've went out," he says. It would turn out to be the last run he would ever make in Iraq.

An Air Force vet, Skoug had come to Iraq as a civilian to repair refrigeration units and air conditioners for a KBR subcontractor called LSI. But when he arrived, he discovered that LSI had hired him to fix Humvees. "I didn't know jack-squat about Humvees," he says. "I could maybe change the oil, that was it." (Asked about Skoug's additional assignment, KBR boasted: "Part of the reason for our success is our ability to employ individuals with multiple capabilities.")

Working with him on his crew were two other refrigeration technicians, neither of whom knew anything about fixing Humvees. Since Skoug and most of his co-workers had worked for KBR in Afghanistan, they were familiar with cost-plus contracting. The buzz around the base was that cost-plus was the reason LSI was hiring air-conditioning guys to work on unfamiliar military equipment at a cost to the taxpayer of $80,000 a year. "They was doing the same thing as KBR: just filling the body count," says Skoug.

Thanks to low troop levels, all the military repair guys had been pressed into service to fight the war, so Skoug was forced to sit in the military storeroom on the base and study vehicle manuals that, as a civilian, he wasn't allowed to check out of the building. That was how America fought terrorism in Iraq: It hired civilian air-conditioning techs to fix Humvees using the instruction manual while the real Humvee repairmen, earning a third of what the helpless civilians were paid, drove around in circles outside the wire waiting to get blown up by insurgents.

After much pleading and cajoling, Skoug managed to convince LSI to let him repair some refrigeration units. But it turned out that the company didn't have any tools for the job. "They gave me a screwdriver and a Leatherman, and that's it," he recalls. "We didn't even have freon gauges." When Skoug managed to scrounge and cannibalize parts to get the job done, he impressed the executives at Wolfpack enough to hire him away from LSI for $10,000 a month. The job required Skoug, who had been given no formal security training, to travel regularly on dangerous convoys between bases. Wolfpack issued him an armored vehicle, a Yugoslav-made AK-47 and a handgun, and wished him luck.

For nearly a year, Skoug did the job, trying at each stop to overcome the hostility that many troops felt for civilian contractors who surfed the Internet and played pool and watched movies all day for big dollars while soldiers carrying seventy-pound packs of gear labored in huts with broken air conditioning the civilian techs couldn't be bothered to repair. "They'd have the easiest thing to fix, and they wouldn't do it," Skoug says. "They'd write that they'd fixed it or that they just needed a part and then just leave it." At Haditha Dam, Skoug witnessed a near-brawl after some Marines, trying to get some sleep after returning from patrol, couldn't get a group of "KBR dudes" to turn down the television in a common area late at night.

Toward the end of Skoug's stay, insurgent activity in his area increased to the point where the soldiers leading his convoys would often drive only at night and without lights. Skoug and his co-workers asked Wolfpack to provide them with night-vision goggles that cost as little as $1,000 a pair, but the company refused. "Their attitude was, we don't need 'em and we're not buying 'em," says Thomas Lane, a Wolfpack employee who served as Skoug's security man on the night of September 11th.

On that evening, the soldiers leading the convoy refused to let Skoug drive his own vehicle back to Heet without night-vision goggles. So a soldier took Skoug's car, and Skoug was forced to be a passenger in a military vehicle. "We start out the front gate, and I find out that the truck that I was in was the frickin' lead truck," he recalls. "And I'm going, 'Oh, great.' "

The bomb went off about a half-hour later, ripping through the truck floor and destroying four inches of Skoug's left femur. "The windshield looked like there was a film on it," he says. "I find out later it was a film -- it was blood and meat and stuff all over the windshield on the inside." Skoug was loaded into the back of a Humvee, his legs hanging out, and evacuated to an Army hospital in Germany before being airlifted back to the States.

When Skoug arrived, it was his wife, Linda, who had to handle all his affairs. She was the one who arranged for an air ambulance to take him to Houston, where she had persuaded an orthopedic hospital to admit him as a patient. She had to do this because almost right from the start, Wolfpack washed its hands of Russell Skoug. The insurance policy he had been given turned out to be useless -- the company denied all coverage, beginning with a $72,597 bill for his stay in the German hospital. Despite assurances from Wolfpack chief Mark Atwood that he would cover all Skoug's expenses, neither he nor the insurance company would pay for the $16,000 trip in the air ambulance. Nobody paid for the operations Skoug had in Houston -- as many as three a day, every day for a month. And nobody paid for his subsequent rehab stint in another Houston hospital -- despite the fact that military law requires every company contracting with the government to fully insure all of its employees in the war zone.

Now that he's out, sitting at home on his couch with only partial use of his left hand and left leg, Skoug has a stack of unpaid medical bills almost three inches tall. As he speaks, he keeps fidgeting. He apologizes, explaining that he can't sit still for very long. Why? Because Skoug can no longer afford pain medication. "I take ibuprofen sometimes," he says, "but basically I just grin and bear it."

And here's where this story turns into something perfectly symbolic of everything that the war in Iraq stands for, a window into the soul of for-profit contractors who not only left behind a breathtaking legacy of fraud, waste and corruption but, through their calculating, greed-fueled hijacking of this generation's broadest and most far-reaching foreign-policy initiative, pushed America into previously unknown realms of moral insanity. When I contact Mark Atwood and ask him to explain how he could watch one of his best employees get blown up and crippled for life, and then cut him loose with debts totaling well over half a million dollars, Atwood, safe in his office in Kuwait City and contentedly suckling at the taxpayer teat, decides that answering this one question is just too much to ask of poor old him.

"Right now," Atwood says, "I just want some peace."

When Linda Skoug petitioned Atwood for help, he refused, pointing out that he had kept his now-useless employee on the payroll for four whole months before firing him. "After I have put forth to help you all out," he wrote in an e-mail, "you are going to get on me for your husband not having insurance." He even implied that Skoug had brought the accident upon himself by allowing the Army to place him at the head of the convoy: "He was not even suppose [sic] to be in the lead vehicle to begin with."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the story of the Iraq War in a nutshell. In the history of balls, the world has never seen anything like the private contractors George W. Bush summoned to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Collectively, they are the final, polished result of 231 years of natural selection in the crucible of American capitalism: a bureaucrat class capable of stealing the same dollar twice -- once from the taxpayer and once from a veteran in a wheelchair.

The explanations that contractors offer for all the missing dollars, all the myriad ways they looted the treasury and screwed guys like Russell Skoug, rank among the most diabolical, shameless, tongue-twisting bullshit in history. Going back over the various congressional hearings and trying to decipher the corporate responses to the mountains of thefts and fuck-ups is a thrilling intellectual journey, not unlike tackling the Pharaonic hieroglyphs or the mating chatter of colobus monkeys. Standing before Congress, contractors and the officials who are supposed to monitor them say things like "As long as we have the undefinitized contract issue that we have ... we will continue to see the same kinds of sustension rates" (translation: We can't get back any of the fucking money) and "The need for to-fitnessization was viewed as voluntary, and that was inaccurate as the general counsel to the Army observed in a June opinion" (translation: The contractor wasn't aware that he was required to keep costs down) and "If we don't know where we're trying to go and don't have measures, then we won't know how much longer it's going to take us to get there" (translation: There never was a plan in place, other than to let contractors rip off every dollar they could).

According to the most reliable estimates, we have doled out more than $500 billion for the war, as well as $44 billion for the Iraqi reconstruction effort. And what did America's contractors give us for that money? They built big steaming shit piles, set brand-new trucks on fire, drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped bags of nails in ditches. For the most part, nobody at home cared, because war on some level is always a waste. But what happened in Iraq went beyond inefficiency, beyond fraud even. This was about the business of government being corrupted by the profit motive to such an extraordinary degree that now we all have to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future. If catastrophic failure is worth billions, where's the incentive to deliver success? There's no profit in patriotism, no cost-plus angle on common decency. Sixty years after America liberated Europe, those are just words, and words don't pay the bills.

Colo. school bans tag on its playground

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - An elementary school has banned tag on its playground after some children complained they were harassed or chased against their will.

"It causes a lot of conflict on the playground," said Cindy Fesgen, assistant principal of the Discovery Canyon Campus school.

Running games are still allowed as long as students don't chase each other, she said.

Fesgen said two parents complained to her about the ban but most parents and children didn't object.

In 2005, two elementary schools in the nearby Falcon School District did away with tag and similar games in favor of alternatives with less physical contact. School officials said the move encouraged more students to play games and helped reduce playground squabbles.

Truscott acquitted of 48-year-old murder conviction

By Jonathan Spicer

TORONTO (Reuters) - A Canadian man who was sentenced to hang for murder nearly 50 years ago was acquitted on Tuesday by an appeal court, which described the original sentence as a miscarriage of justice.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Steven Truscott's 1959 conviction in the rape and murder of a 12-year-old classmate in small-town southwestern Ontario. He was 14 at the time, and became Canada's youngest death-row inmate.

"The court unanimously holds that the conviction of Mr. Truscott was a miscarriage of justice, and must be quashed," it said. "We are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result."

Truscott's sentence for the murder of Lynne Harper was later commuted to life in prison, and he was quietly released after 10 years behind bars.

He always insisted he was innocent.

"I never in my wildest dreams expected, in my lifetime, for this to come true," the soft-spoken Truscott told reporters in Toronto after the ruling. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm cleared."

Truscott had become a cause celebre for champions of the wrongly convicted, particularly after he emerged from seclusion in 2000 and spoke out about the case. That sparked a new public campaign that prompted the government to reopen the issue.

Then-Justice Minister Irwin Cotler conceded in 2004 that Truscott was likely wrongfully convicted and referred the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The court began hearings last year, and Truscott's lawyers introduced expert witnesses, fresh forensic evidence, and older evidence not available to defense lawyers either at the original trial or at a Supreme Court review seven years later.

Truscott's defense team had hoped the court would also declare Truscott innocent. But legal commentators widely held this to be unlikely.

Harper's body was discovered in a woods near the small southwestern Ontario town of Clinton. She had been raped and strangled.

Police suspicion immediately fell on Truscott, who said he gave Harper a ride on his bicycle shortly before she disappeared, two days before her partly clothed body was found in a wooded grove.

He said he saw her get into a car after he dropped her off at the highway.

He was charged within days, and found guilty in a trial that lasted two weeks.

A Supreme Court review in 1966 upheld the original verdict, but the case bubbled back into the public eye in 2000, when a CBC television documentary presented new information that key evidence had been bypassed in the original trial.

Pot Growers Are New Target in "War on Terror"

By Scott Thill, AlterNet

Last time we checked in on the bizarro nexus between cannabis and terrorism, it was none other than actor/director Tommy Chong who was feeling the Bush administration's post-9/11 wrath. In fact, the stoner icon, whose fabled act was concurrently resuscitated for Fox's drugged and confused comedy hit That 70s Show, was being slapped by John Ashcroft with a nine-month prison bid, a $20,000 fine and over $100,000 in seized assets for selling bongs. The terrorism connection? He was sentenced on Sept. 11, 2003. And if you think that's a specious connection, it's only gotten worse since. In fact, over the last few years, "terrorist" has become an epithet for all seasons.

In 2003, Iraq occupation architect Richard Perle slapped investigative journalist Seymour Hersh with the term, saying, "Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." As if filing a story about the doomed occupation of a sovereign state in the pages of the New Yorker was the same thing as flying a 747 into the World Trade Center.

In 2004, Secretary of Education Rod Paige called the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, "a terrorist organization" because of what Paige defined as the "obstructionist scare tactics" used by its lobbyists. Because we all know it's every educator's dream to buck the systemby blowing themselves up in front of their students.

And just this month, the Bush administration decided to employ the term to legally target the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a sovereign nation's standing army numbering in the hundreds of thousands. When you want a war that badly, you'll pretty much do or say anything to get it.

So how does the Bush administration get away with crying terrorist at every opportunity? Say hello to the Military Commissions Act. Thanks to this 2006 piece of legislation, terrorism has become the basis of American foreign and domestic policy. Yes, the term has become equivalent to everything from ideologically driven violence to petty theft, and can be used to incarcerate, exterminate or character assassinate anything in sight.

It's no wonder then that federal officials are now revisiting their previously failed effort to link terrorism to cannabis, the only real cash cow in the government's so-called War on Drugs. Only difference is, this time, they don't have Tommy Chong as a scapegoat.

Unable or unwilling to solve the nation's crippling meth addiction or its hypocritical dependency on prescribed narcotics like oxycontin, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) recently rang the terrorism alarm to nail pot growers in Redding's Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Along the way, ONDCP "czar" John Walters showed off not only the Bush administration's love of twisted terminology but also its subcultural savvy by coining a memorable phrase of his own.

"We have kind of a reefer blindness," Walters explained during a Redding press conference on the ONDCP's Operation Alesia, a cannabis-eradication program coordinated by the California National Guard's Counterdrug Taskforce and the Shasta County Sheriff's Office. Walters followed that clever turn of phrase with the reliable terrorist designation to describe the armed growers cultivating cannabis in Shasta County. "These people are armed; they're dangerous. [They're] violent criminal terrorists." He even went so far to argue that the "terrorists" growing weed in Shasta County, as the Redding Record Searchlight reported, "wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties."

Except there seem to be a couple major problems with Walters' characterizations. For one, Walters declined to explain during the press conference what Operation Alesia's specific goals were. More importantly, he didn't offer up any concrete names of the terrorists or their ideological objectives. What legalization advocates and law enforcement authorities alike were left with was yet another hazy strategy based on loose terminology whose only purpose it seems is to confiscate as much pot as possible from Shasta County's public lands.

A noble pursuit to be sure, but counterterrorism? Hardly.

Especially when rural Shasta County's biggest problem is meth, not marijuana, addiction. Further, Walters' coded terminology, when unmasked, is not employed to raise awareness of al Qaeda's grand cannabis cultivation strategy to destabilize the American government, but rather to inflame regional biases against, you guessed it, Mexicans. Especially the undocumented variety, who are "the other terrorists" Walters mentioned looking to get into the country and, what again? I asked Mike Odle, public affairs and communications officer for Shasta-Trinity National Forest's Northern California Coordination Center to elaborate on what was behind the increase in cultivated cannabis on Shasta's public lands.

"Most of the increase can be attributed to the proliferation of foreign Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs), mostly Mexican in origin, which operate in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and throughout California and much of the United States," Odle explained to me by email. "Frequently using illegal aliens residing outside the United States, or recently smuggled across the [sic] boarder, these Mexican criminal groups establish, maintain and protect an increasing number of clandestine operations."

Yet, predictably, Odle couldn't explain what made them terrorists.

"Some DTOs have been linked by law enforcement and investigations to terrorist organizations and pose a substantial and increasing threat to national security," he added in a subsequent email. "Our primary concern here on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is the safety of our forest visitors and agency employees and the negative impacts marijuana has on the environment and natural resources, no matter what name is given to the DTOs that are illegally growing marijuana on America's public lands."

No matter what name is given? Easy enough if you're the one doing the naming. If you're the one being flippantly tagged a terrorist? Not so much.

Plus, there are enough holes in the argument to plant your own cannabis seeds. To start with, cannabis may be many things, but it is far from an environmental negative. It has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years, can grow in almost any climate, and is a naturally occurring dioecious perennial. (In other words, it's not fossil fuel.) Further, Odle's claim that safety is Shasta's first concern is understandable, but he offered no examples of violent activity by any of the area growers to legitimize the ONDCP's inflammatory language. Sure, the fact that "some" DTOs have been linked to terrorist organizations is educational, but as with everything the ONDCP touches, specifics are elusive and generalizations are everywhere.

I pressed Odle for further clarification on the terrorism question. But instead of al Qaeda, all I got was more obfuscation. And more Mexicans.

"Do [sic] to ongoing investigations, I am limited in what I can share," Odle explained in another email. "When we do the investigations we try to get up as far as we can into the food chain. We work closely with the DEA, FBI, ICE and other law enforcement agencies that have the capabilities to identify who these folks are and what links they may or may not have."

Fair enough. It's out of his hands. Any concrete local examples?

"I can [sic] site an example in a case we are now finished investigating. The Forest Service was heavily involved with the eradication of marijuana gardens associated with the Magana drug cartel. The Magana drug cartel operation and investigation occurred throughout National Forests in California, Utah and Arkansas, with direct ties to Mexico. Investigators in the Magana case said cartel leaders brought in illegal workers from the Mexican states of Michoacan and Jalisco."

In short, terrorism isn't the real problem here, it's illegal immigration. Not convinced? When you get a chance, search Google for "Magana drug cartel" and let me know if you can find anything. Even better, try the ONDCP, and let me know if anything unrelated to cocaine shows up. Even if you give Walters, Odle and other so-called counterterrorism experts their due on the Magana drug cartel or other so-called terrorist organizations who the ONDCP cannot actually name (making sure to look up the definition of "cartel" in the process, if you want to be exhaustive about it), what you end up with are cannabis traffickers and cultivators operating illegally on public lands using undocumented immigrants.

Illegal activity? Fine. Terrorism? Are you high?

The Bush administration's hypocritical bait-and-switch between terrorism and immigration is clumsy for certain, but it is especially glaring in light of a recent Washington Times article criticizing none other than President Bush himself. According to the piece, a "2006 audit showed federal, state and local governments are among the biggest employers of the half-million persons in the U.S. illegally using 'non-work' Social Security numbers -- numbers issued legally, but with specific instructions that the holders are not authorized to work in the U.S." And that charge was leveled by Iowa Republican and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee Rep. Steve King, in a politically conservative publication founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, cult leader of the Unification Church.

Even the Moonies think that Bush needs to start throwing what the president's own drug czar would call terrorists out of his own White House, before he starts worrying about anyone else. After all, according to the audit, his own government is a much worse offender than the ragged Magana cartel growing cannabis in the forests of Redding.

By the time the ONDCP's talking points touched on other byproducts of commercially cultivated cannabis terrorism -- "fire violations, unsanitary conditions, littering, smoking, building unauthorized structures, unauthorized camping and cutting trees without a permit to name a few," in Odle's words -- I began to more fully understand the power of language. By capitalizing on a nationally manufactured fear and simply merging words into each other, the Bush administration has created from its hyperreal imagination a living policy that can have real-world ramifications for those trampled beneath its fluid terminology.

The good news is that the Democrats in Congress are at least trying to make up for their heinous complicity in the Military Commissions Act, whose passage helped enable this linguistic nightmare in the first place. As recently as July 2007, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Henry Waxman wrote Walters asking why American taxpayers have been footing the bill for ONDCP officials to travel around the country with Republican candidates stumping for election at the behest of Karl Rove. Striking hard at Bush administration politicization of the ONDCP is a good start, but stopping their ability to label anyone anything they want would go much farther to restoring sensible policy, on drugs and everything else, for the rest of our new millennium.

We're going to need help soon, if the recent white papers on drug abuse from the ONDCP are any indication. Because they've enlisted God for help in beating back the devil weed, as their fact sheet "Marijuana and Kids: Faith" explains: "Religion and religiosity repeatedly correlate with lower teen and adult marijuana and substance use rates and buffer the impact of life stress which can lead to marijuana and substance use. ... Other studies show that teens who don't view faith as important are up to four times more likely to use marijuana."

In other words, smoke up, heretical terrorist! You're not only fueling al Qaeda's mass murder by purchasing weed cultivated by illegal Mexicans in the rural public lands of the world, but you're also turning your back on God in the process. As well as replacing the Bush administration's real world with your selfish virtual reality in which cannabis is a relatively harmless, naturally occurring plant that can chill you out as much as it can fill you out. A massive, multiplayer simulation where pot is a viable medicinal alternative to synthesized painkillers like oxycontin, which ease your agony by killing you off altogether.

According to the Bush administration and its politicized ONDCP, you need to unplug from that moonbat matrix and start praying. Fast. Or else.

Gay marriage goes way back

Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe


Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.

But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."

The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”

Adolescence is obsolete

Towns are passing curfews to keep them off the street. Parents are shelling out for gadgets to spy on them. Teens are subject to twice as many restrictions as prison inmates. But psychologist Robert Epstein says we are wasting a huge human resource: Let them choose when to leave school, work and vote – it's the birth of the new adult.
It's an unfamiliar sight: Kids under 15 running businesses, chairing town council meetings and scolding each other for not living up to their responsibilities – not to mention cleaning outhouses and hauling drinking water.

But on Kid Nation, a reality show that makes its debut next month, 40 young people have just 40 days to build a society – with no adults to curb what the show describes as “the urge to break every rule they've ever known”

– in an Old West ghost town in the New Mexico desert.

All of which suggests yet another stunt on the part of television executives hoping for a Lord of the Flies-style shocker. Except that Kid Nation also amounts to a test case for a radical theory about child development – and taps into an emerging debate about the role of the teenager.

Yet this proposal appears even as teens' rights are being curtailed. Towns such as Thompson, Man., are passing curfews to keep them off the streets at night, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is fighting to keep them away from alcohol for five years after they get behind the wheel and parents are stocking up on hot new products such as the SnoopStick to spy on their Web surfing.

Dr. Epstein's book – The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen – challenges this drive to postpone the rights and obligations of adulthood. He suggests that we have lost track of what it means to be an adult – and underestimate just want it takes to become one.

Why is the former editor of Psychology Today making such extreme claims? In a series of in-depth discussions about his work, Dr. Epstein concedes that teens appear to need reining in – more money is spent on psychoactive drugs for young people in the U.S., he says, than all other prescription medicines combined.

But these troubled teens are Frankensteins of our own making, he insists. There is a correlation between the myriad regulations and restrictions that adolescents face (surveys show they are subjected to twice as many limitations as incarcerated prisoners in the United States) and problem behaviour.

And the more we keep teens from adult activities, the more we keep them from interaction with other adults – inadvertently sealing them in a peer-dominated MySpace bubble, a constant feedback loop with other teenagers.

“We've trapped all of our young people in this idiotic world of teen culture,” he says. “All their models are imbeciles – you don't have to look far to find exemplars that support the belief that teens are incompetent and irresponsible. But none of this tells you what teen competence is. It goes beyond what you see. It's about what's possible.”

In fact, with the help of other experts in adult development, Dr. Epstein and his colleague Diane Dumas developed a test to measure 14 skill sets that distinguish adults from non-adults – and on questions covering everything from knowledge of sex to citizenship to math proficiency, differences between teen and adult scores were negligible.

On questions that measure romantic maturity, for example, the mean score for adults were 8.32 out of 10 and 7.95 for teens. The overall mean scores for adults was 116.7 compared with 114.2 for teens – even though there were double the number of college graduates in the adult sample group as there are in American society.

“There's nothing magical that happens at 16 or 81,” he says. “If you're not skillful in at least most of these areas, people either behind your back or to your face are going to say you're immature. Which, it turns out, many adults are.”

Dr. Epstein says the explanation is simple Darwinian logic.

At a basic level, all the species needs to survive is more offspring – and for children to be cared for until they can have still more offspring. Throughout most of history, parenthood started right after puberty. By the age of 22 or thereabouts, adults' evolutionary purpose would have been fulfilled.

This, it turns, out is just when a number of functions start to decline. Brain size tops out at about 14 and while intelligence, memory and reaction time are on the upswing during the teen years, they start to nosedive in the early 20s.

“In the early or mid-teens, we are either at our peak or very close to our peak.”


THE BIRTH OF THE TEEN Not that we see evidence of this today. It's telling that the creators of Kid Nation had to turn back the clock to the era of the Wild West to imagine a world in which children and teenagers might tackle grown-up chores and responsibilities.

While many of us think of girls in poodle skirts and saddle shoes as a benchmark for North American teen culture, a distinct stage between childhood and adulthood was not born in the 1950s, but far earlier – at a time in the late 1800s when industrialization was replacing the frontier.

Before then, many young people worked alongside their parents as soon as they were able and, shortly after puberty, boys would leave home to pursue an apprenticeship. By 1900, more than two million kids 10 to 15 years old were working full-time in the U.S.

But some adults worried that wages for older workers were under threat. An influx of immigrants also led to fears about what would happen to children who couldn't find jobs. Soon, labour unions were fighting to end child labour and what Dr. Epstein calls “bluebloods” were campaigning to control idleness and encourage socialization through education.

“Labour laws and education laws were put into place by all kinds of different people,” he says. “None of them had the best interests of teenagers in mind.”

Still, the emerging field of adolescent psychology seemed to support the idea of reining in this new teenager.

In his landmark 1904 book Adolescence, genetic psychologist G. Stanley Hall suggested that the teen years were a time of natural turmoil. Drawing on a theory popular among German scientists of the 19th century that all creatures relive the stages of evolution during their lives – that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – Dr. Hall saw adolescence as the midpoint between a “savage” and “tribal” past and a civilized future.

The science underpinning his theories has since been repudiated. But Dr. Epstein suggests that a new science has simply taken its place. He points to studies of the “teen brain” that try to prove there are biological underpinnings to adolescent angst and laziness – research he calls a “scientific fraud.”

“These assertions that teens are irresponsible and incompetent because they have a defective brain or an undeveloped brain – it's the zeitgeist,” he says. Some of these studies may find correlations between age and laziness, but do not necessarily show cause and effect. “The teen brain is, at best, a reflection of teen problems, not their cause.”

Marshall Korenblum is a professor at the University of Toronto and the chief psychiatrist at Hincks-Dellcrest, a children's mental-health centre. He agrees with Dr. Epstein's characterization of adolescence as a relatively modern invention, one that, in effect, ghettoizes youth.

But he takes exception with “the notion that there is no difference between the teen and the adult brain.” Recent studies suggest that the teen brain is very different, he says, specifically in the pre-frontal cortex, which is in charge of such things as planning and impulse control. “It would be a mistake to give teenagers more rights and responsibilities,” he says. “The brain continues to mature into the 20s.”

Dr. Epstein responds by listing off young people who didn't need to wait until their 20s to flex mental muscle.

William Blake wrote important poetry at 12. Blaise Pascal proved mathematical theorems at 16. Then there are modern-day wunderkinds such as computer scientist Erik Demaine. He says home schooling and early interaction with adults were key to his finishing college at the age of 14. At 20, he was the youngest professor to be hired by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“It's fortunate for me that I got to learn so much so early because it's a lot easier to learn things when you're young,” he told Psychology Today. “Other than that, age is an arbitrary number.”

Adult abilities are not restricted to career go-getters, either, Dr. Epstein says. Young people are also capable of forging deep and complex emotional relationships with others. Take Mary and Paul Onesi, who were feted in 1995 as the longest married couple in the U.S. They were married in 1917, when he was 21 and she was 13.

If Dr. Epstein gets his way, North America could unlock scores of success stories like these.


THE AGELESS SOCIETY

It hadn't occurred to Yvonne O'Hara to offer her teen boys beer with dinner.

She didn't much care that the 12-year-old and 15-year-old weren't of legal drinking age. The well-behaved boys had simply never asked to try alcohol. But when her sister offered them beer or wine with dinner one weekend at the cottage, she let them make their own decision – and the Toronto mother noticed the psychological effect.

Her younger son drank half a glass of beer. “I could tell he liked that we trusted in him that he was mature enough to handle it,” she says. Now, she's a firm believer in lowering the drinking age in order to normalize the practice.

But how to assess a young person's maturity before they take up risky adult activities?

All we have to do, Dr. Epstein says, is set up a system of competency tests. Just as driving tests are administered today, tests to vote, marry and give sexual consent could be developed by experts and administered by governments.

Some tests would be fairly basic. “We'd like lots of people to vote,” he says. Others would set the bar much higher. “We don't want people to be able to take drugs or make medical decisions unless they're really know what they're doing. We might set the mark for the abortion decision quite high.”

Critics say the system would be an unwieldy, bureaucratic mess, but Dr. Epstein says society already requires licences and permits not only as safety measures but as incentives for those who desire certain rights and responsibilities.

“If someone wants to be an electrician, they have to take a test that was developed by a panel of relevant experts. They want to be a plumber, a physician, a lawyer – it's pretty darn simple. There are hundreds of precedents.”

And when should testing start? As the parent of four, Dr. Epstein says puberty may be a realistic minimum age to take any competency test, but he is reluctant to set a firm limit of any kind.

“If you're 8 and you happen to be the Dalai Lama and you pass the test, then we should admit you to adult society. He was negotiating on behalf of Tibet at 15.”

Still, given the ongoing criticism of IQ testing – Stephen Murdoch's book IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea is the latest jab – maybe the last thing we need is a new battery of tests. What if subtle socio-economic factors biased results? And what about nuances of maturity not easily measured in yes/no questionnaires?

Dr. Epstein insists that such tests would be works in progress. And that unlike IQ, these tests would not measure fixed qualities but fluid skills and knowledge.

Someone can learn that love and sex are not the same thing; someone can learn that drinking alcohol and taking drugs at the same time is extremely risky.

“Traits are unchangeable,” he says, “but competencies are trainable.”

So, let's imagine for a moment what happens when scores of competent young people actually pass tests allowing them to vote, drink, own property and work at meaningful jobs instead of attending high school (which Dr. Epstein characterizes as more like a prison than a place of true learning).

It would be what Dr. Epstein calls an ageless society. “In some ways, it will look like society used to look,” he says. “There was a time when it was very common for a 12-year-old to go into a bar. If the 12-year-old behaved irresponsibly, the 12-year-old would be treated harshly – just like a 30-year-old.”

We might end up with a return to an apprenticeship system, albeit more high-tech than earlier versions. Other young people might start their own businesses. And for those who want to keep studying, home-schooling and personalized training could become mainstream options.

In some ways, the impact of a more integrated society would be less jarring than we might fear. The computer age, for example, means that 16-year-olds would not necessarily have to share water-cooler time with 40-year-olds in an ageless workplace.

“The computer creates a certain anonymity. You can work with someone and not know they're 13. Age is less visible, with complex interactions often occurring at a distance.”

On the other hand, teens with strong raw abilities just might run rings around many adults – which could create a certain amount of turmoil.

“Some people will be overrun. But it was the same issue when we allowed women in the workplace.”

And benefits, Dr. Epstein says, outweigh such costs. Not only are teens winners, but so are families, since an ageless society would end “the adversarial relationship that exists with parents and young offspring” – they might even contribute financially to the household. The economy would also get a boost from an influx of new talent, not dissimilar to a wave of eager new immigrants.

“We're bringing extremely energetic people into the economy. Tens of millions of extremely bright, energetic young people who learn quickly who have been excluded from the economy for a century. Would some people lose their jobs? Yes. But the economy would thrive.”

In the same way that forcing a 60-year-old to retire before he or she is ready robs society of a valuable resource, Dr. Epstein says, preventing a teen from starting an adult life when he or she is ready is ultimately a loss to people of all ages.

“We benefit by throwing away age or any other arbitrary characteristic such as gender or race and instead at least move in the direction of looking at competency. I don't see how we could possibly lose out by that.”

All of which would seem to bode well for those 40 young people in the middle of that New Mexico ghost town.

Although one child suffered grease burns while cooking and another accidentally drank bleach – and this week state officials launched an investigation into possible abuse of labour laws – Kid Nation producer Tom Forman said that, over all, young people on his show proved wise beyond their years.

“As a parent out there, I was floored every day watching these kids get up, light a pioneer-era wood-burning stove, cook a breakfast for 40, do their own dishes, head to the water pump, get water, bring it back,” he said at a press conference last month in Los Angeles.

As for more complex issues – like questions producers posed on religion or pollution? “Sometimes it stumped them, and I think that they did worse than adults today do. Sometimes they nailed it and, in a couple of minutes, would solve the problem that adults can't seem to solve.”



The death of the teenager?

Towns are passing curfews to keep them off the street. Parents are shelling out for gadgets to spy on them. Teens are subject to twice as many restrictions as prison inmates.

But U.S. psychologist Robert Epstein says we are wasting a huge human resource: Let them choose when to leave school, work and vote – it's the birth of the new adult.

Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente recently sparked a vigorous discussion when she described a new book in which Dr. Epstein argues that not only should young people have the same rights as adults – from voting and signing contracts to smoking and drinking – but that the designation of teenager should be abolished entirely.

In Saturday's Globe, writer Tralee Pearce examined the changing roles of young people in society in her article Adolescence is obsolete

Dr. Epstein was online earlier today to take your questions and to offer his insight into these issues.

Robert Epstein is the author of The Case Against Adolescence and is Director Emeritus, Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

Virginia Galt, Globe and Mail: Good afternoon, Dr. Epstein, and thanks so much for joining us today to talk about the way we treat our teenagers. It promises to be a lively discussion.

You argue that extended adolescence is bad for everyone. Yet, as parents, educators and employers, we can't seem to let go.

In Canada, more than 40 per cent of adults under the age of 29 still live with their parents. As a matter of course, universities now accommodate anxious Moms and Dads at orientation sessions.

And, even when these young adults graduate and find employment, they are often relegated to "intern" status, although many are better educated than their bosses. In your view, how much harm are we doing by not letting them, from the time they are teenagers, assume more responsibility and get on with their lives?

Dr. Robert Epstein: The harm for our young people, our families, and our society at large is enormous. At one level, we're simply wasting valuable human resources: millions of talented, energetic, creative young people who are making little or no contribution to society.

There are also mental health consequences: When we restrict young people and hold them back, many get angry or depressed. In the U.S., we have 5.5 million teens in counselling now, and we're spending more money on psychoactive drugs for teens than on all other prescription drugs combined.

We also have 2 million attempted suicides each year by teens. Infantilizing teens and isolating them from adults also causes enormous family conflict: 20 conflicts per month, on average. That's a lot of pain.

Philosopher King, Ottawa: Not to be rude, but when I was a teenager I thought and did a lot of stuff that was dangerous, stupid and potentially disasterous. In the end I suspect it was only the continuous messaging from around me as what the boundaries ought to be (even if I ignored them) that kept me from doing even crazier things.

While I accept that freedom of choice and the learning of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in society is incredibly important, the simple fact is that teenagers don't understand repurcussions very well.

As such, giving them the right to get credit cards, loans or the like is simply allowing them to be victimized by a system whose only mantra is 'what the market will bear' which I translate as them being allowed to take advantage of inexperienced youth.

I myself took on a credit card in university and ended up very much in debt because I didn't understand the ramifications. So, how do you propose to protect the young when you seem to desire setting the world loose on them?

Dr. Epstein: My guess is that your irresponsible behavior was guided mainly by the absurd rules, values, and role models of teen culture.

If you had truly been allowed to enter the adult world - to own property, to compete against adults head-to-head, to sign contracts, etc. - you would have done a better job. Of course, many adults also behave irresponsibly, so I could be wrong!

Maggie Crow, Canada: Motivated people will take initiative and take on responsibility at any age. If teenagers want to be involved in something they will be - take politics for example.

The teenagers that want to be voting are probably involved in student government, or volunteering for political parties, or are part of advocate groups.

Laws don't need to be changed in the hopes that the mediocre will become exceptional. The way to foster growth and maturity in adolescence is to show teenagers the opportunities that exist within their reach, and to help them become the best leaders in their own world.

Dr. Epstein: The problem, Maggie, is that they have almost no meaningful opportunities within their reach.

According to survey research I've conducted in the U.S., American teens are subjected to more than 10 times as many restrictions as are mainstream adults, to twice as many restrictions as are active-duty military personnel, and even to twice as many restrictions as are incarcerated felons.

They have virtually no incentive to pay attention to the adult world because they can't vote, they have limited property and privacy rights, they can't sign contracts or start businesses, and they're forced to attend school even if they have no interest in learning the completely arbitrary material they're supposed to learn there.

Give young people some real opportunities and incentives to join the adult world, and they'll do it by the millions. And yes, you're right, the most exceptional teens will lead the way.

Ari Up, Ottawa: At 18, my great-grandparents got married and hopped on a boat from England to Canada. As far as I know, they never returned home. They established a home and business in small-town Saskatchewan, and started a family that grew to 5 kids within a decade. The whole family thrived.

At 17, my grandfather was told it was time for him and his younger brother to leave the family farm in Ireland. They headed for Canada and fended for themselves during the Depression. It was rough, but he did fine.

Are teens today inherently less capable than they were in previous generations, or have we just lowered expectations to the point where they're incapable of demonstrating this kind of competence?

Dr. Epstein: Great question. I show unequivocally in my new book - based on my own research and extensive research done by other scientists - that today's teens are every bit as capable as teens of old.

We've just lowered our expectations, treating teens as we treat young children and trapping them in the completely absurd world of teen culture.

They learn virtually everything they know from each other -- the very last people on earth from whom they should be learning.

They need to be learning from the people they will soon become: adults. And yes, they need more meaningful responsibility in their lives - not more "freedom," but more responsibility.

They have way too much freedom as it is - the freedom to spend frivolously, the freedom to be disrespectful, the freedom to waste time, and so on.

Thumb Sucker, Toronto: Dr. Epstein, this to me is all very depressing.

Why does everybody need to squeeze every last ounce of productivity out of their lives? We are moving so close to a society where you are judged purely by how much money you make and how many hours you can put in at work during a week that it seems no one is smelling the clichéd roses along the road to death.

Who cares if a teenager can work in an office just as well as an adult? They have plenty of time to do that when they are an adult; no need to go back to the ways of the industrial revolution.

Dr. Epstein: I agree completely, which is why I spend a great deal of time relaxing!

But this is a matter of options: Many young people would like the opportunity to start a business, own property, compete against adults, make their own medical decisions, live on their own, drink alcohol (responsibly) - or even to retire to a desert island!

But over the last century, society has come to restrict all young people - based simply on age, and no matter how motivated or competent they may be - so that they have virtually no meaningful options whatsoever. . .

The key is to allow young people to enter the adult world as soon as they are ready.

James Cyr, Balmertown, Ont.: Most teenagers, in their transition from childhood to adulthood, are looking for answers to fundamental questions of life.

In other words, they are seeking some philosophy to live by --a comprehensive view of life. What are they offered today?

Rap music that advocates volence and disrespect; movies that offer nothing but either immorality or ammorality; mysticism as an alternative to reason and consumerism-materialism as a be-all-end-all. Rationality and reason is discouraged; objectivity is replaced with cynicism and the false dichotomy of the practical versus the moral.

Further to his point, how possible do you think it would be to reverse the huge hold popular culture has over us? How many man-as-boy movies do we need to see anyway?

Dr. Epstein: They're offered this kind of nonsense because we have trapped them in the idiotic world of teen culture.

We treat them like children and completely isolate them from the adults.

D.V., Canada: As a 'high-achiever' teenager myself, I can relate to much of what you write, and myself find age to be an arbitrary number.

Do you think that current teens are in agreement with your ideas?

How much time do you believe it would take to fully remove the concept of 'teenager' from our society's vocabulary?

Dr. Epstein: Because teens are infantilized and so completely isolated from the adult world, many are not aware of their own potential.

They just feel frustrated, but they don't fully understand where that frustration is coming from.

Unfortunately, the forces of infantization - mainly greedy companies, but also misinformed parents and policy makers - are so strong that it's going to be long time, I fear, before we abolish adolescence.

Diane Agate, Lincoln, Canada: These ideas are wonderful. But how do we as a community begin to initiate changes, especially for teens who are living dangerously, by substance abuse and running away?

How do we reach out and begin? Perhaps we just let them fend for themselves and learn from their mistakes?

Dr. Epstein: I think the teens who are in the most trouble would be the first to enter the adult world, given real opportunities to do so.

In many cases, they're the ones who "grew up" first - but then were quickly frustrated by the prison bars that surround them.

We need to start the ball rolling to end infantilization, allow teens to enter the adult world (when they can demonstrate readiness), and rescue them from the idiotic world of teen culture.

More home schooling will help, and so will giving meaningful responsibilities. But fundamentally, we need to educate the public and to begin the process of legislative reform.

T Dot, Canada: The only truth I have come to accept after 30 years in education is that the current education system fails many students: the structural model, the curriculum components, and measurements of success conspire against young minds, inducing boredom and alienation, instead of stimulating and engaging them.

However, nothing will change without the participation of larger social forces, specifically the economic forces.

Yes, legislation would be needed and policies amended, but the real impetus should come from the business world in terms of taking responsibility for the development of a skilled labour force. Now there is a significant disconnect and a culture of blame.

In comparison to many other developed nations, Canadian budgets for R & D fall short, and in the long run we will suffer for it.

Instead of expecting highly refined and specific skills to walk in the doorway with new hires, all organizations should have training and internship programs in partnership with educational institution.

Practical application and problem solving demand on-the- spot learning; motivation determines accomplishment, which in terms drives self- esteem (yes - the real thing). Students would have to become accountable in real world terms - to themselves and to others.

Dr. Epstein: I agree completely and recently published a long article in Education Week spelling out my views.

Our current education system was modelled after the factories of the industrial revolution, with young people placed on assembly lines - as if they are all the same, like widgets - and all ready to learn and be molded in preparation for a lifetime of labour. What nonsense!

The assembly line is fine for cars but not for people. The main thing we teach young people in school is to hate learning.

Effective education - as you and all other teachers know - must be personalized and individualized, because people have different learning styles and learn at different rates.

Will Decker, Norman, Oklahoma: I've heard it said that boys with loving fathers do not join gangs. What do loving fathers do? Do they not establish boundaries within the context of love?

I wonder if Dr. Epstein has witnessed how lost teens are as they relate to each other by themselves. Maybe it is how we go about setting rules, where they come from that needs to be examined . . .

We've got a lot to do but, dear Dr. Epstein, leaving teens on their own seems wrong to me.

Dr. Epstein: Thanks, Will, for your question. First of all, past puberty, young human males are not "boys." They're young men, and many of them are extremely capable - in some cases far superior to adults.

A loving father doesn't necessarily assure that a young man won't enter a gang. Gangs themselves are paramilitary organizations, highly organized emulations of adult military organizations, complete with ranks, emblems, uniforms, codes of honor, territories, and weapons.

I've never suggested that we "leave teens on their own," but to treat all teens as young incompetent children is a serious mistake.

We need to let young people enter adult society, one by one, as soon as they can show us that they're competent do so in one or more areas.

They're very different, one from another - just as adults are - and to toss them all away based merely on their age is just plain wrong, and also quite harmful for young people, families, and society at large.

Virginia Galt, Globe and Mail: Thanks so much for joining us today and taking questions from the readers of globeandmail.com.

Your discussion has stirred up a lot of interest. Do you have any closing thoughts?

Dr. Epstein: When I started the research that is reported in my new book, The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen, I had very different views than I have now.

I thought that teens were inherently irresponsible and incompetent, and that we hold them back from the adult world for their own good.

I learned that I was wrong - that the systems we have in place that restrict teens and isolate them from adults are remnants of the industrial revolution . . . that no longer make any sense, and do great damage to our young people and our families.

I learned that teen turmoil is not necessary - that it doesn't exist in more than 100 cultures around the world and that it is entirely a creation of our society.

If you're intrigued by my ideas, I hope you'll take a careful look at the book. If you look closely at the evidence, I believe you'll become as persuaded as I have become.