August 12, 2005
Firey Coals
A commenter (Chris Hanson) on Confederate Yankee asks of the supporters of Cindy Sheehan:
"...what happened to your moral compass?"
This is becoming depressing for me. It was fine, for awhile, just to be on the "right side of history," but as these events have progressed and the original issues about the war have receded-- the stakes in Iraq becoming clearer and more obvious with each passing day--the manner in which the Left has chosen to destroy itself for what a friend of mine appropriately calls a "lust for peace" has surpassed any conception of foolishness that I might have thought possible. The spectacle of this mother placing her grief at the feet of such a self-destructive and destructively inclined movement isn't really resolved by any sort of anger I can manage to whip up against her. It's just plain sad, and sad in a way that transcends the sadness anyone must feel about the death of any individual (including a loved one). It's the sadness of discovering that good intentions not only don't equate to good judgment, but can easily transform into very very bad, even vicious, intentions. Why are we pulling apart, instead of together?
I read the other day about James Wolcott complaining that people like Roger L. Simon have "betrayed the Left" in their support for the war, but to me it seems precisely the opposite. For whatever moral legitimacy I had once ceded to the Left for the sake of its intention to support the misfortunate, or to serve as a brake on unfairness and selfishness, has been replaced by moral and political skepticism. And I don't imagine I'm alone. How could any movement that claims to take such ideals seriously, so seriously and wilfully betray them? How could any movement willing not just to argue for, but to insist on, the moral equivalence between Camp X-Ray and Auschwitz, or who reserves any esteem for our own generation's "Lord Haw Haw", or any one of a dozen or so similar travesties I could recall were I so inclined, ever again be entrusted with the public good? As Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger asked recently: Why do you so hate the poor? This is a cataclysm. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.
And just to put the final touch on what has to be yet another disillusioned flower child's naked lunch, it seems to me that George Bush's response to this crowd surging to press Mrs. Sheehan's grief in his face like a cream pie (while her own family recoils in shame) has simply and unambiguously canceled a wave of hatred... with generosity, tolerance and understanding. Which, frankly, makes me feel a little more optimistic about the long term. more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:13 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.
1
It's unfathomable, but nothing new. This is the one way that Iraq is like Vietnam - the ultimate betrayal of country and abandonment of morals by the Left. It seems to be some type of mental breakdown, an inability to face reality leading to a retreat into a fantasy world with its own wacky internal logic.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 12:52 AM (RHG+K)
2
Well spoken... and yet, your wisdom will continue to fall upon deaf ears, until history once again forces their silence from shame, as it has done so many times in the past.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 12, 2005 06:07 AM (0fZB6)
3
As to the Sheehan reference:
Even before that letter came out I had misgivings about how the family may have felt. They were largely silent. But when her husband said, "...we try to continue to support her," I knew that was spoken by a man at wit's end. I'm not surprised by the letter sent by her family. The husband's words said it all beforehand. He undoubtedly loves his wife, but he is frustrated.
The Michael Mooreites, Code Pinkers and antiwar.com'ers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting this woman.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:04 AM (YudAC)
4
Sadly, this is nothing new. And it goes back further than Vietnam -- I read a bit last night about a group of weeping mothers trucked around the country during the late 1930s to support the "America first" movement.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 12, 2005 07:06 AM (1j9aH)
5
Confederate Yankee & Robert:
Actually it goes back at least to the Copperhead movement during the Civil War, but I had hoped that we might be better able to pull together this time because we were actually attacked. Yes, we weren't attacked by Iraq, but as many have observed we weren't attacked by Germany either, nor by any countries in N. Africa which we invaded during the early days of WWII.
The Belmont Club observes that every time it appears that an enemy has managed to obtain and "asymmetrical weapons advantage" (the bomber, the torpedo boat and submarine, etc.) the first impulse is always appeasement. As things unfold it becomes clear that the apparently invincible weapon can be defeated with countermeasures and the tables are turned.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 09:45 AM (IbWE6)
6
The left has always proclaimed their sympathy for, and solidarity with, the downtrodden, but when the curtain is lifted, it reveals the truth; cynical manipulation of real problems in order to further their radical agendas. No leftist organization has ever really been dedicated only to helping the helpless, but has only carried out good works as propaganda cover for their real intentions. The ACLU exists solely to manipulate the fight for Constitutional rights and use the Constitution against the very people and society it was meant to protect. The UN has become a country club for terrorists and dictators. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, et al; name any leftist organization, and it won't be hard to find their true agenda, which universally boils down to one thing, anti-Americanism.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:52 PM (0yYS2)
7
Amnesty International, Greenpeace, et al; name any leftist organization, and it won't be hard to find their true agenda, which universally boils down to one thing, anti-Americanism.
Well, there are people on the left who aren't in that camp, but most of them I know voted for Bush this time around. The Left has never taken the accusation of anti-Americanism very seriously, and I think it's going to either hurt them, or hurt the country, very badly before this is over.
There is, of course, an institutional reason for the anti-Americanism that goes back to the "Why no socialism?" literature, of people like Louis Hartz and even Friedrich Engels. And you're right, it has little to do with any serious concern about the poor. But just because that's the case doesn't mean their opposition has the answers, or cares about the issue. And if they don't learn to deal with it and care about it, the door will be left open for these n'er-do-wells to work their stuff.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 06:00 PM (IbWE6)
August 11, 2005
NARAL Withdraws Anti-Roberts Ad
Considering this ad was pretty much a full-fledged lie it only makes sense that the venomous NARAL is withdrawing it.
Abortion Rights Group Withdraws Roberts Ad (AP):
WASHINGTON - After a week of protests by conservatives, an abortion rights group said Thursday night it is withdrawing a television advertisement linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists."We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public," she said in a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.
Serious discussion? The ad said that Judge Roberts was pro-violence. NARAL was serious about that?
Specter, himself an abortion-rights supporter as well as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts next month, earlier Thursday had called the ad "blatantly untrue and unfair."[...]
The original ad has been airing on broadcast television in Maine and Rhode Island and on CNN.
[...]
Conservatives and Roberts supporters have been calling all week for NARAL to pull the ad.
NARAL had planned a $500,000 campaign to show the ad for two weeks.
"This ad grossly distorts the record of John Roberts from start to finish," said former Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "It has only one goal: to associate John Roberts with violent extremists."
Senate Democrats have not taken a position on the ad.
When was the last time Democrats stood up for decency?
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, told The Associated Press that ads for and against Roberts won't sway senators weighing the confirmation.[...]
Basically, NARAL was probably on the verge of a lawsuit and decided to pull it. Also, I'm sure a few liberals chimed in and told NARAL that the ad wasn't going to do any good.
Originally Posted at Conservative Thinking
Posted by: Chris Short at
08:30 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
1
We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record,"That's rich.
Forget apology. It's simply your fault that you don't agree with our view on the matter.
I actually caught a NARAL shill being interviewed by Hannity last nite, and it was actually entertaining listening to the guy slip and slide around the issue, and claim that everything asserted was factual.
Everything stated was factual. That's like stringing together a bunch of words and calling it a sentence even though it's nothing but pure gibberish because all of the rules of grammar were thrown out the window. I'd say this was shameful, but these folks have no shame.
Posted by: lawhawk at August 11, 2005 09:07 PM (CNQep)
2
Too bad, it was doing them serious harm.
Posted by: traderrob at August 11, 2005 09:18 PM (3al54)
3
'miscontrued'? Like the ad was nuanced?
I suspect there was a warning shot fired across NARAL's bow. Dirt flies two ways- and they backed down pretty quickly.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 11, 2005 09:21 PM (dHZc2)
4
Hey Lawhawk, did it sound like this?
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 11, 2005 09:33 PM (Kv4B9)
5
The ad wasn't totally false and fabricated-- we "misconstrued" it.
Lying sacks of marxist leninist filth.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 09:34 PM (8e/V4)
6
The nutcases on the Left are killing the Democrats. I imagine that someone high up in the Democratic Party called the NARAL dogs off as soon as they realized they were looking like the fools they are.
In one sense it's sad to watch the demise of the Democrats, but it sure is fun to watch them cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Were none of this true no one would believe it. You just can't make this stuff up. It's that incredible. It's as if they get up every morning and do their best to see how much more damage they can do to themselves. The Cindy Sheehan spectacle is a case in point. Unbelieveable!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 09:35 PM (DDXXI)
7
I have determined the Lefties are trapped behind the looking glass. In their honor I post this piece by Lewis Carrol. (Substitute Jabberwock with the term Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)
"Beware the Jabberwock,(Vast right wing conspiracy) my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird,(President Bush) and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!(Vice President Cheny)"
He (Valiant Moonbat Warrior)took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,(CNN Center in Atlata)
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock,(VRWC) with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?(VRWC)
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He (Howard Dean)chortled in his joy.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 11, 2005 09:42 PM (Kv4B9)
8
Yes I misspelled Atlanta and possibly the VP's last name. I apologize.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 11, 2005 09:45 PM (Kv4B9)
9
"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record,"
Sounded just like Durbin's "apology", huh? Is this the new standard by which they don't admit when they're wrong?
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:09 AM (YudAC)
10
"...to associate John Roberts with violent extremists."
"Violent extremists"? Sounds like a good name for pro-abortionists.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 12, 2005 07:56 AM (x+5JB)
Deport. Radical. Foreign. Muslims. Now.
Should we be following the example of the Brits and deporting foreign nationals that support jihad? Steve Chapman says no. Stephen Green the Vodkapundit says yes. Dale Franks of the QandO blog agrees, and takes Chapman to task. And Goldstein agrees. All four are important essays. Read them all.
Which side is right, though? more...
Posted by: Rusty at
05:42 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1311 words, total size 8 kb.
1
The Brits may have to pay for this Islamist's heart surgery:
http://myerskatt.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_myerskatt_archive.html#112377655056924533
Posted by: kitty at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (uBiDV)
2
They won't be deported just like Atta wasn't. And I predict that some of these people will in fact commit another major act of terror. However, that doesn't change the fact that they should be deported as soon as humanly possible, starting right now!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 06:35 PM (DDXXI)
3
Kitty,
Bakri was arrested in Lebanon today, sparing the British taxpayers.....
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/111483.php
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 06:37 PM (JQjhA)
4
Excellent! Will update my post on KittyLitter.
Posted by: kitty at August 11, 2005 06:49 PM (uBiDV)
5
if these imams are calling for jihad, the death of citizens in the host nation they are living in, than yes, they should be immediatly and without any sort of delay, deported back to any Middle eastern country of their choice...its ridiculous that someone who calls themselves a person who teaches their faith as one of peace and than tells his followers to go out and commit murder in name of their faith should even be given a second chance to stay...out they should go, like the vermin they are
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 06:50 PM (IJ51c)
6
I disagree with deportation. It's expensive and they're free to agitate elsewhere. I envision the renovation of Alcatraz as a new radical Islamist mecca.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 07:43 PM (RHG+K)
7
Rusty, to the contrary, we're WELCOMING radical muslims into the U.S. thanks to the United Nations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050811/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc
Posted by: Jason Smith at August 11, 2005 07:45 PM (TwSjW)
8
You know, I'm down with deporting foreign nationals that "support jihad" if that makes us safer. Aren't you, after all, basically talking about terrorists?
What I find troubling about your essay is this: Deportation, along with virtually every other policy you have advocated on this site, does not seem to lead to greater security. A multitude of analysts argue we are actually less safe now.
The problem(s) here seems to be the right wing interest in appearing strong or in seeking revenge. 9/11 made lots of Americans want to strike out at someone, and that's understandable. But we should make policy based on rationally expected outcomes, not our desire to get even.
Will deportation keep determined terrorists from striking? Probably not. Our borders are easily trespassed, and Al Qaeda terrorists are very adept at avoiding authority. I won't continue with this here... you get my basic point I'm sure... but consider this:
If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?
I'm tempted to think that you would have supported current policy anyway. And that's a problem.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 07:50 PM (zxWKA)
9
how would doing nothing have made us safer from the terrorists from attacking us again, Proffesor???....do you understand the terrorist mind, the Middle Eastern mind???.....these arent just school yard bullies we are dealing with here....you know, school yard bullies will mostly give up on picking on you if you ignore them long enough as they want you to resist, it gives them a rise in their ego's....terrorists and especially the Middle eastern type will see this as you being weak and afraid of them and that you would do anything to make them leave you alone....kidnappings lead to ransoms, bombings lead to blackmail....so, Profesor youre saying that the USA should cower in fear, make payments, give terrorists anything and all they demand, just for peace,eh???....thats the cowards way out and that leads to just making the terrorists braver and wanting to pick on you even more, thats what gets the ego up of the Middle east, doing NOTHING to defend youreself and youre position....if the USA was all like you, Profeesor, we would all either be dead or slaves....youre a real patriot alright, Professor...yea, like Benedict Arnold
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 08:04 PM (IJ51c)
10
Safer by doing nothing? Or safer by being nothing, a deep part of our Jacksonian souls cries for vengance, ruin and American built portable Suns burning over islamobastard warrens. You call for us to destroy our essence and pretend to be French. Professor, profess no more, you do not, will not, know us, speak our language no more.
Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 08:10 PM (L6YIl)
11
Deport their American and Freedom loving butts to ANtarctica!
Posted by: William Teach at August 11, 2005 08:25 PM (Pzlrt)
12
Antartica is reserved for oil drilling, Mars for agriculture, Venus for Detuerium mining...
Mecury is available for Professors without a language.
Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 08:34 PM (L6YIl)
13
Gets kinda hot on Mercury Professor.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 09:20 PM (DDXXI)
14
However we deal with the issue, one thing is clear. Our constitution was not meant to be used as a virus, to destroy us from within.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 11, 2005 09:24 PM (dHZc2)
15
"But we should make policy based on rationally expected outcomes, not our desire to get even." - Peter Von Nostrand
Peter. Revenge IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people too weak to defend themselves.
Peter. Punishment IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people bereft of morality and justice.
Peter. Death IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people who value forgiveness above survival.
Our enemies made a mistake on a par with the one made by Imperial Japan in 1941. GIGO. They thought that all Americans were weak, like Peter Von Nostrand. It turns out it wasn't so (though you still seek to increase the ranks of the sheep).
The defeat and utter subjugation of the backward and militant Japanese feudal society was a "rationally expected outcome", which came to pass. We can rationally expect nothing less in dealing with our current enemy. Maybe Mecca should not be made to glow for a thousand years as a reminder to Islam of its transgressions. But it is instructive and beneficial for Muslims to hear it openly discussed.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 09:24 PM (RHG+K)
16
Rigtwing efforts to deport jihadis is useless given the Left's goal of erasing our borders. We really do need to defeat the Leftist enemy within before we can even begin to make a dent on the jihadis.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 09:39 PM (8e/V4)
17
We'll shade Mecury,a little, if the islamopigs behave.
Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 10:05 PM (L6YIl)
18
It looks like greg won't be missed, because the village has a new idiot now. The sad thing is that he has his own blog, but nobody ever visits it except for me and people who end up there by accident. I only visit to taunt him, but it's all echoes in there, and you can't get around for the cobwebs.
I have a question perfesser; hemp or nylon?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 10:51 PM (0yYS2)
19
It appears that nobody wants to seriously address my hypothetical. Rusty?
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 11:05 PM (zxWKA)
20
Peter, that's the trouble with hypotheticals. If they rely on preposterous assumptions, nobody takes them seriously. And rightly so.
But don't go away mad, here's a helpful tip for your blog. If you're going to invent playmates for yourself to comment with, use more imagination with the handles.
Lots of people know that "Dr. Von Nostrand" was an alias used by the character Kramer on "Seinfeld". If your only comments come from "Art Vandalay", well, geez man, that was the character George's alias. You need to explore a new paradigm. Maybe a comment signed by "Phoebe" or "Joey" would be more believable.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 11:21 PM (RHG+K)
21
"It appears that nobody wants to seriously address my hypothetical. "
I tried to get this loser to debate me several times, but he fled the field without firing a shot, then declared victory when I no longer felt like chasing him. Spill it Rusty, dish us some dirt on this waste of elemental compounds if you know him. I bet he gets picked on by kids at the mall, right?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 11:50 PM (0yYS2)
22
It is interesting what we've discovered in this little exercise:
We've discovered that hypotheticals are lost on the Jawa audience.
We've discovered that Bluto, counter to Rusty's assertion that national security is the primary reason for the state, is far more interested in revenge.
We've learned that Phano doesn't know who Benedict Arnold was.
We've discovered that Improbulus continues to search the Internet far and wide for a friend... in vain...
And we've learned that Norden speaks a language that is yet to be identified.
Hmmm... what else can we discover... certainly not a serious answer to the hypothetical "what would you advocate if doing nothing would give you more security than doing something"...
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 12:13 AM (REz6/)
23
We shouldn't deport them.
We should hang them here.
Publicly.
On every single channel.
Daily.
Posted by: Misha I at August 12, 2005 12:38 AM (IhKPT)
24
Von Nostrand, you pinhead. There's just no other way to put it. You are a stupid, bullheaded person without reading comprehension skills.
I did not say I was interested in revenge for its own sake. The possibility of revenge and retribution is useful for keeping people in line. If they believe their intended victim is too weak or fearful to exact revenge, then they are emboldened. That is a very simple concept.
Next time I respond to one of your natterings, if there is a next time, I'll use the Gunning-Fog index to keep my post at the fourth or fifth grade level, though that's certainly no guarantee you'll understand.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 01:04 AM (RHG+K)
25
Bluto. In other words, you answered the hypothetical by violating the perameters I had set. In other words, you didn't answer it.
Next?
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 01:08 AM (REz6/)
26
I have to wonder if there is some coordination among the Wormtongues. They seem rather evenly distributed in the news groups critical of the left. I've noticed them showing up after some absurd leftist idiot like Greg gets shredded and retreats. Ever so "reasonable" they are.
"League of Grima", perhaps?
Sauron = Soros?
Posted by: Phillep at August 12, 2005 01:49 AM (zNjIG)
27
"parameters"
That said, von Nostrand is still pompous. Not to mention an "officious prick". Your perameters(sic) are an excercize in, well, stupidity.
"If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?"
Nothing? Should we do nothing? Doing nothing is what got us here. So your question was answered before 9/11.
I'll tell you what. Here's a parameter. You stay in your little do nothing circle and we'll do our best to save your sorry ass.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:23 AM (YudAC)
28
exercize ;-)
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:25 AM (YudAC)
29
If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?
Hypothetically speaking, I would have supported sitting around and doing nothing. But, as has been pointed out, this hypothetical is implausible to the point of being dismissable. Hypothetically speaking, the response to 9/11 that would have rendered us most safe from further attacks would have been to use our psychic mind ray satellites to fry the brains of every anti-America, terrorism-nclined individual on the planet. And I'd have advocated that, too.
I'm tempted to think that you would have supported current policy anyway.
How charitable of you. You're free to believe that, and we're free to reiprocally believe that too many of you on the Left would continue advocating doing nothing even when it's proven that current policy, if imperfect, is still better than that nothing.
Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 09:51 AM (CouWh)
30
Professor Pete, tell ya what i know for a fact...youre arrogant and ignorant, and we know those two go hand in hand for leftists like you who when you know youve lost the arguement, you move the goal posts....nice try, loser...now go pick up youre toys
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 09:54 AM (IJ51c)
31
1. Every Saudi-funded mosque in the US needs to be monitored. 2. Every Islamic center and Islamic Studies program needs to be monitored. 3. The FBI needs to go to every mosque and make it clear that incitement to violence will not be tolerated. 4. Radical "religious" leaders who preach violence must be deported. If naturalized citizens, they should be warned to stop and if they don't, citizenship should be revoked so that they can be deported. 5. No religious visas should be issued to citizens of any country which does not reciprocate. 6. Radical mosques hosting preachers of violence need to be shut down and closed. Change the law if needed. Freedom of speech does not mean license to call for our destructoin. 7. If it takes a presidential Declaration of Emergency to do this, then do it.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 12, 2005 10:33 AM (WzxC8)
32
"I disagree with deportation. It's expensive and they're free to agitate elsewhere. I envision the renovation of Alcatraz as a new radical Islamist mecca."
Screw that! My tax dollars are already paying for gourmet meals, at club GITMO, for these f**kers. If they want to meet their "god", I'm eager to help them. A bullet in the brain is affordable, and suprisingly effective.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 12, 2005 11:30 AM (8sXP/)
33
I like it that the prof thinks the best way to get a bully to stop is by continuing to pay his extortion. I hope the guy doesn't have any kids.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 12, 2005 11:31 AM (jPCiN)
34
Thanks for answering Brian. I don't like hypotheticals very often either, but in this case I thought it might be useful.
Oyster, anyone who thinks that "nothing" was done about terrorism before 9/11 is simply ignorant, unless by "nothing" you mean that no countries were invaded counter to the will of 90% of world opinion. Aside from that... you couldn't just answer the question... you couldn't bring yourself to do that, could you.
Of course doing nothing isn't an option. The point of the question was to force you to come to grips with the fact that many of you advocate policy based on revenge and the need to look strong, rather than the rational goal of producing more national security, which may require much more subtlety and a hell of a lot more creativity than that.
The question should have also forced some of you to realize that those who argue against the war in Iraq are actually acting in a patriotic manner. We, after all, don't want to be blown up either, and are just as interested in national security (perhaps more so) than you are.
Funny thing, you guys are already on to tarring the left for your own invented hypothetical nuclear explosion that hasn't happened yet! It's as if you're admitting that your approach will fail, and that it is likely to produce what would be the single greatest calamity in American history.
And you have the nerve to suggest that the anti-war position is unpatriotic. Shame.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 12:05 PM (REz6/)
35
Oyster, anyone who thinks that "nothing" was done about terrorism before 9/11 is simply ignorant,
I suppose a more accurate response by Oyster would have meen "nothing effective". Your mileage may vary.
The point of the question was to force you to come to grips with the fact that many of you advocate policy based on revenge and the need to look strong, rather than the rational goal of producing more national security,
Actually, I think the argument's also been put forth in this thread that the one actually is a means to the other.
which may require much more subtlety and a hell of a lot more creativity than that.
Or may not, on a case by case basis. I'm inclined to think the two approaches are not as mutually exclusive as you think.
The question should have also forced some of you to realize that those who argue against the war in Iraq are actually acting in a patriotic manner.
Some are, some aren't. For your assertion to be true, it would also have to be true that ALL those opposing the ware share the same motivations, goals, and act to accomplish those goals in the same manner. I submit that the Antiwar movement is not nearly that homogenous. Some members of it fit your best idealistic description. Some fit our worst demonized description. many fall somewhere in the middle, on both lines of the patriotism boundary.
Funny thing, you guys are already on to tarring the left for your own invented hypothetical nuclear explosion that hasn't happened yet! It's as if you're admitting that your approach will fail, and that it is likely to produce what would be the single greatest calamity in American history.
Rather, we're preparing for the worst, regardless of whether we believe it will happen or not.
Realistically speaking, There's no guarantee nothing like this will ever happen, regardless of the course of actions we take. Even if we're right, it's possible we're not right enough. But that can be said of everyone, no?
And you have the nerve to suggest that the anti-war position is unpatriotic. Shame.
Again, the use of the definitive article is the weak point in that admonition.
Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 12:57 PM (CouWh)
36
Nostrand: Again you put words in everyone's mouths because you disagree with a few. And add to that the fact that you do it in an "I'm morally superior" manner simply causes others to reject you. Your question was shortsighted and senseless. Period. To answer it in the manner "you" see fit, or at all, is to lend it legitimacy. You can take my statement that we did nothing as literally as you want, if it makes your argument fit better. 'kay?
Take every bit of text on the web and replace the words Muslim and Islam with Christian and Christianity and take your current stance. I think you'll find "you" would have very few friends. Your lefty friends would flock to our side in a stampede. They eschew Christian morals and don't want them "pushed" on them, and yet, they wish to allow those within their midst who will push harder even stricter and more harmful dogmas on them. What hypocrisy.
To answer Rusty's question which, is very legitimate: How do I feel about deporting these goons? I think if they can make a law that makes it okay to deport them then it should be enough to lock them up. If it's cost some are worried about, they're costing us money anyway, here or abroad. And they're no less a threat somewhere else.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 01:14 PM (fl6E1)
37
Oyster. I'm sorry. But my position is morally superior, no matter whether your top priority is national security, or reducing violence elsewhere.
"Take every bit of text on the web and replace the words Muslim and Islam with Christian and Christianity and take your current stance. I think you'll find "you" would have very few friends."
What on earth are you talking about? Nevermind. Don't answer.
I'm out.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 13, 2005 01:55 PM (JVdjp)
Gee, Thanks, Cindy!
Cindy Sheehan gives us a shout-out:
Read the rest
Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq and who is now camping by a road in Crawford, Texas demanding a meeting with President Bush, on Wednesday thanked a group of antiwar bloggers for supporting her, saying that without the Internet, America would be a "fascist state.""This is something that can't be ignored," Sheehan said during a conference call with bloggers representing sites like democrats.com, codepink4peace.org, and crooksandliars.com. "They can't ignore us, and they can't put us down. Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
"Our government is run by one party, every level," Sheehan continued, "and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government." Sheehan also called the 2004 presidential election "the election, quote-unquote, that happened in November."
Read the rest
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:37 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Keep it coming, Cindy!
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 06:29 PM (8e/V4)
2
I don't have time to read that, is she talking about the Governor's race in Washington?
Posted by: slickdpdx at August 11, 2005 06:39 PM (MjGRu)
3
yea, with the internet we can keep an eye on people like Cindy who try and spread misinformation and propaganda for the left....and it makes me laugh every time when someone who is on the leftists side makes the same old sorry excuse about the MSM being a tool for the White House when we all know and see every day that it is a tool for those on the left with all the lies and distortions it spreads....same old some old...oh boohoo, cry me a river Cindy
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 06:56 PM (IJ51c)
4
I believe Cindy is trying to get a job at Indymedia. Cindy, better put on your tin foil hat, and do watch out for those cellphone towers.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 06:59 PM (DDXXI)
5
This woman makes me sick. I think she is actually glad her son died. She is basking in the lime light. Her 15 minutes of fame. How low can you go.
I understand her relatives do not feel the way she does. In fact they feel she is misbehaving and just playing to the leftist anti government crowd. Shame on her. She defiles the memory of her son. In addition. She already has met with the president some time ago and was kissing his ass then. I guess she didn't get enough attention that time. Just because your son is a hero doesn't mean your not a bitch.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:11 PM (CBNGy)
6
As the parent of a service member I can't think of many more things to do than she has done to dishonor her son. What a disgrace to his memory!
Posted by: Don Miguel at August 11, 2005 10:11 PM (UAn5X)
7
Don't hate the messenger, just the message.
Despite not liking her message, you should remember this women has experienced a terrible loss, and as such has been manipulated into changing her story.
I despise those whom would prey on someones vulnerability after such a loss, and use it to further their own agenda.
may she find peace.
Posted by: dave at August 11, 2005 10:27 PM (DO6vD)
8
For someone in the throes of agony, she sure loves propaganda whoring for the camera. Can anyone else smell that? Smells like a book deal in the wind to me...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 10:48 PM (0yYS2)
9
I think this stopped being about Cindy Sheehan's son and began being about Cindy Sheehan some time ago. One can sympathize with the grief, but only short of the point at which that grief becomes mere mindless hatred. She is dishonoring the memory of her son, and cheapening the his sacrifice. Furthermore, she is playing into the hands of those who have more sympathy for his muderers than for the fallen soldier himself.
Posted by: DWC at August 12, 2005 09:00 AM (Suv/B)
10
maybe they will give her a reality show, and i say reality with LOTS of sarcasm concerning Cindy
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 09:56 AM (IJ51c)
Happy Blogoversary to My Blog Son
They just *sob* grow up so fast.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:46 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks, Dad.
Oh, and you CAN have my Bud light (just stay away from the REAL beer)!
Posted by: Brian B at August 11, 2005 04:52 PM (CouWh)
2
You mean...I have a brother?
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at August 11, 2005 05:18 PM (Kr6/f)
3
Yes, unfotunately, though, he has gone astray and taken to recipe-blogging of late. Is it something I did when I was raising him, or was he just born that way?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 06:18 PM (JQjhA)
4
Hey, it gets me more traffic that anything else I've blogged on since the heady days of Rathergate.
At least I don't Blog on gardening like The Llamabutchers.
Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 02:41 PM (CouWh)
Bin Laden's True Ambitions
Posted by: Rusty at
04:35 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
Omar Bakri Arrested in Lebanon
Omar Bakri, the radical British imam who fled that country on news that he was top on the list of pro-terror clerics to face treason charges, has been arrested in Lebanon. The Independent:
The Islamic extremist cleric who fled Britain at the weekend, Omar Bakri Mohammed, was arrested by security forces in Beirut today.Evan Kohlmann of the Counterterrorism blog notes that in an interview he once had with Bakri, the cleric had issued a threat that if he was ever arrested there might be violent consequences. He also notes, though, that Bakri was under the impression at the time that the British would never have the backbone to arrest him. I guess times have changed, eh?Lebanese security officials refused to say when and where Bakri was arrested.
Prosecutors and police in Britain are considering whether to bring terror-related charges against the so-called "Tottenham Ayatollah".
It was unclear whether the arrest was linked with his activities in the UK.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:09 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If the Lebanese already have him it means we don't have to render him, and if they extinguish their cigaretttes on his filthy scrotum it's his own damn fault.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 05:09 PM (8e/V4)
2
Is this guy a British citizen?
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 05:10 PM (DDXXI)
3
"...the cleric had issued a threat that if he was ever arrested there might be violent consequences."
Let's hope that those violent consequences include his execution.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 05:10 PM (KEdco)
4
surprise, surprise, Bakri....gotcah!!!....now if they can just hold on to him as it seems these people have a way of always "escaping" somehow when in custody in some M.E. country
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 07:05 PM (IJ51c)
5
sorry folks but it seems Bakri has been released by the authorities in Lebanon...that good ole revolving door that they seem to have all over the Middle east for terrorists...read it on Jihad Watch
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:00 PM (IJ51c)
6
Yah, he was indeed released. The Brits say there's no way he's being allowed back into their country. Way to go.
Posted by: tyler at August 12, 2005 08:30 AM (Y9Lwb)
7
But now he would really appreciate it if the filthy infidels in the U.K. would let him back in for a free operation.
Posted by: P. Campbell at August 13, 2005 11:16 AM (UUCLC)
Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Cindy Sheehan
What do all of these people have in common? Drudge:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.Ken Summers posts this from Melanie Morgan, of KSFO:
The letter came from Cheri Quarterolo, a regular listener of KSFO Radio. Cheri is Casey Sheehan's Aunt and godmother. I have confirmed that the letter represents the entire Sheehan side of Casey's family.Mrs. Qarterolo is Drudge's source and has also personally confirmed this to Ken at It Comes in Pints.Many of the relatives do not want their names made public, and will not be making further statements. But Mrs. Quarterolo confirms that Cindy's actions have been extremely hurtful. "We're coming unglued. We can't walk down the street without people stopping us and telling us that they agree with Cindy. We do not."
Posted by: Rusty at
03:51 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So if I can get someone in your family to condemn what you're doing at this site you become discredited. This is so lame. Again.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 04:54 PM (zxWKA)
2
Pete: The concept of "Upset Relative=Bad War" is discredited.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 05:06 PM (KEdco)
3
The difference is that the first two are just publicity whores, but Sheehan is a propaganda whore.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 05:20 PM (0yYS2)
4
Could it be that, even though her son's death is a real tragedy, she is enjoying playing this role? She wouldn't be the first to desperately cling to fifteen seconds of fame...especially when it also keeps the memory of her son alive. When she stops...
Posted by: slickdpdx at August 11, 2005 06:43 PM (MjGRu)
5
she is beating a dead horse, let her rag on till she is horse....she has the right to talk and she also has the right to make herself look like some loon standing on a corner talking about the end of the world...she wants her 15 minutes of fame to go on???....well she will get her fame....more like infamy....rag on, Cindy, rag on.....Too Bad, So Sad
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 07:09 PM (IJ51c)
6
She is having a ball. Probably sitting on here living room floor cutting out all the newspaper ads and taping MSM over and over.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:24 PM (CBNGy)
7
Hey, I think Billy Carter is a lot more respectable than Jimmy.
Posted by: Rachel at August 12, 2005 08:37 AM (HsaNj)
Favorite Right Wingers
John Hawkins, of Right Wing News, ranks right-wing bloggers' favorite, er, right-wingers here. Since I was one of the bloggers polled by John Hawkins, I thought I'd share with you my personal unranked list of favorite people on the right. I chose my favs late at night, with little caffeine in me, and on an empty stomach--that explains why that guy is on the list.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
12:22 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Larry Edler?? Have you seen the show??? ugh. He woman man hater. If my wife sees it I'm in the doghouse for like a month. Yeah I come in all unsuspecting she's been watching this goofball and whammo you dirty dirty man. I'm like, what I do??? she's like YOU WERE BORN!!! Soaps + Larry + Oprah = Howie goes hungry.
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 01:37 PM (D3+20)
2
Julian Sanchez is a right-winger?
Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2005 02:48 PM (W/qGc)
3
Man, I can't believe I didn't make the list.
But what about Goldwater?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 03:18 PM (x+5JB)
4
Mark Steyn is in my top ten!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 03:57 PM (DDXXI)
5
What, not even a token nod for your illegitimate Blogson on his Blogiversary? I expected more from my Bloggy's Daddy.
Posted by: Brian B at August 11, 2005 04:09 PM (CouWh)
6
i wish Dennis Miller would get his show back on HBO so he could shut up Bill Maher who i cant friggin stand with his smug remarks and a face that looks like he sucks on lemons...at least Dennis Millers show made me laugh
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 07:18 PM (IJ51c)
Who is the Idiot that Refused to Pass on Atta's Name to the FBI? (UPDATED)
By now, most of the readers of The Jawa Report have heard of Able Danger. According to The New York Times, the secret military intelligence team known as Able Danger, compiled a dossier on four of the nineteen 9/11 suspects in 2000--including the mastermind, Mohammed Atta. The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI and that the suspected terrorists be deported. Unfortunately, that information was not shared. In fact, a doctrine first developed in the Carter administration and later extended by a clarification made by Clinton Administration official, and later 9/11 Commissioner, Jamie Gorelick, that put a 'wall' between intelligence operations and police activities.
I do not blame the Clinton Administration for 9/11, nor do I think it was preventable in any meaningful way, but the so-called Able Danger revelations do raise some interesting issues.
The first is the most obvious, and that is the silliness of ever erecting a barrier between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. In hindsight this was stupid. Some things are so stupid, though, that to need hindsight to see their stupidity one must first find a group of morons, take out the brightest of the bunch, and then find the dullest bulb in the pack. That it was enacted by Democratic Congress intent on reeling in the perceived excesses of the CIA is no excuse for this piece of legislation. Just. Plain. Dumb.
But it also raises another important question: Who was it that refused to turn over the Able Danger documents to the FBI?
I do not personally blame the individual who refused to turn over Atta and his al Qaeda co-conspirators to the FBI. That is, it's not their fault for being a brainless bureaucrat. They were just following policy. But policy or no, there was an individual who had to look at the documents and make a decision not to share this intelligence with those that could do something about it. Who was this person who made the decision to follow policy? more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:09 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1734 words, total size 12 kb.
1
sadly, by all chances we will probally not find out any time soon, maybe when this person is on their death bed, than they will come out and admit it....but im sure the left has their conspiracy theories on who it is....i would bet that Rove is numero uno suspect
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 10, 2005 10:42 PM (IJ51c)
2
>>>"...because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" — a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence — Special Operations Command did not provide the Army information to the FBI.
oh...my...god. Liberalism is going to get us all killed.
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:04 PM (8e/V4)
3
"...the 9/11 Commission never bothered to ask the Pentagon about its intelligence missions -- or simply disregarded evidence relating to it."
We know it's not the only thing the 9/11 Commission either disregarded or didn't ask. Any time you get a bunch of angry people together with pre-conceived notions you get zip in return. I understand that, originally, the idealism of trying to protect our liberties was the motivation behind witholding information, but for four years now there have been people who had this information and kept it under wraps for political purposes. What other reason could there be?
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 06:11 AM (YudAC)
4
I've been reading a book called "Ghost Wars, From the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan to September 10th, 2001". It's a strictly objective, analytical work, and it details so many missed opportunities to do the right thing, but because of politics, policy, or law, terrorists were given a pass time and again. It's not light reading, but it's worth it. But one warning; you can't read much at a time, because it will make you physically sick when you realize the magnitude of incompetence and stupidity that exists in our government.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:25 AM (0yYS2)
5
The speculation that Sandy Berger was behind the withholding of the Able Danger information is strongly reinforced by his theft of the documents to protect his "reputation". It is truly frightening that Sandy would have been Secretary of State in a Kerry administration.
Where the Clintons ran their administration according to poll results and were afraid of adding to the Waco fallout, ignoring a problem does not make it go away, except for the short term. When the Somalia aid effort went badly, President Clinton immediately ordered withdrawal regardless of the humanitarian consequences. The public should hear no more about it; everything is OK.
The Left compares presidential approval ratings from the Clinton administration to the current Bush administration as if it is an indicator of effectiveness. President George W. Bush is doing what is right whether or not it is popular. We are seeing in Iraq/Afghanistan the equivalent of the early days of the fall of the Soviet empire that started during the Reagan presidency. If the United States is not demoralized by the fifth-column Left and finishes this task, the Middle East will be a much different and better place in five years.
Posted by: MikeG at August 11, 2005 08:46 AM (yQulH)
6
Yep
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 08:57 AM (D3+20)
7
Check out the latest at Fox. Fox seems to be the single MSM site to have any interest.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html
Posted by: Kstumpf at August 11, 2005 11:25 AM (GImrl)
8
The other MSM outlets are just waiting for instructions on how to spin this as part of BusHitlers devious plot to help the Joooos take over the world. Are you afraid of the discussion? What are you trying to hide?
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:52 AM (jPCiN)
9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "following policy" akin to "just following orders?"
Posted by: BorgQueen at August 11, 2005 12:34 PM (AxlwF)
10
Good. Grief. This is really, really, really bad. Liberalism really is a mental disorder...I tremble for the future of this land.
Posted by: Labosseuse at August 11, 2005 12:48 PM (Xjv2p)
11
a little off topic:
1...Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice
2...Destroy the Iranian Mullaocracy-now
3...Secure our borders and deport illegals
Posted by: chuck at August 11, 2005 01:06 PM (oW1VQ)
12
Here is a memo issued by Jamie Gorelick on April 14, 2004 that's interesting.
Also, the commission admitted they were told of Able Danger during a trip to Afghanistan last year, but now they're saying that Atta's name wasn't mentioned. Their story keeps changing. So now guess what they're doing?
Staffers are searching the National Archives for information! Whatcha wanna bet they should be searching Sandy Burglar's laundry instead?
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 01:54 PM (fl6E1)
13
More on Bergler and Clarke and the mood in summer 2000
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/497
Cheers.
Posted by: AJStrata at August 11, 2005 01:56 PM (67DAA)
14
Another question;
I've been reading that Mohammed Atta, et al were here on non-immigrant visas and were in fact not protected by the law that said they could not be survielled. That the FBI did indeed know about them but didn't go after them for other reasons. One being that Able Danger was mining all sorts of information illegally at the time, i.e. tapping phones and monitoring other communications without warrants.
Got any ideas? I don't have a clue.
But it still doesn't answer the question of exactly what Sandy Berger took from the archives during the 9/11 investigation and why. If it was to protect someone other than just himself, you know good and well it wasn't to protect the current administration.
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (fl6E1)
15
Deliberately blocking the Able Danger report from being acted upon by the FBI (and CIA) sounds like a treasonous offense to me.
Posted by: Ron at August 11, 2005 02:46 PM (wO/DS)
16
Someone, please tell me why every member of the Clinton Administration has not been chased around a strip mall parking lot and finally bitch slapped behind the dumpster next to taco bell????
Dear Lord. Please send every one of these degenerate liberals a blistering case of rectal warts.
Amen.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (5ceWd)
17
Where is that dumn ass Professor Von Nostrand? I'll bet he has a "serious leftist position" on this subject.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 03:44 PM (DDXXI)
18
Yesterday, the commission said they never heard of Able Danger, today, the said, why yes we have, after Weldon said he had multiple witnesses. I doubt the Pentagon was the blocking force. Remember, Gorelick made the wall so all things cleared through her.
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/now-911-commission-had-heard-of-able.html
I have another post that might interest you. Dug up an oldie from FrontPage that may explain alot.
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorelick-wall-was-it-just-coincidence.html
I got a name from an anonymous email source that said he was one of the 'fixers' of the final report -- Dietrich Snell. Don't know anything yet, other than he was involved with the 9/11 commission, may try to google up something tonight.
Soemthing is begining to stink, real bad.
I guess when you know people who died, you really want to get to the bottom of it all.
Posted by: bill at August 11, 2005 03:58 PM (7evkT)
19
Lying about national security issues.
Obstruction of a Federal investigation.
Theft and destruction of evidence.
Knowingly and deliberately covering up a serious breach of intelligence protocol.
Disseminating propaganda helpful to the enemy.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
All these are descriptive of various acts committed by Democrats before and since 9/11. In the America of our fathers and grandfathers, people would go to prison, or the firing squad. Today, they get to run amok in the government and media and the Republicans, who don't seem to understand that they are in the majority, do nothing. Dammit, dammit, dammit. How long will We, the People, put up with this? How long before we have to rise up in open revolt in order to see justice? Our government is either impotent, or incompetent, or both, but either way they are all complicit, Democrat and Republican alike.
Mulsims are living among us, and they're building bombs, chemical, and biological agents in their basements. They're preparing to unleash terror within our nation, and our idiot "leaders" worry about nothing more than the next election. The Republicans only want to keep things under control enough to win, but don't want to actually do anything about islam, and the Democrats want as many of us as possible to get killed, because that would make good campaign propaganda.
We are under attack by uncivilized savages the like of which the world has not seen since the dark ages, and the government does NOTHING, because they don't want to offend the cavemen. I'm sick of it all, and I know a lot of other people are too. If these morons in Congress don't do something soon there will be hellish retribution, and when it starts, it won't end until the streets run with the blood of muslims and their treasonous liberal lackeys. If it gets to that point, even Congress won't be safe. The last two times the people of this country had a major disagreement with their governments, in 1776 and 1860, hundreds of thousands died. The first time sundered an empire and created a nation, the second almost destroyed the nation, and nobody can say what the third time will bring, but I believe it's coming, and soon, if something isn't done.
Hang the traitors, hang the terrorists, expel the muslims and illegal aliens, and bar them reentry upon pain of death. We need bombs falling on Iran and North Korea until nothing is left of their cities but ashes and embers. Cut off all Chinese imports and get our damned economy working again. I'm sick of this crap, and everyone else should be too.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 05:05 PM (0yYS2)
20
Hell yeah Improbulus.
Posted by: Labosseuse at August 11, 2005 08:20 PM (Xjv2p)
21
I don't blame Clinton for 9/11, I blame the terrorists, who would have found another way to attack us. I used to not blame Clinton for allowing 9/11 to happen (if y'all see the distinction), but, in light of this new information, I have flip flopped, and do indeed blame him. His rules. He could have stopped, or at least put on hold, that attack. They would have tried something else, but, maybe we would have stopped that, too.
Posted by: William Teach at August 11, 2005 08:29 PM (Pzlrt)
22
Sandy Berger did it with the good graces of Clinton. Clinton main focus was getting a BJ. Not protecting or leading this nation. The withholding of information with his permission is dereliction of duty on Clinton's part. Damn shame we didn't impeach the self centered idiot. Now they wish to run his lesbian wife for his old job. Stupid liberal assholes. It's not the conservative leaders that are going to get us killed it's the dumbass liberal leaders.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:40 PM (wJPgF)
23
Improbulus for president.
Hey: Were are all you hate Bush, Hate Republicans, Hate America, muslim hugging liberals assholes on this one. Mighty quite out there. Ha, ha. What a bunch of sissies.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:50 PM (wJPgF)
24
IM is right on target with his post...its brutally true what will happen in the US if another attack by Muslim terrorists happens with the loss of thousands if not millions of Americans lives....American civilians will have had enough of the government doing nothing to protect us from a growing threat within our borders{Muslim radicals and liberal leftists}...i for one am ready to protect myself from those who would gladly try and kill me and my family
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:17 PM (IJ51c)
25
If people want to gaze upon a "face", try State Dept. official
Barbara Bodine. As ambassador to Yemen, she refused to let special
agent John O'Neil back into that country to continue the Cole
bombing investigation. O'Neil was the subject of Frontline's
documentary "The Man Who Knew" and had been doggedly scrutinizing
terrorists and the Al Qaeda network for at least ten years before
anyone else was aware of them.
See: www.unknownnews.net
O'Neil was eventually hounded out of the FBI and ironically
procured a new job as security head of the World Trade Center
just before it was hit.
As for the above documentary, there are two versions it seems.
The original, longer one that aired soon after 9/11 and a later
shorter version. To my memory, the latter curiously seemed to
have had several negative mentions of the Saudis "toned down",
if not excised.
Posted by: RJ at August 12, 2005 12:32 AM (4sKd/)
26
Here's the complete link for the above 'face' mentioned:
www.unknownnews.net/cdd052402.html
Posted by: RJ at August 12, 2005 12:45 AM (4sKd/)
27
"Where is that dumn ass Professor Von Nostrand? I'll bet he has a "serious leftist position" on this subject."
Probably having lunch with Art Vandelay.
Posted by: Tongueboy at August 12, 2005 10:37 AM (nug4S)
28
RJ: Excellent.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:04 PM (CBNGy)
Cindy Sheehan: Antisemetic Moonbat (UPDATED)
Jawa Report contributor and Paduan Learner, Trader Rob of Exposing the Left, digs up this usenet post from Cindy Sheehan:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. [READ THE REST]Trader Rob calls this remark borderline anti-semetism. I dunno, call me an out there if you will, but there is something about, you know, believing there is a secret group--a cabal if you will-- of Jews pulling the strings of power behind closed doors involved in a deep plot to conceal the real reasons we went to war seems something more than borderline. But that's just me.
UPDATE: Via Rob at Say Anything, I learn that Phil Hendrie weighs in on Sheehan.
UPDATE II, 8/11: A reader sends this transcript from a recording of a Sheehan speech he attended:
"It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat -- to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the US government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular.Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I suspect we may update this post later. Call it a hunch. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:00 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This woman is a pathetic, and pitiable...tool. It takes a dark soul to mine partisan gold from a mother's grief. The number of dark souls on the Left becomes more apparent every day.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 07:01 PM (RHG+K)
2
One really doesn't know what to say, except, just where in the living hell is her husband?
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:18 PM (DDXXI)
3
Actually, her idiotic remarks only serve to lessen her message and credibility- and hence, the credibility of the left.
Fine by me.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 10, 2005 07:42 PM (dHZc2)
4
And I didn't think you could sink any lower. Congratulations.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 07:49 PM (REz6/)
5
Von Nostrand is Greg or perhaps an evil reincarnation of Greg. All the Lefties don't believe in God, but they have no problems believing in such nonsense. Perhaps he is possesed by Greg. Hmmm...
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:53 PM (DDXXI)
6
Von Nostrand is possessed by Kramer.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 08:11 PM (RHG+K)
7
Yeah, I guess the fact that she lost a son excuses her antisemetism and relentless political activism. Let's not pick on her, that's just mean! /sarcasm
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 08:54 PM (JQjhA)
8
Speaking out against Israel is NOT anti-Semetic.
Israel is a country who's policies are becoming more extreme.
Besides, Arabs are Semetic, too. Look it up.
Posted by: LT at August 10, 2005 09:22 PM (9sQW4)
9
LT, speaking aginst Israel is not anto semitic. You are right about that. Blaming Israel for the war in Iraq is idiotic, at best.
Further, when you talk about Israel, you have to talk about the neighborhood. Do you really want to play the comparison game?
Lastly, it is true that Arabs are a Semitic people. Nevertheless, for the past couple hunderd of years, the term anti semitism has meant the dislike or hatred of Jews. Every dictionary in the worlddefines anti semitism in that manner.
Thus, your point, while merely annoying, is also irrelevant. It does however, speak volumes about you.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 10, 2005 09:29 PM (dHZc2)
10
Of course speaking out against Israel is not-necessarily antisemetic. It only usually is. And when you believe in a secret conspiracy that puts Jews in the center of world wide policy decisions....er, calling the ghost of Julias Streicher? You there Julias?
Anyway, the idea that Arabs can't be anti-Semetic is a stupid red herring. The term 'anti-Semetic' has a specific meaning and always has. It has never been applied to ALL Semetic peoples, but only to Jews. The "Arabs can't be anti-semites because they are a Semetic people" is an excuse for Arabs to be, well, antisemetic and get away with it.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 09:31 PM (JQjhA)
11
hey Cindy, where is the smoking man, at???
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 10, 2005 10:44 PM (IJ51c)
12
Actually LT, Semitic is the group of languages native to that part of the world, Hebrew and Arabic both being Semitic languages ..along with Amharic, Modern Hebrew, Akkadian, Arimaic, Phoenician, Punic and those are further divided into North West, East and South West Semitic languages. How Semitism applies to Jews (of which I am one) is found in any worthy dictionary, to wit: "a Semitic expression or idiom//ideas, cultural ideals, etc. thought of as ESSENTIALLY Jewish. [fr. Mod. L. semiticus]" It would follow that anti-Semitism applies to against or anti Jewish cultural ideals, ideas, idioms, expressions .. not to the idioms, expressions, cultural ideals, ideas of the other speakers of Semitic languages. ((It sure ain't a race issue, dearie.) You can thank good ol' ENGLISH dictionaries for the meaning attached to Semitism and anti-Semitism. Call Mr. Webster or Oxford and tell them they are wrong, will you?
Posted by: Bubbe at August 10, 2005 11:02 PM (cbAi4)
13
>>>Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.
Lady, I hope it hurts. Now go home and stop making a damn fool out of yourself.
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:17 PM (8e/V4)
14
Sorry Rusty, but I've seen far worse from you on this very "anti-muslim, relentlessly activist" site. And regardless of whatever conspiracy theories Sheehan may believe (the quote you provide doesn't actually suggest that she holds any... as if I care), it is just ridiculous for you to suggest that any sort of criticism of Israel, or American policy towards Isreael, equals anti-semitism. Just as criticising the U.S. government does not equate to "anti-Americanism." Criticising a state is not the same as criticising a people. And, once again, you should know this.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 11:29 PM (REz6/)
15
Hey Rusty, do you really know this idiot?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:31 AM (0yYS2)
16
I would be willing to put up money that Mrs. Sheehan didn't hold these particular views before groups like codepink got her ear. I am often inclined to ignore the statements by grieving relatives as they are too easily influenced by overwhelming emotion. Obviously, I do not agree with her assesment of the situation.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 08:56 AM (jPCiN)
17
Look folks, Israel is a nice boy living in a housing project neighborhood full of crackheads. Sometimes they have to take rather extreme measures to survive. Fine with me. Personally, they should have implemented the Alon plan and "transfered" the Arabs across the Jordan years ago. Israel will never, ever be secure until it controls everything west of the Jordan. And if anyone out there really, truly believes that a "Palestinian" state will live in peace with Israel....well fine, you're entitled to your delusion.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:18 AM (MKTwl)
18
Peter von Nostrand said:
"And I didn't think you could sink any lower. Congratulations."
"Sorry Rusty, but I've seen far worse from you..."
Which is it? And just how pompous can one get?
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 11:33 AM (fl6E1)
19
In case you missed it, evidently her family is sick of her shit too...
From Drudge:
FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET
The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.
The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:
Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks àCherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Posted by: disgruntledinca at August 11, 2005 02:55 PM (IpG/2)
20
Cindy Sheehan the new poster girl for the liberal hate Bush bunch.
Now we must figure a definition for a Sheehan. Sort of reminds me of shenanigan. Any more? You have just been sheehaned. Meaning to want attention at any cost.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:00 PM (wJPgF)
21
I'm sick of this "story." Is it a publicity stunt? Yes. Is it being exploited by anti-war activists looking to further their own agenda? Yes. Is this a desperate attempt by a grieving mother who wants some answers from the man who sent her son to Iraq? Yes. Do neocons and lefties have so little to do that they have to "dig up" usenet stories and weigh in with their own abstract theories? Yes.
Left and right, I think it's pretty dumb to try and explain this woman unless you've been in her position. I don't care if you've served, I don't care if you know someone who's enlisted, I don't care if you've attend pro-war/anti-war rallies with people in her position. Unless you've lost your son/daughter in combat, you won't know where she's coming from. Maybe you've lost a family member and you had some pretty strong emotions as a result - but unless you've lost you're own child, I doubt you can really weigh in with any kind of valid opinion. Because when a parent loses a child, all bets are off. The bond between a parent and a child is, obviously, incredibly unique. And the most vocal war supporter can find themselves looking for answers they thought they knew and question the reasons why their child was sent into conflict, and the most rabid anti-war activist can suddenly find themselves looking for revenge on those that killed their child. I say again: even though you think you know how it feels, you don't. And no amount of exchanging opinions and insults is going to change a thing in any of this.
So, let's stop talking about this non-story. Enough's enough.
There's my fucking two cents, let the bashing begin.
Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 10:45 AM (dbxVM)
22
See I told you guys that sometimes Venom makes sense.
He is finished with this story. So he wishes for everyone who contributes to the Jawa Report to stop talking about it.
As you will see he would rather everyone focus on the maybe mistaken idenity of the president of Iran. Was he a hostage taker many years ago or not? Like this story ended months ago and who gives a shit.
This in his mind is more important than the mother of a dead US Serviceman demonstrating at the President's home.
See what I mean. Sometimes he makes sense and then the liberal, moonbat takes over and it's looney tunes time.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:17 PM (0zyYw)
23
"he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel." While I'm sorry for her loss, Ms. Sheehan is so wrapped up in her 15 minutes of fame, she can't (or more likely WON'T) realize how she's being manipulated by the greif pimps at MoveOn, Michael Moore, Code Pink(sounds like an association of porno actresses)and the other usual suspects. It's interesting how the left is realy starting to show their true anti-semetic colors. I wonder how many of them beleive that Pres. Bush is linked to the good old-fashioned Jewish banking conspiracy? How I wish there was such a thing. Too bad my great-great grandparents weren't let in on the ground floor of such a money laundering racket! OY, I should only be so lucky!! :-)
Posted by: Maddaddy at August 18, 2005 07:51 PM (UTcMx)
24
For more about how Cindy Sheehan has lied about the PNAC Neocon/war for Israel in her email sent to ABC's 'Nightline' on her behalf, scroll down to the 'Rhetoric' paragraph of the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
Posted by: dontcowerfromthetruth at October 11, 2005 11:30 AM (sncSf)
Joining the Debate
For those of you who may be wondering, IÂ’ve been pointedly ignoring the comments that Bush made the other day about intelligent design and evolution. However, over the past few days, IÂ’ve seen a LOT of conservatives writing about it. IÂ’m sure there are a lot of liberals writing about it as well, but I donÂ’t read them.
It seems that nearly everyone who is talking about this issue falls into one of two camps. There is a group that thinks that there is a conflict between intelligent design and evolution and another group who thinks that they could co-exist and be taught side-by-side. However, I propose with this post to start a third group. As far as I know, this group consists solely of me, so IÂ’m probably so far off base with this that itÂ’s not even funny. However, this is my proposal.
Neither.
ThatÂ’s right. Neither of these two methods should be taught as fact in any school system. HereÂ’s why: more...
Posted by: Drew at
05:24 AM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
Post contains 817 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Well, this post displays a sufficient level of ignorance that I never have to pay attention to anything Drew ever says again about evolution.
Posted by: hermetic at August 11, 2005 07:32 AM (hrQvk)
2
Yeah this is such an important topic for debate right now while there are thousands of jihadis building bombs in their basements and planning on killing us. Consdiering that fundamentalist Christians are about the only ones to consistently have the balls to stand up to islam, I say let them win this damned trivial argument so we can stop wasting time on it. I'm an atheist, but damn, it's not like it matters really, when people are trying to kill us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:18 AM (0yYS2)
3
Actually, Drew, you've just sided with the ID and Creationist people. They also want neither taught as fact. Both are theories, and should be taught as such. Evolutionists are the ones insisting that Evolution, and Evolution alone be taught as a fact and the sole explination for origins.
Welcome aboard.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2005 08:22 AM (1NhnZ)
4
Or, just work your ass off, live a little more modestly and keep your kids out of public school.
The cost to send your 10 and 12 year olds to Catholic grade school ($650), and your 14-year-old to Catholic High school ($850).
The cost of not having your kids listen to a bull dike driving an 85 Volvo with a Kerry/Edwards sticker and a Darwin pin attached to the rear end.... Priceless.
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 08:40 AM (6mUkl)
5
I have to agree with Drew. Neither side should be taught as truth. The kids need to be informed that nobody knows and there's just speculation.
Posted by: tyler at August 11, 2005 08:42 AM (Y9Lwb)
6
I guess I will join you in group three. You have expressed my feelings better than I could.
Posted by: Razorgirl at August 11, 2005 09:31 AM (H+tJ8)
7
That is, perhaps, one of the most rational and well-thought-out responses to this I have read.
However (you knew it was coming, right?) - WRT sexual reproduction it is possible that it co-developed. IOW, a species that reproduced asexually evolved into being able to do both - either through completely independent means (e.g - budding + sex) or hermaphroditically. Of course, AFAIK there is no evidence of this so it falls into your no example of great leaps argument, but still a possibility.
Anyway - I personally am of the belief that they do co-exist in the real world and; incompetent/biased teachers aside, see no reason to not have them taught side by side. Not necessarily taught as "The Truth"(TM), but atleast presented in class.
Oh, and Danny has an even better idea - private schooling. However, I have an EVEN BETTER idea that I am hoping my wife and I are able to swing - Home Schooling.
(And, perhaps more importantly - everyone should take an active role in helping their child(ren) learn, above and beyond what ANY schooling offers!)
/TJ
... NIF
Posted by: TJ at August 11, 2005 09:34 AM (/0bzs)
8
Whoops - think I meant to agree with Brad about the homeschooling. Perhaps a line break or something between comments would help me overcome my psuedo-lexdysia
/TJ
Posted by: TJ at August 11, 2005 09:45 AM (/0bzs)
9
i agree with Drew on this and fall in the third group....after all evolution and creationism are just theories and neither can be proven or misproven...after all, humans have only been around for what???....3 million years or so???...and modern humans for 30,000 years or so???...and being that we have such short life spans, who can say how it all really works...anyone been around to actually watch and record a species change and evolve or be created???...didnt think so....so science and the church can crow all they want about how it all works ,but no one has the actual PROOF, the TRUTH....to claim so would be really pretty arrogant of the human race...we always claim that we have the proof and than "poof" something else shows up and changes it all around and we have the nerve to act all surprised...we are not omnipotent so we do not know it all and we never will
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 09:51 AM (IJ51c)
10
Evolution takes as much faith (or more) than does ID. They should both be taught as theory, or neither taught at all.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
11
Howie,
ID and creationism have two distinct meanings. The former is a scientific debunking of evolution, the other is the Biblical account of creation.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 10:28 AM (8e/V4)
12
The only facts in the discussion is how little we actually know. The lefties try and make a lot of things which can't be proved out to be facts.
To start another thread, man caused global warming comes to mind.
Posted by: bill at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (7evkT)
13
Brad is right, although I send mine to a Baptist school. By the way, one of my kids is in college on a full engineering scholarship. Just so yall know that creationism didn't affect his science or math scores.
The best single thing I ever did for my kids was to take them out of the public school system.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (DDXXI)
14
Drew,
I don't agree--but Gawd I love the smell of touching the third rail in the morning.
Seriously. We need to start a new blog. One which only discusses ID, abortion, and, er, I know there's a third one in there that we're not supposed to be talking about-THAT.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (JQjhA)
15
I have a radical, some would say crazy, idea. Long ago and far away, in a mythical land where some say Western civilization was born, students were taught by great thinkers, some say the greatest of all time, not in the arts of "Socialological Pedagogic Methods in a Context of Gender Equality and Social Justice in a Post Colonial Era of Big Oil's Use of the Military Industrial Complex to Oppress Gay Asian Womyn's Aromatherapy Studies in the Thrid World, from a Revolutionary Anti-Zionist Perspective 101", but rather in the arts of Logic, Rhetoric, Critical Analysis, History, and Ethics. Students were taught to think. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but it produced men like Alexander and Caesar, not to mention Winston Churchill, and to me, that makes it seem worth reinstating as a teaching method, rather than just rote indoctrination and preparation for future institutionalization in the System.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 11:41 AM (0yYS2)
16
oh, snaps!
i guess we better not teach the theory of relativity, either. idiot luddites and flat earthers....what should we teach in schools? did you know that most education degree programs for high school math and physics now require an introductory course in quantum field theory? i guess we can't mention that either.
this is easily the most idiotic post i've read on the subject.
Dr. Shackleford, may i recommend the following topics for your new blog?
ESCR
Schiavo
gay marriage
i'm sure there are more.
;-)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 11:59 AM (JREvR)
17
IM
Are you suggesting that we allow the little bastards to learn to think for themselves? Not on my watch mister.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:59 AM (jPCiN)
18
Well, folks, I guess I have to change my position. After all, matoko kusanagi and hermetic have SUCH convencing counter-arguments.
Actually, the two of you prove one of the points that I've always held. When evolutionists (or lefties) disagree with you, they don't try to argue or prove their point, they simply go "well you're certainly an idiot for thinking that way."
Rusty: I'm all up for starting another blog. I don't have my own server for nothing. And yeah, isn't it great coming in at 5:30 AM and trying to start a shitstorm?
Posted by: Drew at August 11, 2005 02:25 PM (T0Mi7)
19
Evolution is taught in many private schools as well--even, sadly, Catholic ones.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 02:41 PM (x+5JB)
20
why drew, how unkind...i was merely agreeing with you...if we cannot teach Theory of Evolution in schools, why then we cannot teach Theory of Relativity, Estimation Theory, Theory of Error-correcting Codes, Quantum Field Theory, etc. etc.
lol.
i apolo for the name calling--but aren't you provoking me and hermetic? That is what you IDists always say, when we scient types are so stunned by your random pronouncements that we can barely get our breath. If you don't want us to call you idiots, don't act like idiots.
Frankly, i quite believe in empirical data and the scientific method--haven't you adequately proven you're an idiot with this argument?
QED
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:26 PM (JREvR)
21
Are you expecting them to know the difference between a postulate a theory and a law. Dream on.
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 03:35 PM (D3+20)
22
It doesn't matter Howie. I cannot agree with the tactic of using science to prove G-d, because I don't think it's possible and I think it detracts from real science, but I will tell you that the dishonesty about what we can prove regarding evolution as the life source on earth is fairly stunning. It's advocates are using the time honored trick of allowing one word to stand proxy for 2 distinct concepts. Simply put, they want it accepted that the proven part of the field of thought can stand as the unproven part as well.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (lVjfM)
23
Howie.
Lobby to insert ID into college curriculums then, where they should know the difference. Let it stand or fall on its own merits.
And where students can choose to take it. or not.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (JREvR)
24
The two of you act as if evolution has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you're so sure of it, then why not try answering some of the original questions that I raised? Problem is you can't. Yet every day, our kids are taught that evolution on a macrocosmic scale is simply a fact of life. Since this is untrue, it shouldn't be taught. Maybe you should try teaching the hypothesis of evolution. Except anyone who knows a lick of science knows that doesn't work either.
You see, the scientific theory that I was taught shows us that a theory is only a working theory until a case is found where it does not apply. No case has ever been found where the theory of relativity fails. Unfortunately, evolution cannot make the same claim.
And yet I shouldn't expect any more of an argument than that from someone who's only rebuttal so far has been "you're an idiot." Try answering the questions rather than proving yourself the idiot.
Posted by: Drew at August 11, 2005 03:45 PM (T0Mi7)
25
I'm pretty much saying the same as you Drew. There is evolution as has been described with accepted scientific practice, and then there is 'evolution' as postulated as being the source of life on earth. They are not equal, and one does not yet provide proof of the other.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 03:54 PM (lVjfM)
26
drew, if you want ID to be treated as a legitimate peer alternative theory with evolution, then the Discovery Institute should fund research assistantships and chairs at major colleges, instead of ginning up propaganda for school boards. Is ID a real science or not?
Holes in the theory of evolution? there are a lot more holes in quantum mechanics and cosmology. why aren't you attacking those disciplines?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:59 PM (JREvR)
27
Why am I forced to pay property taxes to support a school system I do not agree with and do not use? I pay to educate my kids privately and do not need or want the state to educate my children.
People like Matoko force their beliefs down my familyÂ’s throat without any 2nd thought. However, they violently object to any of my familyÂ’s beliefs and refuse to include them in a public school curriculum.
I donÂ’t expect Matoko to support my school, why does he and other libs demand I support theirs?(with my money)?
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 06:57 PM (3OPZt)
28
brad, there is a difference between belief and science.
i have no objection to ID being included in a comparative religion curriculum. like i said, if ID is really science, let it prove its bones in university acadame.
don't like your taxes paying for public school? move.
a lot of countries have private school systems.
this is America.
and i'm a grrl--or at least i used to be....hmmm....maybe i'm just a cyborg now.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 07:37 PM (gNc4O)
29
Move? I live here, I just object to paying for what you demand I believe in. You would not pay to support my beliefs? No you would not.
You take my money, I do not take yours.
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 08:06 PM (3OPZt)
30
My new political party. Atheists for Christians. Since they should turn the other cheek. We are not bound by a silly rule such as that.
Maybe we should wear brown shirts? Just think, we wouldn't have to do the Christian thing. Am I on to something here?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:08 PM (wJPgF)
31
Get them Matoko. My kind of girl. I don't agree or disagree with either side. I just like Japanese American women. So I kiss up to them at every opportunity. You never know. Are you really a freshman?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:27 PM (CBNGy)
32
Thanks anyway Greyrooster, I can fight my own battles.
As much as the lefties think we are trying to enforce our will on them, the opposite is true I canÂ’t get far enough away from them.
Regarding your comment on the Brownshirts, the left would have you think itÂ’s the right wearing them, but we on the right have much more to fear from them. I have no control over the public school system In WA State. It is a dictatorship run by the WEA under the NEA. I just wish I could opt out of paying for something that I have no control over and is so mismanaged.
Last Fall after the WA governors election was stolen by the King CO machine (Seattle) in favor of Gov. Fraudouire, Union reps were breaking up protests by GOP supporters in Olympia. They tore signs from people, pushed and spit on Republicans and generally created atmosphere of fear for the Rossi supporters. It looked to me like Germany in 1930Â’s. There are indeed brown shirts out there; we in the metro areas of the West Coast know them well. They are on the left not the right.
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 09:50 PM (6mUkl)
33
lol, i'm not a brown shirt--i'm a browncoat!
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/
and i am also a registered republican and i fervently object to anyone pushing ID-as-science on anyones' children.
like i said before, if ID is really science, let it prove it's bones in universities first.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 11:06 PM (gNc4O)
34
ID belongs in school the way the tower of babel story belongs in Spanish/French/Grammar classes to explain why we use different words for the same thing.
Posted by: h0mi at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (LuPL2)
35
Drew, the reason no-one has answered your questions is that you are so blisteringly ignorant on the subject that it would take several hundred pages of basic biology before you would be able to understand the answer - which would be that your questions are total nonsense.
If man descended from apes, why are there still apes?
Ye gods and little fishes, I can't believe that people are still trotting out that one. The reason there are still apes is that there is no reason for there not to be apes.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 12, 2005 12:35 AM (RbYVY)
36
here's my question, drew.
of course, your "teach neither" is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize ID.
Who could possibly be qualified to teach ID in a science curriculum? Where are the professors of ID, the research assistants, the graduate students, the underclassmen in "theory of ID" classes?
will someone answer my question?
If ID is Science, where is it in university research programs?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 01:05 AM (gNc4O)
37
Ah, now I see the problem, matoko. You simply didn't read my original post. You just saw ID and evolution and assumed I must be an idiot. Hmmm, I wonder what that makes you?
No, when I say "neither," it's not a thinly veiled attempt at anything. I gave the reasons that ID should not be taught and that's exactly what I think. I'm not trying to raise it to the level of anything. And if I were, I'd have to lower it to the level of evolution for anything to become equal.
Pixy Misa: I see you belong to the same "I don't agree with you so you must be an idiot" group. It's amazing how I can point out that argument three times and yet people still try to use it. If you're so brilliant in biology, then just answer one simple little question. What purpose would an asexually reproducing organism have for producing sexual organs. If there is aready a perfectly acceptable means of reproduction, then why start another, more inefficient method?
Oh, and your "because there's no reason for there not to be apes" has to be the stupidest argument that I have EVER heard. According to your "theory," there's every reason for apes not to exist. The only reason they would "evolve" into humans would be for survival. If this were the case, then obviously survival could not continue without the proscribed changes, so how did the remaining apes survive? Which also opens up a whole new series of questions. Humans are hardly more fit to survive in the wilderness than apes, so why would there evolution take that direction? Did they domesticate themselves and begin living in shelters and then DEVOLVE into humans?
Posted by: Drew at August 12, 2005 06:39 AM (HQiW4)
38
drew...
Hmmm, I wonder what that makes you?
An empiricist?
you are equating evolution and ID as peer theories...not me.
and yes, your suggestion that evolution should not be taught, does prove you an idiot.
pixy is right, your ignorance of the process of evolution is woeful.
changes in the genome can arise as point mutations. these mutations are selected for or against within the breeding population based on reproductive fitness. so humans became a more successful branch of apes, but the rest of apes remained in their environmental niche.
It is truly astonishing to me that you don't see the advantage of recombination and genetic variability in sexual reproduction.
where did you go to school?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 08:22 AM (gNc4O)
39
FYI, drew, to make this perfectly clear, there are species of animals which are natural hermaphrodites, possessing both sets of sexual organs in one organism, like earthworms. those species can reproduce either sexually or asexually. this was the intermediary step. no divine intervention required.
which you would have known if you had had a decent high-school education.
;-)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 08:33 AM (gNc4O)
40
Ah! At last. We are finally getting around to sexual reproduction. Thats the part I like.
Speaking of sexual reproduction. Today the court sentenced that gorgeous phys Ed teacher Pamela Rogers to 9 months in prison. That is the most wacko thing I have ever heard of. This beautiful woman could bring happiness and education to hundreds of teenagers.
I think it is horrible to be sentenced to jail for doing what you were hired to do. She was hired to be a physical education teacher. That is exactly what she was doing. PHYSICALLY EDUCATING one of her students. For this she goes to jail. Just doesn't make sense.
They didn't make teachers who look that good when I went to school. If they had I would have left the local Baptist preacher's daughter alone.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:36 PM (0zyYw)
41
Don't know Brad. She's doing pretty good.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:41 PM (0zyYw)
42
Thankfully, sheÂ’s probably too intelligent to click on the Yoda thread that is reserved for the lower primates.
Posted by: Brad at August 12, 2005 11:37 PM (6mUkl)
43
What! Yoda is the one true God. No one kills anyone in his name. He doesn't hold his hand out of money every Sunday. His followers molest no one. Heresy! Heresy! Fatwa against Brad. He has defiled our saviour. We Yodist are a new religion so we are unsure of how to handle heretics. Therefore, we will just act like all major religions before us. Someone get a large stake and some firewood. Ah, but to save his soul we must first put his body on the rack. Then cut his head off. Then we will hang him and then burn him at the stake. When he freely confesses to his heresy his soul will be saved. Thank Yodism. The religion of peace. Saving souls the old fashion way.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:28 AM (CBNGy)
44
Rooster,
This saucy little heathen is leading you down the wrong path.
Posted by: Brad at August 15, 2005 01:06 PM (3OPZt)
45
You have to start with the understanding that what we have here is an epistemological problem. In doing Science, we have agreed that our methodology will be premised on things that can be measured or tested, directly or indirectly. Thus, "Science" is based on the premise that non-natural causes will NEVER be considered as legitimate explanations for what we are investigating. God's actions in the world cannot be measured or tested, whether or not they actually exist. But for practical purposes, in the absence of anyone making it a point to tell students this, it is understandable that many students conclude that the procedural point is a substantive claim about the non-existence of God.
This idea - this fundamental procedural assumption - is never explained to the students as being itself non-provable. As a result, there is a subtext in any science class, and in any articulation of the theory of evolution or the mechanism of natural selection, that "God does not exist." This subtext is not really intended to be a claim that He does not exist, but merely that as a part of the procedures we use to do "Science," his actions cannot be part of any scientific explanation.
Now, because of the Supreme Court's rulings about the relationship of religion and the government, there does not seem to be a way to properly explain what that subtext really means, at least in the public schools. Attempts to address the question of God directly are ruled out of bounds by the courts. Attempts to point out the inherently "Godless" nature of Science, particularly in the topic of Evolution, are treated as back door attempts to do what the courts have said cannot be done - namely, talk about God.
Thus, the accidental coalition between "Science" and the courts has the effect of teaching our children that God does not matter.
Enter ID. ID challenges the fundamental notion of Science that God cannot be measured or tested, directly or indirectly. Strictly speaking, ID is NOT "Science." But that does not mean that ID is false. It merely means that what we call Science cannot encompass God's actions in the world without turning into something that is not "Science" in the first place.
What we need in the schools is not a requirement that ID be taught, or that Evolution not be taught, or that they should be offered as two "scientific" explanations of creation, but rather, a course on Epistemology - a course on what it means to "know" something. The course should start, not with ID or Science, but with Mathematics, which is entirely unprovable yet obviously a legitimate way of knowing the world.
And as part of this course, it should be made clear to the students that people like Richard Dawkins, who thinks that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, have no greater "scientific" authority for making such a claim than people like John Polkinghorne (former dean of physics at Cambridge) have to make a "scientific" claim that the incredibly fine tolerances of the physical universe are so unlikely that only the existence of God can explain why we exist at all.
Frankly I don't see that ID and the theory of evolution or natural selection are mutually exclusive. I certainly wouldn't go around saying that God couldn't use evolution to create life if that's how He wanted to do it. And clearly, if God wants to balance the universe on a set of extremely narrow tolerances in the relationship of, say, hydrogen to oxygen, He can do so and evidenly has. But I don't see how Science could be used to prove or disprove any of that.
Posted by: harmon at August 17, 2005 12:40 AM (r+Wy6)
The Libertarian Case for Drug Control
Bet that headline got your attention. All right, my last long, long word on this for a while and we can go back to posting on GWOT stuff. Rusty, thanks for your indulgence.
You can't be a libertarian and support tyranny, nor can you support slavery. If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other. A slave, or a subject, may have his own will, but he is not free to exercise it except insofar as it comports with his master's.
Likewise an addict may have a reason most of the time, and a complex inner life, but he is in the end a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction. The worst cases--and you can spare me the accounts of the white collar friends of yours who appear to sail through life without a care snorting and shooting up everything in the Harrison Act--I said the worst cases, and there are far too many of them--will kill and rob and mortgage their house and blow the baby's college fund and sell their bodies to satisfy their masters. An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide. more...
Posted by: seedubya at
02:45 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1156 words, total size 7 kb.
1
EXCELLENT argument regarding this issue - as excellent as I have ever seen. THANK YOU for this fine exposition on the subject - it needed to be said.
It is a shame it needs to be said, seems these are days when all the basics are having to be rehashed and thrashed and relearned.
So I really appreciate it. Well reasoned.
Posted by: Rose at August 11, 2005 03:02 AM (z4MUD)
2
I especially liked this part:
"I wanted the CD player, my wife wanted the sun roof. So we, um, compromised, and got the sun roof."
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 05:18 AM (YudAC)
3
Well reasoned and rational, but with a few problems. First, as the legalize-it crowd would say, they would really not have a problem with illegal alcohol and legal buds, which, according to your analogy would lead to X-1 societial harm.
I also have to say that the argument that someone who is high is automatically 'addicted' and a slave is a fallacy. Certainly alcohol and cigarettes are both more addictive and destructive to society than pot. Anyway, the end result is that you can't control a illegal substance - nobody will card you for drugs!
Posted by: Joe at August 11, 2005 08:53 AM (P1gjy)
4
You can't free a slave by changing his master. He must master himself.
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 08:54 AM (D3+20)
5
Ok you supposed "libertarian", let's examine this a bit. Govt. should stay out of our lives unless we are doing some nonsense that hurts other people(like saying driving drunk) So aside from the people killing others drunk in their cars and the people slowly killing themselves with alcohol and tobacco, we spend out tax dollars fighting a "war" that is unwinnable and the vast majority of the folks we are putting away are not drug lords. Hell, they aren't even annoying tweakers. No, most people that are put in jail and kept there(again at our expense) are guilty for possesing a naturally growing herb. So lets review, nobody is being killed by herb and it doesnt have ANY of the social ills like alcohol or tobacco( well mebbe the cancer thing but that link is slight at best). So, of course, we should spend billions of tax dollars and create a large govt. organization to stamp out something that is virtually impossible to stamp out. Ya know, if we were getting the coke and the opium dealers it would still be a bad idea but at least you wouldn't look like such idiots advocating it. Libertarian means that nobody tells me what to do with my body as long as I'm not injuring you.
Posted by: delatao at August 11, 2005 09:02 AM (iu/zX)
6
This is not the Libertarian argument I'm familiar with at all.
According to Libertarian purists like Szasz addiction doesn't even exist. It's a false "disease model" that masks the truth about people who drink and drug too much - they are making a choice. Sure, you can choose to drink for so long that you get DTs, but you chose to get there. Terms like "relapse" are crappy lies to cover up the fact that the person decided to drink or drug again - chose pleasure over responsibility.
And in the classical Libertarian world, that is a choice they are free to make until such time that they impose on others. If you steal because you want more crack, society punshes you for stealing. Period. It is the consequence that you must pay for your bad crack-related choices.
Read Szasz and his comments on the "theraputic state". I think you'll enjoy it very much.
Posted by: CJ at August 11, 2005 09:44 AM (Hk10/)
7
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=5240
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 09:46 AM (iJ7b1)
8
"You can't ban it all, of coursse, nor do we really want to."
If you admit that mind altering substances of some sort are okay, and even at sometimes a good thing then how on earth could you think that it should be the governments business to decide which one is better for the individual. This is not a libertarian thought you are having. Square peg, round hole?
Posted by: BigDuke at August 11, 2005 10:26 AM (kuyD/)
9
The libertarian ideal assumes we are all islands. We are not we all affect each other.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at August 11, 2005 11:11 AM (JFPR+)
10
Your argument that "drug users are slaves" to their suppliers, etc. is absurd. If drugs were legal, they would likely cost less than 1% of the current black-market price and could be available at your local Wal-Mart, grocery store, whatever. Let's say you currently take aspirin. Does that mean you are a "slave" to Bayer Inc.? (Ironically Bayer was a major supplier of legal, over-the-counter morphine to the USA in the early part of the 20th century). In the 1890's, cocaine was openly sold thru the Sears catalog (without Rx)!
Posted by: Laurence at August 11, 2005 11:57 AM (lV6KO)
11
I love how any person with a computer can play like they are notorious. Somehow a blogspace grants them with the authority to make huge claims without using any facts (ad baculum). God love the internet. Not only that, but people can parade around their egos on a float of reason and logic and at the same time commit any fallacy of reason they so desire. For example, your argument about the soicetal impact of alcohol(x) and weed(x-1) can be reduced to a simple equation is rediculous. Have you ever heard of a Straw Man argument? Your argument is a complete cariacature of the problem you are addressing. There is no way it's that simple. What about biology, psychology, sociology, HISTORY... all these things play a part. It's not as simple as pure economics.
Tell me about addiction. Do you know any addicts? What's your history, do you eat too much fast food? Are you addicted to your lifestyle? Could you cut it cold turkey or will you be feeling symptoms of withdrawal by the end of the day? I will agree with you on one thing: "in the end [everyone will be] a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction."
Freedom is a ruse, if you really want it be a Buddhist.
Posted by: Geoff at August 11, 2005 12:03 PM (F20cM)
12
The glaring error in this argument is limiting freedoms because of the worst members of a class. Your argument is
1) Drug addiction is slavery.
2) Slavery is tyranny.
Therefore,
3) Drug addiction is tyranny.
4) Tyranny should be illegal/prevented.
Therefore,
5) Drugs should be illegal/prevented.
Do you see the disconnect? You went from saying that drug addiction should be prevented to saying that drugs should be illegal. Logically, (5) should read:
Therefore,
5) Drug addiction should be illegal/prevented.
Posted by: RMStalzer at August 11, 2005 12:28 PM (oB5aR)
13
You're not a libertarian, you're a statist control freak who doesn't like drug users and who has come up with a facile set of justifications for the continuing the war on (some) drugs. Your story about your buying a new car doesn't shed any insight on this problem, it just shows that you're a PWed statist control freak (I can hear the whip cracking from here).
Then you start outgassing about how liberty is the province of reasonable men and that "...Our government is designed to be run by reasonable men, not by a cadre of stoners and tweakers and junkies. Everyone's liberty is at risk in such a regime." Does anyone else find it interesting that you don't mention "drunks" in this? I guess you'd be OK with a bunch of boozehounds like Teddy Kennedy running things because even though they're slaves to a drug it's a drug you like (alcohol).
Then you cough up the following bit of noxious spew:
"You can't ban it all, of coursse, nor do we really want to. We can pick and choose among addictive substances--coffee and tobacco and liquor we'll allow, ritalin and percodan we'll allow for medical use but regulate pretty tightly, pot and heroin and meth, nope. Wouldn't-be-prudent. Not worth it. We'll tolerate a little drunkenness and alcoholism, a little edginess from caffeine, lung cancer and stained teeth from tobacco, but not the burned-out stoner or the psychotic meth nut. Just like the sun roof, that's the package of costs we're willing to incur and enforce. But just because we're willing to tolerate that much addiction, hallucination, and drug-induced unreasonableness , doesn't mean that we ought to tolerate more.
This is of course the conservatard argument for the war on (some) drugs, namely that as soon as you legalize drugs everyone is going to become a burned out stoner or a psychotic meth nut. Of course this argument is total sewage and is disproven every day. Alcohol is legal and easily available to anyone over 21 years of age (and many who are under 21 years of age) and yet despite this we are not a nation of total drunkards, stumbling blindly around in search of spare change so we can purchase a bottle of Olde English 800 or Thunderbird. Here's a question for you: If drugs were legalized would you use them? If heroin were legalized and easily available would you use it? I certainly wouldn't.
I have to wonder if the reason you're against drug legalization is that you know that if drugs were legalized that you'd become a burned out stoner, or psychotic meth nut in short order due to a lack of will on your part. God only knows that some of our drug warriors have compulsive addictive behaviors, as witness moralizing conservatard Bill Bennett, former Drug Fuehrer and Secretary of Education blowing eight million dollars in 10 years on slot machines (if that isn't a monkey on your back please tell me what is). If junk were legal Bennett would probably be bathing in it, giving himself junk enemas, shooting it through his eyeballs into the frontal lobes of his brain for that perfect rush. Instead he has to content himself with slot machines.
Of course even though you're against drug legalization based upon what it might cost society (conveniently ignoring what the war on (some) drugs has cost society in terms of tax dollars wasted and the destruction of civil liberties) you're willing to tolerate the 300,000 people who die of cigarette related illnesses every year, the cigarette smokers who put others at risk by lighting up at gas stations (more than one smoker has burned himself to death while lighting up while pumping gas) the drunks who kill around 25,000 people a year on our roads and highways, beat their wives and kids and end up lying in the gutters begging for change to buy fortified wine and malt liquor. Again, what this comes down to your advocating the government enforce your arbitrary prejudices. You spout a lot about how we're not subject to a tyranny of reason (BTW, your French revolution example is garbage) and instead argue for a tyranny of irrational prejudice and bigotry against the users of certain substances, and this is better how?
In the end what you argue for is totally arbitrary rule by the majority with laws based upon the prejudices of that majority. I've got some bad news for you sunshine, that isn't in any way, shape or form "libertarian". If the majority doesn't like pot but is OK with alcohol, objectively a far more dangerous drug, then you're OK with the laws against pot. This is the same stupid argument that the drug warriors use when they're asked why, if they're so concerned about people using drugs and harming themselves and others, they don't crack down on alcohol and tobacco.
Tell me, what are you going to offer us next: The "libertarian" case for gun control? The "libertarian" case for higher taxes? The "libertarian" case for internment camps? The "libertarian" case for genocide and ethnic cleansing? Man, with "libertarians" such as yourself who needs communists, nazis or islamofascists?
Posted by: Jamie Jamison at August 11, 2005 12:36 PM (pqJMZ)
14
I used to be a court reporter for a daily newspaper. One thing I learned is that incapacity because of intoxication is not a valid defense, no matter what the crime, no matter what the circumstances. If it were a valid defense, drunken drivers would never go to prison.
Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2005 01:07 PM (vl841)
15
I hope you would include religion, sex, processed sugar, animal fat (and trans fat substitutes) and TV in your list of things that should be illegal becasue they are habit forming and/or addictive and somehow escape or resist human will. Your overly simplistic view of addiction , habit and human freedom and contingency are laughable. Not to mention your obvious lack of knowledge about drug use (as if all users are addicts, and as if all addiction is the same in severity or managemability). And Libertarians are rarely utilitarians, so I'm not sure where your pedestrian and sophmoric cost benefit analysis fits into your poor libertarian argument.
Posted by: lazerlou at August 11, 2005 01:21 PM (J7EvK)
16
I would be interested to see how all the libertarians in this thread would excuse the laws against having sex with minors. Any takers?
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 01:27 PM (jPCiN)
17
Drugs should be legal! A large # of people are killed or hurt by "users" trying to get either the dope or the money to get it. I no longer remember the #'s but decades ago I did a paper on this subject (I was a Goldwater small Govt man at the time) and the results of several articles written in the 50's and early 60's was that over 1,000 times as many people are killed or hurt by users tryin to get either dope or $ to buy it, in the US (pro rata)as were killed or hurt by high users in Europe. The biggest single factor in the high cost of snow or other dope is the implicit cost of being killed by DEA or spendig years in jail. Legalizing dope would not only save billions in law enforcement yearly but significantly reduce crime because the crimes commited to get expensive dope would not be committed since it would be cheap.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 11, 2005 01:31 PM (03F0I)
18
An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide.
But isn't the free man choosing to impose that "mental defect" upon himself? A slave is one who is compelled, against their will to serve another. If you choose to use a drug, you have excercised your will, as a free man, and you must accept the consequences of that action.
The argument you put forth suggests that my freedoms should be limited if I might use those freedoms to limit my own freedom in the future. How is that libertarian? By this logic, it would be legitimate to regulate sex because engaging in sex has the potential to limit my future freedom through pregnancy or disease.
I'm free to have sex with many people, but I effectively give up that right in marriage (or at least most marriages). I'm free to party all night long every night of the week, but I have to give that up to get a decent job. Our freedoms measured as much in what we choose to give up as what we choose to hold onto. It's only when we are compelled, forcibly, to give up a freedom, that we become slaves.
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2005 01:38 PM (XJJye)
19
You are not Libertarian; hell you're not even a decent constitution upholding American if you think we should prosecute consensual crimes.
America is a place where you can reach for stars, or die in the gutter....keep it that way.
Posted by: blahblahblah at August 11, 2005 02:18 PM (1HeG/)
20
"If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other."
What about the libertarians that don't believe in God?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 02:32 PM (x+5JB)
21
From a libertarian perspective, your argument is specious. People should be free to choose dangerous and destructive lifestyles, as long as they hurt no one else directly. I'll leave out the anguish they may inflict on friends and family cause that is too vague and far reaching. Using that, you can ban homosexuality because of AIDS and the anguish it may cause someone who haes gays. As far as certain laws that make one not guilty of premeditated murder because they are high, they prove nothing, the law is foolish. After all, our life loving President executed a lady who committed murder when she was high, and who honestly tried to redeem herself while in prison. But that is irrelevant. A person shuld be able to choose to lead a dangerous life, like motorcycle riding, mountaineering or drug abuse, regardless of what the nannies might say. Societal costs are a vague factor and in a libertarian society the government would not be providing much in the way of services anyways. Even a practical, non libertarian approach might make some distinctions, only a complete moron would treat pot the same as heroin while arguing cigs and tobacco are okay.
Posted by: Jake at August 11, 2005 02:49 PM (zeHqd)
22
I have called in sick more than once because of too much alcohol, I have never called in sick because I smoked one too many "joints" the night before...
But Alcohol is still ok right?
People should be left to make decisions for which they are responsible, not the Government, the Government should hold those accountable who have encroached on another's rights, not because they feel a person can not handle the maturity require for some things they wish to indulge in...
Commit a crime while intoxicated? Pay the price for that crime.. not for seeking intoxication.
What if in your sample equation, the real factors are alcohol = 1 and pot = 0-1 then legalization would equal a sum of 0 and all of societies' ills would be solved by legalizing pot... this is actually quit closer to the fact since no-one knows what the reality would be if pot were made legal, they are certainly less than alcohol and in my mind would be close to nill when equating the effect on society.
This shows how you can make any equation fit your theories no matter how baseless they are in reality.
Posted by: Somebody at August 11, 2005 02:53 PM (MaRYv)
23
As a man who has been a card carry Libertarian for almost two decades, let me say that your article doesn't begin to satisfy the conditions you set out in your title. You may make a case for the Drug War, but it is not a libertarian case.
See, a Libertarian would be the first to realize that X or X-1 as you define them aren't really part of the equation. In the Libertarian perspective individual freedom are given gravitas over societal will. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is the fundamental right of all people to follow their own road just so long as their actions don't inhibit another person from doing the same. In short, as long as I'm not hurting you then what I might or might not choose to do is really none of your damned business. Whether I choose to be a "burned-out stoner or the psychotic meth nut" is my choice to make-- at least under a libertarian doctrine.
A true Libertarian would also understand that it isn't slavery if it's a choice made freely, thus the WHOLE of your argument falls apart. Those things to which I choose to subject my life, those things which I grant claim upon my time and resources, are an elemental part of freedom. I may choose to have kids, rather than pursue a career. You might say that I am then a "slave" to the needs of my children, but this is, again, my business and not yours. Were I to choose the career I might be considered a slave to my desk, but my workaholic tendencies would still be my demons to bear.
I have set priorites in my life for who and what get access to me and to those things which I indenture myself. YOUR role in this equation is to butt out.
For the most part, for most people, life is terribly difficult. I would suggest that whatever it takes to get you through the day-- be it drugs, religion, hobbies, children and family, work, play etc-- as long as you're not knocking on my door asking for me to bear the brunt of your problems for you, then go for it... it's your life, your views, your time to shine or rust in the rain.
I won't even begin to discuss the insanity, from a libertarian perspective, of government spending my money to fight a war against personal choice.
Posted by: Shantyhag at August 11, 2005 04:08 PM (iwe1N)
24
What about the societal costs of Marijuanna law enforcement? I think if you take those into account, your 2X-1 argument falls apart, since there is a huge cost to society enforcing those laws.
For the record I believe that the societal cost of enforcing most drug laws falls below the costs of legalization, but I do not see that happening with Marijuanna.
Posted by: Dan at August 11, 2005 06:08 PM (Y2A8A)
25
MUUSIC!
Throw the tape player into the bathtub when the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane peaks
Posted by: Ren at August 11, 2005 06:40 PM (a9tRx)
26
The main reason alcohol is legal in the U.S. while other rec drugs are not has nothing to do with whether we want to deal with the consequences of more than one rec drug being legal.
I've already brought this up (at considerably greater length) in my comment on "Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War", but it bears repeating here. In a nutshell, the difference between our alcohol laws and our drug laws boils down to an idiosyncrasy of Western culture: Alcohol has been around since the dawn of mankind, and has long been considered a staple of Western civilization. Other drugs have not, and therefore have proven much easier to demonize and gain popular support for them to be outlawed.
Further complicating the drug-vs.-alcohol-laws debate is the fact that alcohol, and only alcohol, has its legal status enshrined in the U.S. Constitution - specifically, in the 21st Amendment which makes alcohol regulation the purview of the states. Short of another constitutional amendment to eliminate that disparity, bringing other drug laws into line with alcohol laws (or vice versa) is not only unlikely, it is constitutionally impossible.
Posted by: Joshua at August 12, 2005 01:59 PM (5Xc3J)
27
I hate tobacco. I hate pot. I hate coke. I hate meth. If you mess with my bourbon I kick your ass.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:56 PM (0zyYw)
28
There are an awful lot of food addicts in this country and stores and shops on every corner to support this heinous addiction.
Some kill animals for food, some kill plants. Killing to live. It creates a whole murderous climate on the planet.
And the level of addiction is simply astounding. And people feed this addiction in public. How disgusting.
People need to stop being slaves to substances of all kinds and a food prohibition will do at least part of the job.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:01 PM (/XcVW)
29
What if the people taking drugs need them?
Addiction or Self Medication?
Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:03 PM (/XcVW)
30
What this post lacks is a Moral Sense.
Suppose the people taking pain relievers are desperate for pain relief?
Why are drugs are associated with a reduced moral sense. Let us start from what we know: Pain destroys the moral sense. Next step is to look at the connection between drugs, pain, and morality: People taking drugs for pain are in moral danger from the pain. The drugs actually help alleviate the moral danger by relieving the pain. As a society we recreate that moral danger by keeping those in pain from relief.
I think this point is typical of the confused thinking on the subject of drugs. We ascribe the ills caused by prohibition to the drugs themselves.
We make people desperate by depriving them of pain relief and then complain when desperate people do desperate things.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:09 PM (/XcVW)
31
I agree with CJ and Szasz.
There is no such thing as addiction. The idea is superstition.
There is such a thing as people in chronic pain taking pain relievers chronically.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:39 PM (/XcVW)
32
And the level of addiction is simply astounding. And people feed this addiction in public. How disgusting.
There is no such thing as addiction. The idea is superstition.
Fatal Syntax Error, Unexpected contradiction
Posted by: Ren at August 13, 2005 06:35 PM (a9tRx)
August 10, 2005
Let's Settle the Iraq War Question the Old Fashion Way, With a Duel
Q: Who would win in a gunfight? An Iraq War supporter or an Iraq War opponent.
A: An Iraq war supporter, of course. What kind of an idiot would pull a gun on an Iraq war supporter? Oh, this guy.
A quarrel between two firearms vendors at a Floyd County flea market on Thursday allegedly led both men -- described as "good friends" -- to draw guns. Douglas Moore, 65, of Martin, who supports the war, shot and killed Harold Wayne Smith, 56, of Manchester, who opposed it, investigators said.Hat tip: Jeff Blogworthy who has more.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:07 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One less moonbat in the world won't be missed. That's 'tolerance' neocon style baby!!!
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)
2
Hey Jawa, it's "duel" not "dual".
Posted by: Redhand at August 10, 2005 11:44 PM (TrmBs)
3
Such irony.
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 05:28 AM (YudAC)
4
What a wonderful idea, and it's good to see Amerikkkan culture is still intact- let's just kill anyone who disagrees with you.
Posted by: Zanzibar at August 11, 2005 08:46 AM (gDyiS)
5
I for one support the killing of anti-american war opponents. Lets get it on! I am being completely serious, they deserve nothing but hatred an death for themselves and their families.
Posted by: Hedgy at August 11, 2005 09:17 AM (A8rF5)
6
I think there's really only one moral or ethical thing one can say. Whoever was the agressor deserved to get shot, no matter what position they happen to hold on the war. If both went for their guns simultaneously instead of reacting to an agressor (meaning it really was a duel) or if the person who was the initiator is the survivor, then the survivor is guilty of murder. His opinion on the war is irrelevant, both legally and morally, to the outcome.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 11, 2005 09:33 AM (IbWE6)
7
a sad case of people having the right to have different choices not agreeing to respect each others choices and instead trying to hurt and kill each other ...and this is over having the right to speak youre mind on a subject, a harmless thing
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:02 AM (IJ51c)
8
A man may disagree with me. And I will fight to the death for my right to shoot him if he does.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:04 AM (MKTwl)
9
I seem to recall a similiar story on AMW recently in which the anti-war person shot the pro-war one. No one ever said that the reasons we kill each other were always going to be good ones, or ever would for that matter.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:26 AM (jPCiN)
Lodi Terror Ring Connected to Bin Laden
Whoa. Check this out from KGO:
The FBI is now drawing a link between their terror investigation in Lodi and Osama bin Laden. The government believes al Qaeda was trying to set up a school in Lodi to recruit terrorists.For their part, the father and son Hayat terror duo dispute the governments claim, admitting to the lesser charge of fomenting violent jihad against the United States and praising bin Laden while in Pakistan. Both claim they have changed their minds about the U.S. I wonder, though, what are on those secret tapes?The accusations from the FBI came Tuesday morning during an immigration hearing for Shabbir Ahmed. He's the 39-year-old religious leader of the Lodi mosque -- one of five men connected to the mosque that have been arrested on immigration charges. Today the government drew links to all five and then to Osama bin Laden.
The FBI says it has information that two of the religious leaders at this Lodi mosque were acting as intermediaries for Osama bin Laden....
Lawyers for the government would not be interviewed, neither would the FBI. But in court today the lead agent said they have secretly taped conversations between several of the five men arrested in Lodi....
The government believes they wanted to set up a branch of a religious school that has in the past been associated with terrorists including 9/11 leader Muhammed Atta.
UPDATE: California Mafia has been following the case closely. Their post on the bail hearing is here, including the name of the connection between the Lodi ring and al Qaeda. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
09:06 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
All of this is so comforting to me, being 70 miles from Lodi. Seiously, here in the Bay Area, we have lots of Muslims. Not suprising, since we have Berkeley and Stanford here, as well as several other schools. All of them have lots of Muslim students and faculty, as they have for decades. However, we here have noticed that in the last couple of years, many of our Muslim neighbors have begun to wear the headscarf, the traditional dress, the little white caps, the long beards, etc. Many of them tend to glare and scowl a lot. I don't fear or hate or even dislike Muslims. But I do wonder why this change has come about. When I went to Berkely in the 80s, it was not this way. It is now.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:10 AM (MKTwl)
2
What is odd too is Victor Davis Hanson's words just a few weeks ago (I'll paraphrase); that we're likely to find more Muslim "friends" in Tehran than in Berkeley.
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 11:26 AM (fl6E1)
Able Danger Help
I'm trying to figure out the whole Able Danger/we-knew- about- Atta- being- an- al- Qaeda- member- a- year- before- 9/11 thing. If you have a post about it, or know of a good summary, I'd appreciate it if you e-mailed it to me. A lot of discussion about this, but I'm not sure where to begin. Thanks.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:51 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Check out Captain Ed: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005175.php
I have couple week posts, but, from what I understand, the rules that Jamie Goerlick and the Slick admin put in hamstrung the ability of military intel to share what they had with law enforcement, plus they were big weenies regarding investigating folks in the US on legal visas, despite possible AQ ties. Investigating Atta and company might have stopped 9/11, or maybe not. We will never know.
The New York Times made sure that they did not mention Clinton in their article about this today.
Posted by: William Teach at August 10, 2005 06:04 PM (Pzlrt)
2
OK head over to my blog. I have three posts.
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/data-mining-and-sandy-bergers-pants.html
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/connecting-some-more-dots.html
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/news-of-usefulness-of-gorelick-wall.html
One explains data mining, the others the essence of the story. I built some data mines for unnamed users.
Always willing to help the Jawa out.
Posted by: bill at August 10, 2005 06:27 PM (7evkT)
3
Anyone with half a brain will figure out whose admin was occupying the White House when Atta's name came up. Oh wait.....
Posted by: Oyster at August 10, 2005 06:28 PM (YudAC)
4
I think the groundwork for this fiasco was laid in the seventies, following our defeat in the first major propaganda war: Vietnam. At that time, the military and intelligence agencies were despised by many people and laws were passed to curb their perceived excesses. The Brass also began to evolve (devolve?) into PR people and poll watchers.
The process accelerated during the nineties as Clinton exploited the "peace dividend". Wish I had a dollar for all the ex-military personnel who told me they resigned rather than serve under Slick Willy.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 07:07 PM (RHG+K)
5
Check Andrew McCarthy's archives at NRO, he seems to be the expert on FISA and "the Wall." Heather MacDonald had a few pieces in City Journal that also hit on this.
Posted by: Rob A. at August 10, 2005 08:33 PM (hWGIY)
Congrats...
...are in order to Dave Gullyborg on reaching his 100,000 visits mark. If you're going to celebrate, this is the way to do it.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
The Muslim Rock: Boogie to 'Put a bomb in your shoe ..dadada'
Rock out to the Muslim Rock at this website (Be sure to turn up your volume):
Put a bomb in your shoe, lets put a bomb in your shoe, why don't you be a real cool Muslim fighter, and put a bomb in your shoe and blow awayaaa. Yeah, you'll get seventeen new virgins,at Muhammed's bordello in the sky, and you'll get wine women and song. So be a real cool Muslim fighter, but don't forget your lighter, and blow yourself awayaaa ... to Muhammed's bordello in the sky.The content at the site is interesting, but it's the 'Muslim Rock' background music that I enjoyed the most.
I hope fellow bloggers and their readers will help to pass this around and add some perspective to this 'Muslim thing' that's become a dark plague on our planet. I'm fed up hearing about 'Islam' -I say enough already about this Islam sensitivity garbage!
Cross posted by Hyscience
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
03:18 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Real nice tune. 
Oh, and thanx for the website, it's bookmarked.
Oh, and thanx for the website, it's bookmarked.Posted by: quark2 at August 10, 2005 04:46 PM (FRnGw)
Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War
Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
02:33 PM
| Comments (100)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Yeah, but what's your position on bestiality?
Llamas, excluded, of course.
Posted by: Editor at August 10, 2005 02:52 PM (adpJH)
2
The bottom line is, shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 10, 2005 03:06 PM (x+5JB)
3
Not in my mind. A free people must, by definition, be free to do harmful things.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:09 PM (JQjhA)
4
Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior. So, isn't it concievable that legalizing drugs (beyond alcohol) would come with an increase in criminal behavior? Or do you think that drug use would stay at its present levels?
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 03:15 PM (jPCiN)
5
No, I think drug use would rise--unfortunately. But most of the serious criminal behaviors associated with drug use have to do with their price. Their price is high because of the drug war. People need money to support their habits. Circular problem.
But my stance on the drug war is not one built on cost-benefit analysis, which is how most pro or anti drug-war arguments are built. I believe it is a matter of personal liberty.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:22 PM (JQjhA)
6
"...shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?"
THIS is the base idea from which fast food gets banned for being fattening and promoting obesity.
And that "can" really stretches. Premarital sex, or sex without protection "can be harmful to [people]" via STDs, etc... So the Government needs to ban, crack down on, and prevent premarital sex? Is AIDS not as bad as a coke habit? Worse, better, difficult comparison?
Oh, here's a brilliant one. Unprotected sex from behind (avoiding the "a" word) is particularly likely to transmit STDs. So we should really ban this form of behavior. How well do you see that going over?
Also, how far a step is it from the government banning bad things; to the government mandating good things.
A couple hours of exercise a week in half hour increments is good for you (duh). A government that mandates and enforces exercise from its citizenry because lack of exercise is bad for you would be obscenely stupid.
People must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The alternatives are a nanny state that cares for you and dictates what you can and cannot do from cradle to grave; or a government that cherry picks some things as "bad enough to ban" and others that are not.
Now the 3rd option (some banned, some aren't) relates to what we have now; but the line isn't well defined. The target of "too bad to allow" keeps moving on every issue, and the bans get arbitrary and foolish.
Unless you have a very clear, very specific line you want drawn, I doubt you want to promote society going down this road.
The line you've drawn in your initial statement bans fast food, smoking, drinking, premarital sex, bungee jumping, parachuting, etc. as "can be harmful" (adding easily avoidable, not required, and identifiable as harmful; as those are the requirements to try to get a law codified).
Oh shoot, I completely forgot about mental anguish (hence not just physical harm, but mental harm as well). I mean, if we're promoting "wellness" in the citizenry we'll need to care for their mental and spiritual well being too, no?
But I'll save that for later. This post is too long as is.
Posted by: GekkoBear at August 10, 2005 03:27 PM (X0NX1)
7
Harmful drugs are the same as cancer, smallpox, polio, etc: Get rid of them anyway you can.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 03:30 PM (CBNGy)
8
Oh wait a minute. Alcohol is potentially harmful. We should ban it.
Ooops didn't we try that already.
Posted by: Howie at August 10, 2005 03:42 PM (D3+20)
9
Hmm...I'll clarify my own position on this later tonight. Rusty, would you prefer a new post or an update to this one?
PS I'm very much for effective, mandatory treatment for drug users. It's pretty hard to get clean in prison. Fortunately that's mostly what we're doing.
Posted by: See-Dubya at August 10, 2005 04:17 PM (fUAK4)
10
I believe it is a matter of personal liberty.
This really is the meat of the issue, but if the personal liberties of everyone else must be diminished to unacceptable levels so that an individual can maximize his, this is not a fair trade off.
If the government in Amsterdam does not give its heroin junkies enough dope, they will commit crimes to get it.
I won't even get into the issues of what it could do to the productivity of the country as a whole and how that can affect our personal liberties in the long run.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 04:32 PM (jPCiN)
11
Governments should only ban things that causes citizens to
harm other citizens. Since most hard drugs causes the user to
turn to crime to get them, then they should be banned. Using
mary jane while driving should be, and I think most states, is
banned.
Posted by: Butch at August 10, 2005 04:33 PM (Gqhi9)
12
I have been witness to the evil of Methamphetamine. I rejoice in every arrest, every lab bust, every conviction. It is cheap and even if made non-illegal, which is marginally different from being legal, it will be evil. Meth destroys humanity. Meth users should lose everything and everyone around them, and be isolated to remote islands with no hope for return. Meth producers should be shot on site.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 10, 2005 05:12 PM (Kv4B9)
13
Butch:
that's the same sort of vagueness that would allow the government to disarm citizens, with the reason that "guns" harm other citizens.
no thanks.
Posted by: dave at August 10, 2005 05:38 PM (DO6vD)
14
Hmmm... does all this mean your pro-choice?
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 02:22 AM (REz6/)
15
"The Libertarians I hang around with try to pretend that drugs aren't all that bad. The usual drug that is called not bad is Marijuana. Marijuana is not bad, it--and by inference other drugs--ought to be legalized."
Sounds like you don't know any libertarians, only libertines. Many libertarians hold the same view you do--i.e., legalize it, but when you do I'm still not touching it.
Posted by: The Unabrewer at August 11, 2005 08:26 AM (IsoyY)
16
Very good distinction, Unabrewer. One that I am aware of. But, seriously, if you've ever been to a Libertarian event you'll meet a whole lot of libertines.
Prof,
No. But that is because abortion is wrong because it kills a child. Homicide is not a valid choice under any libertarian definition. Unless you believe a baby in the womb is just an appendage of a woman--like a mole-then there is no moral justification for it. The real disagreement is the point at which a fetus becomes 'human' and the epistemology of 'life'.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:50 AM (JQjhA)
17
Good argument about legalizing drugs from a liberty point of view.
However, however tough it is to get drugs legalized, how much tougher do you think it will be to pass the laws that put the cost of the consequences on the actor instead of on society?
Crazy sex is already okay. You win, so to speak, there. AIDS funding is never going to be sufficient--ask the advocates--no matter how much it is. And you can talk, if you wish, about putting the costs of AIDS on actors, but you'll have a hard time, a really hard time, getting the costs off you and other taxpayers and on to the actors.
Compared to that, or to rehab, getting drugs legalized is going to be a slam dunk. Not that it's easy, but telling people, you pissed in it, you drink it, is NOT going to happen.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at August 11, 2005 01:12 PM (tuope)
18
Unabrewer is right, and Rusty, your answer was unsatisfying.
The first sentence of your post was "Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one."
Could it really be true that you don't know or admire any libertarians that aren't libertines?
Well, you know one now!
Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 01:27 PM (XB4NN)
19
While I agree with your viewpoint, as a nation, we and our governments are as addicted to the drug war as the addicts are to their drugs. Many police departments would lose much of their federal funding and half to layoff significant numbers of officers.
The war on drugs is an employment program for thousands of Americans with no other saleable skills.
Posted by: Timothy at August 11, 2005 01:30 PM (H+TEN)
20
I have a really novel theory about drugs.
People take pain relievers to relieve pain. Who knew?
Addiction or Self Medication?
Heroin
Genetic Discrimination
A test for PTSD
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:32 PM (PRJ2z)
21
Drug prohibition is Republican Socialism. A price support mechanism for criminals.
Any one learn anything from alcohol prohibition? Any one at all?
Tell me what the #1 date rape drug in America is?
I'll give you a clue. It is legal.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:35 PM (PRJ2z)
22
Dr Rusty --
If, by "like," you mean "am opposed to laws prohibiting use of" then I agree with your characterization of the Dem, Libertarian, and Rep, points of view.
The reason I say this is, I have actually *never* used any illegal drugs (and I'm in my late 30's), but I'm still against laws prohibiting use thereof.
Posted by: Me at August 11, 2005 01:37 PM (BL/U4)
23
I want a calling from the some resident Llama: is it an Instalanche whene some rental punk brings the funk?
I stand athawart the Sitemeter and say "NAY!"
(how's that..."athwart"...)
You owe me a dollar.
Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:39 PM (kiH79)
24
And good sweet Jeebus must be crying, for these new colors, just, like, teh suck.
You twirp adjunct.
Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:41 PM (kiH79)
25
Fatwa this!
Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:45 PM (kiH79)
26
If people take pain relievers to relieve pain then the way to reduce the consequences of drug use is to relieve the people's fookin pain.
How hard can it be?
Almost every thing most people believe about drugs including the site owner is rank superstition.
Drug use does not respond well to the usual enticements (i.e. demand is inelastic) because people in pain do not like giving up their pain relievers.
Of course this directly contradicts the voodoo theory of addiction: drugs are the devil's spawn and they cause addiction. They get an evil hold on some people (why not all people - well you know - some people are more moral than others) and do not let go. I call this the Stupid Design theory of addiction.
Wait, wasn't this what people of another era used to say about alcohol. Talk about recycling. Well, never mind.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:49 PM (PRJ2z)
27
Shouldn't the government be obligated to outlaw things which can be helpful to its citizenry?
Like pain relievers for instance?
Aspirin is the direct cause of 500 to 1,000 American deaths a year. Yet children can buy it.
It is an outrage.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:57 PM (PRJ2z)
28
The one part of the problem that you are neglecting to address is that drugs are physiologically addictive, whereas other self-harming behavior is not. And things that are physiologically addictive are not a matter of choice-they are a matter of physical obligation. You are right; I don't care if someone else doesn't feel like getting up and going to work (i.e. doesn't choose to get up and go to work). But it would be different if something removed that individual's choice to get up and go to work (sickness, mental illness, physical incapacity, drug addiction). I, for instance, would be opposed to allowing the physically and mentally handicapped to starve to death simply because they don't choose to go to work. Libertarians may feel differently.
So without choice, your libertarian hands off approach doesn't work. And yes, we have a tough time defining 'choice' (i.e. do people really 'choose' to eat to much? Should fast food be illegal? Alcohol?). On the margins, its tough to really define 'choice.'
But outside of the margins, its not. If a healthy kid doesn't go to work and claims its because he doesn't want to, I'm comfortable accusing him of 'choice' and not being willing to fund his lifestyle 'choice.' At the other end, a heroin addict's 'choice' has been taken away from him. One way to stop this from happening is to just really really try to convince people not to try (and become addicted to) heroin, and then sell it anyway. Another way is to make heroin illegal. And our (my) society would be better without a whole lot of individuals addicted to heroin than with them.
Steve
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2005 02:09 PM (R+XcO)
29
You know meth is given to military pilots to enhance their performance.
I would revel in seeing those guys busted like the common criminals they are.
Besides prescribing the stuff interferes with the black market. See the recent Supreme Court decision in the Raich case for further details.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:13 PM (PRJ2z)
30
Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior.
They are probably right that there is a correlation between drug use and criminal behavior.
However, and repeat after me whenever you feel these regulatory urges coming on - "correlation is not causation." Any number of things could be causing the correlation, and I doubt very much that it is the psychotropic effects of whatever these people are ingesting.
It could be that criminals have a lot of contact with the black market where drugs are sold. If this is a factor, then outlawing drugs actually contributes to their use by criminals.
Dr. Shackleford, I think your average libertarian doesn't really believe drugs are harmless in all cases. Rather, they look at the drugs that society manages to tolerate (alcohol and tobacco), and conclude that many of your softer drugs, at least (pot being Exhibit A) are far less harmful than these.
Posted by: R C Dean at August 11, 2005 02:18 PM (ifq/U)
31
Steve,
Physiological addiction is not a problem. Detox fixes that.
The problem is that even after detox some people return to their drug habit.
My theory: detox does not fix the pain. Only fixing the pain eliminates the desire for drugs.
Well I guess Steve has brought us back to another devil theory of drugs. i.e. addicts are out of control.
BTW Steve did you know that according to Dr. Lonnie Shavelson 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused as children?
Perhaps instead of a war on drugs we need a war on child abuse? What are the odds of that?
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (PRJ2z)
32
I was with the article right up to here:
"If you knock some strange chick up in a moment of ecstasy inspired passion, it's your problem. I don't want to send you to jail, I don't want to send you to rehab, I'm not going to say that what you are doing is okay- it's not okay. It's just not my problem."
I think it is your problem, my problem, everybody's problem. It's just not a problem that should be solved via coercive taxation and the legal system. This is the essential distinction between the libertarian who believes in voluntary solutions to societal problems and the atomistic radical individualist who doesn't, in practice, acknowledge that society exists and it solves problems whether or not the government gets involved.
Government shouldn't get involved because government solutions to the problem have been demonstrated (over many years and many destroyed lives) to be very bad for this class of problems. We need experimentation and innovation to find better solutions, not a regression to some primeval state which never worked in the first place.
Posted by: TM Lutas at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (z/jms)
33
"But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers." So, why argue?"
There will always be murders...so why have anti-murder laws? Bad argument there, Kurt, and an extremely poor rationale for drug legalization.
Really the argument comes down to this:
Personal liberty is a good thing and we should have lots of it. But with liberty comes responsibility. Drug use makes it impossible to exercise that responsibility. Thus, drug use should be illegal.
Alcohol as the counter-argument? Alcohol is a weak drug (as available for purchase, anyways), and overconsumption can be punishable by law in several different ways. Other weak drugs are legal as well. Caffeine, nicotine. Nearly every narcotic drug by comparison gives its effects in a single dose.
So no, there's really no good argument for drug legalization.
Posted by: Mike M at August 11, 2005 02:21 PM (vtiE6)
34
According to the US Justice Department the only drug that is known to be correlated with criminal behavior is - TADA - alcohol.
We are going after the wrong drug!
Ha Ha Ha.
Drugs and Violence. Let me quote:
“The stereotype is of the drug-crazed criminal,” said Robert Nash Parker, the lead investigator on the project. “The reality is something quite different.”
Parker, a professor of sociology, conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on drugs, alcohol and violence. He said a survey of crime victims showed that more than one fourth of the assailants in violent crimes were reported by the victims to be under the influence of alcohol while fewer than 10 percent were under the influence of an illegal drug. The Presley Center study found that in cases of homicide, alcohol is “overwhelmingly” the drug most frequently mentioned.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:36 PM (PRJ2z)
35
!!Rock n Roll!!
There is a good argument for drug legalization!
This joints for you Mike M!
Posted by: gijoe at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (aja61)
36
Great post, you nailed it.
Thanks for sharing.
And thanks again for the Saddam torture post. That's a classic.
Posted by: TallDave at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (+zD27)
37
I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home?
It is already well established in law that a person who commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol or other substance is still responsible for the crime (unless it can be shown that the person took that intoxicant without their knowledge or permission).
This is not to say that I think drugs are safe, or a good idea. I personally have never used drugs and don't intend to. But for me to decide that another person should be jailed for the mere act of ingesting cocaine is immoral, because it infringes on their individual liberty. Their ingestion of cocaine, in and of itself, harms only them. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant.
Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable.
Purity and potency uncertainties only add to the risks of using drugs. Someone taking cocaine cannot be totally certain whether it's been cut with LSD (which alters the nature of the trip and makes it more dangerous), or baby powder (which alters its potency and makes taking a predictable dose impossible, thus making overdose more likely), or whatever.
People should have the free choice to engage in this sort of vice, and the quality of the product should be reliable. I like margaritas, and I drink socially on occasion. I know that the alcohol I buy is exactly what it claims to be and will not contain wood alcohol, antifreeze, or any other contaminant that might increase the risk to my health. Drugs should have the same classification in our culture.
Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 02:40 PM (Xi2ZE)
38
I have one question.
Can anybody point me to 1 instance in the history of man where a prohibition has worked and has not created a criminal underground to take advantage of it.
Just one.
Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome. Spend the money instead for treatment on demand. The ones that dont want treatment...well Darwin will prevail and if the drugs are available no one will get hurt except the one responsible for taking the drugs.
By the by I'm a somewhat conservative republican.
Posted by: GC at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (oer0z)
39
Mike M.
Alcohol weak drug? If a new drug it would be a schedule II narcotic and only available to doctors in emergency cases where no other alternative can be found. Such as antifreeze poisoning.
Too much booze can render you unable to stand or walk this is called alcohol poisoning. And yes you can die from it. What usually happens is you are so passed out that you don't notice that you jsut thew up and you breath stomach acid into your lungs and drown in your own vomit. Pretty good stuff huh. Weak drug my ass it's the best and most powerful. Inject you a few ccs of everclear and then come nd tell me it's weak. Heck just kill a pint of old crow that shojld do it and if it don't you my friend are an alcoholic. Nothing liek some drunk acting like booze is water.
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 02:44 PM (D3+20)
40
Mike M,
There really is no good argument for alcohol legalization. Or aspirin legalization for that matter.
Drugs Kill. M'Kay? Some kill more than others.
BTW There really is no good argument for food legalization. You eat too much it can kill you. Not to mention choking deaths. Food needs to be administered only under a doctor's supervision. Ever see a food addict? Truly disgusting.
In fact all nutrients should be administereed by IV under a doctors supervision. Let us eliminate those needless deaths. Especially of children.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:48 PM (PRJ2z)
41
hmmm...i see one problem with your position, Dr. Shackleford.
Meth labs? could it possibly become so cheap that that make-your-own equivalenced the legal market version? Meth labs poison their immediate environment, poison the kids of the lab owners or renters, poison the firemen or policemen called in to clean up, poison the neighbors. will you be able to get a "brewer's license" for making some quantity of meth for your own personal family consumption? will there be meth lab inspectors that insure that you are making it safely?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 02:58 PM (JREvR)
42
GC,
Only 30 years?
National heroin prohibition has been in effect since 1914.
Over 90 years.
I guess we have not had enough experience with heroin prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough.
Pot prohibition has been in effect since 1937 (with a short hiatus during WW2 - hemp rope and twine don't you know).
I guess we have not had enough experience with pot prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:02 PM (PRJ2z)
43
matoko,
We used to know what the answer to meth labs was.
The answer in the days when meth was legal were called drug stores. Ever hear of them? In those days no one ever heard of meth labs. I wonder why?
Capitalism may have had something to do with it. You know. Price and availability.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:06 PM (PRJ2z)
44
This thread is just great.
Superstition abounds.
Blaming drugs for the evils of drug prohibition.
Nothing new.
We used to blame alcohol for the evils of alcohol prohibition. Watch an episode of the "Untouchables" to get the flavor.
People are just as dumb as they ever were. Which is confirmation of Einstein's famoous dictum: The most abundant element in the universe is stupidity.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:11 PM (PRJ2z)
45
The best written work I ever read about drugs and the law was written by Gorge Jonas for Saturday Night Magazine in the early nineties. He basically made the very honest argument that drug use would rise if we legalised them and that this rise in use would increase costs to society in terms of more individuals battling addiction BUT that this price is well worth paying if you look at what we get in return in terms of personal responsibility, freedom from the state and the elimination of THE MAJOR SOURCE of REVENUE for criminals.
We would be better off both individually and collectively if we decriminalised drugs and regulated them through fines and civil court proceedings as opposed to criminal courts. Let the tort system deal with the issues drug use creates.
Unfortunately the DEA is a terrible vested interest and many Republican politicians are addicted to the power that the fear of drugs creates in parents. It is so easy to play the demagog when the voters reward you so.
Posted by: Northern Oberver at August 11, 2005 03:13 PM (L0dY/)
46
WRT Meth...
It's nasty stuff, but there's one thing that people don't consider. If high-grade cocaine and amphetamine were available at the drug store for a reasonable price (as they once were) who in hell would do Meth? Meth was invented as a result of the drug war. It would not EXIST if cleaner, better quality recreational drugs were legal. Using it as an example of why we should spend our LE and judicial resources on the "drug war" is truly missing the point.
Posted by: Barry at August 11, 2005 03:17 PM (lxp2D)
47
BTW any one know why cocaine was made illegal?
There were lots of scare stories in newspapers about cocainized black men raping white women.
In a word - racism.
Pot - that was all about cheap Mexican labor.
Opiates? cheap Chinese labor. Oh yeah - taking advantage of whie women under the influence.
Drug War History
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:19 PM (PRJ2z)
48
Drugs do not cause addiction (they can cause habituation).
Chronic pain causes chronic drug use.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:24 PM (PRJ2z)
49
"Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior."
If drug use is a criminal act the link between drug use and criminal behaviour is 100%.
If drug use is not a criminal act then drug use related crime would fall by 100%.
Meantime, if you drive under the influence, abuse your children or rip off corner stores to support your habit I say, "Bring back the lash!"
Ahh, the lash.
Posted by: Flea at August 11, 2005 03:27 PM (/D/GV)
50
There is one ironclad rule about drugs. Kind of a Gresham's Law.
The harder the enforcement the harder the drugs. And the more direct the administration methods.
People inject heroin because it is too expensive to eat or snort.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:28 PM (PRJ2z)
51
I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive. Some feel the carryover into harming society gives government to responsibility to become involved. Others disagree and have good arguments to support their disagreement. Such arguments, pro and con, are heard even in the issue of seatbelts and none have been conclusively superior to the others. One argument does support a measure of government regulation and that is that children, none of whom are always under their parents control, make bad decisions that can be very harmful. One such decision is to become addicted to drugs; a result that can easily last a lifetime.
Posted by: willis at August 11, 2005 03:31 PM (qJ2gx)
52
From 1920 to 1933 there was a direct correlation between alcohol and criminal behavior.
Since 1933 that correlation has been somewhat attenuated.
I wonder why?
Must be a change in diet or the water.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:34 PM (PRJ2z)
53
willis,
Drugs are destructive only if you believe that people relieving their pain chemically is destructive.
So do you favor outlawing aspirin which kills 500 to 1,000 Americans every year and can be bought over the counter by children?
BTW Bayer Heroin was for 20 years an over the counter drug. How did America survive?
Tincture of cannabis was in the pharmacopia for hundreds of years until 1937. Why didn't it destroy the country? Especially since there was nothing to prevent individuals from growing their own.
During the age of sail governments sometimes passed laws making people grow hemp. How did humanity survive it?
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:41 PM (PRJ2z)
54
Oh, here comes the meth meme:here at last is the one true evil drug that will drag society down the toilet. Every ten years or so the professional drug warriors tout a new one: heroin in the fifties. pot and LSD in the sixties, cocaine in the seventies, crack in the eighties, and ecstasy in the nineties. Tobacco all the time. They even tried to stir up an early meth scare circa 1991; remember "ice"?
The propoganda piles up and suddenly everyone thinks they have a new idea. No wonder nose rings are so popular.
Posted by: Brett at August 11, 2005 04:15 PM (Iymzh)
55
M. Simon:
You talk so much, and persuade so little. How about producing some statistical evidence that "people only take drugs to relieve their pain," or abandon that monotonous assertion. Perhaps your definition of "pain" extends to "the agony of having to get out of bed and face the day working at a dead-end job because you chose not to learn marketable skills," in which I could see your point but am not persuaded.
Did anyone claim that the presence of hemp would destroy humanity? Where did that straw man come from?
While I personally support drug deregulation if coupled with the Left's abandonment of taxpayer funding of universal health care, you are starting to persuade me to reconsider. The worst side effect of whatever it is you're taking appears to be the loss of ability (if ever you had it) to construct rational, persuasive arguments in support of an easy-to-defend thesis.
Posted by: Jonathan at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (OWbi0)
56
I thought the Dutch had already tried this. All it has done is made the situation worse. Now they're backtracking.
Making All drugs legal, there is nothing to stop them from being used on the corner across from the neighbourhood school. Or in your next door neighbours house. The abuse of alcohol in this country is already a big problem, lets make drugs as easily accessable from the nearest convenient store.
So what will folks be arrested for when abusing driving, DUI for alcohol, will the charges for driving under the influence of drugs be the same?
Our society is abusive enough as it, let's not make it any easier for the pie holes to abuse it any faster or easier. You're talking about sliding down the toilet quicker than we're already going.
Posted by: quark2 at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (hvepP)
57
The real problem for society with drug abuse/use is the problem that comes along with any other self-destructive behaviour: the direct costs to our over-coddling society. Put it another way, I will support the legalization of drugs right after you remove soceity's subsidization of the consequences of drug use (and other stupid or silly behaviour), meaning:
Get rid of Medicare!
No more welfare!
No subsidized housing!
Seriously, since I'm sure that libertarians are also against these programs, all they have to do is eliminate them and I will be with them 100% on the drug thing. The problem with our quasi-socialist society is that the gov't has a financial stake in your health and well being, which leads to even more stupid government over-reach, all in the name of protecting their "investment" in your carcass - the war on tobacco, helmet and seatbelt laws etc.
Posted by: holdfast at August 11, 2005 05:15 PM (jvO9O)
58
GC said:
Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome.
I believe that is, in fact, the popular definition of "stupid".
Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 06:04 PM (Xi2ZE)
59
I'm agnostic on the drug legalisation/keep them illegal debate. I will say from personal experience that few law enforcement officers like the way the system, is set up now. Between the horrible waste of time involved in messing with small time users and the massive amount of money that is available for corrupting police, prosecutors and judges, all we know is that what we're doing isn't working. In the Dept I retired from, about the only way to get arrested for 'recreational' amounts was if we just wanted to pile another charge on someone because (s)he was an asshole. Other than that, if the bosses needed more dope busts, we'd make more dope busts. If, instead, they wanted us to crack down on red light runners, okay, fine. We did what kept the bosses off our asses, the bosses did what kept the County Commisioners and newspapers off theirs.
I'd like to point out, though, that the most effective drug treatment programs out there have exactly the same success rate as do the self-help groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. The self-help groups cost the taxpayer nothing.
Me? I have no answers. I just wish I were smart enough to be like the people on both sides of this argumant and who are absolutely sure that I were the one who is right.
Posted by: Peter at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (ywZa8)
60
And is alchohol a drug?
Everybody must believe in something and I believe I'll have another drink.
Posted by: blackminorca at August 11, 2005 07:31 PM (ywZa8)
61
What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!?
You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes.
In the name of Liberty(tm) and Freedom(tm) you would deny the most basic freedoms to people and communities everywhere - to affect the nature of the towns and cities they live in. Do you think that every-Mom and every-Pop will feel free and liberated when criminal scum are selling drugs to the every-Kids on every street corner in every-Town without fear of sanction. (not to mention all the porn and other miseries you'd inflict on us, our fraught struggling families and our delicate and vulnerable kids. You'd sell us into slavery just as sure as the Commies would).
Genuinely smart conservatives know we live in an imperfect world; there are no perfect answers; there are no flawless political theories; and real freedom and liberty are a constant balancing act between the freedom of people acting as individuals to control their lives and the freedom of groups of people to influence their communities.
If drugs become accepted and assimilated into our lives and cultures then the people in their humble wisdom, via their representatives, can vote to make them legal or not on a case-by-case basis. Many communities may be reaching this point as regards Marijuana, and indeed the case could well be made that the Federal Gov't should butt out and leave this all to the states (even here in Australia from whence I write).
But I think the grand Libertarian Theory-Of-Everything can safely be chucked in the trash can marked 'failed political theories of the 20th Century'.
Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 09:31 PM (rqQ22)
62
I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive.
I think you just answered you own assertion. "Individuals have a right to be self-destructive," and--and this is big, folks, so don't miss it--their problem is not my problem. They're the ones responsible, right? Leave it up to them.
With regard to drug-related crime, it is almost all related to the problem of getting drugs in the first place--stealing, fencing, even an occasional murder is the result. After all, drugs are heinously expensive (being illegal and all).
What, on the other hand, is the violence caused by using drugs? If you're speaking of alcohol, the damage is vast. But if you're speaking of heroin, well--you can have a well-behaved heroin addict working in your store, helping customers and all, and never know it. As long as he gets his hit today (to prevent the awful consequences of withdrawal) he'll be perfectly fine.
One the third hand (?--I've lost count) what about the chronic pain patient who can't get the drugs he needs because his doctors are all scared spitless of the DEA and won't prescribe? Well, they suffer needlessly. And those fortunate few who do get the meds they need for chronic pain are incredibly grateful. As long as they take them as prescribed there will be no problems at all, although if a patient makes a mistake and does not refill his meds when due, he may discover that he is indeed physically dependent on them. But that's a small price to pay. Believe me. I'm that patient.
The drug war creates crime unecessarily due to the high price of illegal substances, and people will steal and sometimes kill to get them. It also artificially inflates the price of the product, further spurring crime. The drug war makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a chronic pain paatient to get what he needs. And what good does it do? Next to nothing.
Ending the drug war, on the other hand, ends the artificially high prices caused by the war and therefore ends the crime. Period. And perhaps more importantly, doctors are free to prescribe whatever they think is appropriate for their patients, DEA be hanged.
Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:02 PM (XB4NN)
63
Um, your position IS the libertarian position.
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has been overtaken by druggies, pacifists, libertines, and hedonists.
But you shouldn't confuse the two. Your position is exactly libertarian.
Posted by: Mike Rentner at August 11, 2005 10:08 PM (ru0sP)
64
What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!?
You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes.
To quote Heinlein, "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." You can forget all other labels--this summarizes it all. We libertarians fall into the latter category. And we're not nearly as arrogant as you seem to think.
And it's the evidence of our eyes that convinces us, day by day, of the validity of our professions.
Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:13 PM (XB4NN)
65
In order for government to be "moral" it must stand by to allow people to become addicted, because during those first stages of addiction, they are still able to satisfy the libertarian ideal?
You have a problem with the government intervening to stop a 23-year-old mother from taking meth once a week so long as she can keep changing her baby's diapers?
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at August 11, 2005 11:23 PM (4BysG)
66
Fair go, American mates!
I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything. Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government?
It's particularly galling because, with your close association with conservatives, you know that old-fashioned out-dated, trial-and-error, muddle-through conservatism produces vastly superior outcomes, but it just isn't gosh-darned 'elegant' enough for you! (isn't that right?)
I've seen the effect of hard drugs on friends and loved ones. I'm old enough to have known a time when law enforcement was much stricter. Your theories sound enchanting, that's the most hateful thing of all. God protect us from yet another great sounding but viciously destructive socio-political theory.
Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (rqQ22)
67
Daryl Herbert,
What if there is no such thing as addiction?
What if it is just people in pain taking pain relievers?
Addiction or Self Medication?
The idea of "addiction" is superstition.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:48 PM (X4/+i)
68
In this new world of legalized drugs, who do you see as the manufacturers? Who will take on the responsibility of producing a product that meets government standards for safety? Oh, you say there won't be standards?
Then mark off 'safer' drugs as an argument for legalization.
What will the cost of drugs be when you factor in liability insurance for the manufacturer? No liabilty, you say? I've got a million hungry lawyers that beg to differ. Sounds like criminal elements and Joe down the street likely will remain the major producers of drugs.
So much for putting the drug cartels out of work.
Buy them at the local 7-Eleven? Another million lawyers waiting to pin liability on anyone selling a dangerous product.
So much for putting the drug dealers out of business.
With all recreational drugs now legal, what about the FDA and prescription drugs? Why should there be laws requiring prescriptions? If those laws stay in place, just classify your miracle cure as a recreational drug and you are in business. Just need a slick commercial and a Swiss Bank account and you are set.
Welcome to the wild wild west of medical quackery, brought to you courtesy of drug legalization.
As others in this thread have stated, as long as we are a nanny state, personal responsibilty when it comes to drugs is a myth.
So much for your drug use only being your problem.
I don't believe for a second that our current system is perfect, or even good. I am open to debate.
I would appreciate those suggesting this major change provide a bit more substantive arguments that look a bit more deeply at just how society would change if drug legalization occurs.
Posted by: FRNM at August 11, 2005 11:54 PM (Pkcb7)
69
Kip,
The idea of "addiction" is superstition.
Heroin
Genetic Discrimination
It is you "drugs cause addiction" folks who are doing the ugly experiment.
Think logically. What would you expect to happen if the problem was your keeping people in pain from their pain relievers?
Most people who try drugs do not get "addicted". How does your theory of drugs explain that?
Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:59 PM (X4/+i)
70
FRNM,
I'm with you. Nothing can be done. We will need to keep the criminal subsidy (prohibition) in place forever.
We just need to accept the 2,000 innocents a year killed in turf wars.
I also note that legalizing alcohol in 1933 is a complete failure.
How To Put an End to Drug Users
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:10 AM (X4/+i)
71
Kip,
I don't know what it is about super geniuses.
I do know that folks like you are in thrall to a superstition: "drugs cause addiction".
OK. So tell me about food addicts, sex addicts, exercise addicts, gambling addicts, etc.
Genetic Discrimination
Big Mac - heroin attack
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:16 AM (X4/+i)
72
As it happens this debate is going on in my home state of Victoria (Australia) right now.
As best I can tell the argument goes like this.
"Our kids should have the right to experiment with 'party' drugs, because they tell us it's fun and to deny our precious darlings the right to any indulgence would be grossly unsophisticated, besides we like the odd snort ourselves, anyway the percentage of them who are harmed by drugs is way under half, and we can afford expensive rehab for those few anyway, and the worst thing of all would be for our kids to get criminal records (yeek, how lower class). Apparently there are 'other' kids in 'other' suburbs who don't know how to handle hard drugs, but we don't move in those circles, and we could hardly draft laws on the basis of what's best for people of that sort or we might find ourselves back in the stone age, or the 1950s (whichever came first).
"Some neaderthals also seem to think it would lead to an increase in criminal activity, but they don't seem to understand the pure logic that when nothing is illegal, no crime can take place, hence abolishing these laws would be a significant step towards a completely crime free society."
- signed, a bunch of rich lawyers and academics.
Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:25 AM (rqQ22)
73
holdfast,
What if drug use is not self destructive behavior?
What if it is just a matter of people in pain taking pain relievers?
Cannabinoids - the Key to many Pains?
Capitalism, Pain and the War on Drugs
PTSD Pot Alcohol & Substance Abuse
Aftermath
Police and PTSD
The Pain Enforcement Administration
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:29 AM (X4/+i)
74
kip,
So tell me: what causes addiction?
Without an answer to that question trying to solve the problem is impossible.
When I design an object without the knowledge of what causes stress failue, I rarely get the design right. It is too heavy or too light.
So how can you control the drug problem without knowledge of what the real problem is? What I see is similar to how the Black Plague was dealt with in the Middle Ages. People in masks going around trying to scare off the problem.
Voodoo.
We have used the "drugs cause addiction" model to formulate policy for over 100 years. We are not meeting with any significant success.
Perhaps the model is wrong.
If it is chronic pain that causes chronic drug use then it is the prohibitionist who is the criminal.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:40 AM (X4/+i)
75
I can accept (from the modest amount I've read), that your Federal Gov't has greatly overstepped its powers as regards drug enforcement (and a great many other things by many accounts), and I do think doctors should be left more or less unmolested to prescribe as they see fit without fear of criminal prosecution (except in the most extreme cases, eg. where someone has died) - loss of license would be punishment enough for most unethical behaviour.
But when you start playing with semantics, comparing Big Mac 'addiction' to Heroin addiction, and trying to define real problems away - problems that are not just words, that are heart-breaking and disgusting realities I have seen with my own eyes - well, sorry to say it, it makes you sound like a socialist. They play these kind of word games all the time you know, I'm long past being fooled by them.
When a word doesn't exist - eg. it gets debased or defined away - the problem doesn't go away. You just make us invent another term to describe it and we end up on the same merrygoround the PC-word-ists have been annoying us with these last 30+ years.
Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:50 AM (rqQ22)
76
Jonathan,
You ask for evidence. I have presented links to articles which have many links to the evidence. The evidence is not statistical. It is medical.
This kind of trauma coupled with that kind of genetics causes the implantation of pain/fear memories which are relieved by drug use.
I can tell you the main organ in the brain involved: the amygdala. I can tell you that the CB1 receptor is part of it. I can tell you about endorphin receptors. I can link the various "kinds" of addiction to the same brain chemical pathways. I can tell you how to predict who is susceptable to long term addiction problems. I can tell you how to predict who will "get over it". I can tell you why 20% of the folks returning from Iraq will have long term PTSD problems. I can tell you why for 80% the problem will be short lived. I can even show (in a general way) why 5% of those with long term problems will "get over it" every year without intervention. I can even show why "drug rehhab" as currently practiced is just for show.
Much better than statistical evidence.
However, as is evidenced by your comment you have read none of it.
I'm sorry, under those circumstances, there is nothing I can do to help.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:00 AM (X4/+i)
77
Kip Watson,
Have you read the "Big Mac" article?
I show how food, sex, exercise, and heroin fill the endorphin receptors.
In other words I have a unified theory of addiction.
I'd like to see some rational counter claim instead of just an exclamation: "it can't possibly be so".
However, that is exactly what superstition is. The substitution of belief for evidence. I have evidence.
What have you got?
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:09 AM (X4/+i)
78
Kip,
I am not redefining addiction. I'm dealing with specific organs, chemicals, and receptors. i.e. science.
I have showed you my science. Please show me yours.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:17 AM (X4/+i)
79
I have shown in my articles that PTSD is the #1 cause of what is commonly refered to as "addiction". i.e. people with severe pain/fear memories take drugs for relief.
So far the only counter to that assertion is the "drugs cause addiction" model.
Of the two models which is the more predictive?
If dugs cause addiction why doesn't every one who tries drugs get addicted? My model answers that question. The "drugs cause addiction" model can't answer that question except to talk about "addictive personalities". What is an addictive personality? What traits do such personalities have in common? The "drugs cause addiction" folks have no answer to that question. I know. I have asked professionals in the field. Lots of them. However, I'm willing to be educated.
Tell me what is an "addictive personality" and what traits such personalities have in common. And please. I do not want a theory that explains 50%, I want one that explains 100% as my theory does.
In the general population 20% have a genetic makeup that makes them susceptable to long term PTSD. Of that 20% about 1/2 get sufficient trauma to get a PTSD problem. Of vets returning from Iraq it seems that 100% of that 20% are getting sufficiently traumatized to cause long term problems.
This is not just academic for me. I want to understand the problem so we can deal with it. I want to look in the right direction so we can advance the science and either ease the pain or find a cure.
Read "Aftermath" and "Police and PTSD". That will give you a handle on causes.
Read "Addiction or Self Medication?", "Heroin", and "Genetic Discrimination" for some of the science.
Read "Big Mac...." for the unified theory of addiction.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:44 AM (X4/+i)
80
So much of the problem is moralized. It is not a moral problem in the way that is commonly understood. It isnot about lack of self control except in the most extreme sense.
If you were in a lot of pain and found something that gave you relief, how much self control would you have in relation to that something. In general, not a lot.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:58 AM (X4/+i)
81
Goodness me, Mr Simon, you really are the proof of the pudding!
- You dismiss the wisdom of generations of conservatives (going right back the Opium War) as 'superstition' because it doesn't jibe with the half omelette of scrambled facts you currently have on your plate. I must say, think that in itself proves the arrogance of those who believe they have pure scientific theory behind them. And isn't making major policy decisions based on a few medical trials or scientific theories exactly the 'petri dish' situation I described earlier?
- You present as momentous the obvious fact that many people are drawn into hard drug addiction from emotional or physical pain, as if that somehow makes the hell of addiction acceptable, or not even a problem. Difficult though such pain is, hard drug addiction in the medium or long term will do nothing but make things infinitely worse.
(although I will say that the unwillingness of many doctors to prescribe strong narcotics when warranted by severe pain is without doubt a contributing factor in some cases of addiction and does need to be addressed.)
- You hold fast to the belief that a tubby fellow who can't lay off tasty burgers is the exact twin of a tortured being whose life and soul are evaporating due to the horrible effects of hard drugs, simply because doctors can detect the same brain chemicals in both individuals. As if the plain truth, that stands before us in pain and beyond our means to help, is suddenly eclipsed by a few readings on a computer printout that may or may not mean anything at all.
Not wishing to be personal, I wonder if you are someone with the beginnings of a drug problem and one heck of a case of denial - if so, please open your eyes, sir, what awaits you is simply not worth it.
If not, you really are the living proof that only someone as smart as you clearly are could be so dumb!
Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 02:00 AM (rqQ22)
82
Quark,
It is true the liberal Dutch have a problem. 17% of the Dutch folk have tried drugs in their lifetime.
In America we are doing much better. Only 40% of Americans have tried drugs.
We have been trying to explain it to the Dutch for years. They just don't get it.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:10 AM (X4/+i)
83
Kip,
There was a lot of "evidence" during the black plague that men in masks could ward off the plague. Every body believed that. Well enough to get them to pay people in masks to walk the streets.
So far you have presented no science.
I have. I have said that the endorphin receptor is the common thread between food, exercise, sex, and heroin addictions. You can actually falsify my data. Is that endorphin connection valid?
So far all I have seen from you is: "everybody knows", "it is common knowledge", and "history shows". That is what we call in science: superstition.
Where is your science?
What are the connections? What are the receptors? Where are they located? What is the genetics? What are the chemicals involved? How did the systems evolve? What are their origins? As we look deeper into the science those questions can be answered. Will "history shows" fill in any of those blanks?
What history shows is that the desire for drugs is pretty inelastic (i.e. even high penalties do not deter core users). Can you explain that? I can. I can explain it by science - no moral theory required.
My lack of a moral theory of drug use offends a lot of people. I think it is a medical question. Many seem to prefer it as a moral question.
To each his own I guess.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:32 AM (X4/+i)
84
"I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything." - Kip Watson
Hrmm. I kinda have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, gamily, friends, and neighbors in their less-than-delightfully-old and never ending quest to prove that if you make something illegal, stamp your footsies and wish REAL HARD - you can really really make prohibiton work *this* time. Really you can.
Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government? 
Posted by: Ironbear at August 12, 2005 07:14 AM (zR442)
85
back to meth...the only way other drugs will supplant it is if they are cheaper. government subsidized cocaine prices?
people will make their own if there is a profit.
and you still have to deal with the whole grow-your-own, make-your-own cottage industry if controlled substances are legalized.
i don't see a problem with grow-your-own cocoa or marijuana, but make-your-own meth is scary.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 10:24 AM (gNc4O)
86
Why are drugs illegal in the US? Is it because they alter the mind, and can influence one to make poor decisions? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol is legal. Is it because of the social cost? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol and tobacco are legal. Is it because drugs are harmful to one's body? No, that cannot be it. Alchol and tobacco are legal. Can it be because of 'addiction'? No, that cannot be it. Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are legal. If you claim that drugs are illegal because of any of the reasons I've outlined, you should be crusading against alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as well. I haven seen no evidence of that in this thread. If none of the reasons I've presented are 'the reason', what is?
Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:39 AM (deU1G)
87
Matoko:
Please inform me of the make-your-own cottage alcohol industry. Alcohol is far more cheaply and safely made in the home than meth is. Yet, there isn't a large black market in alcohol. Why not?
Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:43 AM (deU1G)
88
I won't even bother trying to respond to any specific comments posted above - not that I wouldn't like to, but there are too many to keep track of. So, you'll just have to be content with my own take on drug legalization... which is as follows:
It seems to me that America's drug war is at least as much about our cultural hang-ups over drugs as anything else. Several people here have commented on the absurdity of drug prohibition while alcohol is legal. Well, you can chalk that up entirely to a cultural/historical accident. Alcohol as a recreational drug has been part of the human experience since basically the dawn of mankind, and with the exception of Prohibition has generally been accepted as such by Western civilization, in spite of its well-documented legion of attendant social and medical ills.* Marijuana and other rec drugs, on the other hand, are relative Johnny-come-latelies to the rec drug scene, and have therefore proven much easier for drug warriors to demonize, even though they may or may not actually be more harmful than alcohol - hence the aforementioned cultural hang-ups.
The same hang-ups, of course, work against any effort to legalize these drugs, even for medical purposes such as with marijuana. Even if it became generally accepted tomorrow that marijuana has legitimate medical purposes, that would likely not be enough to satisfy most cultural conservatives who simply cannot get past their hang-ups about the "wacky weed". Most would presumably favor promoting medical alternatives to cannabis instead, or at the very least alternative methods of ingesting the active ingredients in cannabis other than rolling it up as a joint and smoking it.
Of course none of this even covers the larger Puritan, anti-hedonistic streak of American culture that isn't even that comfortable with the idea of legal alcohol**, much less a whole smorgasbord of legal rec drugs made generally available (not to mention stuff like legalized sodomy, pornography, gambling etc. which are already here but beyond the scope of this discussion).
The upshot of all this is quite simple: The day mainstream American culture gets over its hang-ups about drugs that are presently illegal is the day when drug prohibition is doomed - and not a day sooner.
*Indeed, I might point out that alcohol, and only alcohol, has its American legal status enshrined in nothing less than the U.S. Constitution itself, specifically the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition and explicitly makes alcohol regulation the purview of the states.
**Believe it or not, the Women's Christian Temperance Movement and other like-minded organizations do still exist in the U.S. today. There's even a minor political party called the Prohibition Party that not only wants to bring back alcohol prohibition but extend it to tobacco, gambling and such.
Posted by: Joshua at August 12, 2005 12:44 PM (5Xc3J)
89
Hmmmmm! Mention drugs and 89 responses.
Is this somehow reflective on our bloggers.
Matoko: We have meth labs all over the rivers down here. The popular way is on houseboats. Keep them moving no smell. The law comes dump evidence overboard. Apparently, they buy sudafed a cold medicine over the counter at Wal-Mart. Just send in several people and all go to different registers during busy hours. I used to have a liquid fertizer tank containing ammonium nitrate at the end of one of my pastures. The sheriff told me they caught teenagers stealing it one night and confessed that they were making crystal meth with it. I never knew it was missing.
Interesting what you can learn on the Jawa Report.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 10:12 PM (CBNGy)
90
I'm against restrictions on all drugs, including prescription meds. I'm in my early twenties and have never done drugs or even been offered any (sheltered upbringing...) but I was treated like some sort of slimy gutter junkie when I was practically dying of wisdom-tooth pain and tried to get my second vicodin prescription filled. It was terribly humiliating.
I'm an adult, and fully capable of making my own decisions. Neither my government nor my pharmacist has to save me from myself.
Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 01:42 AM (7OhrX)
91
M. Simon: Are you saying cocaine causes black men to rape white women but doesn't cause white men to rape black women. Ha, Ha. Just gets crazier and crazier around here.
Sarah two last names: When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind.
I use the drug alcohol. As everyone knows I am living proof that it affects your ability to spell.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 07:53 AM (8MCDk)
92
"When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind."
What, you mean when dementia sets in? Sure. Maybe I'll also become firmly convinced that I'm a duck.
Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 09:30 AM (7OhrX)
93
Anne> I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home?
> ...
Anne> Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable.
If you read Anne's post and did NOT IMMEDIATELY SEE the problem. then YOU are part of the problem. The problem of idiots who do not think.
Let me spell it out for the simpleminded. Legalizing pot has no effect whatsoever on the sale of harder drugs, the ones that do much more serious damage. Those gunshots that wake you up at 2 A.M.? Those shots aren't being fired by two cancer patients fighting over the last hit of 'medical' pot in the city, you moron!
And yet, idiot after idiot denounces the 'evil' of drug laws, while slyly talking only about the bad effects of pot, which are far less serious than most drugs. Show some honesty and tell us about how wonderful it would be to legalize the wonderful aspects of crack, you charlatins!
If you only want pot legalized, 90% of the arguments against drug laws are off limits to you, including violence, swelling jail populations, and all those other clever little tricks where you blame the laws for the actions of the lawbreakers.
Got it?
Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 13, 2005 11:24 PM (mcKoW)
94
Ryan Waxx,
About 70% of female heroin users were sexually molested as children. Give you a clue?
Drugs are a symptom.
So if as seems likely only people in extreme pain take pain killers (and cocaine IS a pain killer) then what is the problem?
Heroin
Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:35 AM (9CsiD)
95
I'm 60, have children, and have changed my mind.
I used to believe in just pot legalization. Now I believe in legalizing all drugs and disbanding the DEA. Perhaps they could put the effort into counter terrorism say. Or tracking down pedophiles.
Why pedophiles get probation
Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:42 AM (9CsiD)
96
greyrooster,
I didn't say that. Newspapers around 1910 said that.
It is the usual moral panic bit.
The next crack epidemic could be rock 'n roll. No wait, that has already been done to death.
Did you know meth use was in decline well before the latest round of scare stories?
Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:56 AM (9CsiD)
97
Sarah two names. If you allow or advocate the using of hard drugs around your children you will be a duck. Leader of a flock that runs around quacking all day.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:40 AM (CBNGy)
98
Lots of good info on this subject. It's Sunday. I'm in my own home. I will now indulge in my favorite drug. A beer on the porch with some friends. I know its against the law. I just can't help myself.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:52 AM (CBNGy)
99
M. Simon,
OK, I'll bite. If a fixed fraction of humanity gets more relief from their pain with illegal drugs than the rest of us, how come 40% of Americans have tried them but only 17% of Dutch?
Posted by: Jeremy at August 14, 2005 02:41 PM (uGQet)
100
Because being a consummate liar is a necessary prerequisite to getting a job at a poll company?
Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 15, 2005 06:08 AM (taayn)
All Hail The Great and Mighty Bush!
It would be nice if Bush had half the powers that the morons at the Democratic Underground credited him with. Heck, he could have the Iraq war over with, balance the budget, end world hunger and create equal rights for everyone. Or, he could just jam your cell phone so you can't conduct an interview with a liberal freak Air America talk show host.
Posted by: Drew at
12:40 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What the hell was that all about? Are those people serious? I don't think the current administration has time to worry about interrupting calls to some stupid Air America show...
God, we should send those people a complimentary box of tin-foil hats.
Posted by: tyler at August 10, 2005 12:58 PM (Y9Lwb)
2
The DU inmates need to up their sedatives again.
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 01:16 PM (8e/V4)
3
DU, eh. any relation to Depleted Uranium? could well be. twice as dense, and causes cancer.
Posted by: dave at August 10, 2005 02:58 PM (DO6vD)
4
Well, the DU'ers do believe all potential presidents have mysterious superpowers. They sure bought John Edwards line when he told us that once John Kerry was President, Chrisopher Reeve would stand up and walk again.
Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2005 03:11 PM (GvZ+q)
5
I think it went out because they are not paying the bills on time.
Posted by: Stix at August 10, 2005 03:24 PM (yGXbP)
6
This is an example of what Professor Von What's His Name calls a "serious leftist position". It makes about as much sense as the DUmmies blaming the tidal wave that hit the Indian Ocean on some obscure testing in the South Pacific. These people are deranged.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 04:18 PM (DDXXI)
7
I thought the Moonbats wanted to block cell towers? http://www.tearingdownstrongholds.com/
Prepare to die laughing.
Posted by: William Teach at August 10, 2005 06:12 PM (Pzlrt)
8
Oh boy thanx, Drew. That one made my day. I think their tin foil hats are what's jamming the signal.
Posted by: Oyster at August 10, 2005 06:12 PM (YudAC)
9
One question. Do orgones come from Oregon? Portland is moonbat central and tin foil hats are a dime a dozen. Just wondering where these idiots come from and how many of them are out there. Scary, but funny.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:41 PM (DDXXI)
10
It's not liberal freak air america talk show host.
It's liberal freak lying stealing air america talk show host.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:30 PM (CBNGy)
294kb generated in CPU 0.3884, elapsed 0.4707 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.4061 seconds, 631 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
136 queries taking 0.4061 seconds, 631 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
