June 24, 2005

See-Dubya: Organized Crime behind SF "Medical" Marijuana (UPDATED)

Seems San Francisco's "medical" marijuana clubs (hey, if everyone puts "War on Drugs" in smartass quotes then I can do it too) were actually just illegal drug clearing houses and money-laundering schemes for the Asian mob. The DEA busted three of them and found they were also distributing, um, "medical" ecstasy.

I'm flabbergasted. Speechless, really. You mean to tell me that this wasn't just a virtuous, earnest effort to reach out to troubled, anguished souls?

"An affidavit unsealed Thursday said that one of the suspects, Enrique Chan, 26, described in detail how the clubs were used as "a backbone" for illegal sales. The affidavit said Mr. Chan estimated that only half of the people who bought medical marijuana were really sick.

"You'll get busted, but you remember, you got to beat the prosecution in court," Mr. Chan told an undercover agent, according to the affidavit. "So if it comes down to a battle in court, what are you gonna do? You're going to bring patients in court, like really sick patients with cancer, have them sit on the stand for you. And no jury is gonna try, is gonna convict you."

In other words, organized crime is cynically going to hide behind cancer patients to protect its business. Not only was half of the marijuana used in the stores not for sick people, but the warehouses that grew the stores' ganja grew far more than the stores even needed:

"One warehouse in Oakland that federal agents raided earlier this month was capable of growing $3 million worth of marijuana annually, investigators said.

The marijuana ostensibly was for cannabis clubs, but the amount being grown was far more than needed to supply the dispensaries, authorities said.

I am just shocked and appalled at this blatant disruption of these kindly hippie/ Tong bagmen's shiny, happy lifestyles. In fact I'm so shocked and appalled that I'm going to go have me a big glass of "medical" bourbon and smoke a "therapeutic" Partagas.

UPDATE: Now, with new Blockquotes (tm) Technology! Here's another thing to keep in mind. There's no suggestion here of how many of these people actually suffer from, say, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and are unresponsive to other treatments like marinol, which I think are the real hard cases here. In fact, this AP account suggests some of the ailments may be a smidge less horrific:

"I'm scared," said Kathleen Prevost, who said she uses marijuana to control her post-traumatic stress disorder. "All I want to do is have access to my medicine."

Now if you'll excuse me, my ADHD is acting up, and I need some "Medical Cocaine". Oh, and that reminds me: I wrote a little about medical methamphetamine and the Commerce Clause right after the Raich decision.

Posted by: seedubya at 04:12 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

June 23, 2005

See-Dubya: Hezbollah--Drugs for Bombs (BIGGER, LONGER, UNCUT!)

Sometimes when I discuss my odd--for the blogosphere--opinions about drug legalization with people (I'm against it), I get told, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental economics."

For today, I'll save my several retorts to that in favor of an observation. Did you notice that no one ever says, on this issue or any other, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental sociology"? Why is that?

Anyway, this is just a prelude to a link to Captain Ed's spot on comments on that Hezbollah cocaine smuggling ring they busted in Ecuador and the US: "Snort Cocaine and Fund More Bombings".

Pretty much, yeah.

UPDATE: Rusty responds. One-two-three-four I declare a blog war! more...

Posted by: seedubya at 03:16 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1376 words, total size 9 kb.

June 16, 2005

Kos Says U.S. Torture 'Equal' To that of Saddam Hussein (A comparison)

Will somebody please punch Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas in the mouth? I'm not kidding (although I may be speaking in haste and out of anger). Some remarks are so disgusting that they are fighting words. Kos hides behind the fact that he was in the military as if it gives him license to level any criticism he wishes on the armed services of the United States. Via my blogfather Charles Johnson over at LGF this from Markos Moulitsas Zunigas who has clearly gone beyond the pale:

The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senate floor.
Will someone please grab Kos head, pull it out of his ass, and force him to please see below.

Almost all of the accusations of 'torture' are NOT REAL TORTURE. Instead, they are minor instances of harsh treatment--the kind of treatment you probably wouldn't want to be subjected to--but they aren't TORTURE.

There are some instances of abuse and perhaps even the occasional act of real torture, these, of course should be investigated. But to say that the occasional abuse is somehow equal to the institutionalized and routine torture of the Saddam Hussein regime is disgusting, immoral, and anti-American.

If even the worse accusations turn out to be true, which I do not believe for an instance they will be, they would be nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein routinely did and on hundreds of thousands of victims.

You, Kos, are a certifiable idiot whose blind partisanship is disgusting and unethical.

Warning: Graphic images follow.
more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:50 AM | Comments (199) | Add Comment
Post contains 691 words, total size 7 kb.

June 13, 2005

The Odd Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories of Leftist Bloggers over the Iraq War

Conspiracy theories begin with a premise and then search for evidence of that premise. But as any C+ student of basic methodology can tell you, evidence does not equal proof. There is some evidence that the moon-landing was fake, yet such evidence is overwhelmed by masses of counter-evidence. At some point the evidence becomes such that any still believing in the conspiracy have gone beyond all rational discussion, are no longer involved in a search for the truth, and have become faith-based zealots believing in a premise that gives their lives meaning.

The Left's obsession with the Downing Street memo is a perfect example of a faith-based conspiracy theory in search of proof. This faith begins with the assumption that the war in Iraq could not have been for the stated reasons but rather that there is a hidden agenda to the Iraq conflict. From what I gather, the Left is divided over the specifics of this hidden agenda (the theories, though, usually center on some sort of Imperialistic grab for power in the Middle East, which will eventually lead to a US war against Syria and/or Iran) but they do agree that a conspiracy existed at the highest levels to lie to the American people as to the real reasons for going to war.

Via Duncan 'Atrios' Black this post by Digby is indicative of such conspiracy theories:

I honestly don't know why there is any question that the Downing St Memo is the most important historical document to emerge showing that Bush and company took us into Iraq on false pretenses. It's true that there have been many hints --- the biggest of which is that, uh, there weren't any f*cking WMD --- but this is clear proof that they lied prior to that....

It is a full-on game plan for obfuscation and "rolling out the product" that proves they knew that Iraq wasn't a threat. ....

They may never be able to admit all that. But in that it officially documents the fact that the administration knew there was no threat and knew there was no connection to terrorism, the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq.

Digby then goes on to offer a number of odd speculations as to the real reason we invaded Iraq.

Another part of this particular conspiracy theory is the notion that it's not enough that members of the Bush and Blair administration are involved but that leading news organizations, such as The New York Times, are also part of the plot to mislead the American people. For instance this post by Kevin Drum and this one by Nico over at Think Progress. Both begin with the premise that the conspiracy has objectively (I mean objectively in the epistemelogical sense, that is that the authors believe as an objective fact rather than as a matter of opinion this view) been proved in the Downing Street memo. Thus with the conspiracy proved, anything short of front-page coverage at The New York Times is evidence that the publication is part of the conspiracy.

The problem with Digby, Atrios , Nico, and Kevin Drum's assesment of the Downing Street memo is the same as with all conspiracy theories: they begin with the conspiracy premise, selectively use evidence, and disregard any evidence to the contrary. So, the Downing Street Memo is seen by these conpiracy theorists as 'the smoking gun' which 'proves' that Bush has ulterior motives for going to war.

Such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the reasons (there were multiple reasons, if you don't have amnesia) for going to war were exactly as stated. Further, such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the decision to go to war was not finally made until shortly before the invasion.

This does not mean that most people, President Bush and Tony Blair included, did not think that the invasion was not inevetable. To assume that Blair and Bush did not believe war was coming is to think that they were idiots. Of course they thought war was coming and were making the necessary arrangements. Duh, this is what governments do! A conspiracy theory about the real reasons for going to war is not needed to explain the Downing Street memo, as Michael Kinsley, to his credit, points out here:

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.
The Downing Street memo might be used as evidence that the stated reasons for going to war were not the same as the real reasons for going to war. The same memo can also be used as evidence that our leaders weren't utter morons to believe that the UN could actually enforce it's will on Saddam Hussein.

Did the Bush and Blair administrations believe that a day of reckoning was coming with Saddam Hussein? All indications say yes. But so what? Plenty of times in history the same sort of writing has been on the wall. In June of 1941 did the Roosevelt administration believe a conflict would soon be coming between the U.S. and Japan? Of course it did! Sanctions were not working to get the Japanese out of China and there was a lot of saber rattling on both sides. But that is not proof that some sort of grand conspiracy existed to start a war with Japan. Did Lincoln believe that a war was coming between the North and the South? Yes! Fifty years of history all pointed to such a conflict. But that is not proof of some sort of grand conspiracy by Lincoln to start a war.

The Left's obsession with The Downing Street memo is not borderline paranoia, it is has become full on paranoia. The truth of the matter is that the paranoid obsession with the grand Bush conspiracy theory runs so deep among the Left today, that no amount of evidence to the contrary could make them disbelieve.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:24 PM | Comments (84) | Add Comment
Post contains 1104 words, total size 7 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
268kb generated in CPU 0.0456, elapsed 0.1335 seconds.
120 queries taking 0.0994 seconds, 563 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

  • chine destock Don‘testosterone try overtime, the proper information arrive as you the very least , be prepar... entry
  • greyrooster Last suck larry still takes great insult when one says faggot. Hmmmm. Birds of a feather? entry
  • Last gasp Larry greydickroost peers into cyberspace and sees ... himself .. entry
  • greyrooster Theo didn't pass the manhood test. Notice how he whines for the moderator for help. Friggin sissy. ... entry
  • Last gasp Larry Now, Now pilgrim. Don't get all flustered and the fingers start flying around the keyboard and doubl... entry
  • Last gasp Larry Now, Now pilgrim. Don't get all flustered and the fingers start flying around the keyboard and doubl... entry
  • Improbulus Maximus Let them track me down; it'd save me the trouble of finding them. I'm not afraid of a bunch of islam... entry
  • Improbulus Maximus Let them track me down; it'd save me the trouble of finding them. I'm not afraid of a bunch of islam... entry
  • Last gasp Larry And you both are in construction, which is good, long as you don't find out my party affiliation. entry
  • greyrooster I'm Republican, KKK Member and Agostic (a copout). Wonder why IM and I agree on most things. Maybe b... entry

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 13256
  • Files: 40
  • Bytes: 192.7M
  • CPU Time: 8:59
  • Queries: 1400974

Content

  • Posts: 5690
  • Comments: 76633

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0