Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama's Attorney General on Drugs
President-elect Obama has tapped Eric Holder, Jr for attorney general, and most of the opposition thus far has centered around Holder's role in the eleventh hour Clinton pardons. I get bored just typing about that. I'm much more worried about what Holder wanted to do 12 years ago, when he was U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.
"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling.
Now, people arrested in the District and charged with distributing marijuana, even large quantities, face only misdemeanor charges, a standard that has sparked repeated complaints by police officers.
He also told the Washington Post that "the District could learn from New York's 'zero-tolerance' policy." I wonder what people in the drug policy reform movement, who have so far been (relatively) optimistic about Obama, think of this.
(Hat tip: Ben Masel.)
|11.19.08 @ 10:36AM|#
I wonder what people in the drug policy reform movement, who
have so far been (relatively) optimistic about Obama, think of
this.
Meet the new boss,
...
CHANGE! LOL, fools.
|11.19.08 @ 10:36AM|#
How you feelin' now, Obama supporters? How's that optimistic
feeling about a politician coming along?
Having my cynicism proven right doesn't make me happy, but it does
reinforce my natural superiority complex.
robc|11.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Did Obama sell his soul to Bill Clinton? My one "hope" for "change" from this administration would be the ditching of the clintonistas.
Kyle Jordan|11.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#
"I wonder what people in the drug policy reform movement, who
have so far been (relatively) optimistic about Obama, think of
this."
The same thing that anyone else who's been optimistic about Obama
has been thinking.
Nothing.
Nothing because they're completely incapable of mustering an actual
thought. Just like the good little sheep they are.
The ONLY thing good about Obama is that he's not Bush. And Obama
may turn out to be far worse.
|11.19.08 @ 10:38AM|#
That reads more like statement about policing strategy than drug
policy. If you say you want to go after Al Capone's bootlegging
because his organization is a major part Chicago's crime in 1928,
you aren't really saying much one way or the other about your
opinion about prohibition.
The reason "broken windows" policing focused on little stuff isn't
because its proponents were gung-ho opponents of petty vandalism
and littering per se, but because the presense of those minor
crimes established an atmosphere where lawbreaking is tolerated. It
could have been any other small-time criminal acts that they were
seeking to repress.
In DC's case, it was open drug dealing. When the pot dealers were
up and down the street waving down cars without being stopped,
everyone got the message that you could screw around in public and
nobody would do anything about it, so actual dangerous crime
followed. That's the broken-windows theory, anyway.
If this guy was a true-believer drug warrior, I'd expect to see
quotes from him about the actual dangers of marijuana as a
justification for a crackdown.
That said, it's still dispiriting to read that he's a broken
windowser. It's an army-of-occupation style of policing. Hopefully,
the new AG's thinking has developed more along mutually-supportive,
community-policing lines.
Abdul|11.19.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Look at the bright side: if you score a couple billion slinging weed, and get yourself a villa in Switzerland, Holder will totally have your back when you ask Obama for a pardon.
SpongePaul|11.19.08 @ 10:40AM|#
HMMM. Seems like another DEA mouthpiece. Another person who does
not listen to the will of the people, as 2/3 of Americans favor
decrim or legalazation and regulation. Just another face to spew
the LIES the Goverment throws at the people. We need reeal leaders
who listen to science and thier own people. leaders who know the
constitution and stand for our rights. or else we shall take them
back, by force if need be!!!!
I am a NORML member an EROWID supporter and a care carring LP
member
|11.19.08 @ 10:43AM|#
That said, it's still dispiriting to read that he's a broken windowser.
Come on joe, he's more than a broken windows guy. The broken
windows theory people may have wanted a crackdown on vandalism, but
they weren't (by and large) calling for petty vandalism to be made
into a felony or increasing the statutory penalties, just quicker
and more sure enforcement of the existing penalties to stop the
crimes.
Holder was not just calling for more arrests and prosecution, he
was calling for increased punishment. That puts it in a somewhat
different category.
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Change! Yes. We. Can!
I wonder if militant marijuana enforcement will be a job for
Obama's Civilian Defense Corps?
robc|11.19.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Epi
Having my cynicism proven right doesn't make me happy, but it
does reinforce my natural superiority complex.
I agree.
Your comment reminded me of this, which is one of my
favorites:
Pretension
Also, saw this, which is most fitting:
Government
I will also point out that Im a fan of Tales from Topographic
Oceans.
|11.19.08 @ 10:47AM|#
a standard that has sparked repeated complaints by police
officers.
OH NOES!!!
Abdul|11.19.08 @ 10:48AM|#
I'll be a little fair to Obama & Holder: no way the first
black guys to be in their positions could lighten up on reefer. The
majority of our country would clutch their pearls for four years
straight. Not saying it's right, just saying it's true.
Just like only Nixon could go to China, you'd need a Huckabee or
other politician with solid social conservative cred to
decriminalize marijuana.
SpongePaul off meds and anrgry|11.19.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Some Change. Obama is just replacing bushies with clintonistas. AND FAILED ONES AT THAT. He is Promoting people like rahm emanuel who could not cut it with clinton. This is the same ol same ol. no change the ruling powers got what they wanted. when will people see that the only differnce between the R's and the D's are the letters and how they want to socailize America. its no longer about WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT! I feel a real change is coming, and it will not be a good time in the country. we will either slide into socialism, which i would then relocate to another place or slide into a war against our own goverment to reclaim our Const. Rights which have been stolen from us. although i fear the most real reality will be socialism! WELKOME COMRADS TO THE SOCIALIST STATES AMERIKKA
|11.19.08 @ 10:50AM|#
John Thacker,
In many cases, the broken-windowsers WERE calling for harsher
punishment for petty crimes, especially in the sense of mandating
some actual punishment instead of in-and-out "continued without a
finding" for the same people over and over.
I don't know how dime-bag pot dealers were being treated in DC in
1996, but I'm guessing that the first couple of offenses rarely
resulted in trials or noticeable punishments.
Of course, the actual answer is to take pot dealing out of the
black market entirely, but it's probably a couple of bridges too
far to expect someone who's on the record supporting that to be
getting the AG nod any time soon.
SpongePaul now calm|11.19.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Just an example on how far washington is out of step with the
public on drug policy
2008 MICHIGAN ELECTION RESULTS-
MEDICAL MARIJUANA (YES)
3,008,980 63%
MEDICAL MARIJUANA (NO)
1,792,870 37%
BARACK OBAMA 2,875,308 (57%)
JOHN MC CAIN 2,050,655 (43%)
-MICHIGAN COUNTIES WON-
MEDICAL MARIJUANA (YES) = 83 (100%)
MEDICAL MARIJUANA (NO) = 0 (0%)
BARACK OBAMA 48 Counties (57%)
JOHN MC CAIN 35 Counties (43%)
|11.19.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Abdul | November 19, 2008, 10:48am | #
I'll be a little fair to Obama & Holder: no way the first black
guys to be in their positions could lighten up on
reefer.
Give the Ashcroft/Gonzo policy of sending the DEA to raid legal
dispenaries in California is so out of whack with both public
opinon and Obama's positions, I expect we'll see some "lightening
up," it's just a question of how much.
KenK|11.19.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Those who will be most surprised by what BHO does, or doesn't do, will be those who voted for him.
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 10:53AM|#
The D.C. Council voted yesterday to toughen the maximum
penalties for the distribution of marijuana, making it a felony
subject to a five-year prison term rather than a one-year
misdemeanor....Eric H. Holder Jr. began pushing for tougher
marijuana penalties in the District in 1996, when he was the U.S.
attorney.
Link
Here .
joe, I didn't know that you had to believe in the inherent evils of
drugs to be a drug warrior.
|11.19.08 @ 10:56AM|#
You didn't? So, you think there all of these hardcore drug
warriors out there who don't think drugs are all that bad?
What an odd thing to write.
|11.19.08 @ 10:58AM|#
The DA of Dallas would have been real change. I'm getting tired of beating this drum, but it would only take a few dozen FBI files to shepard a nobody through the Chicago political machine. However, I'm predicting Richardson as Sec. of State. The Hillary interview was nothing but cover.
|11.19.08 @ 11:01AM|#
The Hillary interview was nothing but cover.
I've considered that possibility, but it seems strange that they'd
set her up like that. It's going to be egg on her face if she
doesn't get it now. No?
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Hillary is a dumb choice for Secretary of State.
You're going to chose a woman to head up your foreign policy that
you accused of getting the "single biggest decision since the Cold
War" wrong? Uh ok. Yeah, Change You Can Believe In.
|11.19.08 @ 11:03AM|#
OK, James, of course there are hypocrites, but I'm talking about
their public justifications. They're always on about "weed today is
so dangerous" and whatnot.
Holder, in the linked story and in the link TAO provided, is
talking about the violent crime associated with the drug business,
and there isn't any of the "smoking pot makes you run over little
girls on bikes" stuff.
robc|11.19.08 @ 11:06AM|#
joe,
You didn't? So, you think there all of these hardcore drug
warriors out there who don't think drugs are all that
bad?
I think many of them know that pot, at least, isnt that bad but
have other reasons for being drug warriors. Look at the reasons the
laws were originally passed. Almost entirely due to racism, not
danger.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:08AM|#
"James Ard | November 19, 2008, 11:05am | #
joe, I'm already hearing that she doesn't want the job. No egg
there."
If that is true, there is egg alright. But it's on Obama's
face.
Again, the whole idea was just filled with stupid.
This "Team of Rivals" stuff makes my teeth itch. You want to see
what a "Team of Rivals" looks like? Look at the Washington/Adams
administration. Yeah, that was sure harmonious.
VM|11.19.08 @ 11:08AM|#
and egg beaters! don't forget for an extra $0.35 you can get the bottomless cup of coffee
|11.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#
I hear you, robc, and agree - in their heart of hearts, there
are doubtless plenty who feel that way. Ever read anything from the
CO's union in upstate New York? Yowza!
I'm talking about their public positions, though, which tend to
correlate better with their policy preferences.
|11.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#
That reads more like statement about policing strategy than
drug policy. If you say you want to go after Al Capone's
bootlegging because his organization is a major part Chicago's
crime in 1928, you aren't really saying much one way or the other
about your opinion about prohibition.
And if you said you wanted to go after the customers of the
speakeasies, give them criminal records and reduce their chances to
be successful in life, you would be what?
Oh yeah, a morally superior crimefighter who is just "upholding the
law". Someone who is attacking the "root cause" of the drug
problem.
Or a delusional prohibitionist asshole.
You make the call.
|11.19.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Your comment reminded me of this, which is one of my
favorites:
robc, I'm more arrogant than pretentious. But their arrogance
poster is stupid.
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:10AM|#
joe, if you ask some like Holder why, at root, drugs cannot be
legalized, he'll probably give some utilitarian discourse (that
will be tragically wrong) about how he is worried we'll all end up
addicted to smack and America will collapse. Note that there is no
moral angle.
I know more than one drug warrior who believes this.
|11.19.08 @ 11:10AM|#
don't forget for an extra $0.35 you can get the bottomless
cup of coffee
Where do you go to breakfast where the coffee isn't automatically
bottomless?
Dinner places charge per cup, sure, but breakfast?
|11.19.08 @ 11:12AM|#
If that is true, there is egg alright. But it's on Obama's
face.
If he was serious about giving her the job, and would be left
scrambling, that is. James Ard seems to postulating that this story
was cover the Obama people cooked up. For something. Which would
have to mean Hillary was in on it and is getting something out of
it, because they'd never set up and for a fall like this.
You have to admit, they haven't been a clown shoes outfit to date,
so it would very out of character to screw this up.
I dunno. We'll know soon enough.
|11.19.08 @ 11:14AM|#
J sub D,
And if you said you wanted to go after the customers of the
speakeasies, give them criminal records and reduce their chances to
be successful in life, you would be what?
The links provide statements about Holder's proposals regarding
drug dealers.
Invisible Finger|11.19.08 @ 11:14AM|#
The reason "broken windows" policing focused on little stuff
isn't because its proponents were gung-ho opponents of petty
vandalism and littering per se, but because the presense of those
minor crimes established an atmosphere where lawbreaking is
tolerated.
Said with tongue planted firmly in cheek or with cock planted
firmly in cheek.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Again, even if she wants it, and takes the job, it is a huge
"WTF?" choice. His whole primary campaign was based on campaigning
against the Iraq War in general and Hillary specifically because
she voted to authorize it. So, that's the purpose you chose to head
up your foreign policy team? WTF?
I understand "bringing her into the tent" and whatnot but why not
on an area they actually, you know, agree on like Health
and Human Services or AG?
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:17AM|#
BDB - because Iraq does not really matter anymore, no one but
people who care are going to view this as inconsistent.
As a matter of fact, remember when the CW was "Hillary for VP"?
Just as inconsistent...and yet the Ds were excited about it.
|11.19.08 @ 11:18AM|#
The Angry Optimist | November 19, 2008, 11:10am | #
joe, if you ask some like Holder why, at root, drugs cannot be
legalized, he'll probably give some utilitarian discourse (that
will be tragically wrong) about how he is worried we'll all end up
addicted to smack and America will collapse. Note that there is no
moral angle.
I know more than one drug warrior who believes this.
But what is it that's making you conclude that Holder is such a
drug warrior?
The quotes that are supposed to indicate that he's one of those
"pot is evil" types don't really seem to show that, but you're
using them to conclude that he is, and then turning about and using
the "fact" that he's such a drug warrior to draw a conclusion about
the meaning of the quote.
Have you see anything about his beliefs on drugs use other than
these statements about drug dealing in DC in the mid-90s, or, like
me, is this all you've seen from Holder on the issues?
B|11.19.08 @ 11:19AM|#
I wonder what people in the drug policy reform movement, who
have so far been (relatively) optimistic about Obama, think of
this.
Who the hell did they think Obama's AG might be, Marc Emery? Steve
Kubby? I find it hard to believe that anyone paying an iota of
attention was expecting serious reform on this front from an Obama
administration. He didn't promise any, except (as I recall)
mentioning that he would stop using the DEA to raid med MJ clinics
(a promise for which he should absolutely be held
accountable.)
Those who will be most surprised by what BHO does, or doesn't
do, will be those who voted for him.
--
How you feelin' now, Obama supporters? How's that optimistic
feeling about a politician coming along?
Having my cynicism proven right doesn't make me happy, but it does
reinforce my natural superiority complex.
Lots of libertarians voted for Obama (including myself) because
some of us are actually pragmatists that don't weigh every issue
equally. That he's imperfect on several (or even many) issues from
a libertarian perspective doesn't mean that we were blind to who
and what we were voting for, and it is the height of condescension
to assume so.
Sorry if that screws up your warm feeling of superiority...
|11.19.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Please, invisible finger, educate us about the REAL theory behind broken windows policing strategies, since my description is so obviously off-base.
|11.19.08 @ 11:20AM|#
BDB, you are going to end up pulling all of your hair out if you try to analyze Obama without considering who's pulling the strings.
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:21AM|#
But what is it that's making you conclude that Holder is
such a drug warrior?
Ratcheting up dope-slinging from a 12-month misdemeanor to a
60-month felony?
The quotes that are supposed to indicate that he's one of those
"pot is evil" types don't really seem to show that
I know.
you're using them to conclude that he is
No I'm not. I'm saying he's probably a drug warrior with no moral
angle or opinion about drugs. He probably thinks drugs are "too
dangerous", not that they are "evil".
|11.19.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Broken windows policing isn't bad. It is what made New York a livable city again. There is nothing wrong with the police going after petty vandals and vagrants. The problem is the law not the enforcement. If we had sane drug laws in this country, marijuana possesion and use wouldn't be a broken window.
VM|11.19.08 @ 11:22AM|#
TAO - sure are.
it's the best way to get the "morning innie". (or at least that
doesn't involve a reflex hammer)
|11.19.08 @ 11:23AM|#
I find it hard to believe that anyone paying an iota of
attention was expecting serious reform on this front from an Obama
administration. He didn't promise any, except (as I recall)
mentioning that he would stop using the DEA to raid med MJ clinics
(a promise for which he should absolutely be held
accountable.)
I agree. What were these promises about radical drug legalization
that I'm supposed to have heard from Obama and believed would be
forthcoming?
Link, Episiarch? Either to any such statements from Obama, or
statements from any Obama supporters indicating that they
thought
he would do such things?
|11.19.08 @ 11:24AM|#
I don't know how dime-bag pot dealers were being treated in
DC in 1996, but I'm guessing that the first couple of offenses
rarely resulted in trials or noticeable punishments.
Sure. But the DC Council, perhaps partially in response to Holder's
repeated urgings, did change pot possession from a one-year
misdemeanor to a five-year felony.
He also was strongly in favor of mandatory minimums, and criticized
the DC Council for dropping them, according to
links here.
To me, his actions do seem a bit "beyond the call" of just going
along. I don't know what he personally thinks about it relative to
thinking that it's good politics, but I'm not sure I care too much
about such speculation anyway.
|11.19.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Sorry if that screws up your warm feeling of
superiority...
Nope. Because I just get proven more right every day. It's been
cold here in New England, but I'm plenty warm.
|11.19.08 @ 11:25AM|#
TAO,
Ratcheting up dope-slinging from a 12-month misdemeanor to a
60-month felony?
Once again, that indicates that he is harsh on running a drug
business, and doesn't say anything about whether he's drunk the
"Killer Weed!" kool-aid.
In case it wasn't clear, "such" in the sentence you quoted from me
was meant to mean "that type."
GG|11.19.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Just like only Nixon could go to China, you'd need a
Huckabee or other politician with solid social conservative cred to
decriminalize marijuana.
Maybe informing them that
the WoD undermines marriage and causes the number of abortions to
rise would help.
|11.19.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Link, Episiarch? Either to any such statements from Obama,
or statements from any Obama supporters indicating that they
thought
he would do such things?
joe, does being absolutely, iron-clad predictable bother you even
one iota? Do you have no sense of embarrassment?
What am I asking? Of course not.
|11.19.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I don't trust anything a politician says, so I think Sullum is getting upset over nothing. I'll wager $100 Obama will be a net positive on mj, ancient statements made by the new AG notwithstanding.
|11.19.08 @ 11:27AM|#
John,
Keeping a lid on the small stuff isn't, in and of itself, bad. The
problem is when it's done in isolation, without the
positive-interaction, friendly-neighborhood-beat-cop aspects of
neighborhood policing.
If the only time you interact with the police is when they are
constantly harrassing people over petty stuff, you come to see them
as hostile outsiders.
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:27AM|#
In case it wasn't clear, "such" in the sentence you quoted
from me was meant to mean "that type."
Ohh. Well,there's no disagreement.
He's still a drug warrior; he's just a drug-warrior from the
typical progressive viewpoint (People can't handle it) than
reactionary viewpoint (Alterations of Consciousness is TEH
SIN!).
|11.19.08 @ 11:28AM|#
What were these promises about radical drug legalization
that I'm supposed to have heard from Obama and believed would be
forthcoming?
I'm sure you can find some supporters who believed he would do such
a thing. There are always people who believe that a politician
"really intends" to do something different from his public
statements. (And they might either be hoping for or fearing the
politician doing so.)
The President-elect, as befits any candidate of "change," was
sufficiently vague that lots of different groups of people seem to
contradictory things about what he'll "really do." Trade policy,
farm subsidies, and immigration are just some examples. The speed
of withdrawal from Iraq is another. That's not getting into issues
of more outlandish beliefs about whether he'll prevent
foreclosures, pay people's mortgages, or make gas prices go
down.
Of course, it's an entirely separate claim of whether he actually
has any blame for people believing in their hopes rather than
carefully parsing what he actually said.
|11.19.08 @ 11:29AM|#
The links provide statements about Holder's proposals
regarding drug dealers.
joe,
I used to buy pounds and sell ounces. I also used to go to war, pay
taxes (still do), contribute to society in myriad ways (still do)
and am smart enough to know who gets busted in these "go after the
dealers" crackdowns.
21 year old J sub D gets their fucking life ruined in these "go
after the dealers" crackdowns.
You and Eric Holder Jr know that too.
|11.19.08 @ 11:30AM|#
joe, does being absolutely, iron-clad predictable bother you
even one iota? Do you have no sense of embarrassment?
What am I asking? Of course not.
So the answer is "No." You have no evidence for your assertion,
your entire smug feeling of superiority is utterly without support.
As usual.
That's what I thought.
Which makes it pretty funny to see you calling anyone else
"predictable." Episiarch, using a paper-thin argument to conclude
that he was right all along about something? Wow, you don't see
that several times every day.
|11.19.08 @ 11:30AM|#
The problem is when it's done in isolation, without the
positive-interaction, friendly-neighborhood-beat-cop aspects of
neighborhood policing.
Entirely agree. DC, in particular, would do better to adopt *all*
NYC policies, including getting some cops out of their cars and
walking the beat, rather than just some. (DC is also an example
showing that just making more of the cops the same skin color as
the inner city residents alone does not engender trust.)
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:31AM|#
joe, does being absolutely, iron-clad predictable bother you
even one iota? Do you have no sense of embarrassment?
I have no doubt in my mind that this discourse with joe would be of
an entirely different mood, nature and course if this were Alberto
Gonzales we were talking about.
SpongePaul|11.19.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Drugs that are non addictive and safe when used with
repect
Cannibis- no ld 50 non addictive, many medical benifits from many
many studies
lsd- mind expanding, not for weak minded people, never known anyone
to have a "bad trip" non addictive ld50 is unatinable by most
shrooms- non addictive FUN short acting grows wild
mdma- pure not street adulterated- can lead to water toxicity if
too much is drunk. not addictive, but taxing on brain and liver.
safe to use once in a while at low doses. most negatives are from
adulterants pure crystyaline mdma is amazing!
2cb 2ct 21 and the 2c analouges. the analoues 2ci 2ce 2cd are legal
2cb and 2tc21 are schedule 1. synthetic hallugeninects in the
phenylene class.
opiate cocain, procces but not leaf, which is safe and others
SHOULD REMAIN UNLAWFUL. But the softer safe drugs shuld be
available for everyone who wants to experiment or mind expand or
meditate
|11.19.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Which makes it pretty funny to see you calling anyone else
"predictable."
joe, you have no idea how much I am enjoying this. None.
God, you are like a wind-up toy. I have been waiting for this, but
I didn't realize how short the wait would be.
Awesome.
|11.19.08 @ 11:33AM|#
John Thacker,
I can attest that there are certainly people who think, or thought,
that Obama's positions on "Trade policy, farm subsidies, and
immigration...The speed of withdrawal from Iraq" were much more
leftish than they actually are, but I haven't seen the same thing
on drug policy on the sites I go to, or among the people I talk
to.
Everyone seems to get that he's not going to be leading a big
charge to end the Drug War, just making some minor rollbacks from
the uberhawkishness of Bush/Ashcroft.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Joe, is it a good idea to have Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? I'm still waiting for someone on the left to give a halfway honest defense of it. Weirdly, the biggest boosters I've seen for Clinton as Sec. of State have come from places like the Weekly Standard (!)
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:35AM|#
you know the reason TallDave and joe don't get along all that
well? They're basically the same person; they just cheerlead and
apologize for different teams.
"Isn't it obvious? Lokai is white on the right side. All his people
are white on the right side."
|11.19.08 @ 11:36AM|#
joe, you have no idea how much I am enjoying this. None.
God, you are like a wind-up toy. I have been waiting for this, but
I didn't realize how short the wait would be.
Awesome.
I quote this, just to note that you are STILL unable to provide
even the slightest evidence for the entire argument on which you
are basing your juvenile back-patting..
None. Not a quote, not a link, not a word, but someone, this is
supposed to make me look bad.
'kay.
|11.19.08 @ 11:38AM|#
robc,
How funny--I linked to the "Consulting" Demotivator in another
thread this morning. It's one of my favorites: "If you're not a
part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging
the problem."
Clinton as SoS is a total joke. Obama read somewhere that Lincoln
put his former political opponents in his cabinet, so Obama is
going to do the same--consequences be damned. The fact that the
woman has no experience of note in foreign affairs makes no
difference, I guess. At least Holder has experience. He's likely
going to prove deficient--name an AG in the last thirty years who
hasn't been--but I don't know of anything just blazingly bad.
Though this piece and the pardon issue are areas of concern, of
course.
|11.19.08 @ 11:38AM|#
BDB,
No, I think she would be a terrible choice. Even if he wanted to
give her a top job, that would be the worst one he could
pick.
Barack Obama has to know this, which is why I don't dismiss out of
hand the theory that this is a smokescreen. Making Hillary SoS, and
letting it leak like this before she was on board, would be so out
of character.
|11.19.08 @ 11:39AM|#
None. Not a quote, not a link, not a word, but someone, this
is supposed to make me look bad.
Oh, joe, I don't have to do a single thing to make you look bad.
You do that all by your lonesome.
So. Fucking. Entertaining.
dhex|11.19.08 @ 11:39AM|#
i don't see what this potential asshole general's view on the
evils of drugs versus his actions actually means at the end of the
day. i would say "nothing" because, well...the metaphysics of the
drug war are less important than the actual physics of handcuffs
and cages and flashbangs. (oh my)
whether he's in the evil camp or the merely bad for mind and body
camp, he's still a fuckhole.
|11.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#
BDB, you are struggling with an idea that was never really a consideration. Plain old stagecraft. The Thomasas are really pretty good.
|11.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#
"Joe, is it a good idea to have Hillary Clinton as Secretary of
State? I'm still waiting for someone on the left to give a halfway
honest defense of it. Weirdly, the biggest boosters I've seen for
Clinton as Sec. of State have come from places like the Weekly
Standard (!)"
They only reason they think it is a good idea is because it is fun
watching people like Joe have to defend it. I don't think Hillary
is that bad. She certainly no worse than the President Elect and if
she can feed herself and speak in complete sentences she has to be
better than Albright was.
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:41AM|#
whether he's in the evil camp or the merely bad for mind and
body camp, he's still a fuckhole.
No, no, dhex! He's just "disappointing" because of his "policing
philosophy".
See! There is change with Obama! We traded the Evil Party for the
Stupid Party.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Who leaked it then? That is what I don't get. If Obama leaked it, and then turns her down for Richardson, not only does it make Richardson look small it just rips open the wounds of the primary.
|11.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#
joe,
I'd agree that the leak could be a smokescreen, except that he's
launching trial balloons on the other cabinet posts as well.
Holder's appointment got out early, for instance.
What's distressing to me is that if Obama stumbles in his
appointments, the Senate is likely to merrily confirm whatever fool
he suggests, because they're all a happy family of Mandated
Leaders™. At least for the first few months.
jtuf|11.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#
He also told the Washington Post that "the District could
learn from New York's 'zero-tolerance' policy."
Former president and pot head Bill Clinton excluded.
|11.19.08 @ 11:43AM|#
you know the reason TallDave and joe don't get along all
that well? They're basically the same person; they just cheerlead
and apologize for different teams.
I've made actual arguments, using evidence and logic, to back up
the statements I've made. If I were in the thrall of partisan
delusion, it should be pretty easy to find somewhere that my
evidence or logic is faulty.
So far, all you and Episiarch have done is write "Oh my God, it's
so obvious you're wrong," without being able to point to anything
actually that's not right. Instead, you point to the fact that my
argument doesn't fit in with your pre-conceived notions, and goes
against the worst-possible reading of the evidence for Obama.
In other words, I must be wrong and wearing partisan blinders,
because while you can't even attempt to show that I'm wrong, what
I've written doesn't fit in with your own take on partisan
politics. Well, that's not good enough..
C'mon, a link? A quote? A word? Something?
No? Didn't think so.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Joe isn't the left wing TallDave. He is the left wing John. There's a difference between being a partisan and being an obnoxious cut-and-paste troll (TallDave).
VM|11.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"We traded the Evil Party for the Stupid Party." QFT.
ProGLib - HRC's "international experience" is from her NGO meeting
in copenhagen where she plumbed new depths to "brown nosing".
*shudder*
BDB - get with the "egg" theme - who POACHED it. ?
|11.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Episiarch | November 19, 2008, 11:39am | #
None. Not a quote, not a link, not a word, but someone, this is
supposed to make me look bad.
Oh, joe, I don't have to do a single thing to make you look bad.
You do that all by your lonesome.
So. Fucking. Entertaining.
Still nothing. Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that someone who wrote
that I must be wrong and can't offer any reason why keeps calling
attention to himself.
Cracker|11.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Jeebus Christ!! First one half-neeeegrooo in the white house,
now another full-neeeegrooo running justice.
The world is comin to a fuckin end, I tell you!
ChrisO|11.19.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Wow, Obama hasn't even taken office yet, and joe's already
having to make excuses for him.
It's going to be an entertaining four years...assuming we still
have electricity to power the Internet by 2012.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:46AM|#
"James Ard | November 19, 2008, 11:44am | #
There were no wounds in the primary, everything went exactly as
planned."
Oh man. You're telling me the rise of Barack Obama is a Kilnton
Konspiracy? It really is going to be the 90s all over again, isn't
it?
|11.19.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Joe if Obama isn't going to name her, where did the rumor come from? Are the Clintons just fucking with him for fun? If they are, that is pretty damn funny putting that rumor out there.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:46AM|#
"Are the Clintons just fucking with him for fun?"
If he didn't leak it, I'm going with that. They're going to fuck
with him a lot over the next four years if that is true.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.19.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I wonder what people in the drug policy reform movement, who
have so far been (relatively) optimistic about Obama, think of
this.
In fairness, that was 12 years ago and the leopard may have changed
his spots. Not likely, but it can happen.
Secondly, when you are as old as I am you realize that nothing
anyone says or theorizes means squat until the rubber meets the
road. Optimism is a fine quality, but unqualified optimism about
how things will play out with the new guy running for president is
about as meaningful as the love of an alley cat.
|11.19.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Still nothing. Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that someone
who wrote that I must be wrong and can't offer any reason why keeps
calling attention to himself.
Oh god, joe, I think I am going to overdose on entertainment. Don't
ramp it up so quickly! There's going to be so much more of this. I
feel like Tony Montana with a little mountain of joe-musement.
|11.19.08 @ 11:50AM|#
You guys have way too high standards for incoming AGs, especially Democratic ones. The question is not what will he do about the drug war. The question is instead, does he plan to burn a bunch of people to death on national TV. If he can avoid that, he is already ahead of the last Dem AG.
|11.19.08 @ 11:51AM|#
If that is true, there is egg alright. But
it's on Obama's face.
If he was serious about giving her the job, and would be left
scrambling, that is.
Everyone else let this one slide joe, but I won't.
Boo!
The Angry Optimist|11.19.08 @ 11:51AM|#
In other words, I must be wrong and wearing partisan
blinders
Not saying you are wrong.
But I still have no doubt that this would be an entirely different
conversation if we were engaged in President-Elect McCain
bashing.
And no, joe, I'm not going to prove that you're an apologist.
You're doing that all by your lonesome.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 11:52AM|#
John, I don't think its possible he can be worse than Reno, Ashcroft, or Gonzales. So he will naturally look good by comparison.
|11.19.08 @ 11:52AM|#
John | November 19, 2008, 11:40am | #
They only reason they think it is a good idea is because it is fun
watching people like Joe have to defend it
joe | November 19, 2008, 11:38am | #
BDB,
No, I think she would be a terrible choice. Even if he wanted to
give her a top job, that would be the worst one he could
pick.
Ha ha! Note the times of the comments. I love it when I pre-but
people.
God, you're a hack, John. So, if would have shown what a partisan
apologist I am had I defended the pick, the fact that I did the
opposite proves, what?
And the fact that you were so wrong about what I would write,
proves what about you?
|11.19.08 @ 11:53AM|#
The Angry Optimist | November 19, 2008, 11:41am | #
whether he's in the evil camp or the merely bad for mind and body
camp, he's still a fuckhole.
No, no, dhex! He's just "disappointing" because of his "policing
philosophy".
See! There is change with Obama! We traded the Evil Party for the
Stupid Party.
*shrug* I think it's meaningful whether the newt Attorney General
is, or is not, likely to expand or roll back the drug war.
YMMV.
|11.19.08 @ 11:54AM|#
| November 19, 2008, 11:52am | #
John, I don't think its possible he can be worse than Reno,
Ashcroft, or Gonzales. So he will naturally look good by
comparison.
_________________________________________
That much is true he can do no worse than them, but that is a
MIGHTY LOW BAR TO SET!
|11.19.08 @ 11:55AM|#
He hasn't made the pick Joe so you really don't have to defend
it. You just have to say "I think that would be a terrible idea."
Since he hasn't done it, you really are not criticizing him. You
are just saying "if he did that, it would be wrong". Well, if he
shot a few people like sporting pigeons that would be bad to. But
since he hasn't done either, pointing out that such would be a bad
choice is not really criticizing him. The day you come in here and
go after Obama for something he has actually done, is the day I
will stop accusing you of always being a partisian apologist.
A little sensitive today are we?
SpongePaul|11.19.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Mo | November 19, 2008, 11:54am | #
On the plus side, Holder has a glorious mustache.
_________________________________________
so did hitler mussolini and stalin
|11.19.08 @ 11:56AM|#
BDB,
Going with the smokescreen theory, it only makese sense if Hillary
is in on it, and gets some other kind of soft landing. There's no
way he'd hang a Democratic Senator out to dry like that.
Pro Lib,
I'd agree that the leak could be a smokescreen, except that
he's launching trial balloons on the other cabinet posts as well.
Holder's appointment got out early, for instance. The story
about Holder got out a day before they all-but-confirmed it.
We've been doing this "will he or won't he? Will she or won't she?"
act for almost a week now. Different deal.
NotThatDavid|11.19.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Mo - I'm not sure I'd call that "glorious." It's certainly respectable, though.
|11.19.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Now ChrisO joins the chorus.
You needn't consider whether what I wrote is write, you can tell
it's just partisan excuses, because...
And that's where the whole thing falls apart.
Let me explain this to the three of you: saying someting must be
true/false because of your feelings about political parties makes
YOU the ones wearing the partisan blinkers.
|11.19.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Let me explain this to the three of you: saying someting
must be true/false because of your feelings about political parties
makes YOU the ones wearing the partisan blinkers.
Christmas has come early this year. And it'll just keep
coming. I haven't been remotely good enough to deserve this,
but I'll take it.
VM|11.19.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Sugar - those were great egg comments by joe. that's why BDB had
to stick with the theme.
SoS - Bill R? Dick L. for SoD?
BDB|11.19.08 @ 12:03PM|#
"Pro Libertate | November 19, 2008, 11:59am | #
So, who would make a good SoS?"
Bill Richardson.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 12:04PM|#
And Bill Richardson, you know, was actually anti-war and actually put his neck out by endorsing Obama in the primaries.
|11.19.08 @ 12:04PM|#
John | November 19, 2008, 11:55am | #
He hasn't made the pick Joe so you really don't have to defend it.
You just have to say "I think that would be a terrible idea." Since
he hasn't done it, you really are not criticizing him.
So let me get this straight: because I've criticized the pick
before it is (if it happens) officially announced, that doesn't
count.
However, John has no problem criticizing my (supposed) lack of
criticism beforehand.
Sure. That makes sense.
John knows I wouldn't criticize the pick, if it happened, despite
the fact that I criticized it before it happened, and is so certain
that he is already attacking me for not criticizing it before it
happened, while noting that I criticized it before it happened, but
dismissing that criticism, because I made it before the pick was
officially announced.
You must get terrible headaches, John.
Gene Callahan|11.19.08 @ 12:05PM|#
"You didn't? So, you think there all of these hardcore drug
warriors out there who don't think drugs are all that bad?"
Of course there are, Joe. The drug war is really about power, not
about drugs.
|11.19.08 @ 12:07PM|#
John | November 19, 2008, 11:46am | #
Joe if Obama isn't going to name her, where did the rumor come
from?
Going with the smokescreen theory, the rumor came from the Obama
camp. That's how a smokescreen works - you set it off, on purpose,
to conceal something else.
It's notable that the Obama camp hasn't tried to dial back the
coverage, which means they're ok with the story being out there.
This either means she really is going to be the pick, or that it's
a smokescreen, or that they're for some reason ok with this story
being out there and then falling through, in the processing pissing
off the entire Clinton universe and making themselves look
bad.
I'm pretty sure it's either A or B.
|11.19.08 @ 12:08PM|#
NTD,
By modern standards it is. He's no John Bolton, but he's pretty
good.
Teddy Roosevelt is not walking through that door, fans. Grover
Cleveland is not walking through that door. William Howard Taft is
not walking through that door. If you expect them to walk through
that door, they're going to be gray and old.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Using someone like Hillary as a somekscreen? You're saying they have a bigger name than "Clinton" for SoS?
|11.19.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Episiarch | November 19, 2008, 11:49am | #
Still nothing. Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that someone who wrote
that I must be wrong and can't offer any reason why keeps calling
attention to himself.
Oh god, joe, I think I am going to overdose on entertainment. Don't
ramp it up so quickly! There's going to be so much more of this. I
feel like Tony Montana with a little mountain of
joe-musement.
Still nothing. Shall we take this as your acknowledgement that
you're wrong?
PC|11.19.08 @ 12:11PM|#
a standard that has sparked repeated complaints by police
officers.
So do warrants.
|11.19.08 @ 12:11PM|#
"So let me get this straight: because I've criticized the pick
before it is (if it happens) officially announced, that doesn't
count."
Only if it really happens Joe. If Obama actually names her as SofS
and you get on here and say "Obama should have never done that",
then you really are criticizing him. As it is there is no
indication that Obama really intends to name her to anything and in
fact you seem to think that it won't happen. So you are saying that
something thinking that he won't really do it. That is not
criticism of Obama. They only thing you have said on here is that
Hillary Clinton would be a bad Sec of State. That is progress for
you, since it is the first time I can remember you ever saying
anything bad about any Democrat.
|11.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#
You would use John Kerry as a smokescreen. Not Hillary
Clinton.
I agree, except that the mere suggestion by your administration of
John Kerry implies that you're borderline retarded.
|11.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Still nothing. Shall we take this as your acknowledgement
that you're wrong?
Oh please please please claim victory and do some chest-beating.
Please. And if you claim to have slept with a female member of my
family I may pass out from delight.
|11.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#
BDB | November 19, 2008, 12:04pm | #
And Bill Richardson, you know, was actually anti-war and actually
put his neck out by endorsing Obama in the primaries.
I like Bill Richardson for SoS, too, but he initially supported the
Iraq War, and signed onto some neo-con outfit. He recanted pretty
quickly, though - when the WMDs didn't turn up.
Using someone like Hillary as a somekscreen? You're saying they
have a bigger name than "Clinton" for SoS?
Who says it would have to be someone bigger? ?But that's the hitch
- why would they have smokescreen at all?
BDB|11.19.08 @ 12:13PM|#
The only person you could possibly use Hillary Clinton as a smokescreen for SoS would be Al Gore, and I don't see that happening. He is the only one that wouldn't look smaller after the mere suggestion of a Clinton.
dhex|11.19.08 @ 12:16PM|#
"*shrug* I think it's meaningful whether the newt Attorney
General is, or is not, likely to expand or roll back the drug war.
YMMV."
obviously i think that's important - and judging by his past
history, what screams "rolling back" here? i don't see it.
|11.19.08 @ 12:16PM|#
I'm glad you're enjoying yourself so much, Episiarch.
Most people would be bummed out by being shown up so badly on a
thread.
So, once again, you told me that what I wrote about the
implications of Holder's statement is obvioiusly wrong, my views
twisted by partisan blinders.
And you have been completely unable to offer anything to back that
position up, or rebut anything I've written in support of it.
Wait, wait, let me guess - that's incredibly funny, and somehow,
demonstrates that you're right. Did somebody say something about
predicatable?
|11.19.08 @ 12:19PM|#
dhex,
What suggests rolling back to me are some of the statements Obama
himself has made - not anything mind-blowing, but at least,
movement in the right direction instead of the wrong one, or even
the Bush-era status quo.
The fact that Obama picked this guy suggests to me that he's at
least willing to work for such a president.
My point about Holder's statement is that Weigel reads it as
indicating that he's likely to ramp up the drug war, while I think
it's a more neutral statement, about a different issue.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Any illusions people had about Obama "easing up" on the drug war should have died when he chose Biden as his VP.
|11.19.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Most people would be bummed out by being shown up so badly
on a thread.
It's like you're a robot programmed solely for my amusement. Do you
know a Dr. Noonien Soong?
|11.19.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Epi,
Joe is like the black knight. He is the king of denying the obvious
and claiming it is just a flesh wound. Once you realize that fact,
he really can be quite amusing.
|11.19.08 @ 12:26PM|#
If it's so obvious, why can't anyone offer a single reason why
my argument is flawed?
Lol, joe yoor so crazy, can't you see you must be wrong because
mumble mumble mumble Democrats lol. What a partisan!
C'mon, a word. A quote. Some sort of ackowledgement of the content
of the argument that is so obviously incorrect, and an indication
of what part of it is wrong, and why?
No?
Nothing?
What, are my partisan blinders stopping me from seeing your
bullet-proof rebuttals, too?
|11.19.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Joe,
It is not that you are necessarily wrong. It may well be that Obama
has no intention of naming Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. It
is that you are trying to claim that your objection to her being
named and belief that Obama will not do it is somehow a criticism
of Obama. Yeah, you are really giving Obama hell today.
|11.19.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Just like only Nixon could go to China, you'd need a
Huckabee or other politician with solid social conservative cred to
decriminalize marijuana.
I think this is how it will have to happen. And, to use the
analogy, it will have to be some kind of hyperbolic Nixon drug
warrior that will have to be the ambassador of change. What makes
me think this is the Mirror,
Mirror epsiode of Star Trek.
It is a lot easier for a rational person to fit in among fascists
than for fascists to fit into rational cultures. I have never
witnessed a drug warrior being able to handle libertarian thought
without some kind of apoplectic spasm sooner or later.
So whoever the Nixon is going to be, he or she will have to have
some history as a rabid drug warrior. I would expect a person, if
he really was ethical, to have a history of a lot of blow hard,
windy pronouncements without actually doing any, damage of sending
innocents to prison (well maybe a couple because the fascists would
get suspicious if you didn't acutally hurt someone.)
|11.19.08 @ 12:34PM|#
TRoy,
I have met a lot of prosecutors over the years and rarely do I meet
one who privately won't agree that the drug war is stupid. If you
get passed the politicians and the union bosses to the people who
actually have to fight the drug war, you find a lot less support
than you would think.
dhex|11.19.08 @ 12:36PM|#
My point about Holder's statement is that Weigel reads it as
indicating that he's likely to ramp up the drug war, while I think
it's a more neutral statement, about a different issue.
i am hopeful that, at the very least, the feds will stop doing the
whole pointing guns at people in wheelchairs routine. i am not
certain this will actually happen, but it is at least possible. it
will not be a priority, and it may get shouted down depending on
how spineless the administration ends up being on the neverending
evils of those savage people who don't want to vomit up their
medication.
but holder, outside of the whole broken window worldview, seems
bent on describing what are minor drug crimes with as large a
scarequote as possible - i.e. "so-called minor crimes" - like every
other typical brick in this particular wall. sure, it's the
foundation of broken window approaches, but it's still a minor
crime even in the larger context of many small pebbles making a
mountain of lawlessness.
the pardon thing is a big whatever for me. newsflash: the rich and
powerful get treated differently than the peons. just ask
spitzer!
|11.19.08 @ 12:38PM|#
I actually regard the trial balloon about Hillary as Secretary
of State as a fine bit of politicking.
It gives him some cover with the Clinton wing of the party, after
snubbing her for VP, of course, but more importantly -
If she takes it, she's not running against him in 2012. She just
can't do both, and quitting as his Secretary of State after two
years to do the rubber chicken circuit in NH and Iowa will just
look really bad.
If she doesn't take it, well, that doesn't look good either,
especially since the chatter now is that she can't/won't go through
the vetting or take the job because it would bring all of Bill's
post-Presidential dirty laundry into the light of day.
Its a no-lose for Obama, and a no-win for Hillary. Well played,
IMO.
Ravac|11.19.08 @ 12:39PM|#
*shrug* I think it's meaningful whether the newt Attorney
General is, or is not, likely to expand or roll back the drug war.
YMMV.
Apparently his past success in getting a 12-month misdemeanor
expanded to a 60-month felonies is meaningless.
Ravac|11.19.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Bugger! Beaten by dhex and responded to bu joe already. Man you guys are quick today!
|11.19.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Troy,
I don't think drug law reform, when it happens, will be a
Nixon-goes-to-China moment.
I think it will be carried to widespread, thunderous applause, and
that public opinion will, after a period of gradual movement in
favor of ending the drug war, will suddenly and dramatically flip,
so that the need to end it will one day be said to be convention
widsom that everyone always knew.
I don't think it will take a special leader to put it through when
that happens. The public is going to lead, and giving in to them is
going to be incredibly easy.
Further, I think the shift in pubic opinion, once the floodgates
open, will be so sudden that even a year or six months before it
happens, we won't see it coming.
|11.19.08 @ 12:44PM|#
How you feelin' now, Obama supporters? How's that optimistic
feeling about a politician coming along?
Not a Big-O supporter, but my tenuous feelings of optimism were
pretty much dashed by the Holder announcement. My only hope is that
the next President will set better policies than his predecessors
and that the new AG will be a good soldier.
Having my cynicism proven right doesn't make me happy, but it
does reinforce my natural superiority complex.
I'm too bummed even to take a shot at the Reason Pinata, aka
Joe.
|11.19.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Ravac,
Not meaningless, not even harmless, but indicative a different sort
of problem.
I suppose it's possible, Ravac and dhex, that we could see a sort
of "border security as part of comprehensive immigration reform"
dynamic, where enforcement is ramped up in one area while the laws
are liberalized.
|11.19.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Joe,
I wish you were right, but I am not that optimistic. I know a lot
of very smart, educated and otherwise open minded people who
absolutely cannot be reasoned with when it comes to drugs. Also,
there are a lot of people out there who had a close friend or
relative's life destroyed by drugs.
Back when I was a prosecutor I did a lot of drug cases. I did five
or ten jury trials involving drug offenses. When I would voir dire
the jury I would always ask if any of then had had any experience
with a friend or relative having a drug problem. At least two out
of every 12 jurors had some kind of horror story. I mean real horor
story involving drugs. Those people never made the jury because
they looked at drugs as poison and anyone who sold them as evil.
Granted that is a small sample, but it is a sample of high ranking
military people who mostly came from middle class stable homes
where you wouldn't think that kind of stuff went on. But they were
there none the less. Don't underestimate the large number of people
in this country who will never support legalizing drugs.
dhex|11.19.08 @ 12:49PM|#
two steps forward, one step back is always possible when it
comes to the glories of force.
or sideways, or wherever it goes.
honestly, reasonable drug policy will come when a swat team that
looks so militarized as to be cartoonish kills a little girl or
three so lovely, sweet and upper middle class that the entire
country gets a real taste of that naked lunch.
if pointing guns at people in wheelchairs with MS didn't do it,
what's left? murdering children. maybe shooting pregnant women as
they try to run away, and it gets up on youtube later that day.
BDB|11.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#
The thing is, John, you could find an equally large number of people with alcohol or tobacco horror stories. My aunt died at the age of 50 with oxygen tubes stuck up her nose because she smoked three packs a day, but I don't want to lock up people for smoking. I just don't understand the logic.
|11.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Like I said, John, it's going to seem impossible until all of a sudden it will seem inevitable.
|11.19.08 @ 12:55PM|#
BDB,
I am not saying they are right. I am just saying that is what they
think. I have known people who were drug addicts and seen their
dealers send them free drugs the day they got out of rehab in hopes
of getting them hooked again. There are some real nasty things out
there.
Honestly, I think the people who are addicts would be doing
something else equally destructive if there were no such thing as
drugs. It is the addictive and irresponsible personality that is
the problem, not the drugs. Plenty of people use drugs without
abusing them. Most addicts, if they don't address their underlying
addictive behavior, will just replace one destructive habbit with
another like stop drinking but start gambling or eating too
much.
|11.19.08 @ 12:57PM|#
I'm too bummed even to take a shot at the Reason Pinata, aka
Joe.
"Buck up little camper, we'll beat that slope
pinata...together."
|11.19.08 @ 12:58PM|#
I used to have a boss who cleaned himself up, and immediately
started wrecking sports cars.
Addictive personality? Oh yeah. If it's not one thing, it's
another.
|11.19.08 @ 1:09PM|#
I had no "hope" that Obama would ease up on the WOD. My hope is
that there will be a depression like we have never seen. I hope
that the economic downturn will be so great that we can no longer
afford the WOD. That is why I voted for Obama. Hell, I pray for
another dust bowl. The more that these evil people who suport the
WOD suffer the happier I am.
P.s. has anyone tried this "spice diamond" stuff?
Citizen Nothing|11.19.08 @ 1:14PM|#
"It's going to be an entertaining four years...assuming we still
have electricity to power the Internet by 2012."
I defy you to provide a link to where Obama or any of his
supporters claim we'll still have electricity in 2012.
|11.19.08 @ 1:16PM|#
John:
I don't doubt that. But there are a number of people who think
drugs should be illegal for another reason. One is jobs. We have a
nice criminal-industrial complex going.
Oh, and I worked for a prosecutors office. It is another reason I
got the mirror mirror meme. I would say byperbolic things like,
"damn, I wish we could just shoot them on sight." Never, I mean
never was my hyperbole mocked as being excessive. And proscutors
don't want to have to do jobs where you actually have to prove mens
rea. I mean pleeeeze, they'd have to actually think.
And during our voir dire, we'd kick anyone who even had a glimmer
of an idea that drugs should be treated medically rather than by
cops. I only wanted stupid people who would obey my
Authoraaataaaa.
Joe:
I certainly hope you are right. And that is a possible modality of
change. But like John, I am not optimistic. My dad thinks drugs
should be illegal because of what people "might" do while they are
on drugs. Never mind that law enforcement can't even deal with
whatever people "do", like in reality, do.
Ravac|11.19.08 @ 1:20PM|#
We have a nice criminal-industrial complex going.
And with asset-forfeiture laws still on the books, they get paid
twice.
|11.19.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Mmmmm...feel the Hope and Change!
I'm thinking that O actually thought he'd do a different brand of
politics and, when he actually won, said "Oh Shit. I don't really
know anyone who knows anything about anything! Hey guys, can you
help me pick my cabinet?" At which time, the establishment started
with the full-on salivation fest. They get a newb that they can
mold and direct at their whims. What a great new day! Woohoo!
|11.19.08 @ 1:27PM|#
I suspect joe is right about the only way we will ever be shed of the war on drugs (a paradigm shift in the public at large). I just have lost any optimism that we will ever get to that point.
|11.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
if pointing guns at people in wheelchairs with MS didn't do
it, what's left? murdering children. maybe shooting pregnant women
as they try to run away, and it gets up on youtube later that
day.
Or change will have to be done this way. But even then, I am not
hopefull. Because of the "my-dick-is-bigger-than-your-dick" contest
of who is tougher on crime between republicans and democrats this
scenario is just as likely to happen under a democratic regime as a
republican one. after all, didn't the Clinton administration lock
up a bunch of potheads? And didn't Reno help fry all those children
at Waco under Clinton?
ChrisO|11.19.08 @ 1:40PM|#
From everything I've read, Holder was a water-carrier for every
indefensible thing the Clintons did, from the last-minute pardons
to Elian Gonzalez. The drug thing is unsurprising to me--how many
DOJ vets from either party are out there calling for an end to the
drug war?
I'm not surprised that Holder would be considered for the AG pick,
since he's one of the leading Democratic legal eagles and has the
appropriate skin tone, but there must be some other highly
qualified Democrats out there without so much Clinton baggage.
Moreover, I would think that Obama would want to get away from the
Clintons as much as possible politically. The PUMA vote turned into
a fizzle on Nov. 4--he owes the Clintons and their hardcore
supporters nothing.
|11.19.08 @ 2:55PM|#
What suggests rolling back to me are some of the statements
Obama himself has made - not anything mind-blowing, but at least,
movement in the right direction instead of the wrong one, or even
the Bush-era status quo.
If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us; but if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.
Psst. Wanna buy a bridge?
|11.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
J Sub D,
Get with the program. We are about the have a President we can be
proud of and the world will love us again. Can't you feel the love
already?
|11.19.08 @ 4:00PM|#
"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us; but if we're
a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
Did that really come from an Obama speech? That reads like dialog
from a bad Western. Cowboy meets Indian Chief and tries to
negotiate peace.
Indian Chief: "Why do your people raid our settlements and kill our
women and children?"
Cowboy: "Because we must be a strong nation and protect
ourselves"
Indian Chief: "But that is arrogant not strong. You kill our
buffalo. Take away our land the great one gave to us. Violate your
treaties. That is not strength that is arrogance and that is why we
fight you.
If you are an arrogant nation, we will resent you; but if you are a
humble nation, but strong, we welcome you."
It fits doesn't it? Who is writing his speeches, Louis Lamore?
Fluffy|11.19.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Joe,
I find your choice of approaches to defend Holder a little
surprising.
After all, you're saying that it's possible he doesn't really
believe pot is evil - he just thinks that aggressively prosecuting
people over marijuana is an effective policing approach at making a
city safer.
Basically that means that he was an attorney who didn't care if the
laws he was applying were just, as long as they had the "beneficial
result" of clearing the streets of the "wrong sort" of
person.
Frankly, I'd rather deal with a deluded fanatical drug warrior than
a cocksucking weasel who would, with his eyes open, argue for harsh
punishment for something he doesn't really think is that bad, if it
puts "the right people" in jail.
|11.19.08 @ 4:06PM|#
John,
That reminds me of dialogue from The Outlaw Josey
Wales:
Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.
Josey Wales: That's true. I ain't promising you nothing extra. I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life. And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another.
Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life. . .or death. It shall be life.
|11.19.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Pro,
I love that movie and that scene in particular. That scene and the
one where the bounty hunter comes to get him and tells Josey he has
to make a living and Josey says "son, dying aint much of a living".
Greatest Western ever made.
|11.19.08 @ 4:11PM|#
I'm not sure which western is my favorite, but that one is way up there. Chief Dan George was awesome in that film, too.
|11.19.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Did that really come from an Obama speech? That reads like
dialog from a bad Western. Cowboy meets Indian Chief and tries to
negotiate peace.
Sorry, I thought the reference obvious.
Year 2000. Presidential debate. George W. Bush, speaker.
I've got plenty of bridges, and joe seems to be a likely
purchaser.
|11.19.08 @ 4:23PM|#
J Sub D,
I never listen to political speeches so I didn't get the reference.
Boy was that a stinker of a line. Bush must have still been
snorting coke in 2000 or at least drinking. No sober person could
say that line with a straight face.
|11.19.08 @ 4:28PM|#
I don't know Pro. It is hard to pick a favorite Western. My top
five would probably be in any order, Red River, The Searchers,
Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven, The Horse Soldiers. Honerable
mention goes to all the Man With No Name movies. They would make
the list, especially the Good the Bad and The Ugly, but they are so
out there and unlike every other western ever made, I consider them
fantasies rather than Westerns.
Speaking of Clint Eastwood movies, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is a
great movie that rarely gets any credit.
|11.19.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Unless he's singing, Clint Eastwood hasn't been in a bad western. I love all of the Spaghetti westerns, especially The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
|11.19.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Pro,
I saw an interview with Eastwood about making the Dino De Laurentis
Man with no name movies. He went to Spain in between shooting
Rawhide to film a fist full of dollars. The first week on the set,
he kept thinking, how wrong everything was and how it was so unlike
the real West. Finally after a while he realized Laurentis wasn't
making a Western he was making a fantasy and just went with it.
Laurentis gave the world those movies and Giada. Now that is making
a contribution to humanity.
|11.19.08 @ 4:42PM|#
I thought Giada was his niece.
Yes, there's no question that pretty much all of those
films--including most of the ones he directed himself later--had a
strong fantasy/allegorical side to them. He's arguably a ghost or
angel in two of them, for instance. Great mini-genre.
|11.19.08 @ 4:46PM|#
De Laurentiis was born Giada Pamela De Benedetti in Rome, Italy,
the eldest child of actress Veronica De Laurentiis and her first
husband, actor-producer Alex De Benedetti, who was a close
associate of his wife's father, the film producer Dino De
Laurentiis.[1] Her parents were married in February 1970, just
months before her birth.[2] After their parents' divorce, De
Laurentiis and her siblings moved to Southern California, where
Giada and her siblings took their mother's surname.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giada_De_Laurentiis
Grand daughter Pro. He was definitely a ghost in High Plains
Drifter. I remember watching the last scene of that movie where he
just disapears into the heat waves. Creeped me out to no end.
|11.19.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Oh, okay. I don't know where I heard the niece thing.
I think Eastwood was supernatural in Pale Rider, too.
A Libertarian Is Like A Prett|11.19.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Wait, you guys actually thought that Obama was voted in because
of some truly progressive anti-drug promise?
Of course, you don't. You're merely slamming the panic button, and
hoping for some kind of awesome effect.
This is politics gentleman. The country didn't elect a
revolutionary. They elected someone who they thought was a shift in
the political culture. This doesn't mean that they expected him to
completely alter the practice of pandering. He still has to play
politics, just to get people to trust him.
This preemptive condemnation of Obama is merely a strawman. The
vast majority of people who are for Obama don't care about these
issues. They're marginalized topics.
I certainly don't remember any vehement declarations that Obama
would be an anti-drug warrior on here. If there were, then they
were certainly coming from a very small population.
So, what we're left with, yet again, is Libertarians simply talking
to themselves. Of course Obama wasn't going to ever be Libertarian
enough for most of you to speak positively about him before the
inauguration, and certainly not after.
So, stop pretending that you're getting something over on anyone.
These people are mostly imaginary.
|11.19.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Who cares if the majority of people want to watch government
expand and their liberties contract? Lots of stupid doesn't make
stupid any less stupid.
What's sad is that Obama was sold and is perceived by many as
something different, when, in fact, he's just a face for the
machine and even less independent than Bush or, for that matter,
Clinton. The proof of that is confirmed with each hack
appointment.
Trust me, disappointment and disgust will be by no means limited to
libertarians. Or to Republicans.
|11.19.08 @ 5:21PM|#
My only hope is that the economy crashes so hard that the war on some drugs is not even an afterthought because tax money is needed for other things, like paying off the debt, because no one will loan us the money to keep the country going. The forfeiture laws do not create enough revenue to run the war on some drugs by themselves.
Famous Mortimer|11.20.08 @ 12:58AM|#
There will always be money for the war on drugs, just like there
will always be money for any kind of military venture.
Everything else would be stripped before those two coffers were
emptied.
|11.20.08 @ 12:59AM|#
In a fantasy world, "broken windows" is applied first to
politicians and "law enforcement" officers at every level.
Wouldn't that be sweet? Some congresscritter is fined thousands and
sentenced to months in jail for accepting an expensive dinner from
a lobbyist, or a police officer is fired and imprisoned for lying
(even small lies) about his reasons for searching someone's car.
After all, allowing little things to slide will result in larger
things happening.
Famous Mortimer|11.20.08 @ 1:33AM|#
"What's sad is that Obama was sold and is perceived by many as
something different, when, in fact, he's just a face for the
machine and even less independent than Bush or, for that matter,
Clinton. The proof of that is confirmed with each hack
appointment."
He was not elected to end the war on drugs, or to grant any
Libertarian wish for that matter.
We get it, he's not Libertarian. The people who voted for him did
not expect him to be Libertarian. In fact, if he was billed as
being a Libertarian, then he would not have been elected.
If Libertarianism is the only established standard, then your
commentary becomes fairly pointless because every non-Libertarian
person will fit this profile.
Sometimes I wonder if many of you understand politics. Your
expectations seem woefully naive.
People aren't going to take you seriously if this is how you
respond to every single person who enters office. It's wasted
energy, and shows a clear lack of maturity.
If you want to change things then get off the computer and become a
catalyst. The Libertarian philosophy could not be that important to
you, since you clearly don't do anything meaningful to promote it.
How could you? You have to spend that time arguing with people who
already agree with you.
I doubt many Libertarians vote, but somehow they expect people who
do vote to elect someone of their standards. Talk about
laziness.
I constantly see all of this talk about the productive vs. the
non-productive on here, and I am left to wonder what many of you
are doing with your lives? You can't be doing much since you're on
here a lot of the time. So, what is it that you're doing that
should be considered so productive?
What, you have a job? Most people have jobs. If that's your
standard of productivity, then I know batshit crazy leftists who
are more productive than you.
Internet Libertarians are nothing more than coddled, middle to
upper class wimps too precious to get their hands dirty.
Ivory Keyboards 'n all.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245