Mexico

A Mexican Poet Gets to the Heart of the War on Drugs (With a Little Help From Camus)

|

After the murder of his 24-year-old son, Mexican poet Javier Sicilia—who considers the drug war a moral issue, not a political one—played a prominent role in inspiring thousands in Mexico to march in protest last spring. The marchers demanded an end to President Felipe Calderon's confrontational, militarized dealings with cartels which have led to 35,000 dead since 2006.

In an interview with Yes! Magazine in July, Sicilia channels Camus and rather poetically diagnoses the problem at the heart of the rationale for the war on drugs. 

The politicians are formulating the drug problem as an issue of national security, but it is an issue of public health. If from the very beginning drugs were decriminalized, drug lords would be subjected to the iron laws of the market. That would have controlled them. That would have allowed us to discover our drug addicts and offer them our love and our support. That would not have left us with 40,000 dead, 10,000 disappeared and 120,000 displaced…

The war is caused by puritan mentalities: like those of [Mexican President Felipe] Calderón and [former U.S. President George] Bush. In the name of abstractions—the abstraction of saving youth from drug addiction—they have brutally assassinated thousands of young people, while transforming others into delinquents. [Emphasis added.]

Albert Camus spoke a terrible truth. "I know something worse than hate: abstract love." In the name of abstract love, in the name of God and Country, in the name of saving the youth from the drug, in the name of the proletariat, in the name of abstractions, our politicians and war policy makers have committed the most atrocious crimes on human beings, who are not abstractions, who are bones and flesh. That is what our country is living and suffering today: in the name of an abstract goodness, we are suffering the opposite: the horror of war and violence, of innocents dead, disappeared, and mutilated.

For more, read Reason's Mike Riggs on how much legalizing drugs would do to hinder cartel violence on the border.

(Hat-tip to Bob Scott for the interview link).

NEXT: Getting a Beer in Iowa Is Tougher Than You Think

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Someday it may sink in somewhere on some side of the border that no matter what you throw at it you cannot win this “war”.
    http://hubpages.com/t/26b322

    1. Huh? Win the war?
      No one is trying to win any war. The war on drugs is an end in itself, didnt you hear Hillary when she said “…there is too much money in it.”
      Nobody is trying to win a war.

      1. 40,000 dead, 10,000 disappeared and 120,000 displaced…The war is caused by…Calder?n and Bush. In the name of abstractions…they have brutally assassinated thousands of young people

        Calder?n and Bush “assassinated” thousands of “young people.”

        Why won’t anyone take us seriously?
        Are we too “abstract”?

        1. Disingenuous shits like you, as always, have absolutely nothing rational to add.

          1. Why don’t you ignore me?

  2. ” That is what our country is living and suffering today: in the name of an abstract goodness, we are suffering the opposite: the horror of war and violence, of innocents dead, disappeared, and mutilated.”

    Picky, picky, picky.

  3. That is the most terrible and beautiful thing I’ve ever read on the WoD. Unfortunately, it’s going to fall on deaf ears.

    1. huh?

      1. I agree. But I’m going to circulate this as widely as I can.

  4. See, this is why I study literature. These three little paragraphs cut to the heart of the moral bankruptcy of the War on Drugs in a way that all the statistics in the world never could.

    1. It’s good stuff. I’m a little surprised, as it wasn’t long ago that I was mocking Sartre’s various idiotic pronouncements.

      1. Sartre and Camus were two different people, you know. Sartre was an existentialist and Marxist. Camus always rejected the label of existentialist and was fiercely anti-totalitarian.

        1. Of course, but they were contemporary French existentialists. Regardless of what Camus called himself. And they were friends for a while, too.

          1. Mario Vargas Llosa and Gabriel Garc?a M?rquez were frends for a while. Doesn’t mean their politics and philosophy are related.

            1. …is this analogy lost on anyone else, or is it just me?

              1. Llosa is a classical liberal South American writer. Marquez is a socialist South American writer.

  5. The war is caused by puritan mentalities: like those of [Mexican President Felipe] Calder?n and [former U.S. President George] Bush.

    It’s Bush’s fault. I knew it.

    1. Hey, I should get equal billing on this, too!

    2. the continuing saga of blaming repubs when both parties have been fuck-all awful.

      1. True dat, dunphy. Are you involved with LEAP? it’s only with LEO help that we’ll end this war.

        1. The problem is that they’d have to be willing to allow their ranks to be cut drastically. Over 1/2 of all arrests annually are drug related. They will NEVER get rid of their bread and butter.

          1. i’d like to see a cite for that. that MIGHT be true if by drugs, you include alcohol since EASILY about 3/4 of the DISTURBANCE type calls we go to involve people who are jacked on alcohol

            but i call bullshit on that arrest stat

        2. i “liked”it on facebook. i am planning on joining, though

      2. dunphy, buddy, political affiliation has nothing to do with it. It’s Bush. Everything is Bush’s fault, even if it’s not.

        I stubbed my toe today, and I’m 99.5% sure it was Bush’s fault somehow.

        1. Bush lives in Dallas. The weather fucking sucks in dallas. Coincidence or conspiracy?

          1. GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING!

            1. Bush tried to assassinate me but I defeated him with abstract thought.

              1. Let me guess, the poets will be the first against the wall, concern troll?

                1. “40,000 dead, 10,000 disappeared and 120,000 displaced…The war is caused by…Calder?n and Bush. In the name of abstractions…they have brutally assassinated thousands of young people”

                  War pigs!
                  Bushitler!
                  I’m serious!

            2. He must’ve brought the machine with him.

  6. I wanted SO bad for that to say “Old Mexican Poet Gets to the Heart….”

    1. Now that you mention it, so do I.

  7. ‘worse than hate: abstract love’

    fit progressivism to a tee…

    1. ‘fits’

    2. No, I sat fit them to a tee and then nail them with a 1-wood.

    3. Physician, heal thyself.

      There is perhaps no group outside of communists who are so in love with abstractions of ideology as libertarians. Love the market. Love the freedom of contract. Love the Constitution. Love freedom!

      The quickest way to get a libertarian to spit blood is to point out that their methods of loving these things sometimes hurts real flesh and blood people. Ah well.

      1. WTF? Yeah, violence happens, and restricting gov’t power reduces violence.

        1. ‘Methods of loving these things’? What are you talking about?

          1. Many Libertarians’ preferred policy prescriptions include a rather perfunctory end of all entitlements, which while in the long-term is ideologically pure and might even work, over the short term would doom many to early death from disease, starvation, and homelessness.

            1. There is one simple, obvious idea at the core of libertarianism and everything else libertarian springs from it. The idea is self ownership. There is no libertarian idea that does not have its roots in the notion of self ownership. No other political philosophy accepts the idea of self ownership, though they may claim they do. It is more than obvious that they do not and there are countless examples which prove it. There is nothing remotely abstract about the idea of self ownership.

              1. me/dwc: not to sure what “self ownership” means, but it sounds like an ultra-abstract case-in-point for Mnemone. Again, good point Mnemone.

      2. It’s true we’re ideological. But our ideology says, “thou shalt not initiate force.” Progressivism, says “If it doesn’t conform to our tastes, we’re turning the dogs on you.” So, with all due respect to the poet, I don’t know if the problem is ideology but the wrong kind of ideology.

      3. Except our ideology precludes going to war for the love of the market.

      4. Damned good point, son.

  8. The war is caused by puritan mentalities: like those of Calder?n and Bush.

    Not only them, Javier: The Dems are just as enthusiastic about controlling our lives as are the people who call themselves “the right.”

    It takes a poet to say a truth in the most elegant way: “The war is caused by puritan mentalities”

    Succinct, to the point; perfect.

    1. Self-aggrandizement is very unbecoming, OM,

      1. and lol

      2. Re: Pip,

        Self-aggrandizement is very unbecoming, OM

        I’m only human.

        And yes, great.

    2. And heeeeeeeeere’s my favorite Mexican poet! Hola, OM

      1. Re: Almanian,

        And heeeeeeeeere’s my favorite Mexican poet! Hola, OM

        To be really honest, I didn’t know this guy until his son was murdered. I just noticed by reading the article that his command of Language is exquisite.

  9. That is what our country is living and suffering today: in the name of an abstract goodness, we are suffering the opposite: the horror of war and violence, of innocents dead, disappeared, and mutilated.

    But if, in the end, the consequences are good (people stop using drugs) then how we get there is not important… Right, Mr. Utilitarianism [MNG]?

    1. Omelets, eggs, nuking from orbit, being sure, TEH CHILDRUNZZZ!!!111!!, etc.

      1. You keep mispronouncing that…..it is ‘chiren’. ‘Chirenz’ is plural. hmmmm…or duh chirenz….

        Another variation would be chidrunz…..

        1. Used in a sentence, thus: I wanna ax you some quershtuns about your chiren.

          1. ax you?

            RACIST!!!

            1. what dunphy said

            2. Lizzy Borden asked her friend if she could come over for dinner and her friend, who was black said, why don’t you go home and ax yo parents.

              1. speaking of fal river, the FRPD has possibly the most awesome motto EVER on their patches…

                “WE’LL TRY”

                seriously. hey, at least they are honest. “not sure if we’ll succeed, but… we’ll try”

                my favorite memory of fall river was the smell of potato chips wafting from the lay’s factory/plant

                1. “I used to bring bags of those chips home to my wife, Morgan Fairchild.”

                  1. pip. i love my wife, and she is definitely not morgan fairchild

                2. In rural Kentucky there is a town named Hope, and near that town is an even smaller berg named, Little Hope. Little Hope has a picturesque baptist church named… Little Hope Baptist Church. Now, that is what I call truth in advertising!

                  1. prudence, patience, hope and despair and little hog island way over there (rhode island islands)

  10. Was said poet funded by Congress?

    1. hmm, he’s no cowboy, so – no

  11. This is why I support Gary Johnson – he wants to legalize it for precisely the reasons this poet posits. Hey, an alliteration!

    1. You should’ve said “purposes” instead of “reasons.”

  12. In the name of abstractions?the abstraction of saving youth from drug addiction?they have brutally assassinated thousands of young people, while transforming others into delinquents.

    awesome

  13. camus is nearly always appropriate – whether it’s love and rockets or the pretenders giving him a nod

    1. dunphy, don’t EVER drop a “Love and Rockets” reference in the same sentence as the Future Mrs. Almanian’s (Chrissie Hynde) band.

      Or in general, if possible.

      Love and fucking ROCKETS? Really?

      Get thee back to high school!

      1. actually, it was college to me.

        (pip is going to love this) but chrissie hynde is kind of a bitch. i learned this at a simple minds concert (she was married to the lead singer). incredibly elitist… and a bitch

        she was also the one who said that she hoped we got our asses kicked in (can’t recall if it was iraq or afghanistan)

        otoh, she was a major influence on shirley manson and pretenders made some AWESOME music.

        1. OK, so we’re same era. I saw Pretenders w/The Simpletons. I don’t give a shit that she’s a bitch – I’ve been in love with her since…forever.

          And she STILL looks good and can still kick Joan Jett’s wannabe ass.

          *swwwwwoooooon*

          I don’t know who I love more – Chrissie or Katrina vanden Heuval…

          /love for psychobitches with whom I disagree on everything and yet adore

          1. W/e Chrissie looks like Iggy Pop now.

          2. Joan Jett wouldn’t be trying to kick Hynde’s ass. NTTAWWT.

            1. iirc, they are BOTH vegans btw

              a propos of nuttin, but still

          3. you are calling JOAN JETT a wannabe?

            seriously?

            hey, like or don’t like her music (subjective) but joan jett is one of the pioneers of women in rock, and definitely not a wannabe

            1. Compared to Chrissie Hynde? Please – wannabe

        2. Oh, PS, I love Shirley Manson just because she’s Scottish. And the way she pronounces, “GAIR budge…” Epic.

          1. they are a fucking fantastic band.

            she was pretty good on sarah connor chronicles too

      2. Yes, Love and Rockets fucking rock.

        1. meh. Bauhaus was better.

          1. i AGREE.

            the love and rockets reference i was referring to is “the more you try to go against nature, it’s part of nature too” thang

            very camus

          2. Tones on Tail was also better than Love and Rockets. Not to say Love and Rockets was bad though.

            The Pretenders… I just never figured that out. Pretty boring music. But it sure did become cool to say they influenced you.

            1. Tones on Tail were ok, too. I like Daniel Ash, what can I say?

            2. but shirley sounds a lot like chrissie hynds and at the end of one of their songs she starts singing “talk of the town”

              it’s pretty cool

              my band did this cover in college…

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hKbmnnYeq8

          3. Bauhaus also rocks, I was not saying that.

            1. I didn’t think you were slagging them – and I don’t dislike L & R. I just think Bauhaus was better.

  14. So wait, a Mexican intellectual is arguing for the social effectiveness of the free market?

    What would Saint Che say?

    1. WWCS – “I’m dead – ask Raul Castro”

  15. Obama is easing up on weed.

    1. No he’s not. His administration has *stepped up* on the raids in california for instance.

    2. Let me guess Sy, you’re being sarcastic, right?

    3. I’m getting spoofed now?

  16. Either all of human society is about to descend into a tyrannical dark age, or future generations will look back on our drug war with the same revulsion and horror that we look back on slavery

    1. Either all of human society is about to descend into a tyrannical dark age, or future generations

      Sadly the drug war is very sustainable.

      Human societies have a way of perpetuating tyrannical control of minorities and minority behavior and keep on keeping on without much fuss.

      The more likely 3rd future is it will go on for so long that eventually it will become a religion. And the war against drugs will continue as a matter of faith.

    2. Probably a mix of both.

    3. …future generations will look back on our drug war with the same revulsion and horror that we look back on slavery

      I’ve said previously that they would look upon it as we look upon the Inquisition. An irrational, quasi-legal campaign directed mostly at those already on the margins of society, for no purpose other than to assure the majority of their alleged moral superiority.

  17. The war is caused by puritan mentalities: like those of [Mexican President Felipe] Calder?n and [former U.S. President George] Bush.

    Yes, the drug war started in 2000, you boob. Harry J. Anslinger was a Bush appointee.

    Or some dumb shit like that.

    1. Derp!

      1. Contrary to what you might think, that sand in your vagina won’t turn into a pearl, so wash it out.

        1. NICE. I’m going to use that in my next rap battle.

  18. The picture accompanying this article shows an image which is recurrent and routine in the daily life of Mexicans: An Army truck, fat with soldiers, stopping an innocent driver. The driver does not know if the armed men will simply let him be or if they will subject him to humiliations and even an early death, just because they are bored.

    1. I’ve never been to Mexico. Well, I take that back, I used to live in San Diego. From what the TJ and Rosarito transplants told me was you couldn’t tell the difference between the Federales and the cartels since both engaged in armed muggings, theft, and murder on a regular basis.

  19. In the name of abstract love, in the name of God and Country, in the name of saving the youth from the drug, in the name of the proletariat, in the name of abstractions, our politicians and war policy makers have committed the most atrocious crimes on human beings, who are not abstractions, who are bones and flesh.

    And our boy Fearless Fosdick will be there to pull the trigger.

    1. “And our boy Fearless Fosdick will be there to pull the trigger.”

      Haven’t seen that name in print in a while.

      1. We’re keeping a low profile.

  20. Off-Topic

    Gov’t pays for empty flights to rural airports

    On some days, the pilots with Great Lakes Airlines fire up a twin-engine Beechcraft 1900 at the Ely, Nev., airport and depart for Las Vegas without a single passenger on board. And the federal government pays them to do it.

    Federal statistics reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2010, just 227 passengers flew out of Ely while the airline got $1.8 million in subsidies. The travelers paid $70 to $90 for a one-way ticket. The cost to taxpayers for each ticket: $4,107.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…..1-21-42-37

  21. I love me some Camus. Is it weird to consider myself a “right” libertarian but get most of my inspiration from “left” libertarians, like Camus, Emma Goldman, Max Stirner and Benjamin Tucker? (Depends on your definition of left and right, I guess.)

    1. The socialiss/progressives screwed it up when they outflanked the classical liberals and claimed the left. We true believers in liberty were stuck somewhere in the middle.

    2. Deke – Stirner was a “left” libertarian? Mebbe I haven’t read enough of his stuff, but what I have made me think he was to the “right” of Rand. (I’d put the others on the left). Also, read more Spooner.

      I do have to say, though, that I wish I’d read that Camus quote previously. It would have greatly improved my opinion of him, as a writer, and as a human being. Utter brilliance.

  22. If it took a constitutional amendment to create the prohibition of alcohol, and ANOTHER one to end it, how can the Feds possibly outlaw the drugs that are ‘illegal’ now?

    1. Commerce clause.

      1. With a side of General Welfare.

        1. Jurisdiction. It’s all jurisdiction. How did the citizens of the 48 states become subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov’t, that only has control of D.C.? Something fundamental changed after the turn of the century. It’s been all downhill for liberty since.

    2. Remember, Prohibition occurred during the 1920s, before FDR and the New Deal expanded the scope of federal power and authority.

    3. The constitutional amendment was running up the score. They probably would’ve passed the Volstead Act anyway, but they wanted it in the constitution so it’d be harder to repeal. There’d been plenty of history of states of the USA enacting and then soon repealing liquor prohibitions.

  23. Great link, Steigy. More of this line of discussion is what’s needed to drive people like my social worker friends toward the legalization camp. They see the damage wrought by the drug war as damage wrought by drugs themselves. Opening their eyes to the failure of the drug war due to its incentivizing violence and criminality is one of my most difficult projects.

    1. I honestly don’t know why it’s so difficult for some people to understand: all the potential drug problems with self-destruction, neglecting family members, etc. are still there. So let’s just add a bunch of cops playing cowboy on top of that! So the bad things will still be there and then we’ll make it worse! Yes!

      (If you call me Steigy, I will love you forever no matter if you trash my writing. That is my terrible secret.)

      1. Steigy, I agree with your post. But what the hell, the Berlin Wall fell, and I never thought that would happen. How sweet will the party of the WOD is ended?

        1. So sweet. And so hard to stifle libertarian smugness.

          I really wish I could remember the fall of the Berlin Wall. I always tear up at news footage of it that doesn’t involve David Hasselhoff.

          1. Holy youth, you must be young. I saw it on cable tv while smoking a bowl in my apartment in 1989. My cat was asleep in my lap. Eastern Europeans were about to match my cat’s freedom. Sweet.

            1. Sounds nice. I was probably sticking my big sister’s drawing pencils up my nose or something at the time.

                1. Keep searching for the edge of the bell curve BP.

                  1. Wednesday night is my friend’s art opening. There’s got to be at least one 2 Sigma girl there…

          2. Wow, I remember it like it was yesterday. It was the beginning of sophomore year in college, I thought I knew everything, I had been to East Germany. I couldn’t imagine the Wall coming down. My experience there had been so grim and the people seemed so resigned to their condition. It was a revelation for me about how things change so quickly and without much warning.

            I keep telling my friends that things can change that quickly here as well. All it will take is a failure of the bond market, they don’t get it.

      2. “I honestly don’t know why it’s so difficult for some people to understand…”

        Me neither. That is one of the most confounding aspects of the WOD. How can anybody of average intelligence look at drug prohibition and conclude that it is a good idea?

        1. Because unlike you, Wayne, we don’t hate TEH CHILDRUNZ.

        2. It’s actually pretty easy considering the limited info they have at their hands. They’ve become convinced this phantom called “addiction” exists, and it’s easier for them to believe that than that some people act strangely. Plus, they think it’s easier than it is to get doctor-prescribed narcotics, and underestimate their necessity. For many drugs, they assume that no legitimate business would ever produce them because they’re so evil, so prohibiting them affects nobody but those who are evil already. They have almost as little info about the subject as they do about, say, atomic energy.

          This is one of the reasons I wish the world were ruled by a single individual who had a secret, invincible power to defeat everyone, and whose only goal was to loot us. Since there’s only so much loot a single person can use, this would leave us relatively well off, because this ruler would have no motiv’n to try to improve our lives, and because the people at large would have no power at all. Then we could all grumble and be happy.

          1. Here’s a story with respect to how easy it is to get Dr. prescribed narcotics. I have suffered from severe, intractable headaches for a decade thanks to a bungled neck surgery. It happens fairly regularly that I have to make midnight trips to the ER in order to get help in as much as no doctor will give a script for anything that would help this level of pain. Mind you, I don’t do this lightly. I hate it and it costs a friggin bundle. I only go when I reach the point where the only viable options are the ER or suicide. 100 years ago I could have sent my wife to the drug store. It is simply asinine.

            1. For that matter you can’t even go buy Toradol (liquid Tylenol) for injection. It’s not a narc, but it is the strongest non-narcotic anti-inflamatory that I know of, but it isn’t available OTC. The whole thing is nuts.

      3. I think, at least in the case of my friends, that they’re so involved in the dark side of drug culture…they’re part of the infrastructure that society has tried to set up to clean up the messes caused by the drug war, but they’ve been told their whole lives and careers that it’s the drugs, not that it’s the inevitable result of prohibition.

        Let’s face it, they see real addicts daily, and they are the people who deal with the consequence. Part of this is due to the fact that we don’t force the victims themselves to deal with it; our society contracts that out to social workers–reinforcing the ideas that some of these people have grown up with: that the government is there to take care of your problem; there’s always another program that you can rely on to keep you from paying the full price of your situation.

        1. Oh, addicts pay “full price,” one way or another. For one example, how many junkies have died from Hepatitis, AIDS, or septicemia because they were using shared / dirty needles? If anything, I’d say the WoD has made many people pay a price they wouldn’t have had to otherwise.

          The alcohol prohibitionists had no problem murdering 10,000 people. Their descendants share the same view. (I’ve heard more than one speak gleefully about Mao’s “ending” of opium use in China.) This is the prohibitionist morality – those who disagree with my moral views must die. Hopefully, your friends do what they do because they care about people. Do what you can to rekindle that.

          1. BP, I agree they pay full price, most often with interest. For many folks who get into the welfare/state assistance/social programs trap, the incentives to staying in and disincentives to breaking free become too much. Their dependence on the social welfare systems harms them by taking away their agency and substituting the efforts of others for personal efforts. While these programs are intended as assistance, they seem to more often become more wheelchairs than crutches.

            Those who fall into the traps frequently have never known a life without the presence of social workers. Often they are people with basic psychological problems to begin with, due to medical or situational (read: abuse or other non-hereditary family-rooted issues) that would have a hard time coping with life in the real world regardless of the unintended but not unforeseeable trap set by well-meaning but foolish social reformers.

            1. The program my one friend runs seems to be almost unique in that they measure success in terms of how many “clients” make it out of the program, not in how many people they have serviced. The case workers are held to standards for successful graduation of clients, and see meaningful career consequences for sub- or above-standard performance.

              1. That’s awesome. Too many social workers come to see their role as being surrogate parents. Not surprisingly, their “wards” always seem to need assistance.

      4. Steigy,
        The poets comment about “puritan mentalities” strikes me as the most incisive reason to explain either the opposition or apathy I hear about it. The opponents associate illicit drugs with libertinism, something all good people must oppose as our ancestors have taught us. The apathetic, who think it’s kind of a good idea to oppose the WOD, treat it like a boutique issue and I think that’s largely because our forefather’s puritanical influence on this issue has so successfully flooded into the mainstream consciousness or subconsciousness…(subterrainian consciousness?).

        People will and have marched against military wars, and in support of or against a whole host of real or perceived moral issues. It’s refreshing that the Mexicans are actually marching against the WOD, but there has never been one march in the U.S. that I know about, beyond some gatherings to support mj legalization. Considering how much so-called “progresives” claim to care about the poor, minorities, and oppressed, you’d think that they’d be marching on a daily basis. But no. And the reason I suspect is that they can’t shake the notion from the back of their minds that this is just about libertinism.

  24. “How sweet will the party of the WOD is ended?”

    How sweet will the party be if the WOD is ended?

    ^This is your brain on drugs.

  25. BUCK PASSING START’S HERE!!! ? It’s [GWB], it’s the Tea-party, it’s the S&P 500, and/or it’s those Germans!!!

    [GWB], [T-P], [DB/DS] & [AM]

    Now, this whole Contraction, not a double-dip recession, or Global Depression, and certainly not a sudden deep and prolonged Global Economic Chaotic Catastrophic Transition, is all the fault of [GWB] George Walker Bush it was all an inherited problem, and if that doesn’t seem to ring true, well then it’s the fault of the [GOP] Grand-Old-Party those nasty Republicans, and their out of control [T-P] Tea-Party members, a bunch of anti-growing- never- ending taxation with representation extremist, so that didn’t make it for you either, well what about its that bunch from the S&P 500 Marc Tirl, DPA / Corbis, it’s the fault of [DB/DS] David Beers, Deven Sharma the unelected arbiter of the Worlds financial system, and his [80] Empire Imperial Emperor hating, munchkins, Oh! Seems that didn’t wash either well then it’s those German’s it’s that Kraut [AM] Angela Merkel’s fault for not bailing out the [PIIGS] Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain, not to speak of not putting more forces on the ground in Afghanistan, or Libya, and showing lack of support for not opening yet another theater in World War III in Syria, it’s all their fault. Swell it’s all their fault and certainly not that of his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the American ? Israeli Military Industrial Complex.

    [Office of the King Fish, Buck Passing Starts Here!!]

    What happened to the Buck Stop’s Here!! Now, old Harry Truman was another of those Lefty types Democrats, and was another make war not love Democrats [Truman’s Police Action] The Korean Conflict / War, but at least the guy took ownership for his administration and his actions, to the point were the old boy had a sign on the desk in the Oval Office [The Buck Stop’s Here], a buck being a [$USD$]. The current holder of the desk in the Oval Office need’s a sign, [BUCK PASSING STARTS HERE!!]. The only person we ever saw that was slippery as the Emperor, was a character from radio and [television/TV/tellie/boob tube], a program called Amos and Andy, which today would be considered racist, and the character was called The King Fish, the two are mirror character’s of each other, both make long winded speeches, both would say anything to get what they wanted, and neither took accountability for anything wrong that was caused by their actions or lack of. At this point it seem that the Oval Office should be renamed the Office of the King Fish, were Buck Passing Starts Here!

    [BUCK PASSING STARTS HERE!!!]

    The question is just who’s to blame in this blame game? Well, we can’t blame the guy in the Office of the King Fish, sitting behind the desk with the sign the [BUCK PASSING STARTS HERE!!], viewers take your pick; [GWB], [T-P], [DB/DS] &/Or [AM], and if none or any combination of those named as it’s all their fault doesn’t trip your trigger well feel free to make up your own, this is the new Clue Game, [GWB] did it in the Oval Office, [T-P] did it in the Congress, [DB/DS] S&P 500 Marc Tirl, DPA / Corbis, or [AM] failed to do it in Germany, you can make a complete new game of it the King Fish Blame Game, but look out for that copy right suit from the King Fish better known as his Imperial Majesty, sitting in the Office of the King Fish, at [1600] Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, [D.C.] District of Clown’s, the Beltway, behind the desk with the sign [BUCK PASSING STARTS HERE!!!]

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    1. Fuckin’ A! Nice start to the weekend, Herc!

    2. And that is your drugs on brain.

      Or something.

    3. how are the Alouettes doing?

    4. Where have you been, HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN?

    5. Welcome back, Herc! Ayez un bon weekend!

      1. There seem to be some run-on sentences there, Herc.

    6. Obviously Israel’s fault. Obviously.

      1. Also, [TL;DR], amirite?

  26. …in the name of abstractions, our politicians and war policy makers have committed the most atrocious crimes on human beings, who are not abstractions…

    I’m sorry, but as sympathetic as I am to ending the WOD, and with all due respect for this man’s pain, his words are nonsense.

    First of all, there’s nothing abstract about the WOD. A lot of people just don’t want more addicts in their world, and they’re willing to sacrifice the liberty and lives of others to prevent that. Call it whatever else you will, but it’s not abstract. A good poet would have seen through the “public health” rationalizations.

    Second, and more important, it’s not just wrong, but stupid, to lay all the blame for these atrocities on politicians, thereby excusing the savages who actually did the deeds. He’s pissed away his moral authority.

    1. “Second, and more important, it’s not just wrong, but stupid, to lay all the blame for these atrocities on politicians, thereby excusing the savages who actually did the deeds. He’s pissed away his moral authority.”

      Not really. The politicians could have simply pointed to their oath of office and lack of jurisdiction.

      1. Rolmfao lmfao rofl pmg wtf bbq *aneurysm*. That was hilarious. 100 points.

        Wait, you were… serious. Oh.

    2. You’re not crazy, you’re a dumbass.

      If the politicians did NOTHING, there would be no more addicts, just less violence due to removal of the Mob/Cartel Effect (see All Forms of Prohibition, Ever).

      You gonna start doing heroin because it’s suddenly legal? Neither are most other people. But you just increased competition by orders of magnitude, and ompletely took away the reason for ANY violence (you don’t see Pepsi/Coke Turf Wars, right?)

      So get your fucking head out of your ass, understand what’s being said here, understand how reality works, and understand that the Poet is (and libertarians are) spot on about this.

      Dumbass

      1. Sorry, I got fixated on the whole jurisdictional angle during the Clinton admin’s great reawakening of the militia movement. Kinda like ‘Matrix’ fixated.

      2. Almanian|8.12.11 @ 11:04PM|#
        You’re not crazy, you’re a dumbass. Get your fucking head out of your ass. Understand how reality works, Dumbass.

        Why won’t anyone take us seriously?

        1. Judging by the presence of concern trolls on this site, I’d say there must be someone that takes libertarianism seriously.

          1. As least as seriously as Dancing With The Stars.

    3. First of all, there’s nothing abstract about the WOD. A lot of people just don’t want more addicts in their world, and they’re willing to sacrifice the liberty and lives of others to prevent that. Call it whatever else you will, but it’s not abstract.

      I am sorry for your short attention span, but the whole quote reads:

      In the name of abstractions?the abstraction of saving youth from drug addiction?they have brutally assassinated thousands of young people, while transforming others into delinquents.

      If you had just read another eight words, you might have noticed that the abstraction was not the WoD, but the idea of “saving youth from drug addiction.”

      1. you might have noticed that the abstraction was not the WoD, but the idea of “saving youth from drug addiction.”

        I understand that. I’m saying it’s bullshit. The political power to wage this “war” comes from the fear a significant part of the US electorate has that legalization will fill up their town with junkies. Remove that fear, stop the war.

        The poet is wrong.

        1. So is that a concrete fear or an abstract fear?

      2. Almanian and Aresen have covered most of the ground, but let me pile on, because it’s deserved.

        It is abstract. Nothing will be done in reality, so how can you claim otherwise? There will be as many addicts as ever, except their problems will be compounded by the stupidity of government.

    4. excusing the savages who actually did the deeds

      But that’s what we do!

    5. Almanian you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just saying “I’m a huge asshole”. Because that’s all I got from your post.

      And I too find the blaming of murders on people other than the actual murderers irritating. Sounds like utilitarian territory: you are responsible for all the suffering beyond that amount resulting from the policy which leads to the least suffering. No, you should do the right thing because its right, not because some asshole will violate laws and kill someone if you don’t. Murder is wrong and illegal, we shouldn’t have to coax, cajole, or via broad machievellian policy games, manipulate people to follow the law beyond that.

      Having said all that I support legalization on real libertarian grounds. As in victimless crimes should not be crimes.

  27. “A lot of people just don’t want more addicts in their world”

    Include me in that list. Where we part company is at the borderline of reality and superstition. The WOD has done nothing to eliminate addiction; it has only caused all of the problems associated with drug use to be compounded.

    1. Where we part company is at the borderline of reality and superstition.

      I understand that you’re exaggerating for effect, but it’s hardly superstitious to believe that reducing the cost and increasing the availability of recreational drugs will result in more addiction. It may be wrong, but it’s not irrational.

      While I obviously didn’t like her post, I suspect that Lucy’s comment @ 7:08 regarding the root causes of addiction is the basis of one of the better counter-arguments.

      1. If there’s something called “addiction” that people want, and this reduces the price of it, then by all means let’s have more of it.

      2. …it’s hardly superstitious to believe that reducing the cost and increasing the availability of recreational drugs will result in more addiction…

        Perhaps he should have used the phrase “fucking ignorant” instead of “superstitious”. Are there dilettantes who avoid (currently illegal and addictive) drug use due to prohibition? Probably. The vast majority of people either don’t use illegal drugs, or do use them, and don’t think they’ll be caught. To have these laws for the .5% of the population that might be interested in trying drugs, but won’t b/c of drug laws, is stupid beyond belief.

        Also, the costs of dealing with addiction would be several orders of magnitude less in a free society. Opiate addiction cravings are stopped by ibogaine (which is currently illegal in the US). In a free society, the problems caused by drugs would be nothing compared to the problems caused by the prohibitionists.

        1. There are also those that try drugs because it’s illegal and a form of rebellion. So I think that in the long term it’s a wash.

  28. Should be interesting to see how that all works out.

    http://www.anon-vpn.it.tc

  29. Weekend threadjack – here’s the linky to the World Pipe Band Championship live feed from the BBC. once again, the wonderful Bob Worrall from Burlington, ON (Canada) will provide commentary on the Grade 1 qualifier and final.

    Festivities start at 0900 BST (~3:00am Eastern in the USofA IIRC). The best pipe bands in the world, for free. Enjoy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/worlds/2011/

    1. Ny former band, the Toronto Police, I don’t believe went over this year. My new former band, the Peel Regional Police (also from the Toronto area) are over and sound good.

      My money’s on Field Marshal Montgomery from Northern Ireland, as it is every year. This year, they’re undefeated, so things look good. We’ll see how they are on the day.

      /ethnic subculture

      1. i fucking love the pipes, man. scotland the brave with a whole bunch of bagpipes is probably the most inspiring thing on earth

        1. Bitchin’ rap, nigga.

  30. Does it get any lower than “Karaoke Battle USA”?

  31. Aruba is for lovers dead blonde women.

    1. Investigators have few witnesses who saw Robyn Gardner and Gary V. Giordano together in Aruba before he reported her missing, said Solicitor General Taco Stein.

      Just knowing that somewhere in the world there’s a guy named Taco Stein makes it a little bit easier to field the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

  32. By making a particular drug illegal, the WOD would seem to ensure 1) that a higher proportion of that drug’s overall use will be abusive, and even more significantly 2) a much higher proportion of the VISIBLE USE will be abusive. This is then used to justify prohibition by supposedly demonstrating that “hard drugs really are different than alcohol.” With respect to the first point, the fact that a drug is illegal would seem to guarantee that the individuals who begin using it anyway will, on average, have a stronger drive to alter their consciousness, have a higher propensity for risk-taking behavior, and be more likely to have “less to lose” from being caught. So when you see statistics on the percentage of people who begin using, e.g., heroin vs. alcohol who then go on to satisfy some criteria for addiction, it doesn’t seem like that is in any way an apples-to-apples comparison? Because of alcohol’s legal status and cultural acceptance, the people who begin consuming alcohol at some point in their lives are more-or-less a representative cross-sample of America’s population. Call it a hunch, but I’m guessing that the people who begin using heroin are in many ways that matter NOT a representative cross-sample, and that the differences probably all tilt in the direction of making those individuals more susceptible to addiction.

    With respect to the second point, from the perspective of your average non-illicit drug using, pro-WOD, red-blooded American, the vast majority of illicit drug use is simply invisible. The use that is visible generally falls into one of three categories (1) that of an addict (whose addiction has become so severe that their use can no longer be concealed), (2) that of an individual who has been arrested for drug use / sale (which we have to admit is at least somewhat correlated with irresponsible use), or (3) open use by what some call the “counter culture.” None of these give Joe Sixpack a warm and fuzzy. For that reason many Americans simply can’t conceive of “responsible drug use” (and in fact, part of using illegal drugs responsibly is making damn sure your use stays invisible). Thus they automatically conflate use with abuse.

    1. ‘many Americans simply can’t conceive of “responsible drug use”. Thus they automatically conflate use with abuse.’

      Spot, fracking, on.

    2. Nicely put.

      And this from a teetotaler.

  33. Where does Camus say this? This sounds like RR’s “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” freetranslatored through Finnish.

  34. An OT bit of poli-fluff you may enjoy. Over at Gawker…yes Gawker

    http://gawker.com/5830215/1200…..g-layoffs#

    The have a post about possible upcoming layoffs of postal workers.

    Naturally the majority of commentators were opposed. A few even stating that the P.O. shouldn’t have to make a profit, after all how much did the interstate system bring in?

    Not one poster, even those arguing that it should be cut, seem to have even a scintilla of knowledge regarding the vibrant history of private mail delivery in this country. Here is a short PDF that gives an overview.

    http://www.h-net.org/~business…..-p0148.pdf

    In my area, the Mother Lode part of Northern California there was anywhere from 300 to over 500 private express companies. No one is quite sure how many. As many were “one man and a mule” outfits that never would have made it into any sort of records.

    I love things like this because it shows just how out of their depth these people are. Their assertions that private companies would not service rural routes when it was the government that wouldn’t do it. Or that a private company would charge so much more to deliver mail when historically private carriers did it for less. Often times a lot less.

    Though Well-Fargo did charge six cents more per letter to deliver from the east coast to California they still delivered about 2.5 million pieces a year so the premium they charged was worth it.

    The government did it for 3 1/2 cents per and Wells Fargo charged 9 1/2 cents per which included the 3 1/2 cents for the stamp they bought from the government. So really it was only costing six cents to deliver it but the government imposed a 33% tax on each letter. Yet 100,000s of people still paid the extra money to avoid having the P.O. handle their mail.

    Yet the people at Gawker are blissfully ignorant of this history. It might not even matter. You are to be forcefully denied your right to contract with whomever you please to carry your mail because dammit the Post Office is one of the shamanistic touchstones of society and to take it away would corrupt our very souls.

    And so it goes with roads, schools, health care, security, consumer protection and on and on and on.

    1. Totally forgot to add money/currency to that list. It should be first in line.

    2. I saw a bit on the postal worker layoffs on TEE VEE last night. “Post offices are literally what made a town…you were official once you got your own post office…”

      Dear God….yes, the romance of the…Post Office? Fuck people.

      And, yeah, “but, but, teh rural areas!!!” Having grown up and lived in multiple “rural” areas, my experience has been that the private enterprise will get you ANYTHING you want, wherever you are…but what was lacking was GOVERNMENT “service”. But of course, others’ results may vary…

      PS Fuck government, while I’m on the subject…

      1. Fuck people. PS Fuck government.

        Why won’t anyone take you seriously?

        1. You say this as though you know it to be true, and yet it’s not. Shoo, fly.

      2. Exactly. People are more than willing to drive out to the sticks for money.

  35. /ethnic [and musical] subculture

    OK, World’s Update – Peel DIDN’T make it through to the final – AGAIN. #conspiracy

    My picks (in order): Field Marshal, St. Laurence O’Toole, Simon Fraser Univ (hi, Dagny T!), Strathclyde Police, Boghall, and…Manawatu (NZ) are my flier. GREAT music – hope they make it into the top six this year.

    We’ll see. Action starts at 7:30 Eastern, so hope on your browser for a watch/listen! Good luck to all the bands.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/worlds/2011/live/

    /ethnic [and musical] subculture

    1. Looks like you got your #1 pick.

  36. Police Arrest Homeless Man in Robbery Case

    Police have arrested 37-Year-Old Tony Odom as a suspect in the robbery. Police say Odom is homeless.

    Lincoln Police Captain Martin Fehringer says a 54-year-old man was walking on E street, when a car pulled up. A passenger started threatening the man. The passenger then got out and started kicking and punching the man, he also stole a small amount of money.

    Nothing else happened.

    http://www.1011now.com/home/he…..49958.html

    1. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.c…..atrol-car/

      PA: Philadelphia Cop Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Woman Inside Patrol Car

      Philadelphia Police are investigating one of their own after a woman claims she was sexually assaulted in the back of a squad car.” …

      “As a result of the allegations, Eyewitness News has learned the patrol car reportedly used in the attack is being searched and DNA evidence collected.”

      “‘And we’re going rush the DNA to see whether or not we have a match,’ Commissioner Ramsey added.” …

      Eat shit and die in a fire

      1. Puppets dance. Nothing else happens.

    2. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the police ALWAYS kill homeless men when they arrest them. But sometimes they do, and they probably shouldn’t.

  37. My reply was to Another Isolated Incident. Also, my apologies for feeding the troll.

    1. Don’t let it happen again!

  38. I agree. This is why we should let everyone have access to guns, that way we would know who really has a problem and take steps to remedy the problem. The naivete is astounding. Have these people ever met a drug addict? Apparently if you give people open access to drugs they’ll finally realize through the benevolence of friends they can kick the habit! Get real. Oh, and when drugs get legalized the drug dealers will finally realized they’re not REALLY murders, they just do it to make an honest living! I’m really starting to see the light here. Oh and this would obviously help those third world countries, giving people jobs etc…Of course only A FEW people might try the cocaine considering it would be legal, but they wouldn’t get addicted because of the astounding support system that would be set-up to help them kick the addiction. We’d tax the crap out of it to prevent new users and this would prevent people from using them and run to their support systems that will be in place. Granted, drugs might still be found in the underground (UNTAXED)and those just might come from the peaceful drug lords which would help them further branch out their criminality, but that’s just speculation. As long as the addicts have a support system they should be fine.

    1. Have you ever thought about becoming an anarcho-capitalist-individualist-collectivist-douchebag?

      1. Every day actually. I’m glad you can string together a list of big words that have no relation to each other and pretend like you’re really smart!

    2. LOL, you think the drug war is an incentive for addicts to reveal to others their addiction. You think the drug war does not create an environment where violence is necessary for drug dealers to operate? Seriously, fuck off you moronic little cunt.

      1. Apparently you can’t read very well.

    3. I agree. This is why we should let everyone have access to guns, that way we would know who really has a problem and take steps to remedy the problem. The naivete is astounding. Have these people ever met a drug addict an alcoholic? Apparently if you give people open access to drugs alcohol they’ll finally realize through the benevolence of friends they can kick the habit! Get real. Oh, and when drugs alcohol gets legalized the drug dealers Al Capone and other bootleggers will finally realized they’re not REALLY murders, they just do it to make an honest living! I’m really starting to see the light here. Oh and this would obviously help those third world countries, giving people jobs etc…Of course only A FEW people might try the cocaine alcohol considering it would be legal, but they wouldn’t get addicted because of the astounding support system that would be set-up to help them kick the addiction. We’d tax the crap out of it to prevent new users and this would prevent people from using them alcohol and run to their support systems that will be in place. Granted, drugs alcohol might still be found in the underground (UNTAXED)and those just might come from the peaceful drug lords bootleggers which would help them further branch out their criminality, but that’s just speculation. As long as the addicts have a support system they should be fine.

      1. You’re an idiot if you think alcohol, which might, or might not be addictive, is the same as cocaine. Have you ever met an alcoholic? My father has struggled with it his entire life, and I’ve not even tasted the stuff because of his example (unless you want to count Tiramisu, or a Catholic communion). In short, terrible experience, but for everyone one of the alcoholics I’ve met MANY more that can handle alcohol with no problems, other than perhaps needing it before going to bed or for a meal. Can you say the same with a cocaine addict? If alcohol was addictive to EVERYONE THAT USES IT and those people turned into raving addicts, transforming bars into seedy, brain frying places, where the people never left and mindlessly threw away their life savings to indulge in drink after drink…maybe you’d have a point. Instead you reason like someone that has never taken a trip into a big city. Perhaps you should get off your anus and experience the real world for a change. Your false equivocations are not only stupid, but dangerous.

        1. Are you really so stupid as to imply that everyone who has ever tried cocaine became instantly addicted and has never kicked the habit? That is your argument?

    4. addicts would still be addicts. to feed their addiction they would not have to resort to crime, though.

      the current murderous drug lords would most likely still be criminals, and still murderous. they would not, however, be murdering people for the exorbitant profits that currently exist in inherently cheap drugs because there would be no exorbitant profits.

      do you have a better solution to the society-destroying WOD than to end it? if so, I would like to hear it.

      1. if prices came down to the point where any addict could get all the fix he needs just from the money he makes off panhandling (what it would take to eliminate addict-crime), I really have to think we’d end up with way more addicts. Since the barrier would just be so low.

  39. Det er derfor, vi skal lade alle have adgang til pistoler, den m?de vi ville vide, hvem der virkelig har et problem og tage skridt til at afhj?lpe problemet.

  40. Albert Camus spoke a terrible truth. “I know something worse than hate: abstract love.”

    A very silly quote in this context, and apparently Camus didn’t say or write it – source?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.