Radical Incline Posts

Subscribe to Radical Incline | Mindful Webworks
Full Radical Incline posts, latest on top
Page 41 of 50, posts 201 - 205 of 247
Radical Incline

Prohibition fuels gangsterism

It's not drugs but PROHIBITION which provides the fuel for the modern equivalent of rum-runner profits and Al Capones.

Twenty-one slaughtered in the nightclub in Monterrey.
Eleven shot to death in Chalco, just outside Mexico City.
Ten decapitated in the northern city of Torreon.
In the last four years, at least 42,000 killed!
That's about one out of every five people in my county being murdered each year!

"Most of the dead were killed by warring drug cartels fighting over routes to the U.S. and increasingly-lucrative domestic drug markets."

Al CaponeLots of folks think increased "war on drugs" will help. Certainly, society, north and south of the border, has failed miserably to stop rampant gangsterism. However, it's not drugs but PROHIBITION which provides the fuel for the modern equivalent of rum-runner profits and Al Capones.

Drug-abuse fear is understandable. My state is suffering a meth disaster. Crack is a hideous social pandemic. I have seen the ravages of heroin and alcohol, and I have a special disdain for that nasty crap nicotine. "Mere" marijuana is plainly not the safe substance it's purported to be, but neither is abuse of caffeine, sugar, and saturated fats good for the "temple of the spirit." Drugs are not the only vices, of course, as there's gambling and pornography and prostitution and one could add shopaholism or so many other forms of self-abuse, physical and mental. The individual cost is horrendous, as are the familial and societal effects.

So, we want to do something, and it is the impulse of those who don't think Constitutionally to legislate, to police "vice." The only result is to compound the problems and criminalize the casual users. To consider every instance of use as if it were transgression is to declare every user guilty without trial. Under prohibitionist mentality, the individual who enjoys a glass of wine is put on a par with the sot who beats his wife or drives drunk. This is UN-AMERICAN! How ironic, how perverse that the Left has (allegedly) championed personal freedom while the Right invests in more and worse Big Nannying! Repeal should be a conservative issue because prohibitionism is TYRANNY.

End prohibition. Legalize all "vice." Enforce strictly those good laws which deal with true transgression as we do (or ought to do) with public inebriation. Deal with habituation and addiction as we do (or ought to do) with alcoholism, through family, church, medical intervention, and involve the law only when an individual truly transgresses another's liberty. That would be liberty-respecting, right-respecting, American!

This decent principle, this ideal, gets lost amid exacerbated drug fears, gang fears, and the immense profits made by both sides off of the aberration of the "drug war." Until the conservatives can be corrected, the situation will remain as it has become, worsening, and turning our society over to thugs, both ganster and elected.

Related Mindful Webworks:
Repeal! / Repeal Heals — not only is the so-called war on drugs utterly unwinnable, it is in its very conception a perversion of the important purposes of good government. The way to personal or social health is positive.
The Golden Rule and Prohibition — Countering common erroneous arguments for prohibitionism and
applying the Golden Rule
Independent Religionist's Liberty — are USA Constitutional liberties not being extended to non-aligned religionists?
A run-in with Officer Green"WHAT'S THAT SMELL??" scowled Officer Green, and ordered me out of my car.
Head Shop — Cartoons, songs, and more regarding the appeal of indulgences and the consequences of desire.

A significantly related link:
[*]Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at leap.cc

Radical Incline

Reading Drudge Report as a story

Reading Drudge Report as a story, rather than as separate headlines.

D...10:22am Saturday July 2 2011

Kaddaffy's secret weapon: Presidential Seals
U.S. STILL BOMBING LIBYA. Presidential seal blows off limo in Philly; French Woman Dies of E. Coli. Qaddafi threatens attacks in Europe. Geithner may want to go; Will Obama let him?

United States News: Domino effect knocks down several states sequentially.
FEDS STRIKE DOWN STATE'S BAN ON RACE CONSIDERATION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS. SoCal Looks to Secede from California. Minnesota Government Shuts Down. UN asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence. Washington state closes tourism office. Florida state workers get pink slips, more cuts ahead.

When, Oh! When will this cascade of disastrophe abate!

Radical Incline

Oklahoma Rep. Sullivan Reply Fail #1

Sometimes you have have to hit them twice just to get their attention.

John Sullivan

I posted the following on 2011 June 25 at 3:15pm CDST at https://sullivan.house.gov/Forms/WriteYourRep/Default.aspx, to our congressman, John Sullivan:

Dear Representative Sullivan:

A number of Republican congressmen voted against HR2278, including some conservative stalwarts. Please, sir, many of us are wondering about your own reasoning in voting as you did. I suspect you're hearing from a few other constituents about this. Perhaps there's a statement posted online that I missed?

Thank you,
Don Tyler

I received the following email reply in some HTML-like format which my email reader would not display, but was able to pull out the following:

June 28, 2011

Dear Mr. Tyler,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the situation in Libya. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn was launched to enforce the United Nations-approved no-fly zone over Libya. U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces have targeted the Muammar Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. I believe that Libya's leader, Muammar Qadhafi, must resign from power. He is a dictator and a human rights violator. On March 30, 2011, the U.S. transferred the command of all military operations to NATO.

The American people take the use of military action seriously, as does the House of Representatives. I am disappointed that President Obama did not consult with Congress before his decision to deploy the combat the men and women of our Armed Forces. Should legislation regarding the U.S. military interests in Libya come before me on the House floor, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Now more than ever, it is important that we continue to support the hard working= men and women in uniform who are serving our country overseas. My thoughts and prayers are with all our nation's military as they continue their mission. I know all Oklahomans are proud of these hard working men and women and= are thankful for the sacrifices both they and their families make on a daily basis to defend our freedom in the Global War on Terror.

Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you= in Washington and Oklahoma. If you would like more information on issues, or would like to share your thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit= my website at http://sullivan.house.gov/. Please do not hesitate to contact me again should you have further concerns on federal legislation or programs.

John Sullivan

Boilerplate non-response! I will be sending a follow-up letter now. Watch this space.

Radical Incline

When the Right is Very Very Wrong

Sure we believe in liberty except when we don't, says Ann Coulter.

There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right on one side of her sneering lip
And when she was Right
She was very very Right
But when she was wrong
It was bullship.

(Okay, okay, so I couldn't come up with a better rhyme on short notice so I munged[*] the last line.)

CoulterWhen Ann Coulter turns her guns on deserving targets,[*] and opens up with both barrels, it's as much fun as it is inspiring to watch her blast open the bull's eye. When she seems to be just putting words together to rattle the enemy by throwing them curve balls,[*] it can be somewhat enjoyable, but not so much. When she's going after what I consider the wrong targets, it's no fun at all, and very sad. I have the same problem with most Right-wing spokesfolk, even (and sometimes especially) Our Leader Mark Levin.[*]

When I tuned to yesterday's column,[*] and saw that she was going to comment on Monday's Republican beauty pageant, I had high hopes of being entertained, and possibly informed (especially since I hadn't watched the "debate"). I was quickly disappointed.

She writes, "Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I dislike libertarians." Of all political labels, libertarian would probably fit me best. When I first took The World's Smallest Political Quiz,[*] I scored right at the top, although I've discovered the questions keep changing. However, the label is not a comfortable fit for me, not for the sake of libertarianism, but for the reality of most libertarians, so while I'm disappointed at the direction she's taking, I start nodding in agreement when Ann writes she dislikes libertarians ("[e]xcept one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy" she adds parenthetically, with disturbing duplicity).

Then comes the next sentence. "They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage." THUMP! That's the sound of my hopes hitting the floor. I have to drag myself through the rest of the column as a matter of duty, but like the time I walked into a relative's house and saw a big poster of Prem Rawat, I knew all too well what lay ahead. Like so many Right-wingers, Ann had stepped right into two of the three tar-babies[*] of the Christian-Republican alliance.

Let me step back a minute to quickly grab some statistics courtesy of Professor Google. According to a Pew Survey[*] for which I find no date, nearly 80% of Americans consider ourselves religious, and over 80% of those are either Protestant or Catholic. For the faithful follower of Jesus, that at first blush seems hopeful. However, according to a Gallup poll from last December,[*] 40% of Americans also "believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago." For the record, I'm among the 38% who "believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms." I find the 40% who are just plain scientifically ignorant to be somewhere between a problem and a serious threat. Between the 40% who don't understand progressive development is scientifically unquestionable, and the 16% who don't think God is involved, reasonable theists are outnumbered. My point with this digression is, believers can be beautiful beings, but they can hold some awfully stupid, and socially dangerous, views. Among those are the Big Three on which liberals consistently capitalize. Now back to Ann, slugging away at two of those tar-babies.

Ann characterizes Ron Paul's answer regarding gay marriage as "a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer." First of all, disagreement on the issue is one thing, but this seems to unfairly question Paul's sincerity. What Paul said, as quoted in Coulter's column, was, "The federal government shouldn't be involved," and "I don't think government should give us a license to get married." As it happens, this has been my own stance since long before I wrote Defending Common-Law Marriage in 1997. Ann argues that unless the government defines marriage, "courts are going to be bulging with legal disputes among the unalert, who neglected to plan in advance and make private contracts resolving the many legal issues that are normally determined by a marriage contract." The problem is real. However, Ann's arguments are along the same line as a reply I got from a lawyer, and essentially deal with the convenience of the government. I answered those questions in a second article to which the reader can refer for more detail, but the essence is in this sentence (quoting myself seems so odd): "Mary Jo and I have been married for over twenty years, legally, without recourse to State or Church, and since such liberty is feasible, it is not our burden to suggest why it would be a 'hardship' to register with the Gummint, but the Gummint's impossible burden to prove why private marriage contract should not be valid without State approval." I note that, as with any contract, it is up to the individuals contracting to be wise in contracting, and careful to establish their positions in the case of dispute or other reason to turn to the courts. While what I disputed was an Oklahoma legislator trying to do away with Common Law marriage between a man and a woman, the same reasoning would hold in any union, whether between two people of the same sex or even a group marriage. When Ann or others argue against gay marriage as a legal matter, they are, politically and philosphically, indistinguishable from other tyrants who promote government control over everything from our educational systems to our light bulbs.

Covered with tar from that baby, Ann proceeds to use her remaining free extremities to tangle with a second. Freedom from government licensing in marriage, she opines, is "exactly like drug legalization." Indeed it is: a matter of individual liberty uncontrolled by unnecessary legislative tyranny! She characterizes both as trivial. Apparently, she is unaware of how the drug war destroys families, imprisons people for non-transgressions, and is directly responsible for the drug gang violence in Mexico and throughout Latin America. She offers nothing else on the matter, though, so I won't bother to further address her non-existent arguments against this form of tyranny. I will, however, refer the reader to another pair of articles of mine on this subject, also from 1997, on the Constitutionality and social value of Repeal. Most folks who argue like Ann does here seem unaware that the very arguments they use are the ones others employ to fight against second amendment rights, for example.

You know how folks can be. When it's the other guy's ox getting gored, we chuckle,[*] but when it's our sacred cows being attacked, we are disgruntled. So, maybe it's just me, but I find that when Ann has the right targets in her sights, her wit and wisdom make for excellent reading. When she's off-base, she struggles like a liberal to explain her inconsistency. In the end, Ann engages in her special brand of sneering derision and smarmy excess to deride libertarians as "cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time." Like the Left who employ the Constitution only when it suits their needs and call it obsolete when it doesn't, too many who should otherwise be true American heroes say they believe in liberty except when their pet tyrannies are threatened. Whether merely egregiously ill-informed, propagandistically disingenuous, or both, Ann is, in this instance, representative of what's really wrong with the Right.