The Kevlar President (or how liberal nannies take all the fun out of life)
N9NWO
By Jonathan Yardley
Washington Post Staff Writer
You can't do anything anymore,' a friend complained one evening last week.
We were talking about how small children now travel with enough protective
baggage -- car seats, strollers, portable cribs, organic baby food -- to
equip a day-care center, and about how our own mothers had knocked back the
martinis while we were marinating in utero, but we could just as well have
been talking about, oh, clearing brush with a chain saw or writing a novel
with a comic drunk scene.
If Cole Porter were around these days, he'd have to rewrite one of the
classics of the American musical theater and retitle it "Nothing Goes." The
country that once prided itself on rugged individualism is now under the
thumb of the nannies, aka Ralph Nader, Consumer Reports and the editorial
board of the New York Times. A citizenry that once believed it was free to
do whatever it jolly well wanted so long as it was more or less legal now
has little choice except to do what someone else says is good for it,
whether or not it actually is.
To wit, an editorial in the Times last week took the president to task for
"operating a chain saw with photographers present" while wearing "a white
cowboy hat, aviator sunglasses, earplugs and heavy gloves." Had he been
dressed "appropriately," the Times whined, he would have worn "the
protective helmet and Kevlar logging chaps required by the Forest Service
Health and Safety Handbook," as well as "a wraparound mesh facemask and more
aggressive hearing protection." That, the Times said, "is how the real pros
dress, the ones that work with chain saws all the time," leaving one to
contemplate the enchanting image of the editorialists of the Times, sheathed
in Kevlar and wraparound mesh, clearing the forests of Scarsdale.
This came to the attention of Ira Stoll, a journalist who has taken it upon
himself to call the Times on the carpet seven days a week at a Web site that
he calls Smartertimes.com. The chain-saw editorial, he wrote, "really has to
be read to be believed." He pointed out that "a part-time chainsaw operator
clearing light brush doesn't need to dress like a professional logger
felling huge trees, any more than a weekend home chef needs to wear
steel-toe cook's shoes and a fireproof kitchen uniform," and then added:
"None of this is to suggest that chainsaws aren't dangerous, but there are
lots of dangerous things running around New York City, too, and most New
Yorkers haven't yet resorted to walking around in Kevlar logging chaps."
Only a few hours after reading the Times's editorial and Stoll's deft
evisceration of it, I came across a thoughtful essay by Philip Hensher in
the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly about the novels of Dawn Powell.
Hensher argued that these fall into two broad categories: "sad Ohio
pastorals of loneliness and innocence" and "elaborately plotted, cynical
comedies of bohemian life" in New York. In the latter, Hensher wrote, the
"drunk scenes . . . look like dispatches from a time between Prohibition and
Jane Fonda, when America was not puritan, when excess could be celebrated,
when intoxication could be funny." He wrote that "the easiest and most
commonplace way to mask oneself is, of course, to get very drunk, and one of
the most astonishing things about Powell's novels is their unprecedented,
fabulous crapulence." He added: "Sadly, years of public-health announcements
have probably done in that great staple of comic invention, the drunk
scene."
Yes, it goes without saying that getting "very drunk" is dangerous for
oneself and others, but the point Hensher makes is absolutely valid. The new
priggishness wants us to stop laughing at behavior that can be exceedingly
funny and deeply revealing. Take away drunk scenes and you might as well
forget that John Cheever ever lived, or Jean Stafford, or Frederick Exley,
or Kingsley Amis, or Evelyn Waugh. One of the most delicious passages I've
ever read, a description of "a hangover of mythic proportions," appears in
"A Good Man in Africa," the wonderful first novel by William Boyd:
"It seemed as if his entire body had been tenderized by one of those jagged
wooden mallets used for bashing steaks. His tongue felt twice as large as
normal, as though it was striving to loll out of the side of his mouth like
a dog's, and he had a neuralgic headache that loosened every tooth in its
socket and made his sinus passages hum like tuning forks."
Sorry about that, but that's funny. So, too, switching to movies, are Peter
O'Toole's riotously besotted actor in "My Favorite Year" and Dudley Moore's
dipsomaniacal rich boy in "Arthur." One need not approve of drunkenness to
find it funny or to understand, as Hensher puts it, that in Powell's work as
in so many other writers' and filmmakers', the "drunk scenes would survive
even if no one thought they were funny, because underneath them is a
terrible truth about her characters: like her, they would always rather talk
from behind a mask than not at all."
The nannies will have none of that. In their proscriptive and prescriptive
rules for living, the darker, less salubrious sides of human nature are
papered over with polite denial and the risks of daily existence are skirted
by turning all of us into Kevlar-wrapped mummies. The only antidote to all
this self-righteousness is to march over to the bar and pour a big, stiff
drink. Straight up, with a twist, and make mine a double.
Jonathan Yardley's e-mail address is yar...@twp.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46013-2001Sep5.html
The liberals, along with their friends in the Trial Lawyers Association,
are acting like a bunch of puritans and fighting to take all the fun out
of life. What it looks like is that the editors at the NY Times have never
worked a real job in their lives. But then most newspaper and TV news
types are a bunch of suburbanite yuppies with no real life skills.
John Husvar
Some folks seem determined to make every tool so safe you can't use it and
the world so perfect you can't live in it.
Life is risky: Freedom is dangerous and expensive. Deal with it.
"N9NWO" <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:Z7wm7.1273$hH4.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Jim Alder
> The Kevlar President
> To wit, an editorial in the Times last week took the president to task
> for "operating a chain saw with photographers present" while wearing "a
> white cowboy hat, aviator sunglasses, earplugs and heavy gloves." Had
> he been dressed "appropriately," the Times whined, he would have worn
> "the protective helmet and Kevlar logging chaps required by the Forest
> Service Health and Safety Handbook," as well as "a wraparound mesh
> facemask and more aggressive hearing protection." That, the Times said,
> "is how the real pros dress, the ones that work with chain saws all the
> time," leaving one to contemplate the enchanting image of the
> editorialists of the Times, sheathed in Kevlar and wraparound mesh,
> clearing the forests of Scarsdale.
Just another demonstraton of the desperation of the liberals, seeking to
find or fabricate any possible thing they can criticize the president for.
You would think that, if he were stupid or incompetent, that it would be
easy to find serious things wrong on a daily basis. Instead? "He's not
wearing enough safety gear for this photo op!! Waaahhhh!!!!"
Truly inspiring, ain't it?
--
---
Never look a whore's gift in the mouth.
N9NWO
John Husvar <jhu...@neo.rr.com> wrote ...
: <Newsgroups trimmed to Misc.Survivalism and Talk.Politics.Guns>
:
: Some folks seem determined to make every tool so safe you can't use it and
: the world so perfect you can't live in it.
:
: Life is risky: Freedom is dangerous and expensive. Deal with it.
Liberals have become the new puritans. Yuppies
are even worst, often being neo-victorians.
: > The Kevlar President
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
pyotr filipivich
<n9...@amsat.org> was inspired to write:
>The Kevlar President
[snippage]
>Only a few hours after reading the Times's editorial and Stoll's deft
>evisceration of it, I came across a thoughtful essay by Philip Hensher in
>the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly about the novels of Dawn Powell.
>Hensher argued that these fall into two broad categories: "sad Ohio
>pastorals of loneliness and innocence" and "elaborately plotted, cynical
>comedies of bohemian life" in New York. In the latter, Hensher wrote, the
>"drunk scenes . . . look like dispatches from a time between Prohibition and
>Jane Fonda, when America was not puritan, when excess could be celebrated,
>when intoxication could be funny." He wrote that "the easiest and most
>commonplace way to mask oneself is, of course, to get very drunk, and one of
>the most astonishing things about Powell's novels is their unprecedented,
>fabulous crapulence." He added: "Sadly, years of public-health announcements
>have probably done in that great staple of comic invention, the drunk
>scene."
The nannies seem unaware that what makes drunks so "funny" isn't that we
are laughing "with" them, but at them.
In the effort to protect even everyone's self-esteem, even that of drunken
sots, we're removed one of the more effective means of social control: "you can
do that, but we're all going to laugh our asses at you when you do."
Nothing funnier than telling the hungover what they did (or didn't) do the
night before.
>"It seemed as if his entire body had been tenderized by one of those jagged
>wooden mallets used for bashing steaks. His tongue felt twice as large as
>normal, as though it was striving to loll out of the side of his mouth like
>a dog's, and he had a neuralgic headache that loosened every tooth in its
>socket and made his sinus passages hum like tuning forks."
"Have you ever awaken, knowing a great and advance civilization had arisen
to glory and then declined into oblivion, leaving nothing but their remains -
all on your tongue?"
pyotr filipivich
Any entity big enough to meet your needs,
is big enough to decide what those needs should be.
Just ask your mom.
N9NWO
how do we laugh at the nannies?
: >The Kevlar President
tracy
Joseph Lovell
N9NWO wrote:
>
> John Husvar <jhu...@neo.rr.com> wrote ...
> : <Newsgroups trimmed to Misc.Survivalism and Talk.Politics.Guns>
> :
> : Some folks seem determined to make every tool so safe you can't use it and
> : the world so perfect you can't live in it.
> :
> : Life is risky: Freedom is dangerous and expensive. Deal with it.
>
> Liberals have become the new puritans. Yuppies
> are even worst, often being neo-victorians.
>
If you look up some of the old legal records from New England and see
all the convictions for beastiality, adultry, fornication, and various
other sexual "crimes" you would see that our straight laced ancestors
were a rather lusty group of people. And upper class Victorians were
almost as bad.
Joseph
N9NWO
> from TRYING to micro-manage the lives of their
> neighbors, TRYING to make their lives hell - and
> often succeeding. The more hypocritical the
> Puritan, the more they have to try and hide that
> fact through the zealous persecution of others.
Both the weird sex and the micro management
sounds like the modern democratic party, doesn't
it??
Jeffrey Davis
BlackWater wrote: Just look at Joe Lieberman ... he's the future of
> the Democratic party - a neo-puritan "liberal". We
> shall see more and more like him as the hippy-dippies
> grow older and cannot reconcile their rhetoric with
> their lifestyles. Most now LIVE fairly "conservative"
> lives ... try to raise their kids like "conservatives"
> tend to do ... because they've discovered it's *necessary*.
I don't know what your image of liberals is. Most of the liberal I know are sober,
hard-working folk who have always led "conservative" lives. Who didn't? I spent my
college years as a long-haired anti-war type, but I eschewed drugs and always had a
job. Most of the people I know did the same.
I think you're confusing or conflating druggies with liberals. Whether on purpose or
not I can't say.
>
>
> I wonder what mental stresses this places on them - to
> talk the old-tyme rad-lib talk, while DOING pretty much
> the opposite ? Careers, investments, portfolios, house
> payments, car payments, insurance, braces, little league,
> church and, oh yea, a nice big home as far away from
> those formerly cherished "minorities" as their gas-guzzling
> SUVs would carry them. Looks "conservative" to me ... but
> it TALKS like a liberal.
What exactly is liberal or conservative about a career, a house payment, insurance,
braces, little league, or church. One can follow your thinking about the investments,
the SUV, and the big house, but the other stuff is just thrown in to make a short list
seem substantial.
>
>
> Somewhere along the line, the concept of the "nanny state"
> merged with a sort of religious zeal carried over from mom
> and dad and grandma Prue and we got the neo-puritan "liberal".
It's a figment of your imagination.
>
>
> It's an ugly mutant - and it's dangerous to every liberty
> in its path.
So is unrestrained rhetoric.
Jeffrey Davis
BlackWater wrote:
> Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >BlackWater wrote: Just look at Joe Lieberman ... he's the future of
> >
> >> the Democratic party - a neo-puritan "liberal". We
> >> shall see more and more like him as the hippy-dippies
> >> grow older and cannot reconcile their rhetoric with
> >> their lifestyles. Most now LIVE fairly "conservative"
> >> lives ... try to raise their kids like "conservatives"
> >> tend to do ... because they've discovered it's *necessary*.
> >
> >I don't know what your image of liberals is. Most of the liberal I know are sober,
> >hard-working folk who have always led "conservative" lives.
>
> Hmmm ... then they would be "conservatives", wouldn't they ?
> Walk the walk. Talk the talk. Life the life ...
Life the life?
No. Political conservatives don't have a monopoly on leading responsible lives.
>
>
> >Who didn't? I spent my
> >college years as a long-haired anti-war type, but I eschewed drugs and
> >always had a job. Most of the people I know did the same.
>
> Odd ... I was (and am) a long-haired anti-Vietnam-War
> type who took mescaline with indians for funzies ...
> but was never a "peacenik", pinko, new-ager nor had
> any sentiment for bead-wearing bums on communes.
> (Hippy girls were OK ... once you gave 'em a bath)
> Had my NRA card in my pocket and a Colt single-action
> in my glove compartment too ...
[deleted]
>
>
> >I think you're confusing or conflating druggies with liberals.
> >Whether on purpose or not I can't say.
>
> I think you're trying to seperate yourself from your
> ideological bretheren. In the 60s/70s, a "liberal"
> was as much a deadhead as a die-hard socialist with
> the "little red book" in his pocket or a poster of
> Malcom-X on his wall. It was all under the umbrella
> of "liberalism", just in slightly different flavors.
> The more educated radicals led the way - and eventually
> settled into politics & business to carry on the fight.
Nonsense. If you went to any of the marches on Washington, you saw who liberals are.
There was a good number of young hippies. Also priests and nuns and professional types.
Methodists, Episcopal, Lutheran church groups. Northern Baptists. All kinds of people. I
think you took too much mescaline and your memory of the peace movement is linked to
images out of Forest Gump. [<- hyperbolic joke alert]
>
>
> In fairness, everything from neo-NAZIS and KKK to
> Reagan, Robertson, Dole and "W" all fall under the
> umbrella of "conservatism" - just different flavors
> of the same thing.
>
> Which is why I decided to get out from under the
> umbrellas and stand in the rain. Ideology ... I
> now call it "idiot-ology". If the "conservatives"
> seem to have a good idea about something, the
> better approach or POV, I'll endorse it. Same if
> the "liberals" or "Libertarians" seem to have it
> right. As for the whole ideological enchalada --
> pure bullshit ... castles in the clouds.
>
> >> I wonder what mental stresses this places on them - to
> >> talk the old-tyme rad-lib talk, while DOING pretty much
> >> the opposite ? Careers, investments, portfolios, house
> >> payments, car payments, insurance, braces, little league,
> >> church and, oh yea, a nice big home as far away from
> >> those formerly cherished "minorities" as their gas-guzzling
> >> SUVs would carry them. Looks "conservative" to me ... but
> >> it TALKS like a liberal.
> >
> >What exactly is liberal or conservative about a career, a house payment,
> >insurance, braces, little league, or church.
>
> A marxo-lib would burn the church, eschew sports as
> an indoctrination to imperialism and expect the
> house and dental stuff to be paid for by "the govt".
Really. Well, maybe all liberals aren't "marxo-libs". (We - me and my even more liberal
wife -- ponied up around $7000 for our kids' orthodontia. Our daughter chose to follow
me into the Catholic Church. My son didn't. I love sports. The kids don't. We all enjoy
our house.
>
>
> >One can follow your thinking about the investments,
> >the SUV, and the big house, but the other stuff is
> >just thrown in to make a short list seem substantial.
>
> No ... I cut the list short. The degree to which
> the rabidly anti-materialistic/anti-commerce/
> pro-ecology/anti-authoritarian/anti-govt/the-
> system-sux lefties of the 60s have now embraced
> these same things is nothing short of amazing.
> Their rationalizations are downright funny too.
> How's the song go ... about seeing a deadhead
> sticker on a cadillac ... ?
I'm still not sensing anything explicit here.
>
>
> >> Somewhere along the line, the concept of the "nanny state"
> >> merged with a sort of religious zeal carried over from mom
> >> and dad and grandma Prue and we got the neo-puritan "liberal".
> >
> >It's a figment of your imagination.
>
> Hillary wouldn't think so ...
Sir Edmund?
>
>
> >> It's an ugly mutant - and it's dangerous to every liberty
> >> in its path.
> >
> >So is unrestrained rhetoric.
>
> But Truth is most dangerous of all.
>
> BW
John Enockson
Prophet
wrote:
Actually no. If anything it sounds like the right wing nuts in this
country.
pyotr filipivich
<n9...@amsat.org> was inspired to write:
>So if laughter is an effective social control, then
>how do we laugh at the nannies?
Laughter is an effective control when the object can be ridiculed, and
shown to be unacceptable.
Some things just don't lend themselves to comedy, mockery, satire or irony.
But you can always try.
Kenneth Porter
<5fqvpts2je30pr20v...@4ax.com>:
>>> Both the weird sex and the micro management
>>> sounds like the modern democratic party, doesn't
>>> it??
>
>Actually no. If anything it sounds like the right wing nuts in this
>country.
Demonstrating that the far left and the far right are kissing cousins.
Eeeeeuuuuuuwwwwwww.
See the diamond chart at http://www.self-gov.org/. The traditional left-
right spectrum can be thought of as a circle in the bottom half of the
diamond. The far left and far right both meet at the bottom point of the
diamond.
The Lost Dog
"Kenneth Porter" <sh...@well.com> wrote in message
news:911C54D75sc...@24.0.0.25...
Which I was taught as a fifth grader in 1959. This is like Hillary
publicly discovering the concept of actually helping our neighbors.
Itold...@rightwing.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
However, you can't find anyone in this country that is far enough left
to meet those on the right where the "bottom" meets.
Far as I know, there isn't a counterpart to ANY right wingers like
Helms, Dukes, McVeigh, Barr, or Koresh.
Charlotte Patrick
wrote:
>
> Which I was taught as a fifth grader in 1959. This is like Hillary
>publicly discovering the concept of actually helping our neighbors.
Are you serious? 1959? No kidding? I'm curious -been toying with the
idea of paralleling some civics & history textbooks by decade to see how
"what gets taught" has changed over the years. My fifth grade year would
have been in 1977. We didn't even cover government/civics - just a really
watered down "social studies." I did learn to fill in the Central & South
American countries on the map. That's about all I recall (and no, I wasn't
sniffing, snorting, or smoking anything). We didn't study govt till our
senior year in high school, and libertarianism/authoritarianism were never
mentioned. Come to think of it, the general content there wasn't so hot
either, but the teacher was quite popular.
The Lost Dog
"Charlotte Patrick" <cpat...@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:9vr4qt0gav81pkg2v...@4ax.com...
Sounds like an interesting idea. The specific idea of left and right
meeting behind the barn was a throw away by my fifth grade teacher during a
social studies lesson. I don't know why I remember it, but it's just one of
those things that I do. I didn't even understand left and right at the time,
but for some reason it stuck in my mind. I think there is a huge abyss
between the way social studies (with built in civics) was taught up until
the mid to late 60's, and the way it has been taught since then. I am
sometimes horrified at the lack of understanding, or even rudimentary
grasp, of American and world history (including current events) that is
sometimes so proudly displayed in these groups. I hope you complete your
project. I think it will teach you a lot.
Steve Harris
Kenneth Porter wrote in message <911C54D75sc...@24.0.0.25>...
>n...@mail.com (Prophet) wrote in
><5fqvpts2je30pr20v...@4ax.com>:
>
>>>> Both the weird sex and the micro management
>>>> sounds like the modern democratic party, doesn't
>>>> it??
>>
>>Actually no. If anything it sounds like the right wing nuts in this
>>country.
Right wing nuts like weird sex?? Attitudes about sex and traditional
Christianity is all the separates right from left in this country anymore.
Otherwise they're all the same control-freaks. The new-Democrats are
basically Republicans with hard-ons who don't believe they talk to Jesus.
Otherwise, pretty much the same.
N9NWO
I think that the "circle" model of left-right is outdated. It is far more
linear. The circle model deals with the extremes as being two forms
dictatorships. That model may have helped many left wingers justify
communism back in the '60s and before.
The linear model has those who are believe in micro managing people,
as communism did, at one end (left) and those who into total freedom
(libertarians, on the right). Moderates in the middle.
For the most part even the Left-Right model only really deals with
economics.
It does not really deal with social values or elitism vs. populism.
N9NWO
you have far more in common with conservatives
than you think. Maybe you need to rethink what
you are. You might be more of a libertarian or
at least moderate.
A true "liberal" is as much an extremist as those on
the far right.
: > >BlackWater wrote: Just look at Joe Lieberman ... he's the future of
:
:
pyotr filipivich
Porter) was inspired to write:
>n...@mail.com (Prophet) wrote in
><5fqvpts2je30pr20v...@4ax.com>:
>
>>>> Both the weird sex and the micro management
>>>> sounds like the modern democratic party, doesn't
>>>> it??
>>
>>Actually no. If anything it sounds like the right wing nuts in this
>>country.
>
>Demonstrating that the far left and the far right are kissing cousins.
>Eeeeeuuuuuuwwwwwww.
Some years ago, I had the occasion to meet someone who was so far left, he
had come around right again (or was it vice versa?). Anyway, he was in favor
of gun control - every household should be required to have one fully automatic
weapon. And when he moved, he looked for a place which was easily defendable.
He wasn't sure if his Dad's old friends at the CIA were coming, or Dad's
enemies in the KGB, but Palmer was going to be ready for either batch.
>See the diamond chart at http://www.self-gov.org/. The traditional left-
>right spectrum can be thought of as a circle in the bottom half of the
>diamond. The far left and far right both meet at the bottom point of the
>diamond.
Read _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_. Author revamps the "left/right" to a
continuum where "those who want more government control are on the left, those
who want less government control are on the right" In this wise, the
difference between "rightwing" authoritarians and "leftwing" totalitarians is
mostly on who will be in charge of controlling the populace, rather than any
minutia of distinction between their aims. "Meet the new boss, same as the old
boss."
pyotr filipivich
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. George Orwell.
Aaron R. Kulkis
The planar (rather than linear) model is much better.
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
http://www.self-gov.org/cgi/sec.cgi?quiz=quiz&p1=1&p2=1&p3=1&p4=1&p5=1&e1=1&e2=1&e3=1&e4=1&e5=1
>
> For the most part even the Left-Right model only really deals with
> economics.
> It does not really deal with social values or elitism vs. populism.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. (Updated 20 July 2001)
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
spa...@spamcop.net
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
The Lost Dog
As a rule, extremists of both sides DO meet on the other side, and are
known as dictators. I consider Libertarians to be the Gnostics of the
political spectrum. Wouldn't it be great if we all could have the
intelligence to live as libertarians without sliding into anarchy. I am
probably a libertarian at heart, but I am stumped by the seemingly
insurmountable obstacle of human nature.
>
>
>
>
Roger R.
The Lost Dog <libs@reboneheads> wrote in message
news:9nuvno$4at$0...@pita.alt.net...
That's interesting because I was taught the same concept in the 1950's also.
I suspect it came out of the experience of WW II.
>>I don't know why I remember it, but it's just one
> > of
> > : those things that I do. I didn't even understand left and right at the
> > time,
> > : but for some reason it stuck in my mind. I think there is a huge abyss
> > : between the way social studies (with built in civics) was taught up
> until
> > : the mid to late 60's, and the way it has been taught since then. I am
> > : sometimes horrified at the lack of understanding, or even rudimentary
> > : grasp, of American and world history (including current events) that
is
> > : sometimes so proudly displayed in these groups. I hope you complete
your
> > : project. I think it will teach you a lot.
> >
Don't blame the teaching so much. The students themselves are very
different. The Depression-WW II generation knew that events in far away
places could have personal consequences for them, so they kept up with the
news a lot better. Also, anyone who is used to reading a newspaper expects a
lot more information more coherently organized than someone who only watches
TV does. Color TV provides so much raw data that it replaced newspapers, but
the data provides little information that would cause a person to make a
decision or change one already made. Those of us who were subject to the
draft knew that we might get a letter and three to six months later be in a
foreign country being shot at. I have learned a lot of geography over the
years just trying to find out where I might get sent to be shot at.
> > I think that the "circle" model of left-right is outdated. It is far
more
> > linear. The circle model deals with the extremes as being two forms
> > dictatorships. That model may have helped many left wingers justify
> > communism back in the '60s and before.
I would disagree. I think it was a result of WW II and an example of how
people generally decided that both extremes, right and left, were dangerous
failures. When you hop directly from a World War against Fascists and Nazis
to a World-wide cold war against Communism, it is quite logical to ask why
both extremes are equally bad.
> >
> > The linear model has those who are believe in micro managing people,
> > as communism did, at one end (left) and those who into total freedom
> > (libertarians, on the right). Moderates in the middle.
The extreme Right is one in which the individual has no Rights with respect
to the State. This was a constant theme of the Nazis and the Fascists. Under
Communism the individuals had Rights - but those who obstructed the proper
development of the Proletariate could and should be dispensed with as the
*criminals* they were. The Russian Kulaks were such criminals because as a
group they obstructed the collectivation of farms. The Chinese communists
have the art down better so that it is the individual behavior which makes
you a criminal. Both the extreme right and left now work to micromanage
individual behavior, using much the same techniques of secret police and
informers.
The US governments use much the same techniques, but generally only against
drug dealers, organizaed crime members and such extremists as the KKK and
the Aryan Nation. The saving grace for the US is that first our police
agencies are a smaller proportion of the population than in totalitarian
regimes, and second that we do not permit police agencies to merge and
become a single agency. That is why there is no single federal police agency
and why there are separate state, county, city and constable district
agencies. That structure (or lack of it) is intentional. That is especially
why we have city police chiefs and elected county sherrifs providing similar
services to the same area, and why we have separate FBI, DEA, Secret
Service, ATF, etc. at the federal level.
One of the first things Hitler did was unify all the federal police agencies
into the Gestapo. In the opposite direction, one of the firt things the
Russians did after the breakup of the USSR was to split the KGB into
domestic and foreign agencies, and I would bet that the militia has taken
over more internal police duties from the old KGB. The absence of a unified
police force keeps the government from successfully micromanaging individaul
behavior on a mass basis.
This doesn't fit with the modern right-wing mantras, but it is much closer
to what the right- and left-wing extremists themselves said at the time.
I should point out that we also have a federal military with Reserves, and a
separate National Guard structure for the same reason, we do not have long
term Regiments drawn from a specific geographic area in the active military
and we transfer officers and NCO's between units relatively frequently. That
limits the *political* strength of the military.
> >
> > For the most part even the Left-Right model only really deals with
> > economics.
> > It does not really deal with social values or elitism vs. populism.
Since the 2000 presidential election was primarily a social contest between
rural and city social values, masquarading as conservative vs. liberal or
republican vs. democratic, I think that statement is difficult to support.
>
>
> As a rule, extremists of both sides DO meet on the other side, and are
> known as dictators. I consider Libertarians to be the Gnostics of the
> political spectrum. Wouldn't it be great if we all could have the
> intelligence to live as libertarians without sliding into anarchy. I am
> probably a libertarian at heart, but I am stumped by the seemingly
> insurmountable obstacle of human nature.
> >
The Communist ideal was a totally Libertarian world, but it was based on the
need for the Proletariat to develop class and social consciousness.
Government would be needed until they developed that consciousness. Since
that theory was developed well before Freud, it assumed that individuals
were rational and trainable, and that how they behaved was based on what
they were taught. Psychology quickly learned that we all have innate
personalities and that some will simply never learn to be social, so the
idea fails totally.
Kenneth Porter
<OGEo7.1286$pq1.41...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>The Communist ideal was a totally Libertarian world, but it was based on
>the need for the Proletariat to develop class and social consciousness.
In other words, feel free to do whatever you want, as long as I approve of
it. I wouldn't call that libertarian. One of the important slogans of
libertarianism is "Question Authority". I just don't see that allowed in
any Communist system, no matter how ideal.
Kenneth Porter
<8eg5qtkorfpiiut1r...@4ax.com>:
>Read _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_. Author revamps the "left/right" to
>a continuum where "those who want more government control are on the
>left, those who want less government control are on the right"
Unfortunately, this has the effect of providing two conflicting views using
the same "units". In one view, both "right" and "left" mean more
centralized control while "moderate" or "centrist" means less. In the other
(unconventional) view, "left" means more and "right" means less. The
diamond chart adds a new axis to remove this conflict. Instead of left and
right, the chart charactizes down to mean more control, and up to mean
less. This places it orthogonal to the conventional spectrum, which allows
the two to coexist unambiguously.
pyotr filipivich
(Kenneth Porter) was inspired to write:
Yeah - I've noticed that when you redefine terms, you have confusion.
Just as I understand "gun nuts" to mean "anyone who goes nuts when the
subject is guns - granting inanimate objects all manner of majical powers" that
doesn't mean I can use the shorthand "gun nuts" in conversation without
reference to the definition. I'm caught between Humpty "When I use a word it
always means exactly what I mean" Dumpty and Bill "That depends on what your
definition of 'is' is." Clinton.
Hmmm - "Up/down" is the amount of government control, left/right is the means
to that control?
Roger R.
In the original Communist ideal there was no authority to question. People
would work together because they needed to and agreed to. It was called the
withering away of the state.
It depended on the individual recognizing his need to work with others, and
could only occur when people understood that they could produce best only
when working in cooperation with others. The state was required because of
selfish people who wanted to exploit others. Intelligent people who
recognized their dependence on others would not exploit others, so the state
was not needed to control them. As the Proletariat better understood
reality, they would require no state to control their behavior.
The only behavior which would be disapproved of would be behavior in which
one person exploited another. Only immature persons without class
consciousness would exploit others. Mature persons who did not exploit
others would not NEED the approval of others.
Exploiters were the owners of capital who took the surplus value created by
labor and property owners who extracted rent from others for use of their
property. Such ownership was not seen as providing any economic benefit, so
it must be exploitation.
Remember that the theory was developed before railroads of significant size
existed. so there were no large organizations and no professional
management. Managers were also owners. They could be replaced by a council
of workers who would better understand the work to be done anyway. Also,
since the class consciousness would cause the Proletariat across the world
to recognize their common class needs, there would be a withering away of
the nation-state. Communism was also Atheist, so there would be no religious
hierarchy. Once class consciousness had developed there would be no
authority to question.
Of course, I am merely trying to describe the Communist ideal. It has never
existed at any level above that of a kibbutz, and never will. For one thing,
it has no mechanism for the efficient allocation of capital except for some
administrative decision-maker who does the allocation. Attempting to do that
job on the scale of a nation requires that an individual receive and master
an impossible load of information. Decisions would either be very slow and
unresponsive to current events or simply done nearly at random with speed of
decision being more important than accuracy. The Communist theory was
developed before the telephone, so that possibility was not considered. An
economist in the early 1980's pointed out to me that the USSR failed as an
economic system for that very reason. That is the job that capital markets
do for us.
Caesar J. B. Squitti
Caesar Squitti
--
Squitti's
"A Beautiful Difference"®
http://www.abeautifuldifference.com
THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO CANADA
1-807-345-0461
"Kenneth Porter" <sh...@well.com> wrote in message
news:911D21771sc...@24.0.0.25...
Prophet
I'm not talking about attitudes I'm talking about actions.
Republicans all over the country are being arrested for sex offenses.
A republican mayor was reciently arrested for soliciting sex with a
minor over the internet. How many republican congressmen and women
have been foound to have had all kinds of extramarital affairs.
Just because they talk the talk doesn't meen they walk the walk.
Adam Retchless
>
> Far as I know, there isn't a counterpart to ANY right wingers like
> Helms, Dukes, McVeigh, Barr, or Koresh.
Probably not in the US today...at least they aren't as famous.
However, let's try these guys:
Castro
Guevera
Byrd?
Offbreed
> However, you can't find anyone in this country that is far enough left
> to meet those on the right where the "bottom" meets.
>
> Far as I know, there isn't a counterpart to ANY right wingers like
> Helms, Dukes, McVeigh, Barr, or Koresh.
"Right wingers" like Kaczynski, Brady, Gore, Schumer, Clinton, or
Reno? Maybe Zepp, Mimi, Lee Harrison, orrrr----. Oh, what a minute...
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <3ba23446...@news.enetis.net>, Itold...@rightwing.com
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:51:57 GMT, sh...@well.com (Kenneth Porter) wrote
> > like a right wing nut;
>
> > >See the diamond chart at http://www.self-gov.org/. The traditional
> > >left- right spectrum can be thought of as a circle in the bottom half
> > >of the diamond. The far left and far right both meet at the bottom
> > >point of the diamond.
> >
> > However, you can't find anyone in this country that is far enough left
> > to meet those on the right where the "bottom" meets.
>
> Sure there is.
Sure there isn't.
I live in a country where real left-wingers actually have a say and we
have not one but two socialist parties with influence and I am not even
counting the Greens.
> > Far as I know, there isn't a counterpart to ANY right wingers like >
> Helms, Anyone who supports "hate-crime" legislation, or maybe Lieberman
Lieberman a left-wing fanatic? Hardly.
> or Koresh. Not a political figure, but his Left equivalent would be L Ron
> Hubbard.
Hubbard as a left winger? Hardly.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Kenneth Porter
>In the original Communist ideal there was no authority to question.
>People would work together because they needed to and agreed to. It was
>called the withering away of the state.
>It depended on the individual recognizing his need to work with others,
>and could only occur when people understood that they could produce best
>only when working in cooperation with others.
Good point. I guess the libertarian way of dealing with that is to
guarantee the absolute right to self defense. To the extent that self
defense is compromised, exploitation is practically guaranteed, at least in
the long run. (In the short run, there's at least the memory of what it's
like to attack a porcupine.)
>Exploiters were the owners of capital who took the surplus value created
>by labor and property owners who extracted rent from others for use of
>their property. Such ownership was not seen as providing any economic
>benefit, so it must be exploitation.
>
>Remember that the theory was developed before railroads of significant
>size existed. so there were no large organizations and no professional
>management.
It also precedes Mises's theory of subjective value. There's no absolute
value of labor, only the value the owner (and by extension, his customer)
places on it. Hence, there's no surplus to unfairly exloit.
>An economist in the early 1980's pointed out to me that the USSR failed
>as an economic system for that very reason. That is the job that capital
>markets do for us.
Strictly speaking, this is just "the market", or "the pricing system".
Capital markets are a refinement for handling very large systems, but the
problem of lack of allocation information without pricing still exists in
small systems. (Coming from an electrical engineering background, I see
pricing as being just like feedback systems in amplifiers and control
loops.)
Using pricing for feedback information also follows from Mises' subjective
valuation. Centralized allocation follows from the notion of absolute
objective valuation, which is perhaps a natural assumption in an era of
scientific objectivism. I'm sure the thinkers of the time thought everyone
should rationally hold the same value for everything, and pricing would be
inefficient.
Kenneth Porter
<9nvvel$6cq$1...@tbaytel4.tbaytel.net>:
>How about the immoral left, right and center.
Then you get into the whole question of what "immoral" means. I suspect I
have a quite different definition than, say, the fundamentalists of various
religions.
For me it's about honesty and integrity and has nothing to do with whether,
say, one can see nipples on a beach, or which parts of one's body one
touches to a friend's body.
Roger R.
A Business Professor, Oscar Williamson, about 15 years ago published an
interesting study comparing when markets work and when bureaucratic
administrative procedures must replace them. The two are actually
alternatives. Markets are expensive and require a lot of involvement by a
lot of people and organizations providing similar goods or services. They
don't work without competition. When markets don't work, the alternative is
an administrative hierarchy that allocates goods and services. Exactly the
phenomonon you described. It is a tradeoff between cost and effectiveness.
His is cross-disciplinary work. The economists study markets and
organization theorists study administrative organizations. As you might
guess, not a lot of people have heard of his work, but it makes a great deal
of good sense.
> Using pricing for feedback information also follows from Mises' subjective
> valuation. Centralized allocation follows from the notion of absolute
> objective valuation, which is perhaps a natural assumption in an era of
> scientific objectivism. I'm sure the thinkers of the time thought everyone
> should rationally hold the same value for everything, and pricing would be
> inefficient.
I must admit that when I wrote that message the other day, it was the first
time I had ever thought about the theory of Communism as a system of thought
in a historical context. When you look at what they could have known in the
early 19th century, especially prior to large industrial organizations and
even before the telegraph for communications, it makes a lot more sense.
Stuart Dunn
A person who is right wing in one society could be left wing in another. As a
Libertarian I'd consider myself moderately right wing in the 21st Century U.S.,
but 200 years ago I would have qualified as a radical leftist.
Petri Kokko
>>
>>>> Both the weird sex and the micro management
>>>> sounds like the modern democratic party, doesn't
>>>> it??
>>
>>>Actually no. If anything it sounds like the right wing nuts in
>>>this country.
>
>>Demonstrating that the far left and the far right are kissing
>>cousins. Eeeeeuuuuuuwwwwwww.
>
>
>Some years ago, I had the occasion to meet someone who was so
>far left, he had come around right again (or was it vice versa?).
One major reason why "left" and "right" definitions give
weird results is that we use them in two contexts:
1) Left vs Right as in Socialism vs. Capitalism, i.e. a scale
in economical freedom.
2) Left vs Right as in Authoritarism vs. Libertarianism, i.e.
a scale in political freedom.
With the Soviet Union the one major example of a socialistic
state people tend to draw equal signs with Socialism and
Authoritarism because USSR was both, and most current people
in favour of restricting the economy are also in favor of
restricting the political freedoms. Unfortunately, this causes
people implicitly to also draw equal signs between the various
philosophies that are placed "right" in either scale. Which
then brings out the odd problem of having Gandhi and Stalin
sitting on the same chair in the political spectrum. The
situation is murkied even more as the neo-nazis are thought to
be the "far-right". After all, the nazis and the communists
were enemies, right?
But then we have people like Friedman sitting right next to
Hitler, which makes no sense.
The situation can be improved if we recognize that economical
and political freedoms are different issues. In fact they are
even orthogonal meaning that you can have any combination of
them you like: socialism and authoritarianism combine into a
dictatorship with a planned economy (USSR), pure authoritarianism
gives you fascism (Mussolini's Italy) and authoritarianism with
capitalism gets you into a dictatorship guaranteeing free rein
for markets (Pinochet's Chile).
Thus libertarianism (as in political freedoms; forget the
economy) is not incompatible with socialism (as in planned
economy; forget the political freedom issues). This combination
describes pretty much what Gandhi had in mind. Pure
libertarianism (as in opposite of authority, e.g. "no government
is best government") without any regards towards economy is a
good description of the anarchists. And when you combine
libertarian values with capitalism you can have a place for
people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.
Thus forget the Left vs. Right line because it is inadequate for
describing modern political views. A better model for a political
map is this plane:
Authoritarian
^
:
:
:
:
:
:
Socialistic -----------------+-------------------> Capitalistic
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Libertarian
Which rightly says that the opposite of Fascism (authoritarianism
without any specific regard towards economy) is not Communism but
Anarchism, and that the "right" enemy for Communism (dictatorship
with a planned economy) is the capitalistic libertarian position.
BTW if you want to test where you would fall in this political map,
try http://www.politicalcompass.org/. A warning, though. It is
designed for the British people, and may not be appropriate for all.
It will work more or less ok for those of the "Western World".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri...@hut.fi
"If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers
or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally
right."
-- Cicero
Kenneth Porter
<zbip7.62$4j3....@read2.inet.fi>:
>http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Interesting. This is essentially the same as the "diamond chart" at
http://www.self-gov.org/, but inverted. It places authoritarianism at the
top and libertarianism at the bottom. An unconscious idealization of the
former?
Kenneth Porter
>I must admit that when I wrote that message the other day, it was the
>first time I had ever thought about the theory of Communism as a system
>of thought in a historical context. When you look at what they could
>have known in the early 19th century, especially prior to large
>industrial organizations and even before the telegraph for
>communications, it makes a lot more sense.
I appreciate your posting that. It was certainly a new insight for me, as
well.
BTW, there's a wonderful book on the early history of the telegraph called
"The Victorian Internet". Strongly recommended. A relatively quick read,
and very accessible. (Ie. almost hard to put down.) Coming from a
background that involves a lot of communications stuff like networking and
RS232, I found the notion that symbol coding had to be invented a bit
novel. In hindsight it looks obvious, but 150 years ago it was
revolutionary.
Robert Sturgeon
<petri...@hut.fi> wrote:
(snips)
>BTW if you want to test where you would fall in this political map,
>try http://www.politicalcompass.org/. A warning, though. It is
>designed for the British people, and may not be appropriate for all.
>It will work more or less ok for those of the "Western World".
I started to take the test, but realized that it was fatally
flawed when I saw the very first statement/question:
"If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve
humanity rather than the interests of trans-national
corporations."
Followed by radio buttons to choose () "Strongly disagree"
() "Disagree"
() "Agree"
() "Strongly agree"
What if I think trans-national corporations DO primarily serve
humanity??? It was totally pointless to continue.
I e-mailed the "mail to" link to inform them of opinion also. I
doubt they will care.
--
Robert Sturgeon
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Proud member of the vast right wing
conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
Roger R.
anti-authoritarian (pro-Libertarian) and mildly to the left. That is
probably a very typical US Democratic position. I frankly don't see how
any thinking, educated person can take any other position.
Kenneth Porter <sh...@well.com> wrote in message
news:911F46E91sc...@24.0.0.25...
Petri Kokko
> I started to take the test, but realized that it was fatally
> flawed when I saw the very first statement/question:
>
Now, I don't have anything to do with the people behind
this questionnaire, and I had similar thoughts about some
of their questions, but if you give them the benefit of
doubt it seems it's not deliberate in the sense I think you
meant. This appears to be a common complaint because they
themselves explain in another page that the questions are
delibaretely provacative. The intention is to identify your
views by causing a "strong reaction".
I understood that the statements of the questionnaire are
not supposed to be read as "statements of fact" where you rate
their truthfulness. Instead they are presented as points of
views of a popular sample (or at least a summary of them) and
you should then choose whether you agree or disagree with
_people_ who have those opinions.
Thus:
> "If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve
> humanity rather than the interests of trans-national
> corporations."
>
> What if I think trans-national corporations DO primarily serve
> humanity??? It was totally pointless to continue.
Check "strongly disagree" because it would appear that you
don't identify yourself with people of that opinion. Which
is precisely why I ticked the "strongly disagree" button, and
it appears that that choice does indeed move you towards
libertarian right _provided_ you have agreed and/or disagreed
with some other questions with a similar logic.
This is what I think is better in this questionnaire than in the
one in self-gov.org. People can disagree with a statement _for_
_different_reasons_. Therefore the rating should not be based
on "agreeing/disagreeing with the statements" but instead on
"having the same point of view as an identified emerged group".
If you have some spare-time, try searching documents about
"self-organizing maps". I think the concept is quite useful and
applicable in identifying political views. In my opinion
political parties are always a relic of the past. Sometimes
they contain people that disagree with each other more than
with people in some other party.
In fact it might be interesting to have a grouping of the US
representatives and senators divided not along democrats and
republicans but along their point-of-views. One such map was
created as a university project here in Finland from our
members of the parliament. The project was done more as a
test/example of the method itself but the project team thought
"it would be a fun subject". (And apparently it was thought
to be fun by a reporter also, because it made a sunday science
section in a major newspaper here.)
The basic idea was to present a broad questionnaire to the
MPs and then have a computer identify groups with MPs that
have similar point-of-views. Note that in self-organizing maps
there are no pre-defined groups. They emerge as a result of
the method.
The various "recommendation club" websites are based loosely
on the same idea. Input data on which wines or books you
like and which you don't and the computer compares you with
others searching for people who like and dislike the same
things and then recommends a book or wine those people like
but you have not yet tried.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri...@hut.fi
The man who thinks he can do without the world is indeed mistaken,
but the man who thinks the world cannot do without him is mistaken
even worse.
-- Francois, duc de La Rochefoucauld
Robert Sturgeon
No, sorry, NONE of the offered responses made any sense at all to
me - no point in continuing. You know, I didn't have any duty to
make them feel successful in their little exercise.
(rest snipped)
pyotr filipivich
The Marquis de Lafayette left Republican France a dangerous reactionary,
and was arrested when he arrived in Austria for being a "dangerous radical".
pyotr filipivich
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why then, the war would come to you."
Bertol Breche
plaguerat
Kenneth Porter wrote in message <911F46E91sc...@24.0.0.25>...
Both links had questionaires that treat politics as a yes or no aswer, and
both are fundamentally flawed. For example the political "compass" showed
Hitler as a rightwing authoritarian, and Stalin as Left. These judgments
are political, and have no basis in history. Hitler and Stalin were from the
same Socialist movement, and agreed on almost all points.
1) The economy shall be cotrolled by the government.
2) The world shall be controlled by one govenment.
3) The ideal form of government is Socialism.
4) The Ideal form of leadership is Despotism.
5) Those who dissent shall be allowed to speak, right after they are shot.
6) Certain ethnic groups are not acceptable, thus shalll be eliminated.
7) Additional political parties are a needless bother, and shall be
eliminated
8) Rights are reserved to the people at the top.
9) The ideals of Socialism shall not apply to those at the top.
10)Socialism shall be spread through peaceful, and free elections, failing
that war will suffice.
11)China, Chiang, or Mao? "Umm..... MAO!!!!"
Those areas where Hitler and Stalin disagreed include,
1) Who leads the Socialist world govt.? Hitler:"I do!!" Stalin:"NO Me!!"
Hitler:"Uncle mao, Joey's bein mean!!"
2) Full Socialism, or partial? Or, "you want half a big turd, or a whole
small one?"
3) Which do we kill first? Jews, or Hebrews??
4) Do we cut Mussolini in or not?
5) Imperial Japan, hated enemy, or temporarily useful dupes?
6) What language shall be spoken in our new World Socialist paradise?
7) Vodka or beer?
We can see that the differences between these two "leaders" are
inconsequential. Those who came under their respective yokes had VERY
similar experiences. To call Stalin's brand of Socialism totalitarianism
left, and Hitler's right is a meaningless cunard.
The Libertarian quiz was engineered to make all but the most ardent
jingoist on either side a closet Libertarian. If Libertarianism were so
fundamental, I would have joined long ago. The Libertarian Party has many
good ideas, almost allof which have been taken to the illogical extreme, for
example, when Libertarians talk of legalizing marijuana, they usually wind
up including heroine.
Kenneth Porter
<9o59b4$b63$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
>The Libertarian Party has many
>good ideas, almost allof which have been taken to the illogical extreme,
>for example, when Libertarians talk of legalizing marijuana, they
>usually wind up including heroine.
And this is bad? Why? Or do you also favor criminalizing alcohol, arguably
a more damaging drug than heroine.
Strabo
Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
Charlotte Patrick
Well,......worldwide marijuana and opitate legalization would cut off a
major source of income for the Taliban...of course, we'd have to resist the
urge to do a $43million "Taliban bailout" when their industry
crashes.........
pyotr filipivich
My response to vote.com often is refusal to answer. I may have an opinion
one way or the other, but not the idiot reason they're giving.
>
>(rest snipped)
pyotr
Ashland Henderson
Legalizing heroines strikes me as a good idea. ;-}
Come to think of it, legalizing heroin also strikes me as a good idea.
Dramar Ankalle
Ashland Henderson <macea...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:441d41d1.0109...@posting.google.com...
Wait'll you hear about that fucker Casey and the drug "war".
All overthrowing governments, thats all that "war" is.
TS
plaguerat
Kenneth Porter wrote in message <91216DEC1sc...@24.0.0.25>...<snip>
>when Libertarians talk of legalizing marijuana, they
>>usually wind up including heroine.
>
>And this is bad? Why? Or do you also favor criminalizing alcohol, arguably
>a more damaging drug than heroine.
An alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker!!!
Alchohol, marijuana, and other weak drugs do not have anywhere near the
effect on the user as heroin, cocaine, or amphetamines. To compare these
drugs to alchohol is a deliberate falsehood. Alchohol, for good or ill, is a
part of our society, and prohibition was seen as a violation of liberty. If
heroine were as accepted as alchohol, and used/abused by the same number of
people, our society would fall apart!! To say that alchohol is "arguably a
more damaging drug than heroine" is just plain wrong. Thats like saying
atomic weapons should be carried for self defense, because they have killed
fewer people than firearms!!! While it's technichally true, it is no less a
falsehood for being statisically supported.
David James Polewka
If we want others to live and let live, WE need
to live and let live. So, we should remove all
unilateral sanctions, end all foreign aid, and
legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution---for starters.
st3ph3nm
Absolutely. I think the prohibition era was a clear example of what
not to do, in terms of dealing with drugs. Yet many governments seem
to be unable either to learn from history, or from comparitive studies
of different methods of dealing with drug taking in our societies from
around the world.
The "war on drugs" is a method that just isn't working. We need to
find ways that work. And decriminalising is a good start to allow
users easier access to treatment.
(all imho, of course)
Cheers,
Steve
Petri Kokko
>
>The Libertarian Party has many
>good ideas, almost allof which have been taken to the illogical
>extreme, for example, when Libertarians talk of legalizing
>marijuana, they usually wind up including heroine.
And this is somehow inherently evil and undesirable?
If we follow the principle that an act harming no-one else than
at most those freely participating in it, is no-one else's
business but theirs, then there are no grounds to ban drugs and
every reason to make them legal. Face it: the War on Drugs does
not work. It creates more problems and crimes without solving
anything.
Consider this: If heroin (or any other very harmful and
addicting drug) were offered free of charge without any legal
penalties would you really use it? Really?
I wouldn't. Neither would anyone else I know whom I have asked
this. Simply because it is A Dumb Idea to use such drug.
So, whom exactly are we then protecting?
If the government were to offer drugs freely for anyone to be
used in a place designed for such purpose (even anonymously if
that is an issue) at no charge then drug-trafficking and all
related crimes would stop immediately. Simply because there
would be no profit in producing, smuggling and selling the stuff.
No-one can compete with a no-charge pricing policy. Producing
drugs is cheap. The high cost is a consequence of it being illegal
and carrying the danger of getting caught or shot. If you don't
have to produce drugs in secret, the cost is insignificant compared
to the savings from a reduced crime rate as no-one would have to
steal or rob to get his daily dose.
From the economical point-of-view it is a bargain.
Then on to the social issues, where I can see only the following
groups of people:
1) The smart ones will not touch drugs even if they were legal
and free. Otherwise they would not be smart.
2) Some people say that there are persons who can keep their
drug habit in control and within harmless bounds. I don't know
whether this is true, but it does not matter since by definition
such people present no problem to the society. If they did they
were not able to control their habit in the first place.
3) Then there are people who would overdose if presented with
an opportunity to use drugs legally at no cost. However, after
they overdose they are no longer a problem.
4) And lastly there are people who can not keep their addiction
within the safe zone but are careful enough not to OD. Depending
on their dosage they will last months or even years, but sooner or
later after they have destroyed their health badly enough they will
no longer be a problem. In the meantime they would not be forced
to commit crimes as they didn't need money to satisfy their
addiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri...@hut.fi
"And it harm none, do as thy wilt. But the consequences are yours
to face, so don't whine afterwards, either."
lihue
You need to educate yourself. I'd recommend reading something
other than government propaganda, which, I'd guess, is the
principal source of your current knowledge. You'll be amazed at
how you've been misled.
Oh, and prohibition is still "a violation of liberty" - and the
US Constitution.
Regards,
Frank
plaguerat
lihue wrote in message <3BA9C796...@mindspring.com>...
>plaguerat wrote:
>>
>> Kenneth Porter wrote in message <91216DEC1sc...@24.0.0.25>...
>> >slinger...@lookpit.com (plaguerat) wrote in
>> ><9o59b4$b63$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
>> <snip>
>
>You need to educate yourself. I'd recommend reading something
>other than government propaganda, which, I'd guess, is the
>principal source of your current knowledge. You'll be amazed at
>how you've been misled.
>
>Oh, and prohibition is still "a violation of liberty" - and the
>US Constitution.
>
>Regards,
>Frank
I draw my "current knowlege" from my OWN experience as an asbuser of
"recreational" drugs, alchohol included. The use of narcotics and stimulants
starts as recreation, yet soon becomes a full time job. Drug abuse does not
promote liberty, it robs us of it! Have I been misled about my drug use
costing me a good job, and a sizeable chunk of my youth? Nope, the memories
may be hazy, but they are real. Anyone who suggests drugs are anything but a
dead end street is fooling themselves. To propose making drugs more
available is in my mind prima facia evidence that the proponent is a drug
user himself, and wishes to legitimize his habit, or is a social darwinist
who beleives that drug users should OD, and releive society of their burden.
Either way you ignore the real problem, the addiction itself. Becoming
addicted is not a deliberate choice, but a side effect of the euphoria users
( like myself) crave. Cleaning up is a joyous thing, but the damage to ones
life, from crimminal charges to the damage to ones reputation and
relationships , is nearly impossible to reverse.
In short, my positions are not based on propaganda, but witnessing the real
life horrors of addiction up close, and from the inside.
MP
> An alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker!!!
> Alchohol, marijuana, and other weak drugs do not have anywhere near the
> effect on the user as heroin, cocaine, or amphetamines.
Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and
Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco
ranked six psychoactive substances. Among their conclusions were that
alcohol ranked higher than heroin or coke for "degree of intoxication
produced by the drug in typical use;" see
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q5 .
(They also found that alcohol produces more severe withdrawal symptoms
than either coke or heroin, and Henningfield ranked alcohol as
producing greater tolerance than coke.)
laurie corzett
Your amazing lack of knowledge about the effects of alcohol (a "weak" drug???)
makes it difficult to even know how to respond to you. Alcohol, for good or
ill, is a part of our society. So are heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and a
great many other substances. To say that alcohol is a more damaging drug than
heroin is just plain correct. We have to find better ways as a society to deal
with the damaging effects of the substances that are in common use than blanket
prohibition -- which never lessens the damage and causes a great deal more.
Baelzar
@lookpit.com says...
This type of ignorance and denial, folks, is why the Drug War exists.
Alcohol and cigarettes will always, always, always cause more death and
misery than heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, crack, or any other
currently illicit drug.
Crack babies? Most suffered damage NOT from crack, but from Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome and/or cigarette smoke. This was from a recent report
in JAMA, I believe.
I suspect (IMO) you could practically FORCE people to take all the
illicit drugs from childhood, and they still would not cause the damage
that alcohol alone does.
Alcohol causes more immediate impairment of:
1) motor skills
2) judgement
3) sight
4) ability to communicate
5) ability to form coherent thoughts
than any other drug in relative quantities.
Consider how many auto accidents, violent actions and simple bad
decisions are affected by alcohol.
This isn't even an argument, but easily documented from several sources.
I generally don't participate in these discussions, but can the Drug War
supporters actually believe that alcohol is less harmful than illegal
drugs? I find that hard to believe.
--
An armed society is a polite society.
-Robert Heinlein
Roger R.
or amphetamines. A drunk can't function nearly as well as those high on the
so-called strong drugs. Ask any employer who has had to determine what is
causing an employee to screw-up and had to try to decide to ask for
drug-testing.
To believe otherwise is to apply a religious-type faith instead of
observation.
MP <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bfd3b00.01092...@posting.google.com...
Baelzar
@lookpit.com says...
Your subjective experience with drugs, even hard ones, is not the same as
most recreational users.
Turn your argument around: You are trying to legitimize your INABILITY
not to abuse drugs by stating that any user will become like you were, a
hopeless addict, or that any proponent of legalization must want everyone
to become like you were.
Your weakness is not everyone's. Your experiences are not valid as an
objective source. Further, I've had diametrically opposed experiences to
yours with hard drugs.
AmaznBeast
>supporters actually believe that alcohol is less harmful than illegal
>drugs? I find that hard to believe.
I am not a war on drugs supporter exactly, but I think it is appropriate to
stop as much of the hard drugs coming in as possible. You can't possibly
compare someone who has a beer now and then (which is good for your health so
they say) with someone who is strung out on heroin. If heroin was as easy to
get as booze can you imagine what it would be like? Millions of zombie junkies
wandering empty streets and dying by the droves. Of course, population in the
country and the world as a whole is much too high. Perhaps that would be a way
to cut down on it.
David Friedman
"plaguerat" <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote:
> Cleaning up is a joyous thing, but the damage to ones
> life, from crimminal charges to the damage to ones reputation and
> relationships , is nearly impossible to reverse.
You seem to be combining damages due to the drug with damages due to the
laws against the drug. When alcohol was illegal, its use led to criminal
charges as well.
Some people get strongly addicted to alcohol, some don't. Freud
apparently used cocaine without being addicted, and was surprised when
he recommended it to other people and they became addicts.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
MP
> >plaguerat wrote:
> > > An alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker
> I draw my "current knowlege" from my OWN experience as an asbuser of
> "recreational" drugs, alchohol included.
How can your use of drugs INCLUDING alcohol possibly be proof that "An
alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker"?
Mary Sunshine
[snip]
> If heroin was as easy to
>get as booze can you imagine what it would be like? Millions of zombie junkies
>wandering empty streets and dying by the droves. Of course, population in the
>country and the world as a whole is much too high. Perhaps that would be a way
>to cut down on it.
You said it, I didn't .... :-)
Mary Sunshine
Pete nospam Zakel
>An alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker!!!
Of course not. Alcohol is a CNS depressant and tends to be far more dangerous
than opiates, cocaine or methamphetamines.
>Alchohol, marijuana, and other weak drugs do not have anywhere near the
>effect on the user as heroin, cocaine, or amphetamines.
Alcohol is NOT a "weak" drug. It is a very serious CNS depressant whose
effects are similar in many ways to the barbiturates. It can also have
serious toxic effects on various parts of the body.
>To compare these
>drugs to alchohol is a deliberate falsehood. Alchohol, for good or ill, is a
>part of our society, and prohibition was seen as a violation of liberty.
The other drugs are also part of our society, and all drug prohibitions are
violations of liberty, whether or not those violations are recognized by the
majority.
>If heroine were as accepted as alchohol, and used/abused by the same number of
>people, our society would fall apart!!
But heroin (not "heroine", which is a female hero) would not be used/abused by
the same number of people. The percentage of a society that abuses all drugs
tends to stay fairly constant, it's the mix of drugs used that changes. And
your typical heroin addict tends to have a different physical and
psychological profile from your typical alcoholic.
Heroin is not a party drug, as alcohol is, so heroin would never have the
popularity of alcohol in our society.
>To say that alchohol is "arguably a
>more damaging drug than heroine" is just plain wrong.
You are correct, it's not arguable. Alcohol is DEFINITELY a more damaging
drug than heroin. (Note the lack of an "e" at the end.)(
>Thats like saying
>atomic weapons should be carried for self defense, because they have killed
>fewer people than firearms!!! While it's technichally true, it is no less a
>falsehood for being statisically supported.
Comparing drugs to weapons will always be a failure of an argument. You can't
point drugs at other people and kill them (well, if you drop a 50-pound bale
on someone's head from 500 feet, that would do the job -- but it's not a cost
effective weapon).
Just because *you* like one drug better than the other doesn't make the one
you like inherently better. Comparing heroin to alcohol is more like
comparing fish to peanuts. They're both foods, but they are very different.
Alcohol and heroin are both drugs that are very different.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years
ago. When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors would
eventually be in the millions, someone else said, `Where are they all going
to go? It's not like you need a computer in every doorknob!'
"Years later, I went back to the same hotel. I noticed the room keys had been
replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots in the doors.
"There was a computer in every doorknob."
-Danny Hillis
st3ph3nm
> "recreational" drugs, alchohol included.
So, if making it illegal didn't stop *you*, what makes you think it'll
stop others?
> The use of narcotics and stimulants
> starts as recreation, yet soon becomes a full time job.
Not always. But please explain this.
> Drug abuse does not
> promote liberty, it robs us of it!
Drug use does neither. The laws surrounding drug use are the issue.
> Have I been misled about my drug use
> costing me a good job, and a sizeable chunk of my youth? Nope, the memories
> may be hazy, but they are real. Anyone who suggests drugs are anything but a
> dead end street is fooling themselves.
The issue isn't whether drugs are harmful or not, but how should we
handle them in our society. Making some illegal and some not is just
hypocritical, and sends a confusing message to our kids. It's okay to
get smashed on alcohol, but not on marijuana - huh?
> To propose making drugs more
> available is in my mind prima facia evidence that the proponent is a drug
> user himself, and wishes to legitimize his habit, or is a social darwinist
> who beleives that drug users should OD, and releive society of their burden.
Or a person that can see that current methods are failing us, and
costing us lives and money. I don't use any illegal substances, and I
don't want to see young girls street walking to pay for their next
hit, either. I'd rather clean them up, and get them back on their
feet. It's very difficult when they're committing illegal acts every
day in the street, to provide them with proper medical advice and/or
counselling.
> Either way you ignore the real problem, the addiction itself.
Nope. Making it illegal ignores the real problem. It shouldn't be a
legal issue - it's a health issue.
> Becoming
> addicted is not a deliberate choice, but a side effect of the euphoria users
> ( like myself) crave. Cleaning up is a joyous thing, but the damage to ones
> life, from crimminal charges to the damage to ones reputation and
> relationships , is nearly impossible to reverse.
Wow, that last sentence sums up my position very succinctly. If it
weren't illegal, you wouldn't have had criminal charges, and the
associated mess, would you?
> In short, my positions are not based on propaganda, but witnessing the real
> life horrors of addiction up close, and from the inside.
Which weren't prevented by the fact that they were illegal.
Cheers,
Steve
Mr. Curious
"hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or
religion.
Text: one who affects virtues, qualities, or attitudes he does not
have"
Other words:
pietist; actor, attitudinizer, bluffer, charlatan, faker,
four-flusher, fraud, humbug, impostor, masquerader, phony, poser,
poseur, pretender, quack, sham
Nor do any of the synonyms really describe what you're implying. His
argument may be inconsistent, his logic may be flawed, and it is
certainly possible that he really does think that legalization of pot
would work, but legalizing heroin would not. In any case, his
position on pot doesn't make him a hypocrite. In what world is it
virtuous to vote for pot? I'm not sure it's even politically correct
(pseudo virtue). I suggest you learn to present an argument and stop
the ad hominine attacks (name calling*). At least send him a private
email, and pimp slap him there.
I also think that one of the reasons many people favor the
legalization of pot, but not heroin, is that the discussion never
reaches a workable solution. Instead it gets sidetracked by a
comparison with alcohol and in this case, name calling.
As we (libertarians) have noted, we (Americans) have ignored the
lessons taught by the prohibition. Our logic is sound, and it is a
valid comparison (any new, good arguments to the contrary not
withstanding). Those new to the world of logic are quickly reminded
that logic doesn't in-and-of itself, persuade people.
So, I think the comparison is a distraction mainly because it doesn't
seem to work. But there's another, more significant reason: When
asked, “how should these drugs be sold,” many libertarians
offer the existing distribution system for alcohol. While it is true
that hard drugs and the drug war create as much if not more havoc than
taverns and liquor stores and drunk driving and alcoholism, to say
that the current system is a solution doesn't seem quite reasonable.
I suspect that the prevalence of un-prosecuted, unimpeded drunk
driving in this country is almost entirely the result of police
countenance--their empathy for Joe Blow having a drink after a tough
day. So, on the one hand it would virtually kill the black market,
and bribery, but I also think it would lower the enforcement of
nuisance crimes or maybe even more serious crimes. Personally, my
previous statements having been handed down from above [wink], I think
that if legalization increases drug use, one of the biggest increases
will be in law enforcement community.
I am still in favor of drug legalization; not out of dogma but because
I think we should expect more out of our neighbors and failing that,
our government. In other words “that’s too hard” is
not a good excuse. Punish all public idiocy, and insist on high
standards for law enforcement.
Robert Hughes
www.politicalreality.com
Note: at least 3 other people use this account, if you email me,
please put my name in the subject line... thanks
* the same goes for other petty nonsense, e.g. misspellings etc. This
is not a bar.
M. Simon
<slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote:
>
>Kenneth Porter wrote in message <91216DEC1sc...@24.0.0.25>...
>>slinger...@lookpit.com (plaguerat) wrote in
>><9o59b4$b63$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
><snip>
>>when Libertarians talk of legalizing marijuana, they
>>>usually wind up including heroine.
>>
>>And this is bad? Why? Or do you also favor criminalizing alcohol, arguably
>>a more damaging drug than heroine.
>
>
>
>An alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker!!!
>Alchohol, marijuana, and other weak drugs do not have anywhere near the
>effect on the user as heroin, cocaine, or amphetamines. To compare these
>drugs to alchohol is a deliberate falsehood.
Do you support pprohibition because it finances criminals at home or
because it finances terrorism abroad?
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
M. Simon
Do you support prohibition because it finances criminals at home or
because it finances terrorists abroad?
Kenneth Porter
>So, whom exactly are we then protecting?
Good question. I see two constituencies:
1) Scumbags who now operate as dealers because it's lucrative and they'd
otherwise have to get a real job that they're clearly unqualified for.
2) Law enforcement and military administrators who can use the WoD to
justify gigantic budgets and can use seized assets as an additional bonus.
To this we could add the general media, who use any war to sell papers.
Remember the Maine.
Speaker to Animals
>
>
>Do you support prohibition because it finances criminals at home or
>because it finances terrorists abroad?
>
>
John Kennedy's dad rich enough to buy the presidency.
Unknown
Using, whether to get well or get high, is a choice. The consequences
are not. Take away the "hard drugs" and those seeking to get high
will huff paint fumes, or worse. How do you propose for big daddy
government to deal with that? Different drugs (and other substances)
affect people differently. One man's poison is another man's
medicine. Thus, your position is both immoral and impracticle.
Joe
morgan mair fheal
>"recreational" drugs, alchohol included. The use of narcotics and stimulants
tis is ancedotal evidence
what is the statistical evidence
in general can people control their drug use?
some people cant control their use of spandex
does that mean nobody can have elastic underthings anymore
plaguerat
morgan mair fheal wrote in message ...
<snip>
>tis is ancedotal evidence
>what is the statistical evidence
>
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/nationtrends.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/heroin/heroin.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Methamph/Methamph.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Cocaine/Cocaine.html
the DEA:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/stats/stats.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/stats/overview.htm
Ohters:
http://www.casacolumbia.org/index.htm
http://www.casacolumbia.org/newsletter1458/newsletter_list.htm?section=ARTIC
LES%20IN%20ACADEMIC%20JOURNALS
http://college.library.wisc.edu/resources/subject_guides/drugabuse.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/drugabuse.html
>in general can people control their drug use?
Some can, others cannot. When one is intoxicated, the inhibitions are
reduced, this can lead to use of a drug that would ordinarily be avoided,
such as heroin. I am fortunte i did not use this one. Recovering heroin and
cocaine addicts all relate a sad tale of powerful addiction. Just ask one.
>
>some people cant control their use of spandex
>does that mean nobody can have elastic underthings anymore
Haarrrr point taken. I do not oppose the legalization of marijuana, but to
include heroin and cocaine is to play russian roulette. I started using
drugs at the age of 8, That's right 8!! I was prescribed large doses of
ritalin (a powerful amphetamine), and this led to use of other drugs when
the ritalin was unavailable. Prescription drugs can be just as dangerous
as, and often lead to, the ones on the street.
st3ph3nm
Plaguerat gave us:
>National institute on drug abuse
>http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/nationtrends.html
A heap of statistics that show that drug use is increasing. Sad.
>http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/heroin/heroin.html
"Although heroin abuse has trended downward during the past couple of
years,
its prevalence is still higher than in the early 1990s.
"These relatively high rates of abuse, together with the significant
heroin
abuse we are now seeing among school-age youth, the glamorization of
heroin in music
and films, changing patterns of drug use, and heroin's increased
purity and decreased
prices, make it imperative that the public have the latest scientific
information
on this topic."
Wow, higher than the 1990's, and the stuff is getting cheaper. This
prohibition stuff works
great, don't it?
>http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Methamph/Methamph.html
"According to the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
an estimated 4.9 million people (2.3 percent of the population)
have tried methamphetamine at some time in their lives.
In 1994, the estimate was 3.8 million (1.8 percent), and in 1995
it was 4.7 million (2.2 percent)."
More evidence that prohibition isn't the answer.
>http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Cocaine/Cocaine.html
Less people on it than previously - that's nice. It seems they've
found new avenues.
A bunch of stats that just show lots of people being arrested for
something that, had
the drug of choice been different, would have presented no problem.
Oh, and note the stats - increasing arrests, sure. But still we have
increasing
drug dependency.
Something's not working. You're flogging a dead horse. Why not try
to find an EFFECTIVE way to combat the problem.
Cheers,
Steve
David James Polewka
>Do you support prohibition because it finances criminals at home or
>because it finances terrorists abroad?
Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, gambling or prostitution will never work,
because it's easy to get those things on the black market. A prohibition
on big government, however, WILL work, because you can't get big
government on the black market. It's the only prohibition that WILL work!
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
David James Polewka
> Face it: the War on Drugs does not work. It creates
>more problems and crimes without solving anything.
Prohibition of alcohol, drugs, gambling or prostitution will
never work, because it's too easy to get those things on
the black market. But a prohibition on big government
WILL work because you can't get big government on
the black market. It's the ONLY prohibition that WILL work!
lihue
>
> I draw my "current knowlege" from my OWN experience as an asbuser of
> "recreational" drugs, alchohol included. The use of narcotics and stimulants
> starts as recreation, yet soon becomes a full time job. Drug abuse does not
> promote liberty, it robs us of it! Have I been misled about my drug use
> costing me a good job, and a sizeable chunk of my youth? Nope, the memories
> may be hazy, but they are real. Anyone who suggests drugs are anything but a
> dead end street is fooling themselves. To propose making drugs more
> available is in my mind prima facia evidence that the proponent is a drug
> user himself, and wishes to legitimize his habit, or is a social darwinist
> who beleives that drug users should OD, and releive society of their burden.
> Either way you ignore the real problem, the addiction itself. Becoming
> addicted is not a deliberate choice, but a side effect of the euphoria users
> ( like myself) crave. Cleaning up is a joyous thing, but the damage to ones
> life, from crimminal charges to the damage to ones reputation and
> relationships , is nearly impossible to reverse.
>
> In short, my positions are not based on propaganda, but witnessing the real
> life horrors of addiction up close, and from the inside.
Hello plaguerat,
I'm sorry to hear about your earlier problems, and happy that
you've found a way to live with your particular body chemistry
interactions to some drugs. I also understand, at least in part,
your aprehensions about others traveling that road.
You have to realize that your experience is anecdotal, and that
there is a range of responses to specific drugs. Just as some
have a deadly reaction to peanuts while others thrive on them,
specific drugs may have the exact opposite effect on any two
individuals. Perhaps you are familar with "One [person's] poison
is another's medicine." - there is some truth in that.
And, I hope you realize that your problems with the law would
have been less, possibly nonexistant, were the drugs not
illegal. (If you, as part of your abuse problems, broke
'legitimate' laws, such a DWI, that's another matter.) Perhaps
your 'destiny' is to be a designated driver. If so, there are
many who need you. :)
I'm glad that your intellect has helped you outgrow your drug
abuse problems. Now it's time to use that intellect to help
others, if you're willing. May I suggest that you start by
educating yourself by critically reading a range of sources of
information including those outside the WoD favoring crowd? I'd
recommend starting with some of the panel studies that the FedGov
had commisioned and then repressed because the resulting
recommendations did not agree with policy. I expect that once
you do, you won't know whether to laugh, get angry or cry. We
are truely our own worst enemies.
My best,
Frank S. Honecy
Michael Zarlenga
: While I have never found it an attractive solution to any problem, it did make
Prohibition enriched (and continue to enrich) many criminals : Al
Capone, the Italian crime families, LA street gangs, etc. How can
a street gang buy an AK-47? The War on Drugs makes it easy.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed
these acts and those who harbored them."
M. Simon
>recommend starting with some of the panel studies that the FedGov
>had commisioned and then repressed because the resulting
>recommendations did not agree with policy. I expect that once
>you do, you won't know whether to laugh, get angry or cry. We
>are truely our own worst enemies.
So true.
>My best,
>Frank S. Honecy
>
>Oh, and prohibition is still "a violation of liberty" - and the
>US Constitution.
Do you favor drug prohibition because it finances criminals or do you favor it because it finances terrorists?
Kenneth Porter
<221fa157.01092...@posting.google.com>:
>>the DEA:
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/stats/stats.htm
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/stats/overview.htm
>
>A bunch of stats that just show lots of people being arrested for
>something that, had the drug of choice been different, would have
>presented no problem. Oh, and note the stats - increasing arrests, sure.
> But still we have increasing drug dependency.
Wasn't the DEA founded because prohibition had ended and a bunch of high-
ranking Fed LEO's were about to find themselves out of a job? Didn't they
create a whole scare about how Asians and Hispanics were going to use the
drugs of their cultures (opiates and marijuana) to corrupt the daughters of
white people, and how we needed to criminalize the drugs to protect the
virtue of our women?
It's now most of a century later, and the common wisdom that Drugs Are Bad
has been handed down from parent to child from early childhood, which makes
the belief a religion, not a rational conclusion. This is why it's so hard
to convince people. Anything "learned" before the age of 5 is pretty much
unquestionable unless the person has been raised to be skeptical of his own
authority figures (as my parents encouraged me to be). It might be useful
to look at deprogramming techniques for changing the minds of Drug
Warriors. They are now a priesthood operating a modern-day inquistion based
on the claims of long-dead "drug war popes".
Baudouin F. Petit
> >The Libertarian Party has many
> >good ideas, almost allof which have been taken to the illogical extreme,
> >for example, when Libertarians talk of legalizing marijuana, they
> >usually wind up including heroine.
>
> And this is bad? Why? Or do you also favor criminalizing alcohol, arguably
> a more damaging drug than heroin.
On this read a remarkable recent article in "The Guardian" :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,5065
And the position of several police chiefs of large German cities :
Al Montestruc
> Kenneth Porter wrote in message <91216DEC1sc...@24.0.0.25>...
> >slinger...@lookpit.com (plaguerat) wrote in
> ><9o59b4$b63$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
> <snip>
> >>usually wind up including heroine.
> >
> >And this is bad? Why? Or do you also favor criminalizing alcohol, arguably
>
>
>
> An alchoholic is NOT the same as a junkie, crackhead, or tweaker!!!
> Alchohol, marijuana, and other weak drugs
Alcohol is not a weak drug. Alcohol is one of the hardest to kick,
and in the long run one of the most destructive.
> do not have anywhere near the
> effect on the user as heroin, cocaine, or amphetamines.
That depends on the individual user more than on the drug. All of
those you name and alchohol can kill.
> To compare these
> drugs to alchohol is a deliberate falsehood.
Wrong, to assert they are fundamentally different in class from
alcohol (aside from legality) is. All are addictive and/or
habitforming, all can casue death in overdose, all can be abused and
cause damage to the abuser, all have some legitimate uses aside from
recreational drug use.
> Alchohol, for good or ill, is a
> part of our society,
So are the others.
> and prohibition was seen as a violation of liberty.
Only becase it was, as is the prohibition of other drugs.
>If
> heroine were as accepted as alchohol, and used/abused by the same number of
> people, our society would fall apart!!
I have no interest in use or abuse of heroin whether or not it is
legal. The number of opium type drug addicts has been near constant
for about 100 years in this nation, since before opium based drugs
were controlled, what good does prohibition do?
>To say that alchohol is "arguably a
> more damaging drug than heroine" is just plain wrong.
Nope, it is a fact. With legal heroin the dosage would be more
predictable, as would the other ingrediants, and it would be very
cheap. Heroin addicts would not need to steal or hurt others to get a
fix, that would control the crime problem. Heroin addicts on the drug
are rarely violent as some alchohlics often are.
> Thats like saying
> atomic weapons should be carried for self defense, because they have killed
> fewer people than firearms!!! While it's technichally true, it is no less a
> falsehood for being statisically supported.
Alchohol will cause more damage per addict than will heroin IMHO.
plaguerat
lihue wrote in message <3BAB3CC1...@mindspring.com>...
>plaguerat wrote:
<snip
Very thoughtful, but I beleive you missed my point. Legalizing the
relatively mild, and in many cases theraputic drug marijuana (the devil's
smoke to the DEA) would be a good thing! All things being equal, the use of
weed, is preferrable to most any other drug. Most pot-heads, when stoned,
are alternately 1) sleepy 2) hungry 3)disoriented 4) amused by everything 5)
disoriented, and 6) disoriented. To my knowledge, there are very few (read
as none!) accounts of "Reefer Madness" actually occuring, and most grass
smokers would grow their own, thus reducing international weed trafficking.
The benefits of hemp fibre and oil could also be exploited, giving us new
renewable resources, not to mention fine new varieties of everybodies
favorite smoke.
Banning the Booze has proven ineffective, but heroin, and cocaine are
relatively easy to stop at the border, and can not be easily grown in the
US. To stop importation of these two very dangerous, and highly addictive
drugs, with border patrols, and real inspections of cargo, would be a good
first step. The expansion of treatment programs is essential, and I do agree
locking up users is bad policy. Locking up Grammar School Pushers, however,
should be supported by all. The providing of highly addictive substances to
children robs them of an informed choice about drug use. Addicts only choose
the first few uses, after that, it becomes an important part of their lives.
To legalize, and thus (at least in part) legitimize the use and sale of
powerful narcotics and stimulants, would most likely result in more people
using, and more people becoming addicts. While I see your point, there is a
serious danger in the legalization of all drugs, and particularly the
expansion of the prescription drug market.
Some people can use drugs of all sorts without becoming dependant, others
hit the pipe once, and are crackheads for life. Children given drugs are the
most likely to become adicts in the future. The only real area where I
support the current policy of incarceration for drug violations is for the
pushers who sell to kids. I was started on the path of drug abuse at 8, with
my first Ritalin prescription. When kids are prescribed addictive drugs,
they do not make a choice, the choice is made for them. Among the most
common childhood prescriptions is Ritalin. This powerful and highly
addictive amphetamine is being given to more and more kids every year, and
will most likely result in a huge addict population.
The company that makes Ritalin, Novartis (was Ciba Giegy) has engaged in an
aggressive marketing campaign to promote it's use. The "non-profit"
organization CHAAD slings Ritalin like hot cakes, and gets most of it's
funding from Novartis. My mother bought into the CHAAD lies, and got the
Ritalin to control my "behavior", and it sure does that! Twenty years
later, and it's still giving me side effects. Novartis claims that Methyl
Phenidate (ritalin) has "no known long term side effects", but fails to
mention that there have been no long term studies of Ritalin, despite it's
use for nearly 40 years! Controlling behavior is what drugs are about. Those
who use them, and get addicted become slaves to their habit. The ever
expanding prescription drug market is creating more and more different
drugs, and raising their prices every day. If you have a problem, they will
make a pill to solve it, and then sell you happiness in a bottle. Ritalin
used to be fairly inexpensive, but like a schoolyard pusher, "The first
taste is free, then I gotta start chargin ya!". When the med coverage runs
out there's no more Ritalin, then what do you do? Find a substitute on the
street! Almost every drug company in the world has a subsidiary in the
illegal drug producing regions of south america, and central eurasia. Why?
Do these regions buy so much Luvox? I do not think so.
No I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and my example, Ritalin, is just one
drug I have become VERY familiar with. I was spoon fed the lies of a drug
company through their puppet "grassroots" organization. Tens of thousands of
other kids are being served up the same lies, washed dopwn with the same
pills today. These are the junkies, crackheads, and tweakers of the future.
The drug companies will sell their products to anyone who can find the
money. Now they advertise on TV, radio, in magazines, and newspapers. "Buy
prozac, it makes people happy", "Buy Viagra, It makes you virlie" "Buy
Ritalin, It makes intractable children more managable". Who do you think are
the targets of these campaigns? Cetainly not physicians! These drugs which
supposedly can only be gotten through a doctor, are now being marketed like
Twinkies. " Go to the 7-eleven and pick up a box of ho ho's, and a bottle
of Zoloft for mommy" that's the new american dream. Drugs whether legal or
not, only hide our problems, they do not solve them. Fewer drugs, not more,
should be the ideal.
http://www.parkinsons-information-exchange-network-online.com/drugdb/083.htm
l
http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-r03.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/ritalin.htm
http://www.breggin.com/ritalin.html
plaguerat
laurie corzett wrote in message <3BAA0768...@law.harvard.edu>...
>plaguerat wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Porter wrote in message <91216DEC1sc...@24.0.0.25>...
>> >slinger...@lookpit.com (plaguerat) wrote in
>> ><9o59b4$b63$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
>> <snip>
>Your amazing lack of knowledge about the effects of alcohol (a "weak"
drug???)
>makes it difficult to even know how to respond to you. Alcohol, for good
or
>ill, is a part of our society. So are heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and a
>great many other substances. To say that alcohol is a more damaging drug
than
>heroin is just plain correct. We have to find better ways as a society to
deal
>with the damaging effects of the substances that are in common use than
blanket
>prohibition -- which never lessens the damage and causes a great deal more.
>
Yes. Alchohol is a weak drug. Inagine the reuslts of ingesting 1 fluid ounce
of pure achohol... not much effect is there?
Now Imagine the reult of injesting the same dose of pure heroin, or cocaine.
Ohh, death. Ok thats not so bad...
The much higher dosages of alchohol required to cause impairment indicate a
weaker drug. Having on several occasions consumed a whole bottle (750ml) of
scotch, (86proof, or 43% achohol by volume), thats 322.5 ml of pure
alchohol, and still being alive, is scientific proof of a much lower
toxicity in alchohol. I do not dispute that you can become more impaired on
booze than H or coke. It's a fact. Of course it's also a fact that those who
try to injest the ammounts of heroin or coke neccessary to acheive a serious
level of impairment usually wind up dead. The severe toxicity of these
alkaloids prevents their use as a replacement for alchohol. Likewise, much
higher dosages of booze are required to reach a similar level of impairment
to horse, and bolivian marching powder. Some find the toxicity of these
drugs to be their selling point, as one person told me,"Junkies OD, and kill
themselves off". That is not a solution. The best solution is to prosectute
the dealers, not the users, and stop the flow of these drugs across our
borders.
Dramar Ankalle
Hurrah!
Back more death squads!
©
Dramar Ankalle wrote:
>
> pl
> > themselves off". That is not a solution. The best solution is to
> prosectute
> > the dealers, not the users, and stop the flow of these drugs across our
> > borders.
> >
> >
>
> Hurrah!
> Back more death squads!
Whatever it takes, the only good drug dealer is a dead drug dealer.
--
Allah is Dead.
plaguerat
Pete nospam Zakel wrote in message <3baa3950$1...@news.cadence.com>...<snip>
>
>Alcohol is NOT a "weak" drug. It is a very serious CNS depressant whose
>effects are similar in many ways to the barbiturates. It can also have
>serious toxic effects on various parts of the body.
I do hate to paste from my own posts, but ...
Yes. Alchohol is a weak drug. Imagine the reuslts of ingesting 1 fluid ounce
of pure achohol... not much effect is there?
Now Imagine the reult of injesting the same dose of pure heroin, or cocaine.
Ohh, death. Ok thats not so bad...
The much higher dosages of alchohol required to cause impairment indicate a
weaker drug. Having on several occasions consumed a whole bottle (750ml) of
scotch, (86proof, or 43% achohol by volume), thats 322.5 ml of pure
alchohol, and still being alive, is scientific proof of a much lower
toxicity in alchohol. I do not dispute that you can become more impaired on
booze than H or coke. It's a fact. Of course it's also a fact that those who
try to injest the ammounts of heroin or coke neccessary to acheive a serious
level of impairment usually wind up dead. The severe toxicity of these
alkaloids prevents their use as a replacement for alchohol. Likewise, much
higher dosages of booze are required to reach a similar level of impairment
to horse, and bolivian marching powder. Some find the toxicity of these
drugs to be their selling point, as one person told me,"Junkies OD, and kill
themselves off". That is not a solution. The best solution is to prosectute
the dealers, not the users, and stop the flow of these drugs across our
borders.
><snip>
>But heroin (not "heroine", which is a female hero) would not be used/abused
by
>the same number of people. The percentage of a society that abuses all
drugs
>tends to stay fairly constant, it's the mix of drugs used that changes.
And
>your typical heroin addict tends to have a different physical and
>psychological profile from your typical alcoholic.
>
Spelling spelling spelling...
<snip>
>
>You are correct, it's not arguable. Alcohol is DEFINITELY a more damaging
>drug than heroin. (Note the lack of an "e" at the end.)(
>
Ok I get your point, I misspelled a word!
<snip>
>Comparing drugs to weapons will always be a failure of an argument. You
can't
>point drugs at other people and kill them (well, if you drop a 50-pound
bale
>on someone's head from 500 feet, that would do the job -- but it's not a
cost
>effective weapon).
I was referring to the relative body counts, not comparing the drug to the
weapon.
>Just because *you* like one drug better than the other doesn't make the one
>you like inherently better. Comparing heroin to alcohol is more like
>comparing fish to peanuts. They're both foods, but they are very
different.
>Alcohol and heroin are both drugs that are very different.
I do not like one drug better than another, except maybe weed, but I do not
use that any more either. Marijuana is less damaging to the user, and
society than heroin, coke, ampetamines, or even the ubiqutous alchohol. I
would far preferr that no one even desire these drugs, but given the
options, alchohol, and marijuana are less problematic. Legal or illegal, the
trafick in cocaine heroin, and amphetamines causes crimes unrelated to the
sale and use of the drugs. Unless you propose to give them away for free,
addicts will do anything to get them, and they will never be as inexpensive
as booze or marijuana. Crime results from the drive to aquire the next fix,
not just the immediate use.
><snip>
You seem well versed in the nature of drugs, please read the above
analysis, and tell me were you feel I'm mistaken.
Thank you
plaguerat
Al Montestruc wrote in message ...
>"plaguerat" <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
news:<9obr7r$av2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> Kenneth Porter wrote in message <91216DEC1sc...@24.0.0.25>...
>> >slinger...@lookpit.com (plaguerat) wrote in
>> ><9o59b4$b63$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
>> <snip>
>Alcohol is not a weak drug. Alcohol is one of the hardest to kick,
>and in the long run one of the most destructive.
<snip>
>
>That depends on the individual user more than on the drug. All of
>those you name and alchohol can kill.
Alchohol's toxicity is far below that of the alkaloids. This allows for
greater impairment of the faculties, but less chance of an overdose. The
death of the user by OD is far more likely from amphetamines, coke, and
heroin. The difficulty in kicking is not what I was referring to. I was
talking about dead people.
<snip>
>Wrong, to assert they are fundamentally different in class from
>alcohol (aside from legality) is. All are addictive and/or
>habitforming, all can casue death in overdose, all can be abused and
>cause damage to the abuser, all have some legitimate uses aside from
>recreational drug use.
Too true, all haveother uses, but the abuse is a problem for the whole
society.
<snip>
>
>> and prohibition was seen as a violation of liberty.
>
>Only becase it was, as is the prohibition of other drugs.
I've heard that argument many time, in many ways, usually "drug prohibition
makes crimminals, if we legalize drugs then the crime problem vanishes"
And if we legalize robbery, we can stop imprisoning people for harmles
"wealth redistribution"
<snip>
>I have no interest in use or abuse of heroin whether or not it is
>legal. The number of opium type drug addicts has been near constant
>for about 100 years in this nation, since before opium based drugs
>were controlled, what good does prohibition do?
As well to say that we should lift the prohibition on home made explosives,
because some people can handle them safely.
<snip>
>Nope, it is a fact. With legal heroin the dosage would be more
>predictable, as would the other ingrediants, and it would be very
>cheap.
Cheap? It is refined from poppy sap grown in asia, and eastern europe by
fuedal warlords. By the standard free market logic, oil should be cheap too,
but a few nations controll most of the world's supply. The supply is
strangled to ensure high profits. Cheap it will never be.
>Heroin addicts would not need to steal or hurt others to get a
>fix, that would control the crime problem. Heroin addicts on the drug
>are rarely violent as some alchohlics often are.
Are you going to give it away for free? Unless it's free, the drive to get
the scratch for the next fix will result in crime.
<snip>
>Alchohol will cause more damage per addict than will heroin IMHO.
Once again, the body count... The only thing that pushes booze over the top
is drunk driving killings. This should be treated a murder, not
"manslaughter".
Eric Lee Green
business.com> wrote:
>Dramar Ankalle wrote:
>> > themselves off". That is not a solution. The best solution is to
>> prosectute
>> > the dealers, not the users, and stop the flow of these drugs across our
>> > borders.
>>
>> Hurrah!
>> Back more death squads!
>
>Whatever it takes, the only good drug dealer is a dead drug dealer.
So you support executing your corner pharmacist? :-).
[Note: He regularly "deals" drugs that are more toxic than any of the
"illegal" drugs with utter impunity].
We live in a society that operates via free enterprise. People go into
a business (such as, say, selling illegal drugs) because they think they
can make money at it. This is true regardless of the risk (else why do
we still have people walking on steel beams 500 feet up in the air, if
not for the money???). Arresting them all is no solution,
because when you arrest a drug dealer, you decrease the supply, which
increases the price, which motivates yet another person to become
a drug dealer. The only solution is to make it unprofitable to
engage in domestic terrorism (which is what drug dealers often do), by,
e.g., allowing your corner pharmacist to undersell the "street" price
(reduce the profit) and using the additional taxes to put users into
treatment centers for drying out (reduce the demand, further reducing
profit).
It is ridiculous that so-called "capitalists" forget the simplest basics
of supply and demand and think that cutting down the supply is the answer.
All that happens in that case is a hike in prices, followed by new
faces entering the business because now they view the gains as
surpassing the risks.
Eric Lee Green er...@badtux.org http://www.badtux.org
GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
*** You do not preserve freedom by destroying freedom ***
Offbreed
> Banning the Booze has proven ineffective, but heroin, and cocaine are
> relatively easy to stop at the border, and can not be easily grown in the
> US. To stop importation of these two very dangerous, and highly addictive
> drugs, with border patrols, and real inspections of cargo,
I see your other points, but I live in a fishing town. Several fishing
boats go out to sea and transload pot. I do not *know* if they pick up
coke or heroin. I *believe* they pick up coke because the fishing
fleet runs on it (damned "derby" openings). (H? No idea.)
In addition, if drugs are "relatively easy" to stop, why do we have a
problem with large quantities of drugs making it in? (Relatively easy
compared to what? Smuggling decayed elephant carcasses?)
Anyhow, there just is no way to stop the smuggling without also
stopping the fishing. Period. And that is a problem; the side effects
of the laws. All are made to suffer in a futile effort to protect a
few.
The most serious drug problem in the interior of Alaska is not booze,
although that is a big one, it's huffing gasoline. How do we fight
that? We cannot. We can only hope those without the will to fight it
(or resistance to the chemical) die so they cannot pass the weakness
to their offspring. That is why American Indians have such a problem
with booze compared to whites, the whites who were most easily
effected or addicted DIED. The whites, as a genetic pool, have already
had most of the genes removed.
(I will not go into how many of my relatives, white and Indian, had
drug and alcohol problems, or how many have died in squalor and
poverty after years of suffering. I know what this is from living
through it. Rules and help only help those with a certain minimum
amount of strength or resistance. No one can straighten them out if
they cannot fight. Trying beyond a certain point is just too much
heartbreak. BT,DT,NT.)
plaguerat
Offbreed wrote in message ...
>"plaguerat" <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
news:<9oim4n$ksp$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>
>I see your other points, but I live in a fishing town. Several fishing
>boats go out to sea and transload pot. I do not *know* if they pick up
>coke or heroin. I *believe* they pick up coke because the fishing
>fleet runs on it (damned "derby" openings). (H? No idea.)
Easy, random inspections. The harbormaster points to a returning boat, and a
couple agents and a dope sniffing dog stand nearby as they unload their
cargo.
>In addition, if drugs are "relatively easy" to stop, why do we have a
>problem with large quantities of drugs making it in? (Relatively easy
>compared to what? Smuggling decayed elephant carcasses?)
They could be stopped with a moderate effort. Currently, our borders are so
porous, you could infiltrate an army into our back yards.
>Anyhow, there just is no way to stop the smuggling without also
>stopping the fishing. Period. And that is a problem; the side effects
>of the laws. All are made to suffer in a futile effort to protect a
>few.
Spot inspections see above...
>The most serious drug problem in the interior of Alaska is not booze,
>although that is a big one, it's huffing gasoline. How do we fight
>that? We cannot. We can only hope those without the will to fight it
>(or resistance to the chemical) die so they cannot pass the weakness
>to their offspring. That is why American Indians have such a problem
>with booze compared to whites, the whites who were most easily
>effected or addicted DIED. The whites, as a genetic pool, have already
>had most of the genes removed.
Huffers cannot be stopped. Inhaling gasoline is just one of those things
that people do, like jumping in front of moving cars, sleeping on train
tracks, or shooting themselves in the head. You cannot protect people from
suicide.
>(I will not go into how many of my relatives, white and Indian, had
>drug and alcohol problems, or how many have died in squalor and
>poverty after years of suffering. I know what this is from living
>through it. Rules and help only help those with a certain minimum
>amount of strength or resistance. No one can straighten them out if
>they cannot fight. Trying beyond a certain point is just too much
>heartbreak. BT,DT,NT.)
Sad but true. Just try to help if they will accept. You cant force someone
to clean up, thats why the mandatory treatment programs don't work
Josh Geller
plaguerat <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote:
> [Random] inspections. The harbormaster points to a returning boat, and a
> couple agents and a dope sniffing dog stand nearby as they unload their
> cargo.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Dramar Ankalle
Josh Geller <dcl...@best.com> wrote in message
news:t%9r7.90$Le....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
I myself was arrested at National airport because of a *phone call* from a
DEA agent in St Louis.The agents didnt even know why they were detaining
me.Too much power.
Lets get the DEA boys that are so macho over there, and divert those
billions that go to South America to some good use.
Leo Sgouros
13395-083
Dramar Ankalle
BTW, I had no drugs or even a pot seed on me that day.
Message 1 in thread
From: Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: sT lOUIS PoST dISPATCH
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
View this article only
Date: 2000/05/20
ARRESSTED AT WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
i ASKED
"WHAT IS THIS ABOUT"
THE DEA SAID
"WE DONT KNOW"
--
"and the four had one likeness,and their
appearance and their work was as it were
a wheel in the middle of a wheel"
www.mkshadows.net
From: Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: "6 aREA MEN OUT OF 7 INDICTED IN COCAINE RING"
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original Format
Date: 2000/05/20
YADDA YADDA 30 KILOS
YADDA YADDA NOT ONE GRAM OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED
WE STOLE THE DRUGS
--
"and the four had one likeness,and their
appearance and their work was as it were
a wheel in the middle of a wheel"
www.mkshadows.net
Search Result 4
From: Leo Sgouros (lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com)
Subject: TS the Son of a Libyan Colonel?
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original Format
Date: 2000/05/20
Find the link.
If you know what I mena.
FUCKHEADS BABYLON WILL FALL
--
"and the four had one likeness,and their
appearance and their work was as it were
a wheel in the middle of a wheel"
www.mkshadows.net