What the Obots think of anybody who disagrees with them

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote: I doubt it. Some Dem losses, but minor.
Remember 1934/69 dem senators friend. The downside for republicans is quite large until they rebuild the party. It took us 12-13 years to get started after Clinton stopped party building. And it took Howard Dean to get it done.

2010 19 "R" seats, 17 "D" in the senate are up for election, advantage Dems. Voter reg trends, advan Dems, grassroots organization: Advan Dems. Fundraising, advan Dems.

Start the republican rebuilding now, its gonna take a while.
It is going to take longer than that. The Rs have yet to decide if they want to be the culture war party or the economic sanity party.

Myself, I'm not too enthusiastic about a culture war party.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote: I doubt it. Some Dem losses, but minor.
Remember 1934/69 dem senators friend. The downside for republicans is quite large until they rebuild the party. It took us 12-13 years to get started after Clinton stopped party building. And it took Howard Dean to get it done.

2010 19 "R" seats, 17 "D" in the senate are up for election, advantage Dems. Voter reg trends, advan Dems, grassroots organization: Advan Dems. Fundraising, advan Dems.

Start the republican rebuilding now, its gonna take a while.

I am always amused when opposition party members give advice to members of the opposite party as though they are trying to help or something.

You have left out the most important Advantage for Democrats, and the only one that really makes a difference. It is the "Donkey in the room" so to speak. It is the fact that (nearly) Everyone who works in the business of providing content to be viewed by Americans in their living rooms is a Liberal Democrat. All National News organizations are Headquartered in New York, (which voted 80% for Obama) and every member of their staff is picked from a pool (80% of which voted for Obama. Did I mention that? ) of people from that city. The Networks are entirely Unionized, and it would be fair to say that they are staffed exclusively by Union people, who are also a very prominent Democrat voting block.

The fact is, it is very seldom indeed that the American People are ever permitted to see or hear anything that was not filtered by Liberal Democrats. Every story on the news is weighed by people with a specific ideology, and every entertainment program is produced by people with an ideological bent that shows up in the subject matter that they covertly preach at us disguised as entertainment.

With this Gale force wind of constant ideology pushed at us, it is a testament to the sanity of the American people that there is any opposition party at all.

The Advantages you mentioned are all derivatives of the only advantage the Dems really have. Nearly Total control of the ability to speak to the people.



David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:
Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote: I doubt it. Some Dem losses, but minor.
Remember 1934/69 dem senators friend. The downside for republicans is quite large until they rebuild the party. It took us 12-13 years to get started after Clinton stopped party building. And it took Howard Dean to get it done.

2010 19 "R" seats, 17 "D" in the senate are up for election, advantage Dems. Voter reg trends, advan Dems, grassroots organization: Advan Dems. Fundraising, advan Dems.

Start the republican rebuilding now, its gonna take a while.
It is going to take longer than that. The Rs have yet to decide if they want to be the culture war party or the economic sanity party.

Myself, I'm not too enthusiastic about a culture war party.

The interesting thing about Cultural Conservative ideas is that they happened to be backed up by reality and evolution. Like the laws of economics, Liberal economics (Keynesian) have an analogy in Liberal Culture. As surely as the Debt of Liberal Economics will one day crush us all, the Debt of Liberal Culture will likewise crush us all. (It is already weighing heavily)

You obviously believe that economics and culture are separable and I find this notion to be peculiar and incomprehensible. This is like alleging that thievery is a viable economic system where one person trades his money with another in exchange for his life. If you take out the moral component, then it's a pretty good economic argument, except that it's sustainability requires an endless supply of marks, which of course is impossible.


You are of course being a little dishonest in your opposition to a culture war. You just don't like some of the things that the "Moralists" are doing, but if it were a Moral issue you cared about you would be in support of it.

After all, isn't taking other people money (taxation) a moral issue ?

Of course i'm not going to convince you, and this is of course a token response.

David

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Of course economics and culture are separable. Is Drug Prohibition (making criminals the sole distributors of illegal drugs) good economic policy (estimates are that the policy - which does nothing to limit the flow of illegal drugs - costs us directly $50 bn a year)?

Now there is a Culture War policy that is not aligned with economics. Unless subsidies for criminals is the intent. However, I was under the impression that the culture warriors were not big fans of criminal activity.

And the war on gay people (which is mostly over) didn't seem to have any economic advantages I'm aware of.

And the idea that marriage is between one man, one woman, and one government doesn't seem to be in accord with American Conservative (limited government) principles. Nor making government the arbiter of church sacraments.

As to the principles "have been tested". Yes. And some times - because of path dependence and misinformation - those principles are not actually rooted in nature (See alcohol prohibition). And it seems the prohibition principle has been tested (alcohol prohibition) and yet we seem to have repeated the error (drug prohibition). With cultural conservatives being some of the biggest fans of prohibition. If you don't count the other side which thinks that gun prohibitions can work.

It would seem that cultural conservatives are so attached to words "prohibition" that they fail to contact the reality "subsidies for criminals".

Is the law of gravity rooted in cultural conservative principles? The earth is the center of the universe (well scratch that one - cultural conservatives gave up on that a while back - after fighting it for a few centuries)? Supply/demand curves?

The only principle that any true conservative should hold is doubt. Which is not something people of faith want to hear. Generally.

Test all things, hold fast to that which is true.

Stealing is bad because it screws up the supply/demand curve. Thus price signals are not correct causing a misallocation of resources. Thus lowering economic output. So there is an argument against theft rooted in economic reason without regard for "thou shalt not". Of course more fundamentally theft upsets people. And upset people (if they are upset enough) is bad for business. There are two good reasons against theft without regard to the absolute. One economic the other sociobiological.

Religion is accumulated wisdom. But there is detritus. Not all of it is correct. Not all of it is rooted in correct understanding. And people see that. And they fall away from religions that differ excessively from reality. If churches had less faith and more doubt they would do better. But I fear that is a contradiction in terms. Doubt the one true faith?

BTW which is the one true faith? The one true culture? I have been studying the matter and as of yet have been unable to come to a conclusion. Perhaps you would care to advise? If you could get it down to the right sect it would be very helpful. We have not only lots of religions to choose from but also lots of subsets. Which one has the correct cultural norms? I have always been partial to the tantrics with their defiance of convention. Of course they have been around long enough to develop their own rigid conventions. But the art is very nice.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote: I doubt it. Some Dem losses, but minor.
Remember 1934/69 dem senators friend. The downside for republicans is quite large until they rebuild the party. It took us 12-13 years to get started after Clinton stopped party building. And it took Howard Dean to get it done.

2010 19 "R" seats, 17 "D" in the senate are up for election, advantage Dems. Voter reg trends, advan Dems, grassroots organization: Advan Dems. Fundraising, advan Dems.
Perhaps. As with most things, it depends on events. The Dems have had two cycles of gains. You now own both Houses of Congress and 1600 PA. And deservedly so. But the human animal is rationalizing, not rational. You now own the glory, and the blame, for whatever happens. Fair or not, it all falls on your heads. And there are more financial disasters coming down the pike; consumer credit debt, commercial property bubble, etc. The Democrats will get the blame for that. I don't see a major reaction in 2010; Obama has done a good job on the "this will take time" publicity front. Some losses in the House, but not a shift of control. But by 2012 the "Left enthusiasm" social programs will be starting to kick in, and eat from people's pocketbooks, and we will be on the tail end of 4 very bad economic years. Your gains in the House have largely been Blue Dog conservative Democrats; all those are vulnerable. Shifts in the Senate might be more lasting.

And of course, if there's a major attack, the "no harsh methods evah!" Democratic Party is toast ala Jimmy Carter Part Deux.
Roger wrote:Start the republican rebuilding now, its gonna take a while.
The Bushies and institutional GOP tore organized conservatism apart between Jan 2005 and Jun 2007.

Miers
Katrina
Deer in the headlights "stay the course!"
Amnesty

In the 2006 election the base spanked the GOP, but in 2007 it walked away. Strangely, people who take pride in their patriotism do not react well to their putative leaders calling them racists. Gofigure. Thirty years of effort down the crapper in 2.5 years. That takes skilz. Instead of prosecutions, you guys really should induct the Bushies as life members of the DNC. They're the best operatives the Dems have had since 1976. :twisted:

You're entirely correct, the party needs to rebuiild from the bottom up. Four years of disaster and overreach by the Dems 2009-2012 might help with that, or possibly not.

If conservatism does have a future, its along these lines:

http://www.johnreilly.info/grnepa.htm

Note that I don't think Simon would like this. :) It ties into what I call GenY Conservatism. GenY is socially conservative, but not in the ways the Christian Coalition Godshouters would recognize. They like traditional institutions such as monogamous marriage, they don't like abortion, and the women want to be at home mothers. That will happen when you grow up the latchkey vanity child, and realize you exist only because mommy was in a good mood. OTOH they're not abortion absolutists - they insist on neither conception nor partial birth as the allowable limits of abortion. And they've no problem with monogamous homosexual marriage. The women want the opportunity to pursue a professional career. They simply don't want professional harridans like the '60s leftovers who staff NOW telling them a professional career is the only acceptable form of femininity.

Duane
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:It is going to take longer than that. The Rs have yet to decide if they want to be the culture war party or the economic sanity party.

Myself, I'm not too enthusiastic about a culture war party.
This is a good examination of the utter failures of the minarchist faction of the GOP and has good indicators for where conservatism should go:

http://www.johnreilly.info/hercon.htm
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Note that I don't think Simon would like this.
It doesn't seem very objectionable to me. Except for this bit:
Conservative government, in the sense of government that worked, turned out to be expensive. That improved policing and welfare-to-work programs were more than paid for by the higher tax revenues generated by newly flourishing states and cities was even more intolerable to a certain kind of conservative.
What actually reduced crime in America (for a while) was the decision to stop taking out gangs wholesale and only weeding out the worst actors. When you take out gangs wholesale you get Mexico. When you leave them alone the murder rate goes down (some) along with gang related violence overall. Of course that leaves American gangs prey to the more violent Mexican Gangs.

It wasn't increasing policing that improved the American situation. It was less policing.

Now of course with the emphasis of policing drugs in poor communities we have now destroyed several generations of poor (mostly people of color - surprise). And we will be paying for that for a long time to come.

http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm

You would think that the party which claims to be the most family oriented and which claims to abhor single parenthood might take an interest in such matters. Nope. Nothing. Nada. In fact (with isolated exceptions) the party wants to keep on with current policies.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:It is going to take longer than that. The Rs have yet to decide if they want to be the culture war party or the economic sanity party.

Myself, I'm not too enthusiastic about a culture war party.
This is a good examination of the utter failures of the minarchist faction of the GOP and has good indicators for where conservatism should go:

http://www.johnreilly.info/hercon.htm
It doesn't matter. The tea parties show a resurgence of the minarchist faction in American politics.

And the Social Conservatives have a very big problem. Their children do not hold to the same values they do in terms of the culture war. In other words - social conservatism as we know it is dying out.
What does anti-government conservatism offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing.
Actually that is some one who is ignorant talking. The violence is caused by government policies (prohibition). It can be greatly reduced with the stroke of a pen. So it is those who say government is the problem who actually offer a real solution: stop providing price supports for criminals.
What hope does it provide to children in foreign lands dying of diseases that can be treated or prevented for the cost of American spare change? No hope.
American generosity has always ridden to the rescue and more effectively than government. All the government need do is to let Americans keep more of what they earn.
What achievement would it contribute to the racial healing and unity of our country? No achievement at all.
Most of the current hurt is due to the disproportionate incarceration of people of color for crimes approximately equally by all races. Ending that government enforced injustice would go a long way to racial healing. Not to mention healing the black family by making more fathers available.
If Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted, and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose.
The message is far from simplistic: "If government is causing the problem, then less government is the answer."

It is true that people may want a nanny state when they imagine its benefits. When it starts bullying them (for their own good) they become less enthusiastic.

I must say I was amused at the general tenor of the piece - "just think of all the good that can be done by putting a gun to people's head" - where it gets dicey is when the people decide to point their guns back. You get a cascading failure from a small trigger event.

In any case - all the wonderful goodness the government plans to do will need to be paid for. No party is working that side of the equation.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:Of course economics and culture are separable. Is Drug Prohibition (making criminals the sole distributors of illegal drugs) good economic policy (estimates are that the policy - which does nothing to limit the flow of illegal drugs - costs us directly $50 bn a year)?

Now there is a Culture War policy that is not aligned with economics. Unless subsidies for criminals is the intent. However, I was under the impression that the culture warriors were not big fans of criminal activity.

And the war on gay people (which is mostly over) didn't seem to have any economic advantages I'm aware of.

And the idea that marriage is between one man, one woman, and one government doesn't seem to be in accord with American Conservative (limited government) principles. Nor making government the arbiter of church sacraments.

As to the principles "have been tested". Yes. And some times - because of path dependence and misinformation - those principles are not actually rooted in nature (See alcohol prohibition). And it seems the prohibition principle has been tested (alcohol prohibition) and yet we seem to have repeated the error (drug prohibition). With cultural conservatives being some of the biggest fans of prohibition. If you don't count the other side which thinks that gun prohibitions can work.

It would seem that cultural conservatives are so attached to words "prohibition" that they fail to contact the reality "subsidies for criminals".

Is the law of gravity rooted in cultural conservative principles? The earth is the center of the universe (well scratch that one - cultural conservatives gave up on that a while back - after fighting it for a few centuries)? Supply/demand curves?

The only principle that any true conservative should hold is doubt. Which is not something people of faith want to hear. Generally.

Test all things, hold fast to that which is true.

Stealing is bad because it screws up the supply/demand curve. Thus price signals are not correct causing a misallocation of resources. Thus lowering economic output. So there is an argument against theft rooted in economic reason without regard for "thou shalt not". Of course more fundamentally theft upsets people. And upset people (if they are upset enough) is bad for business. There are two good reasons against theft without regard to the absolute. One economic the other sociobiological.

Religion is accumulated wisdom. But there is detritus. Not all of it is correct. Not all of it is rooted in correct understanding. And people see that. And they fall away from religions that differ excessively from reality. If churches had less faith and more doubt they would do better. But I fear that is a contradiction in terms. Doubt the one true faith?

BTW which is the one true faith? The one true culture? I have been studying the matter and as of yet have been unable to come to a conclusion. Perhaps you would care to advise? If you could get it down to the right sect it would be very helpful. We have not only lots of religions to choose from but also lots of subsets. Which one has the correct cultural norms? I have always been partial to the tantrics with their defiance of convention. Of course they have been around long enough to develop their own rigid conventions. But the art is very nice.

To address some of your points, (which I consider to be fallacies) would simply take too much time and require too much message volume. I am pleased to see that at least one point i've been trying to make is acknowledged.
Religion is accumulated wisdom.
If my understanding of the way life and evolution works is accurate, then I predict that actions of individuals or peoples will carry the consequences with them. (this phenomena evolves into religious rules) I believe other peoples inability to see this is a result of their not being able to look/think at the longer time scales.

We, as a people can do anything we want. We can legalize stealing (robbing peter the taxpayer to pay paul the recipient of government largess.) Abortion and infantcide, every unatural sex act conceived by man, lying, and slavery, but the consequences of these actions will either be benficial, neutral or detrimental to our survival.

I'm predicting detrimental.

A lot of people don't believe "Slippery Slope" theories like "Gateway Drugs" and the "Domino theory", but let us not be judgmental. Here's a prediction i've been repeatedly making since the early eighties.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... hiles.html

I wonder how long it will take before us Troglodytes become enlightened enough to accept this.

David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

djolds1 wrote:
Roger wrote:
djolds1 wrote: I doubt it. Some Dem losses, but minor.
Remember 1934/69 dem senators friend. The downside for republicans is quite large until they rebuild the party. It took us 12-13 years to get started after Clinton stopped party building. And it took Howard Dean to get it done.

2010 19 "R" seats, 17 "D" in the senate are up for election, advantage Dems. Voter reg trends, advan Dems, grassroots organization: Advan Dems. Fundraising, advan Dems.
Perhaps. As with most things, it depends on events. The Dems have had two cycles of gains. You now own both Houses of Congress and 1600 PA. And deservedly so. But the human animal is rationalizing, not rational. You now own the glory, and the blame, for whatever happens. Fair or not, it all falls on your heads. And there are more financial disasters coming down the pike; consumer credit debt, commercial property bubble, etc. The Democrats will get the blame for that. I don't see a major reaction in 2010; Obama has done a good job on the "this will take time" publicity front. Some losses in the House, but not a shift of control. But by 2012 the "Left enthusiasm" social programs will be starting to kick in, and eat from people's pocketbooks, and we will be on the tail end of 4 very bad economic years. Your gains in the House have largely been Blue Dog conservative Democrats; all those are vulnerable. Shifts in the Senate might be more lasting.

And of course, if there's a major attack, the "no harsh methods evah!" Democratic Party is toast ala Jimmy Carter Part Deux.


Duane
Concerning Obama, you overlook one very important point. In order for him to lose the election in 2012, a lot of people who voted for him will have to admit that they made a mistake. Given the all too human characteristic of not wanting to admit they were wrong, Obama would have to screw up in ways that are very obviously his fault, and major enough to upset people to the point of abandoning him.

I believe the man has already done this, but I likewise believe the Public isn't perceptive enough to realize it. If the fourth estate branch of the Democrat party can keep the heat off him, I think he will be re-elected.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:
Note that I don't think Simon would like this.
It doesn't seem very objectionable to me. Except for this bit:
Conservative government, in the sense of government that worked, turned out to be expensive. That improved policing and welfare-to-work programs were more than paid for by the higher tax revenues generated by newly flourishing states and cities was even more intolerable to a certain kind of conservative.
What actually reduced crime in America (for a while) was the decision to stop taking out gangs wholesale and only weeding out the worst actors. When you take out gangs wholesale you get Mexico. When you leave them alone the murder rate goes down (some) along with gang related violence overall. Of course that leaves American gangs prey to the more violent Mexican Gangs.

It wasn't increasing policing that improved the American situation. It was less policing.

Now of course with the emphasis of policing drugs in poor communities we have now destroyed several generations of poor (mostly people of color - surprise). And we will be paying for that for a long time to come.

http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm

You would think that the party which claims to be the most family oriented and which claims to abhor single parenthood might take an interest in such matters. Nope. Nothing. Nada. In fact (with isolated exceptions) the party wants to keep on with current policies.

I think you are drawing false conclusions from flawed assumptions. For some reason you seem to believe that crime is the result of drugs being illegal, and that if we legalized drugs, that would solve most of our crime problems, and anyone opposed to this idea is obviously in favor of more crime and therefore a hypocritical fool. (or some such non sequitur )

I daresay that we could eliminate murder by making it legal. If it were legal, it wouldn't be a crime, would it ?


I had a friend that used to be a drug dealer and pimp. He "Put a lot of fat around my head" as he would say about acquiring Knowledge of how the "Street" works. He would find young girls, (age didn't matter) and he would sweet talk them, and get them to hang out, or go with him to a party or something. He would then get them to smoke weed, or drink alcohol/beer, and eventually get them to try "crack." "Crack" can hook a person on the first try, (i've talked to a LOT of people who affirm this.) He would then tell the girls that he would trade his "Crack" for theirs, and eventually they would give it up. THAT he says, is how you get a girl to turn tricks. She was His HO after that, and he put them to work, selling drugs, turning tricks, shoplifting, stealing, etc.

I suppose if we made "Crack" legal, he wouldn't be able to monopolize the product, and therefore wouldn't be able to compel these young girls to do his bidding. They could buy their own "Crack" from the local neighborhood store at a steeply discounted rate. That is if they could keep a job long enough to make money. I can't imagine too many employers wanting to employ crack addled young girls. Oh, but wait ! They can still turn tricks ! And Shoplift ! etc. PARTY ON !!!!

Somehow I consider this to be a less than optimal outcome.

Years ago, i'd read of experiments in which they connected an electrical wire to the pleasure center of a rat's brain, and then gave it a switch so it could self stimulate itself with pleasure. The rat eschewed food and water and died pushing that switch.


David

bcolias
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:18 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Post by bcolias »

MSimon wrote:The Rs have yet to decide if they want to be the culture war party or the economic sanity party.

Myself, I'm not too enthusiastic about a culture war party.
I think that the Republicans can make substantial gains as early as 2010 if they start now to embrace economic sanity as their first principle. This means supporting free market capitalism with low taxes, low spending, and limited government. This is most in alignment with the US Constitution, and has a broad base of appeal among the American people.

The Dems have sown the seeds of their own decline by nearly unanimously passing massive spending bills. The stimulus package may give us short term gains in employment later this year, but it will be followed by double digit inflation with increased unemployment and stagnent growth (stagflation). The Dems believe their own rhetoric on spending to stimulate the economy, in spite of not having any supporting evidence for it.

The idea of government spending to stimulate an economy comes from discredited Keynesian economic theory. If the Reps dive in to fully own the banner of fiscal responsibility, while reminding the American people of the irresponsible spending of the Dems, the Reps will make substantial gains during the inevitable stagflation.

Bill

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I think you are drawing false conclusions from flawed assumptions. For some reason you seem to believe that crime is the result of drugs being illegal, and that if we legalized drugs, that would solve most of our crime problems,
You are not being clear here. I never said it would solve all crime problems. I said it would solve our prohibition related crime problems. Mayor Daley (Jr.) said that drug prohibition was responsible for 85% of Chicago's crime problems. A police chief in CT said the same thing.

Even if the actual number is 25% vs 85% the crime reduction would be significant.

And note. Opiates were over the counter legal for nearly 300 years in America and the Republic did well. Even heroin was an over the counter medicine from its invention until it was prohibited in 1914.

As for marijuana. It was legal for even longer. In fact its very close cousin hemp was at one time legal tender in the US.

What we have now is a drugs + crime problem. Legalization will not solve the drug problem. It will solve the crime associated with prohibition problem. Just as it did with alcohol.

In addition technology changes things. Out of wedlock sex is not the problem it once was if birth control is used. So accumulated wisdom is good. Until it no longer applies. We no longer execute people for crimes of consensual sex. Why? Because we have the wealth to support the disruptions it causes. Some guy figured that out about 2000 years ago. His followers have yet to follow the essence of his solution: When conditions change the rules should too. In other words they got the rules change. They did not get the meta rules change.

As to minarchist policies being unpopular. I seem to recall a guy who won the presidency within living memory on minarchist principles. You know. The guy who ran on the platform: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem."

BTW pot is safer than alcohol. Heck, it is safer than aspirin. If you consider that alcohol's LD50 dose vs intoxicating dose is about 4 to 1 and that for pot the ratio is estimated to be 40,000 to 1 then you have to wonder why one was made illegal in 1937 while alcohol had just been relegalized in 1933. Why estimated? Well there has never been a single case of overdose on pot. Ever. So why is alcohol legal and pot use a crime? It can't be on rational grounds. It is on racist grounds. Because the drug laws were INTENDED to oppress minorities. The same job they do today. Now a lot of this is forgotten history. You might want to get your memory refreshed by a guy who taught that history to the FBI.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

But tell you what. If you believe the effect of drug prohibition is positive then of course you must believe that gun prohibition will help with gun crimes. How stupid of me. We have two prohibitionist factions in America. One believes gun prohibition can work and that drug prohibition can't. The other faction believes the opposite. I take the rational approach. Both sides are right. Prohibition doesn't work.

Let me give it to you straight. Prohibition has done nothing to limit the access to illegal drugs (such drugs are easier for kids to get than beer). All prohibition has done is to determine who will distributes them. WalMart or criminal cartels. Of course such arguments do nothing to sway those whose policy prescriptions are based on faith vs. evidence. Just as similar arguments re: gun prohibitions have no effect on that faith.

BTW if intoxicating hemp is such a danger why did it take until 1937 for it to get outlawed? Why did it take so long to recognize the dangers? Because the real danger was Mexican labor not cannabis. And at the time Mexicans were hemp smokers and Americans (for the most part) were not.

What danger got cocaine illegalized? Sex crazed Negroes on cocaine. Opiates? Chinese labor. Read the history.

It is funny that you think that getting high on pot is a bigger danger to our society than broken families.

http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm

Ah. Well. Rationality has never been a big part of human nature. And so we will suffer the ill effects of this misbegotten policy for several generations to come. The Family Values crowd should be proud of their accomplishments. The destruction of three to five generations of America's racial minorities. Good job people. The worst part for me is gangsta rap music. Durn that is some ugly stuff.

It is changing though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/0 ... 98196.html
A majority of Americans, in a poll released Wednesday, say it "makes sense to tax and regulate" marijuana. The Zogby poll, commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report, surveyed 3,937 voters and found 52 percent in favor of legalization. Only 37 percent opposed.

A previous ABC News/Washington Post poll found 46 percent in support. In California, a Field Poll found 56 percent backing legalization.

Responding to the poll at a press conference Tuesday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for an open debate on legalization.

Voters were asked: "Scarce law enforcement and prison resources, a desire to neutralize drug cartels and the need for new sources of revenue have resurrected the topic of legalizing marijuana.
Thank The Maker.

Actually the policy is not legalization. It is relegalization. We are going back to what used to work. Surprisingly the "traditionalists" do not favor traditional policy. The wisdom of the ages. Go figure.

Humans is such interesting creatures.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

And if the Gateway Theory is correct then the cause of all this pot use is mother's milk. Because mother's milk contains marijuana analogs called anandamides. It calms babies and gives them the munchies.

But it is worse than that. Human bodies create heroin analogs called endorphins. We are being betrayed by our human nature.

However, that same line of thought might lead us to a more correct estimate. People with an anandamide deficiency might be correcting that with pot use. People with an endorphin deficiency may be correcting that with opiate use.

===

All this agitation for policies that are clearly detrimental is nothing new. Global warming is a case in point. The government propaganda machine is working overtime trying to sell that one. And why is it an easy sell? Because very few have actually studied the science pro and con.

I was reading a comment the other day on GW where a guy said that what we need is to develop a way to separate carbon from oxygen. Obviously he has never heard of Gibbs Free Energy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And obviously trees are not good enough for him. Solar collectors that separate C from O2. And they are naturally Green. Go figure.

It is clear to some that we are being propagandized on the CO2 connection to global warming. The Big Lie. It is clear to others that we are being propagandized on drug issues. The Big Lie. And again the two groups are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. My position is that Government is in the business of lying. But that is rational.

Some see that climate science is politicized. Others see that drug science is politicized. Both for the same reason: once government decides on a policy it will pay for "research" supporting that position. Each faction knows how it works in relation to issues it is interested in. Neither side is capable of generalization.

Humans is such interesting creatures.

One further note: we actually have a Ministry of Propaganda for drug policy. ODCP. The Office of Drug Control Policy. Commonly known as the Drug Czar. And besides propaganda they pay for research supporting their theory of drug use. But as it eventually does the truth is coming out. It will have no effect on those who follow the prohibition faith. But kids are prone to find where their parents are mistaken. Which is why it takes several generations for policy to align with reality. And if you believe in the poll numbers the prohibition faith is losing adherents. Mostly to death. And the anti-prohibitionists are gaining adherents. Mostly to birth.

If you consider that Nixon began the modern effort to make prohibition work in 1972 then you can see that it took just about two generations of experience to discredit refer madness.

We went through such generational transitions with coffee, tea, and tobacco. Each took about 50 years from introduction to the mainstream until bans and other disabilities were removed. But of course no one studies the histories of previous prohibitions. Why should they? The ODCP provides all the needed information.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

BTW the GOP (at minimum in California and probably the whole nation) has their priorities screwed. Here is why the GOP can't win elections in Calif.
The California GOP is obsessed with homosexuality, abortion, and mandatory “voluntary” school prayer. Those are, to them, the overriding issues.

The illegal alien invasion? High taxes? The regulatory nightmare? Hundreds upon hundreds of agencies with conflicting rules? Good heavens, man! We can’t worry about that when there’s homos and unChristians to sorry about and scapegoat!

I put California in my rear-view mirror in July of 2005. When I fly out to visit my mother in Palm Desert, I get antsy to get back on the plane within 3 days of getting there. The place makes me cringe.

friendlygrizzly on May 9, 2009 at 11:57 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/08/c ... /#comments

And still the Cali and national GOP is too dumb to focus on economic issues and lay off the culture war stuff. At least until our economic house is in order. Ah. Well. It was a nice country while it lasted.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply