TheAgitator.com
The Drug War’s Collateral Damage
Thursday, January 15th, 2009I have a longish piece up at Culture11 on the drug war’s collateral damage.
It’s part of a drug war symposium they’re running today. I have to say, I took perverse pleasure writing a biting drug war critique for a website founded in part by William Bennett.
I also did a Bloggingheads.tv debate on the drug war with National Review’s David Fredoso, but it doesn’t seem to be up yet. Fredoso wrote in defense of the drug war for the symposium.
MORE: Here’s the debate with Fredoso:
Here is the bloggingheads debate:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17092
man, that was not a fair fight at all.
What a well-written, insightful and truthful article!! I sent it to my 70 year old mother who agrees that this “war” has led to an out of control police force, something that is a real danger to the citizenry of this country.
What’s Freddoso’s line? Is he a prude or does he just really hate poor minorities?
I can’t watch this at work but my first reaction to the images is disappointment. Judging from the caricature in the corner I always thought Radley was more hirsute. I actually like the real Radley Balko better. That illustration always reminded me of the “I’m better than you because I’m protesting something, but only when I don’t have to study” blow-hards from college. So I guess I’m not feeling disappointed, just misled.
Your opponent seems to be conflating illegal markets and activities with actual violence.
If we lived in a world where honest debate mattered, it would be the onus of drug warrriors to show some form of evidence that legalizing drugs would NOT diminish violence. The simple fact is that we KNOW that people commit violent acts because drugs are illegal. Whether those acts would be duplicated for other reasons is pure speculation, and should be argued convincingly before it is seriously considered.
Drug warriors love to draw crazy cause and effect lines between drugs and other negative things, and hold up misleading statistics, but when confrotned with empirical evidence they just brush it aside in favor of pure speculation. Dissappointing.
At this point there is no longer even so much as a “good faith” argument in support of the drug war. Anyone still supporting it is either evil or uninformed.
Freddoso should be beyond embarrassed, he should be humiliated by his performance: half-assed anecdotes, snippets remembered from crime shows, speculation in place of evidence, a complete lack of reasoned arguments. Terrible.
People on the left have a phrase: “wingnut welfare”. It refers to the fact that no-talent partisan hacks on the political right are oft guaranteed remunerative employment in the multitude of right-wing think tanks and publications. These folks would be flipping burgers somewhere if they weren’t subsidized to produce the reams of nonsense that shower forth from these propaganda organs. Mr. Freddoso is an author and writer who, without subsidization, would be relegated to the well-deserved obscurity reserved for those who just can’t think coherently or advance a coherent argument.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Radley, your ability to retain your courtesy and do your best to address him as if he had any arguments at all is admirable.
And his laughter at a 12 year old being attacked by cops and called a prostitute is beneath contempt. What a toilet waste of a person.
hey Adolphus;
I was one of them hippie wannabe’s but that was really because I thought women in indian print cotton skirts were smokin’ hot. However I have to admit that I learned rather quickly that patchouli oil is not a substitute for showering. Also, they were always so earnest, “Goddamn, give it a freakin’ rest already!” How people could smoke that much weed and still not mellow the fuck out was beyond me.
Re: the Video debate
Fredoso seems more intellectually honest than your average prohibitionist, which is not a very high bar. But he doesn’t identify the “marginally less profitable” black market substances/trades that would replace the drug trade by people who would choose to live a lawless life and he doesn’t explain why that would increase the demand for those unidentified items. If I can get drugs in the grocery store, am I gonna feel a sudden urge to gamble or employ the services of a hooker?
BTW, the mob/black market largely benefits from laws that prohibit behaviors that really shouldn’t be prohibited anyway.
I note also that he has the urbanite’s mistaken notion that bizarre crimes in the countryside are something new and shocking and a product of the modern world. Anybody who’s spent any time at all reading up on crime history would realize what nonsense that assumption is, even here in peaceful Canada. I live here in London, Ontario, which is a mellow town in the middle of the boring countryside… and within half an hour’s drive I can reach the sites of two of the country’s most notorious and unpleasant murders. I can walk to my bookshelf and find the memoirs of the province’s first provincial detective who details similar bizarre cases in the late 1800s.
TomMil,
That’s exactly the right point. Yes other illegal things would still be around. Yes, almost certainly, people who now sell drugs would start to participate in those enterprises. But the important quesitons are: wouldn’t a lot LESS people choose to commit those types of crimes because the nature of those acts can’t support a similar-sized “work-force” the way the drug market does? And, wouldn’t the people committing those new crimes be less inclined to rain violence down in our neighborhoods and communities?
Anyone who even hesitates before answering “yes” to both questions is likely a prostitute himself.
ding ding ding, TomMil.
Here up here in Soviet Canuckistan there was, in the early 1970s, a Royal Commission headed up by Mr. Justice LeDain. It recommended the decriminalization of marijuana. That recommendation was ignored. Biker gangs moved into the production and distribution end of things and went from being sweaty ignoramii on bad bikes to being massively wealthy sophisticated criminal organizations who engaged in open warfare over the market. This would not have happened if the recommendation had been followed.
@seeker: You do understand that the phenomenon you describe occurs on the left as well, don’t you?
Consider also that drug prohibition has wide bipartisan support throughout the country. That means there are a lot of well-meaning people who believe that the costs of unfettered drug use are greater than the costs of the drug war, and those costs justify government intervention. I happen to disagree with those people, and it appears you do to.
That puts us in the position of having the better argument (I think), but the minority. That being the case, we have some options in trying to persuade people. We can behave like Radley does, engaging our interlocutors politely and reasonably and hope to convince fair-minded observers. Alternatively, we can behave like you. We can personally attack our interlocutors, say that they should be flipping burgers and can’t make a coherent argument. In that case, people who already agree with us and are favorably disposed toward us might just congratulate us for sticking it to the man. The fair-minded observer who disagrees with us will simply conclude that we do not have a better argument because we would have made it if we did.
The question is whether you want to stoke your left-wing bona fides or actually advance an argument. I assume that you’re not stupid, so you know that the phenomenon you described occurs on the right and left and that the authors on both sides are not “subsidized.” They work for people who pay them to advance beliefs they share and produce a product that those people want. They are no more subsidized than any other person is by his clients or customers.
“I’ve always thought that had more to do with the invention of the Thompson gun…” Wow, that’s one hell of a stretch of even revisionist history. Look at Mexico, jackass. Or did they just get Thompsons down there last year?
“@seeker: You do understand that the phenomenon you describe occurs on the left as well, don’t you? ”
John Jenkins, there’s a lawyer expression that covers that: “There is a point where a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.” The right has tons of money and many millionaires and billionaires to endlessly fund this sort of nonsense, but the left has only one comparable personality: George Soros. For all the nonsense written about the power of hollywood and so forth the resources available to the aggressive, propagandist right far, far, far outstrip the resources available to the left. You don’t have to believe any of what either the left or the right tells you but to entertain the notion that the resources available are comparable is erroneous in the extreme: it’s rather like saying that America and Canada are equally powerful because we both have modern, Western-style armies.
As for manners, did you miss the bit where I complimented Radley on his patience and courtesy as he followed your suggestion? Freddoso didn’t even belong on the same “stage” as Radley. He was an ill-prepared idiot and propagandist. (Yes, you and I are on the same page vis-a-vis the drug war.) The question of what he deserved (which was to be treated as an ignorant idiot) and what he should get (which was, in context, polite engagement) are two separate things.
I concede that there is a large consensus regarding drug prohibition. But one of the reasons that that consensus is there is that the great majority of Americans are fed a near-unending stream of lies and nonsense and propaganda about drug prohibition and the drug war. Maybe it is time to stop debating and start attacking. It takes a greater and more vigorous effort to uproot a tree than it does to calmly convince a gardener not to plant one.
You take issue with my use of the word “subsidy”, but that seems to be an argument over terminology rather than substance and you are aiming at substance so I will respond in kind. Perhaps “investment” would be a better word? Money in in to Spread The Word is still the bottom line, and that effort is far bigger — and far more effective — on America’s political right than its left. It’s why incoherent, giggling nothings like Freddoso have jobs and platforms. If they had to make it on their own merits then they’d be boned.
If we are going to look at this left-right thing, then I think an interesting point of comparison is to balance, say, Amanda Marcotte and Anne Coulter. Ms. Coulter is a fire-breather of the right who takes an aggressive approach on the air, refuses to let the interviewer control his own interview and spouts right-wing positions. She is a talk show darling and familiar face. When Amanda Marcotte was on MSNBC after the Edwards blogger imbroglio she took an aggressive approach, refused to let the interviewer control his own interview and presented her own progressive and left-wing ideas. All of her other interviews were promptly cancelled.
This is what drives me nuts about the gap between the what we can call “libertarian” civil libertarians and “progressive” libertarians. We don’t make common cause on things we agree with: the massive movement of government out of our personal choices and control over our own bodies and recreation. We tend to get caught up on our economic differences rather than joining forces against fools like Freddoso who are perfectly cool with the militarization of your society and the reduction of your freedoms.
So people like Warren “Tax the heck out of the rich” Buffet and Bill Gates don’t count? You can’t possibly argue that the upper echelons of places like NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle are dominated by conservative Republicans.
I only disagree with the last line. The drug war is not a “noble dream”.
First of all, it has nothing to do with saving anyone from anything or making anyone’s life better. That’s just the rhetorical justification. Nothing that happens in Washington happens for the reasons given to the public. Nothing.
The drug war is really the fight against legalization which would kill the goose that laid the golden egg for government and the drug suppliers themselves. When it comes to the war against legalization, the drug dealers and Congress are committed partners with a common goal to rob the American public.
The difference, of course, is that the drug dealers aren’t so morally vacuous as to look us in the eye and claim it’s for our own good.
The difference is that political libertarians are at odds with the government. Cultural libertarians see the entire society as a battleground. That makes cultural libertarianism a benign form of totalitarianism, as it sees nothing outside of the realm of politics. That is our fundamental difference, not the economics.
MikeT, the efforts of Gates and Buffet are almost entirely traditionally philanthropic rather than politically activist. My point is a simple and fairly narrow one: the right puts waaaaaaaaaaay more money into this than the left does and has waaaaaaaaaay more money and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more plutocrats to do it with. I’m not saying that the left is without resources or efforts in this regard. I am saying that the right is disproportionately richer and makes a far more disproportionate effort in such matters. The Canada-USA army metaphor stands.
“The difference is that political libertarians are at odds with the government. Cultural libertarians see the entire society as a battleground. That makes cultural libertarianism a benign form of totalitarianism, as it sees nothing outside of the realm of politics. That is our fundamental difference, not the economics.”
Mike T, I’m not clear on what point you’re making here. Could you clarify and elaborate? Thanks.
Wow, David really came off as uninformed in the video debate. Nice job Radley.
You, Mr. Balko, have the patience of a saint. Freddero had no complete thoughts with no examples to back anything up. wtf was he saying about mentally ill homeless people screaming? Then laughing about the girl in texas was really creepy. Tommy guns? Towards the end it seemed like he just wanted to say “I got nothing, your right on all of it”. You owned this guy in a classy way. Please debate the next drug czar I would pay money to see that.
Shame on you Mr. Balko! Engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent!
freddoso is HIGH! well done, Radley…
#22- you’re spot on, Auggie! especially with ‘Then laughing about the girl in texas was really creepy’- I felt the same thing. It’s not in his world, so he can’t connect. This guy is personally repulsed by these things, but he can’t see the human element, just the revulsion he feels.
“It’s not in his world, so he can’t connect.”
Well put, Marty. A Crown (what in America’d be an ADA) of my acquaintance told me of one judge in her region. A former tax specialist he’d led a remarkably sheltered life.. .and the Crowns HATED him. The more violent and sick the crime the more he’d tune out, absolutely certain that such things never happened.
I’ll use feminism as an example of where both forms of libertarianism branch off in different directions.
Political libertarians see this movement as a collectivist movement that seeks to use any means it can to reshape society, infusing politics into every aspect of life it touches. Furthermore, as we are not hostile to basic rights for women in the least, we see no reason to defend feminism on these grounds, since that is a subset of what feminism wants, and making common cause with it on such a small issue is like making common cause with Communism because you both oppose imperialism.
Cultural libertarians see the goal as breaking down all barriers in all institutions. They don’t see much of a difference between the gender roles and culture of a conservative church and official laws forcing women into those roles. They also tend to regard people who would freely choose such a lifestyle as little more than a useful idiot.
The reason I call cultural libertarianism a benign form of totalitarianism is because it sees nothing as being so sacred it should not be politicized. It fundamentally agrees with the left-wing view that politics, if not the state itself, has a role in guiding everything. Political libertarians believe that there are many spheres of life that should be depoliticized completely. Consequently, that is why you will find that many political libertarians are at the very least distrustful of democracy, since democracy tends to come down to the majority raping the minority.
Some people call it right-libertarianism versus left-libertarianism. Either way, these are two very different views of society and politics with a lot less in common than people think.
The Thompson Gun is responsible for the violence of prohibition. Got it!
The pro drug warriors always love to play the meth-amphetamine card as their ace in the hole. Radley did a pretty decent job of explaining that meth probably wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for prohibition. Kudos.
I would like to ask Mr. Freddoso this (since he is so in touch with the community):
“When was the last time you saw someone on a street corner peddling liquor and/or cigarettes to minors (or anyone)?”
He is probably also one of these people that think if prostitution was legal there would be a hooker on every corner.
That you are British (apparently) may go a long way toward explaining why your views on the American right sound more like they’re informed by the BBC than actual experience living in red or blue areas of the United States. No offense, or anything…
(I assume you’re not Canadian, since Canada dropped the “Crown” from its prosecution service.)
The drug war is being won on most fronts. Entire countries are funded by black market profits and here at home now that they’ve shipped most of the honest jobs hard working minorities use to do overseas prisons are the new cotton fields. When the geezers who started and support the drug war finally die off we can just switch the police armies we’ve created over to fighting the war on terror. The main thing is, creating an enemy so terrible we have the rest of our rights stolen from us. BTW… PHUCK the King.
Whenever I hear a defense of drug prohibition I become more convinced that this war is supported almost exclusively by those who’ve never tried an illegal drug, except perhaps for some marijauna back in college. It’s so typical, Fredoso launching into these anecdotes about that time he saw a crazy guy on the subway, and assuming that it was primarily caused by illegal drug use, reducing him to “an empty shell”. It could just as easily been caused by alcohol abuse, or more likely, mental illness. There is a silent large group of people out there that use illegal drugs often, and aren’t criminals(other then the drug use), sick and crazy, or destitute, and aren’t on the road to becoming that way. They use these drugs mainly because they don’t feel like spending the money and time to flatter a psychiatrist’s ego in order to obtain legal healthier equivalents like everyone else.
Mike T, your assumption is incorrect; I’m Canadian.
Your knowledge re “Crown”, is also incorrrect. “Crowns” is Canadian legal shorthand for both government prosecuting attorneys at both federal and provincial superior courts*, and for the prosecution itself, and has always been so since I graduated from law school in the 1980s. e.g.s:
“I thought we could get a plea, but the Crown is a bit of a hardass.”
or
“The Crown appeals from the decision of Mr. Justice So-and-So…”**
* – See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_attorney.
** – See for example canlii.org, where “the crown appeals” produces over 2700 hits.
#33 Robin
“…I become more convinced that this war is supported almost exclusively by those who’ve never tried an illegal drug…”
But they are perfectly Ok with getting shit-faced drunk.
“It’s Ok boss. I have a prescription for these lortab 10s.”
Radley, congrats on a job well done. I got to watch a little over half of the discussion (during down time at work). After your intial statement, Freddoso said, “I think all those ideas are interesting and have some validity.” But based on the rest of his responses, I’m guessing it all went in one ear and out the other.
You were correct that some people are born into a “criminal lifestyle,” and the effects of that won’t go away overnight. But Freddoso’s assertion that criminals will just “find something else” after legalization doesn’t bolster his case in the least. Criminals are involved in theft rings, extortion, drunken idiocy and “other things” right now. But it is the mixing of these basically inevitable problems with illicit vice markets that leads to out of control crime rates. Anyway, good work, Radley.
“That you are British (apparently) may go a long way toward explaining why your views on the American right sound more like they’re informed by the BBC than actual experience living in red or blue areas of the United States.”
Forgot to mention: I used to live in Texas. Oh-for-three, MikeT.
Frederro also said something about meth causing horrific crime. Then went on to recommend alcohol for people wanting to get high. but if you look at the numbers alcohol is involved in most violent crimes (rape, murder, battery) much more so than all other drugs combined. Good advice there pal. Meth will make people do crazy sick stuff but will never challenge alcohol as the most violent drug on earth.
Not to mention, there’d be no meth if people could take real amphetamines.
Just to add to seeker’s comment re “wingnut welfare.” It is a difference in degree that results in a difference in kind, but it is ALSO a significant difference in kind. The right’s outlets routinely rely on illogic, fundamentally flawed reasoning, poor sourcing, stating opinions as fact, and appeals to nationalism, nativism, racism, sexism, etc. The left’s outlets are generally way more scholarly in nature- they do their homework and argue with far more honesty. Anne Coulter : Amanda Marcotte is a good comparison. Also- Jonah Goldberg : David Neiwert. Bill Kristol : Juan Cole. Glenn Reynolds : Glenn Greenwald. David Horowitz : anyone with an advanced degree.
Speaking of which, the common rightwing trope that academics are biased towards the left cracks me up. Even if you grant that as true (and I don’t), what does it tell you? That people who spend their lives thoroughly studying a particular subject tend to reject the conservative take on it? So, the more closely and rigorously you study a subject, the more likely you are to realize that the right is wrong about it. Of course, you can reject that conclusion- IF you reject the premise of liberal bias in academia. I don’t see how you can have both.
Nice job on the debate, Radley.
The one comment I’d make is that methamphetamines are not the devil in chemical form. It is actually a drug that is prescribed in the U.S. for treatment of A.D.D. and Narcolepsy, under the trade name “Desoxyn”. Clearly, if there are no benefits to using it, and everyone who consumes it winds up the way Fredoso seems to think they will, then it would not be something that doctors prescribe to both children and adults.
@Seeker:
Re: Lawyer aphorisms: I’ve heard them all, but thanks!
Re: Political fundraising/donors. You are in error, I am afraid, regarding American politics. See, e.g., http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/21/nation/na-money21, http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1686613, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008. The trend has long been in favor of large donors moving toward the Democratic party.
Re: Subsidies. Using the word “subsidy” was intended to carry a pejorative effect, not a descriptive one. Ignoring behavior on the left and criticizing the same behavior on the right would mark you as intellectually dishonest. For charity’s sake, I assume confirmation bias.
Libertarians don’t make common cause with progressives because libertarians believe in individual liberty. So long as we are not harming anyone, we believe we should be able to contract on terms we find agreeable; to say what we want, free from government fetters; to behave as we would, free of the state’s control; to earn and spend money as we see fit; to order our lives as we desire. Whether knave, noble, minstrel or fool, we should be allowed to act as we would, and suffer the consequences as we must.
“Progressive Libertarian,” on the other hand, is a contradiction in terms. The progressive project is about expanding government power. Can’t convince people that global warming is a problem? Use government to force recycling, tax disfavored cars, and waste money on “green power.” Can’t convince people you are right about smoking? Pass a law outlawing it everywhere except in your home on Tuesday when the kids are away and there’s a full moon! Don’t like people’s decisions about what to eat? Pass a law taxing (or banning) disfavored foods! Don’t like how people choose to spend their money? Tax them and spend it on the things we progressives know are important! Don’t like that some people make more money than others? Take it away at the point of a gun! Don’t like the way the market allocates scarce resources? Nationalize them allocate them the way progressives know they should be. Don’t like that people aren’t doing what you think they should? Make national service mandatory, on pain of imprisonment.
Progressives are as against liberty as every dyed-in-the-wool reactionary who wants to mandate the pledge of allegience and jail those who burn the flag. I would no more make common cause with progressives than those reactionaries. None of you can be trusted.
If we divide liberty, as is sometimes done, on two axes of economic liberty and social liberty, if we truck with the right, we betray social liberty. If we consort with the left, we betray economic liberty. Both sides wish to expand the power of government, and consolidate that power as far away as possible, so that it is as unaccountable as possible. The left is no less tyrannical than the right; the only difference is what the crimes will be.
I haven’t listened to it, as I find such debates pointless. I’ll say this, though. From the picture, it looks like Radley could kick his ass any day.
“It takes a lot of drinking to get yourself to that point”. I’ve had thirteen beers, and now I feel like I’m high on Meth! This boy has no experience with illegal narcotics. Similar to all supporters of drug prohibition. It’s just sad, that to be in any position to effect drug legislation you have to be totally ignorant in this area in terms of first hand experience, so as to have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
Reminds me of a cop who once asked me how much marijauna smoke it takes me to feel drunk.
I don’t think anyone needs to have taken drugs to be able to identify their adverse side effects. Most people already know how bad drugs can be on a person! But, as most of us acknowledge here, the complications of alcohol, too, can be very destructive! College kids seem to die every year of acute alcohol poisoning. But, those overdoses are not discussed much in the media, either! But, it always seems the drug warriors want to bring drunk driving and other illegal behavior as the result of the use of alcohol into the picture, too. I personally think there would be less of that type of behavior with drug use.
But, as a physician, try writing for methamphetamine or morphine. If you treat more than a few patients, you set the radar off. Next thing you know there is a SWAT team in your office! You are a drug dealer and you can get a life sentence! And, those drugs are “legal” right now.
Even with drug were regulated, we still have to make it easier for them to be distributed. Otherwise , there will still be a black market, as there is for Oxycontin and meth, right now. I think if heroin was called diamorphine, (or maybe morphine:-D) instead, there would be much less market for it, as well. But, it would be, a very, cheap pain medication.
It is very hard to get treated for chronic pain with opiates, right now. How would we change this? I guess, if doctors were not afraid of going to jail for writing the scripts, the black market could also be eliminated for those “prescription” drugs. Fact is, though, too many doctors want to play cop. And, I think there might be a problem with them, in a legal regulated drug atmosphere. Many may, still, not want to write the drugs for the illness of “addiction”. Then we could get into the entire problem dealing with the difference between physical dependence and addiction! One requires daily medication for a, normally functioning, treated individual. While the addict would still be uncontrollable. His needs would be different. Good thing is addiction is not so high as the some opponents would say. (addicitionologists say 35%,but consider the source! Addicts are their paycheck!) True addicts make up, maybe 3%, at most, of drug users in this country, today. About the same as in 1937! Addicts are those that continue to use, despite the fact that the continued use is harming them. Sounds like cigarette smokers, does it not?!
Then we have to figure out who gets treated.The patient who takes amphetamine to be able to function normally, on a daily basis? When do doctors get retrained to listen to the patients’ pain, and illness complaints, again, instead of ignoring them as they do, nowadays?
And, my wife has ADD. She gets that stuff and it puts her to sleep! This guy was not real knowledgeable about the effects of this drug, as well. And claiming the Thompson machine gun was a reason for more deaths, falls back to the same old thing. If the guy with the machine gun, was not a criminal, in the first place, working for the mob, then people would not have been shot! Guns don’t kill people. They are machines! People (mobsters, narcos,dealers) kill people!
Lastly, many of the people that use drugs seem to be self medicating. What can we do to help them? We certainly need better access to mental health. Many can’t afford it and a lot of mental health care is denied by the government and private health care programs. Most, real, addicts have underlying mental problems. I remember a scientific study that actually dealt with that subject.
[...] A half-hour long debate between Radley Balko and David Freddoso on bloggingheads.tv can be seen here. Permalink | Leave a Comment | RSS addthis_pub = ‘nietsdlog’; addthis_brand = ‘HA Seattle’; [...]
I wanted to note here that I read your piece, and his piece on Culture11 not really paying attention to who had written them until after I read the arguments, and frankly the Freddoso was horrible. I normally enjoy when the other side has bad arguments, but I’ve seen that torn up by a LEAP member in about four seconds just by pointing out that if drug dealer wasn’t available as a possible career choice to young children, how much violence would that filter out of our society from the start. I am appalled at his reasoning. Perhaps if we take away most of the monetary incentive for a large number of the criminal jobs available, maybe we will have less criminals period.
Your piece was excellent, and very useful for me, and I appreciate you writing it, but tbh, my enjoyment of both the well reasoned anti-drug war articles over there was vaguely overshadowed by the the fact that it is exceptionally horrible to me that our side is clearly correct, and yet still losing. What the hell? I feel heartened when I see people who call out arguments like that decimated, but it appears to make very little difference in the real world. I’m kind of wondering at this point what we the people are going to have to do to get the ball really moving here.