TheAgitator.com
64 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- Advertise
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- Traffic Stats
- RSS Feed
Buy One- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Well, here’s hoping the movie doesn’t get seen.
Oh, and Homes for Our Troops won’t ever be seeing a penny from me.
‘I have something in my eye’
it’s my allergies, I’m not crying!
what a great story- thanks!
I have had something in my eye since before Christmas.
But that informant, Ventura Martinez, now says that the search warrant was based on a lie: He never bought drugs from Nunez.
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090223_Cop_added_insult_to_injury__she_says.html
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean tobacco won’t kill you.
I thought the “I’ve got something in my eye” reference was about the eye cancer, until I realized it was a crying thing… Gawd I’m morbid.
Your summary of the Scott West incident is misleading (unintentionally, I’m sure).
He was not merely “arrested,” he was convicted.
And it was not for “possession,” but for possession with intent to distribute.
It is outrageous that the charity would rescind its offer, but I think the details should be right.
I’m sorry, but the article on Watchman states that the smoking was removed because the studio head Alan Horn hates smoking, not because of anti tobacco paranoia. Perhaps he hates smoking because he is paranoid, but that is not clear at all from the article.
I also have to question your premise of Hollywood tobacco paranoia. I can only go by my own limited movie viewing, but I’m often surprised by just how much smoking there is in the movies. It doesn’t necessarily offend me, it just seems like it is often out-of-place, like to ram down our throats that this is the cool character (or in some cases, the bad guy, as the article said).
New Republican sponsored “Internet Safety Act” will effect your home and/or small business and every single network in the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/20/internet.records.bill/index.html
Sorry for the threadjack. This just pisses me off! But hey “It’s for the children!”
They say that the gangs that rely on drug money would just move to other crimes for making quick money. Well, that’s good for law enforcement because most crimes are nowhere near as lucrative as the drug trade and the less funds the criminals have, the more law enforcement has an equal or superior footing in dealing with them. Law enforcement will be able to quickly outgun them the moment that these gangs have to start relying on things like kidnappings to make a buck or peso.
#8
Fair enough. I changed to plead guilty.”
But the “intent to distribute” is a BS charge stemming solely from the amount of pot they found on him, not from any real evidence of distribution.
I don’t really care, as a matter of law or convention, whether there’s smoking in movies. But having recently given up smoking, I do have to say that I’m in practice thankful to not have to see a lot of it. I’ve put off watching Mad Men almost entirely because of the painful cravings and psychological mind-screwery that comes from watching overdramatic characters slinging cigs. It’s just a reality, and I don’t think the story is going to suffer any because of the lack of it (though here’s to hoping that the movie doesn’t suck for other reasons).
#12
I didn’t even get the impression that it was the amount of pot. Perhaps it was, but it seemed like the cash and the value of the electronics, combined with whatever amount of pot was the evidence. Although the cash and electronics were easily explained by the amount of the disability check, that’s probably not what the jury would have heard. They would have heard “some pot + a lot of cash in pocket + big screen TV = drug dealer”, whether he had ever sold a single bud of marijuana or not.
This is a major part of the problem with plea agreements. Plea agreements are not an effort to learn the truth and gain justice. They are a tool to keep the veil of legitimacy by virtue of being able to say things like “He was not merely “arrested,” he was convicted”, even when the charges don’t fit the facts.
Smoking pot is like practicing witchcraft. It’s not the act that does the damage, it’s the resulting persecution. People don’t see the similarity, of course, but when they throw someone in prison merely for doing drugs, it’s the same as burning a witch.
Eventually, they stopped burning witches just like they will eventually stop destroying people for using drugs. But those who did the persecution never have to pay for the suffering they caused. They’re excused because they simply did what everyone else was doing (as if they’re incapable of independent thought).
And, many years from now, while everyone looks back on the barbarity of the drug war, boasting about how much civilization has progressed, there will already be a new crusade and new victims to replace the persecution of drug users (or porn producers, or prostitutes, or gamblers, or polygamists, or gays, or…).
Given the willingness of most U.S. citizens to wantonly and systematically dole out destruction and misery to their fellow citizens, I think it’s time we stop arguing with their insistence that the U.S. be called a “Christian nation”.
#12 Rick-
‘This is a major part of the problem with plea agreements’ EXACTLY.
they built the charges up, his attorney advised him to take the easy way out, everyone’s happy. all this over 12 OUNCES of pot (the cop initially reported finding 2.5 pounds!). How do you ‘distribute’ 12 ounces of pot?!!!!
The editorialization of popular culture’s been going on for some time now, and shows no sign of stopping. The treatment of smoking in popular media is a perfect example. I can recall old Addams Family episodes, fully acceptable in their entirety in the early 1960’s, later being edited to remove several scenes where the protagonists were enjoying a hookah pipe.
Don’t want to give the kiddies any ideas, but the final targets of this social engineering are invariably adults, not just children. A fact which does not phase the social engineers one bit:
ROSENTHAL: We’ve got to get some way also to make it socially unacceptable. So how to do this except by pounding at them I don’t know.
McCAFFREY: Well, [inaudible].
ROSENTHAL: No, no. What? No, I mean for rich people.
McCAFFREY: Yeah.
ROSENTHAL: -who will never wind up in the gutter-
McCAFFREY: Yeah, exactly.
ROSENTHAL: -who are fed, and that’s what made Soros [inaudible]. It’s socially unacceptable somehow for people to use their money in that way.
McCAFFREY: Yeah, I agree. Well, you know, we’ve done it, we’ve started to do it with smoking cigarettes. We’ve started to do it with driving drunk on Saturday night – it’s no longer a manly, kind of humorous thing to do; it’s something you ought to be ashamed of. And if you’re at a cocktail party in New York City now or in a military staff call, if you light up a cigarette you identify yourself as being a dull-witted lad or lass.
Granted, that was years ago, and the main subject was cannabis, but the social engineers are just like what C.S Lewis described them:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
I don’t smoke, and don’t willingly associate with those who do, but I’d sooner sit down with smokers than these self-appointed morals proctors. Hardly worth the trip to adulthood if they’re still going to be riding your back, digging their spurs in your flanks and trying to put a bit in your mouth.
All done with our tax dollars. Now doesn’t that just thrill you in these hard economic times, that Uncle is using our money to hector those paying for the hectoring?
#15 | Dave Krueger
‘Eventually, they stopped burning witches just like they will eventually stop destroying people for using drugs.’ The church was able to instill fear into the believers and profit from that fear. It wasn’t very efficient. Too many people are directly profiting from the drug war and it’s had 90 years to become entrenched. The burnings will continue.
#15 | Dave Krueger
‘Eventually, they stopped burning witches just like they will eventually stop destroying people for using drugs.’
The church was able to instill fear into the believers and profit from that fear. It wasn’t very efficient. Too many people are directly profiting from the drug war and it’s had 90 years to become entrenched. The burnings will continue.
From the Washington Post article on Mexico and the drug war…
Two of our past three presidents, and now our Olympic hero Michael Phelps, have tried drugs.
Er…um…I can think of three.
And from the STL Today article…
A prosecutor said West’s plea speaks for itself.
The professional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and taunting “nanny-nanny boo boo, guilty guilty, no take backs”
“Charity gives double-amputee Iraq war vet a free, handicapped-accessible home–then takes it away after discovering he had plead guilty for marijuana possession.”
At least we are being given warning of how it will all play out soon enough.
First they came for the convicted marijuana possessors …
@ #13
I don’t see the need for the bad karma your comment received. As another ex-smoker who has been fighting to quit for almost two years now I totally agree with your comment. I have turned shows off because of smoking. Hell, just hearing someone ‘flick their bic’ has a Pavlovian response for me.
I now find the smell totally disgusting and if I do fall off the wagon and cheat, it tastes awful and I get rid of it…but seeing someone on screen enjoying a smoke drives me nuts.
But that discomfort does not mean that I agree with government bans…you let the gov do that and 20 years from now they won’t be allowed to show someone eating a cheeseburger on screen.
But this wasn’t a ban. This was the head of a studio freely choosing whether or not they wish to show smoking…that is protected. I may not like them screwing with characters, and I can say so by buying or not buying a ticket, but this is how it is supposed to work. No government, just people deciding for themselves.
“I accidentally ???????? the whole cat.”
It’s OK to blow a pussy. Just don’t inhale.
It’s absurd that for 12 ounces of cannibus the charity rescind a free house for a horribly wounded vet. This just proves how screwed up the legal system is and diluted people can be when they here “drug charges”.
I hope this charitys donations drop of significantly and they receive a lot of angry e-mails.
If you’d like to thank Homes for Our Troops for their compasionate decision, here’s where to go:
http://www.homesforourtroops.org/site/PageServer?pagename=contactus
The voluntary restriction of smoking in movies produced by a movie studio does not infringe on people’s liberty. What infringes on people’s liberty are the almost inevitable governmental controls that follow when people vilify any class of people. After all, it’s not like the Constitution is much of an obstacle to government interference anymore.
I smoked 2 packs a day for 34 years. Everyone has their own success story, but I was only able to quit when I stopped believing the popular hysterical rhetoric about how difficult is was to quit. I think the straw the broke the camel’s back was when they said cigarettes are worse than heroine. The fact that the masses are all shouting the same thing in perfect unison, doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. The fact that they’re all carrying pitch forks and torches doesn’t lend credence to their declarations, either.
By the way, the idea that cigarettes are worse than heroine makes a good case for legalizing heroine.
“Email this Share this Print this Comments (76) Digg Yahoo! Del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Drudge Google Fark Stumble It!
Charity yanks free house to vet over pot bust
Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2009 — Iraq War veteran Scott West stands at a park near his home in Branson, Mo. West, who lost both legs in the war, was selected by a national charity to receive a free custom-built home, but then had the offer rescinded by the charity when he was arrested for possession of marijuana. (Mark Schiefelbein)By Phillip O’Connor
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/22/2009
Branson, Mo. — Newlyweds Scott and Samantha West drove their SUV through the gate of the exclusive housing community, winding upward to an empty cul-de-sac that offers commanding views of the surrounding valleys.
For months, the young couple visited this site and dreamed of their bright future, ever since a charity that serves wounded veterans announced last year it was building a house for Scott at no charge.
The gift, like his new bride, seemed heaven-sent to Scott West, 23, who had lost his legs to a roadside bomb in Iraq in December 2005. The new home would feature wide hallways, voice-activated lighting and other amenities tailored to Scott’s needs.
And when a developer offered to give the Wests a free lot in Saddlebrooke, a community where house prices range from $350,000 to more than $1 million, the couple thought it was too good to be true.
“This was a place where I thought I could live the rest of my life and never have to worry,” West said.
On this night, the couple didn’t linger long at the vacant lot. The winter wind was bitter. So too, are the memories.
In January, just two days after the couple had returned from their honeymoon, the charity took back its gift after learning that Scott West had been arrested on marijuana charges in 2007 and pleaded guilty in December to a felony of possession with intent to distribute. Last week, a judge placed West on five years probation.
West acknowledges that he deserved to be punished. Despite his guilty plea, he insists he never sold marijuana. He believes the charity, Massachusetts-based Homes for Our Troops, overreacted. “It was something to help me,” West said of the donated house. “It wasn’t like a privilege to be taken from me.”
Homes for Our Troops founder John Gonsalves did not respond to several requests for an interview. The nonprofit organization has built more than three dozen homes nationwide since it was established in 2004. It has about two dozen more homes under construction.
A spokeswoman for the charity said it was grateful for West’s service and sacrifice. She described the decision to drop West from the program as the most painful Gonsalves has had to make.
“It hurts him; it haunts him,” spokeswoman Vicki Thomas said.”
Awww. If it hurts so bad, don’t do it.
On another note, we send kids off to blow people up and expect them to pick up their lives, with 0 blemishes, immediately upon return.
I don’t think it’s paranoid to discourage on-screen smoking. We know it kills people by the thousands, so it wouldn’t hurt for Hollywood to make some effort to set a good example. It isn’t like they’re altering the smoking habits in a biopic…this is a comic book movie, so I’m sure they can find other plot devices.
The real tragedy is that the guy got his legs blown off in a war the U.S. should never have been in to begin with.
Extremely well put. This is a very “Christian” nation.
I have to say that Homes for Our Troops was in a nasty position. We might know what “intent to distribute” usually means, but that doesn’t mean that Homes for Our Troops’ major donors do. The commenters on the newspaper story don’t seem to, even the ones who support this guy.
“You are not a convicted drug dealer” is also a requirement to get a Habitat for Humanity house.
My guess is that some other vet will get this house as I really doubt West is the only disabled vet in St. Louis. It sucks for West, but I feel for the charity too because being known as a charity that doesn’t care whether the people it is building houses for are drug dealers is not something any charity wants. And the fact that they learned West was a convicted drug dealer from a newspaper reporter says it all about whether they would have been able to keep it quiet.
CC
Ducking and covering
I don’t care what your views on the Iraq War are.
I don’t care what your views on marijuana use and possession are.
John Gonsalves is a total douche for doing that to Scott West.
Addendum:
He’s also a gutless douche because he won’t speak for himself, but sends out a “spokeswoman” to take the flak.
Here’s an arguement against X:
Billy Kreutzman, Bobby Wier and Rock Sully were the first people ever (if ‘Living with the Dead’ is to be believed) to try MDMA. They describe the experience as “going out in the woods for the day and running around naked thinking they were animals.”
Thanks, I really don’t want to come into contact with any one of those three naked thinking they’re animals. ;)
“Hollywood’s ridiculous anti-tobacco paranoia.”
I thought you only hated when the government told you what to do. Isn’t this just the natural free market response to a harmful and useless product?
I mean, not wanting to glorify something that kills you seems kind, well, not ridiculous or paranoid to me. Seems more ridiculous or paranoid to insist that turning a character into a non-smoker is some sort of horrible ill.
Ignore my last comment. Upon further investigation, Owsley Stanley, who was supposedly responsibile for giving them the drugs, claims that Rock Scully made that episode up “whole cloth.”
Marty,
Have you ever seen an ounce of MJ? When put into a zip top bag, it will be about the size of a large orange (just a bit bigger than a baseball). A pound (16 ounces) is a pretty big brick (larger than the size of a kilo of coke). If he had 12 ounces, it is pretty easy for the government to prove that it wasn’t meant for personal use. A normal joint is probably a little less than an ounce so you could probably make 30-35 regular joints out of an ounce.
Also, being that a pound of MJ is cheaper to buy than 16 individual ounce bags, you can assume that he bought a pound and either smoked or sold the missing portion.
I’m not saying that he did distribute the pot, merely that it would be easy for any average prosecutor to prove that he intended to.
I also don’t agree with drugs being illegal, especially pot, but these veterans organizations do have a reputation and if they want to keep donations coming (in order to help as many vets as possible), they cannot favor people who are involved, much less convicted, of felonies. That it shouldn’t be a felony is another discussion, but I cannot blame the charity for trying to protect itself and, thus, help more veterans. It would be sad if they took a stance to protect this one guy and then couldn’t help any other veterans afterward because of it.
So long as the charity gives the home to another equally-needy vet, I have no problem with them having this as a policy.
I meant to say that a joint is a little less than a gram, not an ounce. Sorry for the confusion.
Peanuts v Ecstasy
- now put them in two large bowls and tell the stranger to start munching. Which is more dangerous now?
#11 Mike T – right, exactly. It should also be mentioned that most traditional organized-crime activities are actually CRIMES – “protection” rackets, extortion, fraud, etc. So there would be legitimate reasons to go after these people for their fundamental activities, as opposed to crimes committed on the side basically, by groups acting outside the rule of law, courts to enforce contracts, etc.
I was all set to ask you to roll me a joint.
@Nando #37
I don’t have a problem with them having this policy either. My biggest problem is with plea agreements. Either there is a person really guilty of a real crime, with a victim who doesn’t get their full measure of justice, or there is a person claiming responsibility for a crime that they did not commit, and may not have happened at all, just because a prosecutor can manufacture a convincing story out of circumstantial evidence. In the latter case, if an actual crime, with an actual victim did occur, the real culprit never comes to justice, while an innocent person sits in prison. Too often, plea agreements are used in cases where there is no victim at all.
In the case presented here, somebody bought the pot to split between the group of friends. If the group of friends is large enough, 12 ounces isn’t much at all. I suppose that’s distribution after a fashion, but it does not make one a drug dealer, in the sense that the charity’s policy is designed to keep out of it’s properties. The plea agreement doesn’t make that distinction, and unduly influenced the implementation of the charity’s policy.
Nobody wins with plea agreements, except lazy prosecutors.
How?
Don’t mod this down- explain.
Persecuting people for drug use has nothing to do with Christianity.
thomasblair,
I have to disagree with you about the Christian nation thing. Well, maybe not. Most of the Christians follow a bunch of man made rules, they added to the Bible. They should realize, even God, in all His wisdom, did not try to prohibit alcohol. Yet, most “Christians” will tell you that you will go to hell for drinking it. They are not real “Christians” only a bunch of fake Christians, running around trying to push their puritanical (not Biblical) views on everyone else. The Bible dose not have most of the stuff they push around as truth, in any of its pages. Christianity is supposed to be about personal salvation. Not running around condemning everyone one else! But most of them do!
#24
OMG, you did not say that!! LMFAO!! But, you do have a point!
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.” -Thomas Paine-
Omar,
I saw it quoted, from one of Jefferson’s letters that he had reffered to smoking hemp. And in fact, Lincoln was quoted in the same fashion. I wish these could be substantiated as facts.
And then, if we think about it,the demon-ization of hemp has occurred since Anslinger and his racist buddies had the drug laws enacted. Before then, the presidents would, likely, have never thought twice about it!
I can probably do about 2.25g in one 1-1/4. But that’s pushing it, and it canoes like crazy because the paper doesn’t help it burn evenly.
I’m showing my ignorance on dope- thanks for the education!
#36 | NutellaonToast | February 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
‘I thought you only hated when the government told you what to do. Isn’t this just the natural free market response to a harmful and useless product?’
this is in response to govt and nanny organizations applying pressure based on bullshit research. the propaganda state is leading the charge to eliminate tobacco and hollywood’s buckling…
Our first president smoked pot. In his agricultural notes he makes reference to following several procedures including separating the sexes of marijuana, etc. which are done for smoking purposes.
I think everyone is focusing on the wrong culprit in the Scott West story: the real culprit is the Springfield News-Leader, which deliberately manufactured the controversy.
1. They “got a tip”.
2. They interviewed West, who told the truth.
3. They ran immediately to the charity, to ask what they’re doing giving a house to a “convicted drug dealer”.
4. They were ready with a story to run about the charity’s back-pedaling.
That’s not journalism, that’s manufacturing a story.
KB,
I think it could certainly be argued that the reporter was just doing his/her job, though I can see what you’re saying too.
But, yeah, once the reporter made it clear that the “Recipient of free house is a drug dealer” story was going to run, I think the charity had to chose between:
a. Taking a stand that a conviction for selling drugs was no big deal and potentially alienating donors and thus being able to build fewer houses for veterans who needed them
and
b. Not giving West a free house and not alienating those donors.
I don’t blame them at all for chosing “b,” which certianly seems to be the choice more in line with their goals, and I don’t get the anger at the head of the charity.
CC
I’m an eternal optimist (between predictions of doom). :)
#52 & #53,
I have to agree that the newspaper was looking to manufacture a salacious story. But the story is never about a “convicted drug dealer” if the plea deal doesn’t manufacture a “convicted drug dealer” out of someone who likely never sold any drugs. It’s the fundamental dishonesty of plea deals that causes these kinds of situations time and time again.
Strike the root, boys.
#54 | Dave Krueger-
‘I’m an eternal optimist (between predictions of doom). ‘
I’m a complete pessimist- that way I’m never disappointed when I’m wrong (which is often!), and I can gloat when I’m right!
I ,Rigoberto Menchu, accidentally the whole cat.
Impressive. I got at least two thumbs down from people without the balls to back it up.
This is the original “Alex,” not the bootleg but inoffensive new “Alex.”
That’s certainly a problem that occurs way too often, but this guy was caught with 1) a shitload of pot 2) in seperate containers 3) with scales. That’s about as much evidence of intent as you’ll ever find during a traffic stop (legit in this case).
Also, “after discovering he had plead guilty for marijuana possession” should read “after discovering he had plead guilty to felony marijuana possession with intent to distribute.” There’s quite a difference between the two.
I don’t see pleading guilty as a credible admission that a person committed a crime. I see it only as irrefutable evidence that the prosecutor was able to convince that person that they are better off caving in than fighting the charges. Yes, they may very well be guilty, but the prosecutor is not after the truth. He’s after a conviction and has the power to bring ruin down even on the innocent. That gives him immense bargaining power.
By the way, I feel the same about witnesses, in trouble with the law, who testify in return for favorable treatment by prosecutors. When someone stands to have years shaved off a prison sentence, I think only a complete utter moron would think a witness wouldn’t say anything the prosecutor wishes.
Finally, any charge that is based solely on the possession of some quantity (large or small) of something (drugs, child porn, guns, etc) can easily be manufactured simply by planting the evidence. Of course, given the unerring code of moral integrity that all cops subscribe to, we all know that doesn’t happen, so we unquestioningly believe the cops.
Personally, I’m not inclined to convict anyone for simple possession of anything. I’m a stickler for insisting on a victim when I destroy someone’s entire future.
“But this wasn’t a ban. This was the head of a studio freely choosing whether or not they wish to show smoking…that is protected. I may not like them screwing with characters, and I can say so by buying or not buying a ticket, but this is how it is supposed to work. No government, just people deciding for themselves.”
Precisely. Now, I don’t quite like it that watching smoking has this psychological affect on me, but it’s real. And that reality has market consequences, which studios are free to cater to if they want. As long as the government isn’t involved, I don’t really see the problem.
Of course, we do know that the government sometimes DOES get involved… without informing people upfront about payoffs or special deals. Hopefully that’s not what’s going on here.
I tawt I saw a puddy-tat…GULP!
Oops! I can’t believe I ate the WHOLE THING!
WTH?
“I accidentally the whole cat.”
Proofread carefully to make sure you didn’t any words out.
“I don’t see pleading guilty as a credible admission that a person committed a crime.”
So the guy admits to it even after it’s been settled in court, and you still don’t buy it? Umm, ok.
“Finally, any charge that is based solely on the possession of some quantity (large or small) of something (drugs, child porn, guns, etc) can easily be manufactured simply by planting the evidence. Of course, given the unerring code of moral integrity that all cops subscribe to, we all know that doesn’t happen, so we unquestioningly believe the cops.”
I have all kinds of resentment for the police, but planting 3/4lb on a disabled veteran during a routine traffic stop is unbelievably sinister. I’d love to hear how he’s been able to convince this guy who lost a giant fucking house on the planted evidence to keep quiet.
“Personally, I’m not inclined to convict anyone for simple possession of anything. I’m a stickler for insisting on a victim when I destroy someone’s entire future.”
People who sell drugs sell them because they’re illegal. Getting busted is part of the game. If they didn’t we would all sell drugs b/c 200% profit margin plus no work plus no risk is a pretty sweet job.
In the case of an ordinary citizen with a normal amount of pot (or any other drug) and no violent record, I think there’s a special place in hell reserved for cops and prosecutors who pursue them beyond the minimum that is required for their jobs. But that clearly isn’t the case here.