Until then, the next time I get close enough to one of my elected reps, I’m going to throw my shoe at them. A dirty, smelly, nasty muddy old shoe.

I have some old shoes that I used to wear when I was mucking out stables. :)

But once more, Right is overweighed by might. THEY have the bigger guns.

Dominus providebit!

Near as I can tell (per http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/31931/ ), it’s in the northeast corner of the intersection of I-295 and SR-198.

I should probably restate what I’m saying.

Aren’t we usually mad because cops often ignore due process to make their job easier? I’m not arguing that the guy who bounced the check 80 years ago should be thrown in prison or that the charge itself is still valid (it probably isn’t) or that the warrant itself isn’t a waste of taxpayer dollars at this point, but it isn’t the police officer’s job to determine which valid warrants he can ignore. He’s just serving the warrant which (as he states) he’s legally required to do. And as long as he’s not busting down some old guy’s door with a SWAT team, who really cares? The warrant was apparently legit…the guy apparently owes the money (less than $40). Worst case scenario it’s a waste of time because the offender is already dead or the statute of limitations applies and the charge is quashed. Best case scenario some company gets its $30 bucks back.

Is it inefficient and silly? Sure…but then so is most of what government does these days. The cop himself is just serving a warrant.

I wish the jurors in the Frederick trial could have read about this fake SWAT crap, before they sent him to prison for ten years! If they don’t want us to shoot, then they, damn well, better figure out the way to stop it! Thing is, with the SWAT teams running rampant, it give the fakes an easy go of it! I am terrified! Just another reason to stay hidden out in the rural America!

The cop with the 80 year old warrant just lacks wisdom, to say it nicely!

Whatever the issue, it’s always easy for a reporter to ask “What is government doing about this? What does the President, Senator, Mayor, or Police Chief have to say?” Why bother investigating root causes of problems and considering unintended consequences of policies? Those things require thought and research. The easy thing to do is to assume that any problem that exists is one that government ought to be fixing and just call up a politician and see what his comment is. The reporter already has the numbers or those people (or their spokesmen) on his speed dial, so why do extra work?

Of course, a responsible reporter wouldn’t assume that a government official even has anything to say about most issues, and he would be wary of the inherent bias that such an assumption adds to his reporting. And, that official, if he had any spine, would be clear when the issue involves one of the majority of life’s situations which it is not the government’s job to fix. But, politicians know that reporters like to falsely assume that not-having-a-program-to-deal-with-X is the same as not-caring-about-X. And, sadly, most politicians are panic-stricken that it might look like they don’t feel everyone’s pain, all the time.

No. That’s not what we’re complaining about. At least, I’m not complaining about that.

You must not know politicians very well. Will. Never. Happen.

Everything else you wrote is good.

It’s utterly disgusting to me that our politicians have murdered thousands of people in South America, and then pushed out propaganda saying “teh operation was a success!”

When the violence, death, and lawlessness they created hits a bit closer to home, these elected criminals’ knee-jerk reaction is to fight the fire throwing gasoline on it.

- There’s just plain Dumb
- There’s dumber than a fence post Dumb
- And then, there’s Drug Warrior Dumb

I’m not speaking only about the jack booted clowns who get their jollies by shooting dogs. I’m speaking more about the spineless, immoral, selfish, and stupid politicians that willfully perpetuate this insanity and arrogantly refuse to entertain even a notion that what they’re doing doesn’t work and can’t work.

As far as I’m concerned any politician in office that still refuses to approach the drug problem rationally has committed intentional murder in my name, using my money. I take it personally.

If the treasonous bastards had an ounce of integrity they’d resign immediately and turn the job over to someone who would actually live up to their oath of office.

But even worse than the flaming drug warrior politicians and propagandists are those who pretend to be ambivalent about the disaster they created. These are the ones who dodge the issue and the questions altogether. They are even more spineless and immoral because the fact that they actively avoid discussions is an indication that they know they’re wrong — Yet they lack the guts to face the issue honestly.

I look forward to that day in the future where politicians, both state and federal, are embarrassed about the way they’ve executed this insane war.

Until then, the next time I get close enough to one of my elected reps, I’m going to throw my shoe at them. A dirty, smelly, nasty muddy old shoe.

And if the shoe hits them, I’ll apologize to the shoe.

Major CYA in that whole segment. He wants to start a debate about legalization, which he doesn’t favor. Okay……..

It’s likely he knows that legalization is the only way to end the threat but won’t risk any political capital by saying so.

While it seems we are seeing some major shifts in attitudes toward reforming our drug laws, it’s been the violence the drug war engenders (from LEO’s here and organized crime in Mexico) that has finally started some people to wake up. Prohbition may end one day, not because it is the right thing to do, but because it will become the pragmatic thing to do. If so, I’ll welcome it, regardless of the reasons for the change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPE2ySTIGRM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/record.prison.population/index.html

Sorry for the threadjack.

Sorry if I was unclear.

“For point 2, I think that criminal organisations have never shrunk from any form of brutality.”

Agreed, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I only meant that the SWAT fetish has provided criminals w/ a way to cloak their ill intent in legitimacy, at least long enough to fool their victims.

The criminal justice system has provided observant thugs with convenient cover by using SWAT too much, but this has not, as you rightly point out, made them any more or less violent. It has just made things more confusing for the victims of these home invasions. Also, your economic analysis of the effects of prohibition was flawless, in my view. I only hope that more people will see things in a similar light in the near future.