Comments on: Saturday Links

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:39:32 +0000

I couldn’t even get all the way through the Califano interview. But if the title was any indicator, he must’ve brought up the tired old line about “pot is more potent today than it was in the 1970′s.” Can somebody, anybody, look at the data and dis/prove that statement? (Pause) Oh, wait, Dr John Morgan @ CUNY does it ALL THE TIME!!!

Yeesh. Give me a break from these tired old liberal hacks. Please.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:49:10 +0000

I realize more and more why I listen to punk. It’s because punk rockers are the only ones who seem to get it. I used to think that hippies had it right, except they generally advocate peace. Eff that.

I’m more interested in songs lie Murder the Government and The Idiots are Taking Over.

By: JohnMcC

JohnMcC — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:47:17 +0000

In Clearwater, only Philly’s and Thetans play catch.

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:41:32 +0000

Fucking Joe Califano–”The more often kids have dinner with their parents the less likely they are to drink and use drugs; it’s as simple as that.” Everything this guy said involved willy nilly assuming causal relationships at his pleasure. Very frustrating.

By: MacGregory

MacGregory — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:08:58 +0000

For some reason, the Clearwater story made me think of a line from “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest”

“Jesus Christ nurse Wratchett, let ‘em watch the god damn baseball game.”

By: Terrorific

Terrorific — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:45:04 +0000

Once again, Dave, is a man not allowed to change his political principles?

LOL. I love how your focus is on political principles rather than personal ones. Bob Barr has not been able to explain, even for a second, how drug use is an issue of personal FREEDOM. This is what counts the most. THC levels, effectiveness of imprisonment versus treatment, and other distractions are a waste of time for anyone to talk about.

Either you’re free to control your own body or you aren’t, and my money is on Bob Barr believing the latter.

By: ChrisD

ChrisD — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:45:49 +0000

” It’s apparently illegal to play catch in Clearwater, Florida.”

The spring training locale of your World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies. More than a little ironic.

By: DaveG

DaveG — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:52:08 +0000

Sad that our coke snorting brotherman chief executive won’t help us out on cannabis. Marion Barry would free the weed, although he might put more bitches out in Denver

By: Johnny Pez

Johnny Pez — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:49:29 +0000

Lefty blogger Digby talks about Gatesgate.

By: hexag1

hexag1 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:02:52 +0000

Is anyone here familiar with Sam Harris’ criticism of the drug war in “The End of Faith” ? I quite like the case he makes, and was wondering if anyone might comment on it.
Are any of his criticisms new to the argument??
pp 160-164 and 257-261 of the paperback.

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:51:00 +0000

That would be a darn sight more productive than trying to prosecute General Mills for Cheerios.

By: Marty

Marty — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:38:00 +0000

Joe Califano is a dickhead. Like Anslinger, he’s gonna go to his grave leaving lives destroyed in the wake of his lies. Fuck that worthless troll.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:03:56 +0000

#8 | Coises | July 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Just for the sake of variety, there should be one party where the ability to attract votes is not a factor that should be allowed to trump ideology. — Dave Krueger

I’d rather see one party where reality trumps ideology… or one sub-committee… or one fucking person with a position in government…

Bad choice of words. I should have said principles. You certainly won’t find an excess of them in government.

By: dave smith

dave smith — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:20:37 +0000

Politicians CANNOT speak of personal liberty, can they? They have to be in charge of everyone’s lives. The city councilman interviewed in the story says he thinks it is important for children to play catch.

He’d never, ever say the government has no business regulating behavior, would he?

By: Coises

Coises — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:00:00 +0000

Just for the sake of variety, there should be one party where the ability to attract votes is not a factor that should be allowed to trump ideology. — Dave Krueger

I’d rather see one party where reality trumps ideology... or one sub-committee... or one fucking person with a position in government...

By: Coises

Coises — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:44:24 +0000

It's the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a.k.a. the drug czar, who in 1998 was mandated by Congress to oppose legislation that would legalize, decriminalize, or medicalize marijuana, or redirect anti-trafficking funding into treatment. And the drug czar has also—here's where the lying comes in—been prohibited from funding research that might give credence to any of the above. Shouldn’t such a law be considered unconsitutional interference by the legislature in the functioning of the executive branch?

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:15:48 +0000

#4 Andrew S.

Once again, Dave, is a man not allowed to change his political principles?

A man can change his positions all he wants. It’s just my opinion that he should be a bit more thoroughly vested in the libertarian way of thinking before he gets to carry the banner as Libertarian candidate for President. Barr choked on relinquishing his support for the drug war because he simply thought he could pick and choose what libertarian policies he’d support and which he’d oppose just as he had done as a Republican. He was a poor libertarian and gave the impression that he was more opportunistic than sincere.

By: Les

Les — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:05:37 +0000

I don’t hold any of those old positions. I was a staunch drug warrior. I’m not anymore. I used to defer to authority. I don’t anymore. I can’t think of any of those positions I still hold today.

I think the difference between you and Barr is that Barr actually made laws that were based on ignorance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and bigotry. Those laws affected lots of people in negative ways.

So a citizen, like yourself, can merely say, “I changed my mind,” and that’s worthy of respect (as most folks don’t think enough to do that).

Someone like Barr, for me, needs to say, “I was an ignorant, dishonest, hypocritical bigot and I negatively affected the lives of many people.” Then he can explain how he wants to make up for his mistakes. But until he can take personal responsibility for his reprehensible behavior (which is the first step in believing anyone has sincerely changed), I won’t believe he’s really interested in change.

By: Andrew S.

Andrew S. — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:40:21 +0000

Once again, Dave, is a man not allowed to change his political principles? A decade and a half ago I was a staunch Conservative Republican. It was only around 1996 that I realized how ridiculous my political positions were, and I moved to my current libertarian party philosophy. Am I somehow unworthy?

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:39:16 +0000

From the ONDCP link:

And the drug czar has also—here’s where the lying comes in—been prohibited from funding research that might give credence to any of the above. These provisions were crafted by Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Bob Barr (R-Ga.)…

One thing that often happens when former Republicans or Democrats become Libertarians is they tend to want to hold on to some of their former pet beliefs no matter how unlibertarian they are. This doesn’t trouble them in the least because it’s never occurred to them before that political beliefs need to be compatible with one another.

I don’t care if the next Libertarian presidential candidate is short, ugly, stinks, has gum in his (or her) hair, doesn’t have a permanent address, arrives at the convention pushing a shopping cart full of clothes and aluminum cans, drools incessantly, spits when he talks, chews with his mouth open, has chronic flatulence, and hasn’t taken a bath in a year. At the very minimum he should have been a libertarian long enough to know, understand, and enthusiastically support the most basic of core libertarian principles.

Just for the sake of variety, there should be one party where the ability to attract votes is not a factor that should be allowed to trump ideology. I propose that the Libertarian party be that one party.

If we’re going to lose every fucking election anyway, it would be nice to at least be able to say, “yeah, but at least our party has some integrity.”