and it’s always going to be hard to dig down far enough to get to the snake oil from a small number of moderator questions.

No. Average libertarian and/or Austrian economist can do it easily. As can a few journalists.

Why do you think a budget discussion must be limited to the debates? It isn’t, cannot be, but that doesn’t mean no debate can take place and that no budget plan must be proposed.

If your point is that debates are just theater, I’m in the choir.

Great point.
Not only does all this TV dreck misrepresent the current state of affairs,
it contributes to it, financially and sociologically. File under “Prison Industrial/Media Complex.”

I think it’s easy to absorb a worldview from those shows, without anyone ever saying anything explicit, that has dangerous criminals routinely getting off on technicalities and terrorizing honest people, while the police have their hands tied by pointless rules and legalisms.

In a broader sense, I think the propaganda / opinion-shaping powers of TV dramas and sitcoms is at least an order of magnitude greater than that of TV news. It’s easy not to ever even notice that your opinion is being shaped, till you find yourself with a strong opinion about something that, on reflection, you realize you know absolutely nothing about except what you’ve seen/heard on TV.

A verbal discussion, and especially a debate, is a terrible format for discussing details of your budget plans. You couldn’t intelligently plan your *household* budget in that format, let alone the budget of a huge, wealthy government. There’s probably almost nothing a moderator can do to fix that. There’s always some way to create a planned budget that looks good but is full of snake oil, and it’s always going to be hard to dig down far enough to get to the snake oil from a small number of moderator questions.

Any politician talking about how the system is unfair, or too harsh, is going to scare all the geezers silly.

Not letting Republicans off the hook. But, criticizing Republicans for criminal INjustice seems a lot like complaining about bad food at Applebee’s. WTF did you expect?

Just in case people question this, I blame the Republicans, too. I just don’t want to waste my time on them.

Until it was racist to be for increased sentencing for crack.

Here’s a nice article from the period that mentions that the reaction to increased drug use usually comes after the increased has already peaked and use is declining. Bonus points for coverage of noted drug warrior Jesse Jackson and the democrats in congress pushing for additional drug penalties.

So no, nobody’s hands are clean in the drug war. It seems that everyone wants to control how other people live their lives. Even if they are compassionate, liberal Democrats.

It might be that the Obama fellating these past 4 years has me particularly pist, but I cast a much more cynical eye on Democrats on the issue of criminal justice. You adopt the platform, you adopt the responsibility. It might be worth a shout-out amid the constant screeching about “force people to buy this list of products”, “unions are awesome and need more money”, and “successful people are evil”.

Not letting Republicans off the hook. But, criticizing Republicans for criminal INjustice seems a lot like complaining about bad food at Applebee’s. WTF did you expect?

Also, it seems a moderator doesn’t exist who is capable of really drilling down on how the debt will be addressed. All manner of fuzzy bullshit is accepted with nods of approval.

While I do disagree with that law, it hardly represents a “war on drugs.” More like giving drugs a pretty serious Wet Willie

It’s never been a war and drugs. It’s always been a war on minorities. And the blacks that Anslinger pursued to protect the chastity of white women were hardly getting Wet Willies.

Yes, the war really kicked into high gear with Nixon, and with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, each president has increased the brutality over his predecessor. But the notion that Democratic politicians had nothing to do with the War on (Minorities that use Some) Drugs is fucking delusional.

It’s the sheer number that spoils everything. There is no such thing as a discussion with 2,451 people. Even, you know, if they were slightly better than the truly horrible people who rise to the rank of deputy marshal of decency and good taste….or whatever they call those guys with the purple shaded boxes and the little decorative badges that look like histology slides.

And I will say for the record I’m not exactly comfortable about this blog ending up under HuffPost control.

I have an account for commenting over at HuffPo. A large number of my comments citing Democrats’ misdeeds have disappeared if they garnered too much attention. (In fairness I point out Republican misdeeds as well. There’s plenty of blame to go around.)

I’ll be very disappointed if this blog was brought under the HuffPo banner.

The only thing you could possibly be referencing here is the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

While I do disagree with that law, it hardly represents a “war on drugs.” More like giving drugs a pretty serious Wet Willie.

I sneaked some Robert Higgs into the article. Don’t tell!

Given the bias of HuffPo that will likely send some readers into paroxysms of anger.