I agree. Carter has gotten a terrifically bad and unfair rap. He had the only rational energy policy this country has ever pursued, dedicating (as I recall) $10 billion a year to alternative sources. The Repugs are bought and sold by Big Oil, and the price of oil is hardly benefited by alternative energy. (Nuclear is a special case which I won't go into here.) Carter was the victim of his own inability to project the machismo Americans seem to crave. He came across very poorly on TV. The mainstream press really killed him in the hostage crisis, which like 9-11 …
All 13 comments by...
druid
-
-
I think you're wise to give up on Jay. The real problem as I see it is that Americans are always bouncing back and forth between a hopeful view of the world and a fearful one. Right now we're deeply into a fear phase. This dominates all the thinking of the day. (And it can be handily exploited by the real powers in our society, so they're doing their damnedest to keep us terrified.) Do Americans love "freedom?" Hell no -- but we have been propagandized into fearing our basic institutions of government, and wanting to be "free" of their coercive …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
It seems fairly evident that you hold an utterly incoherent view of the world and that arguing you would be entirely futile, but perhaps someone else will come along to take up the challenge.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
If you want to isolate the Puritan element in drug prohibition, it's pretty easy to do. One approach is to compare our treatment of "dangerous drugs" with our responses to other undeniably dangerous recreational activities -- skydiving, high school football, car racing, mountain climbing, etc. Nobody suggests that those things should be prohibited, even though each of them exacts a significant toll in death and disability every year. So I throw the question open to the assembly, or at least, those who are sincerely interested in understanding our attitudes on these subjects: Why the difference? Why is it okay to risk …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
It doesn't answer my question above to say that recreational drug use has harmful effects on third parties. The same is true of a skydiver who leaves an indigent family behind when his chute doesn't open. And look at the nature and degree of the punishment. Who is more dangerous, a buy on a streetcorner under the influence of heroin, or a completely sober driver going 70 on the freeway while yelling at his wife into a cellphone? If the driver gets busted, he might be tagged for a misdemeanor, but more probably for an infraction. The guy with the heroin …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
That's "guy" on a streetcorner, naturally.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
> I am dsiinclined to fight historical forces > without reason. Translation: "I am inclined to stick to historical prejudices without reason."
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Good definition of a conservative, actually.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
I wil ignore Jay's factual ignorance but it's hard not to admire the self-satisfied (and self-satisfying) circularity of his arguments. The laws must be followed because they are just. How do we know they are just? Because when they are unjust, we do not follow them. The man should be president. He can get somebody with brains to be his vice president and actually make the decisions. The poor deluded know-nothings will be greatly comforted by his aggressive illogic.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Oh wait, been there, done that.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
Is there a bozofilter on this system?
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
See there's a great example of how one fool can completely derail a potentially useful discussion. Poor KVK is stuck trying to answer a question that rests on a patently false premise, i.e., that "not one drug conviction [has] been overturned on constitutional rights." It's not clear just what Jay means by this phrase, but in point of fact, thousands of drug convictions have been overturned for violations of the bill of rights. They are a drop in the bucket, but they exist. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Y'all are letting Jay …
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
-
With all respect to everyone else here, I'm really used to a little higher signal-to-noise ratio in my online discussions. I had high hopes for this place because I'm quite fond of the print magazine that sponsors it. But there's only one way to raise the level of discourse when somebody like Jay comes along, and that is to steadfastly ignore him until he goes and ruins somebody else's conversation. I may check back in a few weeks, but for now I must regretfully abandon what should have been a very valuable discussion.
Posted to Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
- Joined January 24, 2005
- Last Visit December 12, 2005
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed