Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, February 16. 2009

Monday holiday cocktail hour links

How Democracies become Tyrannies. Am Thinker


Somebody will eat crow. But who? Dino


Men often view naked women as objects. How much did that study cost? (h/t, Theo)


Re Fairness:



Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them." 



Rowan Williams: "Everybody agrees" that some Sharia would be good


No goat jokes allowed in Europe.


Media needs to be more hysterical about warming, says IPCC official


Is Hannity right about Japan's recession?


Britain literally a police state now. Stumbling


Quagmire: Losing the war on drugs for 40 years


BDS: They just can't get over it. VDH.  Related, from John Hawkins:



It's ... worth noting that it was Barack Obama who made unity and bipartisanship a core part of his campaign platform. Granted, Bush ran as a "uniter, not a divider, too" but he actually tried to make it work. He did institute a "new tone." He did partner with Ted Kennedy to write "No Child Left Behind." His payback for his effort to reach out to Democrats was a campaign of demonization unprecedented in the history of American politics. John McCain also promised bipartisanship, but John McCain would have actually made it work by moving his proposals to the left. That's why Republicans like me constantly want to strangle the guy.


Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 16:02 | Comments (19) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Rowan Williams needs to get into another line of work. Everybody isn't coming around to his view on Sharia because many of us see it for what it is. Islam is on an unending jihad to provide the world with three basic choices: submit to Islam, live in a condition of a dhimmi, or die. Williams is too eaten up with multicultural nonsense to see the consequences of his lame position on this issue. He would defend Sharia until there are no Christians left.
#1 Thalpy on 2009-02-16 16:43 (Reply)
The war on drugs does seem to be a failure. An open policiy on drugs has had its own problems in the U.S., which is one reason the Controlled Substances Act came into being (there may be busy-body in that too). People on alcohol or drugs do commit crimes they might avoid if sober.
If we adopt an open policy on drug use, I think drug or liquor use has to become an aggravating circumstance in criminal cases. Up to now it's usually been a mitigator. The worst of both worlds will be if we adopt an open drug use policy and then embrace the disease model.
#2 Geoff on 2009-02-16 17:28 (Reply)
We'd have an open drug use policy if they could find a way to tax it. Just think.... we could pay off the new deficit in a year and save billions by not fighting the drug war. The druggies would kill themselves off and we could live happily ever after nurturing our lawns with Miracle-Pot-Gro. We'd be so damn rich....
`
#2.1 Meta on 2009-02-16 19:25 (Reply)
The Archbishop can speak for himself when it comes to sharia law.

Islam is a sick religion. It's leadership is mentally ill or unstable (case in point - Ahmadinejad). It is bent on world domination and the infidels have the choice of (i) conversion by the sword, (ii) death or (iii) dhimmitude.

Here is an example of Islam in action in Buffalo, NY. (http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/578644.html)

Google dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb if you need more clarity.

Just in case anybody cares what our man-boy President thinks. Try this on for size. Another authorization by Obama.

"By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the "Act"), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2 (c) (1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza."

Here is a good Obama idea. Let's import Hamas to the United States, all expenses paid - $20.3 million.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians voted to elect Hamas, which (i) is committed to the destruction of Israel, (ii) fires rockets into Israel indiscriminately whenever it feels like it and (iii) demonstrates in the streets as do the Palestinians when something "bad" happens (e.g. like 9-11) to the United States.

While I do support the pursuit of peace, I do recognize that the Palestinians are not friends of the United States. Islam is not a friend of the United Sates.

Obama is as stupid as they come and apparently the Archbishop is as well.

Rant over. I am just fed up by the idiocy of so many of the people in power.
#3 Barrett on 2009-02-16 18:53 (Reply)
The man-boy Commander in Chief said at his inauguration that USA is a Muslim nation.

Mudboy esteems the Adhan (Muhammadan call to prayer) "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth."

When he recites Adhan he confesses the Muslim faith.

He spoke of his Muslim faith in a interveiw before he was elected.

When he laughed with the interveiwer from Al-Arabia about the Muslim capital he would give interveiw from during his first hundred days, Mudboy Hussein laughed at all the ignorant dhimmi's who voted for him.
#3.1 Leag on 2009-02-17 14:09 (Reply)
Rowan Williams is a demonstration of the internal illness which has attacked the Episcopal Church, and goes to explain the increasing strain between the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the United States. Some pundit once made the point that any organization, religious or secular, which exists and operates for more than 200 years, will need a thorough internal housecleaning in order to remain orderly and relevant. And honest. If it doesn't get one, it eventually becomes corrupt and debased. Unfortunately, churches don't have free elections, which have the potential, at least, of offering a thorough housecleaning.

But then, sometimes even free elections can't do the job. Take the U.S. Congress, for instance.

Marianne
#4 Marianne Matthews on 2009-02-16 19:01 (Reply)
"Some pundit once made the point that any organization, religious or secular, which exists and operates for more than 200 years, will need a thorough internal housecleaning in order to remain orderly and relevant. And honest."

How utterly profound and right. The Gutenberg press probably did the world's largest housecleaning ever. Leave it to the modern era's political correctness to set us back a millenia. Just a little honest is all it takes...
`
#5 Meta on 2009-02-16 22:22 (Reply)
all we need to do is form an anti-corruption lobby, and offer bigger bribes than the pro-corruption lobby.
#5.1 buddy larsen on 2009-02-16 23:47 (Reply)
Barrett ... I think that it's a bad idea to import a terrorist group to control another terrorist group. I've got a better, simpler idea. We could deport all Muslims after revoking their citizenship. Tell them to go away and not come back.

Here's another question: why are Democrats so anxious not to hurt Muslim feelings that they put up with toxic Muslim ideas, and yet so willing to be rude and hostile to other American citizens who hold opposite political views from theirs?

Marianne
#6 Marianne Matthews on 2009-02-17 11:03 (Reply)
Why are Democrats rude and hostile to American citizens who hold opposing views while fawning over toxic Muslim ideas?

I think there are several reasons.

First, it is almost an absolute that most who oppose the Democrats will no behead them if given an opportunity.

Second, Democrats are stupid. They are so busy blaming American government policy for why the Islamists hate us, they do not take the time to understand Islam itself and its objective to subjugate the world to Islam. Being non-Muslim is enough to incur the wrath of Islam.

Third, the Democrats view themselves as intellectually superior and more tolerant even though both are demonstrably false.

I think I'll stop here.
#6.1 Barrett on 2009-02-17 11:24 (Reply)
Thank you, Barrett for your thoughtful reply.

Marianne
#7 Marianne Matthews on 2009-02-17 12:35 (Reply)
Regarding the "war on drugs," I mostly agree with Geoff, above, and vehemently disagree with Meta's take.

My view? Legalizing any or all of them, for any reason including tax/financial considerations, would be a huge mistake. Anyone had a peek at Amsterdam lately? No thanks.

Here's what will happen. This is from a previous druggie, me, in most of my youth. Drugs, then, were illegal, but at least expensive and somewhat hard to obtain. But since I had a makeup that compelled me to want to get wasted all the time, I found a way (and never resorted to crime, btw...) to get drugs as much as possible. But the laws still limited me by what was available, and what I could afford.

Make them all legal and relatively inexpensive, and we will have chaos. People like me who had a proclivity to just want to get high all the time, will have a much easier time doing so. And that, my friends, is a recipe for disaster. MORE people, more children especially, will use drugs, I have NO DOUBT. And that can never be a good thing. More intoxicated/wasted people walking about will never be good for society.

Long story short...in my opinion, ignore marijuana. Don't legalize it, don't say anything about a new policy or anything....just ignore it, and waste no money on enforcement and/or minor use busts. Its impact is hardly anything to get all excited about.

The rest of the harder drugs? We have no choice but to continue the "war." The consequences that I envision as mentioned above are too dire to do anything but fight them.

Thanks for reading.
#8 Big___Al on 2009-02-17 14:23 (Reply)
Big, I saw it Amsterdam, myself, what you're talking about. I could not look for long as it was so disgusting. So, take my comment with the grains of salt Luther discusses below. The sad thing is, young kids can get anything they want now. What good is a drug war if it's not working. This thing needs some really creative thinking to fix.
`
#8.1 Meta on 2009-02-17 20:21 (Reply)
Meta,

Sorry if I came off as harsh. I believe anyone who spends any time at all here on Maggie's has to be a cut above the general public, you included.

What I mainly disagreed with was that the druggies would eventually kill themselves off, and then we'd be better off.

Yes, we would, actually....but it wouldn't work that way. We'd just end up with more druggies in the long run. Just one man's opinion, of course. And I greatly appreciate you making the effort to respond to me. What a better world it would be if we could all talk like this!

And regarding Luther's comments, I don't have much to dispute there either! It is a difficult situation with no easy answers. The liberal "for the children" mantra does apply in this case. But I still disagree with legalization.

A bit of an analogy: (Probably a stupid one, but the first that came to mind, and should make my point.)

What if we abolished the driving age? In other words, let my 11 year-old son drive. How much law enforcement costs would we save, or in fact let's just eliminate the DMV too, and save all that bureaucracy, enforcement and expense. Good idea? Nah, didn't think so.

Enough of my ranting, for now anyway. I love you all here!
#8.1.1 Big___Al on 2009-02-18 14:55 (Reply)
Hey... Al. Oddly, I was thinking of this earlier today. To turn around your thought... what about a drivers license for drug use. Name, status, SSN number.

As I said... tough problem. But sorely needs different ideas on how to make it work better.

It's usually a pretty civil place here... the feeling of a huge unruly family most often comes to mind.
#8.1.1.1 Luther McLeod on 2009-02-18 20:25 (Reply)
Hey, Luther!

I like the "huge unruly family" concept. It works. (grin)

Tough problem, agreed. But I definitely don't want any more licenses, numbers, ID cards, etc...none of it! I'm sick of every one of these government means of control already.

I bet you, me and Meta, if we put our heads together (not to leave everyone else here out, just that we are replying to each other) could come up with something.

One of my pet proposals is that we buy Mexico, and then we have a puny southern border to defend! My wife is Mexican, btw, so no accusations of "predjudice" from anyone, please! haha
#8.1.1.1.1 Big___Al on 2009-02-18 21:02 (Reply)
Legalize the drugs and at least you will have more control of who can get hold of them. Right now dealers don't care who they sell to. The younger the entry market, the more they are likely to make over a longer time period. I know when I was in school it seemed it was easier to get hold of pot than beer or booze. Excluding, of course, what you could slip out of the house from the parents...the beer and booze, I mean, sheesh. And I wasn't particularly interested in pot, it just kind of magically appeared. If drugs are legal, law enforcement could focus more on those who sell to minors and would get more public support when doing so. What is the "legal" age in the Dutch world? If I recall correctly, it's like 16 or so? Perhaps it has changed?

Either way, the problem isn't the drugs, it's the do-nothing, too-much-time-on-their-hands, drifting state of young people. We keep them in school way too long and require too little of them while they are in school. Turn them loose and let them get a job and find out what it takes to support themselves. But I digress way too much...
#8.2 KRW on 2009-02-17 20:38 (Reply)
Not way too much at all. You speak of things that need to be spoken of.
#8.2.1 Luther McLeod on 2009-02-17 22:54 (Reply)
The 'war on drugs' is not a winnable war. As these folks from Latin America, including the Mexican President have just decided.

http://reason.com/news/show/131699.html

It has been going on for forty years, with no diminution of supply nor demand. I offer no solution. It is a complex problem. I do think though that it will be a combination of legalization, education and government control and taxing, of all but marijuana.

Heroin addicts can actually be productive members of society if allowed a regular and consistent supply. Methamphetamine and cocaine are likely drugs that would be resistant to its users being productive. LSD, mushrooms, peyote and such are, for most users, relativity benign and used for only a short few years during youthful exploration of a wider world.

But yes... for once the liberal cry is correct. What about the children? That is where education would be paramount. But look... children have been being educated about drug use since Nancy Reagan, and for most it works. But for a significant number it doesn't. And likely never will.

I guess what I'm trying to say... is that this 'war' appears to ne ruining more lives than the drug use it is trying to prevent.
#9 Luther McLeod on 2009-02-17 19:32 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.