Same old, same old
By Capt. Fogg
Seems "the most liberal Senator in all of American history" is even more of a hide-bound conservative than I imagined, if it's true that he intends to beef up the misbegotten War on Drugs rather than admit that the 73-year-old enterprise has succeeded in doing to drug use, to organized crime, and to public safety what the Volstead Act did when it made private alcohol sales and consumption a crime.
President Barack Obama's new drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske, told us just 8 months ago that the idiocy was over, that "we're not at war with people in this country," but action speaks louder than words.
The new budget for fiscal 2011's War on Drugs is increased over this year's, and the emphasis is still on "enforcement," which means more spitting on constitutional rights, more interference with private matters, more clogging up of courts, more disrupted families, more crime, more prisons training more harmless people to be criminals, and more ruining the lives of innocent people. In fact, it's more of George W. Bush and it's more of what has only made things worse and worse. Even so, that 15.5-billion-dollar budget vastly understates the cost to the nation as much as that of our former administration because it ignores the huge cost of incarceration and due process.
From "the War on Drugs is over" to:
took us only 8 months, and a return to doing what always fails, a return to pseudo-moralistic prohibitions, fraudulent medical data, and a continuation of being the biggest jailer in the world makes liars out of the idiots shouting "liberal" as much as it makes liars of our administration.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Seems "the most liberal Senator in all of American history" is even more of a hide-bound conservative than I imagined, if it's true that he intends to beef up the misbegotten War on Drugs rather than admit that the 73-year-old enterprise has succeeded in doing to drug use, to organized crime, and to public safety what the Volstead Act did when it made private alcohol sales and consumption a crime.
President Barack Obama's new drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske, told us just 8 months ago that the idiocy was over, that "we're not at war with people in this country," but action speaks louder than words.
The new budget for fiscal 2011's War on Drugs is increased over this year's, and the emphasis is still on "enforcement," which means more spitting on constitutional rights, more interference with private matters, more clogging up of courts, more disrupted families, more crime, more prisons training more harmless people to be criminals, and more ruining the lives of innocent people. In fact, it's more of George W. Bush and it's more of what has only made things worse and worse. Even so, that 15.5-billion-dollar budget vastly understates the cost to the nation as much as that of our former administration because it ignores the huge cost of incarceration and due process.
From "the War on Drugs is over" to:
In a time of tight budgets and fiscal restraint, these new investments are targeted at reducing Americans' drug use and the substantial costs associated with the health and social consequences of drug abuse,
took us only 8 months, and a return to doing what always fails, a return to pseudo-moralistic prohibitions, fraudulent medical data, and a continuation of being the biggest jailer in the world makes liars out of the idiots shouting "liberal" as much as it makes liars of our administration.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Labels: crime, Obama Administration, war on drugs
posted by Capt. Fogg at
1:48 PM
4 Comments:
Christ, if Obama is even REMOTELY conservative, what in GOD's name does that make you, Fogg?!
By
Anonymous, at 3:22 PM
Aren't you a smarty pants to be engaging in "comment moderation?" If you were in the government, we'd call it the Fairness Doctrine, a.k.a. censorship.
By
Anonymous, at 7:28 PM
A "smarty pants"? No, we just prefer to keep the personal slurs and insults off the blog, not to mention the racist and bigoted comments that come now and then. Is that censorship? No, it's adhering to basic standards of decency.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 8:52 PM
Why is fairness censorship? Perhaps it seems that way if you're a liar, but I wouldn't know.
If you think giving the other side a chance to respond; giving the accused a chance to present his side or allowing someone with the facts to speak is censorship than you probably are just that - a liar.
If you want a place to snigger and snort about racial epithets and call me ugly names, but insist on doing it behind a screen, you're a cowardly liar and there's no place here for you -- and as you've noticed you get no support, no takers, no sympathy, do you?
By
Capt. Fogg, at 10:47 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home