The war on drugs has been lost. It's time to declare defeat and move on. One upon a time opium, heroin, cocaine, marijuana etc. were freely available. Their purchase and consumption was not illegal. When they were made illegal we started on a path away from a drug misuse problem to the crime problem we have today. Demand will create supply and it seems that the worldwide demand for illegal drugs is limitless. Additionally the demand for misused prescription drugs is rapidly outpacing the demand for illegal drugs. This could be described as a drug problem. What should not be described as a drug problem but more correctly described as a crime problem is the lawlessness, corruption, murder and mayhem associated with the production, importation, distribution and sale of illegal drugs. The volume of money changing hands is staggering. Worse, that money is used to corrupt law enforcement, judiciary and politicians high and low. Our society is corrupted to its core by the money flowing from the trade in illegal drugs and we must stop this rot before we too become a narco-economy.
If we legalize we shall not eliminate the drug problem. We will eliminate the crime problem and the societal corruption that flows from it. Legal production, distribution and sale will guarantee purity, offer a tax target, and decriminalize drug taking behavior. Decriminalization will allow drug abusers to seek treatment without fear.
Most importantly, we lost the War On Drugs a long time since. We cannot win, we can only pour money down a rat hole with no prospect of an end.
Just Do It!
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
Benghazi et al
On September 11th 2012 an American diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked and set on fire. Two Americans were killed including the American ambassador to Libya. Some hours later a CIA annex was also attacked killing two of the security team. Ten were injured in these attacks.
The Obama administration sent their spokespeople out to make the claim that these attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims. The creator of this video was subsequently arrested and sentenced to one year in prison for matters relating to the video.
The story promulgated by the Obama administration that placed the cause of the attacks on a video has been proven to be mistaken at best, a deliberate lie at worst. What is more intriguing is who decided to promulgate this cover story and what purpose were they seeking to achieve by it. After all, American diplomats were killed, American embassy personnel were killed, and Americans in the foreign service of their country were injured to a greater or lesser degree. The questions arise; who's butt was being covered, who came up with the cover story, who decided to promulgate it, and why did our press sup up and repeat this lie when it was obvious at the time that it was a lie? Another question occurs; where was President Obama when all this was going down? Given the opportunity to ask this question, I would also like to know where the president was on the night that Bin Laden was killed before he arrived late into the situation room wearing his golfing attire?
The GOP will try to hold Benghazi hearings while the DEMS will try to derail them. None of these dog and pony show theatrics will bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi killings. Nor will they determine who it was who set out to deceive the American people about the causation of the attack. It will however fill our airwaves with more breathless reportage. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses.
The Obama administration sent their spokespeople out to make the claim that these attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims. The creator of this video was subsequently arrested and sentenced to one year in prison for matters relating to the video.
The story promulgated by the Obama administration that placed the cause of the attacks on a video has been proven to be mistaken at best, a deliberate lie at worst. What is more intriguing is who decided to promulgate this cover story and what purpose were they seeking to achieve by it. After all, American diplomats were killed, American embassy personnel were killed, and Americans in the foreign service of their country were injured to a greater or lesser degree. The questions arise; who's butt was being covered, who came up with the cover story, who decided to promulgate it, and why did our press sup up and repeat this lie when it was obvious at the time that it was a lie? Another question occurs; where was President Obama when all this was going down? Given the opportunity to ask this question, I would also like to know where the president was on the night that Bin Laden was killed before he arrived late into the situation room wearing his golfing attire?
The GOP will try to hold Benghazi hearings while the DEMS will try to derail them. None of these dog and pony show theatrics will bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi killings. Nor will they determine who it was who set out to deceive the American people about the causation of the attack. It will however fill our airwaves with more breathless reportage. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Lunch at the White House, Dinner at Buck House?
It seems that the Northern Ireland peace is under threat because of the arrest of Gerry Adams on suspicion of the 1972 murder and burial of a mother of 10 by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PROVO). During The Troubles as they are euphemistically called, Irish terrorists killed over 3000 people. Americans will recall that less than that number were killed in the Twin Towers. I'm awaiting the outcry in the USA about the Adams arrest but I do note that while Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness we treated to lunch at the White House by the Clinton administration, I don't recall Osama Bin Laden being dined at Buck House by the Queen.
Adams is being investigated, may be indicted and may subsequently be tried for murder. Osama got assassinated in a foreign country by US special forces. Before my fellow Americans get all bent out of shape, I would also like to note that the 3000+ murders associated with The Troubles were bought and paid for by US citizens, many of them prominent, and that they have never been held to account. I would also ask them to contemplate what they might think if the UK had sent the SAS or an armed drone to the USA to assassinate Adams or McGuinness absent due process, before, after or during their luncheon.
No wonder the rest of the world hates American arrogance in these matters.
Adams is being investigated, may be indicted and may subsequently be tried for murder. Osama got assassinated in a foreign country by US special forces. Before my fellow Americans get all bent out of shape, I would also like to note that the 3000+ murders associated with The Troubles were bought and paid for by US citizens, many of them prominent, and that they have never been held to account. I would also ask them to contemplate what they might think if the UK had sent the SAS or an armed drone to the USA to assassinate Adams or McGuinness absent due process, before, after or during their luncheon.
No wonder the rest of the world hates American arrogance in these matters.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Scottish Independence -- Such A Parcel of Rogues in a Nation
When I first heard the words to Parcel of Rogues as a younger man I assumed that the final couplet (We are bought and sold for English gold, Such a parcel of rogues in a nation) referred to the English. Now I'm not so sure. Having read and listened to the discourse surrounding the referendum on Scottish independence I'm seeing another interpretation of Robert Burn's famous words.
The Tory party north and south of the Scottish border should be disqualified from comment since they claim to support a united (federated) Europe. As such, an independent Scotland as a constituent nation of the EEC should to them be a distinction without a difference to the status quo -- always assuming they have some principles -- oops!
Royalists as represented by this group of Rangers supporters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A prove that while the rock may have gone from Punk Rock, the rest remains. The British Labor party derives it's majority in parliament, when it has one, from the Scottish vote. Not surprising that they want a NO vote. Had they any principles I would observe that they are all for the independence of other groups and nations, but as I noted, they have none. The Liberal Democrats are irrelevant -- as always -- and we are left with the Scottish Nationalists led currently by Alex Salmon. As a small fish seeking a smaller pool to look big in I would not have too many objections to Alex's ambitions, but his loony left, national socialist stance on many policy issues makes him dangerous at a minimum, downright crazy dangerous at the extreme.
Now to the Scottish people. Scotland is now a very socialist country with a socialist population and socialist politicians. While we might imagine Tories being bought with lucrative business deals, Scottish politicians from town and country government all the way up are purchased with a good steak dinner and a bottle of malt -- small beans indeed. The population is easily bought with government hand-outs from agriculture to welfare, and every other letter of the alphabet in between. Any perceived threat to their dole as a consequence of a YES vote will result in an overwhelming NO. In America terms from our last presidential election, we are talking of the 47%, except in Scotland's case I expect it is over 67%.
And now we can return to Burn's poem. We are indeed bought and sold for English gold in the form of government dole, but it is the Scottish people who would vote their wallet rather than their heart, and their politicians, who are the modern parcel of rogues for I would rather starve in freedom than be beholden to any; particularly the English.
Alex Salmon does scare me 'though.
The Tory party north and south of the Scottish border should be disqualified from comment since they claim to support a united (federated) Europe. As such, an independent Scotland as a constituent nation of the EEC should to them be a distinction without a difference to the status quo -- always assuming they have some principles -- oops!
Royalists as represented by this group of Rangers supporters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A prove that while the rock may have gone from Punk Rock, the rest remains. The British Labor party derives it's majority in parliament, when it has one, from the Scottish vote. Not surprising that they want a NO vote. Had they any principles I would observe that they are all for the independence of other groups and nations, but as I noted, they have none. The Liberal Democrats are irrelevant -- as always -- and we are left with the Scottish Nationalists led currently by Alex Salmon. As a small fish seeking a smaller pool to look big in I would not have too many objections to Alex's ambitions, but his loony left, national socialist stance on many policy issues makes him dangerous at a minimum, downright crazy dangerous at the extreme.
Now to the Scottish people. Scotland is now a very socialist country with a socialist population and socialist politicians. While we might imagine Tories being bought with lucrative business deals, Scottish politicians from town and country government all the way up are purchased with a good steak dinner and a bottle of malt -- small beans indeed. The population is easily bought with government hand-outs from agriculture to welfare, and every other letter of the alphabet in between. Any perceived threat to their dole as a consequence of a YES vote will result in an overwhelming NO. In America terms from our last presidential election, we are talking of the 47%, except in Scotland's case I expect it is over 67%.
And now we can return to Burn's poem. We are indeed bought and sold for English gold in the form of government dole, but it is the Scottish people who would vote their wallet rather than their heart, and their politicians, who are the modern parcel of rogues for I would rather starve in freedom than be beholden to any; particularly the English.
Alex Salmon does scare me 'though.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Wars Just and Unjust and those who fight them
I know a little about the young men and women we send to fight our wars, just, unjust, and those classified as police actions. More specifically, I know a number of the war fighters we sent Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few from WWII and Korea. All served their nation and paid a price for so doing.
Those who serve are in no position to pick their war; they get picked for them. Whether large or small, just or unjust, the war in which they serve is their biggest one, even if some call it merely a police action. All who serve deserve our respect and thanks whether we support or oppose their war. If we have issues they need to be directed at the political aristocrats who picked the war and sent our troops to fight it. Our disgust and opposition should never be directed at the youngsters that were shipped abroad to expand their knowledge of geography in some other country.
I did not live in the USA during the Vietnam war; or was it a police action, I don't quite recall. I viewed it on television from another country and invested little of myself in supporting or opposing its purpose. I was however struck by the bile poured on the troops when they returned home after their service, as if a twenty something could in any way influence government policy. I was also struck by the volume of fervor heaped on troops returning from Iraq -- were the Iraq wars more just and the troops more deserving of a nation's praise?
My father volunteered for the army in September 1939. He was dispatched to France in early 1940 with a SMLE and 100 rounds of .303 to stop Hitler's conquest of Europe. A Seaforth, part of the 51st Highland Division, he first took up position near the Maginot Line. The German attack through Sedan was north of the 51st. They were redeployed a number of times finishing up on the west bank of the Seine estuary at St Valery sur Seine after the fall of Dunkirk and the evacuation of the BEF. Being the only UK division left in contact with the enemy in France, the 51st became a significant pawn in a larger political game. As the German army turned its attention away from their victory in the Low Countries and back to the battle for France, the 51st fought a rearguard action along the Channel coast, falling back toward their base of supply at the port of Le Havre. Meantime Churchill was reluctant to evacuate the 51st lest it resulted in a general collapse in France and a bilateral peace negotiation. As luck, and the fortunes of war, would have it the 51st were cut off from Le Havre by Rommel. Devoid of resupply and without ammunition, medical supplies, fuel or food, the 51st held fast at St Valery en Caux until capitulation became inevitable. In consequence my old bad spent the next five years as a POW, mostly in Poland at a city called Thorn by the Germans and Torun by the Poles. My purpose in telling you this is to observe that wen he came home it was not to a hero's welcome, nor was it to chants of "baby killer" and spittle. Hardly a ripple occurred. He was issued with back pay for his five years as a private soldier held by the Germans, given a rail pass home and 21 days leave before he was due to report back to the army. His advice to my brother and me deriving from his experience was to be very, very careful when being asked to pick up a rifle and participate in a war not of your choosing.
As our troops come home from Afghanistan and elsewhere many more of them than previously will have survived their wounds. The hale and hearty and the wounded will face a difficult road ahead to re-assimilate into a society that can never truly understand their experience and sacrifice. Whether we agree or disagree with the war they fought, we should each and every one of us, support them as best we can and thank them for their service. We should also be mindful of our duty as citizens to strive to keep our governments honest, especially when our government is deciding to go to war, or should it be called a police action.
Those who serve are in no position to pick their war; they get picked for them. Whether large or small, just or unjust, the war in which they serve is their biggest one, even if some call it merely a police action. All who serve deserve our respect and thanks whether we support or oppose their war. If we have issues they need to be directed at the political aristocrats who picked the war and sent our troops to fight it. Our disgust and opposition should never be directed at the youngsters that were shipped abroad to expand their knowledge of geography in some other country.
I did not live in the USA during the Vietnam war; or was it a police action, I don't quite recall. I viewed it on television from another country and invested little of myself in supporting or opposing its purpose. I was however struck by the bile poured on the troops when they returned home after their service, as if a twenty something could in any way influence government policy. I was also struck by the volume of fervor heaped on troops returning from Iraq -- were the Iraq wars more just and the troops more deserving of a nation's praise?
My father volunteered for the army in September 1939. He was dispatched to France in early 1940 with a SMLE and 100 rounds of .303 to stop Hitler's conquest of Europe. A Seaforth, part of the 51st Highland Division, he first took up position near the Maginot Line. The German attack through Sedan was north of the 51st. They were redeployed a number of times finishing up on the west bank of the Seine estuary at St Valery sur Seine after the fall of Dunkirk and the evacuation of the BEF. Being the only UK division left in contact with the enemy in France, the 51st became a significant pawn in a larger political game. As the German army turned its attention away from their victory in the Low Countries and back to the battle for France, the 51st fought a rearguard action along the Channel coast, falling back toward their base of supply at the port of Le Havre. Meantime Churchill was reluctant to evacuate the 51st lest it resulted in a general collapse in France and a bilateral peace negotiation. As luck, and the fortunes of war, would have it the 51st were cut off from Le Havre by Rommel. Devoid of resupply and without ammunition, medical supplies, fuel or food, the 51st held fast at St Valery en Caux until capitulation became inevitable. In consequence my old bad spent the next five years as a POW, mostly in Poland at a city called Thorn by the Germans and Torun by the Poles. My purpose in telling you this is to observe that wen he came home it was not to a hero's welcome, nor was it to chants of "baby killer" and spittle. Hardly a ripple occurred. He was issued with back pay for his five years as a private soldier held by the Germans, given a rail pass home and 21 days leave before he was due to report back to the army. His advice to my brother and me deriving from his experience was to be very, very careful when being asked to pick up a rifle and participate in a war not of your choosing.
As our troops come home from Afghanistan and elsewhere many more of them than previously will have survived their wounds. The hale and hearty and the wounded will face a difficult road ahead to re-assimilate into a society that can never truly understand their experience and sacrifice. Whether we agree or disagree with the war they fought, we should each and every one of us, support them as best we can and thank them for their service. We should also be mindful of our duty as citizens to strive to keep our governments honest, especially when our government is deciding to go to war, or should it be called a police action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)