Monday, October 17, 2011

I Wracked and I Ran

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I make exceptions for the Middle East and the Muslim world, which gave us this definition of byzantine:
byzantine (from thefreedictionary.com)
a. Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious; b. Highly complicated; intricate and involved



That could also apply to our government, but they are not as smart as the Middle Eastern schemers, and we are broke...
Great powers gradually being shunted off the world stage have increasing difficulties getting their way: Itsy-bitsy colonial policing operations in dusty ramshackle outposts drag on for years and putter out to no obvious conclusion.  (Mark Steyn)
We've blown more that half a trillion dollars in South Asia trying to spackle over a 7th century crack in the modern-day global time-space continuum, with nothing to show for it.  We've shed our blood for people who hate us.  Liberals are outraged; conservatives should be.

The last thing we need is one more bloody foray into the bazaar

The Islamic world spawns lies wrapped in conspiracies that are encased in enigmas. And when they want to drag the west into it, they wrap it in photos of doe-eyed starving children and tie it up with sympathetic bows of womens rights and ribbons of religious tolerance and human rights. A horror-filled package wrapped in shiny paper and dime store baubles to appeal to naive western sentiments.  And happily peddled by American warmongers who have never been to war.

Put more bluntly, Ahmad Chalabi suckered us into Iraq, and this latest "Iranian plot" is more of the same.  For what purpose, I don't know.  All I do know is the whole thing stinks, and right now we'd be foolish to believe anything coming out about this.

If Frank Gaffney and Bill Kristol and other chicken-hawk dime store heroes want to attack Iran over this, they can raise their own damned army and go do it themselves.

The Zeta angle is more troubling

We have a far more serious situation brewing to our south, and we keep it going by participating in the criminal gangs' fundraisers, buying all they can send us and snorting it up our noses.  We jail gang members, where they make important business connections and alliances, and then spring them so they can head south to spread the latest American criminal techniques across Central America.

Which border is more important?  The one between Afghanistan and Pakistan?  Or our own Mexican border.  Which region is more important?  South Asia, or North America?

See also:
Andrew Napolitano - Government-generated Plots
Punching Holes in the Iran Plot

49 comments:

conservativesonfire said...

Oh, my friend, you should be syndicated in every newspaper in the country. You really are that good. The military/industrial complex are the only winners in these conflicts and our sons and daughters and the American public are the losers. When will we learn?

Silverfiddle said...

CoF. Thank you!

I admit I'm late to the party. Ten years ago I would be right there demanding we bomb Iran.

Always On Watch said...

These repeated military actions are breaking out financial backbone.

All we have managed to convince Islamic countries of is that the will of Allah has the upper hand.

bunkerville said...

Let me put on my tin foil hat. I suggest that Obama is setting up shop in Africa to better clear out the Straits of Hormuth after we/Israel bomb Iran. He thinks he will be able to set up bases there, after he clears out the 300 LDR bad guys. Lots of luck with that one. Great one again SF. Yes, a super post!

Anonymous said...

Defining Terms and Cliches Frequently Bandied About That Others May Not Understand

1. A tin foil hat is a piece of headgear made from one or more sheets of aluminum foil ... One may wear the hat in the belief that it acts to shield the brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields, or against mind control and/or mind reading; or attempt to limit the transmission of voices directly into the brain.

The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists.

The concept was first mentioned in a science fiction story by Julian Huxley, "The Tissue-Culture King", first published in 1927, in which the protagonist discovers that "caps of metal foil" can be used to block the effects of telepathy

2. LDS = Mormons

Thank you, Wiki. Thank you, Google.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Nice illustration. The geometric qualities of Islamic art were very advanced. They come to be much more intricate than your example but that is an extremely pleasing work.

The rest of the article is silly.

Anonymous said...

PART ONE

To use another well worn cliche: It isn't paranoia, when they really are out to exploit and abuse you.

Isn’t it a "conspiracy theory" to posit the very existence of a "Military Industrial Complex?"

Since Eisenhower warned us against the phenomenon, the term has been used, but has it ever been properly defined?

Precisely who are the people involved in the Military Industrial Complex? Is this shadowy group of unelected individuals -- who wield so much power, and send thousands of our young citizens to be killed, maimed and made mentally ill, presumably just to aggrandize their power and increase their store of personal profit -- made up solely of American citizens, or do foreign interests have a hand in it as well?

Is there any element of patriotism or genuine concern for the well-being of victims of aggression such as Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Iran, Libya -- and Israel in the machinations of the MIC, or are their motives entirely cynical and self-serving?

How do figures like the members of Project for a New American Century fit into the MIC picture. Let’s name names. Many of them you’ll recognize, many you won’t.

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

PART TWO

http://www.reasoned.org/e_PNAC2.htm

People are identified as being connected to the PNAC because either they are listed on the organisation ís web site, or their names appear as authors/contributors on official PNAC documents. Information current to Dec. 2004.

Abramowitz, Morton

Abrams, Elliot

Allen, Richard V. Anderson, Mark A.

Armitage, Richard

Au, Andrew Y.

Bang-Jensen, Nina

Bao-Lord, Bette

Barnett, Roger

Bauer, Gary

Bennet, William J.

Bergner, Jeffrey

Bernstein, Alvin

Bernstein, Robert L.

Biddle, George

Bolton, John R.

Boot, Max

Bork, Ellen

Boschwitz, Rudy

Buckley, William F. Jr.

Bush, Jeb

Cambone, Stephen A.

Carlucci, Frank

Cheney, Dick

Clemons, Steven C.

Cohen, Eliot A.

Cropsey, Seth

DeConcini, Dennis Webster

Dale, Helle

Decter, Midge

Dobriansky, Paula

Donnelly, Thomas

Eberstadt, Nicholas

Edgar, Robert

Epstein, David

Etzioni, Amitai

Fautua, David

Feulner, Edwin J. Jr.

Forbes, Steve

Fradkin, Hillel

Friedberg, Aaron

Fukuyama, Francis

Gaffney, Frank

Gaffney-Cross, Devon

Gejdenson, Sam

Gerecht, Reuel Marc

Goldman, Merle

Goure, Daniel

Halperin, Morton H.

Hefferman, John

Hooper, James R.

Ikle, Fred C.

Jackson, Bruce

Joyce, Michael S.

Kagan, Donald

Kagan, Frederick

Kagan, Robert

Kampelman, Max M.

Karatnycky, Adrian

Kemble, Penn

Kennedy, Craig

Khalilzad, Zalmay

Killebrew, Robert B.

Kirkpatrick, Jeane Koh,

Harold Hongju

Kovler, Peter

Krauthammer, Charles

Kristol, William

Lagon, Mark P.

Lasswell, James

Lehrman, Lewis E.

Libby, I. Lewis

Lindberg, Tod

Mack, Connie III

Maletz, Christopher

Markey, Mary Beth

Martinage, Robert

McKivergan, Daniel

Meese, Edwin III

Meilinger, Phil

Muravchik, Joshua

Owens, Mackubin

Owens, Wayne

Peretz, Martin

Perle, Richard N.

Pletka, Danielle

Podhoretz, Norman

Porter, John Edward

Quayle, J. Danforth

Rodman, Peter W.

Rosen, Stephen P.

Rowen, Henry S.

Rumsfeld, Donald

Scheunemann, Randy

Schmitt, Gary

Schneider, William Jr.

Shaw, Sin-Ming

Shulsky, Abram N.

Shultz, Richard

Simon, Paul

Sokolski, Henry

Solarz, Stephen J.

Sonnenfeldt, Helmut

Sussman, Leonard

Sweeney, John J.

Taft, William Howard IV

Thornburgh, Dick

Tkacik, John

Turner, Ed

Vickers, Michael

Waldron, Arthur

Wallop, Malcolm

Watts, Barry D.

Webb, James

Weber, Vin

Weigel, George

Weinberger, Caspar W.

Weyrich, Paul M.

Williams, Christopher A.

Windsor, Jennifer L.

Wolfowitz, Paul

Woolsey, R. James

Wortzel, Larry -

Zakheim, Dov S.

Zoellick, Robert B.


You’ll find thumbnail sketches of each at the link posted above. If you bother to look, you will notice that The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Reagan Administration, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Weekly Standard, The National Review are heavily referenced but there’s not so much as a whisper about The Israel Lobby, which certainly was one of the Guiding Hands behind PNAC.

At any rate, there’s a great deal of "INTERNATIONALISM" behind all of this, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

The question we should be asking and doing our best to answer is this: Are these people and the organizations they represent devils or angels?

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

... silly, because you don't accept the U.S. as an active knowing agent in hatching these plots.

The FBI is not your friend.

ecc102 said...

"Which border is more important? The one between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or our own Mexican border. Which region is more important? South Asia, or North America?"
-------------------

Indeed. Nicely asked, silver.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky:

Put on your reading glasses and have another go...

A horror-filled package wrapped in shiny paper and dime store baubles to appeal to naive western sentiments. And happily peddled by American warmongers who have never been to war.

Z said...

What do we do when Iran does have the capability of nuking distances such as....US? (See Kenneth Timmerman on the subject...He's studied this for years and I saw him speak about six years ago and never heard a crowd of 300 leave a luncheon in such utter, fearful silence after what he said could happen).
It's a tough one. of COURSE our borders are the most important (a fact that probably feels like the 'silliest' part to Ducky, of course, our being important) but how do we protect ourselves from a huge growth in islamic terror networks after we've left them to their own devices and do we care about Europe enough to stand by her when she's attacked?
How about Israel?
I'd LOVE to get out of EVERYWHERE and just put all those boots on the ground on OUR GROUND and put some kind of SHIELD over our whole country for protection, but that can't happen...so now what?
Come home, actually DO something about the Southern borders, and pray hard against islamists with dirty bombs and nukes?

Z said...

had to come back and ask what you think about the fact that our guys in Afghanistan now are getting hit by Pakistanis and we can't hit back?
I believe we've emboldened the terrorists and countries like Pakistan by our leftwingers having been so demeaning to our attempts in the area. We're playing nice to Pakistan because we felt they'd help us with the Taliban, etc., and things are falling apart now...countries that used to fear us are telling US what to do and where to GO now....they don't fear anymore and fear is a good thing.
this is a big problem that has to be addressed. We're so divided here and the Left's acquiescence and appeasement has sent a very strong, dangerous message.There has been absolutely NOTHING gained by being the 'nice soldier whose leaders have the mentality of reading the MIrandas to terrorists', etc etc.....nothing.

Anonymous said...

Please don't miss this. It's EXTREMELY pertinent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BroW3Cwm4b4&feature=player_embedded

Sorry I've never learned how to post a "hot" link, but this short film clip from an interview with Michael Scheuer on Andrew Napolitano's show on FOX should STUN the bejesus out of you. He tells us WHO OWNS CONGRESS in plain English. COPY and PASTE into you browser and prepare to be stunned.

Scheuer has boldly gone where no one has dared to go before -- at least in public.

The gelded wrapping is beginning to peel off the poison package at last, but it's probably too late.

America may well wake up to see herself raped, robbed and bleeding amongst the ruins of her once great nationhood.

And irony of ironies, this has all been enthusiastically endorsed, aided and frantically abetted by those who vainly imagine themselves righteous and have the colossal effrontery to call themselves as CHRISTIANS!

God may work in mysterious ways, but so too does The Great Deceiver.

Our enemies may not be -- and may NEVER have been -- who we've been craftily manipulated into thinking they are. Remember The Serpent in the Garden of Eden is described as "subtle."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

From FDR's son-in-law::

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.
 

 - Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law, as quoted in his book, "My Exploited Father-in-Law"

Submitted by FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

I certainly agree with your post Silver, but I get the feeling you are suggesting escalating the drug war and perhaps even militarizing the border and I believe that would be a disaster.

We could bring the drug lords to their knees in four steps:

Legalize pot completely.

Decriminalize casual use of all drugs, but keep traffic, child and workplace safety laws regarding drugs in place. Ending for once and for all the sleazy user-narc system.

Dramatically reduce low-level dealing/trafficking sentences. Ending the need for violence at the lower levels and clearing our the prisons and jails of nonviolent offenders, which should effectively reduce networking.

Finally, and most importantly - create an effective and realistic worker visa program with Mexico and the rest of Latin America, finally ending the need for mass illegal immigration.

These four steps would lay the gangs and smugglers bare and alone, with far fewer contacts in the States and far less power. And, best of all, ALL these steps would be great for America and Latin America. It's a win, win, win for liberty and opportunity and peace.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Another piece of the puzzle:

This item was posted by Pris over at GeeeeZ, but it fits very well into the general picture -- as I see it.

" ...Former President of SEIU is Andy Stern who has been a regular visitor to the WH. Also, Stephen Lerner, a long time activist with SEIU who has also visited the WH.

Here's an excerpt from a biography on Lerner from Wikipedia:

In March 2011 Lerner told an audience at Pace University in Manhattan of his five-point plan to undermine the entire U.S. economy, a campaign to be led by the SEIU and other unions, with selected community groups serving as fronts.

At the meeting he explained the beginning moment for what would become the Occupy Wall Street movement: "So, a bunch of us around the country are thinking about who would be a really good company to hate? We decided that would be JPMorgan Chase..."

He currently serves on the International Executive Board of the 2.2 million member Service Employees International Union.

========

As you can see, during Lerner's talk, he referred to the Occupy Wall Street movement. That was in March.


---------------------------

What does this have to do with the Muddle East? Nothing -- directly -- but it's yet another piece of evidence that we are governed NOT by our duly elected representatives, but by Master Manipulators who grease palms, twist arms and otherwise exert pressure on legislators -- and probably judges too -- behind the scenes.

~ FreeThinke

PS: Have you listened to the Scheuer film clip yet? If so, surely SOME sort of comment is in order from SOMEONE somewhere? The silence is deafening. - FT

Anonymous said...

Since buying influence and bullying or blackmailing your way to power are established facts of life, maybe we should just relax, shrug our shoulders, say, "There's nothin' you can do. It's the way it is," and go with the flow?

Doesn't it always make sense to accept reality?

I suppose you could always do what the scoffers who sneer at the supposed wearers of "tin foil hats" do, and pretend reality just can't be isn't real because it isn't rational, couldn't you? But sooner or later reality will grab you and drag you down to Hades, if you refuse to deal with it.

What's that famous adage about the man who cowers behind a curtain or sits in his hands while witnessing the performance of an evil deed?

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Z: Your concerns are valid and can be answered quite simply. We apply the old cold war formula:

Tell Iran that if they launch on us or our allies, their country will be a smoking hole. Period.

The mullahs are not crazy, they just act that way as a bargaining chip.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: There will always be black markets dominated by the criminal element.

Decriminalizing something will not make them go away. They will simply fight over who dominates the lucrative, now legal, trade.

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

For once I agree with you. Now you're sounding like a libertarian.

Good show!

But you need to be aware too that our worst enemies may not be the maniacal, violence-prone Islamic jihadists in the Middle East. They might be better identified as those who are heavily invested in exacerbating Meddle East tensions so we continue to escalate the frenzied -- and highly profitable -- manufacture of war materiel while we act both as Shield and Cat's Paw for The Jewish State. You MUST look at this Scheuer-Andrew Napolitano video clip:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BroW3Cwm4b4&feature=player_embedded


Reality is so much more compelling -- and more deadly -- than the ginned up fantasy conflicts in which the Government Media Coalition would like us to stay invested.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Silver, you think Iran doesn't know that?

They ain't fools which is one more reason this made up hysteria is asinine.

Start decriminalizing drugs. Start with marijuana.

Z said...

SF: You say "Tell Iran that if they launch on us or our allies, their country will be a smoking hole. Period."

You don't seriously think this president or his congress would ever actually do that, do you?
Iran knows we're weak....they're counting on it.
Plus, if they 'launch on us' first, what do we do, lose the whole East coast and THEN get serious?

Leticia said...

Both borders are important and will remain volatile until we get a strong government that's not afraid to follow through with retaliation. In other words, we need a government and Commander in Chief that are not afraid to get a bloody nose, but fight and protect this nation at all costs.

America was once a powerful nation and people knew you didn't mess with us, but now that there is a spineless wonder if office, it's a free for all.

Time to get some muscle and brains back in the White House.

Silverfiddle said...

Z: Our nuclear command and control capability remains intact. We have the ability to detect a launch and respond before it hits anywhere.

The Iranians know this. The whole world does because we advertise it. It is a deterrent.

Z said...

We can knock them out before they arrive? Like Reagan's Star War's? Or MEADS? (which I happen to know a lot about) I thought we couldn't...that Star Wars wasn't developed?
I think MEADS might have been scrapped after billions were spent on the unbelievably necessary program. I hope I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

SIlver Fiddle,

I thought the main thrust of your article was how foolish it was for us to let ourselves get sucked into these military adventures overseas, because the only element to profit from these adventures has been the Military Industrial Complex, isn't that right?

So how come we're now talking about appearing even ''stronger'' than we already are militarily, and the advisability of our doing a lot of "saber rattling" to keep our enemies at bay?

Obviously no one looked at the Scheuer Video -- not that it should be considered "The Last Word," but it's amazing that any news organization -- even FOX -- would permit such provocative, highly controversial and accusatory comments to air.

My thesis is that we've been had both by the MIC and by certain foreign lobbies who've bought entirely too much influence with our congress in ways that work to the detriment of American citizens -- especially the young who get suckered into joining the military and risking their necks by the lure of such benefits as a free college eduction or a retirement pension after serving only 20 years, etc.

Odd, but I find myself agreeing both with Jersey and Ducky today. I have come to believe that our anger and anxiety may truly be misplaced.

The culprits once again are demonstrating their supreme mastery of conjuring tricks by getting us to focus our attention on "Goliath," when all the while it should have been "David" on whom we fixed a weather eye.

Could we survive the shame and embarrassment if it turned out that we've been fighting the wrong enemy after all -- possibly for many decades?

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Z: I don't think we have an intercept capability.

What I describe is based on the old Mutually Assured Destruction. If you launch against us, we'll launch against you.

FT: It's not about getting sucked in. It's about you leave us alone, we leave you alone. But if you launch a nuke at us or one of our allies, we will respond with overwhelming force.

Non-intervention is not brainless pacifism.

Ducky's here said...

Why would they launch a nuke?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: Why would they launch a nuke?

Precisely. That is my point. We don't need to go storming in there because the hair on fire "lets go attack everybody" crowd screams that they've got nukes.

They won't use them. They are an insurance policy against Israel attacking them.

Anonymous said...

"Non-intervention is not brainless pacifism."

Right, Ho! But Pacifism may not be as brainless as Aggressive Militarism -- especially when militarism is touted as a way to spread peace and democracy throughout the world. Sorry, but after seeing the results of 60-odd years of Military Intervention as a primary element of our foreign policy it's long past time to chart a different course.

I still like the idea of PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, but it would be better to wait until we're attacked before we invade sovereign nations in these disastrous attempts to get them to mend their ways.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

I still like the idea of PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, but it would be better to wait until we're attacked before we invade sovereign nations in these disastrous attempts to get them to mend their ways.


OK. Based on you and Ducky's comments, I guess I need to revert to caveman speak to get the point across that we're in agreement:

Invade. Bad. No Do.

No Do Nothing if They No Do.

Only launch nuke if they launch nuke.

Anonymous said...

I think we're saying the same thing, SF.

Naturally, I couldn't agree more.

I've been carrying on as I have today only to indicate that we (our country not you and I) may have been taking our advice from the wrong people.

I'm not a rabid fan of anyone, but I tend to like what Ron Paul has been saying better than I like what anyone else has been saying.

That doesn't mean I think we ought to disarm and leave ourselves vulnerable to attack, but it seems very likely We the People have been victims of a tremendously skillful long range propaganda campaign.

We don't seem to be in very good shape right now, so it's entirely possible we've been on the wrong track, and have been put there for the benefit of those who may not have our best interests at heart.

It stands to reason that we must know who our enemies really are if we could ever hope to win against them. I don't presume to know, but I am positive we need to question orthodox views and be suspicious of conventional wisdom.

~ FreeThinke

98ZJUSMC said...

The rest of the article is silly.

Such a surprise.....

98ZJUSMC said...

We could bring the drug lords to their knees in four steps:

Legalize pot completely.

Decriminalize casual use of all drugs, but keep traffic, child and workplace safety laws regarding drugs in place. Ending for once and for all the sleazy user-narc system.

Dramatically reduce low-level dealing/trafficking sentences. Ending the need for violence at the lower levels and clearing our the prisons and jails of nonviolent offenders, which should effectively reduce networking.

Finally, and most importantly - create an effective and realistic worker visa program with Mexico and the rest of Latin America, finally ending the need for mass illegal immigration.

These four steps would lay the gangs and smugglers bare and alone, with far fewer contacts in the States and far less power. And, best of all, ALL these steps would be great for America and Latin America. It's a win, win, win for liberty and opportunity and peace.

JMJ


Agree completely.

98ZJUSMC said...

Tell Iran that if they launch on us or our allies, their country will be a smoking hole. Period.


It should be no other way.

98ZJUSMC said...

Decriminalizing something will not make them go away. They will simply fight over who dominates the lucrative, now legal, trade.

When they no longer have a monopoly, the incentive for violence disappears. The lucrative nature will diminish. With drug cartels, money is power. Sensible legalization removes it.

98ZJUSMC said...

You don't seriously think this president or his congress would ever actually do that, do you?


No, not a pretend President. A real one.

Jersey McJones said...

Again,

Legalize pot.

Decriminalize casual drug use.

Take it easy on the low-level players.

Have a realistic immigration system.

Bango. We've made the drug problem a lot easier to manage.

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Great to be in agreement, 98ZJUSMC!

Thanks!

JMJ

MK said...

"Which border is more important? The one between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or our own Mexican border."

They hatched the plot to murder your fellow country men from one of those borders and actually did so. Each border is important, the southern border is no garden of eden, neither is the one over in the middle east.

To assume that iran is simply getting nuclear weapons as an insurance policy so Israel does not attack them is foolish. Israel has no plans to and to be frank, cannot actually invade and occupy an Iran.

Mutually assured destruction works only when both parties don't want to be destroyed. I'm not convinced the islamists care whether they'll get 1 or 10 nukes heading their way if they get to take out one of our cities.

Finntann said...

"Decriminalizing something will not make them go away. They will simply fight over who dominates the lucrative, now legal, trade."

Still buying bathtub gin from the mob are you?

Dang Jersey, we're in agreement again.

Oh, and we have a limited intercept capability through the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)system.

Interceptor sites are at Ft Greeley and Vandenberg AFB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

Z said...

I think some of us are forgetting that it's the Muslim extremists' wish to take down the Western world if they can't islamatize it; why would they nuke? REALLY? I think they'd sacrifice their own muslims in a retaliatory attack from us to make Allah happy.
Everything I've read on their extremism points to that, anyway. That's why we're most anxious about what they call "ROGUES" getting nukes. Crazy people; we sometimes act very naively in regards to some in the Middle East.

We just have to hope a threat of hitting back is a deterrent...I don't think so and neither does expert Ken Timmerman.

Anonymous said...

Dang it, Jersey! I'm in agreement with you too.

Oh well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. After all, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. ;-)

~ FreeThinke

PS: I'd like to know more abut what you think would a "reasonable" immigration policy?" We might be in agreement there too for all I know. I don't follow the usual Conservative Law and Order line on that at all, and refuse to vilify all Mexicans and other Latinos just because a significant minority of them are violent thugs, kidnappers and murderers. All the ones I know, personally, are very decent, very pleasant, very hard-working and making a real contribution to Middle-Class American life. - FT

Anonymous said...

Timmerman may be an "expert," Z but he's also a master propagandist with an agenda. If you stand back a little and start to look at the big picture, it's fairly obvious whose interests he is most eager to serve -- and they're not ours.

We should have learned by now -- all of us -- how unwise it has been to trust the neocons.

Ahmedinjad is like all small-time tinpot dictators. He speaks loudly and carries a little willow branch.

Yes Iran is a barbarian nation, but Iranians, themselves, have far more to fear from their government than we do in the West.

Iran is half frightened to death of Israel -- as well iran might be. After all which of the two has The Bomb? WE may know that in all probability Israel never intends to use The Bomb, but why should the Iranians, or the Syrians -- or any of the other Arab nations believe that, since the long history of all the Semitic tribes has been a chronicle of settling all disagreements by killing off the targeted enemy as brutally as possible. Don't forget Little David not only played on his harp he also BEHEADED Goliath.

READ YOUR BIBLE for Heaven's sake! The Old Testament is the history of one of the most brutal bloodthirsty tribes of barbarians that ever lived.

How do I know?

The BIBLE tells me so.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Finn, Jersey and Marine:

Ever heard of ticket scalping?

Illegal immigrant roofers?

Unlicensed barbers?

Black markets exist for legal goods and services.

Jersey's nostrums are naive and simplistic.

Finntann said...

SF you make a valid point, however, aside from isolated incidents have you ever heard of unlicensed barbers and roofers gunning and each other down in the streets?

In the presence of a legal market, black and grey markets may exist yet the legal market is a powerful mitigator, it reduces the profitability and seriously increases risk. From a simple cost-benefit perspective it devalues the illegal investment.

Scalping? Another example of goverment interfering in private transactions. The ticket seller is certainly within his rights to limit sales per person if they so desire. To make it illegal for a person who legitimately purchased tickets to resell them is absurd. What is government protecting? The constitutional right to attend sporting events and rock concerts at a low price?

Barbers might have made sense when they were psuedo-doctors bleeding their clientele with leeches. What is government protecting you from now? A bad hair cut or perm?

You are advocating government stepping in to protect us under the false belief we are unable or too stupid to protect ourselves.

As a libertarian I do not believe in victimless crimes. If you want to smoke crack, that's fine by be, with the caveat that society is not responsible to pay for the consequences of your actions.

You are solely responsible for your actions and the consequences thereof.

The argument that drug use increases crime, ergo we must criminalize drug use is a strawman. By the same reasoning I can argue that the capitalist system we all advocate increases crime. True drug users may turn to burglary and robbery to fund their habit, but think how much more efficient police departments would be if the funding and manpower expended on narcotics divisions were redistributed to burglaries and robberies.

By your logic automobiles cause speeding.

Pursue and prosecute the criminal behavior, not the motivation behind it.

You need look no further than prohibition to understand the rationale and mechanics behind Jersey's argument. It's supply and demand, the regulation creates the violence and profitability of the black market, not the substance sold.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

Here is an interesting article for you to review and some excerpts below:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Portugal decriminalized drug use in 2001, here are some statistics:

Since decriminalization, lifetime
prevalence rates (which measure how
many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in
Portugal have decreased for various age groups.

The number of newly reported cases of HIV and AIDS among drug addicts has declined substantially every year.

In absolute numbers, drug-related deaths from 2002 to 2006 for every prohibited substance have either declined significantly or remained constant compared with 2001.

While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained or measurably improved within Portugal since 2001.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

It is apparent that stringent criminalization policies do not produce lower drug usage rates. If anything, the opposite trend can be observed. The sky-high and increasing drug usage rates in the highly criminalized United States, juxtaposed with the relatively low and manageable rates in decriminalized Portugal, make a very strong case for that proposition.

Silverfiddle said...

I'm not defending the practice of overlicensing. I actually think scalping should not be illegal. If somebody wants to stand in line for me, I'll pay the premium.

I am simply pointing out that Jersey's thinking is simplistic, and given our government's track record, it is easy to imagine legalized drugs being so over-taxed and overregulated that a black marker would pop up.

Also, given Jersey's restrictions, meth and cocaine would still be illegal, leaving that lucrative market in place.

There are no simple answers!