Libertarians and Drugs

I heard a conversation recently between two self-professed libertarians who were discussing drugs and society. Both believed that all drugs should be legal to undercut the brutal trade that allows gangs to run poor neighborhoods like an empire. Through ruthless gun battles over territory and commerce, these urban soldiers bring violence, death and mayhem to cities and suburban areas due to the illegality of drugs. The thinking among libertarians (not all of them) goes something like this: by treating drugs like any other product or service the trafficking becomes legal and puts gang members used to operating in the black market out of business. Questions remain though as to why they would be out of business rather than just making a cheaper illegal drug? I have strong objections to legalizing something that causes so much misery and destruction in lives and puts a strain on communities around the country through the cost of drug rehab programs, shelters for homeless addicts and wastes overall human potential. I used to think I was a libertarian; I would call myself that if you asked me but when the drug question is brought up I object. There is a real lack of concern for human lives at the core of some libertarian ideas, it pains me to say. Liberty is fundamental for citizens in free societies but many bad actors use 'liberty' as a licence to spread addiction and dependence. I haven't found a good argument for allowing a drug culture to take root where none currently exists. Over the next couple of weeks I'll post counterpoints (from my view) to some of the main theories that support legalizing drugs in America.

Dan Rather and 'truthiness'

‘Truth’ the new movie about the events that led to the firing of 3 CBS news producers was responsible for Dan Rather suing Leslie Moonves and co. The best line about the film is from CBS; “It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth”. To rehash just a bit, Dan Rather left CBS news shortly after the 60 Minutes report ran showing a supposed letter from President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard as less-than-stellar. The letter was revealed as a fake and the producer, Mary Mapes, was promptly fired.  Reading through the piece intently, I kept waiting for the sentence, or paragraph, or smoking gun statement from anyone connected to original report the Mapes’ crew from CBS ran in 2004 that would convince us they got screwed. In other words, tell us how the network mistreated you by ignoring a legitimate story based on sound research and reliable sources, that isn't too difficult is it? Here is a line from Dan Rather:

 "We reported a true story," he says. "There wasn't any doubt then, and there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind now, the story was true." link

But if the story can't be corroborated by a legitimate source it essentially didn't happen. The source he had, The Hollywood Reporter points this out, lied about where he got the documents. This is something most journalists, especially a seasoned reporter, should understand how to shore up before going to broadcast with. The pressure of getting the big scoop and exposing some covered lie turning around the election is huge for newscasters and their crews. Think of the high esteem Woodward and Bernstein are held in. Rather is bitter for two reasons. CBS didn't back him up sufficiently after the tsunami of criticism over the amateur nature of the report. For someone who reported from conflict zones since the early seventies and won a Peabody award, the on-air ego crushing apology was too much. Secondly, ending the way it did with Rather suing CBS over the matter ensured that his credibility would be forever tarnished. Ironically the lawsuit was an attempt, in my opinion, to salvage some of that shine that had dulled on the anchorman's stellar legacy. If he could show some culpability on the part of the network or show some hidden effort full of political motives for the spiking of his story, he could regain standing.  It is sad how seemingly little regard for the facts this new film has though. I haven't seen it yet so I'll hold back criticism until then. The comments by some of the actors suggest it will be sloppier than the actual story it's trying to tell. Robert Redford, who plays Dan, tells the Hollywood Reporter the story is worth "going after" because the Bush administration "...tried to discredit the journalist."1 Rather and Mapes forced the hand of the network by doing shoddy work and thereby discredited themselves.  

Part of me is sympathetic to the claim the CBS is too cozy with the president and that their access depends on it. Sheryl Atkinson certainly knows what it is like to work for months and a story and have it killed over objections from ‘higher authorities’. She also quit working for CBS stating similar complaints. Dan Rather was a professional and a highly respected anchor who did great work while he was with CBS and nothing should affect it. My favorite memory of Dan Rather /was the humanity he showed on the Late Show with David Letterman shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He broke down crying on multiple occasions when retelling how residents in the World Trade towers leaped to their death rather than burn alive. It was the first time for me that I realized journalists are often deeply moved by events and stories they expose. He showed me that for all the death and suffering he had reported on, 9/11 was personal because it happened on our soil. Dan Rather is mostly guilty of being asleep at the wheel while reporting on the Texas National Guard Story. Someone with so much experience should have known better.    

The Free Speech Burden

What is it about the draw Mohammed contests that makes me cheer just a little bit? I am the type of person who turns down his radio when pulling up to a red light so as not to offend someone across from me with my loud music from my car. I drive with the windows down so to be polite I silence the music. It’s become a habit. I’m also careful not to let my grass get too long thereby upsetting my neighbors and making them think they live next to a bum who drives down the value of everyone within view of his unkept property. I tend to think and act like a good citizen to hopefully get back a full measure of respect from others around me. At the risk of sounding a bit prudish and stiff (too late) I hate when my behavior or lack of concern affects others around me. In short, I hate giving offence. It is un-Christian to look for reasons to upset those around you.

 Earlier this year a magazine in Paris Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Islamic radicals offended by the publication’s artwork (example) that featured the prophet Mohammed. Similar in style and tone to Mad Magazine here in the U.S, it skewers popular comedians, politicians, televangelists, athletes, movie stars and religious figures both modern and historic. It isn’t my style. It’s very offensive and tasteless and has heaped scorn on many Christian figures with perverse drawings and sketches. When the artists were murdered I was outraged. I was more outraged in the weeks that followed when most popular newspapers and magazines refused to re-print the cartoons that so offended the murderous cowards who rampaged the offices of Charlie Hebdo. As Western nations dedicated to free press, free speech and free religious expression, newspaper rolls should have run out of ink from printing the offensive cartoons and selling copy after copy. Television newscasts should headlined with comic strips of Mohammed that the French satirical paper had drawn in the past. The response was pretty tame as I recall. CNN pixelated the images but still managed to put the cartoon on a graphic over the anchor’s left shoulder, other newscasts didn’t even show the worrisome cover, just explained the reaction of the terrorists to it.

This is old news now and I realize I’m covering territory that has been covered. I didn’t understand what this new reality of cowering in fear from Islamic radicals has meant for free expression in Europe and the United States until I watched a live speech by Mark Steyn (here) in Copenhagen. His point was that radical thugs get away with killing and scare mongering when only a handful of outfits reprint the cartoons and make themselves a target. Fewer targets equal fewer options for Muslim fanatics to direct their ire. When the Green Bay Packers come to Chicago to play the Bears they bring a lot of fans. When Chicago fans get upset by inevitable beating that the Pack will put on their team, it’s easy to punch the one cheering fan with the cheese wedge hat and the Aaron Rodgers jersey. It is less hard when the cheese hat guy has five or six of his friends along. The media should do likewise and show those fundamentalist clowns that when a Muslim terrorist kills one of their own a whole lot of sketch drawings of their precious Mohammed are about the hit the papers. The news media needs to share the burden and it won’t feel so much like a burden. Besides, this act of support isn’t just a heartwarming tribute to the memory of lost colleagues. It is the best statement of principles regarding the true nature of freedom in a democratic society. It says in very specific terms ‘you do not get to tell us what to print, what to say, what to do’. The result of not doing so throws the weight of holding up freedom of the press to individuals like Pamela Geller (http://pamelageller.com) who is a wonderful champion of free speech but also a pariah. This is the unfortunate point of playing the censorship game; the Pam Gellars of the world become pariahs and get threatened constantly given such a scare team. She is the opposing fan in the bleachers wearing Packers gear at Soldier field whose friends are half-way to Milwaukee after examining the mood of the crowd. It won’t be long before self-censorship becomes business as usual for the press. Writers and editors who call themselves the fourth estate and keep authority figures in check through scathing articles and illustrations, will decide it isn’t worth the trouble. When that happens, other freedoms will start to dry up as they become increasingly offensive and security concerns override freedom.

I support the ‘draw Mohammed’ contests as a statement of principles on liberty, not because I like to offend.      

Pope Rope-A-Dope

Caught this wonderful summation of the Pope and what seems to be his modus operandi on the BIG problems facing the world. 

"There is something shallow and decadent about a pontiff who prioritizes "climate change" even as every last Christian is driven from the Archeparchy of Mosul. What will they say of such a pope? That he fiddled with the thermostat while Rome burned?" --Mark Steyn 

here

Great Writing

http://thepointmag.com/2015/criticism/the-magic-of-untidiness

I read this article because it has to do with a new book out explaining how eliminating stuff or 'decluttering' can make a person happier. Fittingly titled The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, it examines how messes around home can add to stress and anxiety in everyday life. I haven't read the book although it sounds a bit self-help-y with, most likely, a fair amount of psychobabble tossed in for good measure. The reviewer impressed me though; I've always felt that a good writer of fiction could force the reader to use all five senses to experience a time or place. Laurel Berger does this when explaining his (A man I guess?) fascination with old copies of books the way they look, feel, smell and taste. He gives a description of the dust blowing into his face when opening an old discolored copy that belonged to a professor, a collector of books. The richness of the prose forces the reader to continue in hopes of  discovering the mystery of the old book and what happened to the owner. A long-form piece is sometimes a slog for readers but a gifted writer can smooth out the rough patches and keep the surprise alive until the end. Great writing keeps the reader interested, no matter the subject and no matter the text. Berger is great. And to think I wasn't even interested in this new tidying up book.

Are Businesses Getting Lazy?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/travel-economy-david-kong

I just browsed through a position paper from the travel industry on how the government could do more to promote travel across the continental US by fixing decrepit roads and bridges and shortening the process for visa applications. Like most industries the nuts and bolts of the engine driving growth are gummed up by the unattractive aspects of doing business. New money abroad looks for new opportunities everywhere and what makes the United States a good investment are the things that always have. The legal system respects property rights and rule of law while barriers to entry in most markets remain low. For example, an individual that self employs by retrofitting HVAC units or putting roofs on new and old homes could find work easily. Finding this type of work in a slow growth economy is increasingly important for extra income to many families. Large corporations are subject to different pressures and hassles than small startups. The complaints from most industries usually go something like this: the rules on compliance are a nightmare and change frequently, the pay and benefits for employees are cutting into any profit (hello $15 an hour wages),  and the cost of doing business keeps rising. That's why the solution from the travel exec (David Kong), to call for a Secretary of Travel, is a little odd and disheartening given the problems affecting the economy at large. He lays out a wonderful case for reducing barriers to entry and increasing the level of investment from overseas, and in the same breath asks for a federal solution.

When large industries ask for federal subsidies we roll our eyes like a dad who has heard all the excuses for why the last 'investment' was squandered. At some level we understand that massive industries don't move on major projects until the landscape (legal implications, environmental non-sense, up front investment) is understood. The downside of running afoul of some federal authority is years in legal fees, poor publicity and the very likely prospect of circling the drain Lehman Brothers style. Industries are now in the rent-seeking game and it's precisely due to a lack of guts. Here in Oklahoma T. Boone Pickens (oil baron) tried this technique with his Pickens Plan idea for electric cars and ethanol, in part to reduce reliance of foreign oil. This isn't as big a deal anymore since the price of oil has plunged quicker than the mercury on a January night. I am loathe to say anything negative about Pickens (he is a genuine philanthropist) but the plan wasn't sound because it required a large chunk of federal money before he would move on it. This is unfortunately the way many companies seek investments now; find a friendly in Washington and hope for a license to operate. The jump from bailouts like General Motors received in 2009, to 'rent-seeking' like some agricultural giants want is becoming too common. The solution to attracting more investment from abroad is mostly what the travel industry seems to want, less hassle with visa applications and better infrastructure. I would add to it some type of tax holiday on businesses that have left the country because of unpaid dues. Get them back and tell them to hire people.The United States doesn't need another czar, or secretary, or advocate or any person trying to slice off a corner of the shrinking budgetary pie. Simpler and freer please, or watch American business get lazier.

Don't cry for me Rouhani

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/israeli-terrorists-born-in-the-usa.html?_r=1


  Using the timing of the Iran deal (also known as the worst deal of the century) the New York Times reminds all of us in the U.S that Israel also has terrorists and 'Oh by the way, it's America's fault!'. Something in the heavily fluoridated water perhaps that encourages ethnic Jews from America to move to settlements (those pesky controversial ones) in Israel and declare war on Palestinians. It shouldn't surprise many people to learn that Israel's second largest contingent of immigrants is from America most years going back to its founding in 1948. That a handful of terrorists were born in New York or San Francisco shouldn't be shocking. What is ridiculous about the article is the elevation of a minor issue, even within the Israeli communities, to top news of the day status. By lifting sanctions on the Iranian regime and turning away from a traditional democratic ally in Israel, the Obama administration is trying to justify the radical departure from sound policy by commissioning (essentially) articles critical of Israel. Where not directly encouraging criticism of the Jewish state, acolytes of the administration are elevating the status of Tehran by taking Jerusalem down a peg. This would be like if television analysts talked about the Toledo Mud Hens ( AAA baseball team) during the game 7 broadcast of the World Series. It is dishonest to examine both Israel and Iran under the same rubric given their dramatically different histories, ethnic groups, culture, contributions to the world, and forms of government. 

The author of the piece (Hirschhorn) criticizes the settlers for seemingly explaining away terrorism among Jews. "Settler rabbis and the leaders of American immigrant communities in the West Bank have either played down their crime or offered muted criticism." The incident in question is a fire in a town called Duma that claimed the life of a Palestinian toddler and has been blamed on settlers; no reason is given for why the fire might have been started. Hirschhorn even has to go back two decades to find a comparable example of American-born Jews committing terrorism. Criticism from Rabbis and others might be muted and 'played down' but so far no parades have been planned in the streets of Jerusalem celebrating their brave heroics the way Hamas does in Gaza or Hezbollah does in Beirut. Tehran actively promotes terrorism around the world while Israel builds housing close to disputed territories, which one do you prefer.  Condemnations could be stronger perhaps, but articles like this are meant more as a way of taking some of the shine off America's good buddy in the Middle East instead of honest storytelling and relevant information gathering.