Civil Rights Progress.

[Diogenes]

I am getting d@mn tired of arguing with f*cking idiots such as yourself. It appears that you have no knowledge or experience worth imparting to others. Why don't you learn something worth knowing or otherwise STFU!

I have already learned something worth learning...your an insane authoritarian nutbag.

You didn't learn that. You decided that, and from the very beginning and without even understanding the points being discussed.

The fact that you have written such a thing is evidence that you simply didn't comprehend what I wrote earlier. I proved you absolutely wrong, and rather than weigh the evidence and admit you were wrong, or even offer a counter argument, your response is to allege that i'm insane.

Whatever. Here you are among people of generally more than average knowledge and intelligence. If you can't up your game to participate in real discussions, you ought to quit posing.

Of course we could always wait for the tea-party folks to save us:

If we are to be saved at all, it will be these folk who manage to accomplish it. That, and the new domestic oil and gas discoveries.

I have quite a good understanding regarding the wants and desires of the Tea-Party folk, and the topic of SS or Medicaid has not been broached in any discussion I have ever been a party too. The topic just doesn't come up.

Or maybe not, which takes me back to plan "B":

Hopefully your right MSimon but personally I think will just have to wait for them to die off:

The war on drugs is 98% successful, but it has never been permitted to achieve the other 2%. People just won't stomach what it would take to actually eliminate drug abuse.

Let me go on record as saying I believe it is our Duty to prop up murderous Psychopaths when it is in the best interests of the United States.

I personally think passing the 19th amendment was a mistake. I think much of the subsequent foolishness this nation has endured was a consequence of that mistake.

Deeply ingrained nut-baggery like this will only be eliminated by father time.

.

You think it's nut-baggery because you are an IGNORANT fool. If you knew what you were talking about, it would make sense. But since you DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about, it looks insane to you.

You are this person:

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." --Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.


Someone that thinks they know something, but who is completely outclassed by other people who DO know something.

The sooner the better, doubt if you would like much what the world of 20-30+ years from now will look like anyway.

You are right about that. Unless we stop the idiots, (Liberals) it will look like a zombie apocalypse. There will be massive death, and the survivors will be begging in the streets. No, i'm not going to like that very much at all. Hopefully we will be able to steer the nation away from this future. God help Europe though.

[Diogenes]

As a further commentary regarding this period of history about which you seemingly remain ignorant, my friend (Who I have mentioned reads this website) reminded me of something I had forgotten while writing the previous commentary "A Tale of Two Psychopaths."

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were good friends with the Chiangs. Especially Eleanor and Madame Chiang.

Madame Chiang was western educated and graceful, and easily moved through western social circles. Her and her Husband were greatly admired by the Roosevelts, and had Roosevelt remained alive, it is without a doubt that Roosevelt would have ordered Chiang be given whatever war material he requested.





This is what Roosevelt sent to Patrick Hurley in 1944.

"You are hereby designated as my personal representative with the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, reporting directly to me. Your principal mission is to promote efficient and harmonious relations between the Generalissimo and General [Joseph] Stilwell to facilitate General Stilwell's exercise of command over the Chinese armies placed under his direction. You will be charged with additional missions."


From an Address Delivered by President Roosevelt at Washington, March 15, 1941

"They need tanks and guns and ammunition and supplies of all kinds. From America, they will get tanks and guns and ammunition and supplies of all kinds.
China likewise expresses the magnificent will of millions of plain people to resist the dismemberment of their Nation. China, through the Generalissimo, Chiang Kai-shek, asks our help. America has said that China shall have our help."



From Winston Churchill: A Biographical Companion:

"Roosevelt wanted to support Chiang Kai-Shek against both the Japanese and internal communism. Operation BUCCANEER and Operation ANIKIM were intended to open supply routes to China. However, the war aim of the restoration of lost Chinese territory required Stalin's agreement."





Again, Roosevelt would likely have gotten it right, where Truman did get it wrong.



So Would have Nixon, for that matter.

[MSimon]

You didn't learn that. You decided that

Uh. I don't know about insane but as a follower of Burke you have claimed some measure of authoritarianism. And like it or not authoritarianism by adults for adults is not considered an American virtue. Of course if you intend to treat everyone like a child don't be surprised if they then search for the Great Father in Washington to take care of them. Authoritarianism is self defeating on so many levels.

Now I admit you don't care much for left authoritarianism. But you seem to like right authoritarianism.

I prefer the scientific virtue:

Test all things hold fast to that which is true.

Which is to say received wisdom is a possible starting point. For testing.

Me? I have never trusted any authority. I'm American to the bone. I have raised my kids to be the same. And happily I don't get no unearned respect from them now that they are grown. Every point I make to them gets questioned. And if my answers are not congenial they test on their own. As it should be. In a free country.

[williatw]

Bad signal. We could accomplish the same thing by holding spending constant for 10 years and growing our way out of the problem.

I assume you mean holding spending constant at pre massive bailout levels.
That might have worked 5-8yrs ago, don't think it will now. Neither of our two major players seem to even be close to that.
The point is only Gary Johnson(and Ron Paul) is willing to state what clearly the magnitude of the problem is and what he will do. He probably has little chance of winning this election cycle, but if he can get to 15% in the polls, he hopefully would get included in the national debates. I think he would own Obama and Romney in the debates, embarrasing both of them. He is only in his fifties, he would still be around for 2016, but I am concerned that might not be soon enough.

[williatw]

You didn't learn that. You decided that

Uh. I don't know about insane but as a follower of Burke you have claimed some measure of authoritarianism.

Maybe I should have gone with delusional old gas-bag instead of insane. Kai-shek was hated by Truman and Stilwell regarded as corrupt and incompetent. Thats what we needed to support another despot, earning the animosity of the chinese people. Authoritarians simply like the idea of putting a boot on someone else's neck, they will invent excuses to do it. The failed war on drugs being a good example. If only we were allowed to jail (or better yet execute) enough people than it would have worked. It is a success, can't you see it? Your just not using the right metric of comparison.

[MSimon]

You didn't learn that. You decided that

Uh. I don't know about insane but as a follower of Burke you have claimed some measure of authoritarianism.

Maybe I should have gone with delusional old gas-bag instead of insane. Kai-shek was hated by Truman and Stilwell regarded as corrupt and incompetent. Thats what we needed to support another despot, earning the animosity of the chinese people. Authoritarians simply like the idea of putting a boot on someone else's neck, they will invent excuses to do it. The failed war on drugs being a good example. If only we were allowed to jail (or better yet execute) enough people than it would have worked. It is a success, can't you see it? Your just not using the right metric of comparison.

Yeah. 98% success means that by age 25 50% have tried an illegal drug. I can't wait until he tells us how to get that other 2% done.

In unstable situations authoritarians have their place. But they tend to keep progress at bay and overstay their welcome. With a few notable exceptions. Chaing in Taiwan - although it took a near insurrection to get his party out. South Korea - about the same. Franco in Spain - not fully recovered from Napoleon until recently. Pinochet in Chile.

The biggest danger of authoritarians on the right is that they breed counter authoritarians on the left and those boys never give up until the whole sh*t pile blows up.

But in the US where we have a tradition of liberty authoritarians are the real counter culturalists. They seem to take the Catholic Church as their model. And the Inquisition as their method.

[MSimon]

The biggest danger of authoritarians on the right is that they breed counter authoritarians on the left and those boys never give up until the whole sh*t pile blows up.

Which come to think of it is pretty much the situation we have in America today.

[Diogenes]

You didn't learn that. You decided that

Uh. I don't know about insane but as a follower of Burke you have claimed some measure of authoritarianism.

Simon, you regard the notion that requiring people to obey normal and proper laws should be tantamount to authoritarianism. You remind me of the guy who thought speed limit signs were an infringement on his rights.

You keep calling me Authoritarian, and Progressive, etc. simply because I believe that normal and proper laws ought to be enforced. I regard Drugs as a mortal threat to a nation's existence, you do not. Somehow that translates in your mind to the notion that I am a partial supporter of tyranny. I am not. I simply don't regard efforts to protect people from a horrible disease as tyrannical. I regard them as appropriate and necessary.

And like it or not authoritarianism by adults for adults is not considered an American virtue. Of course if you intend to treat everyone like a child don't be surprised if they then search for the Great Father in Washington to take care of them. Authoritarianism is self defeating on so many levels.

Anyone that thinks they can handle a disease with no bad consequences ought indeed be treated like a child. The AIDS epidemic and Drugs have this aspect in common.

Now I admit you don't care much for left authoritarianism. But you seem to like right authoritarianism.

I disagree that the normal enforcement of normal laws is equivalent to authoritarianism. I reject your premise and your accusation with it.

I prefer the scientific virtue:

Test all things hold fast to that which is true.

And what is true is that after more than 100 years of drug availability, by 1905, 50% of the adult male population was addicted to cocaine, and this addiction was draining the economic and military strength from the country.

Which is to say received wisdom is a possible starting point. For testing.

Me? I have never trusted any authority. I'm American to the bone. I have raised my kids to be the same. And happily I don't get no unearned respect from them now that they are grown. Every point I make to them gets questioned. And if my answers are not congenial they test on their own. As it should be. In a free country.

You don't trust anyone in authority? What is that supposed to mean? Do you investigate murders on your own? Do you try and sentence defendants yourself? Do your inspect meat and pronounce it edible? In what way are you not trusting governmental officials to perform their normal roles? I'm afraid that we are in a position where we have to grant them some trust simply because we have no choice. They sometimes make a botch of it,but we cannot allow this role to be performed by any other entity than one or more of our governments.

Even though we are obligated by circumstance to trust them to some extent, I prefer that we keep a constant and critical eye upon them because what I don't trust them to do is to resist the urge to attempt to expand their power base beyond what is necessary at the expense of the rest of us.

[Diogenes]

You didn't learn that. You decided that

Uh. I don't know about insane but as a follower of Burke you have claimed some measure of authoritarianism.

Maybe I should have gone with delusional old gas-bag instead of insane. Kai-shek was hated by Truman and Stilwell regarded as corrupt and incompetent. Thats what we needed to support another despot, earning the animosity of the chinese people.

And you still cannot wrap your mind around the 100 Million people dead as a result of the path Truman took.

How much corruption on the part of Chiang's government is equal to 100 million dead people? How much incompetence makes 100 million dead people a good bargain?

By what meaningful standard can you argue that we are better off for not having supported Chiang Kai-Shek? Whatever it is, it needs to be worth the lives of 100 million people who were killed by Mao and his Ideas. I'm all ears. Tell me how the world is better off for what Truman did and failed to do.

Authoritarians simply like the idea of putting a boot on someone else's neck, they will invent excuses to do it.

Both Mao and Chiang were authoritarians. We had a choice to support one or the other. Most people prefer to pick the lesser of two evils. Truman picked the greater of two evils.

We hear no tales of mass murder having come from the Land under Chiang's subsequent control. (Taiwan.) Arguably he would not have done so either had his government managed to maintain control of mainland China.

The failed war on drugs being a good example.

Again with this idiot statement. The fact that the Addiction rates in the United States do not look like the Addiction rates in China after drugs were available for 100 years is proof that the drug war has in fact been a rousing success.

You simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND that the natural progression of drug addiction is an exponential curve. You appear to be INCAPABLE of understanding that the NATURAL PROGRESSION is an EXPONENT!

The War on Drugs has produced a mostly successful holding action for the last 100 years. You simply don't understand enough about the dynamics of infection to comprehend that holding an infection stationary is an accomplishment.

You might as well say that the "War on AIDS" is a failure because we still have AIDS.

GROW UP!

If only we were allowed to jail (or better yet execute) enough people than it would have worked. It is a success, can't you see it? Your just not using the right metric of comparison.

Mao Zedong (Tse Tung) killed drug addicts. He rounded them up and shot them. He did indeed put and end to most Chinese drug addiction. That his method works is unquestionable. That his methods are acceptable to Americans is not.

We as a nation reject the idea that drug addicts should be killed. As a result, we have accepted some constant low level of addiction as the price we must pay to avoid taking stronger and more repugnant measures against it.

That is the will of the American people, and whether we agree with it or not, we have to accept that that is what they want. They want drug use to be illegal, but they don't want to kill people to eradicate it.

[hanelyp]

To quote the late great Paul Harvey, "Self government does not work without self discipline." The Libertine Left (look carefully at the exact words used) is top to bottom based on enabling and exercising lack of self discipline. Use of illicit drugs is just one form this takes.

The war on drugs has been less than completely successful on account of 2 factors:
- People who don't see abuse of mind altering drugs as the threat they are.
- A scattershot, half hearted, and all too often misdirected effort. Half hearted and scattershot in such matters as failure to control our borders. Misdirected is using the war on drugs to excuse lawless forfeiture.

[williatw]

The war on drugs has been less than completely successful on account of 2 factors:
- People who don't see abuse of mind altering drugs as the threat they are.
- A scattershot, half hearted, and all too often misdirected effort. Half hearted and scattershot in such matters as failure to control our borders. Misdirected is using the war on drugs to excuse lawless forfeiture.

I would agree with this more than just about anything else said on the subject here:

Opposition to the War on Some Drugs (WoSD) is not only a libertarian hobbyhorse. Problem is that both wings of the Boom Generation are committed to prosecution of the WoSD, and everything is a moral crusade allowing no compromise to them.

There are three ways to deal with drugs:

1) Target Supply. The current approach. Lock up "the pushers."
2) Target Demand. The previous approach. Lock up "the addicts."
3) Legalize. End Prohibition, let the hopeless addicts destroy themselves.

#1 doesn't work. Given an illegal market generating massive profits, merchants will materialize from out of the woodwork to service that market and reap the filthy lucre. It took my great-grandparents 15 years to figure out they'd messed up; my parents' generation is still prosecuting the glorious crusade after 40 years with zilch success.

#2 can work, but its unpopular. Isolate demand by locking it up and no market can exist to be serviced. OTOH, every addict is some voting mother's "Precious Johnny," and voting mommy doesn't like "Harmless Precious Johnny" being locked up. Demonizing the "pushers" is soooooo much simpler. #2 is an approach more suited to an era without universal female suffrage - fathers simply find it easier to be hardasses, statistically.

#3 requires significant moral ruthlessness. The bleeding hearts are going to want to save everyone, and part and parcel of legalization is demonizing the addicts who are unable to exercise self-control (MADD!) and writing them off as social wastage.

Best solution is probably a compromise between #2 and #3 - keep the harder substances illegal while targeting the addicts with reduced fervor and penalties, and legalize the softer substances.

I agree with most of this but I still think option 3 would work provided it was regulated. Strongly(including concentration of and availability of) in the case of say cocaine/heroine/meth, weakly in the case of pot. There is no way drugs would be legalized without extensive regs, the people opposed to it would force the regs on it. Get the Feds out of it kick it back to the states, let them laboratory various mixes of legal/illegal/legal-regulated to see what works best. Treating addiction as a medical condition (like Portugal) instead of this holy alcohol prohibition like "war on drug" crusade is clearly not working or going to work.

[choff]

If my understanding of the article I read was correct, 'Mao Was a Yale Man', then Truman cut off support for the Chinese Nationalists because the Communists controlled the Opium crop in the North, and the Nationalists were threatening to overrun them.

The Yale dominated OSS/CIA had built up Mao and the Communists in order to keep China backward/Agrairian and control Opium production. The Nationalists would have created a modern state in China.

[MSimon]

Mao Zedong (Tse Tung) killed drug addicts.

Not just an authoritarian but an authoritarian with Communist sensibilities.

Takes the cake.

[MSimon]

If my understanding of the article I read was correct, 'Mao Was a Yale Man', then Truman cut off support for the Chinese Nationalists because the Communists controlled the Opium crop in the North, and the Nationalists were threatening to overrun them.

The Yale dominated OSS/CIA had built up Mao and the Communists in order to keep China backward/Agrairian and control Opium production. The Nationalists would have created a modern state in China.

That roughly approximates the way we are dealing with the Taliban.

The CIA has no interest in stopping opiate or cocaine or even pot flows. It is a matter of controlling it and maintaining their Black budget.

The same goes for the current Drug War in Mexico. It is not about stopping drugs it is about making sure the CIA preferred cartel is on top.

Read McCoy "The Politics of Heroin In South East Asia" to find out what the real War in Vietnam was about. It used to be online.

The Drug War is not about stopping Drugs. It is about maintaining prices and controlling flows. Obama's crackdown on pot shops in California makes sense in that light even if it outrages his supporters.

See D, the Drug War has nothing to do with stopping drugs. And Dupes like you keep it going. With your extensive knowledge of so much it is amusing that you know nothing about how the CIA maintains its black budget.

[MSimon]

To quote the late great Paul Harvey, "Self government does not work without self discipline." The Libertine Left (look carefully at the exact words used) is top to bottom based on enabling and exercising lack of self discipline. Use of illicit drugs is just one form this takes.

The war on drugs has been less than completely successful on account of 2 factors:
- People who don't see abuse of mind altering drugs as the threat they are.
- A scattershot, half hearted, and all too often misdirected effort. Half hearted and scattershot in such matters as failure to control our borders. Misdirected is using the war on drugs to excuse lawless forfeiture.

Yep. Alcohol - a mind altering drug - is a threat.

You my friend are a joke.

How did opiates - freely available for thousands of years and a mainstay of the China Clipper trade suddenly become a threat to civilization around 1914?

Read this about opiate use in New England in the early 1800s

http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/threads/crevecoeur.html

It was pervasive. And yet no one thought to outlaw the stuff until 1914. Same for cocaine although it was a fairly recent addition to the mix.

Why?

The Socialist/Progressives were ascendent and pushed for it. And like all socialist programs it has results counter to its public intentions and is also a colossal waste of funds. It does provide quite a slush fund for the socialists though.

It is wonderful seeing Conservatives supporting the Socialists though.

And why do the Democrats like it so much these days while pretending to abhor it for votes. Unionized police. Unionized prison guards. etc. The biggest promoters of prohibition in California is the prison guard union.

You on the right supporting prohibition are a joke. You are not enemies of the Socialists. You are their ally.