Free the D.E.A.

Another law enforcement group – Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – comes out in favor of Prop 19.

(But silly acronyms? They're A OK!)

Today’s article in the L.A. Times focuses on former Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray who’s watched the War on Drugs fail from his courtroom. Pointing out the obvious – that cops who don’t have to waste their time looking for pot could waste their time doing something else – the Judge goes on to say something else that’s pretty obvious:  Police officers, sitting judges and drug enforcement officials can’t be trusted to tell the truth, even when the truth is obvious.

Here’s the money quote:

Gray, the retired judge, said he believes that many in law enforcement support legalization but are afraid to say so because of political pressure on the job.

“They have a political job, so they can’t tell the truth,” Gray said. “People are free to speak out honestly only after they are retired.”

I'm still getting paid overtime for this, right?

Wait a minute – we pay people to lie to us, and they lie to us because we pay them?  You know, instead of voting for Prop. 19, maybe we should just fire all the cops and judges who spend most of their time incarcerating people for drug possession.  They’d finally be free to tell the truth and live honorable lives, and we’d all save tons of cash.  It’s a win-win situation.  Now how can I get that on the ballot?


38 Responses to “Free the D.E.A.”

  1. 1 mike
    September 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Wish we could fire them but the majority of them we never voted into office in the first place. This is seen with so many Federal positions, especially with the Supreme Court. With Gonzales v. Raich or worse yet, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, clearly shows our form of democracy is nothing but fools gold. It has some weight but not nearly enough. How many senators are minorities? How many are rich? Venezuela has more democracy (if you pay attention to their constitution and not the NYT). Even the one’s that are voted into office, the choices are narrowed down so much, so much propaganda distributed by the so called ‘news’ papers, spin on facts, etc. that the knowledge carried with the voter to the voting booths is, how can I put this lightly, shit. I’ve seen oppression of blacks (from the south), homosexuals, women, different minorities, religion but the day I see oppression of the rich is the day I know true equality is near.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts- I have thoroughly enjoyed many articles.

    • 2 Mr. Nice
      September 16, 2010 at 8:05 pm

      I’ve seen oppression of blacks

      Not tryna be the word police but most black folks hate when the word “black” is used as a noun. At the very least use skin color as an adjective.

      I’m reserving the option not to do that by never suggesting delusions that shit will ever be equal.

  2. September 14, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Thanks, Mike. And by the way, I’m thinking of printing bumper stickers that say “Oppress the Rich” – Now that’s the sort of prejudice I could really get behind. (Unless the sell really well and force me to re-assess my economic bigotry).

  3. 4 mike
    September 17, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Well Mr. Nice- Not to be an ass, but I’m from the south, have multiple family members who are black, hundreds of friends who are black and when I called them African American’s when I was younger, I was shot down pretty quick. My girlfriend is native american, has multiple black family members as well, from the west coast, who are fine with black. My sister lives in Europe and they too are fine with black- even individuals born in Africa. They were born and raised in the south or OR, CA, WA- not africa. We’re all from Africa they would say. They just hate it when someone they see as racists calls them black. You sound like a cop-being subjective with your statement:)

    Equality will never happen with those statements either. Nor will it ever happen in a capitalists system just as in a feudal system or even a marxist system (the socialist and anarchist aspect) for that matter. When competition and greed are the core factors for realists, whether offensive or defensive,then no, equality will never succeed. Fortunately, we are all becoming wise to the game and seeing it, in its current state, not sustainable.

    Thankfully, the blacks I know taught me how to NOT be a quitter- no matter what the odds. Can’t wait to see them down south in two weeks! They have me some more moonshine to trade and I’m sure they are just as happy to see me as I am them! Smoother than anything you can purchase in a liquor store.

    Good luck with the bumper sticker but I wouldn’t park your car out of site. Too many people are still thinking they too will be rich one day… That’s why they need credit cards.

  4. September 18, 2010 at 11:06 am

    I love tangents. I’m going to agree and disagree with both of you. Mike, I think you’re using the term “blacks” correctly in the first instance, but incorrectly in the second. Same for Mr. Nice – I think you were wrong when you pointed it out, but right when Mike responded and then did what you said he did the first time. Whatever, though.

  5. 6 Mr. Nice
    September 20, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    “Is your mama black?” is different than “Is your mama a black?”

    No doubt they still laughing at you.

  6. 7 mike
    September 22, 2010 at 11:23 am

    I’ll give you kudos for a topic change. If all you can do is attack my English and not my ideology with facts then Im good to go. Next time I reply here I’ll be sure to recheck my English for you. It’s also obvious from your last reply that your racist, probably just too ignorant to realize it.

  7. 8 Mr. Nice
    September 22, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    I never said I wasn’t racist. When I see all these white boys I do secretly think I bet these motherfuckers teeth hurt right now daydreaming on a mayonnaise sandwich. So what though?

    I read some Gallup Poll where they asked some thousand black people do you prefer the term black or African American. Damn near 50/50 split. Then the fucking results said “Blacks were surveyed on the following.” Again with the “blacks” even though that wasn’t the question. Fucking Gallup Poll.

    All I’m saying is the minute you start talking about oppression, you gotta switch up the gutter language. It’s like saying the oppression of orientals. Sure most Asian folks don’t care if you call them oriental or whatever as anyone who would say that is just some dumb fuck anyway, but terms like that do not work when talking about social issues.

  8. September 23, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Please. This is America. We’re all racists here.

    And even though I agree about the use of Asians vs. Orientals, it’s worth remembering that even that term is based on imaginary racial categorizations that will be considered passe at some point in the future. After all, what do Hmong villagers have in common with Tokyo club kids or Tibetan monks, other than the fact that they all looked the same to Richard Nixon?

    I have to teach my freshmen students how to write about race (in part because talking about race is a tricky thing, and in part because the terminology changes rapidly from generation to generation, and we’re constantly exposed to competing terminology), so this sounds like a very familiar discussion to me. It’s really nothing to get upset about, though. Like I said, we’re all racists here.

    I always open those discussions with my students by admitting my own culpability, so I’ll do the same here. My parents are more racist than I am, and in a different way. Being a racist was acceptable in my hometown when I grew up, so I learned to see race at a pretty early age; even now, I’m aware of the fact that I have a knee-jerk cultural tendency to see people in terms of race, but I “know” better so I try to correct myself. It’s a constant struggle, though – the language changes, and we don’t always remember to change with it. And for what it’s worth, Mike, I’ve seen Mr. Nice be much less nice than he was here.

    Here’s my two cents. Using collective terms like “the Blacks” sounds a little anachronistic to my ear. I notice that Chris Matthews uses that term reflexively – and I notice it whenever I hear it – but I know that it was more common and more acceptable in the fairly-recent past. Chris Matthews isn’t an offensive racist, he just speaks in the language of middle-class white people of his generation.

    The problem isn’t just with the specific terminology, though. The problem with a term like “the blacks” is in the implication of collective identity implied – intended or inherited. When you say black people, you’re referring to people who happen to be black. In contrast, referring to “the blacks” (or really, any racial group “as a group” in that way) suggests a collective racial framework that emphasizes skin color or observed ethnicity as a defining characteristic, regardless of the cultural realities that are sometimes conveyed by those terms. It shows the connection between a linguistic sort of shorthand and a stereotype. For that reason, the use of the adjective that Mr. Nice suggests as a better alternative does strike me as a better alternative. Referring to “a black person” sounds descriptive to me, while referring to “blacks” sounds like more of a categorization.

    Mr. Nice: We talk in terms of cultural politics all the time, so I didn’t see anything wrong with Mike’s initial comment about the targeted oppression of specific groups of people – blacks, women, gays, etc. The emphasis here is on the people who oppress, and it is true that those who oppress see things in those terms.

    Mike: In contrast, while you clearly meant to convey something complementary by saying that “the blacks” you know taught you something, I have to agree with Mr. Nice that it sounds like a reductive category that you place “them” in. Maybe not intentionally, but that’s what comes across in the term. “They” are black, and so blackness defines them to some extent. It follows, then, that the lessons “they” taught you are black lessons, learned from being black in the south. Obviously, being black in the south entails difficulties that are specific to a place and to one identified group of people within that specific culture, so you know what you know, but those difficulties are really cultural, not racial. They are imposed difficulties, lived difficulties, but not intrinsic difficulties. Culture and race are different, but the language erases that difference. That’s why the terminology is problematic, but it’s also clear that you weren’t using the terminology to be offensive.

    I’ve noticed, too, that while I occasionally hear people talk about “the blacks,” and what they do or how they behave, I never hear people refer to “the whites” in the same way, and presumably because we sees more variation among “whites” as a racial group. (Sure, “White people crazy,” but even there, they’re referred to as people). “White privilege” in this context is the privilege to be free of those sorts of imposed racial categorizations.

    All that said, I’d rather assume that individual people have good intentions and simply speak in the language they know. We should always be open to addressing people with the language that they would choose to identify themselves – that just seems like common courtesy – but we shouldn’t be unnecessarily defensive or offensive about recognizing shortcomings. That’s making a new problem out of an old one.

  9. 10 mike
    September 23, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    Not offended in the least.

    My highschool assistant principle attempted to fail me by yanking me out of a final due to standing up against racism. My mother is a nationally distinguished principle for greatly slimming down the achievement gap in a severly segregated southern region. Want to see segregation- go to any private neighborhood in the south. I have heard “the whites” my whole life since I was the only white kid who was allowed into their neck of the woods, labeled black town. I lived in white town- spoken of by all races as well as all ages. I hate no one due to their race, only their actions. Sure, there are numerous races and nationalities I become irritated with but due to their ignorance-only, so I am not racist. Nor do I stereotype.

    Most Americans are racist though- I agree 100%, as are other nationalities-but only due to class separation (read Development and Social Change, McMichaels) brought about by the elite.
    Hence- oppress the rich.

    Have you ever heard a derogatory term for the rich?

    As for Mr. Nice- since that’s the grainiest shit I have ever consumed, as with the shit he shipped, the name fits right. Clear ignorance seen with how propaganda/positioning has clearly manipulated his thinking. He speaks just like all the cops I know, and I know plenty. Uneducated and manipulated or, educated as seen by someone like Ivan Illich.

    • September 24, 2010 at 9:26 am

      Glad to hear. I wouldn’t underestimate Mr. N, though – I think I see irony where you see ignorance. Or maybe he’s just signifiying. Like I said, I like to assume that people have good intentions.

  10. 12 Mr. Nice
    September 25, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Have you ever heard a derogatory term for the rich?


  11. September 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Yeah, and “fatcats” and “robber barons,” but that’s some pretty weak tea right there. They all have a “twenty-three skidoo” sort of sensibility to them. We could really use some better epithets if we really wanted to demonize the wealthy, and given all the latest reports on the growing inequities between rich and poor, the decades-long assault on the institutional policies promoting the middle-class and the outright demonic behavior of the super-rich, it really shouldn’t be that difficult to do that.

    Let’s see…Cashholes? Koch-suckers? Got anything better?

  12. 14 Mr. Nice
    September 26, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    Try and take the how siddity are you quiz and then we can talk about the derogatory monied people terms.

  13. 15 Mr. Nice
    September 26, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    For serious though, there are not many words besides bourgeois people that mean rich bastards who fuck us over. French and communists got it good with that one. “Sitting-room culture” is typical English bullshit. So is “trust-fund kid.”

    NorCal is a little sitting-room culture. Folks like those Victorian home and have these fantasies about trains and owning a castle mansions that is some type of superlative of something. Enslaving Indians again to expand the ranch or some shit. Some of those people are dying but their brat kids are no doubt bourgie as hell.

  14. 16 mike
    September 29, 2010 at 8:58 am

    No matter how great of a name, until it can be positioned, it does no good. Though I do enjoy bourgie, US kids could never pronounce it, much less understand it. Hell, look at how they see socialism. Look at how they see democracy- both severely distorted terms in comparison to their true definition. Until they realize that 1% of the population holds 80% of the wealth, those kids will continue to be brats. They will wake up when the start at the local university and realize how much it will cost them…

  15. 17 Mr. Nice
    October 3, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Until they realize that 1% of the population holds 80% of the wealth

    It ain’t percentage, it is white people. Official figures are in 5ths and rich white folks fall in the top 5th and top 1% hold 38%. Top 1% share been climbing since the 90s and Clinton’s tax schemes.

    But 80% no, that’s a yahoo/geocities figure. Might want to unrealize that one.

  16. October 4, 2010 at 12:03 am

    I saw that same figure for the top 1%. Here are the 80s that I’ve heard recently, though: income disparities between rich and poor haven’t been this bad in 80 years; 80% of all US families earn less than $250k/year; the top 20% of income earners hold over 80% of the wealth, and so the bottom 80% hold under 20%. Oh, and Warren Buffett just turned 80. I’m stuck on what to get him for a present, What do you get a man who has 80% of everything?

  17. 19 mike
    October 4, 2010 at 9:38 am


    Here’s a citation from Harvard showing wealth disparities. I was wrong- I was thinking about the world population, not just in the US. It also wasn’t Clinton- he just continued the policies that Reagan and Bush began- it’s called triangulation in the poly sci realm. I would love to see any paper that states this paper is false or manipulated in any way. Having an economics degree as well as a poly sci degree, I have been unable to find such in ten years of research.

  18. 20 mike
    October 4, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Don’t forget that most research only follows through 2004 (new census data not finalized) which the housing bubble was already in affect (greenspan didn’t see it until 05,06 though CEPR knew years in advance and screamed about the consequences but NYT, WSJ, Yahoo, Fox news, etc refused to state a word about it). So, the wealth of many US citizens (wealth is all assets minus debt of course) was artificially inflated, most have lost this artificial wealth due to the bubble and with a trade war about to break out between China and the US, this will continue to drastically decrease the majority of average US citizens wealth, thus further increasing the wealth gap. Debt is off the charts (in comparison with the debt of the nation, we are no where near WWII levels of debt so more stimulus would only help the bottom out).

    Blaming this on either Republicans or Democrats is futile- it was both parties since both parties represent the rich, or corporations, only (if they don’t, they don’t get the money to be elected). Not only has the wealth gap increased, but democracy (what little we had to begin with) is crashing just as hard. At least Clinton made it so that the bottom was more capable of cheating taxes if they paid attention- it wasn’t just the rich- they just continue to get away with it.

    On a global level, the rich whites are losing wealth quite quickly (not in terms of years, but decades. In comparison, I feel it’s quite quick)- hence the decline in employment in the US in order to pay less wages and increase their wealth. The elite need more slave labor in the us since labor is where most of the profits for the rich disappear to. If you don’t think minimum wage is slave labor you go live off it.

    Reagan/Thatcher began the issues that you see now- neoliberal economic policies. All other presidents, including Obama, are continuing this policy. All you have to do is check out Obama’s economic team and its very clear.

  19. October 4, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Blaming this on either Republicans or Democrats is futile- it was both parties since both parties represent the rich, or corporations, only (if they don’t, they don’t get the money to be elected).

    With all due respect, that’s not the sort of claim that I can allow to go unchallenged here.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’ve heard it plenty, from both democrats and republicans. There’s just enough truth to the argument to allow Republicans to get away with saying it every time someone tries to point out that the wholesale destruction of the US middle-class is largely a result of their disingenuous, reprehensible economic policies. Which is to say, that oft-repeated claim is really just a republican talking point in disguise (aka, a crock of shit). I understand why republicans would say it – after all, refusing to take responsibility for the mayhem they cause is the one part of the platform that hasn’t changed over the years. I’ve never really figured out how they’ve managed to get progressives and liberals to parrot it back to them, though. Republicans are the party of the rich, and they’re motivated by greed and evil; democrats are just pussies, so they get rolled. If they had their way, and if they had a bit of a spine, the country would be fucked up in completely different ways.

    As I see it, even though the democrats and republicans have switched places in office over the years, it’s more true to say that Republicans have been calling the shots ever since Jimmy Carter went down in flames over his botched attempt to rescue those hostages. As goofy as it is as an economic strategy, Reaganomics has been the nation’s economic strategy ever since, and that’s why the nation looks the way it does right now. With all of the evidence to the contrary staring them in the face, most people STILL believe that tax cuts automatically improve the economy, and they still believe that trickle-down economics works. OK, Clinton was, technically, a democrat. But to be fair, Clinton won because he looked like a slightly milder version of a Reagan republican – he was a conservative democrat from the south (well, mid-south), and a member of the business-friendly side of the democratic party. That’s where the vast majority of voters in the country were in the early 90s, and so that’s what we got – and we only got him because Ross Perot split the republican vote. And even then, his policies were largely dictated by the other side of the political aisle. What he accomplished as a democrat was toning down the full-bore wackiness of Newt Gingrich’s crowd, but it was their ideas more than his that prevailed; he just tried to implement them in smarter ways. And again, to be fair, his smarter version of wacky republicanism paid off in demonstrable ways.

    You can see the same thing with Obama – the desire to appeal to the idiotic notions of the easily duped American public, because he sees that that’s where the vast majority of the voters are. Even though the republicans have devoted themselves, as a party, to actively working for the downfall of the nation’s economy, Obama has still tried to accede to some of their crazy notions while dragging the country kicking and screaming in a better direction. Call that complicity if you want, but you can see that he’d rather be pulled along to the more progressive side of things.

    Whether you want to see it or not, there is a difference between Obama and the republican stooges who have been trying to resist every damn thing he proposes. And he’s not wrong when he claims to have reversed the horrific trends in unemployment, lending and foreign policy that were left by the previous republican administration – and he’s done it all with historically unprecedented levels of resistance from the remaining republicans.

    Sorry to react so angrily, but I’m just not swallowing that shit anymore. As bad as you may think things are, there really is a clear difference between the parties. Republicans tanked the country, not democrats. Some democrats went along, but the people who didn’t go along were democrats, not republicans. If you have to see the glass as half-empty, you can complain that those democrats may not have fought back smartly enough, strongly enough, or soon enough, but it’s clear that they have been the opposition. The only opposition. Would I like to see more legislators like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Al Franken? Of course I would. Would I like to see more legislators like Dick Cheney, John Boehner, Dick Armey, and Newt Gingrich? Fuck no! I’d rather vote for North Korean double-agents or Goldman Sachs CEOs than people like those ass clowns.

    There is a difference. We must be able to recognize it. Politics is certainly maddening, and politicians (of any party) have to be a little reprehensible to make it into the national arena, but on the whole, Republicans are far worse than democrats. FAR WORSE. Republican “ideas” destroyed the middle-class. Republicans drove the country into the most serious economic crisis of the past 80 years with their unfunded wars and their stupid tax cuts and their rollback of regulations. With all the evidence of their bad acts, Republicans STILL want to roll back taxes for the wealthiest individuals and the worst corporations. Republicans want to teach creationism instead of evolution. Republicans want to remove all environmental restrictions on development. Republicans want more money for prisons and less money for schools. Republicans oppose collective bargaining for workers. Republicans want secret prisons, torture chambers, religious wars. Unfortunately, I could go on and on. If you need to repeat some sad mantra, choose one of those instead of the “both of them are the same” bs. The Republicans’ policies are farcical, and a recipe for national collapse. Remember who said “Deficits don’t matter?” – wasn’t a democrat. Maybe there isn’t as much of a difference as I would like, but to ignore the difference that does exist is foolish.

  20. 22 Mr. Nice
    October 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    I’m still voting Republican dude just not for tho se Republicans.

    Democrats ain’t got no better ideas. In the 2000s y’all could point to your pussy European countries and be like look how fast those liberal/progressive/social democrat/socialist motherfuckers are growing. Now where are they? Fucked. Only places in Europe that still ball rejected the eurozone shit.

    Bush Jr. wasn’t even a real Republican. Dude was like y’all Democrats got that Joe Lieberman dude. W is some type of short bus Republican.

  21. 23 mike
    October 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Your not paying attention, as most citizens, to the whole picture. Your only including national politics, not international and the whole process is ran off offensive realism, or international liberalism to most (although there is no such thing- either offensive or defensive realism.

    The survival of the state’s hegemonic stability is the main focus and wealth is the driving force. Look at the national politics as a tug of war where 100ft of rope exists, one person pulls for the republicans while the other pulls for the dems. There only exists two feet between the two, with 96 feet of rope left. The mud below them is the international arena. It’s not that the dem’s are pussies- if they fight too much, the status quo is in jeopardy- something that neither wants for obvious reasons. They are only playing their character is all- pussies vs assholes- status quo stays put. As for Perot splitting the ticket- more crap. The US is built to only be a two party system- third parties are impossible to be included, if it were not, we would run a parliament. A two party system is much easier to control the status quo. Same goes with the green candidates. It’s not the third party that hurts the elections, it’s the main parties themselves.

    The elite (you can call them dem’s or rep’s) have been calling the shots since the birth of the US. Neoliberal economic policy, or the Chicago School of Economics, is the play book and has been since Reagan (who was nothing but a puppet to initiate the policy since he won with charm and hope- as did Obama). As for Obama’s party, I’ve not the time to go through personally all of Bush’s policies that he has continued but here’s a quick overview minus the increase in military power in Latin America (coup in Honduras, funded by USAid and not recognized by the US; negative media attention towards Venezuela (though Ven will be the only nation state to accomplish the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015), military bases in Columbia, OAS bullying, etc.. He also left out how Obama assassinated a US citizen, a complete violation of the US Constitution since ’38 (I believe, but not sure of exact date)- which makes the presidency even more powerful due to customary law. Anyhow, here’s the article and with a little research you can verify all from either side of the spectrum.


    As for Mr. Nice- Europe will be fine, considering the picture, since they probably won’t get too involved with the trade war between China and the US. The majority of states also still have strong social programs- minus greece due to the austerity programs or neoliberalism as stated above. If the fighting continues, the austerity measures could possibly be revoked. Restructuring of the UN/WTO is becoming ever more possible as well due to other trade blocs which are working on removing the dollar and running a pooled currency or their own trading currency seen with Mercosur. Most eurozone states have maintained a reasonable unemployment rate, did not become involved with the housing bubble, other than England. Nation states outside the eurozone are still extremely connected economically so they have been affected as well. REgardless, most over there still maintain many social programs- free health care, free education, loans are still being issued by banks- much more so than in the US. At least the workers fight like hell over there unlike the workers in the US. In the 30’s it was the bankers jumping off the buildings- today it’s the workers. What a shame.

    As for the Dem’s and Rep’s being different parties- sure- their are some differences but chump change within the big picture. It’s the way the game is designed. Security of the state which has moved to hegemonic stability theory so they work together.

    • October 5, 2010 at 12:41 am

      I’m pretty sure I am paying attention. You must not be watching me closely enough.

      Your suggestion that the two main parties who share power in our nation also share a lot in common isn’t really as difficult to grasp as you’re making it out to be. But when you have the power – limited though it might be – to choose between two different paths, it can be more helpful to focus on the differences, rather than the similarities. I’m happy to cast a vote against neoliberalism when I get that chance, but right now, my choice is between republicans and democrats, and I maintain that there is a difference.

      As appealing as your staunch pessimism might seem, our recent political history leads me to see things differently. The parties you’re talking about have been around for awhile, and we can see the effects of what they’ve done in the past, and again, there are real differences. Some policies that have been implemented in the past have been shown to benefit the middle-class – to expand access to health care, housing, education, etc; some have not. Some policies that we’ve implemented have increased justice – the civil rights act, for example; some have not. Some policies that we’ve implemented have improved the environment, and again, some have not. Pretty much across the board, it’s the progressives who have been behind all of those good actions, and it’s been republicans who have opposed them and undermined them. So, there’s a clear difference. It’s true that neither party has worked to undermine US hegemony, but that’s a poor reason to ignore the obvious differences.

      History would have something to say about that third party claim too. Our political system certainly doesn’t make it easy for new parties to emerge, but so what? Politics isn’t easy, but people can be convinced by the right sort of shiny new message at the right time. The Republicans were a third party once, you know? And I was paying attention back in 1992, too, so you’re not going to convince me that Perot didn’t play a decisive role. Ross Perot was a deeply, deeply flawed candidate. He did some amazingly stupid things, and he said some even stupider things. His VP choice, James Stockdale was actually a character from a Thomas Pynchon novel. With all of that idiocy, Perot still won close to 20% of the electorate – and not from democrats.

      I agree with Biden. Petulance isn’t a virtue. Idealism isn’t a defense for anomie. Progressives who criticize Obama for not being more effective deserve to have republicans win. I’m just sad that I’m going to have to suffer along with them.

  22. 25 Mr. Nice
    October 4, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Mike’s trippin. “since they probably won’t get too involved with the trade war between China and the US” then why is the Chinese premier in Brussels talking about trade? Devaluation schemes are gonna lead to them getting all up in the China program. Euro isn’t worth shit and they can’t even barely import from their neighbors with strong money and living wage. China is gonna be their loan shark you watch.

    • October 4, 2010 at 11:47 pm

      Personally, I like lots of places in Europe. Just cause they protest when the government tells them they have to work until they’re 62 instead of 60 doesn’t mean they’re falling off a cliff, either. The EU has troubles, we have troubles, China has troubles – the world’s a troubled place.

      So, okay, if GWB doesn’t count because he (and the whole Cheney consortium) weren’t real republicans, who is? And if they aren’t really representative of the party, how are the even dumber and crazier crowd of republicans who have emerged over the past few years better? That zombie contract with america is laughable, and the party is eventually going to run out of old white resentment. Then what?

  23. 27 mike
    October 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Yea- exactly- trade talks between the eu and china. Main goal- strengthen relationship as seen here:

    As for trippin- can’t you argue facts instead of values?? It shows ignorance, not knowledge.

    No such white pages with the US, nothing but repub’s and dem’s bitching about how they undervalue the yuan. Protectionism- only the rich states do it and China ain’t no exception. US is about to get their asses kicked hard economically. Hell, even militarily China would kick our ass. Their women outnumber our whole armed forces and any military specialist knows it ain’t nukes, but ground forces.

  24. 28 mike
    October 5, 2010 at 9:48 am

    both parties are neoliberalism. All you have to do is look at who Obama’s economic policy advisors- same ideology as Bush’s, same members as bush for the most part. Both ‘sides’ are from the Chicago school of economics, both sides were taught by milton.

    As for the parties being the same since the birth of the US- of course not but I can see where you get this idea. When the status quo is strong- show a larger difference, when things are tight, with hegemonic stability theory in play, you narrow down, as an elite, policy. They have done this to the point, starting with triangulation, to become more of one party. I showed you proof with Obama’s actions- same path as Bush just different strides. The top of the funnel was with Reagan, now we see the bottom. I have a subaru outback limited, my girlfriend has an outback. Same car with small differences. Republicans are republicans, dems are dems but when the shit hits the fan and the US is about to lose it’s hegemonic power, the parties combine especially since neoliberalism is what produced so much wealth in the US through it’s imperialistic practices.

    The premises you give me to show your point I agree with,with Kennedy/Johnson/civil rights, etc. Even Nixon was great with environmentalism though he still represented the republicans and there was clear separation between the parties. You can’t show me a premise to prove your point after Reagan. It’s impossible unless you want to throw minute instances such as abortion or gun rights- carrot stick policy. The populace bitches about that and they never see what’s really taking place which is how neoliberalism was able to become so strong.

    As for third parties- most industrialized nation states run a parliament system which allows for multiple parties, allowing multiple ideologies to be laid out, with facts, which enable the voters to make rational decisions on why they voted the way they did. It isn’t manipulated by the media as seen in the US, beginning in the 80’s with Reagan.

    Your second to last premise is basically stating your older than myself so you understand why third parties don’t work. This is an illogical argument, as with the rest of your argument. Facts please.

    As for the biden paragraph, I vote now for republicans. Burn down the middle class. Most people in this world live off 2 dollars a day so it doesn’t bother me in the least to see the middle class crumble. Maybe then some people will stand up to this absurdity to which this nation state places not only on US citizens, but humans all over the world. You will not suffer, not nearly on the scale as most humans in this world do, due to the policy of both, now single party, the party of corporations/rich elite.

    As for the republican party running out of old white assholes, there’s a sucker born everyday. Manipulating core beliefs for one’s benefit is quite easy but hard to clearly see. You call it talking points, I call it positioning, as does Trout. The republican party is going nowhere- nor is their ideology of corporations- the new feudalism. Especially as long as people think that one day they can be rich just like Gates or Pitt. Just some realize that there are not nearly enough resources to go around for that to happen, which is why the US, Britian, FR, etc steal them through the WTO, UN, neoliberal policies and NATO.

    Oscar Wilde, in The Soul Of Man Under Socialism, wrote, “Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do the most harm are the people trying to do the most good.”

  25. October 5, 2010 at 11:29 am

    You know, Oscar Wilde probably rethought that claim about the evil do-gooders when he was thrown into prison, and not by people who were trying to do him good, but by people who wished him ill. And by the way, if those anti-gay crusaders in England who tossed poor old Oscar into prison for practicing “the love that dare not speak its name” were voting in US elections today, they’d be voting republican. Go hate!

    On a related topic, I’m a little surprised that you’re so eager to out yourself as a “sucker.” I find it even more interesting that even though both you and Mr. Nice disagree so sharply on so much, both of you come together in two really odd ways – you both point out the worst tendencies of the contemporary republican party – the knee-jerk racism, the propaganda, the laughable policies – but despite that, you both say that you’re supporting republicans in elections.

    I wasn’t trying to diss you by saying that I’m older than you so I know things you don’t; I’m just saying that I was around to see Ross Perot get 20% of the vote, so I refuse to believe that he didn’t. (By the way, that was my “facts” – Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote. Look it up if you don’t believe me.)

    I’m not really disagreeing with you about what we don’t have, I’m saying it’s pointless to moan about what we don’t have, and then ignore the opportunities to contribute positively about what we do have. It’s obvious that the parliamentary system produces coalition governments, and ours doesn’t. Its also obvious that coalition governments are more responsive to the needs of the population in lots of ways – that’s why we encourage parliamentary systems in all of the nations that we “help.” But that’s not our current system of government, so I’m going to focus on what I can do rather than what I can’t. You want to burn it all down and start over? Good luck with that. But the status quo didn’t get the way it is for no reason, so you’d better settle in for a long wait.

    I still don’t see how you reconcile criticizing Obama for holding onto republican-leaning corporatist econ guys, but then say that you vote for the full-bore corporatism that the republicans don’t even have the balls to admit is what they’re really supporting. I don’t think it’s me who’s not making sense.

  26. 30 Mr. Nice
    October 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    “KCi, Short, E-40 Fonzarelli
    I’ll probably never have long money like Ross Perelli
    But shit we just wanna hip
    Don’t want the whole plate
    Don’t put the two on the ten
    Don’t never perpetrate”

    I guess I got no point. Put the two on the ten means to project an exaggerated image as true. Giant sucking sound?

  27. 31 mike
    October 5, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Never take anything as an insult. Or it doesn’t bother me I should say. Thanks for stating that though. I also remember quite well myself. The man came from shit tons of money is the reason as well. Plus the media was not as dominated as now, or when Nadar ran.

    I don’t want to burn it down either- it will burn itself down- powerhouses always do, at least with what history has to show us. I love the good here, where I see it going from when I moved out here from the south. I consider myself more patriotic than most I meet. It’s just a easy way to do it with my vote between the two evils. Voting blue just brings me back to Wilde. The status quo is already breaking down- hegemonic stability theory (i know- a theory, but a damn good one). Just look at how much ‘so called democracy’ we have lost in the last ten years and we lose out more almost daily. Technology will also play a major part unless net neutrality loses out. China has already been accepted as the next powerhouse, with the EU behind them. Crash the dollar, restructure the UN security council/ and who the fuck needs us? Who the fuck wants to deal with us? Would you deal with a customer like the US unless you had to?

    As for voting republican, I like to look at it this way. Two cars are racing to a cliff and some super being tells me both are going to explode at the bottom and I have to pick which one I want to be in. I’m choosing the first one so I can go on and get it over with. two seconds is a long time.

    What I’m talking about is difficult to place in words though I’ll try. Not that I can’t but that this hits core belief’s which are almost impossible to change or shape. The dem’s, minus the blue dogs, do maintain more values but those values are still more geared towards corps/elite. The republicans are of course a bit more vicious (I grew up in a southern democrat family- I’m actually looking at a pic of Max Cleland and my grandfather as I type this). Get them in a smokey room with some likker and they become just as vicious as the reds. Anyhow, that tad bit more will kill the middle class more quickly, killing any attempt at a party switch as history has shown us and still does with the ‘blue dogs’ as they are called. Not only quicker but, through the elite proving that the tragedy of the masses does exist with propaganda, etc through the years(ever read deschooling society?), a really hard lesson needs to be taught to the masses. It happened with the founding of the US within GB.

    And Wilde would never have gone back on his word. It was actually regurgetated information and is still considered some of the best anarchist writings of the time period. Unfortunatly, neither one of us can prove Wilde’s death bed recant’s. A brilliant man just the same.

    Tired. Fuck you nice- no revision tonight:)
    How about a new article J2? You’ve been slacking:)

  28. October 5, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    Yeah, the blog suffers when the work piles up. I’m sure my angry muse will visit me soon.

  29. 33 mike
    October 6, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Thought you might like. It’ll burn itself down-

  30. 34 Mr. Nice
    October 6, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    When you get a hard on for me mike? Shit you are the one talking about facts then going on and on about your opinion.

  31. 35 mike
    October 7, 2010 at 11:17 am

    I’ve never obtained a hard on from a little kid- sorry to let you down but I like adult women-plural. As for my opinion- they are backed by many facts- not assaults on value, etc which shows clearly, when someone attacks your values instead, and not your facts, that they do no understand wholly as to why they feel the way they do. Read Trout and you’ll see what I mean with core beliefs. You will also learn how manipulation takes place on a psychological level so your not suckered by the elite. Positioning as its called, derived from advertisements and carried on to politics.

    Actually I was just heckling you before you got to my shitty quick writing capabilities.

    All jokes aside, are you a recent past student of j2bad?

  32. 36 Mr. Nice
    October 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Positioning’s called?

    I don’t know who j2bad is. I think he is one of the whites.

  33. 37 mike
    October 7, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Is he a whitey on the moon?

  34. 38 Mr. Nice
    October 8, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    no hot water no toilet no lights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Legal Disclaimer:

This blog is for entertainment purposes only. We neither engage in nor endorse any illegal activity; any and all indications to the contrary are purely fictional. Purely fictional.

%d bloggers like this: