The War on Drugs?

Mexico, in the midst of a supposed "war on drugs" has just passed legislation legalizing possession of small amounts of drugs including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. Despite the obvious ridiculousness of this move, officials and prosecutors in Mexico claim that they made the right choice, saying, "the new law sets clear limits that keep Mexico's corruption-prone police from extorting casual users and offers addicts free treatment to keep growing domestic drug use in check." [1] So my question is, when did arresting casual drug users become a bad thing? They're still drug users. And any sane policy maker would agree that being a drug user should make you a criminal.
Espino del Castillo, of the Mexican Attorney General's Office says, "We couldn't charge somebody who was in possession of a dose of a drug, there was no way ... because the person would claim they were an addict," [1] Hold on. You're saying that by claiming that they are an addict, a person in possession of drugs can just get off free of any charges? It's only illegal if you aren't addicted? How can any drug user of an addictive drug not be addicted? Possession of illegal drugs is a crime, whether you're an addict or not.
So, the real question is, are the Mexicans just plain stupid? Do they really not see the gaping holes in their logic? Well, they can't because there is no logic whatsoever to back this up. In my opinion the Mexican government hasn't completely lost its collective mind. The real problem is corruption, at all levels. The whole world knows that practically the entire Mexican police force is corrupt, and that a major problem in dealing with the drug war. So its not much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that the Mexican government is also corrupt. Why else would they make a law that benefits the drug dealers and kingpins?
And they had the nerve to tell us our guns were the problem. Well, they were part of it, but come on.

I Guess I Missed That Memo...

Rahm Emmanuel stated in an interview with The New York Times about Obama's news conference tonight that Obama would talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst depression." and then outline the case for health care reform.

First of all, Obama & Co. haven't rescued anyone from anything. If the recession ended, that's news to me. Maybe Obama should have pulled some strings with his media buddies and tried to publicize that story a little.

It's funny how Obama, Emmanuel and every other chump in Obama's cabinet fully realize that healthcare reform is actually a worse idea than the stimulus bill was. Anyone can see that the health care bill is a bad idea and will put an unfair tax burden on the rich-especially the small business entrepreneurs that we need to really save us. To get around this obvious idea, it seems that the people running our nation have decided that the best plan of action is to tell the American people that the recession is over. Obama saved us! Everything's okay now!

Rahm Emmanuel described tonight's press conference as a sort of six-month report card for Obama. Well, what happens when Obama has to go show that report card to his parents?
This sort of irresponsibility and blatant disregard from the truth, whether it was intentional or just a slip of the tongue, represents what this administration is all about: messing things up with no regard to common sense or the future. First the stimulus bill, then the climate/energy bill, and now the proposed health care "reform" have or will do nothing but hurt the nation in a dangerous time.

The U.S. is a Muslim Country?

President Obama, now waving his middle name "Hussein" like some strange banner in his jaunt around the Middle East, has recently stated that the United States, if one were to actually look at the percentages is one of the largest Muslim nations. If I were a Muslim, I would take this as an insult to my intelligence.
Let's get this out of the way first. .6% of Americans identify themselves as Muslim. Out of approximately 300,000,000 people, this means that there are 1,800,000 Muslims in the United States. The United States Muslim population could match the overall population of New York City...if it were multiplied by 4.5. Also, to address any claims that Obama was correct in saying that by percentage the number of Muslims in the U.S. is at all significant, take a look at the facts. At its highest estimate, there are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. You can do the math.
Now, something else about this just bothers me. Obama's middle name and vague Muslim background have been the skeleton in his closet since his campaign began. And now that he visits the Middle East, he bares all in an attempt to win favor? This is a terribly transparent move. It is widely known that this past election has been the most globally followed election in American history. Has Obama forgotten so soon? The Middle Easterners know what Obama's been up to, because they saw it all just a few short months ago. This is a tactless move on Obama's part. Either you're a Muslim or you're not. Either the United States is Muslim or it's not. (Quite honestly, there is no question that neither Obama nor the U.S. is Muslim) But please, Mr. President, don't go putting on masks when you travel, because it makes us all look like fools.

Noob of the Month: Kara DioGuardi (Is that spelled right?)

So, I tuned in for this week's American Idol, pretty pumped to watch Slash do his thing, but what struck me most about this Tuesday's show was the fact that Kara DioGuardi is an idiot. Now, Paula used to be the show's resident loony, but since Kara's arrival at the beginning of this season, Paula has actually looked more intelligent in comparison.
Anyone who watches the show will surely be familiar with Kara's lack of original commentary, annoying "girl from da hood" phrases, tendency to lean back with a smug grin after making a "point", and generally having no idea what she is talking about. Tonight, for example, Kara had the audacity to label Adam Lambert as a "Rock God". First off, Kara is in no way an authority on rock. In fact, I'm beginning to doubt that she is an authority on music in general. But she would be the last person who I would deem worthy to dish out titles such as that. Second, Adam Lambert is not a "Rock God". Sure he can hit ridiculous notes and he's a great entertainer, but he's new to the scene, he's competing on American Idol (definitely not the road to becoming a Rock God), and he simply hasn't show that he has what it takes to join the likes of Led Zeppelin (especially after his somewhat underwhelming performance of Whole Lotta Love), The Rolling Stones, Slash, etc. The camera didn't show it, but I'm sure Slash at least chuckled when Kara said this.
Also, does it seem like Kara likes Adam a little too much? She fawns over him, praises him unnecessarily, and actually plays down the accomplishments of the other singers in an attempt to glorify Adam. Why? Who knows. We shall see...
The way she talks, dropping words and phrases in an incoherent jumble, seems like some last-ditch attempt to sound intelligent and knowledgeable, but especially tonight, on Rock Week, Kara has instead exposed herself for the noob she is.

Props to Mahmoud

What's up with me lately? I've been complementing those who I usually deride. But hey, they deserve it...for now.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran and all around crazy dude has called on his own government and legal system to take another look at the cases of American Journalist Roxana Saberi and Canadian blogger Hossein Derakhshan who have both been held captive by the Iranian government. Roxana has been charged with spying on the Iranian government, while Hossein has been held since November without charge.
Sure, he might be doing it for purely selfish reasons (painting himself as a defender of human rights, making Iran and himself look good, and protecting U.S.-Iran relations), and he doesn't technically have any power over the judicial system in Iran, but regardless of his motives, he's doing the right thing, and I can't fault him to that.So here's to you Mahmoud.

Props to Obama

I must say, though I have criticized him in the past, President Obama made the right decision in sending in the Navy Seals to rescue Captain Richard Phillips from the clutches of Somalian pirates today. Most importantly, Captain Phillips is safe. But, I must also praise Obama in that his decision to use force to bring about swift and efficient retribution to those who attack Americans did make our nation look good in a time when our image has been tarnished. President Obama did exactly what needed to be done in this situation.
Granted, there will be consequences. Many fear that the pirates will harm or kill some of the other 200 hostages they now hold on land. They shouldn't, but they just might be stupid enough to try and harm hostages. If this happens, Obama must continue with his chosen course of action and lead an international military operation and shut down the pirates once and for all. As usual, America has led by example, and the global community has now seen how these pesks should be handled. We crushed the Barbary pirates, and we can do it again in Somalia.

Noob of the Month: Ban Ki-Moon

"General" Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations made an offhand remark the other day calling the United States a "deadbeat donor" to the organization, and criticized the United States for making late payments on membership dues.[1] Well, hearing these ridiculous remarks, I went and did some research. Surprise surprise, as it turns out, the U.S. is the number one contributor to the U.N. budget,contributing 22% of the U.N.'s budget (followed closely by Japan, with 16.62%) [2] Naturally, my curiosity led me to inquire as to how much Ban Ki-Moon's own nation, South Korea, only contributes 1.8% of the organization's $5 billion budget. People in glass houses, Ban...But really, I find this man's remarks a sad reminder of how pathetic and ineffective the United Nations really is.

Alienable Rights

So now there is talk within the Obama administration of banning the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. Why? Apparently, to reduce violence in Mexico. Mexico. Not New Mexico. Regular Mexico. My first reaction to this piece of news was 'why should I give up my supposed unalienable rights for people in another country? Why doesn't the Mexican government deploy competent police officers to crack down on the cartels and root out the corruption within the government and military? Obviously that is a daunting task, but quite honestly, that won't persuade me to give up my rights. However, I soon realised that Mexico's problem is in a way our problem. The cartels are pouring drugs into the U.S. over our ill-kept border. This is obviously not good. But is it enough to cut and paste our constitution to fit the Obama administration's whims and fancies? No. It's just not.
The problem here is that the Mexican drug cartels are buying automatic weapons here in the U.S. and by using them have become too powerful. They then send drugs back into our country. The solution to this problem is not to limit our right to bear arms. True, I don't need an AK-47 to go hunt bears. But it is my right to buy one.
Anyway, here's my solution: First, finish constructing the border fence. If we don't let Mexicans in, they can't get guns or sell us their drugs. Second, DON'T TOUCH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. What can we possibly use automatic weapons for? Shooting Mexicans that try to cross the border. And third, stop raising taxes. But that's another story.

There is a third step to my plan. However, I don't know enough about international law to explain it. As that is, I will do my best. Look at Darfur. A government sponsored genocide has occurred, and is still occurring, and all the world does is send food, which is often hijacked, stolen, and burned by Janjaweed nomads. Admittedly, the fighting forces of our own country are too busy to play peacekeeper in the Sudan, but still, one important value of this nation is that the people who have the means to help have a moral obligation to help those in need. What do those people need? Yes, they need food, but even the food we send is stolen. The rebels need support in terms of strength, guns, ammunition, and fighters. When the government's of the world are too slow to act, the citizens of the world must act for them. There are very few things I would like to do more than organize my local Amnesty International chapter or whoever wants to go (probably just my World Literature Class), buy some serious firepower and tons of ammunition and head on down there to do whatever I can to help. Whether it's protecting U.N. food convoys or "villages" of displaced Africans, if I had the means, that is what I would like to do. Is it legal? Probably not. But it should be, and that is one excellent reason why Obama CANNOT assault weapons. (Yes, that was a ridiculous reason, but you know I'm right)

Obama's Tax Hike

For anyone interested, here's the breakdown.

Chicago Tea Party

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853 Just check out that video. It's amazing.

Noob of the Month: Rev. Sharpton

Al Sharpton blew his top after seeing this cartoon in the New York Post. Come on Al, don't you read the news? Didn't you hear about the chimpanzee that mauled a woman and was then shot to death? And you think this is racist? You know, it is possible that this cartoon could have racist undertones, but it's just not very likely. This is a classic example of a hothead misinterpreting something and making a big deal about it. It's not racist, the cartoonist is just insulting the intelligence of the President, his cabinet, members of Congress, and anyone else who helped write the stimulus bill.
And that brings up another point. Are they all black? Is everyone who wrote the stimulus bill black? No. In fact, the vast majority are white. Al, I hate to burst your bubble, but Obama didn't write the whole 1000 something pages himself.
So, most Honorable reverend, stop being a noob. As soon as someone attacks your golden boy, you whip out the race card? Very mature. I had actually hoped we were past that. I guess not.

(Oh, and to back up my claim that this is in no way racist, here' an article from The Post itself.)

Politics, Politics, Politics

North Korea has decided to test-launch a missile, again claiming that they are actually launching a satellite. Yeah right. This has met harsh criticism from the US, Japan, and South Korea, and has increased the already high tension on the North/South border. What this seems to be is an attempt by Kim Jong to intimidate, or at least draw the attention of President Obama, so that he can waste our new President's time with futile talks in an attempt to receive concessions.

Meanwhile, in South America, Hugo Chavez has followed the example of Ecuador and Bolivia in removing term limits for government officials. Nicaragua plans to follow suit. Hugo has pushed forward social(ist) reforms, and provided cheap food, and free education and healthcare for the people, but far too often to the detriment of the rich. Many Venezuelans fear that he will become a dictator (like he's not already?). "If he wins he'll be unleashed and he'll make us like Cuba, because that's what he really wants," says Adrianna Hernandez, a 19-year-old student. "He'll create laws by decree, and go after private property."[1] His overall plan is to slowly transform Venezuela into a socialist nation, a recurring theme in South America, but personally, I believe his plan is to stay in power until that process is complete.

Here, in our own country, former astronaut and New Mexico Senator Harrisson Schmitt claims that the global warming scare is purely political. He argues that scientists are being "intimidated" to agree with the very political theory of global warming, and are especially scared as they see their colleagues, who stood up and questioned the idea, lose grant funding for their "heretic" beliefs. The 74 year old man recently resigned from The Planetary Society after it jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Schmitt claims that Global warming is "a political tool used to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." [2] I of course agree with Schmitt. The very fact that questioning or skepticism is demonized proves that this argument has no basis in science, for what is science, but questioning the world around us? Schmitt will be speaking at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

It's My Choice!

I was recently discussing with a fellow scholar the macabre humor in the paradox that many PETA members, or Animal Rights Activists are also Pro-Choice. (That is to say, for all of you who speak the language of common sense, Pro-Abortion). It is extremely hypocritical and absolutely ridiculous that someone who will campaign for the rights of animals, that is to say, not humans, will stand up for a mother's "right" to kill her child. So I went and did some research into the topic, to find out what other people think.
I took this from http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/469667:

Question:
How come many people who support PETA seem to support abortion rights also? Isn't it hyporcritical? Not moralizing, just curious.

Top Answer out of 17 by redcatt63 wears a COAT of Diversity80 on Nov 8, 2007 at 7:27 pm Permalink:
I guess I wasn't aware of that, but, yeah, that would seem so!just like people like Bush are pro-war and pro-death penalty, but against abortion rights. It's OK to kill an adult, just not a fetus?

I couldn't help but wonder what this "redcatt" was thinking when he/she wrote this. Of course people who are pro-war and pro-death penalty would be Pro-Life. War is a tool used to protect ourselves and national interests. The death penalty is used to remove people from society who are too bad to be kept in prison. Abortion, however, is a tool used to remove an inconvenience, that is to say, a child. A unborn child cannot have committed any crime. If this was possible, then the child would be eligible to receive the death penalty. But this is impossible, as the child is unborn. While deaths that result from war or the death penalty happen (for the most part) to people who have wronged the nation, a child is the epitome of innocence. Redcatt is a fool, and quite bad at making analogies.

Here is a conversation from the belly of the beast itself: http://www.peta.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6206
One woman said:
Hey... So I have been a long time 'pro-choicer'. I had also been a long time meat eater. You can see how this develops.... I was pro choice because I was never seriously faced with making that choice. I still believe it is ones right to choose... and regardless of whether you are anti abortion or pro choice, its still a choice! You chose to be against it. Right? Anyways, I was worried that I may be pregnant, and my bf and I have always said that if an accident were to happen we'd abort. It was our agreement. I went to the doctor today and I am not in fact pregnant. However, for the past two weeks I had been going over in my head how I was going to tell him that if I was..... I was keeping the baby and going the route of adoption instead. Since becoming involved with animal rights and welfare, I could not think of one rational reason why I would murder my own unborn child, when there are parents out there that are praying every night for a baby to adopt. All while upholding no-kill ethics regarding animals. How can I value a chickens life, but not a babies? This is where my decision lies. I am no way fit to raise a child right now and I know that, but no sense to kill it. PLease dont get me wrong Im not preechinging my journey. I am happy that I'm not "with child" right now... its a relief, thats for sure. Anyways just thought I'd share.
Another peta-er replied:
While I'm not knocking you choice to give up your baby for adoption, but just so you know, there's roughly 150,000 children in foster care in North America at any given time. So it isn't like there's a shortage of children up for adoption. To me, until it could survive on it's own, side of the mother's womb, it is not a baby and not an individual human being, but a part of the mother and she should be able to do whatever she wants to her body. I'm pro-choice, and I doubt that would ever change.
So, let's dissect this man's argument. Aside from his grammatical/spelling errors, which we will forgive, his logic states that "(until a child) could survive on its own, (out)side of the mother's womb, it's not a baby and an individual human being," Well by this flawed reasoning, no child under the age of, let's say ten is a human being, and can be killed at any time. How old do you think you were when you think you gained the ability to survive on your own? Cook your own food, work a full-time job, etc? To be honest bud, I'm not even sure you could survive on your own. But hey, why not, let's go out and kill some inhuman toddlers. They're not contributing to society. Just another mouth to feed.
So, now that I've seen with my own eyes the absurdities, the nonsense, the outrageous chains of "reasoning", my opinion of mankind has forever changed. I now realize the extent to which logic has died out among our race. It greatly saddens me. I suggest, however, that if these people will not see the light for themselves, that we show it to them. Let's start a Pro-Choice To Be Cruel To Animals group. We'll meet Wednesday nights at seven, at my place.
Just kidding, of course. But do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Now apply it to mankind.

Digging Our Own Grave

Obama's Marvelous Bailout Plan and Waterslides is fast approaching the $1 trillion mark. "Where is this $1 trillion dollars coming from?", the enlightened American may ask. Should we borrow it from Bear Sterns? No, I don't think so. You see, Obama's Bodacious Bailout Bill is resembles in some ways some of the very problems that were at the root of our current financial crisis. Banks lent money to people who simply couldn't pay them back. Now, it seems the American government is on the other side of the coin. We are planning to spend a gargantuan amount of money that we just don't have.
Obama has warned that,

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more
jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into
a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse,".

Thank you, Mr. President, for doing your part in sinking us deeper. I don't believe for one minute that a vote against this bill "will sink us deeper", in fact, I think it will the opposite. Congress is on the verge of passing a bill that could dig the nation, and by extension, the world, a grave. And once we're in the grave, the Obama administration will wield the shovel to bury us forever.
Now, I don't think that we are in , or will be in a situation that "we may not be able to reverse,", I just think that a bailout bill, laden with blatant pork-barrel spending, and driven by the sheer force of liberal controlled Legislature and Executive branches, will make reversing the crisis quite difficult indeed.
What do I, with all my criticisms suggest? I suggest we scrap the bailout plan completely. Then, we lower the wage of high-level government officials, such as Congressmen and Cabinet members, and, yes, even the President himself, and then use that money to give tax breaks to all Americans. This would not be enough however, on its own. Tax breaks would have to occur on the state level, and although the Federal government can't force State Legislatures to lower taxes, I suggest that an exception be made in this case. State taxes have spiraled out of control. States like New York have obscenely high taxes, and this has to be stopped. We have to put tax caps, much lower than the current tax rates in NY, and leave them there, to protect all the citizens on the State level as well. (Because it does no good for the Federal government to lower taxes while the corrupt and dysfunctional state governments raise them). Then we take this opportunity to lay off, yes, lay off and consolidate useless government jobs. Fire the people that should never have been hired in the first place, and instead, use the money that would have gone to pay them to fund government paid infrastructure and urban renewal projects. Finally, offer tax incentives to companies that build factories here in the U.S., and operate them too. Obviously, it has some rough edges, and may be incomplete, but I'm open to suggestions. And, unlike our president, when I say that, I mean it.

The First Days

So Obama, in one of his first acts in office, has stated that he will close Guantanamo Bay. In light of recent events, this idea of his really does seem a bit foolish. It has been discovered that two ex-detainees have rejoined the ranks of Al-Qaeda, both in senior positions. These are just two out of a known 61 released terrorists that have just picked up where they left off. What's the point of a prison if we release the prisoners? These aren't car-jackers or pickpockets, these are terrorists. Men bent on the destruction of the Western World. Men who wish to force Islamic rule on all humanity. And what do we do with them? We complain that they are being held, we complain that they are being tortured, and then our government releases them. What do they do? They start plotting away in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, thinking of more ways to overthrow the West.
Personally, I believe that the death penalty works in our society. It is rarely used, and then only on the worst offenders. It is used to stop people who are a danger to society. And again, it is very rarely used. This is because if it were used, it would be used on citizens of this great nation. But these terrorists, however, are not citizens of the United States. They are foreign enemies. Our soldiers would kill them on the battlefield, why can't we kill them in our prisons? If our government releases these people, they will continue to be a danger to us. And the many liberals are screaming for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, not to mention the release of all the prisoners. Do they not see now why that is a horrible, horrible idea? Look, I'm certainly not suggesting that we should line all the hundreds of detainees up against the wall and let the firing squad have a go at them, but I do suggest, that is imprisonment for life will not be allowed by the ignorant public, then we should kill them so that they can't come back to hurt us.
At least Obama seems now to grasp the difficulties in closing Guantanamo Bay; he has stated that it will be closed a year from now. Hopefully within that time period, he will realize how bad that idea is.

Russia's Gamble

The EU is up in arms about Russia's latest show of strenght, because now, it affects them. Russia has cut off gas to many European countries because of a dispute with Ukraine over prices for the new year. Last year Ruissia charged $179.5 per 1,000 cubic meters, and now wants to charge $250, though Kiev has vowed not to pay a cent more than $201. At first glance, this looks like a desperate company (Gazprom) owned by a desperate nation, attempting to increase profits after a hard economic year. Gazprom is knee-deep in debt and would naturally want to increase profits to curtail this. Then things get interesting when Russia demads an astounding $450 per 1,000 cubic feet. This number is completely irrational, and personally, I don't believe that Putin expects anyone to pay.

The Czech Deputy Prime Minister, Alexandr Vondra has criticized Russia, saying "It is impossible to hold other countries hostage." Actually, I think it is. And that's what Russia's doing right now.
The nations of Europe aren't in a very good position to be bargaining with Russia. It seems Putin's holding all the good cards. Obviously, he doesn't expect Ukraine to pay $450 for gas, and he will probably relent, once the mounting pressure of a below zero winter without gas starts to hit parts of Europe. These nations will respond perhaps by blocking Ukraine and Georgia from entering NATO. After all, Putin has been outspoken about his opinion in this. Who knows, but a lot of European non-powers making fiery speeches and bold statements will lead them nowhere.

Maybe There's Hope After All

While at times the world seems to be spinning out of control and everyone in power is either incompetent or oblivious, we are gifted with rare glimpses of hope. One such glimpse is the new President of the EU, Vaclav Claus of the Czech Republic. He doesn't believe in the Hollywood farce that is "global warming". Finally someone on the top who listens to science, reason, logic, and not Al Gore. The Czech government, however, is trying to limit his role to that of a figurehead, and keep him as far away from power as possible. Typical.
In other news, Israel has launched a ground invasion of Gaza. It is heartening to see another nation stand up for itself on the world stage. While France has condemned the campaign, just about everyone else is giving it the green light. Not that Israel was waiting for the world's go-ahead, which is one of the reasons I really respect that nation. Sure, If a man slaps you you can turn the other cheek, but if a radical Islamist group of nutjobs starts killing your people, you crush 'em.
Sarkozy suggests a ceasefire, but he seems to have forgotten that there already was a cease-fire...that Hamas broke by launching missiles into Israel. These peace treaties will not work if one party doesn't respect them. They had their chance, now the must accept the consequences of their actions. Besides, peace through unity is far better than peace through an unstable treaty between two factions that either hate each other or just really, really disagree.