Archive for the ‘Drug War’ Category

Passive Resistance is Futile

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

Here’s a man standing against the socialist evil of the Nazis:
[via]
Our man is in front, second from the left with no helmet. He is a Nazi soldier who is refusing to help execute 16 Yugoslav civilians.

Shortly after this picture was taken, he took his place amongst the victims, and was executed with them.

This is a classic example of passive, non-violent resistance.

Raise your hand, everybody who thinks it was effective.

Today we are facing a creeping rise of quasi-military tyranny. The war on drugs, the war on guns, and the war on (almost non-existent American patriot) terrorists, have created an increasingly arrogant police force. They have not yet fallen to the point of the Nazi army, willing to shoot civilians in rows like this, but they are willing to beat, shock, spray, and of course imprison those who resist in any way, even with words, even by merely taking pictures.

Of course, the form of “resistance” they most object to is any encroachment on their monopoly of force. Carrying and especially using any form of firearm by the unbadged is anathema to many.

How do we stop this?

Is it enough to vote Republican? How about simply withdrawing from society, stockpiling food and ammo in the name of disaster preparedness?

Is it enough to do what this man did, to passively resist violence hoping to shock the nation?

Or should we follow Solzhenitsyn’s advice, and make sure that when they come for us, we make it fatal for as many of them as we can?

The problem with the passive soldier in the photo is that we are only now, far too late, finding out what he did.

Every day people right now are finding themselves caught up in the state’s satanic mills.

Nobody hears about them because, like the German press in Nazi days, our press is on the wrong side. They are covering for a socialist government bent on tyranny.

Go ahead, campaign against Obama. Put clever bumper stickers on your car, Stay Puft Man versus Moving Torb signs in your yard, snarky teeshirts on your back. Hell, vote for Romney, or even the Libertarian candidate, whoever he is.

No, really, do that. Og explains why you should be active in the political scene, in a post that inspires me. If we don’t do at least this, the picture up there is inevitable.

Sure, you can go further. Hand out flyers on jury nullification in front of the courthouse. Give joints to the officers rolling out at the start of their shifts.

Attend Tea Party rallies.

No one will care. Reporters will not notice.

Or go the next step: Defend yourself against an mugger with darker skin than your own. Open carry without a license.

You will disappear.Oh, your arrest will show up on the police blotter page of your local paper. There might be a local newscast suggesting that you will be evaluated by a police psychologist. You’ll be allowed your phone call, if you survive your arrest, as is likely.

But mostly your brave resistance will go unnoticed. It will be as wasted as this soldier’s was. He could have gone down killing the agents of oppression and tyranny.

What are we supposed to do instead? I am lost here. I honestly don’t know the answer. I suspect that a civil war is inevitable, and I’m too old for that, far too unprepared. The damage it would do…I quail at the thought.

But what are we supposed to do?

[update to link to Og's post. And I'll add this: the liberal/progressive/socialist left wants us to despair, wants us to put ourselves out of the action either by disengaging or getting thrown into jail. They control the media, and acts of open defiance will not be reported.

[And what I'm coming around to is, Make noise. Vote. Don't sit down and shut up. Don't take the fight to the cops. Defend yourself, if need be. But no more than that. No first use of violence, remember? But maybe, just maybe, it's time to think about what you do when first violence has been offered. Crackheaded or jackbooted, thugs is thugs. Your home is your castle. Stand your ground.]

Justice or Gang Intimidation?

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

First I heard of the Kenneth Green story was at Second City Cop, a pro-Second Amendment Chicago police blog I trust for insider news of top-down corruption.

SCC points to this article by Chuck Goudie of the Daily Herald.

The most dangerous place for a Chicago police officer is:

a. Face-to-face with a heavily armed drug gang.
b. Trapped by gangbangers at the end of a dark alley in Englewood.
c. Cornered by some lifers carrying shivs at Stateville prison.
d. Sitting in a Cook County courtroom.

The correct answer is d.

Or at least it was last Friday.

That is when the man in the mug shot was allowed to go home, after being found not guilty of shooting and trying to kill two Chicago police officers.

You didn’t hear anything about the trial, maybe because the cops were just wounded and survived the July 2009 shooting. It probably attracted little attention because the case should have been a lock for prosecutors.

The guy’s name is Kenneth Green. He was 21 years old at the time and living in an apartment near 112th Street and Michigan Avenue in Roseland.

A special Chicago police team raided his place with a search warrant for drugs. Imagine one of those scenes on the copper TV shows: doors fly open, guns out, lots of yelling. They are among the riskiest moments in any police officer’s life.

On that day two years ago, veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O’Toole were on the warrant team doing what they had done many times. The police team bursts in and spreads out, clearing the apartment room by room to make sure the search for drugs can safely begin.

Rarely do these “jobs,” as the police refer to them, go as planned. It takes incredible awareness, split-second reactions and extraordinary judgment. The wrong decision can mean people end up dead.

I strongly urge you to read the whole thing.

Indeed, this “job” did not go according to plan. Fortunately, in this case no one died, but two officers were shot in their legs.

The problem with the trial, according to Goudie and SCC, is that the courtroom was packed with Green’s fellow gang members, whose presence “intimidated” the jury into finding Green not guilty.

I’m sorry, SCC, but something about this bothered me at the time, although I didn’t know what. As is often the case, however, I thought I detected a whiff of cops versus everybody else, where “everybody else” means “ungrateful perps, most of whom haven’t been arrested or convicted yet.”

Finally, via Pete Guither at Drug WarRant, I hear the other side of the story.

A criminal defense attorney in Chicago represented a client who was involved in a situation we’ve seen far too often in this destructive war: SWAT-style serving of a search warrant with no investigation or knowledge of who or what is in the house. In this case, a resident managed to get off four shots aimed low through his bedroom door at what he thought were violent criminal intruders, and he (as well as six children in the house) managed to avoid being killed by the 37 shots fired by police. Naturally, he was charged with attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery.

Here is the closing argument. Simple, powerful, effective.

I’m not even going to quote defense attorney Marcus L. Schantz’s closing argument. Read the whole thing.

SCC makes this comment:

Goudie outlines the case against the shooter, the blatant disregard for human life exhibited by the shooters, the amazing restraint by the officers.

“Blatant disregard for human life”, SCC? Green fired four shots, aiming low, at violent intruders who, more or less blindly fired 37 shots into a house they knew had children in it, intruders who turned out to be police officers showing “amazing restraint”.

SCC, want to know why The People are showing growing distrust and resentment against The Police? This is why. We’re just as intimidated by you as we are by any other gang. Sure, they can pack a courtroom, but we know the courtroom exists, along with the entire weight of the criminal justice system. We see your cars, your uniforms, your badges. We watch you on TV. We read about you in the papers.

When you follow us on the streets, you think we’re not intimidated?

I can see no reason why a SWAT style dynamic entry was needed in this case. Your colleagues weren’t rescuing a hostage, they were serving a drug warrant. Fine. Bust the guy as he leaves his house. Might evidence get flushed down the toilet? You know what, if it was, the amount was so small that it could be flushed away, it does not represent a significant threat to the community that justifies the risk to either cops or the occupants.

You often complain, SCC, of how there aren’t enough cops on the street to do the job you are asked to do.

This kind of action is not the job we citizens want you to do. We don’t believe in the War on Drugs. We certainly don’t believe a flushable quantity of crack is worth risking your lives, or ours, in a dynamic entry.

You’ve been an advocate of the Second Amendment, SCC, for which I admire and applaud you. However, you seem to think armed citizens will only shoot at bad guys. Guess what, though? If you and your fellow cops act like arrogant gangsters, we’ll shoot at you, too, and increasingly, you’re going to find that when that happens, the rest of us will acquit the shooter at trial.

We fear gangs, SCC. We are intimidated.

But, again, not just by packed court rooms; increasingly, by the courtrooms themselves, by a justice system that seems not concerned with justice, and not on our side.

We want you on our side, SCC. We want to see you as our allies, as our fellow citizens. “The police are the people, and the people are the police,” says Peel, and I believe that.

But you have got to stop busting through our bedroom doors, guns blazing, over a few grams of contraband. That is not “a duty incumbent on every citizen”.

One more point: The defense attorney’s closing argument is dense with fact. It raises prosecution points one after another, often using the testimony of the police themselves, and counters them.

Goudie’s Herald article does not “outline the facts”; it’s is almost nothing but sensationalism, starting with the little pop quiz identifying the courtroom as more dangerous to cops than the street. It doesn’t even try to present the defense case. The police say Green’s a bad guy doing bad things, we should trust them and convict him of whatever the prosecution chooses to charge him with. Case closed.

Um, no. Green’s case is closed, and not in favor of the police, the prosecutor, or the courts. However, the case against the Drug War, the war on the people, the war on the Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, is still being made.

Sunday Sacrement

Saturday, September 25th, 2010

Anthony Gregory, at the Classical Liberal, unleashes a mighty fire tornado of logic and rhetoric against the drug war, showing how it violates all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. “The Drug War,” he says, “Is Destroying American Civilization”.

Go read it. The whole thing.

And anybody who supports the drug war? You are not my friend.

Civil War on the Border

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Speaking of Sipsey Street, Mike Vanderboegh reminds us of what we’re talking about when we talk about taking our country back by force of arms:

Pictures from the War on Drugs, by the way, over in Mexico. This is what an open border policy invites in.

Sauce For All Anser cygnoides

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Via Curmudgeonly and Skeptical:

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem) What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my Question: Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

[I'll note that I personally hate pervasive drug tests. But, yeah, if earners have to pass them, so do the sucks.]

The Good Surrender

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

Finally, a war for which Obama may possibly be a competent leader by simply surrendering: The Drug War. So far, he’s only saying he’s going to stop pursuing marijuana clinics in states where they are legal. And we really do have to wait and see whether or not the bust rate declines.

But if this is for real, and if it’s the start of a trend, I will have to give Obama a very great deal of credit. I have believed for a long time that the War on Drugs, and particularly the Battle of Ganja, damages far more lives than it saves, and has done incalculable damage to our rights.

However, even I have to admit to the uneasy feeling that this is only the circuses part of a bread&circuses public policy.


I am particularly sensitive to this today because I have, once again, had to put myself on the National Runny Nose Registry for wanting to buy pseudophedrine.

The rule is, “innocent until proven guilty”. Having to register for pseudophedrine purchases essentially demands that I prove my innocence, on the assumption that if I were a drug cooker, I wouldn’t bother to register.

Expect A Lot More of This Under Obama Care

Friday, October 9th, 2009

From Reason:

Last month a federal judge sentenced Rosa Martinez, a physician in Yakima, Washington, to a year’s probation and a $1,000 fine for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The fraud occurred when a physician’s assistant in Martinez’s practice mistakenly charged the government for her services at the physician’s rate, which is allowed only when the supervising physician is present, which Martinez wasn’t. She said she was unaware of the rule but accepted responsibility for the errors because they occurred on her watch. The overcharges totaled $22.

This isn’t just a nationalized medicine case, although it is that. It’s primarily a Drug War case:

This pathetic outcome is all that is left of a federal prosecution that threatened Martinez with up to 20 years in federal prison, portraying her as a taxpayer-bilking drug pusher.

The article explains how the government’s entire case was “gutted”, but although Martinez “wanted to keep fighting, but she ‘had run out of money’ and assets, having ‘lost her home in the process of defending herself against the charges.’”

“How To Take Ritalin”

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

This is the kind of extremely useful advice you rarely get because it’s illegal. Stupid drug laws. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[T]he key to amphetamines and Ritalin is to stop thinking of them as stimulants, and to think of them as reinforcers.

Let’s conceptualize how these drugs work. Imagine getting a brain scan while you are performing a task. The parts of your brain you are using for the task will light up, brighter than those you aren’t using.

Now you drink coffee. The whole brain lights up brighter, proportionally.

Now you take amphetamines. The parts of your brain that you are using light up brighter, but the parts you aren’t using go darker. Get it? Caffeine is a global brain stimulant, while amphetamines focus your attention, reducing distraction.

This is entirely selective and controlled by you. You have to decide what you want to focus your attention on. If it’s reading, the reading parts of your brain will be brighter. But if you stop reading and decide to talk to your friend on the phone, you know, the hot one with the hotter roommate, then you’ll be more focused on that (obviously). Attention is always decreased when it is split among several tasks. In other words, you can only concentrate on one thing at a time, even though it may feel like you are doing two things at once.

While amphetamines and Ritalin do stimulate you and keep you awake, using them to pull an all nighter completely subverts their awesome power. If you want a stimulant, drink coffee or Red Bull. Amphetamines should be saved for reinforcement.

You want to set up a study situation that as closely as possible resembles your testing context. Do you take tests in the middle of the night? Using multicolored highlighters? With The Daily Show on in the background and eating Doritos? Then you’re a pig, and you deserve to fail. You’re dead to me.

You should study in the morning, at a desk, under the same “fed” conditions as on test day. (So you would have eaten before taking the test, not snacking at the test.) Quiet room, no distractions. Remember, attention is decreased with multiple stimuli in normal conditions, but on amphetamines, this will be be greatly magnified. Studying while talking to your friend means your “talking to friend” parts of the brain are brighter while your “”studying” parts of the brain are darker. Same thing with listening to music and studying.

Take the amphetamine (takes about 30 minutes to “kick in.”) Study, straight, with no distractions or interruptions, for about four hours. Quit. You’re done. Amphetamines give you about 4 hours tops of great concentration. Go to lunch, the gym, watch a movie, etc.

This is Leary’s “set and setting” understanding harnessed and put to work.

It should be noted that all this probably works without amphetamines almost as well. I’m beginning to understand that brains are all about reinforcement and habit.

Drugs are tools, just like guns, or computers, or shovels, or pencils. Drugs cause enormous damage because the drug war forces us to treat them like an enemy, and they reflect that back at us. The only people “studying” drugs are hedonists, losers, and violent criminals.

Incidentally, many of the comments are useful and informative, but then, many are not. You will have to step carefully to avoid the mines and cowpats, but they’re worth reading.

Code: Computer versus Legal

Friday, April 10th, 2009

Stevey tries to compare computer programming with writing laws. He starts by describing the policies and programs necessary to implement a seemingly easy change in credit card accounting; it turns out to be a great deal more complicated than you’d think.

He then talks about making marijuana legal. Again, that seems simple, but when you look closely at the problem, all sorts of hidden complexities arise.

I believe, however, that he has missed an essential difference between computers and people:

There is a fundamental difference between writing laws and writing programs:

Computers need programs to function, at all. The bucket example is a good one: without both administrative policies, and the programming code to implement them, the idea can never be put into practice. If there are any errors or gaps in the code, the idea will fail.

People, however, will for the most part function just fine without laws. In the absence of laws, people do whatever they damn well please. Some choose their behaviors wisely and thrive. Others choose poorly, and fail, in which case they either learn, or die.

This process is called “evolution”, and it is known to work very well in terms of generating diverse solutions to a large set of complex and otherwise intractable problems.

There’s a economic analog, called “capitalism”.

In any event, it is absolutely possible to simply…delete a law. It is not necessary, or in many cases, even desirable, to write a replacement.

Example: The Supreme Court recently struck down part of the Washington, D.C., gun control regulations. They did not propose alternatives. They simply deleted the old law. Poof! Gone! (Of course, D.C. promptly wrote a new set of equally offensive and counterproductive regulations, but that’s not the fault of the Court.)

This happens regularly (although not often enough, in my opinion) at all levels of jurisdiction. Courts void laws, legislatures repeal laws, laws simply fall into disuse and are forgotten.

The more laws you write, the more you will run into exactly the problem you describe. The solution is to simply not write laws that are not absolutely necessary. People will seek and find their own solutions to problems, and successful solutions will, on average, persist and spread.

There will be failures. That’s a necessary part of the system, the negative feedback loop.

There will be parasites. Excellent! Both biological and computer systems become more robust when routinely challenged by parasites, which tend to exploit flaws in the system. Either the system adapts (by, for instance, checking for buffer overflows) or it dies, clearing the way for a more robust offspring.

In any event, however, there is no reason why bad laws cannot simply be deleted.

Via the very fruitful Hacker News which is simply a list of interesting links, along with comments from readers. Very interesting stuff, mostly computer and programming related.

Naked In School

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

The Supreme Court will decide if Savana Redding’s school acted properly when they strip-searched her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, each tablet of which is roughly equal to two over-the-counter Motrins.

The search was done on the accusation of another student trying to explain how she came into possession of ibuprofen pills.

Redding turned out not to have any pills in her possession, but frankly, even if she had a gram of coke on her, it would not have justified this.

Michael Daly Hawkins, a thug masquerading as a lower court Judge, said, “I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students.”

What threat, exactly, “Judge”, was severe enough to justify this trauma?

Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, asks, “Do we really want to encourage cases where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?”

Hey, professor, do we really want to encourage cases where school administers can rip the clothes off innocent students for little or no reason?

Or are you just pulling your rotting liitle pud in excitement about the prospect of school teachers getting official permission to rip the clothes off their students for no good reason?

Prove there was a threat, you assholes. Prove there was a threat that justifies this being done to your daughters. Or yourselves.

Pervert thugs, the both of you, and everyone involved in this.

I hope the Supreme Court cuts your balls off and makes you eat them. In public.

And if they don’t, what use is it? How can this possibly be seen as Constitutional, or remotely moral?

Finally: this happened in a school. What do you think Savanna Redding and her friends learned from this little lesson in Respecting the Authority of the Law?

[Via Slashdot, where I responded to the particularly ignorant comment that "The practical reason for the Second Amendment is that private ownership of guns was necessary to perpetuate slavery."]

For reference: Entry at SCOTUSWiki for Safford v. Redding (docket 08-479), which includes the cert Petition from the Safford United School District (that would be the Bad Guys) and the Brief in Opposition, as well as all other significant documents in the case so far (not many, as the case is just now established at the SC.)