Thursday Tabs
NPR, “In Gaza, anger grows at Hamas along with fury at Israel.” A somewhat anecdotal account that the thing many of us have wished for is happening.
AP, “AI-generated voices in robocalls can deceive voters. The FCC just made them illegal.” A welcome development, albeit one that will likely have little effect, as most of these calls are based outside the country.
NPR, “Oregon pioneered a radical drug policy. Now it’s reconsidering.” tl;dr: It turns out that decriminalizing hard drugs doesn’t diminish their use or make them more likely to get medical help.
BBC, “Marianne Williamson suspends bid for US Democratic ticket.” She wants to spend more time tilting at windmills.
ABC News, “Not wearing a mask during COVID-19 health emergency isn’t a free speech right, appeals court says.” tl;dr: duh
Washington Free Beacon, “Bill Clinton’s Press Secretary Called This Saudi Prince a ‘Ruthless Killer.’ Now, He Works for Him.” tl;dr: Life comes at you fast. (And, yes, it’s a legit report despite the source.)
Finally, a tribute to the late Toby Keith from an unlikely source:
Something tells me this will not redound to Israel’s benefit.
Everybody’s for sale, we’re just negotiating the price.
A nice bit from Colbert there.
I find it interesting that conservatives would resort to that argument given their decades-long campaign to ban flag burning on the grounds that it was an action and therefore couldn’t be considered speech.
Of course this was always pure sophistry. The notion that burning a flag could be considered an action independent of the message it conveyed was ridiculous. It had no concrete effect on the world (which was obvious from the fact that the laws always made exceptions allowing people to incinerate old or torn flags), and the act was only offensive insofar as what it communicated.
Yet there are plenty of actions that can be restricted regardless of what they may or may not be intended to communicate. The only way the mask argument works is if you hold that symbolic speech allows a person to do anything they want as long as they claim they’re doing it to make a statement. It’s the complete opposite extreme of what conservatives argue when trying to ban flag burning.
FCC can’t anything about AI robo calls. What’s the next big news, water is wet?
Another election, more shenanigans.
@Kylopod: But it’s consistent with conservative claims that a president threatening a state Sec O’State to get him to cheat a vote count falls under free speech.
According to the NPR report 53% of Palestinians in the Strip and a huge majority in the West Bank stilll support Hamas. Reading the article it sounds more like most are criticizing the timing of the original assault and the fact Hamas miscalculated on getting support from Hezbollah.
@OzarkHillbilly:
I think that may be too cynical. I don’t think everyone has a price. Would you go to work for MBS? I wouldn’t. I’ve fairly frequently turned down money whose source I didn’t like. The UAE, a Chinese publisher, a German publisher, MSNBC, the NY Daily News (I’d have had to cross a picket line, so that was easy) and a job at a restaurant where they told me I had to describe a wine as dry when it was not. (And I am no one’s ethics poster boy.) The Oppositional Defiant Disorder kicks in.
Of course if we’re talking about someone in serious need, grab the cash and save yourself. But if not, then grow a spine. Looking at you, GOP, you invertebrates.
The whole legalize all drugs thing just drives me crazy. Libertarian, Liberal, it doesn’t matter. It’s valuing your half assed theory against thousands of years of lived experience. All while the addictiveness of drugs has constantly ratchetted up. And the worst is when a bunch of nonsense gets mashed together. “Decriminalize Drugs” combines with “We Have to Give Addicts Safe Places to Shoot Up” with “Now that the Addicts are all living in tents in public parks and sidewalks We Can’t Arrest Them for Public Intoxication (or shitting on a park bench, or screaming obscenities at passers by because that is just criminalizing their disease.”
Ok, so it’s a disease. With every other disease we try to limit the spread. Why do you think letting drug addiction run wild is the better choice?
@MarkedMan:
Knowing that the War on Drugs has be an unmitigated disaster, what would be your prefered method of handling this problem?
A couple other points:
1. treating all substances as functionally the same is a problem. Hell, even an addictive substance like cocaine has millions of responsible users in this country. Should they all be locked up and/or be left to fend for themselves not knowing what’s in their coke?
2. Why shouldn’t I, as a consenting adult, be able to access some of these substances free of fear of prosecution AND be able to fundamentally know what’s in the substance I’m buying AND know the exact amount.
I’ve mentioned here before that LSD and MDMA have RADICALLY improved my life. I’d much prefer to get my LSD or MDMA (or 2CB) from Pfizer than from Mr. 90’s.
For the record, I don’t think there should be a free-for-all, I’d be happy with regulations, this is powerful stuff here. But criminalization and the war on drugs has been a total, absolute, objective disaster.
@MarkedMan:
The obvious rejoinder is that our whole wanton and indiscriminate criminalization of drugs thing is not actually working to solve addiction and drug-related crime. The idea we can expect improvement if we keep doing what we’re doing in this country vis a vis substance use and abuse is the most half-assed theory I can think of.
In fact, our lived experience in the US shows that prohibition is a miserable failure and getting worse, not better.
@Beth:
Critics of drug decriminalization efforts don’t really have any solutions. They’d rather snipe from the sidelines at those in the arena who’d prefer we not just keep banging our head against a brick wall.
Those who don’t do teach, and those who can’t do or teach, criticize.
Throwing drug addicts in prison is not working and is not going to work. We need a far more robust mental healthcare system — along with universal healthcare, universal pre-K, paid family leave, and surges in mass transit and housing construction as a higher quality of life in the US is the best long-term way to mitigate the despair and poverty that fuels addiction.
Meanwhile, responsible use of less deadly drugs should be decriminalized.
@DK: it’s fine to say we can, and should, do better and I agree. But when do we give up on these legalization experiments that have never worked, anywhere? The cities that implement them attract drug users, who in turn find it easy to remain addicted (until they OD or die by street violence).
@MarkedMan:
I think it’s a case-by-case basis. Marijuana – should be treated basically like booze IMO. Fentanyl, cocaine, meth, etc., shouldn’t be legal like booze is.
But how illegal? The devil is always in the details. How illegal do we make each drug, including what steps are we willing, as a society, to enforce whatever limit we set?
I’m with the Libertarians in being a really big critic of the “war on drugs” not only because it’s been an objective failure, but also because it’s been harmful in many ways on top of the harms that drugs do. That doesn’t mean, though, that we just make everything legal, we change how we enforce and deal with the problem.
One example: In combatting various crazies and militia types in the 80’s and 90’s, the feds were very aggressive. Ruby ridge. Waco. Then we had Oklahoma City. The law enforcement methods used were problematic in a lot of ways. The feds changed the way they approached the problem and I think history has proven that to be a lot more effective.
There are lots of other examples.
But I think with any addictive activity; we have to be realistic that it’s a problem that cannot be solved – instead, it needs to be managed.
@Beth: I’m curious about the claim of millions of responsible coke users. Not necessarily doubting it, as I’ve long suspected that one could use it productively if you are disciplined, but do you know anybody who really hasn’t stumbled into any trouble with regular use?
@Franklin:
So, the millions is just a guess based on population and use in the US. Maybe it’s hyperbole, but of all the cocaine users I know only one has wound up in jail because of it. He probably wouldn’t have ended up in jail if he hadn’t had a gun on himself though.
Honestly, most of the cocaine users I know fall into three basic categories, 1. relatively successful people, 2. gym rats, and 3. normal people. I was expecting to find people that were just absolutely destroyed by it, and that hasn’t been my experience. Now, I personally won’t touch the stuff because I know myself and I know I’d be an instant problem both in use and the people around me while I’m high.
I guess I don’t know what you mean by “stumble”. Do you mean someone that has OD’d or irrevocably destroyed their lives? Than no. Seriously. Even the gun guy is doing great and married to a cop. If you mean had too much fun on the weekend and need to dry out for a month, then yeah.
I think part of the problem is that, culturally, we are told that ALL drugs are bad and scary and will INSTANTLY and irrevocably ruin your life. I think that sort of puritanical mindset needs to go and we need to honestly weigh the benefits and risks of each substance on its own and even then I don’t think things should be automatically illegal for everyone.
@Beth:
Trying to remember how many decades I’ve been ranting about this. Facts, not propaganda. Facts are durable, propaganda tends to unravel, and when it unravels it undercuts credibility. Tell people what you know. If you don’t know, tell them you don’t know.
@Andy:
Agree, but making it legal allows significantly more management. Making it legal also removes the profit motive, at least for the kids in the street.
@dazedandconfused:
Depends what you mean by legal. Fentanyl is legal but highly regulated and controlled.
By contrast, booze is legal and so is making my own. Here in Colorado I can smoke weed and grow my own if I want.
I can’t make my own fentanyl and many other things that are highly regulated and controlled but are still legal in limited circumstances.
@Beth: 19 years or so ago I was told by a high school student that popping vicodin was safe because it’s legal. This was a reoccurring theme I saw among our high school employees (I was a few years out of high school at this point). That first kid I mentioned died of a prescription drug overdose a few years later.
Maybe it’s time for some nuance?
@Michael Reynolds: Yes and every time you’ve ranted about that over the years I’ve nodded along. You tell people that something (marijuana) is going to kill/destroy them and when that fails to occur said people tend to not believe the rest.