Daily Calendar

Amazon Deals

Search This Blog

Loading...

Pages

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Jewish is not a Race-

Cults and new religious movements in literatur...Image via Wikipedia
PROLOGUE
NOTE: For all people that dislike Hebrews, Israelites, The Chosen People, or the many other ways of addressing those whom ,you perceive to be the object of my topic; I'm afraid you're at the wrong blog. Anyone allowed to complete process can be Jewish. Beyond that fact you're in the wrong blog because hate of a religion, people, race, gender, region etc., tells anyone observing, more about your problems, faults and needs, than your purported reasons for the feeling that you have. Someone that has done you a legitimate wrong has no more to do with the majority of others that "look" or worship like them than one grain of sand from another grain of sand. Anyone that that has done you an imaginary wrong, has caused you no hurt. The problem rests with you and I wish you better emotional and mental health. With that bit of bookkeeping done, we can now proceed.

Let's get to the meat of the topic. Jewish is not a race. Jewish is a religion. Saying Jewish is a race is akin to someone insulting my Catholic heritage and me yelling RACIST. Yes.. yes that's a pretty funny idea. But let's take it a step further. Let's call Muslims 1.(mŭz'ləm, mʊz'-, mŭs'-, mʊs'-) or Moslem 2.[ˈmɒzləm] a race. Each time we judge one of these individuals or profile a Mosque we're being racist. Right? Sorry but that would be wrong. "But..but we are!" you gasp. "We're grouping a people together and making judgments about them..that's racist!" No it's a prejudice against a religion. It is not against a people. No less vile, but different.

For years it was said electing a Catholic to the presidency would put the United States into the hands of the Pope. It was a very real fear. Then John F. Kennedy, a professed Catholic, ran for office and though that idea never went away, it did not keep him from the White House. Nor subsequently assassins' bullets. I do not acquiesce to the "lone gunman" theory,  but that is another blog for another day. But I meander, let us return to the topic.

A race is a people which comes from a place, in which some defining issue can be attributed to them. 3.
Religion is the worship of a deity, normally observed to be the supreme being and usually with the use of symbols, artifacts and traditions. 4.

These definitions and there are many, tend to generally have some similarities between the two concepts. However, there is a distinctive difference. Religion has a degree of worship intertwined within it. A race normally has to be associated with a place. Gypsies are not a race, but more a designation of habits, yet they are known to be associated with certain areas. So, yes there are races of people within the Gypsy clans. 5.

Let's keep this simple. Let's associate people that live and act a certain way over a period of three to four generations and can declare a point of origin, as a race. This race of course does not have to worship the same way but needs to have a somewhat homogeneous language and set of laws. There may be subsets within this race but the identifiable markers still allow these people to be seen as a single race despite the feelings of these subsets.

Individuals in most countries can become naturalized citizens. If born in the United.States as an example, a few of the steps in my definition may be skipped. Though the people will be seen as black, white, brown and  other colors of the hue, and may separate themselves from each other, they are really a race. Getting intriguing yet? Because of the fact that the United States is a land of immigrants and there is a homogeneous group of  laws, language and culture, this "great experiment" has created a race of "people of color". We fight it at every turn and pull back into out disparate cultures, but our children through social media and the freedom associated with travel are plunging us forward into this obvious future. However...I meander. Let's get back to the point.

If the ties that bind are of a religious nature and the culture and actions of the people subsist simply to cultivate this practice then you do not have a race. A subset of the race which may include the majority of the people in the area, may follow the religion. But the race issue refers to the people, as a whole, on the continent, island or sphere of local  influence. In Iran the Muslim religion reigns supreme but the race consists of Iranians or if you prefer Palestinians. 6. The Jewish community exists in many areas of the world and it is easy to classify them as a whole. But that would be wrong. There are American Jews, African Jews, Armenian Jews and of course Israelites that practice Judaism. The list is not meant to be inconclusive and it is not. It simply helps clarify the point..

Well , do you agree? Disagree? Tell me why. A simple "you're wrong !" is a reason. Just not a good one.

NOTE 1: Copyright © 2010 Answers Corporation or Moslems
NOTE 2: Copyright © 2010 Farlex, Inc.
NOTE 3: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Race
NOTE 4: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
NOTE 5: http://www.goodmagic.com/carny/gypsies.htm
NOTE 6: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22564


EPILOGUE
NOTES: 
A)The articles below are for informational purposes and do not necessarily express my opinions. I have no problem giving my opinions directly.

B) Color was not a focus or defining issue for a definition of race. It can be the first thing someone  else notices, but may not define race for the person in question


Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Pithy ..Normally

Words are echos in time. Be careful with yours..you'll hear them again.

In the phrase, "..somebody should do something..", it's often lost that, "you" ARE "somebody".

What have you done to further your aspirations today.

Many of the people who wonder  loudly and often that people are in their business seem never to have a problem sharing yours.

Early to bed and early to rise ..doesn't really work for me.

When the world is against you, you are either doing something very right ..or incredibly wrong. It's always best to know which one refers to you.

Sticks and stones can break your bones but names can ruin your reputation.

Most people who are "keeping it real" or "only being honest" usually only seem to be "keeping it rude" or are "only being crass".

"When in Rome" remember why you came, get it done and go home.

When traveling the road.. "less traveled by".. ensure you have the will to finish the journey.

True friends help you grow whether you want to or not.

Money is always secondary to happiness but never mistake sloth for fulfillment.

To achieve: get a positive idea; work the idea diligently; amend the idea as needed; accept defeat as an avenue to further expand and complete the correct form of this idea.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

How to solve the Basball's Steroid Era

Baseball's steroid era is loosely considered from the mid to late 1980's proceeding to now. 2010 can be very much be considered the end or deathknell of that era. Here's a site that is very good. http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

Here's a little background supplied by ESPN.com

Steroid investigation: Who knew, and when?

• More than 20 major-league players were using anabolic steroids as early as 1991, according to a dealer who claims to have supplied them.
• In the mid-1990s, a bodybuilder essentially turned spring training for one Phillies player into his personal chemistry experiment.
• In 1998, major leaguer Wally Joyner asked fellow player Ken Caminiti to help him obtain steroids, and Caminiti supplied him with pills that Joyner ingested. Joyner says he regretted taking any of the pills and threw the rest away.
• Team doctors began trying to deliver information about the effects of supplements and steroids to players as early as 1997, but repeatedly were delayed by MLB and the Players Association, both of which felt more research was needed and didn't distribute such data until 2001.
• BALCO founder Victor Conte, in an exclusive analysis for The Magazine, concludes that under MLB's current steroids policy, it is still remarkably easy for players to cheat.
The special report traces the arc of the Steroids Era in baseball from 1987 to 2005 through several principals: a trainer, a supplier, an FBI agent, a baseball executive, a writer, a doctor and four players. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2217361 ©2010 ESPN Internet Ventures. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and Safety Information/Your California Privacy Rights are applicable to you. All rights reserved.

It is disappointing and changes "you're" perception of baseball, are the basic opinions of many people. "How can anyone respect the records being set if players cheated to get them?", you say. I hear your sorrowful lamentations and have an answer. It's simple really and it is my pleasure to share it. The games have been played and the World Series champs have been crowned. These things cannot be undone. However we can take homeruns away from players for their admitted years of use or years that can be reasonably proven.We can take strikeouts away from pitchers during their admitted years of use or years that can be reasonably proven.

"Hold on a moment!", I hear. "Do you know what you're saying?" I am quite aware of what I have proposed. Please attend me. Many things occurred during the baseball steroid era including the leaking of a report that was supposed to stay sealed. People lied to other people on both sides.Not my issue. Let me give you the way to make this work.

A position player or pitcher has admitted using steroids for a set period of time. This makes it easy. For that period of time any homeruns, dingers, long balls, round trippers are removed and changed to hits. Nothing else charges. Everyone that scored, still scored but that long fly is removed from record. Naturally there will be an asterisk in the record book explaining why and how a player was able, for example, to get four RBI on a hit.

The pitcher loses the strikeout. The batter is listed as out by pitch and everything else stays the same. Same asterisk needed with explanation in the official scoring. This stat would be amended for instance by this *SE. This means steroid era stat change. I believe it is necessary to verify the years for each player to make reasonably sure the time is as close to accurate as possible.There is also the issue of those that never admitted to steroid use and there is not enough evidence to prove it. Nothing can be done with these individuals until that status changes.

Yes, I still hear the rumblings in the background. "The position player still gets his hit totals and RBI. The pitcher still gets his wins." , you say. I respond, "There is no way to correct that without changing the game and altering each season."

What you get is the players are no longer in some of the record book's most sacred statistics. They are no longer listed as one of the greatest homerun hitter(s) or strikeout kings. It is important to remove that tag to maintain the place in history for the hitters and pitchers that earned it the hard way. I need to ask however if in baseball's "golden years" do "you" believe if the players had, had access to these performance enhancing drugs (PED) would they have used them? People are people. Yes, some would have and some would not.
Also as the number of games during the regular season have expanded from 154  to 162 in 1961and 1962 the numbers are already skewed. But that is also an issue for another day.

So what do you say? Do we fix this thing?

NOTE: The NL and AL expanded games in different years

Monday, July 26, 2010

NAACP Useful or Past its' Prime

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or NAACP, has in my opinion long outlived its' purpose. Its' chief concern seems to be to keep its' tax free status. It is an embarrassment and either needs to be disbanded or in some way evolve. Let's look at this organization.

beginnings of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, The
New Crisis, The, Jan/Feb 1999

 The NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization in America, Dedicated to ending racial inequality and segregation. the association evolved from two organizations. One, the Niagara Movement, began with 29 African Americans who didn't accept Booker T. Washington's dictum that "in all things that are purely social we [blacks and whites] can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress."
These individuals from 14 states met at Niagara Falls in 1905, united in wanting "every right that belongs to a freeborn American, civil and social, and until we get these rights we shall never cease to protest and assail the ears of America with the stories of its shameful deeds toward us."
The other group was the "new abolitionists" who gathered after journalist William English Walling reported a Springfield, Illinois, race riot in the liberal New York weekly The Independent. He described the barbarity in Lincoln's hometown and asked: "What large and powerful body of citizens is ready to come to [the Negro`s] aid?"
Walling conceived an idea of a national biracial organization. Mar White Ovington, a descendant of abolitionists and an independently wealthy social worker, wrote to Walling and suggested they form the organization he had in mind. Ovington, Walling and Henry Moskovitz met in New York City to consider a plan of action. The three issued a "call for a conference" on February 12, 1909, the 100th Anniversary of Lincoln's birth. http://bit.ly/cEA5yB © 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved


There is much more and I encourage you to read the entire article as it shows how the NAACP was active in furthering the equality of people of color. Sadly it does not mention the work of W.E.B. Dubois.This article is not as detailed but a better visceral feel for this organization's beginnings.


National Association for the Advancement of Colored People


The association was formed as the direct result of the lynching (1908) of two blacks in Springfield, Ill. The incident produced a wide response by white Northerners to a call by Mary W. Ovington, a white woman, for a conference to discuss ways of achieving political and social equality for blacks. This conference led to the formation (1910) of the NAACP, headed by eight prominent Americans, seven white and one, William E. B. Du Bois, black. The selection of Du Bois was significant, for he was a black who had rejected the policy of gradualism advocated by Booker T. Washington and demanded immediate equality for blacks. From 1910 to 1934 Du Bois was the editor of the association's periodical The Crisis, which reported on race relations around the world. The new organization grew so rapidly that by 1915 it was able to organize a partially successful boycott of the motion picture The Birth of a Nation, which portrayed blacks of the Reconstruction era in a distorted light.
Most of the NAACP early efforts were directed against lynching. In this area it could claim considerable success. In 1911 there were 71 lynchings in the United States, with a black person the victim 63 times; by the 1950s lynching had virtually disappeared. Since its beginning, and with increasing emphasis since World War II, the NAACP has advocated nonviolent protests against discrimination and has disapproved of extremist black groups such as SNCC and the Black Panthers in the 1960s and 70s and CORE and the Nation of Islam in the 1980s and 90s, many of which criticized the organization as passive. While complacent in the 1980s, it became more active in legislative redistricting, voter registration, and lobbying in the 1990s
 http://bit.ly/apE6XB The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved
 
There is a bit more here as well and I encourage you to go to this link at your leisure. The point is, however, the NAACP was active and involved in the social movement of the United States. It did not shirk its' duty. It was in no way cowed and was unafraid to take the lead. This, unfortunately is not the NAACP of my adulthood. I do not see this organization as a civil rights group. This group to me is just a non taxed, social organization giving awards and keeping its' proverbial "head down". 
 
Sadly the most significant act from the NAACP in years was it's fateful misread of the Shirley Sherrod issue that occurred about July 19th. http://bit.ly/9xxj8O  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/. This link in no way gives the whole story. A conservative blogger got this ball rolling with edited tape and the head of the Department of Agriculture and the NAACP "took the proffered bait". I don't want to bog down this piece with more about this specific issue. It's a blog onto itself. Please read "Shirley Sherrod and the Blame Game-Reference Piece for NAACP" from my blogs for more. 
 
Interestingly enough, though I have said that the NAACP does the "Texas Two-Step" when it comes to the important issues, since their erstwhile beginnings (well I was getting to that issue, trust me), this blunder actually began when the NAACP, rightfully pointed out that the TEA Party had racist elements. The reason it did not resonate was because the NAACP did not "scream" that point from "the rooftops".  It was done at a  national convention in KANSAS CITY, Mo., that was generally closed to questions.  Some news services noticed...Ohh and the TEA Party seemed peeved. The Tea Party is another blog for another day. However let's just say some of its' elements seem to feel strongly enough to attack anyone or anything that is not with them heart, mind and body.

To the point, the NAACP had finally found a platform. Rather the platform seemed to find them. The NAACP had no interest in a fight of any kind. It made an innocuous resolution and took no debate on the issue. The TEA Party or friends of the TEA Party responded with a spliced video and viola the NAACP is relevant, despite itself. Now what does the NAACP do with this "new found" involvement in social injustice? It decides that Shirley Sherrod is a racist and must go. It of course never checked the facts or contacted Miss Sherrod. The NAACP has however taken the time to bury the "N" word 1 and back a call to make Michael Jackson's home and environs a state park 2.... I kid you not.

I send this out as a call to action. The NAACP needs to get back to its' roots and "bedamned" losing its' tax exemptions. It's about social justice for all people. After all, we're all some color 3.

NOTE 1: http://bit.ly/ceUV4c NAACP Symbolically Buries N-WordBy COREY WILLIAMS
The Associated Press Monday, July 9, 2007; 5:34 PM

NOTE 2: http://bit.ly/bLNwvm NAACP Backs Proposal to Turn Michael Jackson's Former Home, Neverland, into a State Park Posted by Janet Shan  ©2008 - 2010 The Hinterland Gazette – all rights reserved

NOTE 3: I believe since its' inception the NAACP has helped all people without regard to race.

NOTE : I'm aware that TEA Party is not an acronym and should be presented as Tea ; but as I love tea let's pretend it's an acronym. 

NOTE : NAACP WEB SITE http://www.naacp.org/pages/annual-reports © 2009 - 2010 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People






:

Shirley Sherrod and the Blame Game-Reference Piece for NAACP

NOTE: This will be expanded-A quck link for NAACP reference taken from a TWITLONGER Post 7/22/10

As for Shirley Sherrod glad the truth shines-I definitely blame Andrew Breitbart the conservative blogger that started this with a doctored  video; the news services (FOX NEWS etc); BenJealous President of the NAACP; The USDA  its' 'Director TomVilsack and USDA Undersecretary Cheryl Cook ... but OBAMA not sure ...

a) Andrew Breitbart is someone that has only a passing acquaintance with the truth. He has lied most recently, before this incident with the #Acorn story. A group, by the way, that had performed some good but had enough on it that the truth by itself would have buried them.

B) News services are supposed to check and then verify their sources. I'm reasonably sure this wasn't done. At least I HOPE this wasn't done. Better to be thought stupid and obtuse rather than...well evil is too strong a word...let's say driven by cruel forces to achieve an end.

C) Ben Jealous and the NAACP have been toothless and useless for more years than it is necessary to mention. When they finally have a chance to stamd up and be counted they once again show their worth.

D) Vilsack and the Dept of Agriculture and his Undersecrestary, whom it seems actually made the call and demanded the resignation. They took this news and attempted to distance themselves from a hot issue without verification. Never spoke to Sherrod (except to tell her to resign), the news source or the "victims" of this story the Spooners, the farmers, who backed Sherrod and told anyone who would listen that she saved their farm.

E) Obama is responsible when the walls fall..Period. Anything done by his subordinates falls into his lap. I'm aware of that tenet of management. I've lived it. HOWever , no one can be sure Obama was consulted before Vilsack made this "command decision". On the other hand we also cannot be sure Obama didn't orchestrate the "firing"..I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

What's your take-?

All things Shirley Sherrod http://bit.ly/bqZ0k9

Sunday, July 25, 2010

NCAA MEANS Not Competent At All

Brief history of National Collegiate Athletic Association http://bit.ly/aS2JuO


OK The title is not fair but I'm going on perception , not reality.

The governing body of Intercollegiate Schools is a have institution that discriminates against the have nots of the world. Not big on using bold. I feel the words should speak for themselves. If they cannot grab your attention just because of their usage then the writer needs to make some corrections. I'll make a grudging exception in this instance.

I do not believe the NCAA is discriminatory against race, creed, religion or orientation. It spends its' time ensuring the less financial capable are put into compromising situations. Institutions of higher learning are no longer, if they truly ever were, edifices for the financially sufficient. "Scholar-Athletes" and students arrive at these edifices by virtue of loans, scholarships and grants both partial and full; dent of incredible sacrifice from loved ones and the student themselves. Many others are there on a financial wing and a prayer. To be clear not all athletes have full scholarships or any scholarship at all. Further a scholarship only covers room, board and books.Can't buy a pair of dress shoes, a corsage or KFC "Double Down" with scholarship money, now can we?.

So I will move to my point. The NCAA believes parents, loved ones or "Papa Smurf" is providing money for the many other "wants" of the "scholar-athlete". It must believe this because its' rules prohibit these young men or women from taking any monetary hand out from anyone other than family.

To whit:
....  The current NCAA Regulations go(sic), as followed(sic) student-athletes cannot:
Agree to have their pictures or names used to promote a commercial product;
Accept benefits such as gifts, meals, and loans of cars or money, as offered by athletic interest groups (e.g., alumni or booster organizations) or anyone within the athletics program of the University;
Be presented by an agent or organization in order to market their athletic skills or reputation;
Receive any benefit this is not available to other students at the University. ...
 http://bit.ly/9BLkdB  Should NCAA prohibit college student-athletes from receiving financial gifts?

Contrary to popular belief "scholar-athletes can earn up to $2000.00 dollars a year.  http://bit.ly/9dLyzW   NCAA Rules & Regulations by Aaron Reynolds's

Well there you go. Theses student's have $2000.00 dollars they can earn and, the fall back would be family, friends and loved one. Not..so...fast... my friend. During the season, after, practice, weight work, school work and necessary obligations working is not always an easy option and many kids are have nots. Yes I bolded again to stay consistent. These "scholar-athletes" don't have any money or means of access to money and neither do family, friends or loved ones. "Scholar-athletes" that are haves, (last one I promise), have no problem with these regulations.

For most "scholar-athletes" working is also not an option during the off-season because there truly isn't one. Coaches have conditioning programs, regimens, camps and leagues that these individuals are "encouraged" to follow and join. Can it be done? Can the individual earn some cash? Of course it is possible. Realistically it is neither probable or feasible.There are not enough hours in the day during the season. The off-season seems to never exist.

I'm not going to give the number, regarding how much an hour $2000.00 a year would be. Not my point. Not going to belabor the oft cited fact that the schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the sport. Not going to belabor the  fact that the coaches, depending on the sport also earn a good penny. None of these are my point. My point is the NCAA discriminates against the students that have little. If allows them to toil for the school but will not allow them to benefit to the preponderance of that toil. "Scholar athletes" are special. They are in special circumstances and have special difficulties.

Paying them, for me, is never an option. They, after all, do get room, board and an education, if they wish to attain it. They are also "seen" as special on campus. However, a fund needs to be set aside for these young men and women, so they can buy the necessities of life such as toothpaste and non-necessities such as corsages for the prom and yes, an occasional KFC "Double Down". I actually think a different league should be set aside called a College Semi-Pro league as well but that is another blog.

So the NCAA, which punishes schools when bolsters or coaches or friends give cars, or tickets, or money or dinner or "place your benefit" in this spot, is an 800 pound gorilla, which acts, when individuals perform in natural ways.I don't dismiss the fact, that, if a "scholar-athlete" goes to a school because of a special gift then yes punish the school. Once the "scholar-athlete" is at the school, however, set the limit on a "stipend" with a voucher check geared, if deemed prudent, to a specific store. Specifically if there is food that is needed, the weekly stipend is given, with perhaps, as mentioned, the store stamped on the check. There should be a clothes stipend and yes a special activity stipend. In short, I say continue to ensure that special gifts, such as cars or apartments, are not part of the circumstances but allow the normal practices of life to be met.

Follow me if you would? Each scholar-athlete has a specific stipend amount per year for food, clothes and special activities. It is portioned out for the year in a set amount, and that amount or frequency cannot be changed. The only exception is the special activities portion of the stipend. "You" can request some or all of this "special" stipend and when it's gone, it's gone. This stipend will be considered part of the scholarship and the same  maximum and minimum amounts will be set for all schools.

Of course some other group or institution other than the NCAA needs to set these amounts. It seems it, has a "have" and "have not" issue.

NOTE: Division II and III are different issues. If a sport does not provide scholarships but grants other means must be provided to meet these special circumstances.

NOTE: scholar-athlete (student-athlete as it is more commonly known) is in quotes because it is an oxymoron in many cases.

NOTE: Special gift is an obvious circumvention of accepted rules of parity and farness such as an apartment, a house, monies that are far and above a normal rate of pay as well as a no show job etc.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Drugs Are Bad -Let's Do Something About Them

I can balance the budget; clear out the jails; find money for social security; give us time to focus on crime and begin lowering the deficit. Legalize drugs. Yes say it to yourself . Could we legalize drugs? Sure we can and yes we should.

I need you to take a look at this site. http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm .I would like you to stay
there or return to it and take it in for me; for yourself; your kids; for your loved ones and future generations.
Source: Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco

Not enough  for you, then please take in this commentary  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/20/97758/commentary-war-on-drugs-and-the.html
By Leonard Pitts Jr. The Miami Herald
Need more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/20/97758/commentary-war-on-drugs-and-the.html#ixzz0uXtwXHDP.

Not good enough for you I don't blame you. At your leisure please go to this site  http://www.realcostofprisons.org/papers-war.html  © 2003-20010 The Real Cost of Prisons Project .

"Depressing and unbelievable.", you say. I say "Deep in your heart of hearts, on some level you were already aware of these things". You respond,  "But even with these points, if  "I"  can believe them, we cannot and should not legalize drugs. People would die and drugs have to be controlled..".  I respond, "With all due respect if you're paying attention they're dying now and supposedly they are controlled.".

Should we look at the 22,000 dead, since 2006 in Mexico because of the war on drugs. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/14/government-more-than-22000-dead-in-mexico-drug-war/
Post by: The CNN Wire
Filed under: Latest news • Mexico • World
 
Let's take a more worldly view from CNN and Evan wood. from The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy;The director of the Urban Health Program at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and associate professor in the Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/03/wood.jamaica.drug.war/index.html
 
OK we  take a more US view with this aptly named, "That Other War".  This shows the preponderance of home invasion by officers and others to help eradicate this drug blight, since the Reagen initiatives.
 http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/11/that-other-war
Radley Balko January 11, 2010
 
"But those people are either criminals or involved in criminal activity.", you say . Look closely at that article there is a great deal of collateral damage. Look at this one. It shows to some degree what has transpired since OL " Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon declared our "WAR ON DRUGS about 40 years hence.
 http://bit.ly/cARLIR By JOHN STOSSEL
John Stossel: War on drugs worse than drugs
 
I'm done with links. The links are important. They provide something most of us never allowed ourselves to do.Ponder this horrendous evil of this situation, and put it into Perspective. My kids; your kid; our loved ones are growing up in a world in which every dime and all our energy is spent helping the illicit and cruel become richer and more powerful. From 1921 to 1933 we criminalized alcohol and allowed the organized criminal element to grow and become rich. We of course have forgotten the lessons of the past and we are doomed to repeat our past.
 
1)We like drugs. We always have and always will. In my bathroom cabinet you'll find aspirin and cough medicine. In my kitchen you'll find salt,sugar and coffee. In my bar you will find alcohol.Not big on drugs but many,many people are.
2)Can't and shouldn't fight what people want. This comes with a caveat. That is, as long as it is not fundamentally wrong. Sorry folks drugs don't make the cut of fundamentally wrong.
3)Alcohol is legal and there are rules to govern its' use and distribution. The same process would govern any other controlled or uncontrolled substance
 
The facts above are immutable and apply to ALL drugs.
 
Let's legalize the damn things. Clear the prisons of users and get them help.Stop making evil rich. Stop the death and destruction that goes with this "war" and get on with the business of our lives.
 
Part I