vxbush 8/16/2023 5:56:41 AM

1

The Vodkapundit wrote about the situation in Oregon related to drugs and just how bad things are there. He wrote this paragraph: 

Measure 110 was supposed to focus on “a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded in part by the state’s marijuana tax revenue and state prison savings” but — surprise! — hasn’t followed through. There is simply no way to make drugs legal without aggressive treatment for addicts. And by “aggressive,” I do mean forcibly locking up, committing, and treating addicts who can’t or won’t take care of themselves. That means rounding the addicts up off the streets and detoxing them before they kill themselves — and/or others.

I never understood the push for legalizing (or decriminalizing) drugs at all. Part of the reason why such laws existed was not just to make the lives of citizens easier but to protect the population from these people and to protect the individuals from starting down such a stark road. Green explains why such decriminalization movements were started, but even he agrees that that motivation doesn't work. Quoting Alexandria Brown on Twitter: "I have changed my mind on legalization of drugs because while I knew that there would be a subset of people who would fall into the abyss, reality has shown that number is far greater than I thought."

Chesterton's Fence rears its ugly head again.

JCM 8/16/2023 6:47:17 AM

2

Reply to vxbush in 1:

The question I have is why does the left continue down this path when the results are so stark.

First we know the left does not care for people. They care about control of people.

My arrogant opinion is the the lack of law enforcement goes hand in hand with gun control. All of this to create an environment where citizens will turn to government for a little security and the price is essential liberty.

JCM 8/16/2023 7:29:46 AM

3

Longform interview:

Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Richard Lindzen dive into the facts of climate change

buzzsawmonkey 8/16/2023 7:59:54 AM

4

Reply to JCM in 3:

Reminder:

All the people who want to "regulate the planetary climate" and demand the power and unlimited resources to do so are people who have proven themselves incapable of competently managing and running recently-built, closed, man-made systems. They cannot competently run power grids, or municipal water systems or trash pickup; they cannot competently maintain, let alone repair, the "roads and bridges" they are always prating about; they cannot competently run or maintain the public housing they increasingly want people to live in, or the public transportation systems that they want people to rely on.

More than that; they cannot competently direct disaster recovery/relief from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes---let alone control or prevent such disasters.

Yet they want people to believe that they can, and should, be permitted to try and regulate the planetary climate, which is infinitely more subtle and varied and complex than any of the recently-built, closed, man-made systems they have already repeatedly proven incapable of managing.

Occasional Reader 8/16/2023 8:00:42 AM

5

Greetings from the NY greater metro region.  

Caring for aging parents is... hard.  (As you all know.) 

buzzsawmonkey 8/16/2023 8:05:39 AM

6

Reply to Occasional Reader in 5:

How long are you in town?

Occasional Reader 8/16/2023 8:56:14 AM

7

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 6:

I'm up in Westchester.  Probably through the weekend, but it depends on how things shape up.

lucius septimius 8/16/2023 12:00:53 PM

8

In #5 Occasional Reader said: Caring for aging parents is... hard.  (As you all know.) 

Sorry - I know it's difficult.  Chin up and all that.

lucius septimius 8/16/2023 12:11:43 PM

9

In #2 JCM said: First we know the left does not care for people. They care about control of people.

That's part of it, but I would not dismiss the importance of white upper-middle-class moral vanity.  They support these policies because it is the kind of thinking that gets them pats on the head from their other white upper-middle-class liberal friends.  The consequences they refuse to see, because that would offend their belief in their rectitude - their moral vanity.  It's always about them and the way they are received by their peers, or the people they aspire to have as peers.  

In #2 JCM said: My arrogant opinion is the the lack of law enforcement goes hand in hand with gun control. All of this to create an environment where citizens will turn to government for a little security and the price is essential liberty.

There is a certain "Baptists and Bootleggers" aspect to it.  Another problem, though, is something OR has spoken about eloquently, namely the attitude towards policing popularized by the show Hill Street Blues. As you may recall, the hard-nose SWAT guy was portrayed as a buffoon.  The clever Captain, Mr. Sophisticated, made deals with the gang leaders while he was shtupping the public defender.  In other words, rather that arrest criminals and stop crime, he showed he was more clever and sophisticated by being above all that and playing, I guess, Cosimo di Medici or something.  And we, the viewers, were expected to root for people who refused to enforce the law because the criminals were somehow ok people we were supposed to sympathize with because oppressed or something - that part was never clear to me (granted, I haven't watched the show since it was first on TV). 

This is not to ignore the Anarchic Tyranny aspect of all of it.  Allow anarchy to flourish and then use that as an excuse to punish law-abiding people by taking away their rights.  Unfortunately far too many liberals want to live under tyranny.  And not just for security, but because they don't want to have to make decisions.  I had dinner with a group of liberal white women academics all of whom chirped about how they thought government knew better what they needed and openly desired for the state to make the major decisions about their lives.  I put it down to a combination of immaturity, entitlement, and sloth.  Of course that government would have been run (at that time) by St. Hillary, their idol as liberal white academic women.  They would howl at either Drumpf or DeathSanctis telling them what to do and be completely dumb to the irony of their position.  

Occasional Reader 8/16/2023 1:32:09 PM

10

Reply to lucius septimius in 8:

Thank you.  Aspects of it are heartwarming; others are surreal. 

JCM 8/16/2023 3:08:40 PM

11

In #9 lucius septimius said: Unfortunately far too many liberals want to live under tyranny.

That too! I forget some people rather the tranquility of servitude, than than tumult of liberty.