drug, war, treatment, addiction, portugal, US, america,
Oddly, the Netherlands is not the European country with the most liberal drug laws: Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, is.
How has that worked out for Portugal? (Keep in mind, about 1 out of 4 people in jail right now in the US are imprisoned for nonviolent drug charges. The US has 5% of the world's drug users, but 25% of the world's drug related prisoners.)
Really well. (from Time.com)
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Amazing, when you stop criminalizing drug addiction, people actually get treated for it. Who could possibly have imagined that?
Showing posts with label drug. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drug. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Now You're Just Scaring Me
obama, crime, recidivism, drug, justice, rehabilitation, liberal, conservative, townhall, stupid, religion, atheism,
Mike Adams, of townhall.com, defines the conservative view of humanity in terms that make me truly fear conservatives. I never really liked conservatism, but this just scares me.
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are bandied about by many who fail to understand the crucial difference between them. that's actually true. those words do get thrown around without any regard for what they mean. i think Mr. Adams is about to add to the confusion. Many believe the difference lies in the liberal’s willingness to support government spending. But that explanation falls short. Conservatives are always willing to spend more on defense. Liberals would rather spend money on social programs. conservatives want to keep you safe from terrorists, liberals want to give welfare queens more money! of course, i could turn that around: conservatives want more pointless, endless wars and liberals want to feed children. we call that framing the argument.
Others believe the liberal is the one who supports “change” while the conservative supports the “status quo.” That explanation also falls short. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. When he came to Washington in 1981 he shook the establishment and brought about change the liberals could not believe in. can we please stop deifying President Reagan? He was deep into alzheimer's by his second term. I have no idea who was running the country from 85-89, but it wasn't him.
If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. wait for it . . . The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. oh dear. This tragic view well, yes, it would be of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design. headdesk. Given his nature, it is no wonder a man chooses crime. It is a wonder he ever chooses conformity. except that most people do not choose crime. most people do choose to obey the laws. i suppose asshat's answer to that is that the jaysus makes them that way, except that atheists act like everyone else, so clearly not.
This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values. so it's not a cynical ploy to get conservative christians to vote for you against their own self interest? Given his selfish nature speak for yourself, asshat, man must internalize some reason to behave in pro-social ways. maybe you, not me. i cae up with on my own. That fact that he falls short of these values does not mean he is a hypocrite. The one who does not even believe what he says is the hypocrite. The one who believes what he says and falls short is merely human. (thus excusing the sexipades of many a republican hero.)
This is the fundamentalist christian view of mankind: everyone would be raping their children to death with chainsaws if it weren't for jaysus! that's ridiculous. of course we wouldn't. those commandments about not murdering and not stealing and not lying? those are societal rules common to all societies, including societies that never heard of jesus.
If that truly is how conservatives view mankind, that's just scary. It certainly explains conservative efforts to make official Years of the Bible, and affirm the US as a christian nation. Since the only thing holding them back from raping and pillaging is jaysus, they assume the rest of us need, for everyone's protection, jaysus, too. Look, Mr. Adams, we're not all hairtrigger psychopaths like you. Most of us don't want to rape and pillage. We don't need jaysus to tell us not to.
The conservative knows in advance that he (and others) will fall short of what religion expects of him. But his solution is not to give up on religion. His solution is to implement a back-up plan. In the context of crime, that back-up plan takes the form of a criminal justice system focused on punishment.
to rephrase: jaysus works, and when he doesn't, jails do!
let's review the recidivism rate, shall we?
Rearrest within 3 years
67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983
The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders
The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).
Wow, prison's just the way to go, isn't it? works great. just like jaysus. (Look, don't ask me what to do with violent offenders, but nonviolent drug offenders, i.e., some guy caught with a few joints, are about 25% of all inmates. States spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year. That can't be the answer.)
According to the conservative, effective punishment is that which produces fear of transgression. except that prison clearly does not do that. the recidivism rates are over 60%. That means that 6 out of 10 people released from prison ended up back in prison within 3 years. these are people who know exactly how bad prison is, and they're still not all that afraid of ending up back in prison, obviously. Fear of transgression occurs when the punishment is swift, certain, and severe. i.e., the death penalty. except that even the death penalty doesn't deter anyone. In sum, the conservative believes we should first try to love people into conformity. scariest sentence ever. If that does not work, we should scare people into conformity. no, sorry, this is the scariest sentence ever. But the liberal sees things differently. not so much on the conformity and the scaring, more on the loving. Everyone is born “good” with a blank slate. has this asshat met a baby? babies are the ultimate atheists. they're morally neutral. seriously, spend time with a baby. To the extent that people become “bad” it is because “society” corrupted them. he's not really stating the "liberal" position very well. Nowhere does the liberal explain how combining many good people makes a bad society. ummm, why would i have to explain that? it's just a total non sequitur. don't respond to non sequitors, it just encourages more of them.
But this is what the liberal thinks. no, it's not. And it is why he sees the criminal justice system as one which should focus on rehabilitation. clearly punishment isn't working. If people were taught to be bad then, surely, they may be taught to be good again. There are two victims for every crime: The victim of the crime and the criminal himself. i can't even address that. i guess it depends on a lot of things. look, not that i think pedophiles should be let loose to abuse any child they can get their hands on, but most pedophiles were abused as children themselves. and what about drug offenses? who's the victim there? crime and punishment are extremely complicated issues, that everyone tends to view in black and white. maybe the liberal viewpoint could be better explained as "we don't view complex issues in terms of simple, ineffective solutions" or "if all we have is a hammer, we don't view a bolt as a nail, we get another tool."
the rest of this article wanders off into foreign policy (US good! rest of world bad!) and economic policy (obama's a socialist!), and i'm just not up to subjecting my brain to that.
Mike Adams, of townhall.com, defines the conservative view of humanity in terms that make me truly fear conservatives. I never really liked conservatism, but this just scares me.
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are bandied about by many who fail to understand the crucial difference between them. that's actually true. those words do get thrown around without any regard for what they mean. i think Mr. Adams is about to add to the confusion. Many believe the difference lies in the liberal’s willingness to support government spending. But that explanation falls short. Conservatives are always willing to spend more on defense. Liberals would rather spend money on social programs. conservatives want to keep you safe from terrorists, liberals want to give welfare queens more money! of course, i could turn that around: conservatives want more pointless, endless wars and liberals want to feed children. we call that framing the argument.
Others believe the liberal is the one who supports “change” while the conservative supports the “status quo.” That explanation also falls short. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. When he came to Washington in 1981 he shook the establishment and brought about change the liberals could not believe in. can we please stop deifying President Reagan? He was deep into alzheimer's by his second term. I have no idea who was running the country from 85-89, but it wasn't him.
If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. wait for it . . . The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. oh dear. This tragic view well, yes, it would be of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design. headdesk. Given his nature, it is no wonder a man chooses crime. It is a wonder he ever chooses conformity. except that most people do not choose crime. most people do choose to obey the laws. i suppose asshat's answer to that is that the jaysus makes them that way, except that atheists act like everyone else, so clearly not.
This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values. so it's not a cynical ploy to get conservative christians to vote for you against their own self interest? Given his selfish nature speak for yourself, asshat, man must internalize some reason to behave in pro-social ways. maybe you, not me. i cae up with on my own. That fact that he falls short of these values does not mean he is a hypocrite. The one who does not even believe what he says is the hypocrite. The one who believes what he says and falls short is merely human. (thus excusing the sexipades of many a republican hero.)
This is the fundamentalist christian view of mankind: everyone would be raping their children to death with chainsaws if it weren't for jaysus! that's ridiculous. of course we wouldn't. those commandments about not murdering and not stealing and not lying? those are societal rules common to all societies, including societies that never heard of jesus.
If that truly is how conservatives view mankind, that's just scary. It certainly explains conservative efforts to make official Years of the Bible, and affirm the US as a christian nation. Since the only thing holding them back from raping and pillaging is jaysus, they assume the rest of us need, for everyone's protection, jaysus, too. Look, Mr. Adams, we're not all hairtrigger psychopaths like you. Most of us don't want to rape and pillage. We don't need jaysus to tell us not to.
The conservative knows in advance that he (and others) will fall short of what religion expects of him. But his solution is not to give up on religion. His solution is to implement a back-up plan. In the context of crime, that back-up plan takes the form of a criminal justice system focused on punishment.
to rephrase: jaysus works, and when he doesn't, jails do!
let's review the recidivism rate, shall we?
Rearrest within 3 years
67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983
The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders
The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).
Wow, prison's just the way to go, isn't it? works great. just like jaysus. (Look, don't ask me what to do with violent offenders, but nonviolent drug offenders, i.e., some guy caught with a few joints, are about 25% of all inmates. States spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year. That can't be the answer.)
According to the conservative, effective punishment is that which produces fear of transgression. except that prison clearly does not do that. the recidivism rates are over 60%. That means that 6 out of 10 people released from prison ended up back in prison within 3 years. these are people who know exactly how bad prison is, and they're still not all that afraid of ending up back in prison, obviously. Fear of transgression occurs when the punishment is swift, certain, and severe. i.e., the death penalty. except that even the death penalty doesn't deter anyone. In sum, the conservative believes we should first try to love people into conformity. scariest sentence ever. If that does not work, we should scare people into conformity. no, sorry, this is the scariest sentence ever. But the liberal sees things differently. not so much on the conformity and the scaring, more on the loving. Everyone is born “good” with a blank slate. has this asshat met a baby? babies are the ultimate atheists. they're morally neutral. seriously, spend time with a baby. To the extent that people become “bad” it is because “society” corrupted them. he's not really stating the "liberal" position very well. Nowhere does the liberal explain how combining many good people makes a bad society. ummm, why would i have to explain that? it's just a total non sequitur. don't respond to non sequitors, it just encourages more of them.
But this is what the liberal thinks. no, it's not. And it is why he sees the criminal justice system as one which should focus on rehabilitation. clearly punishment isn't working. If people were taught to be bad then, surely, they may be taught to be good again. There are two victims for every crime: The victim of the crime and the criminal himself. i can't even address that. i guess it depends on a lot of things. look, not that i think pedophiles should be let loose to abuse any child they can get their hands on, but most pedophiles were abused as children themselves. and what about drug offenses? who's the victim there? crime and punishment are extremely complicated issues, that everyone tends to view in black and white. maybe the liberal viewpoint could be better explained as "we don't view complex issues in terms of simple, ineffective solutions" or "if all we have is a hammer, we don't view a bolt as a nail, we get another tool."
the rest of this article wanders off into foreign policy (US good! rest of world bad!) and economic policy (obama's a socialist!), and i'm just not up to subjecting my brain to that.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Oh, For Crying Out Loud
atheism, atheist, agnostic, barna, morality, abortion, drug, drunkenness, homosexual, bisexual, pornography, gambling, sex, sexuality, cohabitation, religion, christian, christianity, makarios
First of all, I need to say that if you are going to reference a study, an article, etc. in a post, you need give a link. Stop making me do your research.
Secondly, can we please give the "atheists are immoral and dangerous" meme a rest? Please? Atheists act just like everyone else. To be fair, we're better at marriage (the more fundy you are, the more likely you are to get divorced), but there appears to be little real life relationship between believing a thing is wrong and actually not doing it. (See: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.)
Makarios pulls out and dusts off this meme, yet again, in his post Atheist Richard Dawkins. (I don't know why he feels a need to put the word "atheist" in front of "Richard Dawkins". It's sort of like saying "Catholic Pope".)
Preaches the atheistic anti-life dogma i can't decide if he means that atheists tend to be prochoice, or that we're just against life in general. either way, stoopid. that works AGAINST natural selection natural selection has nothing to do with birth control. i don't know much about the subject, but i would think that birth control and fertility medicine are skewing our results a bit. by causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes atheists are in no way averse to reproducing. most atheists i know, like most people i know, have children. what a strange world Makarios lives in. (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child that's just rude. first of all, his wives would have had the final say in whether or not they got pregnant. secondly, we don't know if his wives were infertile, or if dawkins has fertility issues. makarios could well be mocking some poor woman who desperately wants to have children and can't. lastly, in the end, whether or not to have children is a personal choice. i choose no, you choose yes. good for both of us.), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year. wft?! anyone seen those news reports? seriously, what. the. fuck.
The Barna Research Group found regarding atheism and the morality that those who hold to the world views of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviours as morally acceptable: (as I said, there is a huge difference between finding something to be immoral and actually not doing it, but let's play along)
no, wait, let's not. I found the study Makarios helpfully didn't bother to provide a link to. It's from 2003 and it is not what Makarios represents it to be.
wait, that's not atheists or agnostics. that's christians. i assume Makarios is engaging in a No True Scotsman here, but he's misrepresenting the study. the participants in the study were not atheists and agnostics- they were christians.
and this is how christians felt about a variety of issues in 2003:
illegal drug use; 17% of those interviewed felt that was acceptable. hardly a majority.
excessive drinking; holy ambiguous, batman. 35% were in favor of "drunkenness".
sexual relationships outside of marriage; 42% were okay with this, though with the caveat that the relationship is hetero.
abortion; 45% in favor of.
cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; 60% were fine with it
obscene language; 36%. more people were okay with abortion and adultery than with saying "fuck"? seriously?
gambling; 61% in favor of. I wonder if they reminded people that the lottery is a form of gambling. as is bingo.
pornography 38%. abortion and adultery yes, porn no? where did they find these people? and obscene sexual behaviour wtf is that?;
and engaging in homosexuality and bisexuality 30% weren't bothered by Teh Gai at all.
the rest of the post is some quotes from dead philosophers that I guarantee Makarios does not understand, but that was fun. It's nice to know what christians are really all about.
First of all, I need to say that if you are going to reference a study, an article, etc. in a post, you need give a link. Stop making me do your research.
Secondly, can we please give the "atheists are immoral and dangerous" meme a rest? Please? Atheists act just like everyone else. To be fair, we're better at marriage (the more fundy you are, the more likely you are to get divorced), but there appears to be little real life relationship between believing a thing is wrong and actually not doing it. (See: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.)
Makarios pulls out and dusts off this meme, yet again, in his post Atheist Richard Dawkins. (I don't know why he feels a need to put the word "atheist" in front of "Richard Dawkins". It's sort of like saying "Catholic Pope".)
Preaches the atheistic anti-life dogma i can't decide if he means that atheists tend to be prochoice, or that we're just against life in general. either way, stoopid. that works AGAINST natural selection natural selection has nothing to do with birth control. i don't know much about the subject, but i would think that birth control and fertility medicine are skewing our results a bit. by causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes atheists are in no way averse to reproducing. most atheists i know, like most people i know, have children. what a strange world Makarios lives in. (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child that's just rude. first of all, his wives would have had the final say in whether or not they got pregnant. secondly, we don't know if his wives were infertile, or if dawkins has fertility issues. makarios could well be mocking some poor woman who desperately wants to have children and can't. lastly, in the end, whether or not to have children is a personal choice. i choose no, you choose yes. good for both of us.), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year. wft?! anyone seen those news reports? seriously, what. the. fuck.
The Barna Research Group found regarding atheism and the morality that those who hold to the world views of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviours as morally acceptable: (as I said, there is a huge difference between finding something to be immoral and actually not doing it, but let's play along)
no, wait, let's not. I found the study Makarios helpfully didn't bother to provide a link to. It's from 2003 and it is not what Makarios represents it to be.
More than four out of five adults - 83% - contend that they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Given that 84% of all adults consider themselves to be Christian, they have good reason to worry about the moral state of the country: many of [Christians'] views conflict with the moral teachings of their professed faith.
wait, that's not atheists or agnostics. that's christians. i assume Makarios is engaging in a No True Scotsman here, but he's misrepresenting the study. the participants in the study were not atheists and agnostics- they were christians.
and this is how christians felt about a variety of issues in 2003:
illegal drug use; 17% of those interviewed felt that was acceptable. hardly a majority.
excessive drinking; holy ambiguous, batman. 35% were in favor of "drunkenness".
sexual relationships outside of marriage; 42% were okay with this, though with the caveat that the relationship is hetero.
abortion; 45% in favor of.
cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; 60% were fine with it
obscene language; 36%. more people were okay with abortion and adultery than with saying "fuck"? seriously?
gambling; 61% in favor of. I wonder if they reminded people that the lottery is a form of gambling. as is bingo.
pornography 38%. abortion and adultery yes, porn no? where did they find these people? and obscene sexual behaviour wtf is that?;
and engaging in homosexuality and bisexuality 30% weren't bothered by Teh Gai at all.
the rest of the post is some quotes from dead philosophers that I guarantee Makarios does not understand, but that was fun. It's nice to know what christians are really all about.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Godwin's Law and PF's Corollary
facism, socialism, gingrich, newt, obama, drug, testing, mandatory, fail, hitler, nazi,
In case you've never heard of it, Godwin's Law states that "if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in". After reading an interesting idea from Newt Gingrich (more on that later), I have come up with a corollary to Godwin's Law: invoking facism/Hitler/Nazi often enough is an effective strategy if you have something to do or say that actually is facist, and you don't want your opponent to be able to call you on it.
For example*: by David Niewert, Crooks & Liars
O'Reilly: I don't know whether you know this, but I did one of my papers at Harvard on this -- on how to reduce demand for drugs. But the United States has never figured it out. You can't lock up drug users, I mean, that doesn't work. And you can't force them into rehab, you have to want rehab, and even if you want it, it's very hard to get off hard drugs and alcohol. Very hard.
What you can do, though, is sanction people along the way. And this is what they do in Singapore. If you're caught possessing drugs -- and that means drugs in your bloodstream, they have a little hair thing, and they put it in there -- then you have to go to mandatory rehab. And they have centers where you go.
Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built.
The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker.
Gingrich: Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization.
Conservatives have been throwing "socialist" and "fascist" at Obama nonstop since he was inaugurated (and before, really). At first, I found this to be a gross misunderstanding of both history and politics. To put Obama in the same league as Hitler represents a fundamental misunderstanding of that entire episode in our world's history. Complete, utter, fundamental history fail. To call someone both a socialist and a facist is like calling someone tall and short, fat and thin, pale and tanned at the same time. Socialism and facism are polar opposites on the political spectrum.
Now I understand why conservatives have been doing this. What Gingrich is suggesting is facism. Plain and simple. Drug test everyone and then forceably rehabilitate anyone who tests positive. The whole country is a suspect, and civil rights no longer apply. However, we cannot call Gingrich on his facism, because it looks like we're just joining in the "invoke Hitler as often as possible game", and that just makes everyone look stupid.
I suggest we replace "facism" with "Gingrichism".
Unfortunately, no matter what you call it, Gingrich's plan is foolish and dangerous, and we all might want to pay close attention from here on out to what I previously assumed were a bunch of Godwin's Law losers.
*link has video of the quoted conversation
In case you've never heard of it, Godwin's Law states that "if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in". After reading an interesting idea from Newt Gingrich (more on that later), I have come up with a corollary to Godwin's Law: invoking facism/Hitler/Nazi often enough is an effective strategy if you have something to do or say that actually is facist, and you don't want your opponent to be able to call you on it.
For example*: by David Niewert, Crooks & Liars
O'Reilly: I don't know whether you know this, but I did one of my papers at Harvard on this -- on how to reduce demand for drugs. But the United States has never figured it out. You can't lock up drug users, I mean, that doesn't work. And you can't force them into rehab, you have to want rehab, and even if you want it, it's very hard to get off hard drugs and alcohol. Very hard.
What you can do, though, is sanction people along the way. And this is what they do in Singapore. If you're caught possessing drugs -- and that means drugs in your bloodstream, they have a little hair thing, and they put it in there -- then you have to go to mandatory rehab. And they have centers where you go.
Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built.
The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker.
Gingrich: Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization.
Conservatives have been throwing "socialist" and "fascist" at Obama nonstop since he was inaugurated (and before, really). At first, I found this to be a gross misunderstanding of both history and politics. To put Obama in the same league as Hitler represents a fundamental misunderstanding of that entire episode in our world's history. Complete, utter, fundamental history fail. To call someone both a socialist and a facist is like calling someone tall and short, fat and thin, pale and tanned at the same time. Socialism and facism are polar opposites on the political spectrum.
Now I understand why conservatives have been doing this. What Gingrich is suggesting is facism. Plain and simple. Drug test everyone and then forceably rehabilitate anyone who tests positive. The whole country is a suspect, and civil rights no longer apply. However, we cannot call Gingrich on his facism, because it looks like we're just joining in the "invoke Hitler as often as possible game", and that just makes everyone look stupid.
I suggest we replace "facism" with "Gingrichism".
Unfortunately, no matter what you call it, Gingrich's plan is foolish and dangerous, and we all might want to pay close attention from here on out to what I previously assumed were a bunch of Godwin's Law losers.
*link has video of the quoted conversation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
