Drug is Our Love

DrugCrazyThumbby RobL
I was going to rant about the threat seemingly innocuous parking meters pose but that will have to wait until another day… I was flabbergasted by an article yesterday on Yahoo! And the implications are rather frightening.

It’s bad enough that popular culture, the media, Hollywood, and liberals all recklessly promote drug abuse. But when the corporate world joins the faithful and proselytizes for drug abuse, what hope can there be?

Now considering Yahoo! is really not much more than a liberal repeater (a site that echoes and parrots the gospel of other liberal articles and organizations), maybe I’m overreacting. But when finance writers, of all people, promote drug abuse and castigate Eric Holder for duplicity because his condoning words pardon not enough drug abusers and sellers…

Good Grief!

We are not a nation in love with drugs. We are addicted and willing to do or say anything for the next fix.

The administration’s rampant corruption is ignored by the media. But they lash out on the most activist Attorney General our nation has seen. And not because he is telling the feds to ignore those who break our drug laws. But, god forbid, because some abusers and sellers may still be prosecuted, fined, and convicted.

How can I not be disgusted with our activists, media, glitterati, literati, corporate cronies, and everyone else who conspires to profit by the debasement of American values? On every front we are under assault. Does any refuge remain untouched by the Leftist insanity?

I used to think I held moderate opinions shared by the great majority of our fellow citizens. But have you read the comments posted on Yahoo!?

Yahoo! readers are in lockstep agreement with the writers. Of course, I’d expect some of the readership to be misinformed uncritical-thinking Americans, liberal zealots, or intractable ‘Paulbots.’ But I don’t expect a majority of readers to mix in the Yahoo! pot a potent brew of indolence, venom, and paranoia.

Sadly, most of these posts are placed between 11:00 and 5:00 p.m. It’s as if they all are woefully underemployed, pining away the hours until they can head out to happy hour. Instead of dedicating their waking hours to addled diatribes, they should take their able bodies to work.

It’s apparent this is now a majority motley assortment of drug seeking numbnuts and misanthropes. They have successfully elected and reelected President Obama and they are not done. They demand more pernicious anti-Americanism, corruption, and incompetence and are pining for eight years of Hillary. Unfortunately this is no pipedream.

What is left but perhaps for me to light up, toke, and hide away in some obscure stoned recess of my increasingly psychotic mind?

Let’s hope it does not come to this. • (3794 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Drug is Our Love

  1. CCWriter CCWriter says:


    If I had time today I might engage you in a constructive debate about decriminalization, especially from the standpoint of actually solving the drug problem, which the laws don’t appear to be able to do, and sorting out why that is. After all, I do identify at least partly as a libertarian, and there is a case to be made, and it includes certain arguments which do not deserve to be characterized as promoting drug abuse. And I know we founded this to be a place where we can have a good, honest discussion about policies on which we do not see eye to eye and come to understand each other’s positions better, so let’s put that on the agenda.

    But setting that aside for the moment, I do understand your concern (even though I admit to not having read the expressions that disturb you, I couldn’t find them in a quick visit) and I must say: Don’t Panic. As a libertarian I am in the habit of asking the useful question “Who is We?” The “We” you see as an addicted nation is certainly not me, not you either, of course, and I daresay it’s far from everybody.

    I don’t go to this Yahoo place and from what you say, I’m glad I don’t. It occurs to me that what you are encountering is not just an unrepresentative sample of the public, but a concerted, even coordinated effort on the part of a few people to sway an entire online community to their viewpoint by appearing dominant, or even just talking as though they are. Where have we seen that sort of thing before, hmmm? (And I’m thinking of a place that set itself apart in my mind from the usual sewer that is comment sections on news sites, which most normal people who don’t want their time wasted probably realize and avoid.)

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      Happy to engage in constructive debate, that’s why we are all here. We may not agree on everything but I believe the purpose of stubborn things is to create a forum where we can amicably agree to disagree.

      I identify with libertarian philosophy too but to me ‘anything goes’ and the defacto position ‘always minimize government’ in my view is not libertarianism. Its adherence to inflexibility and intransience as a modus operandi. It’s to these operatives that I apply ‘Paulbot’ title. I actually like Rand Paul a lot, mostly for his brilliant exposures of intrusive abusive teetering wasteful behemoth government bureaucracies. So I don’t mean to disparage Rand Paul or even his father but I think we all know the type of personality I’m mean when I say Paulbot. As it is a pejorative perhaps I should refrain from its use but it does clearly articulate a mindset.

      (Brad sorry for beating you to the punch there.)

      Anyway you make a good point about those who frequent Yahoo! and their posting tactics but I find Yahoo! to be a place where the average non politico goes for surfing news and causal posting. Kind of like the internet’s. It represents the ubiquitous gently Leftist bias that Americans thoughtless allow into their kitchens, bedrooms, workspaces and airports. Its pervasive. That’s why I’m frightened; the average voter is so easily manipulated and uninformed and doesn’t realize their normative mindset is from the leftist point of view.

      As to whom do I mean by ‘we’. I’m referring to the overall narrative that we as nation accept as the reference point for any discussion.

      Here’s not the spot to start the decriminalization dialogue, I’ll only offer drug abuse is not growing because of a failure of the ‘war on drugs’ but like most problems in America its expanding as a result of 60 years of encroaching leftism. I believe decriminalizing will only serve to widen abuse, not decrease it.

      • CCWriter CCWriter says:

        Thanks. I’ll put “create some agreeable disagreement on decriminalizing” on my deliverables list.

        Meanwhile, thanks to you, Kung Fu, Brad and Kurt for underscoring the part about honest and reasoned disagreements being OK here. I want visitors to get that.

        • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

          Part of the fun is also seeing what thumb nail photo Brad is going to come up with for our articles.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            LOL. I was searching and searching. I was getting tired of looking and was just going to go with the stereotypical “pile of pills” photo. And then I saw this one and literally laughed out loud. To me, that photo said “Paulbot.” In fact, we may now have a new mascot.

            • CCWriter CCWriter says:

              Don’t forget to bring out the wingnut image when you feel it’s called for.

            • ladykrystyna says:

              Hey, Brad. My Outlook e-mail has been down a good part of the day. It was back up again and now it’s down again. It’s REALLY pissing me off.

              So I couldn’t respond to your last couple of e-mails.

              I just wanted to acknowledge that I got your message about Gryffindor contacting you and I’m very happy about that. Hope she is deciding to write some articles for us.


      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s why I’m frightened; the average voter is so easily manipulated and uninformed and doesn’t realize their normative mindset is from the leftist point of view.

        That’s exactly right and well said. Ironically, it is the Cultural Marxists (the godfater of the Left and “Progressives”) who have this idea of “false consciousness.” It’s the idea that, say, some woman at home who is taking care of her two kids couldn’t really be happy and fulfilled. She’s just been fooled to think she is happy and fulfilled.

        So, in effect, I tip my cap to the Cultural Marxists. They have indeed implanted a false consciousness into a lot of people. I see this every day. I experienced it last night in the McDonald’s drive-thru lane. There are a lot of people out there making big, often vulgar, displays of how damned happy they supposedly are.

        Well, if Dennis Prager is to be believed, women, in particular, are suffering from depression due to trying to adopt-as-normal the many toxic notions of the Left.

        Great post, Rob, along with your article. And, yes, decriminalizing drugs would only lead to widened abuse. It would, to my mind, be to institute formally the Huxleyian idea of a “Soma” to keep the population down and dumb and not worried about any little thing.

        • ladykrystyna says:

          “Well, if Dennis Prager is to be believed, women, in particular, are suffering from depression due to trying to adopt-as-normal the many toxic notions of the Left.”

          I think Dennis Prager is absolutely right.

          We’re supposed to be like men, think like men, have sex like men, work like men.

          But we’re not men. And that, I think, is more of a problem with more women than would actually admit it.

      • ladykrystyna says:

        If I may intrude because this statement brought a thought to mind (and it’s not to really get into a debate at this stage; I’m just kind of laying out my basic thoughts):

        “Here’s not the spot to start the decriminalization dialogue, I’ll only offer drug abuse is not growing because of a failure of the ‘war on drugs’ but like most problems in America its expanding as a result of 60 years of encroaching leftism. I believe decriminalizing will only serve to widen abuse, not decrease it.”

        I’m getting the feeling that you and I might have similar thoughts on this. And my thoughts on this kind of gel with my thoughts on gay marriage.

        Part of me agrees with the problem with The War on Drugs because it reminds me of Prohibition, which obviously didn’t stop anyone from drinking and helped to create the Mafia.

        But then I also see that there is a difference between drugs.

        I know that pot can possibly cause damage over time, especially in still developing brains, but I also don’t believe that it’s all that addictive if used like some people use alcohol – just recreationally.

        But then you have coke, crack, heroin and meth (and I know there are more like ecstasy and the like). These seem to have no “recreational” value, if you will. Especially heroin and meth. Completely and utterly destructive the minute you put it in your body.

        So there is part of me that could see legalizing some drugs, but not all. But as you alluded to – the rise in use of drugs may very well be NOT because of the failure of War on Drugs, but because we have lost our moral compass. We have lost our concept of personal responsibility, of actions and consequences.

        So legalizing it now might wind up being a disaster because legalizing it will be divorced from personal responsibility. Heck, the Left might think of a way to subsidize the use of it if that would help them get votes and control.

        And that’s also how I feel about gay marriage – if it was brought about in a more organic manner (and more along the lines I proposed which was “civil unions” for everybody and “Marriage” left to religious institutions), where our country still had a moral compass, then perhaps it wouldn’t be a threat.

        But, as you all know, our moral compass has been compromised. Not just our Constitution, but liberty itself, is made for a moral people. Without that it’s just ultimately anarchy, which brings the top down to control the problems.

        That is why I believe that when the Left understood that they couldn’t violently take over the U.S., they would destroy us from within by first chipping away at our morals or twisting them with “social gospel” and “social justice”.

        So I am hesitant to agree to legalizing any drugs, and why my support of “gay marriage” disappeared (for the reasons I stated, but also because of the tactics used here in CA against those who supported and voted for Prop 8).

        So that’s the long way of saying that if you are thinking what I’m thinking, I agree with your assessment re legalizing drugs.


        • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

          I pretty much agree. I’d go further though. The sole purpose of smoking pot is to get high. What’s ‘recreational’ about that.?

          Its better to ‘criminalize’ through prohibitive laws against marijuana (like every other country on the planet has) but essentially limit the enforcement (thus the individual choice of people to smoke isn’t not ‘infringed upon’ if the activity is kept private.

          Kind of like homosexuality (which should not be illegal) and people can lead the sex life they want but it doesn’t need to be promoted in the public square (same with heterosexuals).

          Essentially a law legalizing marijuana is saying: USC Title 8900 – We the people herby support and encourage the citizenry to free access to mind altering substances from which at the whim they may get stoned

          No reason for a government to condone a behavior which has no productive value to society and may very well be harmful. Same holds true with same sex marriage, why would a government condone the twisting of language to meet the desires of a very small minority of the population. Its dishonest and a corruption of the constitution. The constitution ensures protection from tyranny of the majority yes but also protection from tyranny of the minority and when the media, ‘elite’erati, judicial and executive branch conspire to rule in their favor… its plutocracy and I guarantee you such rule is unconstitutional and ultimately very dangerous.

          • MarkW says:

            What’s the purpose of drinking if it isn’t to “alter your mood”?

            • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

              Do you not enjoy the taste of beer with pizza, or Kingfisher Pale Ale with Indian curry.

              How about a Pinot Grigio with linguini an clams. I love port with cheese.

              I drink all these and do not get intoxicated.

              • CCWriter CCWriter says:

                sarc Well, but from now on you’re going to have to certify whether your intent in drinking the Pale Ale is to complement the curry or get a buzz, or both. We’ll let you know if you can do it. Allow three weeks for processing. /sarc

                N.B. Not trying to piss anybody off. I consider this a frank and robust debate of the kind that we want to have here without trolls chiming in to distract us.

            • Kung Fu Zu says:

              Sorry Mark W,but your remark is typical of the libertarian tripe one expects from a college sophomore. It is exactly why many of us who are constitutional conservatives and tend towards the philosophy of live and let live i.e. libertarianism, wish you and others like you, would sharpen your tools.

              To imply the only reason to drink is to become intoxicated is like saying the only reason to swim is to take a bath. The only reason to eat is for nourishment or the only reason to make love is to have a child. All such assertions ignore the many reasons people have for doing the things they do. As a libertarian, I would have thought you would have thought this through.

              Furthermore, you clearly do not have much of an idea of the history of alcoholic beverages. Please understand for most of history drinking pure water was dangerous. Wine and beer were mixed with water even for young children until the 1800’s at least. And if you understand even a little bit about the major causes of death, you will know water born bacteria have killed millions upon millions throughout history.

              Thus it is clear that intoxication is not the single goal of the partaker of spirits. While it may happen occasionally to the mature person, it more often happens to yutes and people without self-control.

              Wine and beer, especially, have been big parts of Western cultures for many many centuries. Dope not so much.

              • CCWriter CCWriter says:

                But is it really up to you to assess the mixture of my goals as a partaker of anything and seek to use the levers of power to permit or forbid accordingly? Are you going to be like Mayor Bloomberg with his pretend logic of soft drink sizes? That kind of calculation seems to me impossible and accordingly would tend to deliver anything but true justice in the matter. Besides which, iI don’t like the implication that I’m incapable of self-control and moderation without oversight.

              • MarkW says:

                Interesting how you proclaim to know the real motivations of everyone, on both sides of this debate. And from such knowledge you proclaim the right to dictate how others lead their lives and what they do for recreation.
                Only those forms of recreation acceptable to you are to be legally permitted.
                It’s conservatives like you who give conservatism a bad name.

              • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

                Wanted to reply to Mark’s comment below but appears the number of sub replies is limited…

                Anyway Mark I’d offer this in regards to ‘giving conservatism a bad name’.

                Conservatism in the Burkean sense is about instituting change slowly sa the ramifications of rapid change can have appalling consequences. In that vein concern regarding such a monumental change as the governmental condonment of drug abuse is the appropriate conservative perspective.

          • CCWriter CCWriter says:

            I don’t think I can accept your premise that altering a law to undo a specific prohibition constitutes endorsement, support, encouragement or would include any language about whims.

            I also don’t think it’s within the purview of a constitutionally limited government to prohibit anything just on the basis of someone’s assessment that something has “no productive value” or even that it “may” be harmful in some (indirect) way. In my vision it has to be direct harm, it has to be provable, and it can’t be voluntarily avoidable by the harm-ee. And it would have to be practically enforceable, not just a law as expressing a wish. If it doesn’t meet those conditions, then it may still qualify to be a norm expressed by the institutions of civil society, (and IMHO we’ve allowed big government to erode and weaken these). But not a law on the law books. Trying to extend the law into too many areas weakens the meaning and effectiveness of necessary laws, and that’s a problem.

            Except in a scenario under which anything not prohibited is compulsory, which I maintain is the Progressivist vision, how can the absence of prohibition of something be considered tantamount to endorsement?

        • faba calculo says:

          Have we lost our “moral compass”? When did we have it? Did we have it during Jim Crow and segregation? Did we have it during the internment of the Japanese? Did we have it during slavery? Did we have it when we denied women the right to vote? Did we have it during the Trail of Tears?

          I don’t run down this (sometimes too) well trod list to build up to an America-has-always-been-evil big finish. But I think it easy, too easy in fact, to fall in love with the past, not realizing that there was likely a lot of things wrong in the nation then as well.

          How do we measure the morality of an entire nation and age? How do we ensure that we haven’t failed to notice the disappearance of things that used to be awful as we complain about the news things that are today?

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            Please write an article or articles going into detail about the examples you cite.

            • faba calculo says:

              I assume that’s sarcasm.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                Only partially. As Brad said, if you wish to expand on any of these subjects, giving some serious historical context and analysis of the particular situation, I would be happy to read what you have to say.

              • faba calculo says:

                But you misunderstand my purpose here if you think I came to rehash wrongs of the past. As I tried to to make clear with my second paragraph, I’m not someone who wants to make the US his whipping boy. Instead, I was responding to the claim “as you all know, our moral compass has been compromised”. I hear such talk used frequently, especially by fellow conservatives, to indicate that this generation is somehow so much worse than the ones that came before. So, whereas the liberals wish to whip the US of the past, they wish to whip the US of today!

                Now, no doubt, there are some areas where we are worse than ever before. I mean, we’re looking at what, something north of 1 million abortions per year? But there were also terrible things in the past that have now been ended, of which slavery is likely the primary example.

                So my question really was just that: a question. Are we really a less moral generation than the ones that came before us? Don’t get me wrong, we may very well be. Maybe there was nothing on the scale to be taken off that would counter the new weight of abortion…including slavery! Abortion, by itself, may well be enough to sink us.

                That’s the discussion I was hoping for.

          • CCWriter CCWriter says:

            How do we measure the morality of an entire nation and age?

            Maybe we can’t. Maybe some people are moral and some aren’t. Maybe some people are moral in some things and not in others. Maybe the expectation of what’s included in morality ratchets up generation by generation. I hate to get the blame for a nation’s being immoral when I am in the moral minority. What was I supposed to do about it? Am I not trying my best to remedy the situation? Sorry, I don’t accept collective guilt. I’m responsible only for my own decisons.

            And I do like your point about improvement that doesn’t make the headlines.

            I happen to think that real progress starts with identifying things as problems that were right there under our noses but taken for granted as insoluble, such as those you mentioned and many other ills. There is a process of waking up and saying “whoa, that’s a problem, how do we fix it?” I daresay if conservatives decided to own this process they might do a better job of coming up with the fix. Small-l libertarians can help with setting boundaries and analyzing incentives. Together we need to cut the liberal statists out of imposing “solutions” with unintended consequences. Recognizing a problem is only the first step; next you have to truly solve it.

            • faba calculo says:

              “Sorry, I don’t accept collective guilt. I’m responsible only for my own decisons.”

              Neither do I. Nor, for that matter, do I accept collective credit. I no more defeated the Nazis than I enslaved the blacks.

              But if one is to make comparisons of the moral compass of this generation to others, then the good and that bad of all generations being compared must be entered into the ledger, no?

              • CCWriter CCWriter says:

                “if one is to make comparisons of the moral compass of this generation to others, then the good and that bad of all generations being compared must be entered into the ledger, no?”

                Maybe. I’m not sure it would even be fair then. I don’t see it as that kind of math.

                My idea is that you should expect each generation to be able to push the envelope a little, but you can’t fault it (let alone any individual member of it) for not being able to see all the invisible wrongs under their noses from the viewpoint of a century or so after their lifetime. Also I believe that if you try to move too fast, progress won’t stick. Guess that is what makes me a conservative, or a conservative-leaning libertarian.

                You might legitimately expect of each generation that they review and be aware of the not-most-recent past so that they could recognize whatever virtues were relinquished as a byproduct of recent progress, and try to reinstate them in updated form. Guess that makes me a libertarian-leaning conservative. (May also be why I like “Downton Abbey.” I appreciate many of the old and classy ways, but I’d like everyone to be able to share in them.)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Have we lost our “moral compass”? When did we have it? Did we have it during Jim Crow and segregation? Did we have it during the internment of the Japanese? Did we have it during slavery? Did we have it when we denied women the right to vote? Did we have it during the Trail of Tears?

            Mr. Calculo, you cite many reasons for the importance of a moral compass, as well as having a vision of America that is larger than grievance.

            Let me just state in general terms that the premise of StubbornThings isn’t emotional grievance with Western Civilization, using it as some kind of punching bag to sate one’s feelings of angst and misfortune. Nor is the point to cite America’s imperfections to the exclusion of all else as if walking the liberal equivalent of the Stations of the Cross.

            As Mr. Kung said or implied, if you would like to delve into the details of any one of these issues so that it rises above the level of knee-jerk grievance or just a liberal talking point, then do so.

            Each of those subjects, while typically designed to paint America as bad (a perverse habit we have acquired from the noxious Left), is actually more complicated. The right for women to vote was an evolving standard. Historically, the roles of women and men were somewhat different. And there were many places that men weren’t allowed to vote – if they didn’t own property, for instance.

            StubbornThings takes the view that because some cultural practices do change over time that earlier times weren’t necessarily wrong. Sometimes it was just different. The point of this site is not to find reasons to hate America but to love liberty and our Founding ideals. Yes, there are warts, but the warts do not define us – unless one has adopted the Leftist attitude of eternal grievance and wants nothing more but to see warts.

            • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

              Solid response Brad. The bottom line is:
              At StubbornThings we want reasoned debate, not cliche repetition.

            • faba calculo says:

              “Mr. Calculo…”


              I wasn’t sure if I was going to go by Faba Calculo or Calculo Faba here. It’s latin, and I have no idea if the noun Calculo should have gone in front of or behind the adjective Faba. But, had I gone the other way, YOU’D HAVE JUST CALLED ME “MR. BEAN”.


              As for the rest, as per my response above, I hope you can see that I was no more trying to make prior generations into by punching bag than Lady K was trying to make this one into hers.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    First off (and I shall forever live in shame because of this), Rob was the first to use the word “Paulbot” in an article. How could I let him beat me?

    Second — and maybe it’s just my browser (Safari on a pretty fast Intel Mac) — but that Yahoo site is dog-ass show. So is NRO recently. That is something we will try to avoid here at StubbornThings which is the tendency of many to try to jam 20 pounds of horse manure into a 10 pound bag.

    Third, good god, it just occurs to me that America is ripe for the taking. We are a paper tiger when you look at the general character of yutes. We have grown so narcissistic, whiney, and corrupt that we could be knocked over with a feather. The new cry from our yute is “Give me weed or give me death.” And I’m not even sure about the death part.

    Reflecting what CC said, I don’t go to Yahoo either, and from what you say, Rob, I’m glad that I don’t. And it’s becoming that way with NRO. I fear we have done a terrible thing by setting up StubbornThings because we have syphoned off many of the best writers and all that they are left with is trolls. There are still some good posters over there. But, frankly, the place is a fever swamp.

    • cdjaco says:

      Well, your “terrible thing” is a necessary thing: NRO is becoming an echo chamber populated by pro-establishment, short-term thinking Republicans, with a few exceptions. The magazine seems uninterested in moderating (let alone participating in) the comments, allowing the Leftist trollbots to run wild. It reflects the current GOP: a lumbering dinosaur oblivious to anything other than its own interests, plagued with a legion of parasites.

      You’ll know you’re doing well when the trolls start showing up. It’s only a matter of time.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I can’t disagree with what you’re saying, cdjaco. But a piece of my heart will always be with NRO. There are some good writers there (syndicated or otherwise) such as Steyn, McCarthy, Cooke (too libertarian in the wrong way for my taste, but so very good on some subjects), Tanner (always a breath of common sense), and a couple others, including Brother Jonah, of course (who is increasingly veering toward the irrelevant or overtly intellectual…he’s losing that “everyman” touch).

        And, yes, the trolls have taken over. And seeing that has made me rethink my strategy in that regard. I don’t at all mind a vigorous debate. But your typical Leftist is, at heart, an anarchist or psychological kook. And what we need now is less anarchy and more reason. So I really will have no pangs of conscience in nuking trolls so that StubbornThings can remain a neighborhood of nicely-moved lawns and picket fences. For those who simply want to spray paint graffiti, then either go back to junior high school or learn to grow the hell up.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          Brad, I am glad you will not have any compunctions about separating the well thought out wheat from the troll chaff. While I welcome reasoned argument from the left, I have noticed that most of the leftist comments are repetitive, unreasoned, silly and obnoxious.

          I believe the comments on StubbornThings have been born of long experience and considerable contemplation on the subjects discussed.

          That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, but there must be a minimum level of respect and sincerity if people wish to debate issues seriously.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Agreed. And I’m not really even all that insistent upon respect. I’ve had too much experience with being called a disruptor myself simply for talking about uncomfortable facts, or just giving opinions that don’t mesh with the crowd. “Respect” can too easily mean joining the herd of groupthink.

            But that is quite different form the soda-pop-machine-like dispenser of cliches which is all that the Left seems to deal in. A cliche is not an argument. It’s not conversation. It’s therefore not honest. I can deal with insults and disagreements. But I do not abide dishonesty. That’s really is my own cut-off line.

            To come in here, or anywhere, and spout cliches is not dialogue. It’s just graffiti, even if people pretend otherwise. Yes, this sometimes can be a judgment call. But Itrust myself to make these judgments because I’ve had a certain amount of experience in this regard.

            • MarkW says:

              I was asked by the operators of Hot Air to leave, because I refused to accept their ruling that it was disgracefull to even permit a discussion of secession.

              • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

                That’s as bad as speech codes at the public university.

                The Left is all OK with throwing urine and feces and those whom you disagree as a from of expression but don’t you dare talk about series issues that run counter to the liberal narrative.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Sounds as if Hot Air is all full of hot air. A peaceful and legal secession may be in all our futures. There is probably no way to salvage the Federal government. It is now like a tumor on the body of the people (and not that the people are in any way blameless).

                The first secession I would argue was illegal and done for all the wrong reasons. But hte idea itself is as legitimate as the idea of the states getting together in the first place — unless, of course, one has the view that states have no legal standing in existential and primary matters. Jefferson certainly laid out in the Declaration of Independence the moral framework for when people might shirk off an oppressor.

              • MarkW says:

                I wish to do this as a reply to Brad, but for some reason there is no Reply option under his post.
                Secession isn’t illegal, because there is nothing in the constitution that forbids it, and as the 10th ammd states, any power not granted to the federal govt is reserved to the states.
                An association that is entered into voluntarily, can be left voluntarily. And before you bring up the argument that how can a state leave without first getting the consent of 100% of it’s citizens, did they have to get 100% approval before entering the union?
                I agree that the secession of the southern states was partly done for the wrong reasons.

              • CCWriter CCWriter says:

                Agree, not to permit a discussion of something is ridiculous. It isn’t unconstitutional or illegal because the free speech clause only applies to action by government, thank goodness, otherwise StubbornThings might be told what we could and couldn’t do on our own site. But it is foolish for some privately run entity to prohibit discussion of such a topic. Discussion might net out to “oh, that’s a really bad idea and here’s why.” Why would they be afraid of that? (John Stuart Mill discusses this at length in “On Liberty.”)

          • Kurt NY says:

            Without debate, truth cannot be determined, and we should always resist the temptation to retreat into the safe confines of sites only consisting of like minded folk who will mindlessly repeat back to us our own opinions. In that respect I find the presence of many adherents of the left on NRO to be beneficial.

            That being said, far too much of the stuff coming from many of those folk is now of the level of “so’s your old man” and other juvenile antics, designed not to challenge and discuss ideas but to annoy and hinder debate. And the spate of post deletions goes beyond annoying, amounting to stalinist censorship of opinion with which they disagree.

            I like NRO, I really do. And that most of the folk who post here post there as well speaks well of it. But the quality of the discussion certainly seems to have deteriorated since it moved to Disqus, which mostly seemed to attract trolls like flies to honey.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Without debate, truth cannot be determined, and we should always resist the temptation to retreat into the safe confines of sites only consisting of like minded folk who will mindlessly repeat back to us our own opinions. In that respect I find the presence of many adherents of the left on NRO to be beneficial.

              Those who know me, Kurt, know that I have little desire for safe confines. But that is another thing from recognizing that we are dealing with a zealous cult in regards to the Left. Many of the posters are on a personal type of Jihad. That is one reason we won’t see them here for the foreseeable future. There is no glory in stepping on an ant. But there is in lunging darts at the big elephant (NRO).

              …and other juvenile antics, designed not to challenge and discuss ideas but to annoy and hinder debate.

              I quite agree. And although it’s risky trying to delve into someone’s mind and determine their motivations, I think good experience has shown that many on the Left simply are of the attitude of the graffiti artist. They don’t wish to debate, they simply wish to disrupt. They gain some satisfaction from painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

              This is a trait that we all have to fight to some extent. We must believe positively in something rather than just lashing out at things we don’t like. And we must speak sincerely of our ideas in the context of our own experiences. They must be real, not silly cliches.

              The alternative is that we use online discussions like we did those Bozo the Clown bop bags when we were children. And this is where the mission of StubbornThings gets interesting.

              It is my premise that there is a generation or three of yutes who are ungrounded in good principles. They’ve been left dangling by single-parent families, stupid liberal families, a bad government education system, and a vapid and vulgar pop culture that is devoid of almost anything good or noble.

              It is with this as a backdrop that, at least to some extent (I have no desire to be a punching bag, that is), we welcome with open arms those yutes (or adults) who have been poisoned by the system. Lashing out like spoiled and depraved juveniles is a sure sign of a soul that is in trouble.

              You will never, ever (never say “never,” I know) find one of these yutes who will say, “You know what? After talking with you, I realized that I was acting like a spoiled asshole. Sorry about that.” But hopefully StubbornThings can be a resource that can honestly, and with integrity of purpose, be a resource that might be the instrument for such a conversion.

              In order to leech the poison of the Left out of people, we have to offer something better for them to put back in.

              And agreed, Kurt. The level of convo at NRO has definitely taken a hit.

            • ladykrystyna says:

              I agree with you, Kurt. A few years ago you could almost have a reasoned debate with a lefty.

              Now, those are few and far between. JoeA, Diogenes, Asemodeus, Jonathan Goodman and a few others whose names escape me at the moment, offer nothing but attacks and, as you said “So’s your old man” posts.


              I agree about Disqus. I notice many sites use it, so there is so much bleed over of trolls, it’s ridiculous, especially on the weekend. And the few times that an article from NRO wound up linked from Drudge? Forget it. Over a thousand posts and most of them garbage.

              Like you said, if it was a thousand posts most of which were honest discussion and debate, no biggie. I’m not an elitist, nor am I looking to hide from differing opinions. But it’s just trolls, trolls and more trolls.

              Same thing happened to the Breitbart site, which is why a bunch of us met up on another site created by one of our group shortly after Andrew died. We were all original Breitbartites.

              I still go to Breitbart sometimes, but most of the trolls there are so pathetic. I encountered one whose almost entire argument that the Tea Party was made up of theocrats was based on what some actor said on a tv show (he kept linking the video).

              It’s like arguing with your toddler.

              Or like a nun told my mom when I was in pre-school – you don’t argue with a twit.

              • CCWriter CCWriter says:

                Hey, I resemble that remark! 😉

                Chief Twit, StubbornThings

              • MarkW says:

                20 years ago, I used to write multi-page treatises regarding things like libertarian philosophy and post them in response to questions. (This was back in the news reader days, if any of the rest of you go back that far.) But after years of dealing with trolls who wouldn’t even respond to the points I was making, I just got angry and fed up.
                Maybe with some nurturing from kindred souls, I can get back to that point. I must admit that I have too much anger in me and that’s why I tend to lash out at those I consider trolls.
                I promise to try harder, especially here.

        • MarkW says:

          Beg pardon, but how does one go about “moving” a lawn, nicely or otherwise?

        • faba calculo says:

          “But your typical Leftist is, at heart, an anarchist or psychological kook. ”

          Are they? Are you even seeing “the typical” leftist? Or do they just walk past you on the street, soon followed up by the nut job who is a good deal more than two standard deviations off center, even for leftists?

      • CCWriter CCWriter says:

        Hey cdjaco, would you like to follow us on Twitter? Go here http://www.stubbornthings.org/media/twitter/ and you’ll find the follow button.

        What Brad said about psycho-trolls. We are ready to nip that in the bud because we can tell when somebody crosses the line. We don’t rely on buggy software that deletes perfectly constructive comments.

        –CCWriter, Chief Twit

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      Hi Brad sorry for beating you to the ‘bot’, wasn’t intentional. See my comments above to CC.

      • Kurt NY says:

        You know, speaking of bots, I ran across a disturbing article the other day about the growing prevalence of bots on social networks, programs designed to mimic humans on various boards and media. It actually said that an astonishingly high percentage of all network traffic on social media and dating sites are not humans at all but bots masquerading as such with ever more sophisticated responses to stimuli. One example it gave was from a company which bought a competing dating site to find that traffic dropped by something like 20%+, the difference being the prior owner’s bots actually flirting with those accessing it.

        It gave another example of some scientist who programmed a bot to respond to climate change deniers with a series of arguments, citations, and various annoyances depending on what was said, all the while seeming as if it were a human responding. And its creator said its primary function was to annoy those with whom he disagreed.

        Which might explain some of the trolls over at NRO. Maybe they’re not human after all and are just programs designed to disrupt and annoy.

    • ladykrystyna says:

      “Third, good god, it just occurs to me that America is ripe for the taking. We are a paper tiger when you look at the general character of yutes.”

      Exactly. Glenn Beck covered this in discussing Cloward and Piven, and his Restoring Honor rally, and his private projects to try and bolster self-reliance and private, individual charity.

      Cloward and Piven relies upon the yutes you speak of (and even adults who still think like yutes). You overwhelm the system, and instead of people realizing that the system is broken because it cannot be sustained, they will rise up and cause chaos, the top will come down and everything will get turned inside out.

      See Greece – they discussed and, I believe, tried austerity, and instead of having a Tea Party rise up, they had a Greek OWS rise up. In fact, even the fascists started to become popular over there during the last couple of elections.

      That is what we can expect here. Granted OWS didn’t turn out to be very popular, even among people who probably could be considered sympathetic to their cause. But, then, neither was the Tea Party very popular overall.

      What we are left with is the apathetic. And which way will they go when the SHTF? With OWS or the Tea Party?

      I’m not that confident that many of them will join our side unless they think we can keep them safe from the OWS crowd. They’ll be the grasshoppers begging the ants for food in the winter because they failed to prepare (or failed to realize they were voting themselves into oblivion).

      • MarkW says:

        Greek austerity was never more than more taxes and a small reduction in the rate of increase of spending.

        One constant with most liberals is that they actually believe that there is no limit to how high taxes can be raised.
        Look at how many of them want to return to the 90% rate we had in the 50’s. (Without acknowledging that next to nobody ever paid that rate.)

      • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

        I’ve noticed that we are quoting well known conservative commentators an awful lot. I mentioned Prager, Beck is mentioned here, others have referenced Rush and Lowry.

        We should be more confident in ourselves. We are all well equipped to make the case for conservatism with our own arguments, perspectives and intellects. I just fear if we keep quoting the ‘populist’ conservatives we lose our grass roots conservatism claim and become a conservative ‘repeater’ site I’ve criticized most of the Leftist media for being.

        (Not singling you out LadyK, I’ve been thinking about this for a bit and you offered me a good opportunity to post this thought)

  3. MarkW says:

    The best way to analyze the issue of drug use is to compare the damage done to society and our legal rights that is being done because of the War on Some Drugs, to the damage that would be done to our society if there were no limits on drug use.
    Most of believe that the only regulations needed on drugs is no sales to minors and punish those who put others in danger while using drugs. (Think drunk driving laws.)
    Damage to society was the excuse used to pass Prohibition, and everyone agrees that was a disaster.

    • CCWriter CCWriter says:

      The origin and process of passing Prohibition are interesting to look into. I learned a lot from a documentary that was on PBS a few years ago. It was very much a Progressive thing. And it did not have an honest popular consensus behind it. Many Americans assumed it would allow them to tell other (lower-class, foreign) people how to live yet exceptions would be made for themselves. Result, a tragic undermining of the idea of the rule of law.

      • MarkW says:

        Funny thing, that’s pretty much how the drug war was sold to modern Americans. It was something that would only impact the lower-classes, never them.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      I am not sure how to analysis these things i.e. “which damage is costlier to society?”. While I lean toward decriminalization of drugs, I am not wholly convinced that this might not do more harm than good.

      A real life example of what drug addiction can do to a society can be seen in the problem China had with opium in the 1800’s. If I recall correctly, it is estimated that something like 10-15% of the nation was addicted and there is no doubt tremendous damage was done to the country because of it. This is why countries such as China, Malaysia and Singapore still have very strict drug laws.

      Furthermore, given the nanny-state in which we live, there are questions of social costs which may or may not be greater than we already pay for the war on drugs.

      It is not a simple question.

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      Think of the use of heroin in China, cocaine in American, absinthe in Europe. They were deadly to productive nations and illegalized for good reason. How is marijuana different when its sole purpose is to emasculate the mind? This is vastly different than alcohol, which has been with peoples of the world for 10,000 years. You can say so has marijuana but its use was not for ‘recreational’ purposes but for medicinal and spiritual. There is nothing spiritual in the sanctification of stonerism.

      Probation gave government control over a liberty accepted for millennia. In legalizing marijuana is abandoning its duty to secure liberty. There is no comparison between the two. Prohibition was tyranny, legalization is sedition.

      I know I sound extreme but these are extreme times. Enough of our populace is indolent and addled as it is, legalization will double use nearly instantly, and then the real tyranny will begin. Marijuana production, manufacturing distribution marketing will become industrialized. The government will then nationalize the industry becoming the pimp to the commercial whores for a nation of johns and perhaps it will be fun but only for a very short while.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I can pretty much some up my thoughts on the issue with this.

  5. Kung Fu Zu says:

    Mark, I can’t figure out if English is your second language or if that anger you mentioned in another post is clouding your comprehension. You have certainly read into my post things which are not there.

    At no time did I claim to know the real motivations of people. I said people have many reasons for doing the things they do.

    On the contrary, it was you who implied he had a lock on the reason all people drink when you implied the only reason people drink is to alter their moods. Now I have no doubt that is the case for many people, but it is not the case for all of us. Frankly, life is too short to worry overly much why “people” do things.

    As to the question of dictating what is right and wrong, I defy you to show me where in this discussion I have positively stated or implied that I have the right or even want the right to dictate what people do and how they do it.

    And as far as giving anything a bad name, please look in the mirror. You argue like a leftist. You become emotional, change words and assume or imply things which were never said. You certainly don’t use logic, facts or reason. But this is the type of discourse I have come to expect from “One Note Nellie” libertarians such as yourself.

    Yes, movement libertarians, the adolescent Bolsheviks of the Right. Just let everybody do what they want and eventually the State will wither away and we will all sit around smoking a joint singing Kumbaya.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Just an overall note. At any time, if having the seven-level restrictions on posts becomes cumbersome, seek ye the Forums and start a thread there. The Forum doesn’t appear to do nested (indented) commenting, but you can quote people’s posts.

    The Management (drugs are baayed)

  7. Kung Fu Zu says:

    CC Writer, I am surprised at your reply. At no time did I say it was up to me to assess your goals in any endeavor. Neither did I imply that you need oversight as you have no self control, but if the shoe fits wear it. How people fit into a society and societal norms are topics which can be addressed later.

    My initial post was about the vacuity of the libertarian argument that alcohol consumption is the same as drug consumption. I then reacted to MarkW’s post in an effort to edify MarkW regarding the multiplicity of reasons people might imbibe alcohol. I also gave some history of alcohol use in the West. His terse statement regarding “to alter your mood” was simply ignorant and needed to be answered. Perhaps he thought he was being clever, but he was in fact being juvenile.

    Now, reading MarkW’s posts on this and other subjects, I expect muddled thinking from him. I do not expect it from you.

    It is however tiresome to hear the same refrain from movement libertarians. “Sex, drugs and rock and roll.” The f=&king house is burning down and it seems you are only concerned, even obsessed with losing yourselves in an altered reality. Jeeez!!

    • CCWriter CCWriter says:

      When did you ever hear me sing that refrain or give you any cause to think I am obsessed with an altered reality? Nor did I even offer any of that as the basis for my points about the law, the individual and social norms.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        Let me amend my statement, “It is tiresome to hear the same refrain from “many” movement libertarians”. You may or may not be obsessed with losing yourself in an altered state of reality, but you cannot deny that too many of those claiming to be libertarians are obsessed with this. Also, look at the number of posts to this article which is on “Drugs”.

        As to the remarks about the law and societal norms, I was not saying you made any such remarks, rather I think these points need to be discussed, but I didn’t have the time or inclination to go into them at the time.

        Hope this helps clarify things.

        • CCWriter CCWriter says:

          Yes, it helps clarify.

          My perception of those soi-disant libertarians clamoring for self-indulgence is that they are a tiny but vocal minority, not well grounded in philosophy, and oughtn’t to even call themselves libertarians unless they can articulate a decent package of basic principles. They give traditional libertarians a bad name. Exposing the difference is one of the things I’d like to accomplish on StubbornThings.

          I think the need for making distinctions between the desirability of social-behavioral goals and the helpfulness or legitimacy of laws to address them is what drives the high number of comments on this thread. I therefore consider it a success as having stimulated us to articulate these issues, perhaps better than we could have done elsewhere. Though we’re not done talking about it by a long shot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *