RRC Archives

yep the war on drugs needs to go. don't vote (tough on crime) republican. they attack the people in the hood and go lenient on corporate crime.

Who kidnapped Larry's account!?!? Is he back taking his meds?

I'm with you on 90% of that, but here's where you're off:
[quote="L K Day"]All of which suggests they’re in precisely the same demographic as most MSM reporters. The Washington Post or NY Times reporters look at this case and immediately think: “It could happen to me!â€

[quote="tomdarch"]Who kidnapped Larry's account!?!? Is he back taking his meds?

I'm with you on 90% of that, but here's where you're off:
[quote="L K Day"]All of which suggests they’re in precisely the same demographic as most MSM reporters. The Washington Post or NY Times reporters look at this case and immediately think: “It could happen to me!â€

Danny wrote:And buisiness is the cause of many problems in general because their objectives are unlikely to agree with utilitarian objectives.

Hmmm... Yes, but....

I'm thinking of the Chruchill quote on Democracy and the alternatives:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Business is the source of a lot of problems, but at the same time, it seems that our current (in the US) managed market-oriented system is the least of the available evils.

The problem we're facing right now (other than the fact that the current market doesn't adequately price in "environmental" costs) is that we're in a renewed "gilded age", where organized business has a disproportionate influence over government. This is harming the vast majority of citizens, further avoiding the needed changes to reduce the harm to the environment, and, ironically, causing problems that will limit future growth. Example of the last - the mortgage market on meth that we just went through - the regulators threw open the flood gates at the funding, er, urging of the banking industry and the economy as a whole is in deep shit because "the invisible hand of the market" is a hardcore junkie - it will binge on whatever's available. (oooh! I'm liking the meth metaphor - the mortgage market is currently "toothless" and out offering Uncle Sam blowjobs for cash for the next fix...)

Look at formerly-honerable John McCain. Maverick McCain stood up to the morons in the Republican party and said no to offshore drilling because it's environmentally risky and it won't amount to enough oil to make any difference in the long run. (We need to be kicking the fossil fuel habit, not sticking our head in the baggie trying to lick out the last specks...) Presidential Candidate McCain flip-flopped on the issue in exchange for about $2 million (and counting) from the industry that stands to benefit from the policy shift. I'm sure that McCain has all sorts of rationalizations to tell himself. But the walks-like-a-duck read of this is that in our new gilded age, politicians and candidates quite simply decide national policy not on what is best for the country but based on who will give them cash.

(To tie in with the subject of the thread: what the fuck is America doing with for-profit, private prisons!?!?! That is simply insane. In our new gilded age, even core government work like law enforcement has been handed over to the highest contributor, er, I mean lowest bidder.)

Almost always the "someone" handing cash to politicians is an industry or business in general. In a well-functioning system, business must be given consideration, but in our current environment, that relationship is way, way out of whack.

Tom, can you imagine a president with the outlawing of the private prison industry on the docket? She would not survive in either party.

My mother is a police officer.

The point of my post was not to rail against the police - two close family members of mine have been career police officers - it was to criticize extremely dangerous tactics that have grown out of the "militarization" of the police. Swat team tactics are inherently risky and should only be used where there is a very significant danger that has to be met with extreme force. The use of swat teams for routine busts only increases the number of private citizens and police officers who meet a tragic end during what should be routine, and safe, enforcement of the law.

There is no way that a potential pot bust justifies violent home invasion by a group of armed and dangerous men who look and act more like terrorists than cops. It's a recipe for disaster.

Whether or not there should even be pot busts, or crack busts, for that matter, is another topic for discussion. But no-knock raids should rarely be used in the enforcement of the law, and probably never for drug enforcement.

hahaha, this whole thing cracks me up. Was the mayors address the return address or the main address? If its the main address then it looks like the dealers pulled a major fast one on the cops, if its the return address then the cops are just stupid. But really they are just stupid anyway cus they don't even know they are about to raid their mayors house, even if he is just part time.

the best way a civil society can exist is with lethal force- if the police knocks on your door shoot the mother fucker, even the most neo-nazi pigs get tired of hearing bagpipes

I figured someone would think that. Sorry, I gave it up many years ago. But back in the day....