Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Everything old is new again...


There's beginning to be a sort of Villa 'n' Pershing flavor to the way this news is being presented. It's making me a little uncomfortable, and I can't quite put my finger on why that is.

103 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yep, but instead of leaping over fences were passing out visitor guides...
McVee

Caleb said...

I'm not very old, but this does strike me as the sort of thing we used to saddle up and crack skulls over back in the day. I mean, I'm not a big fan of the federal government any more, but on the list of things I'd like them to do "shooting smelly murderous criminals in the face" is one of them.

Anonymous said...

Old? No, it just never changed.

The border has always been violent and now the whiners are wanting a federal check to make themselves "safe".

I wish Washington had the spine to tell them all down there to get bent and carry your own pack.

Shootin' Buddy

Boat Guy said...

Given that we've ceded large areas of US territory to the Transnational Criminal Organizations headquartered in Mexico (c.f. BLM signs warning against public use of "Active Drug and Human Smuggling Areas"), shows that the current administration cares not one whit for our sovereignty but there ARE some good folks who work for the "Federal Government" who are doing dangerous work in those areas on our behalf.
Perhaps some "citizens" might decide to take hikes or horseback rides in these areas, properly armed of course...

Tam said...

SB,

Yeah! Why would the federal government do unconstitutional things like ensuring the territorial integrity of the lower 48 from armed foreigners!

Maybe we could use all the money currently given to whiny Hoosiers who are always striking and crop subsidying and windmilling and instead do something constitutional with it, like guard the border.

Anonymous said...

If you chose to live near the bear cage, don't complain about the smell.

They clean the cage, or they can whine.

Right now they have decided to whine.

Shootin' Buddy

Don Meaker said...

I blame Bush. Impeach Bush!

Lewis said...

Shootin' Buddy:

Sometimes you come to the bear, sometimes the bear comes to you. (Why am I now thinking, "Do not trust Adam-zad, the bear that walks like a man!"?)

Sure, I'm pretty much libertarian (got the wookie suit on backorder), and think the war on some drugs is (to use the old trope) worse than a crime, it's a blunder, but . . . dang, man, just dang. The only thing remotely whiny I saw in that piece was the suggestion that if border patrol agents are in the area, off duty, they should be packing.

I kind of always figured that protecting the border was one of those clear federal responsibilities. World gets stranger every day.

Weetabix said...

"They clean the cage, or they can whine."

Ensure domestic tranquility?
Provide for the common defense?

Myles (in Phoenix) said...

Washington has abandoned us. And now that we have started to try and do something about our problem, we're told Washington will sue us. Makes you wonder just who's side they are on. It is well on the way to the "shoot, shovel and shut up" phase.

Anonymous said...

No Second Place Winner is full of cross border gunfights.

Gerry

Joel said...

Is the whole Arizona National Guard in Iraq or something? Or is there some presidential "finding" that says governors can't use their own state guards anymore, in case the feds want to ship them overseas? If the feds won't do anything, why can't the state?

I can't believe I'm wondering why the feds aren't acting, when normally I just want them to stay home, but that pesky constitution thing does mention defense. I know I'm only a "civilian," so what do I know, but this would seem to apply. Blowing up weddings in Afghanistan is a legitimate federal function, but putting a fear of the border into Mexican bandidos isn't? Geez, talk about historical inversions...

Anonymous said...

Washington has abdicated their responsibility.

Last time I checked, however, the states still have the ability to muster the Guard, or the Militia, to protect themselves from invasion. And "invasion" is clearly the definition of what is occurring down there. Perhaps Governor Brewer might display an even stiffer spine than she has already and do just that. If nothing else, it will show that Arizona is trying to address the problem while NerObama fiddles, er Golfs.

Newbius

Bram said...

That sounds to me like an old-fashion ultimatum. Actually crossing the border and attacking American LEO's would be an act of War.

Whether or not DC could recognize we are at war is another matter.

Anonymous said...

The NEW government imperative is to "spread the wealth around." Equal income and living conditions for ants and grasshoppers.
Hey, I know, if we make the US as corrupt and miserable as Mexico, they'll stop wanting to come here.
Maybe that's Barry's plan...

Matt G said...

"I wish Washington had the spine to tell them all down there to get bent and carry your own pack."

No, they've got a spine to SUE the locals and the states for trying to take care of the problem that the Fed won't handle.

As Tamara mentioned, this is one of the few Constitutionally-allowed activities that the Fed could do.

Look, I too laugh at people who cry out about flooding when they build on a floodplain, or being on the beach when the hurricanes come in. But this is people living in the desert, asking only for peace from outside invaders.

But, nevermind-- let's blame the citizens for living where they live.

Tam said...

Pardon him, Matt. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

Tam said...

Those battleships were just asking for it, being all anchored at Pearl Harbor like that...

BobG said...

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

Sounds like the feds are shirking their duty.

dave said...

SB, they're trying to shoulder their own rucks. The Minutemen, Ranch Rescue, Arizona's new law, Save Our State, etc.

The Feds aren't just refusing to assist, they're actively opposing those who do try to help themselves.

(And, for the record, I'm as much of a libertarian Wookie-suiter as anybody, but even I can read the Constitution: Article I, Section 9 clearly puts immigration within the legitimate power of the Federal government.)

Weetabix said...

Wookie suit?

tomcatshanger said...

lead levels too high Shootin' Buddy?

Anonymous said...

"And, for the record, I'm as much of a libertarian Wookie-suiter as anybody,"

And Libertarian Wookie-suiters are for open borders and so have no dog in any fight out there.

The border has always been dangerous. The border states want the cheap labor that Mexico provides but want to shift the cost of policing to all of us.

No way, no how should the federal government spend a dime to bail out a state for fouling their own nest as Arizona has done.

Shootin' Buddy

Paul said...

Open borders = no state.

Down that path lies ruin for us all.

Tam said...

Whiny Hoosiers and their selective constitutionalism are funny.

Bram said...

Open Border idiocy is one reason why most of us conservatives can't support the Libertarian Party.

I'm not sure how the state of Arizona has "fouled their nest" other than trying to shame the Feds into doing their Constitutional duty.

Desertrat said...

Shootin' Buddy, where you're dead wrong is that us folks here on the border are quite willing to defend ourselves--but we'd go to jail for doing so.

We're not whining at the danger. We're quite capable at being far more dangerous than any of the border-jumpers.

We're bitching at the Catch 22 aspect: The feds won't do anything in the way of meaningful protection, but they'll hammer on any of us who do.

But what do I know? I've only lived down here for 27 years, and was running around in this country for eleven years before the move.

Nuthin' more helpful than someone who doesn't know sheep dip from wild honey about other folks' problems.

tomcatshanger said...

The entire idea that folks SHOULD be afraid of two legged predators in certain areas strikes me as wrong headed.

I understand that there are bad parts of many cities, I understand that high crime areas are a problem, and I understand that the root of many of the problems is the war on some drugs.

I don't understand surrendering entire neighborhoods, or stretches of land, or counties, or states, to the two legged predators.

We have to spend some of our precious effort on defense, personal and common. We have to spend an awful lot less as members of society than we would if we where mere individuals.

Seems like a low price to pay not to suffer under robber barons, king pens, and other lofty thugs.

You can support your distant neighbor now, or you can do your own fighting later. No matter your personal ideals, you don't live in a vacuum.

Desertrat said...

An email from a south Texas resident:

"The Mexican Drug cartel's route of choice is now I-35 through Laredo , San Antonio , D/FW and points north.

They used to come north from Brownsville up rt 77 to across the King ranch, to I-37 and then to San Antonio and points north.

If you have traveled rt 77 through the King Ranch there are numerous signs indicting "NO TRESPASSING". A King ranch hand was found shot near where a semi tractor trailer (mobile meth lab) and drug campsite was located. The next day, in "La Familia" gang colors, 6 Mexican nationals ( illegals) were found hanging from trees. The sheriff of Kennedy county said; "the King ranch has made it clear they will not tolerate trespassers, therefore I suggest you avoid that stretch of rt 77."

I suppose the ACLU will scream they were denied their rights. The Mexican government has yet to lodge a complaint.

As I said, now the chosen route of the Drug cartels is not across the King ranch."

There will probably be a major federal task force for investigation, since this was clearly a violation of the official US government policy of, "Have you hugged a wetback today?"

Lewis said...

Shootin' Buddy:

"And Libertarian Wookie-suiters are for open borders and so have no dog in any fight out there."

And we all wear black leather jackets like that dude from Reason.com!

And we all live in the Greater DC-suckoplex!

And we're all on the libertine side of libertarian!

And we're all . . . oh wait, we're not all that at all. You're painting with a mighty broad brush, friend.

Matt G said...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/17/clinton-yes-obama-administration-will-sue-over-arizona-law/

JohnW said...

SB:

"The border has always been dangerous."

True. What it HASN'T always been is an invasion route.

"The border states want the cheap labor that Mexico provides but want to shift the cost of policing to all of us."

Untrue. If the mojados worked for *free* it would not begin to equal the costs to us paying for their passage. Here, let me show my work:
12,000,000 illegals the U.S.
- 500,000 illegals in AZ
__________
= cheap labor *where* again?

"No way, no how should the federal government spend a dime to bail out a state for fouling their own nest as Arizona has done."

Then how about allowing us to spend our own money to clean our own nest? If you won't help at least get out of the way.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Hmm. Do all the Southern Border states have Castle Doctrine ( I'm exempting the People's Republic of Kalifornia, of course)? Because if I owned private property within a hundred miles of Mexico, and I saw armed men sneeking onto my land...... Might have to pull a Charlie Askins like the boys on the King Ranch did.

staghounds said...

"Actually crossing the border and attacking American LEO's would be an act of War."

Not really, unless the Mexican killers were acting for the Mexican government.

I'd be willing to bet that ununiformed invaders kill, in homicide and car wrecks, 3500 Americans in America every year, and have done since before November 11 of 2001.

Can you imagine how many lives we would have saved RIGHT HERE AT HOME if we'd have spent 10% of the Moslem war cost on securing the borders?

And- imagine that BLM sigh on a street in Washington, NYC, or Chicago. The Marines would be there in an hour.

Bram said...

Staghound - We could argue that the drug cartels are the de facto government of Mexico.

If not, they are certainly dangerous organizations on par with Al Queda and the Taliban - who we are at war with.

Jenny said...

If you won't help at least get out of the way.

... seems to sum up the situation succinctly.

perlhaqr said...

"America is based on freedom. We're not going to be intimidated by the threats, but we are taking them seriously."

Except for the freedom to ingest substances the federales don't like. Screw that freedom. Can't say I've got a lot of sympathy for the border guards, here.

Tam said...

Lewis,

"You're painting with a mighty broad brush, friend."

That's what all Hoosiers do, when they're not whining to DC for more federal windmill subsidies.

Matt G said...

I have just this year arrested several undocumented aliens for DWI. One for DWI With Child Passenger. Why should they worry about it? If they get caught, they bond out within hours, and change their names. (Unless an enterprising officer puts an ICE hold on them, which doesn't always take.) It's not like they'll lose their driver licenses; they didn't have one.

I'm not one of those silly persons who tries to equate DWI with An Act Of Violence, but I sure's hell get rankled when I find them on the streets my wife drives on, and my kids bicycle on.

This is one of MANY ways in which aliens are NOT as accountable as the native, or naturalized, or just plain documented, citizens around us have to be.

Matt G said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt G said...

"The border has always been dangerous. The border states want the cheap labor that Mexico provides but want to shift the cost of policing to all of us."

Funny how one of the more storied cases of cheap illegal being used for jobs that Americans didn't want to do was in Georga and North Carolina.

The only reason that story caught so much press was that it was knowingly conspired by one company. Now think of the tens of thousands of companies or shops around the U.S. that do the same thing. I was impressed with the illegal immigrants that I ran across in Oregon, while on vacation. I asked them about it, and they laughed and said that they had come up there to pick strawberries, and stayed because of the nice weather.

While in Guatamala last summer, I chatted with a cab driver as he drove me from Tikal back to the Belizian border. He said that he had worked in Chicago for five years, made his nut, and returned home to buy his cab. He was wealthy in Guatamala, with American money. He certainly never paid for the taxes that the US builders had to pay.

Desertrat said...

Shootin' Buddy, let's pretend you're a deputy down here on the border, and you come across a dope-smuggling deal. The escort are guys in camo, with a HumVee having a Ma Deuce on top. You get to stare at the muzzle as you figure out what you're gonna do next.

If you complain, should I say that you're merely whining?

Sure, these events get reported, and there is the occasional, "Ho hum, another one," news article, but nothing changes. Nothing gets done.

Los coyotes y los narcotrafficantes are doing to us exactly what the NVA did wrt Laos and Cambodia: Enjoy a sanctuary from which to do incursions into the U.S.

Border residents die, are robbed, are raped, are burglarized--and are expected to not complain. Just tolerate the deal that, "Boys will be boys," I guess...

Weetabix said...

Lewis: "You're painting with a mighty broad brush, friend."

Tam: "That's what all Hoosiers do, when they're not whining to DC for more federal windmill subsidies."


I love your subtle irony!

Jayson said...

Looks like someone should be teaching the locals the art of surveillance followed by how an L-shaped ambush works.

Desertrat said...

Jayson, tactics are not at all the problem. How many times do you need to have it explained that TPTB will jail you if appropriate action is taken? Basically, it's against federal policy for us sheep to kill them wolves.

More "whining": http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/22/mexican-gangs-permanent-lookouts-parkland/

DirtCrashr said...

If "the locals" do the surveillance and the L-shaped ambush thing they get tossed in a Federal slammer for violating the mumble-mumble-penumbra Rights of the illegals, especially if they're law-enforcement locals.
What kind of high-value cheap labor does a desert-state have to offer besides smuggling, peeling cactus? The illegal workforce leap-fogs up to Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, and out to North Carolina and the East. They're not interested in The Desert for jobs, that's for stupid locals who moved there on purpose.
It all goes way back, California the illegal aliens used to be Chinese.

Anonymous said...

Let’s not make the all-too-common mistake of conflating legitimate border security issues with the War on Drugs.

Does anyone else see the irony here, with, "America is based on freedom" juxtaposed with the fact that a bunch of pot was seized?

Take out the cross-border element and what we have is downright hypocrisy.

Maybe we can replace the pot with an alcohol shipment from Canada during Prohibition, just to make it a little easier for some to understand.

And you know chances are about 86.37% that the seized pot is going to be consumed and/or sold by the police, right? -- Lyle

Ratus said...

In the theme of “Everything old is new again”

I have a book suggestion for everyone, its Trial by Fire by Harold Coyle.

It does a good job of covering most of the problems.

Such as a state Governor using the National Guard (hint: it ain't cheap or easy).

Yes its a novel, and the monetary costs in the book are a little dated (it's from 1992) , but its a entertaining and relevant "what-if" story.

Newbius said...

Lyle, your accusation that the drugs will be used or sold by the police lacks merit and is uncalled-for.

That aside, yes the core issue is prohibition. We failed at it with alcohol, we are failing at it with drugs. The .GOV doesn't want to fix the illegal immigration problem (new voters!), and the cartels are powerful enough that the Mexican government is bought-and-paid-for (and has some clout with us, too).

We are still left with a Federal government that is shirking their duty to the Constitution by failing to defend our borders. For sure, Obama is unwilling to send in today's equivalent of Pershing to solve the problem. Why should he? This is a crisis, after all. Can't waste one of those...

As for the Wookie-suiter appellation, it is possible to be a Constitutional Libertarian, and believe in secure borders, without losing your credibility.

Anonymous said...

"cheap labor *where* again?"

In every job that the contractors in AZ and TX do. Budget for a citizen and then hire 2 or 3 illegal aliens. No insurance, no certification process, and above all no taxes that the employers have to pay. Heck, even governmental contractors get helped with illegal alien labor.

"but I sure's hell get rankled when I find them on the streets my wife drives on, and my kids bicycle on."

Then stop hiring them to do your work down there.

I was visiting good friends in Dallas when their neighbor came over to whine about "dem emmygrants" at the same time a lawn crew was wrapping up and making plans for the evening, in Spanish.

You people want the benefits of the dirt cheap labor (less than minimum wage and no benefits, oh, and no taxes that have to be paid by the employer) and then whine about the negative impact that comes with enticing Mexicans (the signs in the border cities advertising work in Texas and Arizona) to work for you.

I analogize the border states whining about illegal immigration like Mississippi whining about being ravaged in 1865. In all cases they brought it upon themselves and in no case should a federal finger be lifted to help.

Shootin' Buddy

LabRat said...

Ah, yes, the sins of Youpeepul, the fungus-like collective entities which inhabit all locales and philosophies outside of the most immediate.

Living with Youpeepul for a neighbor surely is a pain. Whatever will it do next? It surely can never make up its mind!

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I'm all for throwing some CEOs HR directors and Landscaping Bosses in the tanty for a few months and also securing the border.

D.W. Drang said...

Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that Uncle Sam is jumping that fence with his no-doubt loaded rifle in his hands, contrary to all Hunter Safety training?

Maybe Hoosiers have different rules than Wolverines...

Anonymous said...

"Living with Youpeepul for a neighbor surely is a pain."

Well, I have the burden of living with you Westerners and carrying your ruck, but I insist you have the burden of cleaning up your own mess for employing the cheap labor which allows you to make up more whiskey-powered bear stories.

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

SB,

"In every job that the contractors in AZ and TX do. Budget for a citizen and then hire 2 or 3 illegal aliens."

Been to the parking lot of Lowe's here in Broad Ripple of a weekday morning?

Those aren't cornfed midwesterners your Hoosier contractor pals are hiring.

Your provincialism and hypocrisy on this issue is actually more than a little surprising.

LabRat said...

Well, I have the burden of living with you Westerners and carrying your ruck, but I insist you have the burden of cleaning up your own mess for employing the cheap labor which allows you to make up more whiskey-powered bear stories.

If I did not have Tam's reliable assurance that you are over the age of eight I'd be seriously questioning that right about now.

Tam said...

"Wah, wah, wah! I'm a Hoosier! I want those federal tax dollars for my white guilt windmills and soybean price supports! How dare you spend them on a constitutional function like securing the border!"

If I had a dollar for every illegal within two miles of your house, Shootin' Buddy, I'd buy myself a new car. I guess them Aryzonans and Tejicans are shuttling them down to Dallas from Lafayette to mow their yards?

RevolverRob said...

"In every job that the contractors in AZ and TX do. Budget for a citizen and then hire 2 or 3 illegal aliens. No insurance, no certification process, and above all no taxes that the employers have to pay. Heck, even governmental contractors get helped with illegal alien labor."

There is that big broad brush generalization there. Considering my father and most of the contractors he works with on a daily basis in the D/FW area don't hire illegals and use illegal labor.

Maybe before the Whiny Hoosier makes broad stroke generalizations, we should remember that the whiny Hoosier hasn't seemed to have spent a lot of time lately hanging around the Southern states.

-Rob

Lewis said...

My bear stories are powered by Wookie.

'Nuff said, as Stan Lee used to say?

Joel said...

I know that as a redblooded American I should get all worked up about MS13 and bankrupt emergency rooms and all the evils of illegal aliens coming up here and scarfing down all the good strawberry-picking jobs. Why, they're breaking the law! String'em up on the way to deporting them!

But I really can't. I've met a lot of guys who don't speak any english, and I suspect that in most cases their immigration status was a bit hinky. But you know, I've got legal issues of my own and wouldn't take kindly to people turning me in to the federales. And every one of those guys did a good job for little pay, and never gave me a bit of grief. I just can't work myself up to having anything against them. The ones I meet are honest people in a bad situation, and that's all they are.

Of course they're not the ones shooting up sheriff's deputies. The drug runners are doing that, and there's no reason to put up with it. Now, I'd have to be one of those crazy anarchist types to suggest that there might be a pretty simple way to make all those guys stay home - like legalize their product and put them out of business - but that would be crazy talk. That way lies mass hysteria.

Tam said...

Joel,

If one has an ant problem in the kitchen, the obvious answer is to clean up the big pile of sugar in the middle of the floor.

Since we don't seem to be willing to do that, then I guess Plan B is to discuss plugging the holes in the wall with caulk...

Anonymous said...

MattG linked to Sec. Clinton reiterating her admin's plan to sue AZ and other states for enforcing standing state law. At the same time many more states like mine (FL) are pushing similar legislation to AZ's.

If this becomes the test case for USA vs. The Sovereign States we have all been expecting, and fed initiates enforcement? Civil war is upon us. Which side of this one will you be on, SB?

"Your provincialism and hypocrisy on this issue is actually more than a little surprising."

Now that's funny.

AT

Tam said...

AT,

"If this becomes the test case for USA vs. The Sovereign States we have all been expecting, and fed initiates enforcement? Civil war is upon us."

I wouldn't go holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

Newbius;
"...your accusation that the drugs will be used or sold by the police lacks merit and is uncalled-for."

First, I didn't say they would be used or sold. I said there was a good chance of it. This sort of thing, with regard to Prohibition, is well-documented, and human nature hasn't changed in 90 years. It should be taken as a given that this, and all other forms of payola, are happening on a regular basis, up to and including direct infiltration of law enforcement by narco-mobs. Let's not be coy; it's inevitable whenever and wherever millions of dollars are hanging out there for the taking. -- Lyle

Matt G said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt G said...

"Then stop hiring them to do your work down there."

I'm actually a little ashamed of the force of the emotion that momentarily boiled up in my throat when I read that.

S.B., I know you're not generally a person that would live by the label that came to my lips. So please stop acting like one. You're better than that, and smarter, to boot.

First: I'm not hiring them, and admit to being chagrined that you say that I am. My T-shirt is still wet with the sweat of mowing and trimming my quarter acre today.

If all work in TX, NM, AZ, and CA were closed to illegal aliens today, the tide wouldn't slow down. They just wouldn't stop when they got here. They'd continue where a good portion of them already go-- up into the US. Your assertion to the contrary shows an ignorance that surprises me.

Your answer seems to be: "Don't like it? Move north."
Huh. How far? For how long?

And, just out of curiosity, just what is the federal government supposed to be doing with our money, since you don't like the thought of putting it toward boder security?

DirtCrashr said...

Stop eatin' at all the Mexican restaurants in the Midwest. No mo' Tamales for you!

Anonymous said...

And then there is this:

"Mexico is asking a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the law."

Pretty bold! But its not just the narcotics, heck the Mexican govt looks the other way, it's all the money wired back to Mother Mexico after they get here. They dont want that gravy train to end!
McVee

Anonymous said...

"Stop eatin' at all the Mexican restaurants in the Midwest."

I dont know about the rest of the midwest but here in Chi-town your talking all of the restaurants.

Besides, I like tamales... and black leather jackets.
McVee

Ed Foster said...

Lyle: Does police corruption happen? Sure. Does it happen more than a few hundred times a year, out of many millions of chances? I doubt it.

No cop likes Internal Affairs (my family is loaded with cops, one of whom died stopping a bank robbery), but IA does a needed job, and the system works far more than it fails.

Not even primarily from fear of IA, but simply because most cops are legitimately honorable men and women, in a very old fashioned sort of way.

Anonymous said...

"I wouldn't go holding my breath."

Too bad.

Distracted as they presently are, the feds probably wouldn't put up much of a fight. Then the states could form a consortium or something, like states united, or...united states.

Might even set precedent for the mary jane battle that is opening in cali for national debut later, in turn setting the stage for some sanity in the w.o.s.d., and ultimately ameliorating much of the border idiocy that is the subject of your post.

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

AT

Ed Foster said...

As for legalizing drugs, I used to agree with you, but I was young and simplistic. Humbolt County's finest is dramatically more powerful today than the wacky weed we did way back when, more powerful than a lot of banned substances that are made in labs and deliverd in pill form.

Ideally, the purpose of having a drink is to enjoy the taste and perhaps the smell, with the slight bit of glow being a warning signal that it's time to stop.

Have I been drunk? Sure, but not more than once or twice a decade, solely from inattention at a fun party. Mildly foolish, but I'm a cheerful buzzer who immediately hands over the car keys.

Not proud of it, but it's rare and accidental.

Smoking weed is getting drunk for the sake of getting drunk. Bevis and Butthead saying "Dude, I got so drunk last night". "I haven't puked so much in years". And saying it proudly.

Escaping reality because reality sucks. Sad.

I haven't smoked weed since Jimmy Carter was President, but the last few times I did, it was some quite potent sinsemilla, and what's out there now is tougher by far.

I would put the effects on me of a finger sized joint smoked by two guys at about the same as two shots of Jameson on an empty stomach, or perhaps 4 or 5 shots, well rested and on top of a good meal. No way was I in shape to operate a motor vehicle.

NOBODY is ever going to legalize drugs in the U.S. Odd, sick little places like L.A. and San Francisco, but not America. If you want to get shitfaced whenever you feel like it, give up your guns, learn to love socialism, and move to Hashbury. You can't have both.

For reference, England tried pilot programs in legalizing drug usage back in the 70's, somewhere around Liverpool or Manchester. The study group immediately went on welfare, and their numbers doubled every 18 months. If the government says it's legal, they have to support you if you can't make a living while doing a legal thing.

I'm not the libertarian (small l) that I was at 20, and I'll never be a bible thumping super conservative.

There is a place somewhere in between, usually refered to as adulthood, and I'm always a bit saddened to find otherwise adult people over the age of 25 who get shitfaced just for the pleasure of being shitfaced. Or, sadly, trying to relive imagined dreams of lost adolescence.

I say that after having played stoner for several years. I saw a rifle fired through a floor by someone well along in his weed (it was a third floor apartment) and the guy playing with the rifle was one of the more steady folks in the group.

It's harder to legally prove someone is stoned on pot than booze, and for that reason alone it should be banned in public the same way booze is. Maybe deliverd to a private residence by licensed carrier, and used where the public isn't endangered, but even then it would be abused by people who simply didn't care. There are so many of them today, and that is what really saddens me most.

Liberal = self absorbed libertine.

Conservative = someone who can understand the balance between rights and responsibilities, and exercise them himself rather than demanding Big Brother enforce the risks inherent in his lifestyle on everyone else.

And yes, that's what it is. Even if I choose not to stone, I'm still forced to live in a society where empty-headed and irresponsible behavior becomes increasingly the norm.

Ever spent any time in Mexico? The very people who grow the stuff are puritanical, even brutal, to their kids, if those kids ever try the stuff.

Don't call yourself a conservative and spout that childish hippie shit. Take a lesson from the Tea Party, and concentrate on what's important, and avoid things that will divide us.

alath said...

I think the libertarians have it out of order on drug legalization.

As long as Uncle Nanny is going to feed, house, clothe, and doctor to people on the public dime, then The Obama has every call to prohibit practices that tend to make people sick and unproductive. Now the stoners will say EtOH does those things too, and I say yes, as long as we have a nanny state in place those things should be illegal too.

Get rid of the Nanny State, and it's a different ball of wax.

staghounds said...

Two piles, two pests.

The sugar is the drug business. It brings ants.

The great big pile is the pile of low paying work, which is like a pile of tasty grain drawing millions of mice and scabby tailed rats.

We build that pile by paying Americans more to lay around than they can earn doing the low paying work. (We do other anti-American worker stuff, too.)

Dalton, Georgia is jam packed with Mexicans and Guatemalans. Good jobs, too, in mills and construction. How many ties have I hard an employer say, "They show up, and they work. I cant get Americans ho will do that, so I hire Mexicans."

And that is what the twelve (twenty? forty?) million illegals come for.

As to the Arizona law, it's a joke. ICE can't process the illegals that are handed to them already. A few hundred more will just go on the tab.

Anonymous said...

Ed:

The irony, she burns.

AT

Mr.Wolf said...

I cannot think of a problem that cannot be solved with effort and WILL.
At Changi Airport in Singapore there are signs before you reach Immigration that basically say 'If you bring drugs past this point, you will die.'
They mean it.

No drug problem in Singapore.

How many importers/dealers would have to be put up against a wall and shot before most of the rest decided the game wasn't worth the candle? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Not much of a price for solving such a serious problem.
As for the rest, think of it as evolution in action.

Best wishes.

Will said...

Matt G,

"I'm not one of those silly persons who tries to equate DWI with An Act Of Violence..."

WHY THE HELL NOT?

Need to wait until one of them maims you? Or a family member?

I expect the next time a DWI puts me in the hospital, I'll kill him. By the time I had recovered, that asshole was in prison, so was out of reach.

I think their should be two penalties for DWI. No injuries, one year in prison. Hurt someone, put against a wall and shot.

wolfwalker said...

Way upthread somewhere, Desertrat said: "Shootin' Buddy, where you're dead wrong is that us folks here on the border are quite willing to defend ourselves--but we'd go to jail for doing so."

Only if you got caught.

So don't get caught.

Anonymous said...

mr. wolf:

Your very nice tribute to the USA in an earlier VFTSP thread was very much appreciated by me.

However, your most recent comment here shows positively that you do not understand the USA at all.

AT

wv: nukedmeg...poor meg.

James said...

Shootin buddy - My family has lived on the border in southwest Texas since the late 19th century. My grandmother's family's home was attacked by Villistas. Her brother, my great uncle, Miles J Scannell, who was one of the first Border Patrolmen, was murdered by illegal aliens in 1929. This has been going on for a long time, but it is worse now than at any time since the Mexican revolution.

And just so I make myself clear Shootin buddy, Fuck you.

James Druse

Mr.Wolf said...

Thank you for your kind words, AT.
In this case, guilty as charged. There are many things I don't understand about the United States.
I don't understand women, either, but it has never stopped me admiring them.

Concerning the 'nukedmeg', isn't that over-microwaved nutmeg?

Best wishes.

Boat Guy said...

I'm with Ed Foster on this one. I'll also note that pot and other "recreational" drugs will never be legalized BECAUSE there is sooo much miney in them as illicit substances. The cartels will never stand for legalization and they have the money to influence elections.
Get over your "Hey howz come your 'drug' is legal and mine's not?" As noted, even with legalization the tide will not turn. We currently allow Mexico a great safety valve in taking (voluntarily or not) their poorest, most desperate and criminal - as well as some of their bravest people - which means Mexico doesn't have to fix Mexico

perlhaqr said...

Shorter Ed Foster: "I'd hate for you to have too much freedom."

Bubblehead Les. said...

Just a little fact:

I live 3/4 of a mile away from Lake Erie. When I reach the end of my street and turn right onto Route 283 (Lake Shore Blvd.), I am driving 100-400 yards from Lake Erie. If I go about 4 miles east towards my grocery store (Giant Eagle), I get to pass an older office building that has in its front window in NEON "Immigration Attorney" and a phone number. The parking lot always seems to be full of older vans and sedans. One would think that the vehicles would have Canadian plates, yet, surprisingly, most of the are local and/or from the Southwestern states.

Now, with the Canadian border just 30 miles away in the middle of the lake, I think I can say that if you're wondering how far North illegal aliens have moved, come to my house and I'll let you see for yourself how far NORTH is NORTH.

By the way, that's why I keep a pistol by the front door, and I slide my Colt Agent into a pocket when I go out the back door at night when I let my dogs out to go to the bathroom, or the security lights come on.

Boat Guy said...

so perlhaqr equates "freedom" to not being hassled for smoking dope?
I really could care less what you choose to ingest but the cartels thank you for your patronage and fueling the demand for their product.

Ken said...

Two points, @Boat Guy:

1. Some folks grow their own (I don't touch the stuff; perlhaqr is fully capable of speaking for himself).

2. Do you buy gasoline, use fertilizer, have anything plastic in your residence? Ahmedinejad, Chavez, and the House of Saud thank you for your support.

Desertrat said...

One point for y'all's edification: The narcotrafficantes did not corrupt Mexico. TPTB in Mexico long regarded them as a cash cow, selling protection.

Trouble is, the narcotrafficantes grew in $$$ and power and are now engaged in a weird civil war against a government which now is afraid of what it allowed to be created.

Mexico has long created people at a faster rate than it has created jobs. Nafta created a problem in that our farmers are more efficient, so many of today's wetbacks were once farmers in Mexico--after having been run out of business.

The U.S. has long been Mexico's safety valve. Expelling all illegals and a better closing of the southern border would lead to a violent revolution with unstoppable refugee spillover.

Damfino...

Anonymous said...

Drugs and Mexico are inextricably tied together and yet are completely unrelated in terms of solutions.

Cartels can exist only where corruption and collusion preempt free exchange. If pot alone were legalized, and there is not one shred of a reason why it should not be, entrepreneurs would have the price of an ounce of hydroponic superweed from $500 to $50 almost immediately. No shortage, no profit, no cartel.

Ah, but the coke trade would be unfettered, you say. Well, to some degree the low-cost and guilt-free availability of marijuana would reduce demand for the harder stuff. But in my mind, if a person wants to snort his nasal membrane out of existence that's okay with me as long as he doesn't harm, coerce, or jeopardize me and mine while doing it.

Still unlike pot, "drugs" are proven harmful to those that use them and put innocent others at risk as well. Availability here though is the key. Gov does keep from being produced and marketed things that are demonstrably harmful. The active and enhanced pursuit and prosecution of importers, manufacturers, and suppliers of cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. falls under those powers and protections.

Cannabis otoh, can be grown by a hobbyist for his own use, or purchased from a nursery where other useful, natural plants are grown. Hard to see any serious comparison to hard drugs, and impossible to justify different treatment than that controlling the sale of alcohol and for that matter the hobbyist production of wine or beer.

Both of those measures would have a huge if incidental effect on border violence (drug related) if not border crossings (illegal immigration); most who are there would rather be here and I can't blame them.

So what measures to take against illegal immigration? Some would call it radical, but for me, the answer is: not just for Mexico and not just for contiguous borders but for any and all, regardless of their origin and regardless of their talent and regardless of their desire...slam the damn immigration door shut. Totally. Completely. Forcefully. 'Til further notice.

And again, action taken for one purpose has its repercussive effect on others. Go after illegal immigration, impact the drug trade. Remove demand for drugs, and have a huge effect on immigration. Because the issues are not really separate at all; it's not even about immigrants and drugs. It's about the money.

So fight greed with greed. Whatever local revenue has been lost in the real estate bust, whatever fines and seizures would be at risk down at the local Sheriff Office from ceasing the pointless pursuit of pot, would be more than replaced by the inevitable sin tax that would be slapped on the reefer as its twenty varieties take their rightful place on the shelf down at ABC package store.

It's all about the money. Follow the damn money.

AT

Anonymous said...

"And just so I make myself clear Shootin buddy, Fuck you."

Ahhh, an educated Texan.

"This has been going on for a long time, but it is worse now than at any time since the Mexican revolution."

That is a problem that the border states created in their demand for cheap labor and a pack the border states have to carry in cleaning up your mess. As in the Gulf, the fight should not be a national fight.

Shootin' Buddy

JohnW said...

"That is a problem that the border states created in their demand for cheap labor and a pack the border states have to carry in cleaning up your mess. As in the Gulf, the fight should not be a national fight."

Shooting Buddy, you are so wrong that words fail me.
Before my marriage I practically commuted between Phoenix and Nashville. The SW non-stop between those cities was almost always sold out, primarily due to the 100-125+ wets sitting in twos and threes in the boarding area and striving mightily to appear as if they weren't traveling together.
Funny thing was, they never got off at BNA. No, they all stayed on the plane to go to the next stop: Islip, Long Island. (Okay, partial credit; New York IS a border state.)

Lewis said...

Border states? Demand for cheap labor? The Gulf? (Do we speak of the Deepwater Horizon?) Shootin' Buddy, I gots nothin' but respect for Tam, and since Tam seems to like you, you've gotten a provisional pass . . . but dang, man, just dang.

Yeah, us border staters are just sitting here chortling over how much we love cheap labor, cheap imported illegal labor. He he, I know, we'll just import cheap labor so all our working class friends ain't got no work. Skip a step, and the next step: we rule the world!

Ever hear the magic phrase "US Chamber of Commerce," Shootin' Buddy? A quick Wiki check reveals that---to my unmitigated shock and awe---it's based in Washington, District of Suckage. I thought FOR SURE it would be here in Texas, or maybe one of those other, lesser, border states.

As for the Gulf (referencing Deepwater Horizon), I'm sure that was all cooked up by the (evil and conspiratorial) governors of Texas and Louisiana, without any input or bags of cash changing hands in Washington, DC.

Come on, man! I'm starting to think you're one of Tam's alter egos, expressing her (apparently righteously justified) disdain at abandoning the South for the land o' ethanol and windmills.

I can handle your vigorous defense of the Yankee Invasion, I can deal with your disdain for people who, you know, still believe in liberty ("Wookies up!"), but you've got to be dealing with some cognitive dissonance here. All my life "federalism" has meant "the feds run the show" and not "happy little laboratories."

Oh well, if we all vote GOP in 2012, everything will be better! Hope! Change!

LabRat said...

Given that the *entire* substance of his argument has been repeating "border states created the whole problem and should stop whining and deal with the whole problem" spiced with variants of "people to the south and west of me are stupid, ha!", I think we can probably stop feeding the troll at this point...

Newbius said...

Lyle, The brush was pretty broad with this:"And you know chances are about 86.37% that the seized pot is going to be consumed and/or sold by the police, right? -- Lyle"

I accept that there is some corruption. I doubt it is as bad as you intimate.

Shootin' Buddy: You are dead wrong on this one, but not for the reasons some are arguing.

Prohibition is a failure. No argument there. The War on (Some) Drugs surely pads some bank accounts with illicit profits (especially in Mexico). (Lyle, I again concede the point and argue the extent). But, has anybody ever considered that one of the reasons people hire "illegals" off-books and for cash relates not to "jobs Americans won't do" but rather to "Jobs Americans are forbidden to do for that little money" - AKA Minimum Wage? I wonder what the real unemployment figure would look like if the market was unconstrained by artificial wage floors and enforcement of I-9 provisions were total?

Business likes illegal labor because it allows them to compete with offshore entities. Organized labor likes the minimum wage because they get to skim a percentage of it for dues. Politicians like both because they get a piece of the wages in campaign contributions, and they get to get a fresh round of voters every decade or so with amnesty scams.

The American citizen gets fleeced...but we never mattered to the politicians anyway. Unless, that is, we are dependent upon them for our lives, health care, food, and housing (and vote to continue the above subsidies).

The real reason you are wrong, SB, is this. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If we are, then the government has a duty to seal the border and enforce the immigration rules. If we are not, then it is every man for himself, and the one with the most bought-and-paid-for politicians wins. Kind of like now.

I prefer the rule of law, personally.

Ed Foster said...

How's this: We offer a Blue Card to anybody working who can prove he's not a crook. The Blue Card (Guest Worker) is not a ticket to citizenship.

We shut down all immigration for 20 years. We did it from the late 1920's to the late 1940's, and it gave us the "Greatest Generation".

Think about it. If you were 5 when you got off the boat from Germany or Swaziland in 1925, you would have grown up in a dying immigrant ghetto, with no new arrivals taking the place of those lost to assimilation.

And, you would have thought of your family's ethnicity as something old fashioned, as all those speaking the language and walking the old country walk became old and boring and cliche.

Guest workers pay Social Security, as does their boss. I believe it runs about 7.5% from each of them.

But guest workers don't get to collect Social Security. They get back the money they paid in, plus 2% interest, when they surrender their Blue Card at the American Embassy or Consulate nearest their home back where they came from.

The remaining 7.5% goes into the general fund.

With Blue Cards, carrying finger and retinal prints, they could travel back and forth freely to visit, come and go as the work appeared or went away. They wouldn't be trapped here, sucking up resources when times are bad.

Those who don't apply for Blue Cards get thrown in tent camps along the border for a year, building fences and planting non- fatal landmines filled with puke gas and long lasting dye.

We finance the entire program through sales of the confiscated property of uncarded aliens. Hell, the biggest Mexican restaurant in Madison Wisconsin is owned by people who are openly illegal and feel no need to hide it. Even the poorest of them usually have a car, clothes, and a TV.

Offer a $1,000 reward to anybody who turns in an illegal. Even if the person doing the fink job is a returning illegal himself.

Tell Paco or Li Chang or Boris that as soon as the people on his list are deported, all he has to do is visit the nearest American facility with the secret number given him, and his money will be waiting for him.

You'd have people sneaking into the U.S. just to find countrymen here they could rat out for the bucks. The entire system would fall apart in weeks.

Anonymous said...

"We shut down all immigration for 20 years. We did it from the late 1920's to the late 1940's, and it gave us the "Greatest Generation"."

I had not made that connection, but it is exactly right. History we can learn from, and absolutely should repeat. Like Tam said, "Everything that's old is new again..."

I'm not sure about the rest of your plan, Ed, and your attitude towards pot needs serious reflection, but I am totally in agreement with you on this part.

AT

Anonymous said...

I'd like to propose that, in honor of this post attaining the magic number of comments, four others join me in kicking in a twenty to Tam's jar for entertainment services rendered? I mean, Shootin' Buddy's lines alone are worth that.

This should be comment number 96. With my twenty, if the next four kick in their twenty, Tam's takes home a C-note as the comments hit 100. Incoming, Tam.

AT

Mr.Wolf said...

'Entertainment services rendered'
Cheech-and-Chong stoner ramblings, ill-tempered ranting, and foul-mouthed
abuse.

'Entertainment'. Good grief.

And this used to be such a classy place.

Tam, thank you for letting me join in here. It's been fun.

Goodbye. x

Anonymous said...

Best wishes, Sir. AT

Anonymous said...

Joel said:

"But I really can't. I've met a lot of guys who don't speak any english, and I suspect that in most cases their immigration status was a bit hinky. But you know, I've got legal issues of my own and wouldn't take kindly to people turning me in to the federales. And every one of those guys did a good job for little pay, and never gave me a bit of grief. I just can't work myself up to having anything against them. The ones I meet are honest people in a bad situation, and that's all they are.

Of course they're not the ones shooting up sheriff's deputies. The drug runners are doing that, and there's no reason to put up with it. Now, I'd have to be one of those crazy anarchist types to suggest that there might be a pretty simple way to make all those guys stay home - like legalize their product and put them out of business - but that would be crazy talk. That way lies mass hysteria."

Lemme guess (re: "legal issues of my own"): you're subsidizing the narcotraficantes ammo budget?

Part of the solution, part of the problem, or part of the scenery..... I'd also hazard a guess I know where you stand....

p.s.- In my limited experience, the scenery takes more of a beating in a war (Civil or otherwise) than the combatants.... just something to think about.

Bubblehead Les. said...

I'm just posting this so the count can be pushed over 100.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Actually, I heard on Fox this afternoon that 8 Senators have sent a formal letter to BHO telling him it would not be in his best interest to issue an Executive Order granting Blanket Amnesty to 10-15 MILLION Illegal Aliens in case his "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" doesn't make it through Congress. But since BHO is BHO...

Tam said...

Shootin' Buddy,

"Ahhh, an educated Texan."

Educated Texans are obviously far more common than Hoosiers with any breeding.

You, sir, have the manners of a goat.

Very cordially,
-T.

John B said...

"Actually crossing the border and attacking American LEO's would be an act of War."

Not really, unless the Mexican killers were acting for the Mexican government.

I'm sorry, I have to use the argument based on the Edmund Burke adage "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." The Mexican Government far from doing nothing is demanding we open the border and allow their riffraff unhindered access.

They must do the same, I'll take a small team to Mexico City, wack the entire government, -Say "Kenyon Doe"- and close those borders and demand repatriation of mexican citizens for lauding or repogromming as indicated.

Sort of a Mexican "Boondock Saints"