Archive for category Government and Law
Memorial Day Thoughts
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law on May 31st, 2010
My blog reader today is full of people thanking the troops. Call me a cynic, but any validity that the sentiment has for me is dulled by the feeling that I’m not getting both sides of the story.
How does one even begin to honor and thank those that are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country…my country.
Let’s start with the idea that this is “my country” and these are “my troops.” This language of unification stifles dissent by making us internalize the idea that we are each individually morally responsible for the actions of our elected officials, even if we disagree with those actions. If this is “my country” and these are “my troops,” then I have to overcome significant cognitive dissonance in order to believe that the things they are doing are morally wrong.
How do you show sufficient gratitude to those that protect my family… all the while being away from theirs?
Are they protecting your family? From what? Only in the most vague and indirect sense are the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan protecting us from a foreign threat. The more I examine the political and military history of the U.S., the more I conclude that our military actions have historically been just as much, if not more, about securing foreign resources and economic interests for the U.S., as they have been about protecting us from a foreign threat. This is not conjecture. History is full of quotes from politicians and business-people drooling over the natural resources they’ll have access to once a certain military action is complete.
How can I possibly say thanks to those that have actually laid down their lives for me and my children… while leaving their children without a father or mother?
Did they lay down their lives “for me”? I didn’t send them to war. I say, “bring them home!” I say, “I don’t support the things you are dying for, and would like you to get the hell out of harm’s way so you can stop dying!” But the way our political system works is that the voice of those who disagree is ignored, and they are still held morally responsible for the actions of those in power. And if I say, “They didn’t die for me,” I’m branded a traitor and a subversive.
Are there words big enough to convey the deep and abiding respect I have for our military men and women?
Probably not.
But in my own simple and humble way I just want to say…
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I’m thankful to those who sacrifice for me, but I’m scornful of those who send others to sacrifice for their own economic and political ends, and then who tell me it’s all for my own good. This Memorial Day, I will pay my respect to the military personnel who died for a noble cause, if you can find me one. Otherwise, I will mourn for those who died in service of a lie: that they were proud warriors protecting their country from evil, when in fact, they were proud warriors, being sent to die in the service of the all-mighty GDP.
Hippy Bullshit
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law on May 5th, 2010
http://vermontreview.tripod.com/Interviews/devo.htm
VR: Going back to your early days. You were present at the Kent State shootings in 1970. How did that day affect you?
JC: Whatever I would say, would probably not all touch upon the significance or gravity of the situation at this point of time? It may sound trite or glib. All I can tell you is that it completely and utterly changed my life. I was white hippie boy and than I saw exit wounds from M1 rifles out of the backs of two people I knew. Two of the four people who were killed, Jeffrey Miller and Allison Krause, were my friends. We were all running our asses off from these motherf&*$#ers. It was total utter bullshit. Live ammunition and gasmasks – none of us knew, none of us could have imagined. They shot into a crowd that was running. I stopped being a hippie and I started to develop the idea of devolution. I got real, real pissed off.
VR: You said that the Kent State shooting sort of served as a catalyst for your theory of Devolution, which spawned Devo.
JC: Absolutely. Until then I was a hippie. I thought that the world is essentially good. If people were evil, there was justice and that the law mattered. All of those silly naïve things. I saw the depths of the horrors and lies and the evil. In the paper that evening, the Akron Beacon Journal, said that students were running around armed and that officers had been hurt. So deputy sheriffs went out and deputized citizens. They drove around with shotguns and there was martial law for ten days. 7 PM curfew. It was open season the students. We lived in fear. Helicopters surrounding the city with hourly rotating runs out to the West Side and back downtown. All first amendment rights are suspended at the instance when the governor gives the order. All of the class action suits by the parents of the slain students were all dismissed out of court because once the governor announced martial law, they had no right to assemble.
I can really identify with the experience he’s describing. The older I get, the harder it is to believe that the world is essentially good, and that there is justice in it. I feel naive and gullible for buying into that myth, which I am coming to think is propagated by those who defy it, to keep those of us who buy into it docile.
DJ AM Toxicology Test Results
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Consensual Crimes, Government and Law on October 5th, 2009
Toronto Sun reports:
NEW YORK — DJ AM died accidentally from a lethal cocktail of prescription drugs and cocaine, the medical examiner’s office ruled Tuesday.
The toxicology report showed the 36-year-old had in his system cocaine, OxyContin, Hydrocodone or Vicodin, antianxiety drugs Xanax and Ativan, Klonopin which also controls anger, Benadryl, and Levamisole, a drug apparently used to cut cocaine.
Now, that’s a hell of a lot of drugs to have in your system at one time, I don’t care who you are, but the one that jumped out at me was the levamisole. I remembered reading about it a while back, but couldn’t remember why it was dangerous. From the AP:
The medication called levamisole … can be used in humans to treat colorectal cancer, but it severely weakens the body’s immune system, leaving patients vulnerable to fatal infections.
Scientific studies suggest levamisole might give cocaine a more intense high, possibly by increasing levels of dopamine, the brain’s “feel-good” neurotransmitters.
Interesting. Gives the user a yummy dopamine rush, but also makes them susceptible to fatal infections. According to the article, levamisole is supposedly being cut in before importation, so it’s hard for users, or even dealers, to know whether their stuff has been cut with it.
Now, let’s consider when something like this happens with a legal good. Remember the melamine in baby-food imported from China? What about diethylene glycol in toothpaste? What about good old yummy lead paint? With legal goods, a regulatory or overseeing body detects the tainted product, blocks the importation, and notifies consumers which products should be avoided. The supplier could smuggle the product in, but that would dramatically increase the price, and anyway, everybody knows their stuff is tainted, so nobody would want it. In most cases, the supplier chooses to remove the offending toxin because importing stuff legally is much cheaper and easier than importing stuff illegally.
On the black market, of course, different forces apply. A black-market supply chain is necessarily long, convoluted, and opaque. There’s no way to tell where the stuff you’re getting came from. There’s no way to tell if it’s tainted, and if you do find out that it’s tainted there’s no way to tell whether any other batch is any better. Given how expensive, risky, and difficult-to-acquire prohibition makes drugs, you’re more likely to take your chances even if you do know the stuff is tainted. Given these conditions, producers can hardly be held accountable for cutting their products with toxic chemicals. There is a strong motivation to use adulterants, even if they have medium or long-term health effects.
As usual, The Man takes the wrong message home from this situation:
The tainted cocaine has received only limited attention in the U.S., though federal authorities are monitoring its use, said Paul Knierim, a DEA spokesman in Washington.
“I think the message is the same: Don’t use cocaine, it’s a dangerous drug,” Knierim said.
Well, actually, it sounds to me like levamisole is the dangerous drug. Nobody looked at the Chinese baby food, tooth paste, or lead-painted toys and concluded that baby food, tooth paste, and toys were dangerous. What makes cocaine particularly dangerous is the system of prohibition that encourages producers to taint it and prevents regulatory bodies from quickly detecting the contamination, containing it, and notifying the public.
Shocker: SERE Waterboarding Not Same As Real Life
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law on August 27th, 2009
It has previously been argued that waterboarding must be okay to do to “terrorists”, since we do it to our own military personnel as part of their training. It’s true that waterboarding is part of military SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training, but the argument that SERE training and actual waterboarding has always seemed false to me. The primary difference is that military personnel have chosen to undergo the training, and are ideologically driven to participate in it. If I push myself to run a marathon, it’s psychologically very different than if a person with a gun forces me to run for 26 miles.
But never mind all that, because it won’t shock you to learn that the waterboarding performed in SERE training and that performed in real life aren’t even remotely similar. According to a recent report by the Office of the Inspector General:

So, let’s just put the “waterboarding is okay because every member of the military goes through it in SERE training” argument to bed, shall we?
Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme Released From Prison
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law on August 14th, 2009
Reports the New York Times:
Lynette ”Squeaky” Fromme was just 26 years old when she pointed a semiautomatic .45- caliber pistol at Ford in September 1975 in Sacramento, Calif. Secret Service agents grabbed her and Ford was unhurt.
This sentence is factually true, but the Secret Service agents’ role in preventing Ford’s assassination is cast in a different light when you read the Wikipedia entry:
The pistol’s magazine was loaded with four rounds, but none were in the firing chamber. She was immediately restrained by Secret Service agents, and while she was being further restrained and handcuffed, managed to say a few sentences to the on-scene cameras, emphasizing that the gun did not “go off”.[8] Fromme subsequently told The Sacramento Bee that she had deliberately ejected the cartridge in her weapon’s chamber before leaving home that morning, and investigators later found a .45 ACP cartridge in her bathroom.[9]
It’s interesting, because the underlying message of the NYT article is, “Look how competent the government is. The President is safe. All is well.” If the gun had been loaded, would there have been time for it to go off? Seems likely, since the line between “pointed at the President” and “pulled the trigger” is about a quarter of a second.
