Friday, July 15, 2005

The War on Drugs and other rants.

FYI Washington: It doesn't work!

Wonder why? Because you can't get rid of drugs permanently! "The War on {insert noun of your choice}" Never works. It always ends up wasting money. Sure, you can win a war against a country, maybe a war against a continent, but not against something like drugs.

If you are going to try to improve the situation, you should take the most cost-effective way out, right? Well, apparently Washington doesn't want to do that.

Here's a quiz:
The best way to get a druggie to stop doing drugs is:
(a) Jail Time
(b) Rehab
(c) Nothing. He'll get a calling from God, and pull out of it on his own.

If you chose (b), you're Right! Whoo!

Now, lets do a similar quiz, but this time it's CHEAPEST way:
The cheapest way to get a druggie to stop doing drugs is:
(a) Jail Time
(b) Rehab
(c) Both

The correct answer is (b).
It costs something like $200000 taxpayers dollars to send that druggie to Jail (Room + board) for a year, while it costs something like $20000 for that SAME druggie to get rehab to quit drugs.

Now, does Jail actually asses the problem? Nope. Rehab does... Rehab FIXES the problem (to an extent).

Now, with Washington handing out tax cuts every other week while spending something like $1B a day in Iraq, which is going to impact the deficit less? $1M (5 years) or 20 grand per druggie? Which solves the problem (more)?

***WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM TO BRING YOU A SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN***

RUN AND HIDE! The boogeyman is going to get you! Run away! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! AHHHHHHHH!

***Thank You. We now take you back to your regularly scheduled program of: “Fake and Faker: Real Reality”***

Remind you of anything? Maybe TERROR (WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!). Oops, looks like I provided a view apart from what the government wants. Guantanamo, Here I come!

Once again, you CAN NOT WIN THIS WAR! Unfortunatley, there is no cost effective way out of this one besides, DROPPING IT! How about Bush admits to his first mistake and says, “Hey, I screwed up. We can’t win this war, so we are just going to improve security. Next time we invade, we won’t make crap up by shoving it down the CIA’s throat and just say, ‘We don’t like you. You are not a nice person, and we want your Oil for free so we are gonna invade you.’ I am sorry I caused you any trouble.”

Just stick with me for this next part.

Lets think about what good the DHS color thing does for us. Whenever someone somewhere is attacked by terror, we say “Run and hide” by turning up the color from Goldenrod to Tangerine. When we are being attacked, we say “OH MY GAWD! WE ARE GOING TO DIE” and turn the color up to Magenta (after changing our way of life). What is your response? Fear? What response does terror cause? Fear. Isn’t this a form of “terrorism” being performed by the government that declared war on it? Think about it. The purpose may have been good, but a terrorist will NEVER attack when the color is above goldenrod. Would you punch someone who has their hands up in defense instead of waiting three months when their hands are down? Not if you plan on being a suicide bomber. If you are going to kill your self to kill others, you might as well wait until it hurts them most!

The entire purpose of terrorism is to change your way of life through fear. Therefore, They already won. We completely changed our way of life after 9/11, not just improving security, because that was necessary, but forgetting (as Michael Moore calls it) our BS sense. When you are confronted by crap and think “BS!” We lost that when we declared war on terror.

That reminds me...

The "Iraq got Yellow cake from Nigeria" story was NOT approved by the CIA. They knew (and told Bush) that the source was highly unreliable and then they sent in an agent (before the war) and HE said it was crap!

Motor.On

Friday, July 08, 2005

Different response to Terror.

I just would like to point out a major difference between London and NYC during yesterday and 9/11 respectively

The british don't freak out. did you notice that? a bomb goes off in their subway (or three for that matter), and they stil ride them where they can! they are still on the mass transit system half an hour later (when the news is bound to have reached a lot of them)!

It took four BIG bombs and a few hours to stop the mass transit. In NYC, four planes crash, half a n hour later, the US is no-fly zone for a week. the tube was running today where the line wasn't screwed over.

Is it just me, or is this a huge difference?

I am willing to bet, the Brits will hunt down the killers and make some security stuff better, but they aren't going to go duct tape their windows, stockpile food and lock themselves inside for three months! or invade anyone! I can't say the same for us though...

Why? I don't know. But I have a feeling it is because the British are somewhat used to this. They didn't think they were living in an impenetrable bubble.

This is a curiosity, but why was America attacked at 9/11, but London was attacked yesterday? Why wasn't it NYC or Britan/UK attacked?

Whatever

Motor.On

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Abortion Mk. 2

I know, Barret already posted on this. Shut up.

As you hopefully know, O'Conner resigned. Crap.

Well, as Nicholas Cage says in National Treasure, "A toast to High Treason."

We are screwed. Fortunately, we may be able to keep Voinavich, and whoever the other guy is from voting for any extreme right judges. I don't really want an extreme left judge either, but that is slightly more preferable in my opinion. O'Conner was so good because she was moderate. Maybe Bush will get a clue and nominate a MODERATE JUDGE *shock* instead.

Also, if the senate passes the no fillibuster law, we are screwed. Royally.

In case you didn't know, a filibuster gives power t the smaller party, so they may hav some voice in the senate. it would be bad for the Right if there was a left majority, so therefore it is bad for the left if there is a right majority. From what I know, they do something to temporarily stop the process of creating a law.