As we all know from TV, when we think of spousal abuse it’s important to know it’s the couples we least expect.
A new study on vouchers in Louisiana show negative outcomes for those that win the lottery compared to those that lose the lottery. Louisiana is an interesting case partly because their public system is largely charter-based. But it’s definitely something for proponents to look at.
Cobb has some interesting thoughts on Star Wars.
The mystery of the disappearing bookseller in Hong Kong. {More}
A woman’s rape claim was undermined by her Fitbit.
Before it became the site of the current standoff, residents Malheur County, Oregon, expressed a desire to become a part of Idaho. If my dream of splitting Idaho ever came true, I’d be dipping into Oregon to constitute the state of South Idaho (name possibly TBD). No plans to include Jefferson, however.
The two sides of devout Mormonism. I didn’t know that the Bundys were Mormon during the flap in Nevada, but as soon as I found out that they had a son named Ammon, things kind of fell into place.
A somewhat sympathetic take on one of the angry ranchers complaints by, of all outlets, Grist. I am sympathetic to the ranchers in this regard, but in the personal sense and not the shared-outrage sense. But even if I don’t quite by it, it was a noble effort by Grist.
Robert VerBruggen is questioning his prior support for drug decriminalization. He touches on why I take a cautious view (except for pot), but the lack of reform in our War on Drugs has me almost has me saying “Screw it.”
Well this just sounds like a delightful situation.
As bad as things are for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, at least their premier MP isn’t having to deny charges that he is plotting to kill the party leader.
This is clever enough, I guess, though they don’t get the Trumpku right. It’s supposed to be: Statement. Statement. Exclamation!
The seventh row of the Periodic Table is now complete with the addition of four new elements. Will a heavy metal element could be named after Motorhead’s Lemmy.
Huh. It seems to me that Jia Tolentino of Jezebel is less than impressed with your resolve not to read books by white men. Seriously, she makes a good point that energy is better spent actually promoting alternatives rather than expressing what you will and will not read.
There are a lot of disturbing things happening in Poland, but Pawel Swidlicki argues that the EU needs to forego intervention.
Peru is pretty pissed at Greenpeace for a stunt on some ancient landmarks.
About the Author
11 Responses to Linkluster Coal Mines in Kentucky
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
In re: drug legalization. I generally oppose it on the grounds that “I don’t want to have to deal with more high/strung out/drug seeking people on a day to day basis*” and until recently, pro-legalization types always argued back that legalization would NOT lead to more drug use, though it could seem the linked article argues against that.
Also, the idea of more people needing Federal or state support because they are unable to work because of drug habits feels to me like something our economy does not need.
(*At the grocery store and such. I’ve only had two situations at work, once when I threw someone out of a lab because he was clearly drunk (and boasting about it – he had been to a bachelor party the night before, it was an 8 am lab) and we were doing dissections, the other one was an “is he or isn’t he” situation with someone who seemed rather hyper and disjointed and whose eyes had a peculiar shine to them. I didn’t throw that guy out but watched him v. closely and took his lab partner aside and asked the partner to “shepherd” the guy a little bit)
I’ve never bought into the notion that legalization wouldn’t result in more usage. It seems to me that generally speaking, the more barriers you throw up, the fewer people will do something.
While I’ve never argued that, I’ve certainly known people who have. For me part of the question is how much more and how much of a nuisance/danger those who do will become to others, as in the examples you cite. I’m inclined to think that number will be minimal. But then, maybe the actual result would be more than minimal, which would be really inconvenient for my own agenda.
For the record, my “agenda” isn’t for all-out legalization of all drugs. I’d legalize pot and maybe a few other supposedly “soft” drugs, decriminalize most or all of the rest, curtail the “war” aspect of the war on drugs.
How do you curtail the war aspect without actual legalization? The war on drugs is already mostly a war on drug dealers. Arguably this creates the worst of both worlds. Lax enforcement of law against simple possession leaves demand mostly untouched, while the existence of laws against dealing means that that demand will be fulfilled by criminals.
I’d need to know more about what constitutes the “war” to begin with. But here is what I suspect it is at the moment: throwing huge amounts of money toward stopping drug use and prosecuting dealers and (some) users; imposing very harsh prison penalties; making anti-drug enforcement a huge law enforcement priority so that officers have big incentives to make even minor arrests; having a big agency (DEA)–with local-level imitators–whose existence depends on robust enforcement of drug laws.
I think much of that could be scaled back without legalization. Not all of it. We’d still have the state telling adults what they can ingest and who can sell it to them–and there’s a certain level on which I find that offensive. In some cases, we’d still have incarceration, and in some cases that incarceration will be grossly unfair (as opposed to the regular unfairness), but my hope is that we’d rely more on much shorter sentences or fines or experiments with “drug courts” (where people can get treatment and have their record expunged after a set time).
Those solutions may not be ideal for you, and they’re not necessarily ideal for me, either (especially drug courts, which just seem paternalistic to me). But I think they would be better than the “war” we have now.
How do you curtail the war aspect without actual legalization?
Certainly we could take away the weapons that cause the most collateral damage. No more seizing property from people you haven’t convicted. No more military-style middle-of-the-night raids on private homes. Impose severe penalties for errors — raiding the wrong house, obtaining a warrant with false information, etc.
While the Bundys have gotten some support in the Blogosphere, if it became more widely known that they’re Mormon their support would skyrocket, because Blogospherians absolutely love Mormons.
Well, some portions of the sphere more than others…
Your “thoughts on Star Wars” link goes to an article on vaping.
Fixed.
I’m all for naming a heavy-metal element after Lemmy. (FWIW, the nickname comes from his borrowing money as a child. “Lemme a pound”, “Lemme a quid,” etc.)
The article on Star Wars seems to insist that it’s somehow wrong to criticize the movie. It’s not. The movie is just a ripoff of the first, with some minor changes. And of course, being a J.J. Abrams film, what little is original doesn’t really make much sense.
SPOILERS BELOW
(If Luke wanted to be alone, why would there be a map showing where he is? And as the small map fits into a larger map like a puzzle piece, doesn’t that pretty much tell you all you need to know? How can the Starkiller device shoot death-rays across interstellar distance in seconds? Why is Finn the only stormtrooper to desert? Since when do lightsabers call out to people, as if they’re the ring from Tolkien? Why do so many on the good side live in desert squalor, while the baddies have technology and wealth?)