I mention this because things have suddenly been getting much worse en la frontera, and I fear this may lead to stifling any talk of decriminalization in this country. (Whereas I think decrim would help ease the situation.) I'm guessing that there are a lot of developments there that are too new to get full, formal treatment in your paper.

Items for discussion: was the current crisis brought on by Calderon's crackdown? It sure seems to have followed closely on the heels of his increased efforts. Is a major part of the problem the corruption of the authorities? The Mexican Army has been brought into Juarez, because the cops there are too corrupted, but the Army has a long history of corruption as well. And aren't our armed forces also corrupted? I know, I know, our troops are all stainless heroes, and I hate them all, and America, if I doubt a single one. But the Mexican gangs are getting their weapons from the US, and they're getting military weapons: automatic rifles, grenades, rockets, etc.

I don't think they're getting them from Canadian Forces.

I know you don't "take requests," so to speak, but the Mexico events seem like very important developments that must be dealt with in any discussions.

PS: Fox floated an proposal to decriminalize drugs in Mexico in the last days of his administration, which promptly brought screams of protest from up north. Should we believe that the alternative will one day--after a lot of bloodshed--work out for the best?

Of course, I didn't even have to google those four words, but I did, and found exactly what I figured I would: references to then-candidate W. telling Cheney, his running mate, that Adam Clymer of the NY Times was a "major-league asshole."

So no, Mr. Former-VP, Future-Defendant, Obama's not in the major leagues of assholes. But you? Hall of Fame, baby, Hall of Fame.

No judge on the planet fit for their job is going to assault a TV producer on camera.

You do not have the legal right to block somebody's path or impede them as they are going about their legal business. I'm not sure what the law is in northern states, but in the south (which includes, in this case, Florida), you certainly have the right to resort with "reasonable" force to some harassing idiot who sticks his foot in your car door.

A broken leg and a kick in the 'nads would be considered reasonable force under the law, in this case; four .357 slugs up the centerline probably would not be. But if Mini-Bill were 6 foot 3, 210 lbs, and acting aggressive? Or if Watters was preventing the escape of a diminutive woman? Fire away!

Who the fuck was talking about pats on the head?

They have a right to ask, shout or beg you to answer any damn question they want.

They do not have the right to impede your progress in any way. It is crossing the line into intimidation. You have the right to use force to resist such efforts, whether it makes you popular with Fox News producers or not.

Walks off muttering to self...

Aye, that's a crusher of a scene. Here's hoping he makes it back in one piece.

And Roxyval, could you be any more of a classless fuck? Next life, be smarter.

eom

I fear decriminalization will increase the use of marijuana.

Well then, perhaps you should do the, um, intelligent thing and read the freaking paper Glenn wrote. Because there we find a whole slew of data on the effects of cannabis decriminalization on usage rates in Portugal, and on usage rates in decriminalized countries vs. those in harshly criminalized countries.

Bluntly, the data do not support your fears in the slightest.

What works in Portugal need not necessarily work anywhere else.

True enough, but your fears are speculative, based on, as you admit, your own subjective experiences. It's better to have some hard data and numbers, as Glenn has given us in this report.

I know you can't always "universalize" between cultures, but neither are we entirely different species. Human behavior is not so unfathomably mysterious that there's no point in studying it, is it?

Honestly where was the left when we were on the street marching against Bush's illegal war, blogging away and making fun of the 60's.

I'm sorry, did this take place in some alternate universe? Because in this one, whenever I took part in war protests it seemed to be a pretty lefty crowd, with lefty organizers.

And WTF does "making fun of the 60's" have to do with anything?

Yeah their are less killing on the left [sic] but I find that it's more due to moral cowardice...The right is willing to fight and die for their beliefs and that's why they win more battles. The left is made up of lazy moral relativist [sic] with backbones made of jello.

So, terrorist murder = "courage;" I guess that guy in Pittsburgh was one braaavvvve motherfucker.

Doesn't this refute Koppelman's point? A righty tells us, in the wake of the Pittsburgh shootings, that the left is congenitally unwilling to kill innocents for completely paranoid reasons, and this makes us a bunch of pussies.

As Dave Neiwert has argued again and again, this has been a long-time problem of the American right. And now it's getting worse.

for her to go to an "Education" camp.

Never mind the "re-" part.