The definition of crime

We do tend to put the wrong people in jail. Drugs are often the excuse, but if we were as candid about the real reasons as the Soviets were, we would simply call the people we lock up anti-social elements and be done with it.

By overuse of the criminal sanction we are able to warehouse surplus population and create a new private growth industry: For profit prisons.

I called the American criminal justice system a growth industry in the late 80s. You can call me Cassandra.

;-)

I just made the same contribution at the same time you did.

Which leads to the question: What planet am I living on?

The one where corporate profits are more important than Americans lives.

Expressed so eloquently by that "Democrap" Ted Kennedy.

And, of course, we can't have that -- not, at least, until we're finally forced to call all of our assumptions into question. Jefferson would have understood this;

Thank you for getting my point and putting it better than I seem to be able to.

Questioning assumptions is a necessity if one is truly to induce change.

I recently changed my voter resigtration from Republican to Democrat. Harry Reid and Nance Pelosi are causing me buyers remorse. I will push my Democratic Congresspersons to get behind Dodd and Feingold.

I haven't "demanded" anything, if you think I have then please provide quotes.

And yes, those who support the drug war do indeed hate freedom.

"This definitive result of the 110th Congress will confirm the popular feeling that George W. Bush believes in his disaster more than the Democrats believe in anything."

Published on Friday, December 21, 2007 by The Huffington Post, "The Vote for Endless War", by David Bromwich

I'm not trying to pick a fight, it's the only way I can get people to answer.

It's also a good way to expose the rw trolls, but they're not exactly hiding here.

You're right that the laws are in large part set up to be an insidious means of ethnic cleansing and political control. For minorities this is common knowledge, but it's carefully camoflaged for white folk as The War on This and the War on That.

These "wars" are invented on the pretext of genuine social probelms, but for the purpose of undermining democratic principles in favor of authoritarian principles.

It works for them. Anybody gets in the way, they get out the smear machine, but they can't imprison everybody, and lying propaganda is more cost-effective. For now.

...when we are looking at the candidates. It's just not the only issue that we consider.

For example, here's Dodd (still on topic) on both Crime and Drugs, according to ontheissues.org:

Chris Dodd on Crime

* Mandatory minimum sentencing has been a disaster. (Jun 2007)

* Eliminate distinction between crack cocaine & powder cocaine. (Jun 2007)

* Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)

* Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)

* Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

* Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

* Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)

* Voted NO on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)

* Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)

* Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)

* Rated 75% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)

* Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing. (Mar 2001)

* More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)

* Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Chris Dodd on Drugs

* Allow medical marijuana; and allow decriminalization too. (Sep 2007)

* Decriminalize marijuana but don't legalize it. (Sep 2007)

* Supports national ban on smoking in public places. (Sep 2007)

* Alcohol problems significant; keep drinking age at 21. (Sep 2007)

* Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)

* Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

Is there a perfect candidate out there? Probably not, though there may be one who is slightly better on these issues than Dodd is. However, he is probably one of the more liberal among the current field. (Again, according to ontheissues.org, which has a matrix/set of axes at the bottom of each page. Dodd is as far to the left as one can go without being on the very edge.

Why would I consider seriously supporting, i.e., with my money, (at least during the primary season) any of the other candidates, on the basis of a single issue (e.g., RP on the war), when Dodd much more closely reflects my own positions? ...especially given his support and leadership on my own "litmus test": restoring the Constitution?

Great minds, and all that...

Let's just hope that his campaign reaches their goal tonight, and that the Firefighters organize well enough for a really good showing on the 3rd...

From Dan Froomkin:

Bush this morning [Thursday, December 20, 2007], speaking of the bill passed last summer to extend his warrantless wiretapping program: "Unfortunately, Congress made this law effective until February 1st of 2008, as if the terrorist threat is going to go away on February the 1st, 2008."

Yep. That's exactly the reason I keep an elephant gun hanging on my wall. Haven't seen an elephant since I hung it up there either.

Is there even one instance anyone knows about where our current operating procedure for telecom surveillance has revealed/foiled a terrorist attack? What have I missed?

I just made the same contribution at the same time you did.

I'm in again...

Dance out the shortest day and dance in the sun!

Christ's nativity festival is of rebirth, joy, love and hope.

Hark, too much snark......

Hark the herald, angels sing.......

Hug it up, Leaping gnome kind spirits.

If so, I'll bet he's smiling -- ruefully, but not without hope that harmony will eventually be restored.

Regretfully, I'm betting harmony won't be restored. Unlike most posters here, who are mostly Democrats and a few Republicans, I believe what we are seeing is an inevitable development of the modern state. The implosion of the USSR was just a speeded up version in a more extreme modern state of what will happen with the US and the EU. Once the modern state reaches a certain critical mass of complexity and centralisation of power it will become more authoritarian and lawless.

This process can be slowed down and I'm all in favour of Senators like Dodd attempting to do so and I support grassroots efforts but it will prove increasingly difficult to find electable presidents who do not harbour Caesaresque ambitions. Once in office they will be compelled by the internal logic of the state to behave in much the same way as Bush; some a little better but some will be even worse now that the precedents have been set.

I really hope I'm wrong - but I doubt it. We're in Roman territory now.