Despite all appearances to the contrary, the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office had all but nothing to do with the major drug bust last week centered at the car wash at the Aspen Airport Business Center—smack in the middle of Pitkin County.
No surprise there, right? The administration of incumbent Pitkin County Sheriff Bob Braudis is notoriously missing in action—and proud of it—when it comes to drug enforcement. The only difference this time around was the last-minute participation of the Sheriff’s Office in the car wash bust, in contrast to the no-show for the Sheriff and his peeps during the infamous December 2005 drug busts carried out by the Aspen Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
Braudis complained of a “communications” problem in the aftermath of the December busts at Little Annie’s and Cooper Street, but there was no mystery about why he wasn’t told what was going down—because the Sheriff’s office would have been no help whatsoever.
Critics of the raid, done with guns drawn in downtown Aspen, said the result was not worth the effort. But Aspen Post has learned the local busts represent only the very lowest rung of a drug operation with tenacles reaching into Phoenix and other major American cities. The arrests, convictions, and deportations in Aspen are still reverberating around the country.
Pitkin County in fact has a history of drug enablement that goes back decades to when the county was known as a safe zone for international trafficking. Somehow that reputation ultimately merged (or grew out of) Aspen’s reputation for that ineffable, indefinable coolness, that had everything to do with Braudis’s good friend, the late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.
Sheriff Braudis himself is famous for open-ended dissertations that categorize drugs as a health problem rather than a police problem. That rationalization took on another layer of meaning when Braudis disappeared for seven weeks this summer for a stint at the Desert Canyon Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center in Sedona, Arizona.
Enough with these stupid, Republican drug busts. They should spend their time on abortion or gay marriage instead of health care, the budget, education, security and other real problems. It’s time to throw them all out. They stink. They screw around while we watch football.
Enough with these stupid, Republican drug busts. They should spend their time on abortion or gay marriage instead of health care, the budget, education, security and other real problems. It’s time to throw them all out. They stink. They screw around while we watch football.
How comfortable should we be with oh-so-hip law enforcement people who pick and choose which major crimes they enforce against, and which they give a pass to? What if our county Sheriff decides that sex with children or spousal abuse are “health issues” and shouldn’t be subject to law enforcement? By Braudis logic, that could happen. Don’t tell me that drug use is a “victimless” activity. Talk to any famly of an addict and you’ll find drug abuse is just as destructive to others as are child abuse or spousal abuse.
How comfortable should we be with oh-so-hip law enforcement people who pick and choose which major crimes they enforce against, and which they give a pass to? What if our county Sheriff decides that sex with children or spousal abuse are “health issues” and shouldn’t be subject to law enforcement? By Braudis logic, that could happen. Don’t tell me that drug use is a “victimless” activity. Talk to any famly of an addict and you’ll find drug abuse is just as destructive to others as are child abuse or spousal abuse.
Wow, nice post Steve. If anyone has a doubt about the effects of long term drug use, you have given us a perfect example with your comment. Keep up the good work. You keep watching football and expanding your vocabulary. Maybe soon you may even be able to put together a cognitive thought. Best of luck.
Wow, nice post Steve. If anyone has a doubt about the effects of long term drug use, you have given us a perfect example with your comment. Keep up the good work. You keep watching football and expanding your vocabulary. Maybe soon you may even be able to put together a cognitive thought. Best of luck.
Drug laws & eavesdropping laws
There is a difference
First of all, there is a moral obligation to ignore laws you consider unconscionable or unconstitutional – that supersedes the right wing boogeyman of slippery slopes and the supposed sacred “culture of law abiding society” which we are told is quite fragile if people go around ignoring some of them. The slippery slope of law & order must take a back seat to the slippery slope of an intrusive government.
Drug abuse is indeed often a human misery problem, but drug laws are often more oppressive overall than the use itself — the war on drugs having spun way out of control into a self-fulfilling bureaucracy and government funding vacuum sucking up tax dollars and civil liberties on the pretext of social problem that really only exists insofar as the business is currently dominated by criminals and could be legislated out of existence overnight, leaving us with a relatively manageable problem of user abuse. The criminal culture around drug use which does so much harm is simply a matter of supply and demand – capitalism is always ugliest when forced to operate at the margins. The pot laws are even misused to keep perfectly harmless hemp from competing with cotton. So the thinking behind pot laws is not exactly pristine either.
In any case, I do not know how a person can talk about drug laws without talking about alcohol and nicotine (or prescription drug abuse for that matter) — social problems with far greater costs to our society and families than all other illegal drugs combined. When criticizing the “signal” sent by ignoring drug laws, you must consider the signal sent by more damaging drugs that are perfectly legal.
The comparison of Braudis and Bush is faulty: Bush is surreptitiously restricting freedom and ignoring laws in order to impose a more intrusive government in direct violation of the Constitution, a policy that has not been openly evaluated and is deceptively marketed by its proponents; Braudis on the other hand is openly expanding freedom and ignoring laws where the government is too intrusive, a policy he is open about and has thus been endorsed by an electoral majority with full information and consideration in this democracy. So these are in fact opposite cases.
Drug laws & eavesdropping laws
There is a difference
First of all, there is a moral obligation to ignore laws you consider unconscionable or unconstitutional – that supersedes the right wing boogeyman of slippery slopes and the supposed sacred “culture of law abiding society” which we are told is quite fragile if people go around ignoring some of them. The slippery slope of law & order must take a back seat to the slippery slope of an intrusive government.
Drug abuse is indeed often a human misery problem, but drug laws are often more oppressive overall than the use itself — the war on drugs having spun way out of control into a self-fulfilling bureaucracy and government funding vacuum sucking up tax dollars and civil liberties on the pretext of social problem that really only exists insofar as the business is currently dominated by criminals and could be legislated out of existence overnight, leaving us with a relatively manageable problem of user abuse. The criminal culture around drug use which does so much harm is simply a matter of supply and demand – capitalism is always ugliest when forced to operate at the margins. The pot laws are even misused to keep perfectly harmless hemp from competing with cotton. So the thinking behind pot laws is not exactly pristine either.
In any case, I do not know how a person can talk about drug laws without talking about alcohol and nicotine (or prescription drug abuse for that matter) — social problems with far greater costs to our society and families than all other illegal drugs combined. When criticizing the “signal” sent by ignoring drug laws, you must consider the signal sent by more damaging drugs that are perfectly legal.
The comparison of Braudis and Bush is faulty: Bush is surreptitiously restricting freedom and ignoring laws in order to impose a more intrusive government in direct violation of the Constitution, a policy that has not been openly evaluated and is deceptively marketed by its proponents; Braudis on the other hand is openly expanding freedom and ignoring laws where the government is too intrusive, a policy he is open about and has thus been endorsed by an electoral majority with full information and consideration in this democracy. So these are in fact opposite cases.
“…social problem that really only exists insofar as the business is currently dominated by criminals and could be legislated out of existence overnight, leaving us with a relatively manageable problem of user abuse.”
Wishful thinking and way too simplistic. First, which drugs do you propose to make legal? Cocaine? Meth? Heroin? Ex? PCP? Second, how would you propose to control these things? Cocaine and Heroin are obtainable through scripts already, yet an illegal market still exists. If you try and market it the current “user” forms, our tort laws would not allow any corporation to market the item before being sued out of existence since the harmful effects of an unregulated drug are well documented. Who would pay for the social costs that would certainly follow? Already we are suffering from an endless revolving door in rehabs from alcohol to all types of drugs. What new traffic laws would have to be implemented to ensure the safety of our highways, since those using the drugs are notorious about driving while high?
“Braudis on the other hand is openly expanding freedom and ignoring laws where the government is too intrusive”
And who died and made Braudis king that he should decide what is too intrusive? The laws are also made by members of the state and federal government as an elected body. Once one person moves in and starts deciding what is best for all, then it is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship. Second, Braudis took an oath to uphold the laws of the state, not to uphold certain laws and “ignore” others.
Lastly, I find it amusing that you decry the policies of the Bush administration yet feel its ok to completely disregard the law making apparatus of our country. It appears that the “selective” enforcement that you applaud Braudis for applies to your sense of understanding of the constitution. This approach is flawed and in the end, meaningless.
“It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man’s proper stature—and the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning—and it is those few that I have always sought to address. The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me or “The Fountainhead” that they will betray: it is their own souls.”~ Ayn Rand
“…social problem that really only exists insofar as the business is currently dominated by criminals and could be legislated out of existence overnight, leaving us with a relatively manageable problem of user abuse.”
Wishful thinking and way too simplistic. First, which drugs do you propose to make legal? Cocaine? Meth? Heroin? Ex? PCP? Second, how would you propose to control these things? Cocaine and Heroin are obtainable through scripts already, yet an illegal market still exists. If you try and market it the current “user” forms, our tort laws would not allow any corporation to market the item before being sued out of existence since the harmful effects of an unregulated drug are well documented. Who would pay for the social costs that would certainly follow? Already we are suffering from an endless revolving door in rehabs from alcohol to all types of drugs. What new traffic laws would have to be implemented to ensure the safety of our highways, since those using the drugs are notorious about driving while high?
“Braudis on the other hand is openly expanding freedom and ignoring laws where the government is too intrusive”
And who died and made Braudis king that he should decide what is too intrusive? The laws are also made by members of the state and federal government as an elected body. Once one person moves in and starts deciding what is best for all, then it is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship. Second, Braudis took an oath to uphold the laws of the state, not to uphold certain laws and “ignore” others.
Lastly, I find it amusing that you decry the policies of the Bush administration yet feel its ok to completely disregard the law making apparatus of our country. It appears that the “selective” enforcement that you applaud Braudis for applies to your sense of understanding of the constitution. This approach is flawed and in the end, meaningless.
“It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man’s proper stature—and the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning—and it is those few that I have always sought to address. The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me or “The Fountainhead” that they will betray: it is their own souls.”~ Ayn Rand
Interesting use of quotes: Ayn Rand would have loved Braudis (and Hunter) and hated Bush and Cheney. Any fan of Rand should loathe our drug war bureaucracy with a passion.
In addition to misunderstanding Rand, you misunderstood the bulk of my post. Once again: Braudis, unlike Bush has taken his stand in the lght of day without any creepy neofascist justifications for expanding government power. I don’t endrose Braudis’ stand; but prefer the sentiment as a freedom-loving son of the revolution.
Indeed, you appear to also misunderstand the Founding Fathers. It is our drug laws that are full of simplifications and massive internal contradictions, not to mention wishfull thinking. “Just say no”. Haw haw. While mainly serving for cover for militarization of the police and expansion of the prison and law enforcement industries.
Meanwhie, Americans kill themselves daily with perfectly legal alcohol and prescriptions. A point you managed to leave unadressed in your reply.
Interesting use of quotes: Ayn Rand would have loved Braudis (and Hunter) and hated Bush and Cheney. Any fan of Rand should loathe our drug war bureaucracy with a passion.
In addition to misunderstanding Rand, you misunderstood the bulk of my post. Once again: Braudis, unlike Bush has taken his stand in the lght of day without any creepy neofascist justifications for expanding government power. I don’t endrose Braudis’ stand; but prefer the sentiment as a freedom-loving son of the revolution.
Indeed, you appear to also misunderstand the Founding Fathers. It is our drug laws that are full of simplifications and massive internal contradictions, not to mention wishfull thinking. “Just say no”. Haw haw. While mainly serving for cover for militarization of the police and expansion of the prison and law enforcement industries.
Meanwhie, Americans kill themselves daily with perfectly legal alcohol and prescriptions. A point you managed to leave unadressed in your reply.
For some reason I’m just not feeling oppressed by our drug laws, and I’m not even in Pitkin Country with Braudis defending me from pesky things such as laws.
For some reason I’m just not feeling oppressed by our drug laws, and I’m not even in Pitkin Country with Braudis defending me from pesky things such as laws.
Hey Chief,
Why do your posts ring with the “I was against the war before I voted for the war” tones. Nice to be able to criticize something yet you offer no solutions.
I specifically addressed two of your “issues,” I didn’t realize I had to address all that you raised. And now, I doubt if I will since you failed to respond to legitimate questions addressing issues you raised.
According to you, I just don’t understand anything. Neither your post, our founding fathers nor Rand. How lonely it must be to be so enlightened and surrounded by us poor fools that understand nothing. Sorry to burst your bubble Chief, but I understand very well not only our system of government (though not perfect in any sense) but I also understand those who critize our system yet offer no solutions. When you have something better to offer, besides the fantasy land ideas that are not implemental, I will be the first to listen. I wish you well. I always welcome some intellectual debating, no matter how misguided your ideas may be.
Oh, one more thing. I utilize quotes as a way of reminding those who read here of those who have gone before us and imparted good wisdom and philosophy for us to learn by. For if we do not learn from the past as you know, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Hey Chief,
Why do your posts ring with the “I was against the war before I voted for the war” tones. Nice to be able to criticize something yet you offer no solutions.
I specifically addressed two of your “issues,” I didn’t realize I had to address all that you raised. And now, I doubt if I will since you failed to respond to legitimate questions addressing issues you raised.
According to you, I just don’t understand anything. Neither your post, our founding fathers nor Rand. How lonely it must be to be so enlightened and surrounded by us poor fools that understand nothing. Sorry to burst your bubble Chief, but I understand very well not only our system of government (though not perfect in any sense) but I also understand those who critize our system yet offer no solutions. When you have something better to offer, besides the fantasy land ideas that are not implemental, I will be the first to listen. I wish you well. I always welcome some intellectual debating, no matter how misguided your ideas may be.
Oh, one more thing. I utilize quotes as a way of reminding those who read here of those who have gone before us and imparted good wisdom and philosophy for us to learn by. For if we do not learn from the past as you know, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
First, I want to unequivically state I am not for “drug use.” This is necessary, because the reactionaries will say otherwise. They will be lying. I also refuse to be a hypocrite, I grew up in the seventies.
The reactionaries (“conservatives,” in the simplified American political mindset, actually conservatives are something else) will have you believe that; law and order is the foundation of our society, this can be found in Hobbes’ Leviathan and the Analects of Kung Fu Tse. This is merely requires taking on the role of a subject. Our “Founding Fathers,” looked to Rousseau, Locke, Pericles and the ground breaking of the English Constitution and other works, within the context of the age of enlightenment. They saw citizenship as the answer.
So it came to be, that we would be elevated from subjects, merely obeying sometimes whimsical sovereign law, to citizens, with moral and ethical responsibilities that supercede any law, seen as favoring or suppressing particular demographics or enabling the same. Without that liberal libertarian horizon, this country would not have been founded, there would be no civil rights and there would be no Bill of Rights (the first ten Amemndments) or age qualifying universal suffrage.
This does not mean all laws can be dismissed by a citizen, as whimsically as a sovereign can enact them. There is still the idea of personal responsibility. You are still not allowed to do harm to another.
Cigarette vendors, drug dealers and bartenders are not responsible for your desire to consume non nutrative psychactive substances unless they market them to you with false information regarding safety, addiction rates and the like. Your desire is the demand side of the fundamental capitalist equation. Your desire allows a profit margin to exist in procuring a supply to meet that demand. Your desire plus restrictive laws and regulations increase the profit margin sometimes by a factor of greater than a thousand. This increases the incentive for the suppliers to market the “drugs” the reactionaries abhor. The consideration, of the huge return on investment, or profit margins, often leaves me wondering if there is some kind of “arrangement” at the top. That is however speculation.
I would have no trouble telling a parent, that the decisions of their children are related to the childs interpretation of their upbringing, and social environment. At some point the child thought, “Yes! I want to do this.” At some point the supplier said, “here you go.” and was then paid — business. Most people don’t like this, because it means they have to take more responsibility in parenting. That is correct, be an involved parent. But we live in a pass the buck society.
Civic responsibilities of the wealthy (paying taxes, mentoring) Social responsibilities of the Governemnt (capital redistribution through public works and education) and Personal responsibilities of the poor (get educated, market one’s self in the economy and yikes “just say ‘no’”), are missing. If these were taught as a part of our culture not necessarily in the form of law, surely there would be discussions relating to other “problems.”
Here, I want to denounce the “Independent” “Right wing” Natural Law “libertarian” as functionally fraudulent: you drive on roads paid for through taxes, the vehicle you drive you did not construct, you probably do not grow your own food. Stop BSing yourself, “To Thine own self be true,” or be real and go back to the trees, and compete with the squirrels for the acorns — I am betting on the squirrels.
The liberal libertarian embraces interdependence, revels in Freedom, and the Wisdom to recognize stupidity in the name of Liberty.
First, I want to unequivically state I am not for “drug use.” This is necessary, because the reactionaries will say otherwise. They will be lying. I also refuse to be a hypocrite, I grew up in the seventies.
The reactionaries (“conservatives,” in the simplified American political mindset, actually conservatives are something else) will have you believe that; law and order is the foundation of our society, this can be found in Hobbes’ Leviathan and the Analects of Kung Fu Tse. This is merely requires taking on the role of a subject. Our “Founding Fathers,” looked to Rousseau, Locke, Pericles and the ground breaking of the English Constitution and other works, within the context of the age of enlightenment. They saw citizenship as the answer.
So it came to be, that we would be elevated from subjects, merely obeying sometimes whimsical sovereign law, to citizens, with moral and ethical responsibilities that supercede any law, seen as favoring or suppressing particular demographics or enabling the same. Without that liberal libertarian horizon, this country would not have been founded, there would be no civil rights and there would be no Bill of Rights (the first ten Amemndments) or age qualifying universal suffrage.
This does not mean all laws can be dismissed by a citizen, as whimsically as a sovereign can enact them. There is still the idea of personal responsibility. You are still not allowed to do harm to another.
Cigarette vendors, drug dealers and bartenders are not responsible for your desire to consume non nutrative psychactive substances unless they market them to you with false information regarding safety, addiction rates and the like. Your desire is the demand side of the fundamental capitalist equation. Your desire allows a profit margin to exist in procuring a supply to meet that demand. Your desire plus restrictive laws and regulations increase the profit margin sometimes by a factor of greater than a thousand. This increases the incentive for the suppliers to market the “drugs” the reactionaries abhor. The consideration, of the huge return on investment, or profit margins, often leaves me wondering if there is some kind of “arrangement” at the top. That is however speculation.
I would have no trouble telling a parent, that the decisions of their children are related to the childs interpretation of their upbringing, and social environment. At some point the child thought, “Yes! I want to do this.” At some point the supplier said, “here you go.” and was then paid — business. Most people don’t like this, because it means they have to take more responsibility in parenting. That is correct, be an involved parent. But we live in a pass the buck society.
Civic responsibilities of the wealthy (paying taxes, mentoring) Social responsibilities of the Governemnt (capital redistribution through public works and education) and Personal responsibilities of the poor (get educated, market one’s self in the economy and yikes “just say ‘no’”), are missing. If these were taught as a part of our culture not necessarily in the form of law, surely there would be discussions relating to other “problems.”
Here, I want to denounce the “Independent” “Right wing” Natural Law “libertarian” as functionally fraudulent: you drive on roads paid for through taxes, the vehicle you drive you did not construct, you probably do not grow your own food. Stop BSing yourself, “To Thine own self be true,” or be real and go back to the trees, and compete with the squirrels for the acorns — I am betting on the squirrels.
The liberal libertarian embraces interdependence, revels in Freedom, and the Wisdom to recognize stupidity in the name of Liberty.
I would like to know where to find this requirement in the Ten Commandments that any criticism be accompanied by an alternate recommendation. It seems to me that this demand usually emanates from someone who cannot defend the original proposition on its merits. Let’s talk about the flaws and errors in the issue at hand, shall we? These can exist all by themselves, without any relativist distrations into mandated alternative proposals.
I would like to know where to find this requirement in the Ten Commandments that any criticism be accompanied by an alternate recommendation. It seems to me that this demand usually emanates from someone who cannot defend the original proposition on its merits. Let’s talk about the flaws and errors in the issue at hand, shall we? These can exist all by themselves, without any relativist distrations into mandated alternative proposals.
Mr. Conniff: to clarify. NOT LIBERAL; LIBERTARIAN. The resistance to drug laws comes from a libertarian analysis. Our existing drug laws are incoherent on their face. The presumption that these laws are based on a concern for social costs of abuse are ludicrous in that if that were the case, we would be actively outlawing alcohol, nicotine, toxic pollution, and being obese. We are not really concerned with the health costs. Drug abuse, while tragic at the individual level, is statistically meaningless compared to the abuse of legal substances. The laws have also largely failed to deliver on the social benefit of reducing abuse, making their existence all the more questionable. You want to attack abuse; increase education, increase treatment, reduce the misery of lower/middle class employment, and reduce poverty. Outlawing the drugs does nothing meaningful to stem the flow or reduce the use.
So, given the absence of meaningful social benefit or any coherent governing philosophy, we can quickly move to being concerned about the likelihood of abuse of the laws themselves by the government. This is in fact happening, as we become the most heavily imprisoned nation on the planet and face an increasingly militarized police — heavily reliant on unsavory alliances with criminal snitches and entrapment stings — who enjoy smashing peaceful public demonstrations when they are not kicking in doors in made-for-TV drug raids. Any time the government can rationalize and inflate large portions of the population into criminals, the government will begin to show official contempt for large portions of the population and that contempt will bleed over into a tendency towards totalitarian reflexes in the exercise of power. Every time.
Many drug law proponents tend to blur the social costs of abuse with the social costs of criminalization. As we learned from our experiment with alcohol prohibition, the cost of criminalization is steeper than the cost of abuse — leading us back to the central libertarian premise that when regressive conservatives try and make people act a certain way in their own lives, the unanticipated consequences are steep and the aberrations are tragic (or funny if it involves outspoken pundits and Senators). Yes, Libertarians used to fear conservatives more than they hated liberals.
This is where liberals come in: your caricature of liberals as having no moral whatsoever. This is essentially a conservative caricature, since conservatives are addicted to oversimplified unworkable black/white dichotomies and do not recognize any value system that transcends bumper sticker sloganeering. Any one with the intellectual ability to managed nuanced analysis, on the other hand, will recognize that a mature morality is one that is forward looking and expansive, as opposed to backwards looking and restrictive. Drug use is not “okay” in this analysis. But you solve this symptomatic problem not by a draconian crackdown; you solve it by evolving out of it — moving forward. If your approach tends to the repressive, it will always fail and people will always wriggle out of the edges. That is why conservatives are always wrong. They always try to stomp on everything, which generally just relocates the problem somewhere else. (I am not denying that some amoralists hide behind liberal ideology as an excuse for libertine behavior, but this too is not a problem you solve with draconian regressions).
Mr. Conniff: to clarify. NOT LIBERAL; LIBERTARIAN. The resistance to drug laws comes from a libertarian analysis. Our existing drug laws are incoherent on their face. The presumption that these laws are based on a concern for social costs of abuse are ludicrous in that if that were the case, we would be actively outlawing alcohol, nicotine, toxic pollution, and being obese. We are not really concerned with the health costs. Drug abuse, while tragic at the individual level, is statistically meaningless compared to the abuse of legal substances. The laws have also largely failed to deliver on the social benefit of reducing abuse, making their existence all the more questionable. You want to attack abuse; increase education, increase treatment, reduce the misery of lower/middle class employment, and reduce poverty. Outlawing the drugs does nothing meaningful to stem the flow or reduce the use.
So, given the absence of meaningful social benefit or any coherent governing philosophy, we can quickly move to being concerned about the likelihood of abuse of the laws themselves by the government. This is in fact happening, as we become the most heavily imprisoned nation on the planet and face an increasingly militarized police — heavily reliant on unsavory alliances with criminal snitches and entrapment stings — who enjoy smashing peaceful public demonstrations when they are not kicking in doors in made-for-TV drug raids. Any time the government can rationalize and inflate large portions of the population into criminals, the government will begin to show official contempt for large portions of the population and that contempt will bleed over into a tendency towards totalitarian reflexes in the exercise of power. Every time.
Many drug law proponents tend to blur the social costs of abuse with the social costs of criminalization. As we learned from our experiment with alcohol prohibition, the cost of criminalization is steeper than the cost of abuse — leading us back to the central libertarian premise that when regressive conservatives try and make people act a certain way in their own lives, the unanticipated consequences are steep and the aberrations are tragic (or funny if it involves outspoken pundits and Senators). Yes, Libertarians used to fear conservatives more than they hated liberals.
This is where liberals come in: your caricature of liberals as having no moral whatsoever. This is essentially a conservative caricature, since conservatives are addicted to oversimplified unworkable black/white dichotomies and do not recognize any value system that transcends bumper sticker sloganeering. Any one with the intellectual ability to managed nuanced analysis, on the other hand, will recognize that a mature morality is one that is forward looking and expansive, as opposed to backwards looking and restrictive. Drug use is not “okay” in this analysis. But you solve this symptomatic problem not by a draconian crackdown; you solve it by evolving out of it — moving forward. If your approach tends to the repressive, it will always fail and people will always wriggle out of the edges. That is why conservatives are always wrong. They always try to stomp on everything, which generally just relocates the problem somewhere else. (I am not denying that some amoralists hide behind liberal ideology as an excuse for libertine behavior, but this too is not a problem you solve with draconian regressions).
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
Benjamin Franklin
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
Benjamin Franklin
I support the Sheriff Braudis because he is a “peace officer” and respects all our civil liberties unlike some sheriffs, our president and that administration. It’s pretty simple and the election results will most likely confirm Bob’s support.
I support the Sheriff Braudis because he is a “peace officer” and respects all our civil liberties unlike some sheriffs, our president and that administration. It’s pretty simple and the election results will most likely confirm Bob’s support.
Fun with quotes:
On name-calling:
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. ” — Margaret Thatcher
Here’s one Bush must have missed the memo on:
“Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.” — Margaret Thatcher
Fun with quotes:
On name-calling:
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. ” — Margaret Thatcher
Here’s one Bush must have missed the memo on:
“Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.” — Margaret Thatcher
Michael, I have missed most of your show, but in what I heard it sounds like you are still missing the point of my argument. I am categorically NOT saying that since alcohol is generally unregulated, all other harmful behaviors should be unregulated as well. I am saying that more important than the piecemeal regulation of this or that activity through reactionary means is that the overall system of laws themselves be composed of coherent applications of consistent values to gain achievable ends. And further, government should concern itself with personal activity in a proportion and prioritization based on the degree of public harm and ability to influence the activity. The drug laws fail that test.
As you have stated, the emerging gay marriage laws fail that test too. And I will be interested to see if you advocate obeying all marriage laws if the reactionaries succeed in making homosexuality grounds for restricting civil rights. In fact, I would be very interested to hear “law and order” conservatives articulate why they resist laws against selling fattening foods, as well as openly disobey motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws.
Above the importance that our system of laws be coherent, is the importance that our government not be given too much latitude to criminalize the citizenry and tilt its behavior towards a police state. This concern is a mandate on us from none other than our Founding Fathers. The drug war clearly fails that test.
By the way: I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that the GOP is far too addicted to blaming – and given their monopoly on power, it is unseemly to the point of pathology. But as we see the conservative leaders/pundits go off the rails of hypocrisy and deviant behavior one after another, and we see the addiction to blame and victimology of the right, a pattern of pathology and arrested moral development clearly emerges.
Michael, I have missed most of your show, but in what I heard it sounds like you are still missing the point of my argument. I am categorically NOT saying that since alcohol is generally unregulated, all other harmful behaviors should be unregulated as well. I am saying that more important than the piecemeal regulation of this or that activity through reactionary means is that the overall system of laws themselves be composed of coherent applications of consistent values to gain achievable ends. And further, government should concern itself with personal activity in a proportion and prioritization based on the degree of public harm and ability to influence the activity. The drug laws fail that test.
As you have stated, the emerging gay marriage laws fail that test too. And I will be interested to see if you advocate obeying all marriage laws if the reactionaries succeed in making homosexuality grounds for restricting civil rights. In fact, I would be very interested to hear “law and order” conservatives articulate why they resist laws against selling fattening foods, as well as openly disobey motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws.
Above the importance that our system of laws be coherent, is the importance that our government not be given too much latitude to criminalize the citizenry and tilt its behavior towards a police state. This concern is a mandate on us from none other than our Founding Fathers. The drug war clearly fails that test.
By the way: I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that the GOP is far too addicted to blaming – and given their monopoly on power, it is unseemly to the point of pathology. But as we see the conservative leaders/pundits go off the rails of hypocrisy and deviant behavior one after another, and we see the addiction to blame and victimology of the right, a pattern of pathology and arrested moral development clearly emerges.
Alpha 6, try to hold your ground, if you have something to stand on. Give us anything, that would buttress your position. Is there something in the Constitution, Dec. of Independence, Federalist Papers, The Social Contract, Of Civil Government, etc, you can use in context.
Quite honestly, I believe people who call themselves “conservatives,” in this country are really reactionaries, and as such, exceptionally dangerous to the well being of America’s national sovereignty. The reactionaries are against personal freedom and your ability to make reasoned choices in life. They are against citizen governement. Why, you should ask? I can’t answer that. From what they say, they are for you being a subject, you are here to obey. They want to be led. They want something, not too far removed, from what the Taliban imposed on Afghanistan. Is it fear of choice, fear of responsibility, fear of debate, fear of having to think. Is it something else, foreboding and sinister? Whatever, subjugation is not Freedom, and is mutually exclusive of Citizenship.
Your decision to indulge in hedonistic activities (including, but not limited to, “drugs”) is always your decision, unless some other crime is involved; extortion, blackmail, kidnapping. Indulge responsibly, or not at all.
Remember, your decision may emotionally hurt others, you claim to care about, even if your decision is based on an upbringing that was less than good, which may be valid. What can never be valid is; blaming the supplier of your indulgences. You already thought that through, and are acting on it. Your fate, on that account, is in your hands. If you are not mature enough, to be an adult, stay off the roads, away from machinery, get some therapy and grow up, or be condemned by those you claimed to care about, even prosecuted.
Yes I understand that those of you who say you are Republican, living in this country, with a majority of Supreme Court Justices and Governorships Republican, a Republican Senate, a Republican House and a Republican President will blame Democrats, “liberals” and various demographic groups for your decision(s). I do want to ask; what is the qualitative difference in logic between the guy who is abused at work, goes home to kick the dog and blames the wife, and “conservatives” (actually reactionaries) usually Republicans, blaming Democrats and “liberals.”
Alpha 6, try to hold your ground, if you have something to stand on. Give us anything, that would buttress your position. Is there something in the Constitution, Dec. of Independence, Federalist Papers, The Social Contract, Of Civil Government, etc, you can use in context.
Quite honestly, I believe people who call themselves “conservatives,” in this country are really reactionaries, and as such, exceptionally dangerous to the well being of America’s national sovereignty. The reactionaries are against personal freedom and your ability to make reasoned choices in life. They are against citizen governement. Why, you should ask? I can’t answer that. From what they say, they are for you being a subject, you are here to obey. They want to be led. They want something, not too far removed, from what the Taliban imposed on Afghanistan. Is it fear of choice, fear of responsibility, fear of debate, fear of having to think. Is it something else, foreboding and sinister? Whatever, subjugation is not Freedom, and is mutually exclusive of Citizenship.
Your decision to indulge in hedonistic activities (including, but not limited to, “drugs”) is always your decision, unless some other crime is involved; extortion, blackmail, kidnapping. Indulge responsibly, or not at all.
Remember, your decision may emotionally hurt others, you claim to care about, even if your decision is based on an upbringing that was less than good, which may be valid. What can never be valid is; blaming the supplier of your indulgences. You already thought that through, and are acting on it. Your fate, on that account, is in your hands. If you are not mature enough, to be an adult, stay off the roads, away from machinery, get some therapy and grow up, or be condemned by those you claimed to care about, even prosecuted.
Yes I understand that those of you who say you are Republican, living in this country, with a majority of Supreme Court Justices and Governorships Republican, a Republican Senate, a Republican House and a Republican President will blame Democrats, “liberals” and various demographic groups for your decision(s). I do want to ask; what is the qualitative difference in logic between the guy who is abused at work, goes home to kick the dog and blames the wife, and “conservatives” (actually reactionaries) usually Republicans, blaming Democrats and “liberals.”
Chief, Ed, and others….
First, I didn’t realize that this would turn into a discussion on the various issues of legislation, law enforcement and bias concepts regarding political parties and their beliefs. I do not have time to educate the masses on the functions of our government, but will post links so that individuals can educate themselves.
First, understand that our nation and our founding fathers, in creating our constitution did so with the concept of separation of powers. To simplify this for you, it means that the ones making the laws are different from the ones enforcing the laws are different from the ones interpreting the laws.
The ones that actually create the laws are in the Legislative branch of the government. The Legislative Branch is made up of Senators and Representatives. The Senate is made up of two people from each state. The Representatives correspond to the population base in that area. Those making the laws do NOT enforce the laws.
Your premise of reactionary laws is flawed in its basic design as to how laws in this country are created. I give you this link to better educate yourselves on how a law is made. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/howourlawsaremade.pdf
Once you understand the complexity of getting a law in place, you can no longer state that laws are purely reactionary.
“Drug laws” as some of you tend to refer to them are a result of legislation that has grown from a demand of the majority of the population who has empowered its Representatives to create those laws to protect the population as a whole. If the population as a whole later decides that the laws no longer serve the population, there is a system in place to remove those laws.
Just because a citizen does not agree with a law does not make it any less of a law. If you choose to live in the United States, there is an assumption that you agree to abide by those laws. If you fail to, the government then has an obligation, on behalf of the majority, who called for those laws, to punish those who live in our society that choose not to obey the laws.
If you do not agree with a law or laws, then you have the right as a citizen to partition for a change. You have a right to work with your fellow citizens to change, amend, and or create new laws; this is how the system works. You do not have the right however, unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of your actions to break the law. Your other choice if you do not want to change the law is to move to a society that will allow you to live as you would like, however, I see very little exodus taking place from the United States, even by those who cry the loudest.
Chief, Ed, and others….
First, I didn’t realize that this would turn into a discussion on the various issues of legislation, law enforcement and bias concepts regarding political parties and their beliefs. I do not have time to educate the masses on the functions of our government, but will post links so that individuals can educate themselves.
First, understand that our nation and our founding fathers, in creating our constitution did so with the concept of separation of powers. To simplify this for you, it means that the ones making the laws are different from the ones enforcing the laws are different from the ones interpreting the laws.
The ones that actually create the laws are in the Legislative branch of the government. The Legislative Branch is made up of Senators and Representatives. The Senate is made up of two people from each state. The Representatives correspond to the population base in that area. Those making the laws do NOT enforce the laws.
Your premise of reactionary laws is flawed in its basic design as to how laws in this country are created. I give you this link to better educate yourselves on how a law is made. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/howourlawsaremade.pdf
Once you understand the complexity of getting a law in place, you can no longer state that laws are purely reactionary.
“Drug laws” as some of you tend to refer to them are a result of legislation that has grown from a demand of the majority of the population who has empowered its Representatives to create those laws to protect the population as a whole. If the population as a whole later decides that the laws no longer serve the population, there is a system in place to remove those laws.
Just because a citizen does not agree with a law does not make it any less of a law. If you choose to live in the United States, there is an assumption that you agree to abide by those laws. If you fail to, the government then has an obligation, on behalf of the majority, who called for those laws, to punish those who live in our society that choose not to obey the laws.
If you do not agree with a law or laws, then you have the right as a citizen to partition for a change. You have a right to work with your fellow citizens to change, amend, and or create new laws; this is how the system works. You do not have the right however, unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of your actions to break the law. Your other choice if you do not want to change the law is to move to a society that will allow you to live as you would like, however, I see very little exodus taking place from the United States, even by those who cry the loudest.
One more thing,
I find it interesting that while Chief and Ed can’t debate the actual laws that they are against, they do however engage in attacks on political parties and certain groups. i.e. “Conservatives” blaming them for the woes of the nation. Its correspondence with other like items in history should cause one to pause…Chief; I give you the following quote as food for thought.
“The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German people, and almost its racial death.” —Heinrich Himmler May 22, 1936 at a speech in Brocken, Germany.
One more thing,
I find it interesting that while Chief and Ed can’t debate the actual laws that they are against, they do however engage in attacks on political parties and certain groups. i.e. “Conservatives” blaming them for the woes of the nation. Its correspondence with other like items in history should cause one to pause…Chief; I give you the following quote as food for thought.
“The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German people, and almost its racial death.” —Heinrich Himmler May 22, 1936 at a speech in Brocken, Germany.
Speaking of Debates, Are there are any planned debates between King Bob and Rick? I’d love to see if King Bob has the cajones to go head to head with Rick.
Speaking of Debates, Are there are any planned debates between King Bob and Rick? I’d love to see if King Bob has the cajones to go head to head with Rick.
Haven’t heard of one, but I also would like to see one take place.
If someone could set something like this up, I am sure it would be a very well attended forum.
Haven’t heard of one, but I also would like to see one take place.
If someone could set something like this up, I am sure it would be a very well attended forum.
alpha6; you have two remarkable premises that cripple your argument. The first is that our laws are necessarily representative of majority opinion, or reflective of a deliberative process that is coherent, let alone conducted in the light of day. We know that neither is the case as our current Congress, for instance, has something like a 25% approval, as it passes midnight legilsation with secret sponsors. Your assertion that reelection endorses legislation must then also accept that reelection endorses civil disobedience- hence Sheriff Bob. Those pesky majorities.
Conservativism as it is understood in America, which is in fact American fascism coupled with plain old corporate piracy, co-opting and hiding behind a political ideology of resistance to change and so-called heartland socal values, relies massively on propaganda and destruction of social structures to survive. It is neither conservative nor democratic and is a major threat to this nation. Unlike the persecuted “mongrel jews” of the nazi era, pirates posing as conservatives have in fact taken over our government and are in the process of stripping off the assets and destroying the structures – they recently legislatively endorsed torture and indefinite detention without redress, in the name of freedom and scurity, of course. The corect analogy to nazi gernamy is the right wing atack on liberalism, which is in fact out of power, unable to mount a counter attack, and thus heavily scapegoaed for the problems in fact caused by the right.
The evidence of the propaganda campaign’s ravages can be seen daily on the O’Reily show and on the ground in Iraq and New Orleans and with pedophiles running the commissions on sexual predators. This philosophy of nihilism and deconstruction resuls in little except upward income redistribution and leaves a generation of angry white neoconservative males unable to form coherent thoughts and with a boiling inner rage of entitlement and victimology. The rights complaints of victimhood despite thier monopoly on power is textbook pathology.
This is something I could educate you on, as you say, if I had the time.
alpha6; you have two remarkable premises that cripple your argument. The first is that our laws are necessarily representative of majority opinion, or reflective of a deliberative process that is coherent, let alone conducted in the light of day. We know that neither is the case as our current Congress, for instance, has something like a 25% approval, as it passes midnight legilsation with secret sponsors. Your assertion that reelection endorses legislation must then also accept that reelection endorses civil disobedience- hence Sheriff Bob. Those pesky majorities.
Conservativism as it is understood in America, which is in fact American fascism coupled with plain old corporate piracy, co-opting and hiding behind a political ideology of resistance to change and so-called heartland socal values, relies massively on propaganda and destruction of social structures to survive. It is neither conservative nor democratic and is a major threat to this nation. Unlike the persecuted “mongrel jews” of the nazi era, pirates posing as conservatives have in fact taken over our government and are in the process of stripping off the assets and destroying the structures – they recently legislatively endorsed torture and indefinite detention without redress, in the name of freedom and scurity, of course. The corect analogy to nazi gernamy is the right wing atack on liberalism, which is in fact out of power, unable to mount a counter attack, and thus heavily scapegoaed for the problems in fact caused by the right.
The evidence of the propaganda campaign’s ravages can be seen daily on the O’Reily show and on the ground in Iraq and New Orleans and with pedophiles running the commissions on sexual predators. This philosophy of nihilism and deconstruction resuls in little except upward income redistribution and leaves a generation of angry white neoconservative males unable to form coherent thoughts and with a boiling inner rage of entitlement and victimology. The rights complaints of victimhood despite thier monopoly on power is textbook pathology.
This is something I could educate you on, as you say, if I had the time.
Come on Chief…next you will be telling us that Bush landed on earth back in the early 1950′s in area 51.
Your conspiracy theories just don’t hold water. And you mistaken you views as those widely held by “Americans.”
Additionally, while Braudis as an individual can practice civil disobedience, he as a sworn officer of the law cannot participate in civil disobedience without violating that oath. Just so you understand it, Civil disobedience is defined as: Deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders, or other governmental directives. The command may be disobeyed because it is seen as itself illegitimate or immoral, or because it is a symbol of other policies which are opposed. Civil disobedience may be practiced by individuals, groups, or masses of people.
A portion of his oath states: ” I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Part of those duties includes enforcing the laws and constitution of the United States and Colorado. Colorado has a prevision for recall which allows for recall if specific grounds exist for a recall to take place. Some of those are: act of malfeasance or misconduct while in office; violation of oath of office; failure to perform duties prescribed by law. I am not saying he has violated his oath of office, but if you are telling me he is engaging in civil disobedience while acting as Sheriff, then you are affirming that he is in violation of his oath of office. Maybe you should talk to him before making such assertions, unless you already have and are writing on his behalf.
Oh, one more thing. Not sure if this works, but I once read in the National Enquirer that if you wrap tin foil around your head, you can keep the government from reading your mind or implanting thoughts that would make you submit to their neocon ways. Keep up the resistance; you never know around what corner Carl Rove will be hiding.
“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell
Come on Chief…next you will be telling us that Bush landed on earth back in the early 1950′s in area 51.
Your conspiracy theories just don’t hold water. And you mistaken you views as those widely held by “Americans.”
Additionally, while Braudis as an individual can practice civil disobedience, he as a sworn officer of the law cannot participate in civil disobedience without violating that oath. Just so you understand it, Civil disobedience is defined as: Deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders, or other governmental directives. The command may be disobeyed because it is seen as itself illegitimate or immoral, or because it is a symbol of other policies which are opposed. Civil disobedience may be practiced by individuals, groups, or masses of people.
A portion of his oath states: ” I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Part of those duties includes enforcing the laws and constitution of the United States and Colorado. Colorado has a prevision for recall which allows for recall if specific grounds exist for a recall to take place. Some of those are: act of malfeasance or misconduct while in office; violation of oath of office; failure to perform duties prescribed by law. I am not saying he has violated his oath of office, but if you are telling me he is engaging in civil disobedience while acting as Sheriff, then you are affirming that he is in violation of his oath of office. Maybe you should talk to him before making such assertions, unless you already have and are writing on his behalf.
Oh, one more thing. Not sure if this works, but I once read in the National Enquirer that if you wrap tin foil around your head, you can keep the government from reading your mind or implanting thoughts that would make you submit to their neocon ways. Keep up the resistance; you never know around what corner Carl Rove will be hiding.
“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell
I love the “but that’s the law, and whether you agree or not it must be enforced” argument. Any idea how many utterly ridiculous laws are still on the books? Here are but a few. Maybe if our squeaky clean candidate doesn’t win, he can run in Pueblo and finally take care of all of those ILLEGAL renegade dandelions. After all, it’s THE LAW! And before you argue that breaking the below laws cause no real harm (in most cases), just know that that would make you a hypocrite. If laws are laws, we must stop men from kissing their wives while they’re asleep!
In Durango, it is illegal to go out in public dressed in clothing unbecoming to one’s gender. In Logan County, it is illegal for a man to kiss a woman while she is asleep. In Pueblo, it is illegal to let a dandelion grow within city limits.
Arkansas: A man has a legal right to beat his wife, but only once a month.
Kentucky: “No female shall appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state unless she be escorted by at least two officers or unless she be armed with a club.”
Nevada: Sex without a condom is considered illegal.
Rhode Island, Newport: Illegal to smoke a pipe after sunset.
I love the “but that’s the law, and whether you agree or not it must be enforced” argument. Any idea how many utterly ridiculous laws are still on the books? Here are but a few. Maybe if our squeaky clean candidate doesn’t win, he can run in Pueblo and finally take care of all of those ILLEGAL renegade dandelions. After all, it’s THE LAW! And before you argue that breaking the below laws cause no real harm (in most cases), just know that that would make you a hypocrite. If laws are laws, we must stop men from kissing their wives while they’re asleep!
In Durango, it is illegal to go out in public dressed in clothing unbecoming to one’s gender. In Logan County, it is illegal for a man to kiss a woman while she is asleep. In Pueblo, it is illegal to let a dandelion grow within city limits.
Arkansas: A man has a legal right to beat his wife, but only once a month.
Kentucky: “No female shall appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state unless she be escorted by at least two officers or unless she be armed with a club.”
Nevada: Sex without a condom is considered illegal.
Rhode Island, Newport: Illegal to smoke a pipe after sunset.
“tinfoil hat”? Seriously alpha, if you are going to try and distract us from your weak argument with personal insults, you could at least be original and entertaining as you do it.
It’s no theory, Congress no longer responds to the people, as demonstrated by their aproval rating, and some of the laughably indefensible corrupt crap coming out of their chambers that its own members are too embarassed to own up to in the light of day.
“tinfoil hat”? Seriously alpha, if you are going to try and distract us from your weak argument with personal insults, you could at least be original and entertaining as you do it.
It’s no theory, Congress no longer responds to the people, as demonstrated by their aproval rating, and some of the laughably indefensible corrupt crap coming out of their chambers that its own members are too embarassed to own up to in the light of day.
Not distract Chief, I’m trying to bring you back to reality, which it appears you have lost all grasp of. I am not the one who, in your post uses terms like “right wing boogeyman”, “militarized police “, “reactionaries”, “pathology”, “American fascism”, etc, etc, etc. All catch phrases from the liberal left and a rhetoric that grows boring and tiresome from its overuse.
To coin a phrase from your own posts, you completely missed the bulk of my posts and have chosen to disregard those items that directly address your arguments. Since you refuse to address the issues, I thought it best to continue to encourage you in your “government conspiracy theories” because these seem to be the nucleus of most of your arguments. By pointing out the ludicrousness of your arguments, most will understand that while you are very articulate, your assumptions are without merit and based on a preconceived fantasy that has evolved from the continued denial of reality.
And though we may disagree, I give you a quote from Voltaire – “What is tolerance? — it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.”
Until the next volley…
Not distract Chief, I’m trying to bring you back to reality, which it appears you have lost all grasp of. I am not the one who, in your post uses terms like “right wing boogeyman”, “militarized police “, “reactionaries”, “pathology”, “American fascism”, etc, etc, etc. All catch phrases from the liberal left and a rhetoric that grows boring and tiresome from its overuse.
To coin a phrase from your own posts, you completely missed the bulk of my posts and have chosen to disregard those items that directly address your arguments. Since you refuse to address the issues, I thought it best to continue to encourage you in your “government conspiracy theories” because these seem to be the nucleus of most of your arguments. By pointing out the ludicrousness of your arguments, most will understand that while you are very articulate, your assumptions are without merit and based on a preconceived fantasy that has evolved from the continued denial of reality.
And though we may disagree, I give you a quote from Voltaire – “What is tolerance? — it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.”
Until the next volley…
And though we may disagree, I give you a quote from Voltaire – “What is tolerance? — it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.”
Sounds like something Braudis would say.
And though we may disagree, I give you a quote from Voltaire – “What is tolerance? — it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.”
Sounds like something Braudis would say.
I posted a few questing thoughts on things that concern me and other parents in this County a week ago. Mostly drugs in the schools. Since that post, I have read all of your comments and blogs about Bob Braudis v. Rick Magnuson…drugs and DUI’s, etc. I know Bob. I know Rick. Neither very well, but also I know fellow parents and children, co-workers, RFTA bus drivers, a few Aspen Police, a few Pitkin Deputies, teachers and some doctors. I am not a very political person and the huge posts by chief hosa and alph6 are very interesting…but really…most people I know are down to earth working class that care for family and friends. They like being American and I guess they should know all about how effective (or not) Congress is, or what the exact laws of the nation are, etc…but when you get right down to it they know RIGHT and WRONG. That is the basis for most things we do. That is my decision making process at it’s simplest form. What is the right thing and what is the wrong thing? Most people I know are the same way. We make decisions every day based on that simple theory. We have a sense of the LAW, but do not really KNOW it. I’m rambling…but this is my point to Bob and his supporters and Rick for that matter—
Our children are at risk. Our children have been exposed to war on TV, violence in the schools, video games that are worse than x-rated movies from 25 years ago, hollywood violence in film, and locally drug busts, arguments on whether thay were good or not and Bob’s stance on drugs in this County.
Drug’s are not a positive thing and I do not care how you try to justify or explain them away. If they are just a medical problem or societal problem. They are destructive and painful. I do not care if they are legal or illegal, they will still kill good people. They fall into the catagory of Wrong. Are we teaching our kids this or is the subject muddled? Is it OK for them to experiment with coke? Not in my mind…
Bob, as far as I can tell, has done little to educate our children and little to secure our children. Bob claims to be all aobut education, but really I have not seen it. Wasn’t D.A.R.E. run by an Aspen Police Officer all those years ago? Ask any parent in the Aspen School District—what peace officer do they know? Brad Onsgard from the APD. They only know of Bob and his people from the newspapers. What peace officer do the kids know? Brad Onsgard, and a suprising number of other APD officers. What else do most of the kids know? Where to get drugs in Aspen or who is smoking weed in the school. That is what concerns us the most. The lax attitude towards drugs in this County has reached our kids. Why doesn’t Bob have a deputy at the schools full time? He has a Latino Liaison, which is great, but what about a liaison with our kids? He has been in office long enough to put someone at the schools but has never done it. That concerns us.
Bob appears to be backpedaling on having officers in the schools and doing DUI’s in the letters and interviews with the reporters. He appears to be trying stopgap political moves to save his election.
I would kie to see him debat Rick about these real topics.
Thanks for you time.
I posted a few questing thoughts on things that concern me and other parents in this County a week ago. Mostly drugs in the schools. Since that post, I have read all of your comments and blogs about Bob Braudis v. Rick Magnuson…drugs and DUI’s, etc. I know Bob. I know Rick. Neither very well, but also I know fellow parents and children, co-workers, RFTA bus drivers, a few Aspen Police, a few Pitkin Deputies, teachers and some doctors. I am not a very political person and the huge posts by chief hosa and alph6 are very interesting…but really…most people I know are down to earth working class that care for family and friends. They like being American and I guess they should know all about how effective (or not) Congress is, or what the exact laws of the nation are, etc…but when you get right down to it they know RIGHT and WRONG. That is the basis for most things we do. That is my decision making process at it’s simplest form. What is the right thing and what is the wrong thing? Most people I know are the same way. We make decisions every day based on that simple theory. We have a sense of the LAW, but do not really KNOW it. I’m rambling…but this is my point to Bob and his supporters and Rick for that matter—
Our children are at risk. Our children have been exposed to war on TV, violence in the schools, video games that are worse than x-rated movies from 25 years ago, hollywood violence in film, and locally drug busts, arguments on whether thay were good or not and Bob’s stance on drugs in this County.
Drug’s are not a positive thing and I do not care how you try to justify or explain them away. If they are just a medical problem or societal problem. They are destructive and painful. I do not care if they are legal or illegal, they will still kill good people. They fall into the catagory of Wrong. Are we teaching our kids this or is the subject muddled? Is it OK for them to experiment with coke? Not in my mind…
Bob, as far as I can tell, has done little to educate our children and little to secure our children. Bob claims to be all aobut education, but really I have not seen it. Wasn’t D.A.R.E. run by an Aspen Police Officer all those years ago? Ask any parent in the Aspen School District—what peace officer do they know? Brad Onsgard from the APD. They only know of Bob and his people from the newspapers. What peace officer do the kids know? Brad Onsgard, and a suprising number of other APD officers. What else do most of the kids know? Where to get drugs in Aspen or who is smoking weed in the school. That is what concerns us the most. The lax attitude towards drugs in this County has reached our kids. Why doesn’t Bob have a deputy at the schools full time? He has a Latino Liaison, which is great, but what about a liaison with our kids? He has been in office long enough to put someone at the schools but has never done it. That concerns us.
Bob appears to be backpedaling on having officers in the schools and doing DUI’s in the letters and interviews with the reporters. He appears to be trying stopgap political moves to save his election.
I would kie to see him debat Rick about these real topics.
Thanks for you time.
much_adu,
Thanks. At last a voice of reason in this debate.
Why does everyone give Braudis such slack?
Maybe some one can ask him when he is sitting around in the Cantina today, smoking and drinking, at 4:00 in the afternoon.
much_adu,
Thanks. At last a voice of reason in this debate.
Why does everyone give Braudis such slack?
Maybe some one can ask him when he is sitting around in the Cantina today, smoking and drinking, at 4:00 in the afternoon.
No one ever talks about this. Cocaine leads to alcohol use. Virtually always. My observation, of course, but an excellent one, don’t you think? Also my observation: the alcohol use, in the long run, turns out to be much more damaging than the cocaine use.
No one ever talks about this. Cocaine leads to alcohol use. Virtually always. My observation, of course, but an excellent one, don’t you think? Also my observation: the alcohol use, in the long run, turns out to be much more damaging than the cocaine use.
Sorry alpha, you will never get it. I have run for office and yet consider myself still educable. When I refer to the reactionaries, it does not refer to law, or laws. It refers to an objective, in the relationship between humans in a social hierarchy, which includes sharp delineations of distinction in social status within the cultural, political, economic and military matrix roughly defining what a nation is. Hobbes, Kung Fu Tse and apparently you support some idea of a sovereign. Within the context of this republic, including it’s entire history of independence, that is reactionary. Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate your education efforts.
If I think the Republican Party is presently full of pee pee politics and happy as pedophile coddling phoney patriots draping, American flags, made in China, over the coffins of people who unwittingly served a monstrous deceitful president, I am entitled to my opinion. If you and others think that illegal immigration and black market capitalism (drug dealing) are only supply side issues, you ignore the demand side as all pass the buck types do. These problems should be solved but can’t be with half baked incomplete equations. Demand defines the supply. I want cheap laborers – Mexicans and others come in. You want coke the black market capitalists step right in. You guys are being silly, almost feel as though you are playing devils advocate here. Do you believe the with the demand for faster computer chips Intel is going to supply — buggy whips. Stop, think. Is the dog poop on the side walk bad, morally evil or is your stepping into it the problem? How about walking into the home, gee Dad you stink, now you have affected others. Think think think.
Sorry alpha, you will never get it. I have run for office and yet consider myself still educable. When I refer to the reactionaries, it does not refer to law, or laws. It refers to an objective, in the relationship between humans in a social hierarchy, which includes sharp delineations of distinction in social status within the cultural, political, economic and military matrix roughly defining what a nation is. Hobbes, Kung Fu Tse and apparently you support some idea of a sovereign. Within the context of this republic, including it’s entire history of independence, that is reactionary. Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate your education efforts.
If I think the Republican Party is presently full of pee pee politics and happy as pedophile coddling phoney patriots draping, American flags, made in China, over the coffins of people who unwittingly served a monstrous deceitful president, I am entitled to my opinion. If you and others think that illegal immigration and black market capitalism (drug dealing) are only supply side issues, you ignore the demand side as all pass the buck types do. These problems should be solved but can’t be with half baked incomplete equations. Demand defines the supply. I want cheap laborers – Mexicans and others come in. You want coke the black market capitalists step right in. You guys are being silly, almost feel as though you are playing devils advocate here. Do you believe the with the demand for faster computer chips Intel is going to supply — buggy whips. Stop, think. Is the dog poop on the side walk bad, morally evil or is your stepping into it the problem? How about walking into the home, gee Dad you stink, now you have affected others. Think think think.
Sheriff Braudis’s stance on drug enforcement seems to have substance, until you consider some hard realities. He appears to consider “drugs” to be only marajuana and coke, drugs of the relatively well to do. Well, travel to Montana and even Grand Junction and see the havoc that meth is causing to families, society, etc. Would Braudis have the same “relaxed” attitude towards meth enforcement? The day he does is the day he is proven to be truely out of touch.
Which brings me to this current race. I simply want a Sheriff who is interested in his job, who is energetic, who knows the kids and school administrators of the county, who actively participates in all of the counties events, not just the social events in Aspen/Woody Creek, who is interested in his own department, who has a reputation as a “do’er”, who isn’t laughed at behind his back.
Unfortunately, Braudis is no longer any of these. He once was, but now he is simply worn out. And instead of gracefully retiring from the arena of public service, he is hanging in there for the wrong reasons- stature, income and ego. Equally unfortunate is that the Mr. Magnusson, a fine fellow, is not a worthy opponent. Too bad as Pitkin County is ready for a new Sheriff.
Sheriff Braudis’s stance on drug enforcement seems to have substance, until you consider some hard realities. He appears to consider “drugs” to be only marajuana and coke, drugs of the relatively well to do. Well, travel to Montana and even Grand Junction and see the havoc that meth is causing to families, society, etc. Would Braudis have the same “relaxed” attitude towards meth enforcement? The day he does is the day he is proven to be truely out of touch.
Which brings me to this current race. I simply want a Sheriff who is interested in his job, who is energetic, who knows the kids and school administrators of the county, who actively participates in all of the counties events, not just the social events in Aspen/Woody Creek, who is interested in his own department, who has a reputation as a “do’er”, who isn’t laughed at behind his back.
Unfortunately, Braudis is no longer any of these. He once was, but now he is simply worn out. And instead of gracefully retiring from the arena of public service, he is hanging in there for the wrong reasons- stature, income and ego. Equally unfortunate is that the Mr. Magnusson, a fine fellow, is not a worthy opponent. Too bad as Pitkin County is ready for a new Sheriff.