Author: Steve

Plan Juarez

 

If you haven’t noticed, Juarez and many other Mexican cities are facing a violent crisis. The drug cartels are so well funded and armed that they can bribe officials and even threaten police chiefs into retirement. The drugs moved by the traffickers can, of course, cause harm, but Mexico’s problem isn’t a “drug problem” but rather a prohibition problem.

The relatively rich people of U.S. and Canada create a huge demand for drugs, both government regulated and illegal. By waging war on some drugs, we outsource much of our illegal drug production to South America. Mexico has traditionally given lip service to our prohibition, but not devoted much to the effort in practice, forcing the U.S. deal with the problem on our side of the border and in Colombia. This allowed the cartels to work in relative peace for many years, but this was still unacceptable to former president Vicente Fox. Fox battled the cartels and managed to unseat a few kingpins, which only led to more violence. When Calderón replaced Fox in 2006, he declared his own war on the cartels, calling in federal troops to replace the police and greatly escalating the war.

U.S. officials and drug warriors, of course, find the violence acceptable. “There will be more violence, more blood, and, yes, things will get worse before they get better. That’s the nature of the battle,” said U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza. (Would these people find it acceptable if thousands of U.S. citizens were dying and living in a police state to prohibit sales of goods to Canadians?)

A Solution for the People of Mexico

It is not your money, guns, or addictions that are feeding the violence in your country. I propose that you end the war on your fellow citizens.

  1. Create a license to legally produce and traffic “illegal” drugs strictly for export to the U.S.
  2. Allow licensees to freely operate, but with taxes and rules, while continuing to fight unlicensed organizations.
  3. Allow law-based disagreement resolution mechanisms and revoke licenses from organizations linked to violence.

In other words, you should make your narcotraficante industry look more like UPS and Budweiser than Al Capone’s Chicago Outfit.

Resistance to such a policy would come primarily from key players in the drug war. Your cartels will want to maintain control, but their profits will die as non-violent businessmen take up licenses and take their business. Our DEA may suggest closing your border or even replacing your government by force; we’ve done it before.

In the end you’ll have to decide what is in the best interest of your people. Is it worth their lives and the very stability of your government to prevent Michael Phelps from hitting a bong?

Sorry Jerks, Intimidation Won’t Change the Web

 

Shameful law firm Jones Day sued real estate news site BlockShopper claiming “trademark infringement” over the way the site used link text, but really because the firm didn’t like how the site reported the home purchases of their partners (which is public record). The case should’ve been thrown out, but the judge allowed it, and, in doing so, allowed the firm to bleed the site of $110K in legal fees. BlockShopper finally agreed to settle out of court and to format its links to the firm in a particular way.

…it signals to companies that they can force sites to revise their linking styles by alleging trademark infringement. And Judge Darrah’s decision not to dismiss the suit signals that Web publishers may have to spend significant sums to deal with this kind of litigation. [Slate]

Paul Levy noted the law firm is “a serial abuser of the trademark laws to suppress commentary that it does not like.”

Personally, I would’ve just used this URL to link to the bullies: http://google.com/search?btnI=1&q=Paul+W.+Schroeder+Professional+Biography E.g., “Paul W. Schroeder likes to strongarm web authors.” Or you could use a 3rd party redirect site like tr.im. In fact, there should be a redirector designed to shame site owners who attack linkers like this.

Update: We now have one: http://mrclay.org/warning/

E.g.: Paul W. Schroeder.

Zero Tolerance Nets Another Slimebag

 

What if we had zero tolerance for laws that have a lot of ugly side effects? Like busting an amazing teacher in front of her kids… for finding a couple Xanax pills… in a suspicion-less search of her car.

Herrick, 59, has taught at Roberts for 17 years. Parents describe her as “inspirational,” “talented” and “loving.”

She comes to work early so kids can finish projects they didn’t have time to complete in class. So many kids wanted to join her after-school art club that it had to be restricted to fifth-graders. More than one parent tells how she dropped by a student’s house, bearing art books that she thought might be of interest.

She’s a ferocious doubles tennis player, nationally ranked, so fanatical about her game that she hesitated a year before taking cholesterol meds that her doctor prescribed.

In 1995 and 1999, Herrick was Roberts’ teacher of the year. For 2005-06, she was teacher of the year for HISD’s entire Central District. And in 2009, she was busted.

In the middle of a class, police escorted her from her classroom. After she unlocked her car, police found a baggie with two Xanax pills.

Herrick said she has no idea how the pills got into her car, which other people in her family drive.

But no matter. She was hauled away from the school she loves in the back of a squad car and charged with possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. If convicted of that third-degree felony, she could serve two to 10 years in prison.

Even though she’s passed the drug test and a lie detector test, she’s out of the classroom for the time being. As Pete Guither writes, “It’s, you know, for the kids.”

What if she does have a Xanax problem? Having teachers like this lady, personal habits and all, is what builds kids that never need to try drugs. How about the experience of watching your favorite teacher taken to jail? or growing up a paramilitary police state?

Unstimulated

 

If this National Review article is accurate, the stimulus bill is worse than I was imagining. It’s not that I’m against every piece of it, but wrapping up countless unrelated projects under one bill and/or pushing it through Congress as an “emergency remedy” is a terrible way to create laws.

This is how we got the Patriot Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Although the right is ablaze over this, I think I’m a little too cynical to believe that there’s a good/evil party boundary in this. I fear it’s in times like these that both parties will “reach across the aisle” and push through pet projects via a monumental bill to tell citizens they “did something about the recession”. It’s the minority party’s role to “oppose” and break out their own pens to fair it up.

If the Senate Reps oppose this with the same zeal, they’ll win some respect from me. If it passes, for years to come we’ll be discovering wonderful new treasures similar to the Enron loophole and unregulated credit default swaps, and plenty of junk both parties are opposed to. We’ve already found a revival of the Byrne grants frequently abused in our drug war.

I don’t see how any elected official can look us in the eye and say, “all this is what we need and we need it immediately, there’s no time to read the fine print.”

New general rule: the level of debate and time for press scrutiny of a bill should be proportional to its scope. Maybe there should even be some limitation of scope within a single bill.

Rational Debate Across the Pond: House of Lords Wants Harm Reduction

 

What if Congress debated the prohibition of drugs for over 2 hours, finding surprisingly that most members already favored harm reduction policies and, in some cases, regulation over criminalization?

This just happened in the U.K.’s House of Lords. On January 22nd, a debate was held (full transcript) to encourage the government to send a senior (rather than a junior) Minister to the U.N.’s upcoming conference on drug policy, and for that representative to push for harm reduction rather than blanket prohibition. (background).

The transcript shows a frank and open discussion of the negative effects of prohibition on many levels of society. At some point I’ll pull quotes, but basically members desired increased funds for treatment, expressed dismay that the U.N. treaties prevented countries from experimenting with alternative policies, recommended the U.N. officially recognize the difference between use and abuse of drugs, and agreed that the 40 year old policy has been a failure at reducing the use, and especially reducing the harms of drugs in the world. One mentioned that, even if the goal was to “sustain” the current level of drug abuse (as our Drug Czar frequently states), that that level of abuse and the societal price of prohibition is too high to continue to tolerate.

If the U.K. is not the only country that wants to get smarter rather than tougher on drugs, we may see some revolutionary reform discussion come out of the March meeting in Vienna.

Lying in your job description? You may be our Drug Czar.

 

The deeper you dig into the history of the Drug War the more craziness you uncover. You’d think an office in charge of drug policy on a national level would monitor science and policy outcomes and work to refine those policies over time, or in the very least not break laws spreading misinformation about drugs.

You’d be wrong! In 2003 Congressman Ron Paul found this out when he pointed out that it’s illegal for the ONDCP to propagandize untruths about marijuana, especially in attempt to lobby against legislation (typically for its medicinal use). The General Accounting Office’s response a year later? Sure it’s illegal, but technically not against state legislation! And since the drug czar’s job description includes doing “such actions as necessary” to oppose legalization attempts of any kind, why look into the misinformation claim at all.

If you’re curious to know what kind of lies come out of this office, I covered those of drug czar John Walters in detail on StopTheDrugWar.org. His writing is practically a guide for constructing logical fallacies.

Skate 2 First Impressions

 

The Bad

They tampered with the most important element of the game: the controls. The Flick It moves of Skate 1 all work identically, but the feel is definitely different. I spent countless hours perfecting a realistic style in S1, and even after 3 hours or so of S2 I still feel like I’m starting over.

The replay editor seems tremendously more complex and requires more buttons to get anything done. When you’re trying to film a line in S1 it’s nice to be able to jump in and review different angles immediately; the S2 editor requires you to enter a clip editor and go through another menu to select, adjust, and confirm every angle. Getting back to skating requires at least one or two more button presses than in S1.

The new default camera angle blocks your view less, but looks jerky and much less handheld. And why the “extreme” visual and sound effects whenever you make a big drop, get a ton of speed, or fall? This all makes the game look more cartoonish like the later THPS games, and gets tiring quick when you’re trying a line over and over.

This is a minor gripe, but the movable objects are squeeky clean and almost glowing, ruining an otherwise beautifully grimy environment. I don’t know why they have to stand out because there seems to be only a half-dozen different objects. Having to guess what isn’t bolted down would be a lot more fun.

The Good

It may be just the novelty, but new San Van seems enormous and like a real city that grew over many decades without city planning. Knowing the city in S1 pretty well, skating around is almost an eerie experience, like 50 years have passed and entire city blocks have been replaced. Sometimes you can see the seams where new and old coexist. Major streets dead end in new buildings, other areas have been left in blight with graffiti and handrails bent from skating. The sound of the city is nearly inescapable. If new San Van were the only new thing in S2 it would be worth it.

Returning to a session marker is usually instantaneous, and when there is a wait it’s never as long as in S1. Quick access to the trick guide is handy, as is being able to walk up steps (even if it is pretty glitchy). The graphics seem a little more detailed, but I’m playing on a 10″ SD set; I don’t really care. I like the songs so far.

Verdict @ 3 Hours

As I suspected, I should’ve waited for the price drop. S1 is so good that I’m still not anywhere close to tired of it, and its more minimal replay editor lets me quickly stockpile footage on the PC with minimal tinkering. I feared even a slight tampering of the controls would ruin S2 for me, and it kinda did, but I have a feeling the new replay editor will be even more of a drag over time.

New Think of the Children argument

 

Daniel Rodriguez said there’s no such thing as a healthy discussion about legalizing drugs because young people take their cues from adult conversation.

“There are things I believe should not be open for discussion, and this is one of them,” he said. [El Paso Newspaper Tree]

Thank goodness we now have more excuses to stifle discussion on a subject. It’s not even laws that might send messages to children (kids read statutes), but even discussion of them (kids watch C-Span).

El Paso (right across the border from this catastrophe) has been the center of the drug prohibition debate when their city council unanimously voted to add a few words to a resolution asking for, among other things, an “honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics.” But a request for debate in a city publication was evidently too radical, as state representatives swooped down to threaten the city’s future for federal funding.

Our real Message to Children about drugs?

Being an adult means drinking alcohol.

Youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television has risen by 38% since the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth began monitoring this exposure in 2001. From 2001 to 2007, the number of alcohol advertisements seen in a year by the average television-watching 12-to-20-year-old increased from 216 to 301. In 2007, approximately one out of every five alcohol advertisements was placed on programming that youth ages 12 to 20 were more likely per capita to see than adults of the legal drinking age. Almost all of these placements were on cable television, where distilled spirits companies in particular have dramatically increased their alcohol advertising in the past seven years.

Did you know alcohol advertising is one of those “self-regulated” industries? It was news to me. No bother, I’m sure with alcohol companies regulating what messages are sent to kids, we’re well on our way to a drug-free culture.

Secure Browsing 101

 

Dad forwarded an e-mail that tried to simplify the difference between HTTP and HTTPS and I wanted to add a bit to that.

Think of HTTPS as a secure telephone line

No one can eavesdrop, but don’t assume HTTPS is “secure” unless you know who’s on the other end. Evil and good-but-poorly-managed web sites can use HTTPS just as easily as Amazon.

E.g. a phishing e-mail could tell you to “login to eBay” at: https://ebay.securelogin.ru/. That URL is HTTPS, but is still designed to fool you. Always check the domain!

Public WiFi Networks

Most wifi networks in public places (and, sadly, in homes) are not password protected and therefore highly insecure. Any information (passwords, URLs) that travel over HTTP in these locations can be trivially captured by anyone with a laptop; assume that some kid sitting at Starbucks can see anything you do over HTTP. Don’t sign in to sites over HTTP and, in fact, if you’re already logged in, log out out of HTTP sites before you browse them.

By the way, please, please, put a password on your wireless network at home. Otherwise the kid at Starbucks can easily park next door and spy on you from his car.

Webmail: Use Gmail or check it at home

As of today, Gmail is the only web-based e-mail site that allows all operations over HTTPS (as long as you use the HTTPS URL). Yahoo! and the others log you in over HTTPS, but your viewed and composed messages are sent over HTTP. Don’t view or send e-mail with sensitive info on public wifi networks (unless you’re on secure Gmail). The same goes for messages sent within social networks like MySpace and Facebook. If you’re at Starbucks, assume someone else can read everything you can.

Since many web accounts are tied to your e-mail, the security of your e-mail account should be your top priority. Also consider a strong and unique password that you don’t use on any other site.

On a wired connection, HTTP is mostly safe

Since HTTP is not encrypted, a “man-in-the-middle” could theoretically see you browsing just like at Starbucks, but these are so rare that no one I know has ever heard of one occurring in real life. It’s best practice for sites to use HTTPS for all sensitive operations like signing in, but I don’t fret it when my connection is wired and my home wifi is password-protected.

This is the tip of the web security iceberg, but these practices are essential in my opinion.

Effective Drug Warrior Posturing 101

 

When a policy doesn’t work no matter how many dollars and officers you throw at it, how do you keep the lights on and the citizens engaged?

Well, histrionics, demonization, war propagandizing, and hysteria have worked wonders in the past. Let’s listen to the President of the Philippines give them a shot:

… she ordered an “all-out war, an unyielding and unrelenting war against illegal drugs and their devil merchants.”

This is a great start. With “unrelenting” in there you make it clear the policy can never be altered. With so many people critical of the war, you can’t have people thinking they can just end it!

“A country awash with illegal drugs is a country compromised, its law-and-order institutions tainted and corrupted.” … “No other criminal activity does a better and faster job of tearing apart the social and security fabric of a nation than the trade of illegal drugs”

Good use of fear mongering with a dose of hysteria.

… calling on her fellow Filipinos “not to allow this menace to spread its tentacles, ruin our youth, and gnaw on the integrity of our law-enforcement institutions and our judicial systems.”

Tentacles, integrity-gnawing teeth; you’ve clearly got a demon. There’s no time for studying policy efficacy. Get a gun.

… she declared the all-out war because “governments that delay action against illegal drugs, or regard it as a routine police matter, do so at their own peril.”

Wow, blaming other governments for the failure and issuing veiled threats. She must have studied how we talk to Canada anytime they mention wanting to decriminalize marijuana.

The country’s anti-drugs agency, however, has branded the report [citing alarming use statistics] “unfair,” and said there were some errors in the data which were made as the basis of the report.

She didn’t address this, but here’s a suggestion: “In war you don’t waste time checking errors. Now get out there and do the same thing you’ve been doing for years, but this time really do it! One other thing: we can’t win a war without supporting the troops so we’ll be needing more tax dollars.”

Oustanding job overall, though she did fail to attack the credibility of policy opponents. If short on time, “they’re all stoners” is useful, but our outgoing drug czar John Walters recently offered this more nuanced technique:

Many of these [medical marijuana proponents] care little for the actual suffering and pain of others, but are instead using it to advance their own pro-drug agenda. [link]

Drug policy reformers are both pro-drugs and don’t care about people’s suffering. That’s a pro move.