Is hypo-masculinity the new normal?
Anchorman at The Daily Caller: "In defense of the father":
The article makes a good point about the prevalence and problems of hypo-masculinity. Even the government seems to be in on the hypo-masculinity game. Reader Mathew sent in a link to the government site Fatherhood.gov where Barack Obama's smiling face is on the front page sharing his "fatherhood message." In the media highlights, "good dads" are portrayed as a man getting a manicure from his daughter and another dad doing a cheerleading routine with his daughter.
Is this the President's vision of American manhood?
There is also a polar-opposite twin to hypermasculinity, brought on by the absence of male role models: “hypo-masculinity,” the absence of masculinity. And, again, portrayals of it abound in popular culture and everyday life: Metro-sexualism, the sensitive male, the banning of dodge ball, padded playgrounds, back and chest waxing, feminized scents and colognes, TV commercials that portray the father figure as buffoonish, incompetent or absent.
But there’s another manifestation that’s more troubling, and its track record is now undeniable. Author and therapist Michael Gurian writes about it in his book, "The Purpose of Boys."
“Girls outperform boys in nearly every academic area. Many of the old principles of education are diminished. In a classroom of 30 kids, about five boys will begin to fail in the first few years of pre-school and elementary school. By fifth grade, they will be diagnosed as learning disabled, ADD/ADHD, behaviorally disordered or “unmotivated.” They will no longer do their homework (though they may say they are doing it), they will disrupt class or withdraw from it, they will find a few islands of competence (like video games or computers) and overemphasize those..... Once a person sees a PET or SPECT scan of a boy’s brain and a girl’s brain, showing the different ways these brains learn, they understand. As one teacher put it to me, “Wow, no wonder we’re having so many problems with boys.”
The article makes a good point about the prevalence and problems of hypo-masculinity. Even the government seems to be in on the hypo-masculinity game. Reader Mathew sent in a link to the government site Fatherhood.gov where Barack Obama's smiling face is on the front page sharing his "fatherhood message." In the media highlights, "good dads" are portrayed as a man getting a manicure from his daughter and another dad doing a cheerleading routine with his daughter.
Is this the President's vision of American manhood?
Labels: male issues
posted by Helen at 11:33 AM
84 Comments:
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Well....
Is this the President's vision of American manhood? -- Dr. Helen
....as I've been saying since Obama came into the Oval Office....
If it's bad for America, Obama will do it.
Probably something to do with his hatred for America. After all....
....look at:
[1] His spiritual minister for 20+ years, the good reverend Wright.
[2] His political science mentor Bill Ayers.
[3] His bowing to the sheik of Araby.
[4] And all the major actions of his administration to date.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out...but some people are slow learners.]
Fathers should have the option to parent any way they wish. We should stay out of defining rules on how parents interact with their kids. As long as they are parenting in a positive manner then who am we to judge whether dad or mom cheerleads or manicures?
As far as the "good Dads" images, I think the explanation might be more banal: dads don't know how to relate to daughters, because our gender roles have been so caricatured. It's not that he's a metro, we've just got this image that girls are about dolls and makeup and that boys (even adult men) have to address them on that level.
Was Clark Gable metrosexual? No. Did he set fashion trends? Yes.
Just an example that there is a nuance between male poles. Macho or not, the attributes are not mutually exclusive.
At my 22-month old daughter's insistence, I generally spend a large portion of my time at home with a ribbon draped around my neck and a lightsaber clipped to my belt. She's just as likely to invite me to a tea party as to challenge me to combat by wrestling or lightsaber.
When she's older, she will learn to take things apart and put them back together again, possibly even in working order.
The point, to me, is to be involved in your child's life and to give them a role model. I pity the neutered, but I likewise pity those who aren't comfortable enough with themselves to be silly with their children.
Specific to the education issue: The education solution, at the elementary school level, is simple: single-gender elementary classes.
It's not that either gender can't learn, it's that they learn differently. As the PET scans demonstrate, in addition to what elementary school teachers have known for a century or more.
Having spoken to a good dozen teachers who migrated from mixed-gender public schools to a single-gender private school, every one has endorsed this idea.
As usual, Cham makes a comment that makes no sense whatsoever other than to hear herself talk...
Obi,
I think there's a fine line between being occasionally silly and degrading yourself. Those two Father.gov examples were definitely on the degrading side. Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of nonsense that feminists want as far as flipping the gender roles. And like Chuck said, it can only end badly.
vision
American
manhood
Try some free association. Say each word to yourself. Do any of these words make you think of our current President?
And no, I'm not a "birther". That's not what I mean.
My wife made me get a pedicure, but I fought off the gyno-spirits with a copy of Frank Miller's 300.
So there.
I once let my daughter paint the fingernails on my left hand with a nearly clear nail polish. It kept her entertained while we attended one of my son's hundreds of basketball games. I probably did a cheerleading routine with her once or twice also, but I'm sure I was overly silly doing it. Now I watch my daughter play in one of her hundreds of basketball games.
In the meantime, I alos spend plenty of time with my sons, encourage them to work on despite the challenges confronting them and protect them the best I can from the anti-male bais of schools.
My daughter grew up in my stunt group. That pretty much says it all.
I don't care what this article says. Waxing back hair is a good thing.
You know, progressives have been trying to change human nature since the 1920s. So far, they have made zero progress! Certainly the progressive movement does not endorse or support rugged individualism and responsibility in anyone, and they are certainly opposed to that in males of the species, whom they do not trust as a matter of course.
I expect them to make the same progress in attempting to neuter men.
Trey
TO: All
RE: Sooooo......
....if you were interested in overthrowing the Constitution of the United States....from the Oval Office....
What would server your purpose best?
[1] Supporting traditional concepts of manliness?
[2] Promoting more effeminate forms?
Think about it....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Real men are airborne-ranger qualified....]
I've been having a little fun this year with our upcoming state election. There is a rare state delegate seat open in my district, and since it is a lot of pay for very little work it seems as everyone is throwing their hat into the ring for it. I get these little tap tap taps on my door in the evening. I open the door there will be a fit white male in shirt sleeves and tie with an entourage of 3 or 4 behind him. He'll have the whitest of teeth. He smiles, he introduces himself, tells me he is running in the primary for the empty seat and shakes my hand. For some reason these men think this is all they have to do to win my admiration. Then they make a horrid mistake, they ask whether I have any issues and concerns.
I smile, I relax, I lean back a little. As a matter of fact I do. I give them an opportunity to retreat because I think it is only fair. First I start with the basis of my seminar, "Going soft on crime." Then I explain what I mean by that. Then I talk about the white man's racism toward young black males and how that has created a bloated prison system. I won't get into the details of my soliloquy here but it twists and turns leading to the reason the crime rate is so high is that it has become nearly impossible for a young black male to parent his own biological children.
Then I wrap the whole presentation up explaining to the cornerstone of the local exploding crime problem is white male state elected representative. At which point the vote seeker at my door is fuming.
As a side note, 100% of the responses to my concerns have been "I believe and am active in the Boys and Girls Clubs" and my response to that is a white man spending 2.5 hours every other Saturday with 30 black kids is nowhere near the same is a black man 24/7/365 in the home of his own biological children. Plus, I don't really want to pay for the Boys and Girls clubs where letting people parent their own kids doesn't affect my finances.
Fun times.
Trey,
I'm not sure I agree with your observations. Europe has gone from builders of empire (for better or worse) to spoon-fed children. Here, with the stuff the left is ramming through Congress and the very subtle campaign of gender-flipping, they are making gains. It may not seem much, but they're very patient. They'll take the small victories, and those add up over time.
Cham,
================================
Then I talk about the white man's racism toward young black males and how that has created a bloated prison system.
================================
How does one hang around sites such as this, yet absorb virtually nothing?
I wonder....can you think of any societal factors, other than the intrinsically evil nature of white men, which might lead to a disproportionate number of young black men in prison (or on their way there)?
"Is this the President's vision of American manhood?"
Considering that this is the same man who bows to every world leader he meets, is it really surprising that his ideal man is a woman with testicles?
Alexamanos:
Most, if not all, the current laws being enforced were enacted by white men. These laws as well as many other forces created by white men have been responsible for the destruction the black nuclear family. These same laws are now breaking about the families of every other race as well, but the laws were originally created to incarcerate as many young black males as possible.
Go read the first link on Helen's post, this post. The Daily Caller touches on many of the points very well, but I can go into what has happened in much greater detail.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blagha, I see your point, and the example of Europe is certainly strong for your point. I hope you are wrong pal, but you make your points well.
Trey
Then I talk about the white man's racism toward young black males and how that has created a bloated prison system.
Ummm...if you don't do the crime, you won't need to do the time. Of course, being robbed of decent father figures doesn't help.
Most, if not all, the current laws being enforced were enacted by white men.
What's so hard about thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt honor thy father and mother?
many other forces created by white men have been responsible for the destruction the black nuclear family
You mean like the perpetual welfare state, that makes low-wage earning men uncompetitive against the welfare check? Your argument is astonishingly similar to the white man's burden crowd's argument. You sure you want to go there?
Cham, the best predictor of a man being incarcerated is growing up without a father.
It beats everything: race, addiction, SES. Not having a father in the home is also the strongest predictor for the family growing up on welfare and the daughters having children before they are 18.
What the great society "poverty" programs did was make it possible, and finally, completely acceptable to raise children without a father. The results have been disasterous! White kids with no dad get incarcerated at the same rate as black kids.
I am sure that we would see complementary societal problems if the unintended consequence of some nanny state program took mom's out of the home and tried to make them superfluous. But that has not happened yet.
But it all comes down to the lack of fathers if you actually look at the data. (That was not a slight intended toward you Cham, just the hucksters who peddle other explanations for black incarceration rates. The research is in and it is robust. Those people are just snake oil salesmen or worse, and they keep the problem alive by not telling the truth about it. A pox on their houses.)
Trey
TMink:
If one wants to decrease the crime rate then one will have to place more fathers in the homes and allow fathers to find gainful employment so they can be better accepted into the nuclear family. In order to do that one will have to incarcerate men less and lessen the number of felony convictions. If one has a felony on their record it becomes much harder to find a well-paying job.
My enthusiastic delegates-in-waiting quietly agree with me but they never say it loud enough so that my neighbors hear it. Boys and Girls Club, Boys and Girls Club blah blah blah
Cham --
Your argument would be more sound if you actually mentioned some of those laws.
Ah, do you want me to wax poetically about PCS and PCS-NOT MARIJUANA? Most first time prison sentences in Maryland are for possession of controlled substances, pot and crack primarily. Our young men go to prison a nonviolent offender and are released years later with a felony conviction and after years of being bullied and tutored by a very violent prison population. They become angry, violent and unemployable upon release. Not good daddy material to the young ones they left behind. Most reoffend, and often violently.
Trey,
I hope to God I'm wrong, but the facts prove otherwise. Unfortunately for Europe, they have literally no time to turn things around. Demographically speaking, Europe will be majority muslim by the end of the century (I'm betting it'll be somewhat before that). Virtually every country in Europe now has a below replacement rate (some are closer to the replacement rate than others, but none are actually there). The one exception to this is Albania and guess what religion is big there (I'll give you a hint, it's not Christianity)?
We're at the crossroads over here, so we could still conceivably turn things around, but it's doubtful. That's why I'm very concerned with all the stuff that's being shoved through Congress right now. And if people think November is going to change things, here's this to chew on: between November and January you have a lame duck Congress chock full of Democrats who, if voted out, will have no reason whatsoever to listen to their constituents. I suspect there will be a lot of "eff you" legislation going on in that period. I suspect that what goes on in the next six months could have a huge impact on this country way down the road.
Cham says white men are responsible for all the problems in the universe. Check.
Where have I heard that garbage before?
So what are the "minority" and female politicians currently doing about all of these "white male caused problems?" Very little, it seems. BTW, didn't women have the vote long before the Great Society? So doesn't that mean that they should take some of the responsibility? No, I didn't think so either.
I guess it's up to individual families. I teach my boys the virtues of manhood. http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2010/06/machismo-in-christian-home.html
As I was having the tires on my car changed at Sears this morning, I was sitting outside of the store in the mall able to see the yet to be removed Father's Day posters. There were to posters and each one showed a father having fun with his daughter. The signs said "Fathers rule"; the sub text was "...and sons are irrelevant."
I remember having a conversation with a college math instructor in the 1980s: she was involved in the development of courses which were geared to the learning processes girls; this was considered the corrective to boy affirming education methods. After two decades of this deliberate sabotaging of the boys' education, is it any wonder manhood is dying? It was murder most foul.
Cham speaks of the need to have black men in the house, and the vile role that Evil White Men play in preventing this from happening. The blogger Obsidian (if you're familiar) gave his take on the status of black males in the house anshkrt time ago...
' POOR WOMEN call ALL the shots in the mating dance, from start to finish? And, again, as someone who’s actually lived a very large chunk of his life in the hood-like, um, all of it-I can tell you, without fear of retribution or rebuke, that those accounts are true. Nor is this “dominance something that is only to be seen among the poor – all up and down the social scale, Women call the shots – they can decide who lives and who dies, who pays if they decided on life. And it doesn’t stop there – it extends to who gets dragged into court for all manner of stuff, like rape and sexual harrassment charges, domestic abuse charges, stalking charges, you name it. The way things are right now, all a Woman needs is her say so in order to put a guy – be he Damon on the block or Dimon on Wall Street’s butt in a sling. If that ain’t “dominance” then I don’t know what is...'
let's just imagine that the EWM released evey black malle from prison tommorrow...given the dynamic Obsidian describes, does anyone imagine there'd be an outbreak of nuclear familyism in the hood?
Both education and popular culture (both mostly influenced by the liberals) are friggin' nuts.
Feminists rightly dog out men who cheat, who don't take care of their children -- so then who is the #1 target of mockery?
Married, present, providing fathers.
WTF?
Most of the craziness can be quite accurately modeled as nothing more than teenaged rebellion against Dad writ large.
Back to education, I spent 6 years as a university instructor until going back to industry 2 years ago. My academic field of COmputer Science is twisting itself into knots by holding simultanous contradictory views: the #1 priority is to get a greater porportion of women in the field, and the curriculum and teaching methods must be changed to accommodate their different 'learning styles' -- but at the same time there is supposedly no [statistical] difference whatsoever in their underlying ability as related to CS.
And, BTW, its supposed to be simply inconceivable that the warm & fuzzy changes to presumably attract more women might be off-putting to the male students who are the backbone of the field.
Interesting blog piece. You might want to physically visit The Master's Mission (http://www.mastersmission.org/) and check out their training programs and how they operate. It's a missionary training center, but the way they do things addresses the whole masculinity issue raised here. It would be very instructive.
Cham, the numbers say otherwise.
http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/10/heritage-and-violence.html
http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/10/not-really-about-guns.html
Ah, do you want me to wax poetically about PCS and PCS-NOT MARIJUANA? Most first time prison sentences in Maryland are for possession of controlled substances, pot and crack primarily. Our young men go to prison a nonviolent offender and are released years later with a felony conviction and after years of being bullied and tutored by a very violent prison population. They become angry, violent and unemployable upon release. Not good daddy material to the young ones they left behind. Most reoffend, and often violently.
This is the mentality of a 3 year old. I know I deal with it with my 3 year old son, and is the foolish mentality of someone who never became wise, regardless of whether or not there was a father in the home.
REPEAT AFTER ME...THE Prison system is NOT responsible for people getting locked up in Prison, crazy Get tough on crime laws are NOT responsible for people getting locked up in Prison, anymore than the homeowner is "responsible" for putting a bullet in the Burglar's head.
People breaking the law are responsible for their own sorry behinds getting stuck in jail or prison. Let's try this again. Peopl breaking the law are responsible for their own sorry behinds getting thrown in jail.
My son hits his sister. And he says to me timeout makes him sad. Daddy are you going to make me sad? No kid...you made yourself sad, I'm just the guy who holds you accountable for your choices.
You selling dope on the corner because you wanted to make a quick buck instead of putting in resumes and working for 2 weeks at some boring retail job before you get paid is the cause of you going to Prison not the mean prosecutor or legislator. Time to grow up.
Nurture is thoroughly covered above.
How about Nature: Masculinity is a
function of the fear level in women
during pregnancy; A few generations
of safety produces effeminate men.
misandry permeates our culture.
Chuck,
Real men are Nuke Qualified.
So there.
BTW Nukes are about as geeky as you can get and still be on the front line.
Gov98,
Uh. Is prohibition doing anything other than enriching drug cartels?
You might want to check out how alcohol prohibition worked. Assuming your reading skills are up to it.
Uh. Is prohibition doing anything other than enriching drug cartels?
You might want to check out how alcohol prohibition worked. Assuming your reading skills are up to it.
It doesn't really matter what prohibition is doing one way or another. I may for all you know not really care about the drug war. The fact of the matter is, the law is the same that it has been for over half a century at least. No one is going to be shocked or surprised to learn that possession of cocaine is a Felony. It's not new news.
In California getting to Prison on Simple Possession takes A LOT of work. I'm not going to cry tears over someone else's personal choices. Reap what you sow, and don't whine to me about it.
Problem with that? Take it up with the legislature or Congress, but people who choose to break the law are the ones responsible for the consequences of their actions not the mean overzealous whatevers. I don't like the State Police overinvolvement in my life any more than the rest, but you know what, it's been pretty easy to avoid that problem, it's called don't break the law or do drugs.
I don't know why personal responsibility is such a difficult concept to learn by the time we're 8, but then again that goes back to the lack of fathers teaching their children that there are consequences for decisions.
Hmmmm.
1. Cham:
So white people are responsible? *laugh*
And in case this isn't self-evident ... I'm not laughing with you.
2. Repeat after me: alcohol is not the same as psychoactive drugs.
3. Repeat after me: drug gangs, like the prohibition gangs, aren't going to quietly disappear. Instead there's going to be an enormous amount of violence in any sort of market realignment.
4. Repeat after me: anything that is taxed can offer potential profits to criminals who exploit the price differentials between taxed and non-taxed.
5. Repeat after me: if you make it legal there will be unintended consequences that you pro-drug fools won't anticipate but will enthusiastically blame on someone else.
"Most of the craziness can be quite accurately modeled as nothing more than teenaged rebellion against Dad writ large."
Feminism is a Marxist (statist, transfer of wealth) movement, and as such is fundamentally adolescent.
It's funny how the PUA community warns against feminists, but also teaches that controlling, adolescent women are begging to be "tamed," to draw the firm NO that daddy hasn't given her.
Fatherhood.gov....I think I'm going to be sick.
Most first time prison sentences in Maryland are for possession of controlled substances, pot and crack primarily.
Possession how many times? And possession alone, or with other stuff, like burglary and assault?
When my state ran out of money, the legislature decided they'd save lots of money by kicking the nonviolent first-time offenders out of jail. But what they found was the nonviolent first-timer is something of a myth, a statistically insignificant percentage of the prison population.
We live in barbaric times. Some future generation will look back on these days and say, "They used to drug little boys, didn't they?"
Why? In order to make them behave more like little girls.
TO: M Simon
RE: Duke Nuke'm, Anyone?
Real men are Nuke Qualified.
So there.
BTW Nukes are about as geeky as you can get and still be on the front line. -- M Simon
I can pack a SADM in.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Close only counts in horseshoes and thermonuclear devices. -- US Air Force]
Re: drugs.
I'm moving more towards the side of legalization because the present system just isn't working. Maybe something like legal marijuana and dispensing units - offering control and therapy - for hard drugs like heroin.
I'm not sure what the consequences of legalized drugs would be, though, so I'm glad I don't have to make that decision in real life.
One other thing to consider: If someone spikes the punch with some vodka, oh well.
If someone spikes the punch with LSD-25 or synthetic mescaline or BZ, you could have horrible trips and death. The CIA went around dosing unwitting people with that crap in the 1950s and 1960s, and there were deaths (either directly, as in the case of Harold Blauer, or due to subsequent suicide, as in the case of Frank Olson) and instances in which people became psychotic on a longer term basis.
I'm frankly glad that those types of drugs are controlled.
So what do boys/men do AFTER they have been raised in all female circumstances? Unless these boys/men have sufficiently masculine natures that they avoid surrendering to the feminine influences they age into a type of manhood that isn't really male and obviously not female either.
Imagine a shy or smaller boy, who isn't obviously testosterone driven very early. He will pick up habits and outlooks similar to the women around him yet the future women in his life will expect and desire a manly-man. The feminine-induced qualities of this adult male will signal in the women around him a vibe more like male girlfriend or "gay boyfriend" of the women. That is the kiss of death for heterosexual dating.
When I've asked women about this consequence of single-mother, and other male-free family situations, the usual response is often something like "a heterosexual man that can be like my girlfriend is ideal." Yet that is seldom supported by the dating habits of the same women. I often see woman saying they want one thing in a man but avoiding exactly that quality in real-life dating.
I see the widespread acceptance of male-free families and the dismissal of the effects on children of these families as a serious threat to our long-term survival as a culture.
I'm taking my kids out camping and shooting. Where do I send the picture?
"Is this the President's vision of American manhood?"
"I often see woman saying they want one thing in a man but avoiding exactly that quality in real-life dating."
----
What women say they want is what they want to mold the man into AFTER they get what they really want.
So if a woman says she wants a sensitive man, what she really means is that she wants the hard-hewn type she is attracted to to be more sensitive. She would rule out a sensitive man right from the get-go in reality - wouldn't even see him as a possibility (or in the case of Entitled Princesses: even as a human being).
Having said that, I have problems with masculinity being a goal just because it gets chicks. They just aren't that important.
Once a person sees a PET or SPECT scan of a boy’s brain and a girl’s brain, showing the different ways these brains learn, they understand. As one teacher put it to me, “Wow, no wonder we’re having so many problems with boys.”
The women who taught me in elementary school (four laywomen, five sisters) acted if they understood this without ever having seen a PET or SPECT scan. How did this knowledge get lost?
Ern, it was not lost but hidden because it does not fit the narrative.
Cham, we agree about legalizing marijuana. But I do not see the government being able to assist the black family out of their hell hole. That will have to come from the church I think. Not the victim church of whitey bad, but the church of miracles, self control, and love.
Really.
Trey
ed,
=========================
Repeat after me: if you make it legal there will be unintended consequences that you pro-drug fools won't anticipate but will enthusiastically blame on someone else.
=========================
That someone else will be, without a doubt, Evil White Men.
A couple years ago, I read an article about research on poverty. The article said that if a person (and this especially applies to women) did 3 simple things, that person stood an 85% chance of avoiding ending up in poverty. Those things were:
1. Finish high school.
2. Don't have children until you're married.
3. Don't get married until you're at least age 23 (older is better).
There is a pervasive myth that prisons are bulging with non-violent offenders, mostly sentenced for drug offenses. That simply isn't the case, at least not in most states. Due to budget shortfalls and prison overcrowding, prisoners are being released well before their sentences are finished and non-violent offenders are the least likely to end in in prison in the first place.
As to drug legalization, look no further than the adage, "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while somehow expecting a different outcome." We tried the same thing with the Prohibition of alcohol. It didn't work and corrupted much of society. We're trying the same thing with drugs. It isn't working and is corrupting much of society.
Larry, that faithfully summarizes the research I am familiar with. The only thing to add would be to get in a good marriage and keep it.
Trey
As far as drugs go, it's not a bimodal solution of "legalize it" or fight the War on Drugs. Control of substances is a legitimate social goal; what's really disturbing about the War on Drugs is the expansion and abuse of law enforcement powers, like asset forfeiture, SWAT teams breaking down the wrong guy's door and entrapment. All of this is symbiotic with a
middle-American paranoia about junkies vending drugs on our school playgrounds, and with dehumanization of anyone involved with drugs.
We don't really care when drugs are planted on "bad people" or dealers get a raw deal from the courts, we're so blinded by alarmism that we want to put aside the civil rights and reasonable punishments that even (especially) the guilty are entitled to.
Opium, Banned in San Francisco 1878. Major scourge of China during the Qing dynasty thanks to those who wanted to sell legal drugs at the time. This is history.
Arguing for gateway drugs is tantamount to arguing for every follow-on narcotic after that. You can ignore the misery of everyone who gets caught by the harder stuff, but you'll eventually have to deal with the economic affects and with the caretaker status that the inflicted will be forced into.
Ed wrote:
"3. Repeat after me: drug gangs, like the prohibition gangs, aren't going to quietly disappear. Instead there's going to be an enormous amount of violence in any sort of market realignment."
Your evidence for this assertion, if you please. It has NOT occurred as you assert in various places where drugs have been made more-or-less legal. The 'enormous violence' you suggest did not occur when Prohibition was repealed, it did not occur in NL when MJ was de-facto decriminalized, it did not occur in Portugal when all drugs were effectively decriminalized, and the list goes on. Just when did this horrendous outcome, that you assert will be the only possible outcome of legalization ever, in fact, occur?
"4. Repeat after me: anything that is taxed can offer potential profits to criminals who exploit the price differentials between taxed and non-taxed."
True enough - but under the present arrangement, the vast profits from illegal drugs are what drive the criminal subculture - are you seriously suggesting that those profits will be greater when they are driven solely by tax differentials on an otherwise-legal product? Come, now. There are no international aspirin cartels or roving bands of heavily-armed Prilosec bandits. And even the current criminal enterprises which operate by exploiting tax differentials (eg cigarette smugglers) are generally trivial in scope and non-violent.
"5. Repeat after me: if you make it legal there will be unintended consequences that you pro-drug fools won't anticipate but will enthusiastically blame on someone else."
Of course there will be unintended consequences. Nobody disputes that - but the question is, will those unintended consequences be better, or worse, overall, than what we have today? You don't know any more than I do what those consequences may be, although experience elsewhere tends to suggest that they will be generally-minimal and more-or-less benign. So you have no basis for your implied assertion that they will automatically be negative, and worse than the situation we find ourselves in today.
Marijuana, for example, is generally not particularly dangerous - certainly not immediately life-threatening, as alchol can be (for example). And yet citizens - sometimes innocent of any crime at all - are being arrested, brutalized, terrorized and sometimes even killed in the futile attapempt to eradicate this more-or-less harmless drug. The canine death rate doesn't even bear thinking about. Criminal gangs, driven by the vast profits that are solely the consequence if its being illegal, do their business by violence and corruption - solely because their business is illegal.
Now what unintended consequence of legalization could be worse than that?
Your 'repeat-after-me' approach is probably well-suited to elementary-school students, but simply stating your opinions as gospel is no way to engage in a reasoned debate with adults. Smarten up.
llater,
llamas
As far as drugs go, it's not a bimodal solution of "legalize it" or fight the War on Drugs. Control of substances is a legitimate social goal; what's really disturbing about the War on Drugs is the expansion and abuse of law enforcement powers, like asset forfeiture, SWAT teams breaking down the wrong guy's door and entrapment.
I consider this part of the corruption of society, along with drug dealers buying off cops and judges. The idea of cops being able to seize someone's assets without due process is directly prohibited by the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution but judges look the other way. That too is corruption, IMO.
Arguing for gateway drugs is tantamount to arguing for every follow-on narcotic after that. You can ignore the misery of everyone who gets caught by the harder stuff, but you'll eventually have to deal with the economic affects and with the caretaker status that the inflicted will be forced into.
Drugs (including alcohol) destroy millions of lives. There is no arguing that. The problem with drug prohibition is the same as with alcohol prohibition - people want the stuff and are willing to pay for it. When that happens, unsavory people (organized crime, gangs, etc.) will step up to meet that demand. In the process, they're making entire neighborhoods into war zones where a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire. They also contribute to the corruption of society. Is that any better or worse than accepting that some people will choose to destroy their lives with drugs just as they do with alcohol? What we're doing now is not working. I honestly don't know what - if anything - would work but things aren't working now. Perhaps we need to step back and reexamine our approach to the problem of drugs. The "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure.
Mike H. --
"Arguing for gateway drugs is tantamount to arguing for every follow-on narcotic after that."
So you're against having a beer? 'Cause alcohol is a gateway drug in exactly the same way marijuana is.
I'm learning all about loitering. Loitering is a really interesting charge because it isn't very well defined. I've found out that whether one is "loitering" or not is at the discretion of the patrol officer. So someone who has stopped momentarily on a sidewalk to search for their cell phone or keys in their pockets could be guilty of loitering. Once one is charged with loitering they can be searched, questioned, asked to show identification. And if small amounts of drugs are in someone's possession, drugs that are not meant for sale, then that person may be charged with PCS and may be given sentenced to several months or years in prison. As I am learning, that when our local police department is pressured to increase arrests, they use this route to do it. This methodology needs to stop.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think that tobacco is statistically the gateway drug. Then alcohol. Of course, those are also the most lethal drugs by orders of magnitude.
Trey
"Of course, those are also the most lethal drugs by orders of magnitude."
----
Yes, because having a 0.2 liter glass of wine is much more dangerous than a pinprick of ricin.
And if we're just talking about "get high" drugs, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (QNB, BZ, EA-2277) is cool - some claim it is 100 times more powerful than LSD-25.
But I'd be a lot more afraid of a glass of wine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do agree with the general thought that tobacco is bad.
If you smoke, knock it off. Things like nicotine gum make the process of quitting bearable.
TO: JG
RE: [OT] Try....
I do agree with the general thought that tobacco is bad. -- JG
....not to be totally ignorant.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[All good things in moderation.]
P.S. Wheels-Up on an outward bound jump operation, the tension was so thick you could only cut it with a machete.
Half of the plane-load would go to sleep. The other half 'lit up'. I was so wound-up I couldn't sleep. Then again, I was aware of the addictive nature of cigarettes.
What did I do?
I took up a vest pipe. Something I could fold-up and tuck away in my pocket when we began the pre-jump sequence.
I STILL enjoy a pipe and an occasional cigar. Especially working at the computer or in the garden.
[He who hates vice, hates mankind.]
JG --
Yes, because having a 0.2 liter glass of wine is much more dangerous than a pinprick of ricin.
How's it feel to have been forced to jump shark? Tell me, what's the inebriated or tripping experience like with ricin or undiluted BZ?
"Tell me, what's the inebriated or tripping experience like with ricin or undiluted BZ?"
----
Never took BZ or LSD. I can tell you what tripping with ricin is like: Like you're dead man. Because it's a very powerful poison that kills you. But I've never personally been brutally murdered with ricin, so thankfully I'm not communicating this via Ouiji board.
Everything clear?
I wrote that because TMink seems to think that alcohol is one of the most lethal drugs out there.
It's not, not by a long shot.
But I shouldn't be sarcastic like that.
Even given the long-term effects of a strong addition to alcohol, there are much more powerful drugs in that vein, like heroin. That's probably why it's controlled so heavily.
Oligonicella: Nope, not that one either.
Hey JG, I was not sharing my opinion, I was sharing official lethality data. Alcohol causes the second most deaths after tobacco. Them's the facts.
Another fact is that I use both. 8)
Trey
TMink,
You didn't say they cause the most deaths, you said they are the most lethal drugs.
There is a difference between those two statements.
The most lethal drug (killing very fast in very small quantities) may not be distributed as widely so it doesn't cause as many deaths as a less lethal (but more widespread) drug.
Aside from that, I have no confidence in the the "... every 5 seconds ..." kind of statistics because they are always inflated by some group with an agenda. I'm sure quite a few deaths that are attributed to alcohol by these agenda groups are more likely questionable. I don't think every person in the statistic had "CAUSE OF DEATH: ALCOHOL" on his death certificate.
Causally suspect.
By the way, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who eats caviar will die. Every single one.
You are correct about the my saying the most lethal, I misspoke. Sorry for the confusion.
And I would argue that MOST of the "every x seconds y happens" statistics as most of them are manufactured by the group that is asking for money.
There is a hunger commercial on my radio stations that says "every day 49 million Americans are hungy because they do not have enough to eat." That is a lie.
But, the death rates due to various drugs is well studied and the data has been pretty steady for decades.
For the record, aspirin kills twice the number of people that cocaine kills every year.
Trey
Alcohol has probably also prevented (more accurately: delayed) deaths because it has some beneficial properties for the heart etc. There may have been instances in which a heart attack WOULD HAVE occurred BUT FOR the effects of regular drinking. Moderate drinkers are healthier than teetotalers.
I'm sure the agenda groups don't subtract those out.
What's funny (or more likely infuriating to me) is that I have seen a few physician groups (even the AMA if I am not mistaken) cautioning doctors about telling patients about the beneficial effects of moderate drinking. In the true paternalistic fashion of arrogant doctors everywhere.
Many of those drug laws that have so many young black men incarcerated were passed at the insistence of the Rhyming Reverends as a way to protect their communities. Now the same Rhyming Reverends are complaining about the inevitable results of such laws. Ironic, ain't it.
Yeah, alcohol has a bimodal distribution of effects. Normal use is a blessing, compulsive use is a curse. Nannies fear that sort of thing. The phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind.
Trey
The problem with nuisance-level arrests in my city has reached record proportions. Finally, the masses are starting to sue, and sue effectively. The ACLU has stepped in and we have this article this morning: Untargeted Enforcement - Police target poor, minority neighborhoods with illegal mass arrest policy
A quote:
At the height of the policy in the middle of the decade, residents of poor neighborhoods would wait for the so-called “jump out boys,” squads of officers who would make dozens arrest on Wednesdays and Thursdays to book enough arrests for COMSTAT, the weekly police statistical review.
“One of things that happened during the O’Malley administration was a growing emphasis on statistics,” said Rocah.
One of the most startling revelations of the press conference was that depositions taken by the plaintiffs revealed police officers involved in the arrests were often unfamiliar with the laws governing both probable cause and when, in fact, minor offenses like disobeying an order or trespassing rose to the level of being illegal.
I'm glad somebody is starting to take action about this. This is a very big problem, and is the reason so many young men get locked up, removed from their families and end up with some really long criminal records, causing them to turn away from their kids and to a life of crime. Enough already.
The Baltimore Sun has also has an article this morning about the law suit. Groups applaud reform, hope for reduction in unjustified arrests
From the article:
At age 18, Tavis Crockett had never had any trouble with the law, but in the summer of 2006, he found himself arrested and detained for hours at Central Booking — twice — within the span of a month.
His offenses: sitting on his aunt's front steps and dropping a candy wrapper in the street.
I sit on my own front steps a lot, talk to the neighbors. In my city I'm a criminal for doing so.
A culture that holds violent, male sociopaths in high esteem gets what it deserves.
TO: God of Bacon
RE: Ahem....
A culture that holds violent, male sociopaths in high esteem gets what it deserves. -- God of Bacon
....as someone said LONG AGO....
....and I've recounted on occasion....
Every people gets the governance that they deserve.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[May you live in 'interesting' times. -- Ancient Chinese curse]
P.S. This correlates well with the comments by Doom....
Post a Comment
<< Home