I made an attempt at parody, and tweaked Bastiat's famous Candlemaker's Petition over at Tech Central Station.
The premise: Public health activists petition the government to block out the sun.
The premise: Public health activists petition the government to block out the sun.
Friday, May 16, 2008 - 19:29
Comments
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is a group of current and former police officers, judges, prosecutors, and elected officials who've come out against the drug war. Their introductory video is below.
I think it's a pretty damned powerful video. The guilt, regret, and introspection apparent in these former cops is striking -- and admirable.
I also think this group needs more attention. They've grown from five founders to around 5,000 members in just a few years, with an eye toward 10,000 by November 2008. These are the guys on the front lines of the drug war. And they're speaking the truth about its futility, its brutality, and its wholesale disregard for civil liberties.
So pass this video on. The academics who read this site might want to show it to classes or student groups. Or better yet, book one of their speakers to lecture in person.
I'd also encourage L&P bloggers to post this video on your personal websites sometime in the next week. Let's see if we can't create a blogburst to get these guys some needed publicity.
(Self promotion and disclosure: Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who sort of narrates the video, will be speaking at the Cato forum on my paper next month.)
I think it's a pretty damned powerful video. The guilt, regret, and introspection apparent in these former cops is striking -- and admirable.
I also think this group needs more attention. They've grown from five founders to around 5,000 members in just a few years, with an eye toward 10,000 by November 2008. These are the guys on the front lines of the drug war. And they're speaking the truth about its futility, its brutality, and its wholesale disregard for civil liberties.
So pass this video on. The academics who read this site might want to show it to classes or student groups. Or better yet, book one of their speakers to lecture in person.
I'd also encourage L&P bloggers to post this video on your personal websites sometime in the next week. Let's see if we can't create a blogburst to get these guys some needed publicity.
(Self promotion and disclosure: Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who sort of narrates the video, will be speaking at the Cato forum on my paper next month.)
Monday, August 21, 2006 - 09:43
Today, my paper on SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics is finally released. You can read it here. It's been the thrust of my research for nearly a year, now. It offers a history of SWAT teams, legal background, analysis and criticism of their increasingly frequent use and abuse, and an appendix of cast studies that documents more than 150 cases of botched raids.
It's a free download. If you want a slick, bound copy, you can order one for ten bucks, and you'll also get a copy of Gene Healy and Tim Lynch's paper on the constitutional record of George W. Bush (call it"Cato's left-flank package").
We're also launching an interactive map to accompany the paper. And I frankly think the map is what's going to convince most people of the scope of this problem. The map plots every botched raid I found in my research, with a description of what happened and a list of sources. You can sort the map by type of incident. So, for example, if you wanted to see only those raids where an innocent person was killed, it would look like this. If you wanted to see raids where a nonviolent offender was killed (a recreational gambler or potsmoker, for example), it would look like this. If you wanted to see all of the"wrong door" raids where no one was killed, it would look like this.
The map is also searchable by year, state, and type of incident.
Cato's news release on the paper is here.
Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:35
Cory Maye's lawyers file their brief last week in his motion for a new trial.
To my untrained legal eye, the brief is absolutely devastating. I don't know how anyone could possibly read it and still believe this guy deserves to die in Mississippi's death chamber.
The scary thing is the enormous disparity between the brief his talented legal team filed last week and the brief filed by his incompetent trial attorney many months ago. Makes you wonder how many other people sit in Mississippi prisons solely because they had crappy counsel.
Read the brief here. Read the reports filed by forensics experts hired by Maye's legal team here and here. I elaborate a bit more here. And check here for several more updates to the case.
Also, there's much, much more coming.
To my untrained legal eye, the brief is absolutely devastating. I don't know how anyone could possibly read it and still believe this guy deserves to die in Mississippi's death chamber.
The scary thing is the enormous disparity between the brief his talented legal team filed last week and the brief filed by his incompetent trial attorney many months ago. Makes you wonder how many other people sit in Mississippi prisons solely because they had crappy counsel.
Read the brief here. Read the reports filed by forensics experts hired by Maye's legal team here and here. I elaborate a bit more here. And check here for several more updates to the case.
Also, there's much, much more coming.
Friday, May 19, 2006 - 17:26
Over at Cato (and previously on FoxNews.com), I have an overview and update piece on Sal Culosi, the Virginia optometrist shot and killed by a local SWAT team. Culosi's" crime" was wagering on sports with a group of friends.
Since his death last January, Fairfax County officials have intimidated the dead man's friends and family (likely in anticipation of the family's lawsuit); refused to name, discipline, or prosecute the officer who pulled the trigger; and generally frustrated the Culosi family's attempts to hold the appropriate people accountable for the shooting.
Police excess seems to thrive in the Virginia suburbs. In June of 2004, police in tiny Manassas Park staged a massive SWAT raid on a local tavern, conveniently under the guise of an alcohol inspection, which precluded the need for a search warrant. They found nothing, but they've since continued to intimidate and harrass the bar's owner.
And in Alexandria, just down the road from me, an off-duty police officer shot and killed an unarmed teenager whom he suspected of walking out on a $20 tab at IHOP. There too, police and city officials have been less than forthcoming and cooperative about providing details of the incident.
Since his death last January, Fairfax County officials have intimidated the dead man's friends and family (likely in anticipation of the family's lawsuit); refused to name, discipline, or prosecute the officer who pulled the trigger; and generally frustrated the Culosi family's attempts to hold the appropriate people accountable for the shooting.
Police excess seems to thrive in the Virginia suburbs. In June of 2004, police in tiny Manassas Park staged a massive SWAT raid on a local tavern, conveniently under the guise of an alcohol inspection, which precluded the need for a search warrant. They found nothing, but they've since continued to intimidate and harrass the bar's owner.
And in Alexandria, just down the road from me, an off-duty police officer shot and killed an unarmed teenager whom he suspected of walking out on a $20 tab at IHOP. There too, police and city officials have been less than forthcoming and cooperative about providing details of the incident.
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 13:11
I spent most of last week in Mississippi, doing some research and reporting on the Cory Maye case.
I've found quite a bit, most of which makes the case more troubling than it already is.
You can check here for the latest. There's still much, much more to come.
I've found quite a bit, most of which makes the case more troubling than it already is.
You can check here for the latest. There's still much, much more to come.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:57
Another"isolated incident:"
Two Kauai police officers were sued in federal court yesterday for allegedly slamming two grandparents to the ground and putting guns to their head after wrongly suspecting they were marijuana dealers.
Officers Scott Kaui and Damien M. Mendiola, as well as Kauai County, are named as defendants in the suit brought by Sharon and William McCulley of Omao alleging violations of their constitutional rights, assault and infliction of emotional distress among others.
The police officers were tracking a box allegedly containing marijuana mailed from the mainland, and broke into the McCulleys' house March 15 because they thought the couple, who were at home watching their grandchildren, had the box, according to the suit.
[...]
Police entered the McCulley residence, thinking the McCulleys were holding the box.
According to the lawsuit, Mendiola grabbed Sharon McCulley and threw her to the ground, handcuffed her and pressed his gun into her head, leaving a mark, while her grandchild was forced to lie near her.
William McCulley, meanwhile, was thrown to the floor by Kaui, the suit alleges. McCulley, who suffers a nerve disorder and has an implanted electronic"shocking device" to his spine to alleviate pain, started flopping on the floor due to the shocks created by being thrown to the floor. He walks with the aid of a walker.
[...]
Police also searched another house without finding the box. Those people have made claims against the county but have yet to file a lawsuit. Police then went to a third house, where they found those with the box.
Well damn. Good thing they found the box. All that terrorizing and damn-near killing of people would have been for naught had police failed to find it.
But since they did find it, nearly scaring an elderly couple literally to death was worth it, right? I mean, it's the price we citizens have to pay in exchange for the government protecting us from the scourge of marijuana.
What drug warrior wants to volunteer his own grandparents for the next botched raid?
Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 05:36
The Cory Maye case grows curiouser and curiouser.
As I've mentioned before, Cory Maye's lawyer on appeal is Bob Evans, who also happens to be the public defender for Jefferson Davis County. For ten years, Evans has also served as the public defender for the town of Prentiss, the seat of Jefferson Davis County.
It now appears that the Prentiss Board of Aldermen have fired Evans as the Prentiss public defender. His transgression? Representing Cory Maye. Evans told me last month that he'd been warned that if he agreed to take this case, he could well be fired. Looks like whoever warned him was correct.
With his permission, here's the email Evans sent to me this morning
As I've mentioned before, Cory Maye's lawyer on appeal is Bob Evans, who also happens to be the public defender for Jefferson Davis County. For ten years, Evans has also served as the public defender for the town of Prentiss, the seat of Jefferson Davis County.
It now appears that the Prentiss Board of Aldermen have fired Evans as the Prentiss public defender. His transgression? Representing Cory Maye. Evans told me last month that he'd been warned that if he agreed to take this case, he could well be fired. Looks like whoever warned him was correct.
With his permission, here's the email Evans sent to me this morning
Just found out this a.m. that the Town of Prentiss has"decided to go another route" pertaining to my position as town public defender. In other words, they have now made official what was intimated to me back in December and have fired me.
The explicit and sole reason given to me by the mayor was that my representation of Cory Maye was not to the liking of the aldermen. I guess it wasn't to the mayor's liking either since, to the best of my knowledge, he didn't veto their decision. Of course, I have no doubt that it's a politically popular decision among the Caucasians of Prentiss. But what in life is not, at least to some extent, political?
When apprised that this move was being contemplated, although I doubted that it would make any difference I requested the courtesy of being allowed to appear before the board to express my reasons for representing Cory. They did not deign to grant me this opportunity.
I have been Prentiss public defender officially (salaried) since February 1995 and unofficially for several years prior. During that time not one official complaint has been communicated to me about my performance. Of course, there have been many unofficial complaints about me"getting all those guilty people off."
What it boils down to is something that I have known and personally observed about members of the"unwashed masses" for many years: When the Constitution and Bill of Rights are applied to benefit others, the right to counsel, due process, fair trial et al. are"technicalities". Criminals get off on technicalities such as the 4th Amendment. Only when one of their asses is in a sling are these same documents"fundamental rights".
But what the hell. Four hundred a month ain't gonna bankrupt me. This decision, to me, is an indication that the"powers that be" actually believe that we can win Cory's appeal. That is a refreshing thought. I have always liked the adage"He who laughs last laughs best."
This afternoon, I made some phone calls to Prentiss officials to verify the reason for Evans' firing. My first call was to the mayor, Charles Dumas. One thing to keep in mind about Dumas -- he's very close to the family of the late Officer Ron Jones. In fact, in one December 28, 2001 article from the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Dumas is described as spokesperson"on behalf of the Jones family."
Mayor Dumas told me he couldn't say one way or the other if Evans' story was true, and that if I wanted to know why the Board fired Evans, I'd have to talk to the aldermen. I asked him specifically about the conversation Evans said they had this morning, in which, according to Evans, Mayor Dumas said the termination was in direct retaliation for Evans' representation of Maye. Mayor Dumas said,"Bob and I had a personal conversation. I won't comment on that. You'll have to ask the Board why they fired him."
So I called the board. Aldermen Terry Brinson and Robert G. Miller didn't answer their phones, and had no answering machine or voicemail. I left messages on the answering machines of Aldermen Danny L. Daniels and Willie Davis.
The only alderman I was able to get in touch with was Sylvia Ward. Ward told me that she didn't feel comfortable telling me why the Board fired Evans, and that if I really wanted to know, I'd have to come down to Mississippi and ask the board"as a whole." I told her that the Mayor told me only the board could tell me why Evans was fired, but that I had reason to believe it was because he was serving as counsel for Cory Maye. Again, she said, I'd either need to request a copy of the minutes or come down to Mississippi and make my request in person.
You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions here. But of the two Prentiss officials I've spoken with so far, neither has denied that his representation of Maye was the reason for Evans' termination, and both were rather coy when I suggested it.
It seems pretty clear to me that Evans was fired from his job as Prentiss public defender in direct retaliation for representing the man who shot the town police chief's son in his death row appeal.
The fact that the town took such petty retaliatory measures against a public defender for doing exactly what he's supposed to do -- represent an indigent defendant -- certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the way justice is meted out in Prentiss.
Archive of Cory Maye posts here.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 19:51
For those of you interested in the Cory Maye case...
Bob Evans, Cory Maye's attorney, has set up a legal defense fund for Cory. Evans will deposit the contributions into a trust fund, with he and Cory as required joint signatories. He'll also send you a receipt if you send a return address with your check.
Why does Maye need a defense fund? First, Evans is a public defender. Now that Maye's trial is over, Evans gets no state money for private investigators, expert witnesses, and the like. It would be nice to have a forensics expert look at Dr. Hayne's autopsy for example (I'll have more on Dr. Hayne later), or to have an investiagor track down Jamie Smith and his family, or neighbors, to see if their account of the night's events match up with the police version of the raid. I'm sure Evans could also use some legal help on the appeal. Last I heard, the D.C. firm looking into taking Maye's case pro bono was still reviewing the case to see if it presented any internal conflicts of interest. I'll let you know when I get an update.
Next week at my site, I'll be posting PDFs of the autopsy report on Officer Jones, the crime lab report on the bullets and shell casings found at the scene, the motion filed by Rhonda Cooper for a new trial, and the amendeded motion subsequently filed by Evans.
As it stands now, the state is preparing its response to the Cooper-Evans new trial motion. There will be a hearing set once the state files its response.
Contributions can be submitted to:
Cory Maye Justice Fund
c/o R.E. Evans
P.O. Box 636
Monticello, MS 39654
Archive of my posts on Cory maye here.
Bob Evans, Cory Maye's attorney, has set up a legal defense fund for Cory. Evans will deposit the contributions into a trust fund, with he and Cory as required joint signatories. He'll also send you a receipt if you send a return address with your check.
Why does Maye need a defense fund? First, Evans is a public defender. Now that Maye's trial is over, Evans gets no state money for private investigators, expert witnesses, and the like. It would be nice to have a forensics expert look at Dr. Hayne's autopsy for example (I'll have more on Dr. Hayne later), or to have an investiagor track down Jamie Smith and his family, or neighbors, to see if their account of the night's events match up with the police version of the raid. I'm sure Evans could also use some legal help on the appeal. Last I heard, the D.C. firm looking into taking Maye's case pro bono was still reviewing the case to see if it presented any internal conflicts of interest. I'll let you know when I get an update.
Next week at my site, I'll be posting PDFs of the autopsy report on Officer Jones, the crime lab report on the bullets and shell casings found at the scene, the motion filed by Rhonda Cooper for a new trial, and the amendeded motion subsequently filed by Evans.
As it stands now, the state is preparing its response to the Cooper-Evans new trial motion. There will be a hearing set once the state files its response.
Contributions can be submitted to:
Cory Maye Justice Fund
c/o R.E. Evans
P.O. Box 636
Monticello, MS 39654
Archive of my posts on Cory maye here.
Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:27
My Fox column this week makes predictions for the year ahead, albeit with a bit of a twist at the end.
Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:30
I have two articles up today.
The first is a review of Eric M. Jackson's The Paypal Wars that appeared in last month's Reason. It's the sad tale of an idealistic, inspiring young company with a libertarian vision that was eventually worn down, water-down, and broken down by people who claim to represent consumers. Not surprisingly, Eliot Spitzer makes an appearance.
The other is my Fox column this week, which is a familiar bromide against the Republican Congress.
Also, I'll be on WABC in New York at 11:20 this morning to discuss the obesity" crisis," per this AP article.
The first is a review of Eric M. Jackson's The Paypal Wars that appeared in last month's Reason. It's the sad tale of an idealistic, inspiring young company with a libertarian vision that was eventually worn down, water-down, and broken down by people who claim to represent consumers. Not surprisingly, Eliot Spitzer makes an appearance.
The other is my Fox column this week, which is a familiar bromide against the Republican Congress.
Also, I'll be on WABC in New York at 11:20 this morning to discuss the obesity" crisis," per this AP article.
Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 06:30
I hope the Rolling Stones' war protest tune is decent, but I have my doubts. Damn-near all of the protest songs related to Iraq have been dreadful. Even Steve Earle -- generally a terrific songwriter -- has put out a roster of protest songs that sound like readings from the Daily Kos comments section imposed over slapped-together three-chord progressions. Rather uninspiring. Even the better stuff (Green Day's American Idiot IMHO) has been passable at best.
In fact, for my money the only decent anti-war song to come out in the last five years is Old Crow Medicine Show's "Big Time in the Jungle" which is a three-decades-late Vietnam war anthem.
In fact, odd as it sounds, the best anti-Iraq war anthem around is also an old anti-Vietnam anthem. John Prine's satirical blade in "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" is as appropriate, wry, and incisive today as it was in 1971.
Given the bumber sticker infestation of the highways these days, it may be even more appropriate.
In fact, for my money the only decent anti-war song to come out in the last five years is Old Crow Medicine Show's "Big Time in the Jungle" which is a three-decades-late Vietnam war anthem.
In fact, odd as it sounds, the best anti-Iraq war anthem around is also an old anti-Vietnam anthem. John Prine's satirical blade in "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" is as appropriate, wry, and incisive today as it was in 1971.
Given the bumber sticker infestation of the highways these days, it may be even more appropriate.
Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 13:05
President Bush just signed a bill that would give grants to states to set up databases for the purpose of monitoring the prescription drugs of patients.
This is troubling, to say the least. What drugs I'm taking and the status of my personal health are, frankly, none of the government's damned business.
The database will serve two functions: First, it will allow the government to monitor for"doctor shopping," the term drug warriors give to patients who see multiple doctors to get prescription meds. The practice is indeed used by people who in turn sell some of those meds on the black market. But"doctor shoppers" can also be patients who can't find a doctor who will give them the medication they need in adequate doses -- chronic pain patients, for example. This bill will make it easier for states to create more pain martyrs like Richard Paey.
The other thing the bill will do is make it easier on states to crack down on people who get prescription pains from sources not recognized and authorized by the federal government -- namely overseas pharmacies or friends and family. A routine traffic stop in which the cop finds some leftover Percocet a friend gave you to help with your back spasms, for example, could now land you in trouble. Should a check of the state database reveal that you haven't been prescribed the stuff, you could be facing a charge of possessing a controlled substance, and your friend (should you turn him in) could be charged with distribution. Incidentally, that lending of Percocet is, by government guidelines, an incident of"prescription drug abuse." Keep that in mind when you read about the high-incidence of such"abuse" in the news.
Of course, the AP article on the bill doesn't mention any of these concerns, only the concern issued by one Congressman over the privacy of patients in the system. That's a valid objection, too.
Nevertheless, the bill passed by voice vote in the House, and by unanimous consent in the Senate. Your state government (and, inevitably, the federal government) will soon be able to monitor what medications you're taking.
And the bill became law with barely a whimper of protest.
This is troubling, to say the least. What drugs I'm taking and the status of my personal health are, frankly, none of the government's damned business.
The database will serve two functions: First, it will allow the government to monitor for"doctor shopping," the term drug warriors give to patients who see multiple doctors to get prescription meds. The practice is indeed used by people who in turn sell some of those meds on the black market. But"doctor shoppers" can also be patients who can't find a doctor who will give them the medication they need in adequate doses -- chronic pain patients, for example. This bill will make it easier for states to create more pain martyrs like Richard Paey.
The other thing the bill will do is make it easier on states to crack down on people who get prescription pains from sources not recognized and authorized by the federal government -- namely overseas pharmacies or friends and family. A routine traffic stop in which the cop finds some leftover Percocet a friend gave you to help with your back spasms, for example, could now land you in trouble. Should a check of the state database reveal that you haven't been prescribed the stuff, you could be facing a charge of possessing a controlled substance, and your friend (should you turn him in) could be charged with distribution. Incidentally, that lending of Percocet is, by government guidelines, an incident of"prescription drug abuse." Keep that in mind when you read about the high-incidence of such"abuse" in the news.
Of course, the AP article on the bill doesn't mention any of these concerns, only the concern issued by one Congressman over the privacy of patients in the system. That's a valid objection, too.
Nevertheless, the bill passed by voice vote in the House, and by unanimous consent in the Senate. Your state government (and, inevitably, the federal government) will soon be able to monitor what medications you're taking.
And the bill became law with barely a whimper of protest.
Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 13:47
I have an op-ed in today's Washington Post criticizing the policy of arresting parents who throw supervised parties for high school students where alcohol is served.
This is my first hit on the WaPo op-ed page, so I'm kinda ' jazzed.
This is my first hit on the WaPo op-ed page, so I'm kinda ' jazzed.
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:11
For quite awhile now, I've flirted with the idea of joining the ACLU, mostly for the organization's work on drug laws, upholding criminal protections, and its opposition to the PATRIOT Act.
Problem is, each time I come close to joining, the ACLU takes some public, statist position on the ADA, affirmative action, speech codes, or tries to defend a positive right -- a right to education, for example, or a right to access to the welfare state.
Last night I was flipping through the channels, and happened on the beginning of Bill O'Reilly's show just as we was ticking off his "Talking Points" segment. O'Reilly jumped off on the ACLU's oppposition to New York City subway searches, then ran off a list of anti-terror measures the ACLU has opposed since 9/11. This was supposed to make me hate the ACLU. As it turns out, I oppose just about every anti-terror proposal on O'Reilly's list of outrages.
Then, O'Reilly went off the deep end. Excerpt:
I am now a card-carrying member of the ACLU. And it's thanks to Bill O'Reilly.
Problem is, each time I come close to joining, the ACLU takes some public, statist position on the ADA, affirmative action, speech codes, or tries to defend a positive right -- a right to education, for example, or a right to access to the welfare state.
Last night I was flipping through the channels, and happened on the beginning of Bill O'Reilly's show just as we was ticking off his "Talking Points" segment. O'Reilly jumped off on the ACLU's oppposition to New York City subway searches, then ran off a list of anti-terror measures the ACLU has opposed since 9/11. This was supposed to make me hate the ACLU. As it turns out, I oppose just about every anti-terror proposal on O'Reilly's list of outrages.
Then, O'Reilly went off the deep end. Excerpt:
"Talking Points" could go on and on, but you get the picture. If the ACLU ever wants money, it should contact the Al Qaeda fundraisers. No organization in America enables terrorism as much as the ACLU, period. It is putting your life in danger. And that is no exaggeration.That was more than enough for me. This morning, I became one of those people Bill O'Reilly wants you to stop doing business with.
Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about it. No way to stop it. The ACLU operates within the law and uses the legal system to oppose the war on terror. And there are enough loony judges around to give that organization power, especially here in New York City and in San Francisco.
The only thing we can do is hold people who raise and give money to the ACLU accountable. In the weeks to come,"The Factor" will tell you who these people and organizations are, so you can decide whether or not you want to do business with them.
I am now a card-carrying member of the ACLU. And it's thanks to Bill O'Reilly.
Friday, August 5, 2005 - 10:26
My Fox News column this week is a primer on the doctrine of jury nullification, and encourages readers to use it from time to time.
Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 10:06
I'll have to respectfully disagree with Sheldon.
Sheldon links to this defense of Tom Cruise by Jeffrey Schaler, an ardent fan of libertarian philosopher and psyotherapy critic Thomas Szasz. I've written before on the Szasz-Scientology connection, and noted before that I find it more than a little troubling.
I think the piece is pretty weak, even offensive in places. It's offensive, for example, to draw comparisons between the way some governments treat Scientology to the way some governments have historically treated Jews. No one is denying Scientologists their civil rights. Scientologists aren't being rounded up and slaughtered. Some European governments have taken some action against the church that I find troubling, but it's generally been in response to complaints of fraud and brainwashing by former Scientologists. Schaler closes with"the enemy of my enemy is my friend," a silly slogan that's patently untrue. I share an opposition to affirmative action, for example, with the Aryan Nation. The Aryan Nation isn't an ally of mine.
I believe in freedom to practice religion, including the freedom to practice a particularly wacky, cultish one. But make no mistake -- Scientology is an especially wacky, cultish attempt at religion. Google"Lisa McPherson," for example. Or"Rondey Rimando." Or"Susan Meister." Here are a few more. Look also for terms like"disconnection" or"dead agenting." This isn't religion as most of us know it (and I'm not much of a fan of any religion). It's a particularly paranoid, aggressive, manipulative kind of religion. If you've followed the Cruise story, you've probably also read about the odd way Katie Holmes disappeared for several days shortly before their relationship began, how she has since been cut off from friends and family, and how she's now minded round the clock by a Scientology rep, who apparently won't even let her go to the bathroom alone. I'd also note that the Scientology practiced by Tom Cruise and John Travolta is a far cry from the Scientology practiced by just about everyone else. L. Ron Hubbard wrote about the importance of recruiting celebrities into a new religion to establish early credibility, and how those celebrities should get different treatment than the rest of the church's following.
The article says Szasz and Scientologists merely want to prevent people from being medicated against their will. I mostly support that idea (I'm more open to coerced treatment on people who have committed violent crimes). I certainly oppose President Bush's plan to start screening public school children for mental illness, even when it's against their parents' wishes. And I think we should all be concerned about the"anti-euphoria" drugs many U.S. pharmaceutical companies are working on in conjunction with the drug war efforts of the federal government.
But while Szasz's problems with psychotherapy might be limited to the practice of state-coerced treatment, that certainly isn't true of Scientology. Scientology wants to forbid voluntary psychotherapy, too. Cruise, for example, has called for making all psychotherapy illegal. And while I'm generally supportive of Scientology's efforts to keep mental health assessments out of the public schools, the church at the same time sets up various front groups aimed at getting its own mental health counselors and propagandists into the schools, usually under the guise of anti-drug programs (Narcanon is the most well-known Scientology front group).
I haven't read enough Szasz to know exactly what I think of him. I do know that many people I respect have a great deal of respect for Szasz. But I've done a lot of reading on Scientology over the last several years, and I find the connection troubling, to say the least. I've also known lots of people whose lives were immeasurably improved by psychotherapy. Those people likely wouldn't be any better if Scientology had its way.
Sheldon links to this defense of Tom Cruise by Jeffrey Schaler, an ardent fan of libertarian philosopher and psyotherapy critic Thomas Szasz. I've written before on the Szasz-Scientology connection, and noted before that I find it more than a little troubling.
I think the piece is pretty weak, even offensive in places. It's offensive, for example, to draw comparisons between the way some governments treat Scientology to the way some governments have historically treated Jews. No one is denying Scientologists their civil rights. Scientologists aren't being rounded up and slaughtered. Some European governments have taken some action against the church that I find troubling, but it's generally been in response to complaints of fraud and brainwashing by former Scientologists. Schaler closes with"the enemy of my enemy is my friend," a silly slogan that's patently untrue. I share an opposition to affirmative action, for example, with the Aryan Nation. The Aryan Nation isn't an ally of mine.
I believe in freedom to practice religion, including the freedom to practice a particularly wacky, cultish one. But make no mistake -- Scientology is an especially wacky, cultish attempt at religion. Google"Lisa McPherson," for example. Or"Rondey Rimando." Or"Susan Meister." Here are a few more. Look also for terms like"disconnection" or"dead agenting." This isn't religion as most of us know it (and I'm not much of a fan of any religion). It's a particularly paranoid, aggressive, manipulative kind of religion. If you've followed the Cruise story, you've probably also read about the odd way Katie Holmes disappeared for several days shortly before their relationship began, how she has since been cut off from friends and family, and how she's now minded round the clock by a Scientology rep, who apparently won't even let her go to the bathroom alone. I'd also note that the Scientology practiced by Tom Cruise and John Travolta is a far cry from the Scientology practiced by just about everyone else. L. Ron Hubbard wrote about the importance of recruiting celebrities into a new religion to establish early credibility, and how those celebrities should get different treatment than the rest of the church's following.
The article says Szasz and Scientologists merely want to prevent people from being medicated against their will. I mostly support that idea (I'm more open to coerced treatment on people who have committed violent crimes). I certainly oppose President Bush's plan to start screening public school children for mental illness, even when it's against their parents' wishes. And I think we should all be concerned about the"anti-euphoria" drugs many U.S. pharmaceutical companies are working on in conjunction with the drug war efforts of the federal government.
But while Szasz's problems with psychotherapy might be limited to the practice of state-coerced treatment, that certainly isn't true of Scientology. Scientology wants to forbid voluntary psychotherapy, too. Cruise, for example, has called for making all psychotherapy illegal. And while I'm generally supportive of Scientology's efforts to keep mental health assessments out of the public schools, the church at the same time sets up various front groups aimed at getting its own mental health counselors and propagandists into the schools, usually under the guise of anti-drug programs (Narcanon is the most well-known Scientology front group).
I haven't read enough Szasz to know exactly what I think of him. I do know that many people I respect have a great deal of respect for Szasz. But I've done a lot of reading on Scientology over the last several years, and I find the connection troubling, to say the least. I've also known lots of people whose lives were immeasurably improved by psychotherapy. Those people likely wouldn't be any better if Scientology had its way.
Monday, July 11, 2005 - 07:49
I've started a new blog aimed specifically at Morgan Spurlock, he of"Super Size Me" fame, a new book, and a new TV show.
The blog will focus mostly on Spurlock's book, which is full of innuendo, urban legends and Internet hoaxes published as fact, poor sourcing, and accusations against McDonalds and the food industry that are not only outright false, but probably libelous.
The aim is to inject some skepticism into Spurlock's reputation as a serious public voice. Wouldn't hurt to shame Putnam, his publisher, either.
It's time people stopped taking this huckster seriously.
The blog will focus mostly on Spurlock's book, which is full of innuendo, urban legends and Internet hoaxes published as fact, poor sourcing, and accusations against McDonalds and the food industry that are not only outright false, but probably libelous.
The aim is to inject some skepticism into Spurlock's reputation as a serious public voice. Wouldn't hurt to shame Putnam, his publisher, either.
It's time people stopped taking this huckster seriously.
Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 09:51
You know, the next time some thick-headed liberal spouts off about how I or my employer, the Cato Institute, shouldn't be taken seriously because we're"funded by corporations," (a vacant charge, but that's beside the point) I think I'll point to Kelo.
It is the" corporate-funded" libertarian organizations like Cato (who filed an amicus brief in the case) and the Institute for Justice (who represented the plaintiffs) who sided with the low and middle-income home owners over the land-grabbing corporations, here (not to mention the elderly who, because they tend to value the sentiment attached to their homes -- where they raised their kids, for example -- over the money they might get for them, tend to be disproportionately affected by eminent domain).
It is the Elite Left who sold those people out in favor of big government.
And it is libertarians like Cato Senior Fellow Randy Barnet, for example, who represented Angel Raich and the cancer, AIDS, and MS-stricken patients just like her before the Supreme Court. It is the Elite Left who, along side the major pharmaceutical companies, abandoned Raich and thousands just like her in favor of a more powerful federal government.
There's no better example of how the Elite Left's absurd allegiances have led it to obscene policies than this editorial from the Washington Post.
The Post's editorial board argues that had the court ruled differently in Raich it could not rule as it did in a subsequent case, GDF Realty Investments vs. Norton. There, the USSC refused to hear a case in which lower courts had ruled that the Endangered Species Act prevents the building of a hospital on land inhabited by a 1/8-inch cave-dwelling bug that exists only in the state of Texas. Tying the two cases together, the Washington Post argues that this exercise of federal power is well worth making Angel Raich and thousands just like her suffer, deteriorate, and possibly die -- because it's imperative that the federal government have the power to force states to protect obscure species of bug with no economic value.
I wish I were joking:
No more. Eighth-of-an-inch cave bugs get to live. Cancer patients who rely on medical marijuana to keep their medicine down can suffer and die, for all the Post cares.
Actually, it's worse than that. The cancer patients must suffer, so that the federal government can adequately protect the bugs.
I can't envision a scenario that better illustrates the perverse values embraced by the big government left.
It is the" corporate-funded" libertarian organizations like Cato (who filed an amicus brief in the case) and the Institute for Justice (who represented the plaintiffs) who sided with the low and middle-income home owners over the land-grabbing corporations, here (not to mention the elderly who, because they tend to value the sentiment attached to their homes -- where they raised their kids, for example -- over the money they might get for them, tend to be disproportionately affected by eminent domain).
It is the Elite Left who sold those people out in favor of big government.
And it is libertarians like Cato Senior Fellow Randy Barnet, for example, who represented Angel Raich and the cancer, AIDS, and MS-stricken patients just like her before the Supreme Court. It is the Elite Left who, along side the major pharmaceutical companies, abandoned Raich and thousands just like her in favor of a more powerful federal government.
There's no better example of how the Elite Left's absurd allegiances have led it to obscene policies than this editorial from the Washington Post.
The Post's editorial board argues that had the court ruled differently in Raich it could not rule as it did in a subsequent case, GDF Realty Investments vs. Norton. There, the USSC refused to hear a case in which lower courts had ruled that the Endangered Species Act prevents the building of a hospital on land inhabited by a 1/8-inch cave-dwelling bug that exists only in the state of Texas. Tying the two cases together, the Washington Post argues that this exercise of federal power is well worth making Angel Raich and thousands just like her suffer, deteriorate, and possibly die -- because it's imperative that the federal government have the power to force states to protect obscure species of bug with no economic value.
I wish I were joking:
Medical marijuana and cave-dwelling insects may not seem to have much in common, but federal authority over both depends on the same constitutional principle: Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The court over the past decade has reminded Congress that this power, while broad, is not infinite; a valid exercise of it must have some relationship to commerce. This reminder is healthy, but it also poses dangers, and the court has left key questions unanswered: What about an endangered species that lives only in a single state but is threatened by commercial activity? This is the question posed by GDF Realty and some other cases pending in the lower courts.It doesn't get much more black and white than that. The left once dismissed the"you care more about spotted owls than you do about people" line of argument as a caricature of its position.
[...]
The decision not to hear it suggests that the justices are not itching to radically redefine the balance of power between Congress and the states. This is good news for those who believe in strong federal environmental protections, the policy area likely to be most devastated by a revolutionary approach to federalism.
No more. Eighth-of-an-inch cave bugs get to live. Cancer patients who rely on medical marijuana to keep their medicine down can suffer and die, for all the Post cares.
Actually, it's worse than that. The cancer patients must suffer, so that the federal government can adequately protect the bugs.
I can't envision a scenario that better illustrates the perverse values embraced by the big government left.
Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 08:14
Cato releases what I think is an important paper this morning.
It's on the DEA's relentless pursuit of physicians who prescribe opioid painkillers -- OxyContin, for example.
The DEA's aggressive tactics have essentially condemned millions of Americans to suffer, despite the fact that we know there are treatments for them that work.
A couple of months ago, I wrote an op-ed about this issue. My piece provoked a response from DEA director Karen Tandy. Tandy's response was so fraught with duplicity and misdirection, I took it apart line by line on my website. The exchange is a fine example of just how manipulative this agency can be.
The Raich decision could come down today, too. And though the length of time it's taken the Supreme Court to reach a decision offers a small bit of promise (meaning there's at least been some debate on the case), the tone and direction of the questioning from the justices as the case was being argued doesn't bode well for liberty.
The breadth and depth of America's anti-drug hysteria is difficult to fathom sometimes. We have cops and politicians dictating medical treatment. And we're fully prepared to force people in pain to suffer, and sick people to die, if it means we can stop a small number of people from using certain drugs for non-medical reasons.
It's a pretty shameful reflection on our values and priorities.
It's on the DEA's relentless pursuit of physicians who prescribe opioid painkillers -- OxyContin, for example.
The DEA's aggressive tactics have essentially condemned millions of Americans to suffer, despite the fact that we know there are treatments for them that work.
A couple of months ago, I wrote an op-ed about this issue. My piece provoked a response from DEA director Karen Tandy. Tandy's response was so fraught with duplicity and misdirection, I took it apart line by line on my website. The exchange is a fine example of just how manipulative this agency can be.
The Raich decision could come down today, too. And though the length of time it's taken the Supreme Court to reach a decision offers a small bit of promise (meaning there's at least been some debate on the case), the tone and direction of the questioning from the justices as the case was being argued doesn't bode well for liberty.
The breadth and depth of America's anti-drug hysteria is difficult to fathom sometimes. We have cops and politicians dictating medical treatment. And we're fully prepared to force people in pain to suffer, and sick people to die, if it means we can stop a small number of people from using certain drugs for non-medical reasons.
It's a pretty shameful reflection on our values and priorities.
Monday, June 6, 2005 - 09:27
Home | Free Newsletter | Submissions | Advertising | Donations | Archives | Internships | About Us | Privacy Policy | FAQs | Contact Us | All Articles
Paid Advertisements
Find jobs Millsberry Find jobs Web Design Forums Business Gifts 
DHgate.com
http://www.schoolexpress.com| http://www.sciencereviewgames.com| http://www.JoanneJacobs.com|