home

Thanksgiving: Leftover Thoughts and Open Thread

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. I did. The hours of planning the dinner, googling recipes and cooking paid off -- every dish tasted just right. Everyone had seconds. And thanks to a TalkLeft reader who sent me two great bottles of Champagne when I moved last month, and another who sent me flowers for Thanksgiving, the atmosphere was lively and the scene pretty.

In the news, Marissa Alexander has been released from prison in Florida, pending retrial.

The ACLU has a new report on the more than 3,000 prisoners in the U.S. serving life without parole for non-violent crimes.

For 3,278 people, it was nonviolent offenses like stealing a $159 jacket or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana. An estimated 65% of them are Black. Many of them were struggling with mental illness, drug dependency or financial desperation when they committed their crimes. None of them will ever come home to their parents and children. And taxpayers are spending billions to keep them behind bars.

From Thanksgiving 2006: I Wish Thanksgiving Was For All of Us. It's disheartening that so little has changed since then.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Who's Cooking Tomorrow? | Friday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yay! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 12:28:52 AM EST
    Glad that you did not have to fall back on the lasagna and everything was on point...

    Must have been something in the air as everything I made worked out pretty well..  Lottttttts of leftovers here...  

    Roast goose (braised) with apple sage stuffing and port wine sauce... cassoulet with homemade garlic and toulouse sausage... yum.... roast pork belly with crispy skin, brussels sprouts, celeriac puree, butternut squash, fennel salad, and homemade cranberry jalapeño sorbet, squash ice cream, celeriac ice cream and chocolate ice cream..  a friend brought homemade pumpkin bread, and another brought pecan pie and pumpkin pie..  

    also someone brought korean tea (cold, sweet and spicy) as an after dinner palate cleanse..  

    and lots of wine..    

    And as for the other leftovers, Obama should do the right thing and commute their sentences..  what a waste of human lives....  


    Grandkids (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by koshembos on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 03:45:28 AM EST
    The food was enough for three times the number of people present. The quality of the food puts to shame most expensive restaurants.

    Most of all everyone enjoyed the two grandsons who ran around screaming and laughing the rest of the evening. While our kids are better than we are, the grandkids improve even farther. That is what want!

    Our government does the opposite; it worsens every election cycle. We charge huge interest for student loans, we cannot implement a system to support our slightly improved health care system, time and again noise about cutting social security and Medicare increases, etc.

    Instead of (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 07:58:42 AM EST
    busting medical pot clinics, and annoying and criminalizing most of the country, maybe this dreck of a government should divert its energies toward these poor souls: Victims of Americanism at its worst:

    For 3,278 people, it was nonviolent offenses like stealing a $159 jacket or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana. An estimated 65% of them are Black. Many of them were struggling with mental illness, drug dependency or financial desperation when they committed their crimes. None of them will ever come home to their parents and children. And taxpayers are spending billions to keep them behind bars.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 202 (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:17:09 AM EST
    She has a bad habit. And we ain't talkin' nunnery duds. (link)

    And the three Thanksgiving comics:

    v. 201
    v. 200
    v. 199

    Have a great Friday, my friends.

    sometimes I think it's (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    a shame when I get feelin' better when I'm feelin' no pain..

    Parent
    Prison (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    reform is a tough one. I've seen prison ruin more people than it reforms, turn somebody that has made a few mistakes into a lifetime hardened criminal. Some though are highly motivated not to repeat mistakes and go back.

    Its a chicken way to approach it, but I think it might be easier to skip dealing with prisons directly and focus on decriminalizing drugs, improving the education system, and creating more low level jobs.

    Prison reform (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    is one of my personal issues. I have other issues and I've largely focussed my efforts on those, because it's really, really hard to get anyone on board with prison reform. Everyone is all "tough on crime" oriented. But the prison system here is a sin. It makes victims of offenders and the families of the offenders. Two things drastically improve recidivism rate: literacy and family support. But look at the costs of a simple phone call, despite the FCC ruling (and be sure to look at the chart of costs for a 15 minute phone call):
    The August ruling was the FCC's first on the prison phone industry; until now the $1.2 billion annual prison phone industry has been unregulated. The ruling improves the system, but not completely.

    The FCC has limited the dollar amount companies can give to corrections departments in the form of commissions ["commissions" are in reality kickbacks to the prison system. sj], but it isn't banning the practice altogether.

    Prices can still stay high. Companies can also get a waiver to charge more than the capped amount. The FCC doesn't fully restrict the hidden costs and fees that hike up prices.

    The ruling bans companies from charging to connect a call or to use a calling card, two of the most problematic practices, but companies have many other hidden costs and can add new ones at any time.

    For instance, companies charge more for calls to cell phones. They tack on a credit card fee every time someone refills an account -- which for Securus customers is $9.95 each time. They encourage people to add money to their accounts in small increments.

    According to Securus' website, the company's line items on its monthly bill includes a $1.49 bill processing charge, $3.49 billing statement fee, $3.49 federal regulatory recovery fee, $1.00 USF administrative fee ,and a $3.99 wireless administration fee. The companies also charge people to close their accounts and impose time limits for getting reimbursed. Global Tel-Link, for instance, charges $5 to close an account and gives customers 90 days to reclaim their balance.

    When I called Global Tel-Link's Customer Service Center to ask about potential fees with accounts, they told me the company charges $8.75 to add money to an account.


    And don't get me started on what felons face upon release. It burns me that twelve states prohibit felons from voting again, ever. The right to participate in the political process is fundamental to participation in society in general. Hats off to Maine and Virginia that allow inmates to vote absentee from while still incarcerated.

    And, I agree that it would...

    ...be easier to skip dealing with prisons directly and focus on decriminalizing drugs, improving the education system, and creating more low level jobs.
    But I still think prisons should be dealt with directly, especially the latest model of private for profit (??) prisons.

    Parent
    Thank gahhhd for curiosity (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 06:43:38 AM EST
    It's amazing what a little of it turns up.

    ^ ^

    Popester on Vatican Radio 2013-11-14:

    The spirit of curiosity generates confusion and distances a person from the Spirit of wisdom, which brings peace, said Pope Francis in his homily during Thursday morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta.

    -- Pope: the spirit of curiosity distances one from God - Radio Vaticana



    My sense of the (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    homily is that it reflects the Jesuit thinking of the Pope in which faith is critical to life guidance.  The context of a "spirit of curiosity" puts into place the thought that all must be known to believe in, and act upon, the "spirit of wisdom"--that visionaries and prophets must be looked to in order to provide missing details such as the date and time of the "Kingdom of God."

    It is in  the absence of faith that confusion abides, I believe he is saying. Moreover, it is in the Catholic tradition that the Holy Spirit works to unfold truths in light of the reality that we do not know all that there is to know.  It would be a misinterpretation, in my view, to equate "spirit of curiosity" of the homily, with a lack of curiosity.  Certainly, the Pope must be curious as to what is going on at the Vatican Bank.


    Parent

    Sin Laundering Biz (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    Seems a logical step that the Vatican would be laundering money, as a big part of their business is sin laundering.

    And this is not surprising either:

    But there is speculation that the actual reason behind the no-confidence vote is that Tedeschi was aware of possible mafia links and leaked names and accounts details to police.

    Regarding whistleblower's fate a fact distilled (review) from C. Fred Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power:

    Nearly all whistleblowers are destroyed. They lose their jobs, their careers, their houses, their friends, their families. But that is not the worst part. Most catastrophically, whistleblowers lose their trust in people and justice....

    n short, Alford gives not the usual inspiring picture of heroic, public-spirited employees but a depressing picture of devastated individuals whose careers and meaning systems have been destroyed. The title of the book is Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power, and "broken lives" sums up what happens to most whistleblowers.



    Parent
    Yes, their slogan (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    could be: Dirty Laundry is Us--both temporal and spiritual. Sin removal with new and improved "Confessional", at a church near you.

    Parent
    Nothing wrong with forgiveness... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    The world could use a lot more of it.

    It's more than a bit ironic that America's justice system, supposedly once based on Christian precepts, prescriptions, and proscriptions, is so unforgiving.

    Parent

    Pope Francis has made it clear ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 07:12:22 PM EST
    .. that he aims to substantively reform the manner in which the Vatican Bank conducts its affairs in the interest of achieving greater transparency and honesty; otherwise, he will probably seek its closure.

    To that effect, yesterday he assigned his personal secretary, Msgr. Alfred Xuereb, to personally oversee the work of the two committees he recently convened to reform Vatican finances, which includes the Vatican Bank, and report back to him regularly.

    This Pope is endeavoring to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.

    Parent

    Reform of the Vatican Bank (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    will be a challenge: Pope Francis has had a tough roll-out so far. His appointment of Monsignor Battista Ricca as prelate of the Vatican Bank hit  the "gay lobby" snag seized upon by the Curia.

    Parent
    Researchers (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    are still trying to sort out whether or not the Vatican Bank was involved in laundering Nazi money during WWII, and some fairly compelling evidence has surfaced that there was a Vatican tie-in to the so-called "rat line" that helped Croation fascists escape Europe after the war..

    We're dealing here with a line of inquiry that could have Catholic-world shattering implications and it explains why conservative catholics go into kneejerk damage control mode at the mere mention of the subject..

    Does anyone buy the bank's flimsiest of defenses that it's records from the WWII era are unavailable because they destroy all bank records every ten years?

    Parent

    Lovely relaxing day with the family (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:09:49 AM EST
    My wife took a tip, actually, from Eli's geometry teacher, who said to cook the turkey upside down. She claimed it would the keep the meat more moist than right side up, by allowing the natural juices to soak down into the breast. And damn, she was right. Was easily the juiciest turkey I have ever had. You do lose some of the crispy skin that would be on top, but the tender trade-off, IMO, is more than worth it. Give it a rip if you never have.

    Three cheers for geometry teachers!

    If you're especially daring... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by unitron on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    ...you could pull it out and turn it over somewhere along the line and see if you can get the best of both worlds out of it.

    Parent
    Or you can (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    "Deconstruct" the turkey and roast it Julia Child's way.
    As updated by Cook's Illustrated.
    Link.
    Haven't tried this yet, but maybe I will next year.  I would do this for Christmas dinner, but for that, we usually have either a prime rib or goose.

    Parent
    JC Surgery (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:10:16 PM EST
    Her braised goose recipe requires a bit of surgery too, albeit less dramatic.. Her technique of steaming the goose on the stovetop for 45 minutes prior to roasting is great idea to get the fat out.

    The video is a hoot.... very entertaining..


    Parent

    Spatchcock and brine...no, that isn't (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 04:27:08 PM EST
    the name of a law firm...

    "Spatchcocking" is taking the backbone out. It allows you to roast the turkey more flat, so that the white and dark meats get done at the same time.  Brining allows the meat to hang onto a lot of moisture.

    After you brine and rinse well, lay the turkey out and dry the skin well before letting it sit in the fridge, uncovered, so the skin can continue to dry.

    When ready, rub the turkey all over with a good olive oil, sprinkle with salt and pepper, some thyme and sage and roast in a 450 degree oven.  My 16lb (with backbone, so maybe 14-ish lbs without?) turkey took about 100 minutes and came out with gorgeous crispy skin and was perfectly moist and tender.

    Parent

    To keep turkey very moist with crisp skin (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 10:32:21 AM EST
    I baste the turkey in lots of fresh orange juice - add lots of onions; baste with poultry seasoning and paprika -- latter gets skin crisp

    Turkey stays moist and skin is crispy every time....

    Parent

    Back in the 1960s (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    I read something by William Buckley about how the criminal justice system was completely messed up.  He pointed out that if a man came home and found his wife having sex with another man and shot him he would be guilty of murder and get a life sentence.  On the other hand if a pickpocket was caught stealing a billfold he might likely get probation or a short sentence.

    As Buckley pointed out unless the first man remarried and caught his wife cheating he was not likely to kill again.  On the other hand the pickpocket was a much higher risk of being a repeat offender.

    I feel certain those non violent offenders serving life sentences are not there on their first offense.  But as Jeralyn correctly notes they almost for sure have other problems.  Mental issues, substance abuse, and other factors that put them at risk.

    The real question is how should society deal with folks who have these problems.  It is one thing to say many drugs should be legalized.  As a libertarian (note I am a libertarian with a small "l").  But that does not answer the question of how to deal with those who have problems with mental health, drug dependency, emotional issues or what ever.

    To make matters worse there is also the issue of how to pay for programs that would effectively deal with these problems.

    I don't pretend to have all the answers, but while legalization of some drugs might be a start it would not solve all the problems.

    We are already paying huge amounts of money (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    and not dealing effectively with these problems.

    In this study (summary p 4),

    The Cost of Homelessness in Oklahoma City April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 (PDF) - the total cost of homelessness for a one year period was $28,746,094.

    Parent

    William F. Buckley was not a fan of ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    ... our country's so-called "War on Drugs." He saw it as both a tragic waste of financial capital and an egregious misuse of public man-hours, and on that note, I've always tended to agree with him.

    With regards to how to pay for treatment programs for people with mental health and substance abuse problems, I'd offer that as a society, we need to collectively recognize that first and foremost, such issues are primarily matters of public health. And speaking as someone who worked on these issues as a senior legislative analyst at our state legislature, I'd then note that it's further a matter of prioritizing public need.

    Because when we've reached a point where a wealthy state like California is actually spending more money on incarceration than on public education, we might want to seriously assess how much it's ultimately costing us as taxpayers to continually relegate those aforementioned public health issues to the ineffectual realm of law enforcement.

    Then, we should give very close scrutiny to the relatively handful of people who've stood to benefit financially from presenting an otherwise readily soluble problem as a perpetual public policy conundrum, aka "The War on Drugs."

    Because let's face facts here. They're the ones who always stand foursquare in opposition to any practical solutions to this long-vexing public health crisis. There's a lot of money to be made in locking people up, and they've managed to turn our respective state public corrections policies into a highly profitable industry.

    In short, follow the bucks, and then seek to redirect a goodly portion of that revenue stream toward more productive and pro-active purposes. Because that's how you'll find more than enough funding to implement effective treatment programs for mental health and substance abuse.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Legalizing Drugs (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    Does not solve the problem that often times drugs are not a problem, rather they are a symptom.  Back in 1980s when I was in the middle of my run of finishing 15 straight Ironman Triathlons the most successful triathlete of the time was

    Dave Scott

    This was back when there were those fried egg commercials about this is your brain and this is your brain on drugs.  Scott made some print commercials that ran in sports mags where he said "Go ahead and use drugs, see if I care.  It just makes you easier to beat."

    Parent

    Then seriously, what's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    You lament the inability we have in this country to effectively treat mental health and substance abuse problems, and then you turn around and say that legalizing drugs does not solve the problem.

    First of all, I never said anything about legalizing drugs. Rather, I would advocate for decriminalization of their otherwise-illegal use. There's a distinct difference between the two.

    Wholesale legalization of illegal drugs would be the equivalent of the government throwing up its hands, and basically saying that whatever you do is none of its business, including any subsequent problems with addiction.

    OTOH, a least a partial decriminalization of their illegal use would put a crimp in the pipeline that presently fast-tracks users into the corrections system with all too depressing regularity, thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, three strikes policies, etc.

    The idea is to compel the state to seek out effective alternatives to the incarceration of drug users, while allowing the courts to retain some leverage over a defendant to ensure his / her compliance and cooperation in both seeking and receiving treatment.

    That's the philosophy behind the drug courts we have here in Hawaii. We save money by not imprisoning people for what are essentially victimless offenses to one's own self. And we can then direct at least some portion of those savings toward the establishment and / or expansion of effective treatment programs which can redirect those individuals to becoming a productive member of society.  

    That said, what exactly are you suggesting that we do?

    Parent

    My point is (none / 0) (#35)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 08:40:21 AM EST
    that drug use has a real down side.  I never needed to smoke pot to sit in front of a TV and eat chocolate chip cookies and drink milk.  I never thought I enjoyed chocolate chip cookies more after smoking pot.

    On the other hand I did have a problem finishing up my Advanced Abstract Algebra homework after smoking pot, and often times would nod off and have to miss lunch to finish it up before class.

    We both seem to agree that there is some down side to drugs.  But I am not sure we agree about what I will call the reason some folks seem to be more susceptible to drug abuse.  And more importantly on what is an effective program to tread those who suffer from drug addiction.

    My Dad was a medical doctor and he always said while alcohol was often viewed as the most commonly abused drug he thought sugar was in first place.  All you need to do is look at how many overweight folks there are.

    Most folks think things like meth and crack use should be discouraged more strongly than say pot or hash.  So the real question is how do you deal with folks who have self destructive tendencies.  Is there really a program that will help these folks.  And if there is such a program is it cost effective.

    This may illustrate the biggest difference between the two of us.  You seem to think that all that is needed is to start up a govt program and the problem will be solved.  I look at drug use through out history and see no one has really come up with an effective way of dealing with it.

    Parent

    As you have touched on, addiction is by (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    far a mental health issue.

    The National Alliance on Mental Illness in 2009 gave America's mental health system a D rating. When state budgets across the country have needed trimming in recent years, mental health services have often been among the first to go.

    "It is not a glamorous issue," said Sandy Pasch, a state representative from Wisconsin. "Mental health is often one of the first things to cut ... it's not one of the heavily lobbied groups."

    In the past three years, $4.35 billion for services has been cut from state budgets across the country, according to a report by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute. While states are slashing funding for treatment, private care is getting harder to obtain. Mental health advocates say that the number of providers nationwide has decreased in recent years. The ones that do practice often don't take insurance or are all booked up. link

    Study: U.S. Leads In Mental Illness, Lags in Treatment

    When we fail to treat people who suffer from mental disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, we all lose. The economic burden of associated health problems, lost productivity and lost lives is more than 10 times the budgets now being spent to treat people with mental illness.

    Most of the taxpayer money devoted to combating alcohol and drug abuse goes to cleaning up its consequences, while only about 2% of the funding is used for prevention, says a report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

    The study found that 96% of the $467.7 billion a year that federal, state and local governments spend on substance abuse is used to deal with consequences such as crime and homelessness.

    Of that money, according to the report, governments spend the most on health care costs associated with substance abuse (58%) followed by the costs of prosecuting and jailing the offenders (13.1%).

    How much money has been spent for research on ED and baldness vs the amount spent research on better ways to treat mental health and addiction?

    Parent

    And how much money (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    is spent each year (state and federal) on the incarceration of low-level, non-violent drug offenders?    
    That money would also be better spent on treating mental health problems and addiction.


    Parent
    You "look through history... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by sj on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    ...and see no one has really come up with an effective way of dealing with it.
    That's the thing about progress. It is approached on multiple levels.

    You can look through history and see how the mentally ill were treated, too. Do you think just because mental illness hasn't be scoured from the face of the earth that we should just throw up your hands and say, oh well, it can't be fixed and it isn't cost effective try to help.

    I see treatment as an investment in our society, not as a cost. And some investments yield slow but steady returns.

    Parent

    Self destructive tendencies (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    Your post is not all that clear but it appears you are taking the bad character view of addiction.  That approach has little positive affect on the addicted.

    Treatment can work and does work.  

    True, the treatment industry can be a racket.  AA is free and works for those who want it to work.  Betty Ford and Sierra Tucson, however, are very effective (and expensive)--again, for those who want it to be effective.   Money can make a difference.  I would rather have government put money into treatment, even if some of it is wasteful, than put money into prisons, which is completely wasteful.  

    An all of the above approach is certainly preferable to a system that creates drug lords and drug wars.....

    Parent

    While I agree with most of what you have (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    said, I do want to point out that a segment of the people who are addicted have mental health issues along with their addictions. There is a term for it called dual diagnosed. Mental health issues are not due to bad character either but the people who suffer from both often need mental health treatment to coincide with a substance abuse program and AA. AA is easy to access. Good mental health treatment is not readily available for those who need it.  

    Parent
    More and more (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    mental health treatment is seen as part of an addiction treatment plan as well.

    One example I heard:  a man was not having any success staying sober through 12 step programs alone.  Psychological counseling, however, helped him to realize he could no longer maintain he was straight to the world when he was gay.

    And there are plenty of alcoholics who just need to get sober.   AA's hostility to mental health treatment is giving way.

    ragebot's bad character view of things is maintained by fewer and fewer people....

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 07:06:19 AM EST
    The conversation about drug use and those hwo end up in prison always turns to treatement for addiction.  Some, many of those who are in prison ARE addicts and need help. But not everyone who was busted for drugs is an addict.  Some people just like getting high.

    We shouldn't conflate the two.

    Parent

    How is that a problem? (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    The problem is (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 06:06:19 AM MDT

    The conversation about drug use and those hwo end up in prison always turns to treatement for addiction.


    First of all, it isn't a single-pronged problem.

    Secondly, when listing other reasons for imprisonment, you left off entrapment. Where there would have been no crime at all if "law" enforcement hadn't instigated it.

    And last (so far), wtf is wrong with liking to get high? You really, really have a problem with this. I don't. To me it's in line with the reality that "some people" like s*x for its own sake, too. Not just for procreation. I don't have a problem with that either.

    Parent

    jb can correct me if I'm wrong, but I (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    don't think she necessarily has a problem with people enjoying the pleasures of alcohol and/or drugs; where the problem comes is when one person's pleasure becomes someone else's pain.  If someone wants to have a couple glasses of wine or a joint or a few lines of coke, and get behind the wheel - as but one example - they need to take responsibility for that decision if something goes wrong.  

    Addiction is definitely a problem, but so is stupidity, and sometimes people end up on the wrong side of things because they were stupid, not addicted.  Or because they allowed themselves to believe that they're immune to making dumb decisions while high, and they won't be the one who runs a red light and t-bones a nice family.

    Beds in treatment facilities are hard enough to come by that falling back on addiction in order to avoid incarceration is probably taking a treatment bed from someone who really is addicted and really wants to get clean and sober.

    If you talk to an addict, he or she will tell you that at some point it stopped being about "liking" to get high, and became about "needing" to get high, even if the addict can't always admit that's what's going on.

    I think that we all make our own choices, but some people do so in the belief they won't ever have to be accountable for them.  There is a history of addiction in my family - fortunately, it is of the recovering kind now - and if there's one thing I know, it's that failure to hold people accountable - whether as a family member, friend or co-worker - just prolongs and enables the behavior.

    Yes, there's entrapment and that's wrong.  Yes, the laws are archaic and need to be changed.  But I'll say this again - as someone who quite likes her wine and her vodka, and used to be a 2-pack a day smoker: whether something is or isn't against the law, whether someone is or isn't an addict, when one person's pleasure becomes someone else's pain, there needs to be accountability.

    And I don't, frankly, care if that's not live-and-let-live enough for people.

    Parent

    That's live-and-let-live enough for me (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    And you may be right that she thinks
    where the problem comes is when one person's pleasure becomes someone else's pain.
    I know I think that. So we are possibly in accord there. But that isn't what she is pushing back against. What she said was literally:
    But to frame the argument, that the people in prison or jail just need treatment is a bogus argument.

    [who made that argument? no one] and
    Abotu as false as saying ...That only addiction counseling and rehab is needed.
    Again, no one said that. These are attitudes and positions that she is casting on some unknown "other". Dishonestly, IMO.

    That one focuses discussion for the moment on a single aspect should not be taken to imply that the speaker has only that single one-dimensional perspective. She gets called out unfairly for focusing on a single aspect at certain times. She shouldn't be doing it to others.

    IMO.

    Parent

    I don't want to get into how many (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I think you have to look at the fact that the conversation's emphasis was on addiction and mental illness, and jb's point started out as noting that every time we have one of these drug-related conversations, it always seems to come down to treatment, and it never seems to take into consideration that not everyone who ends up in the legal system got there because he or she is an addict.

    I think, if I can be candid, that you may have been a little too selective in the portions of job's comments you've taken issue with, and not read them in the context of the entire discussion.  That someone has a history, or we think we know from past comments what someone means in a current comment, doesn't mean we can or should read things that aren't there.

    Parent

    I think we'll have (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    to agree to disagree on this one. Because re-reading all the comments, I still think it is jb who has been selective in her reading/interpretation. Or rather, she has placed limits around the discussion that do not exist.

    And, while it is absolutely true that not everyone in the legal system got there because of addiction here is where the conversation started:

    But not everyone who was busted for drugs is an addict.  Some people just like getting high.

    We shouldn't conflate the two.

    Frankly, I don't see her discussing the possible collateral damage. I don't see her discussing the legal system. I see her passing judgement because "some people just like getting high."

    And not for the first time, either. It's been consistent enough to know she didn't misspeak.

    We'll have to disagree here.

    Parent

    I think this is why I'm losing interest (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    in commenting here: every conversation degenerates into an argument about what the meaning of 'is' is, and it gets there like a rocket going off.  

    For what it's worth, jb didn't start the conversation, Donald did.  Ragebot was the first to respond to him.  They traded comments.  MO Blue chimed in.  Zorba commented.  MKS added something.  You did, too.  jb didn't get into the conversation until 9 other comments were posted.

    jb and I have had our share of disagreements, and I've participated in some of them long past the point where I should have cared, so I'm not clean on this myself.  Lately, I've gone more than a few rounds with PK and MKS and christine.

    It's just getting to the point where I think my time is better spent talking with people whose company I actually enjoy, instead of people who just constantly seem to be looking to fight about anything and everything.  

    You're more than entitled to whatever it is you think or feel about what people are saying, but when someone tells me we'll have to agree to disagree, what I hear is, "save your breath - my mind is made up."

    Message received.

    Parent

    Boy (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Tue Dec 03, 2013 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    I'm sorry you heard that.
    what I hear is, "save your breath - my mind is made up."
    When all that was intended was that I didn't agree with you 100% and I didn't want to argue about it. Angels on the head of the pin, is appropriate.

    Parent
    My point is (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    The argument about the number of people who are in jail or prison on drug related crimes always comes down to "It's about addiction."  Which is a false statement.  SOMETIMES it's about addiction -sometimes it's not. But to frame the argument, that the people in prison or jail just need treatment is a bogus argument.

    I don't care if people (grown-ups) want to get high.  I don't understand it and think it's stupid (just as I don't understand who need to always have a drink [without being alcohoics]) to want to always dull your mind, but whatever.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    My point is (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 12:50:59 PM MDT

    The argument about the number of people who are in jail or prison on drug related crimes always comes down to "It's about addiction."  

    That is a huge, HUGE oversimplification. To me, it's oversimplified enough to almost make it a false statement. I'll just leave you with your opinion though. We've gone down this road before.

    Parent
    Abotu as false as saying (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    That only addiction counseling and rehab is needed.

    Bill Cosby said it best:

    "See, the thing is," he recalls a man telling him, "cocaine enhances my personality." Cosby responds, "Yeah, but what if you're an a$$hole?"

    It's not just about addiction.

    Parent

    You are putting words in (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    people's mouths again.
    That only addiction counseling and rehab is needed.

    The only one putting the word "only" in front of that concept is you. When you get a bugaboo about something, you often distort the positions of others. This is one of those times.

    Speaking for myself, decriminalization in addition to

    addiction counseling and rehab
    is required. But that's not the only thing either. Your oversimplification is dishonest.

    Like I said. We've been down this road before.

    Parent

    Dave Scott reigned until (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    Mark Allen beat him, as I recall. And then Allen reeled off his own series of wins...

    The power of a positive example is huge.  I am impressed you finished 15 of your own.  But you seem to be using your success as a way to judge and put others down.

    Many people just do not know how to live without self-medicating through alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.  Showing others you can live well and with joy and adventure without that, is positive.  Condemning others, not so much.

    Parent

    I raced with Dave Scott (none / 0) (#47)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 11:49:51 PM EST
    We were on the same celeb team at a sprint race in Tampa.  He was a very gracious guy and I really liked him.  Kinda met Allen but he was not overly friendly the way Scott was.

    I trained with a girl who was a pro triathlete and she convinced me Allen was a jerk.  During Allen's string of wins there was a move to make the male and female prize money equal.  All the pros, male and female, except Allen agreed to it.

    I am not sure how to show others how to avoid drugs.  My youngest brother wound up with a very destructive drug addiction resulting in Hep C and other health problems.  As for my definition of success it is simply doing your best.

    It took me till the ninth grade to realize at five ten I would never be a professional basketball player.  But in high school my success at debate was enough to point me towards law school.  So while doing your best is important you also have to be realistic about your goals.

    Parent

    Not just drugs but alcohol (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 12:10:47 AM EST
    You do not have to go to any special effort to show people.  Just live your life without them, and people will notice.

    Parent
    My Organic Chem Prof (none / 0) (#53)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    always said there were two types of alcohol.  If you drank one it would kill you.  If you drank the other one it would kill you really fast.

    Parent
    Leave it to Buckley (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 07:37:00 PM EST
    to equate the cost of a human life with that of wallet and its contents.

    Not that I agree with life sentences, in general, but ... oy.

    Parent

    From our "North by North West" file: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    Mr. Kim Kardashian really ought to forgo the time-consuming business of courting celebrity, simply for celebrity's sake:

    Ha'aretz (Jerusalem) | November 29, 2013
    Kanye West: Obama isn't as well connected as Jews -- "Man, let me tell you something about George Bush and oil money and Obama and no money. People want to say Obama can't make these moves or he's not executing. That's because he ain't got those connections. Black people don't have the same level of connections as Jewish people. Black people don't have the same connection as oil people."


    George Bush is Jewish? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    Who knew?    ;-)
    Yes, I know that Kanye was also talking about "oil people."
    But still.......
    He's an idiot, and why he thinks that anyone gives a rosy rat's @ss about his political opinions is beyond me.
    "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

    Parent
    We all need friends (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    who, on occasion will say things to us like "I love ya, but right now you're full of sh*t.."

    A lot of wealthy celebrities seem to surround themselves with people who tell them that it's o.k to go on tv and brag about drinking tiger blood and banging eight balls and that it's truly an inspired idea to dye their skin and have umpteen cosmetic surgeries..

    One can can develop a very fallacious, grandiose sense of reality under those circumstances.

    Parent

    None of this would really matter, were ... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    "Information is abundant. Wisdom is scarce." -- The Druid

    ... it not for our own misguided enthrallment with public celebrity. We the people are Kanye's audience, and time and again we've proved ourselves all too eager and willing to readily lap this crap up.

    And as Kanye and the Kardashian sisters demonstrate on a near-nightly basis, celebrity neither imparts nor confers wisdom and intelligence. Rather, bimbo is as bimbo does.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You can count me out of that (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    Maybe it's because I grew up in LA, but I've never had much enthrallment with public celebrity. And the celebrities today don't have half the class of the old ones. Kanye and his ilk are a bunch of idiots.

    Parent
    "Bimbo," (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 03:33:01 PM EST
    And "himbo," as well, Donald, let us not forget.  ;-)

    Parent
    Point taken, Mme. Zorba. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 06:47:00 PM EST
    Actually, you might be surprised to learn that the term "bimbo" -- which was introduced into the American vernacular sometime during the two closing decades of the 19th century -- applied originally in everyday speech amongst contemporaries as a reference to MEN who were of presumed dubious intellectual deficiencies and / or childish sensibilities, and it retained that derogatory connotation throughout the first half of the 20th century.

    It is derived directly from the Italian word "bimbo," which itself is a corruption of the word "bambino," and refers to a male infant or toddler. (The female infant or toddler is called "bimba.")

    Case in point, screenwriter Robert Towne both studied and remained faithful to the common English of late-1930s America, while crafting his Oscar-winning original screenplay for the 1974 classic film noir "Chinatown." As private investigator Jake Gittes, Jack Nicholson is angered by another customer inside a barber shop when the man openly disparages his line of work in front of others, and he calls that customer a "bimbo" and challenges him to fisticuffs:

    BARNEY (the barber): (To Gittes, lathered up for a shave, smiling and self-satisfied.) "When you get so much publicity, after a while you must get blasé about it. Face it, Jake, you're practically a movie star."

    GITTES: (Chuckling, and staring outside the barbershop at a stalled car with its hood up, as its driver helplessly watches his radiator boiling over.) "Jeez, Barn, look at that."

    BARNEY: "I know, the heat's murder."

    OTHER CUSTOMER: "Fools' names and fools' faces."

    GITTES: (Startled, and turning while smiling, to Other Customer) "What's that, pal?"

    OTHER CUSTOMER: (Holding the newspaper.) "Nothing. You got a hell of a way to make a living."

    GITTES: "Oh? And what do you do to make ends meet?"

    OTHER CUSTOMER: "Mortgage Department, First National Bank."

    GITTES: (Laughing sarcastically.) "Tell me, how many people have you foreclosed on this week?"

    OTHER CUSTOMER: "We don't publish a record in the paper, I can tell you that."

    GITTES: (Irritated.) "Well, neither do I."

    OTHER CUSTOMER: "No. (Slight pause.) You have your press agent do it."

    GITTES: (Now angry, and arising from his chair.) "Who is this bimbo, Barney? He a regular customer?"

    BARNEY: (Trying to restrain Gittes in his chair.) "Take it easy, Jake."

    GITTES: (Breaking free of Barney, to Other Customer) "Look, pal, I make an honest living. People don't come to me unless they're miserable, and I help 'em out of a bad situation. I don't kick them out of their homes like you bums down at the bank."

    BARNEY: "Jake, for Christ's sake."

    GITTES: (Now directly in the face of Other Customer, who's visibly shrinking back in his barber chair) "Maybe you'd like to get out of that chair, and we can step outside and discuss it."

    Quite honestly, I've never really understood how "bimbo" managed to morph in the latter part of the 20th century into a slur that's now exclusive to attractive but slow-witted females, preferably blondes.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Actually, (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    I knew this, Donald.  But since it has now become a term applied to dim-witted females, I think that we can now start using the term "himbo" to apply to dim-witted males.  Changing times and changing vocabulary, my friend.   ;-)
    Namaste.

    Parent
    Well, I think we should change it back, ... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    ... if only because it's a good word, and I seem to know a lot more truly stupid males than I do stereotypical dumb blondes.

    As I see it, we simply cannot allow the Great American Knuckledragger -- for whom that word was originally meant to apply, after all -- to hijack and ruin a perfectly good and all-purpose derogatory insult like that.

    Further, we can derive other useful terms from "bimbo," such as "bimbocity," which can be used to reference the accelerated rate of intracranial degradation found between the two ears of Sen. Ted Cruz, or the accumulation of vacuous rants from America's favorite half-term empty vessel, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

    Aloha. ;-D

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    If you can change it back, by all means, have at it!

    Parent
    "What happened to yer nose, Gittes? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    somebody slam a bedroom window on it?"

    "No, your wife......"

    As Mrs Mulray would say: what an awful, vulgar, man..

    Parent

    Wealthy musicians, actors, athletes, etc. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    Way too many of them have had their @sses kissed for so long, they think that everything that they say or do is golden.  And as a matter of fact, this applies to many of the CEO's of huge, successful companies, as well.
    Most of them do not live "in reality."  Their "reality" has nothing to do with what most people experience.  And because they live in their own worlds, where they have made tons of money and where everyone they encounter kowtows to them, they come to believe that they know all.
    As Mr. Zorba often says, they think that "the sun shines out of their @ss."  And as an old friend of ours also says, they think that "their sh!t doesn't stink." Both crude, but accurate.  

    Parent
    Add on (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    Wealthy musicians, actors, athletes:
    Way too many of them have had their @sses kissed for so long, they think that everything that they say or do is golden.

    Add to that list the super wealthy, CEOs, "job-creators", Wall Street banksters, etc.

    Parent

    And Kanye West has friends like that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    Hahahahaha! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    Yes, Kanye is a jack@ss.

    Parent
    Show biz kids (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 11:53:55 PM EST
     making movies of themselves, you know they don't give a f#^k about anybody else

    Steely Dan

    Parent

    What happens next (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    with Marissa Alexander?

    Does a new trial include a second chance at a plea deal?

    Any idea what was behind the original judges instructions to the jury?