Barry & Bill

TODAY’S TOPIC is two guys who are totally different.

Barry Hussein Obama of the Oval Office and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. In most areas, I oppose the former and support the latter. But there are exceptions, which is why I am not a textbook conservative.

barryLet’s look first at Cuba. Barry is tearing down the wall between America and Cuba. Yes, Barry blinked first, and that’s a good thing because the shunning of Cuba has gone on far too long.

It can be argued that the Castro regime would have collapsed by now were it not for the U.S. embargo, which endured so long due to the Cuban expats in Florida, a state with lots of heft in the Electoral College.

True, Barry got little from the Castros in return for blinking, but no matter. Someone had to blink. I salute Barry for that. As have almost all the former dictatorships in Latin America, Cuba will liberalize, but in a positive way.

First, the Castro boys have to die, and that won’t be a long time coming.

Barry just did another good thing. He is freeing 46 imprisoned felons, most incarcerated for drug crimes, some for life, because they were nonviolent offenders. Most, I’m assuming, are black, which is why, of course, Barry is taking the action. It’s a race thing for him. Be assured.

The War on Drugs, started in the Nixon Administration, is a total failure, creating far more problems than it solves, and that’s assuming it solves any problems whatsoever, which I doubt. Any 12-year-old who wants drugs can get them easily today on the streets of America.

Outlawing anything that people really want  will invariably create a crime wave and violence. It happened during the Prohibition of the 1920s — the War on Booze, a perfect analogy to the War on Drugs.

You cannot outlaw sex, chocolate, cigarettes, booze or drugs, and only a nation with a Puritanical streak would even attempt it. It is dumb.

Try to restrict it to adults, tax it brutally, whatever, but if you attempt to eliminate it, you will come to utter grief.

billSo hurrah to Barry for liberating some drug dealers, especially those with life sentences. O’Reilly thinks this is a bad idea.

He supports the War on Drugs. He cites reasons that could equally apply to another War on Booze. There is not a single thing you can say against drug addicts that you can not equally state against alcoholics.

Wrecked families, careers, violence, crime, rest equally in the grip of alcoholism as they do in the embrace of drug addiction. Both are grave problems, but most people drink responsibly and — and you may not believe this — many, probably most, people use drugs responsibly.

So Barry has freed some non-violent drug dealers who should not have been imprisoned in the first place, certainly not for life, and he’s cracked the wall between the United States and Communist Cuba, proving he’s not a complete, brain-dead doofus.

And I don’t know how O’Reilly feels about the opening to Cuba.

He is almost certainly against it. An error.

34 thoughts on “Barry & Bill

  1. Never thought I’d see you write “hurrah for Barry”. And I have to agree with you on this one. I can’t wait to hear what you think of Trump.


    1. Angeline: I think Trump is voicing what millions of Americans think, which is why he has soared in polls. He could have done it a bit more elegantly, however. It’s being interpreted down here that he was simply cursing Mexicans in general. He might have made it more clear that it was illegals he’s talking about.

      He is now severely persona non grata in Mexico.


  2. Agree and I’ll add one more – under his regime recent revamping to Bush’s No Child Left Behind crap have been made giving some of the power and decision-making on how best to educate our children back to the states/local level where it belongs. We now know first-hand it doesn’t work so well when the Federal Gov’t. has the control. While remaining cautiously optimistic, I am patting myself on the back for saying something positive about our president.


  3. Felipe: You fail to mention the huge number of innocent people killed or seriously injured each year by drunk and/or stoned drivers.

    Once again you play a couple of your PC cards. Coming out of the closet is popular these days, so why not just come on out and admit you are a a guy with Political Correctness coursing thru his veins?


    1. Jeff: You are a funny fellow. I am the least PC guy on the face of the earth.

      But more to the point, I do not get your point. Sure, lots of folks are killed or injured by drunk drivers. How many are killed by stoned drivers, I do not know. Far less, I would bet. But that’s not the point. If someone stoned or drunk does something like that, they should be arrested and prosecuted for drunk (or stoned) driving. If a drunk or stoned person robs a bank, they should be prosecuted for bank robbery. If a drunk or stoned person shoots someone, they should be prosecuted for shooting someone. Etc., etc. People should be prosecuted for crimes they commit while drunk or stoned, not for being drunk or stoned.

      Drugs should be handled precisely as booze is handled. The Jack Daniels company is not prosecuted for selling booze. And drug manufacturers should not be either. Possessing a bottle of Boodles Gin will not get you hard time, and neither should possessing a tab of LSD or a joint. Getting snookered on highballs in your house is your own business, and getting high in your own house should be looked at the same way.

      If you abuse drugs and it affects your family or your job, it should be viewed exactly the same way that alcoholics are viewed. There are social programs for alcoholics, rehab, etc., and it should be the same for people who handle drugs badly.

      Most people who drink are not drunks. I do not know how many people who use drugs have problems with it. Many do not, probably most. If it were not illegal, we likely would have better statistics. But many people use drugs responsibly. Believe it. I was one, and I knew others. There is a vast underground.

      Alcohol and drugs should be on the same legal level.

      Outlawing drugs has created an incredible social problem. It is stupid and
      counterproductive. It does not work, and will never work.


      1. OK….let me be more specific. Your recent posts on the Rebel flag, homosexual marriage and revoking of drug laws follow the liberal crowd and are quite politically correct. (look in their handbook…it’s there. lol)

        Obama’s release of nonviolent drug dealers is a PC joke as well. My Narc Cop friends tell me that to get them (dealers) off of the street, it is so much easier to get a conviction on possession then for violent crimes. However, violence is a way of life in the drug business and the dealers are heavily involved. Just like the cartels here in Mexico, most of the violence is aimed at other people in the drug business but it’s still a major part of that livelihood. Plus, as you mention…..Obama is doing it because they are black…….not because they are nonviolent. His cycle of “the wrong decision at the wrong time” continues now at warp speed as a lame duck.

        Regarding legalization of drugs….if made legal, it stands to reason that drugs would be more available with more people using them. This would put more people behind the wheel of a vehicle who are high….putting other drivers at risk (possibly heading for me and my family). Your argument that most drug users are responsible, falls apart when you point out there are no stats to back it up and that you “suspect” that to be true.

        As for the Cuba situation…… I have no idea if it is a good idea. It seems like there are millions of Cubans in this country that both oppose and support the embargo, so who knows. From my perspective, it gave Obama another opportunity to make a decision that would increase his popularity among those Americans with Cuban heritage.

        My thought is this: If you make drugs more readily available, then more people will use them and be behind the wheel of an automobile.


        1. Jeff: I figured your PC observation had to do with the fact that drug legalization is traditionally a stance of the left, and the left is the primary pusher of political correctness, so if one favors drug legalization one is PC. It’s sort of like the enemy of my friend is my enemy, eh?

          Yeah, if drugs were legalized, I’m sure they would be somewhat more available than now. However, anyone with a lick of sense and an iota of desire can get drugs quite easily today after 40 years of illegality. And if drugs were legalized the incredible crime wave, bloodshed and social disruption would vanish. It’s an excellent trade-off.

          I see you have returned to the car wreck, etc., scenarios. Again, if someone commits a crime while stoned (just like when drunk) prosecution is in order for the crime (manslaughter, whatever), not for being stoned.

          As for what I am sure is a large percentage of responsible drug users (if only there were no drug war, we would know more precisely), it’s important to make a distinction between drugs like heroin and crack and entheogens like psilocybin and LSD and products like ecstasy. That entheogens are illegal is absurd. Heroin, crack, etc., present more challenging problems but, yet again, it should all be handled as alcohol is handled.


        2. Jeff: I overlooked your reference to gay marriage. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support it. I decidedly do not, nor do I support the right of gay couples to adopt children, which I think is a dreadful idea. Children should not be thrown into social experiments. I do support legal unions for gays, which is not all that different. But I think it’s important to keep the marriage word out of it altogether. Call me old-fashioned.

          You also use death counts as a reason drugs should remain illegal. If death counts are a reason to outlaw something, I see that in just 2013 alone, almost 33,000 people were killed in traffic accidents. So cars should be outlawed. Clearly, they are killers.

          By the way, I do not remember that all that many folks died from drugs in the 1960s and 1970s. Surely, some did, including famous folks like Jimi Hendrix and Janice Joplin. But, again, that something is capable of killing should not mean it should be made illegal for everyone. Conservatives believe government intervention in our lives should be kept to a minimum.


  4. I am rather agnostic about the Cuba recognition. But my concerns are all technical. I look forward to one day returning to Havana to work with the Salvation Army — and that is good. As for the war on drugs, it is like almost every government program that tries to win popular support by naming its venture as “War on — .” Inevitably, a lot of tax money is spent on programs that leave the nation in tears. Legalizing drugs is not a panacea. But it is a method to stop wasting money while thousands of people die throughout the world in the pursuit of a chimera. The conservative response to government programs that do not work is to stop funding them.


    1. Señor Cotton: Legalizing drugs is a panacea, so we’ll have to disagree on that. When the booze Prohibition of the 1920s was repealed the entire bootlegging, machine-gunning, Speakeasy era vanished almost overnight. The same would happen by ending the War on Drugs.


  5. Good grief man! Have you forgotten the drug epidemics of the 1960s and 1970s? Drugs were used responsibly by some, but the graveyards are full of folks that didn’t. How many friends did you lose in that era?

    If you think legalization of drugs will improve things, you are wrong. The cartels are not about to give up that revenue stream. No, like all businessmen, they will simply adjust their product line and double down. Who knows what they put on the market?

    On the question of Mr. Trump, well he came to town and drew quite a crowd. The tickets were free, but they were being scalped at $28. That and the fact that It was about 110 degrees that day deterred me. So I didn’t go to hear him. The hall was full, and about four thousand people were turned away.

    His message is resonating with a lot of people. He is is voicing the opinions of a large segment of our population. The government no longer can ignore the immigration problem. The people will speak in the voting booth.

    Mr. Sanders also came to town. He had quite a turnout, but nobody scalped the tickets.

    I wonder just how many will show for Ms. Hillary?


    1. Señor Gill: There were a lot of stoned folks in those times, true. But the prisons were significantly less jammed, at least till the War on Drugs got going. And there was no endless cartel bloodshed. How many friends did I lose in that time? Not a one. I really was not part of that stuff.

      So you think the cartels would just turn to other products? Like what? Carrots, Chevrolets, lawnmowers, etc.? As I responded to Steve Cotton in another comment, when the Volstead Act that caused the first Prohibition was reversed, the crime wave associated with it vanished almost overnight. It is the illegality that drives the prices into the stratosphere. When the illegality does not exist, the price plummets and the profits too. Sure, lots of those guys will continue to be criminals, but they’ll be forced into small-time crime, a totally different ball of wax that does not undermine civil society.

      Since anybody with an IQ of 75 can easily buy drugs today, clearly the War on Drugs is meaningless as far as reducing the availability of drugs. It just creates the current mess. End it. It’s a classic no-brainer.

      Yep, Trump is saying what lots of people are thinking, including me.


      1. When Prohibition ended, the Mafia turned to drugs. What will the cartels turn to when drugs are legal? It will have to be something with a very high profit margin, and that isn’t carrots and Chevrolets.


        1. Señor Gill: Perhaps the Mob turned to drugs after the end of Prohibition I. I imagine some of them did, among other things, but it was not a big deal as was liquor. The big deal with drugs began with today’s War on Drugs begun during the Nixon Administration.


          1. The war on drugs was a result of so many adventurous, young kids dying. Like the war on poverty, it didn’t work.
            I lost as many friends from overdoses as I lost in the Viet Nam war.
            Government tries, but they make things worse.


  6. Wow … for the first time in a long time I had to double-check to make sure I was reading The Unseen Moon! Kudos to you, amigo, for giving credit where credit is due. I think your buddy Barry has finally grown some cojones and is doing many of the things that he should have done early on. In spite of all the haters, I think history will be kind to him.

    As for the Donald, the fact that his message, however poorly delivered, resonates with so much of the American electorate is very scary to me.

    I agree with you completely on legalizing drugs. It would solve many problems both here in Mexico and NOB.

    No comment on Mr. O’Reilly. I just consider the source and ignore him. ¡Qué tengas un buen dia!


    1. Charles: As I said elsewhere, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Barry is not 100 percent broken.

      Now stop it right now with this “haters” business. Just because you think someone is dead wrong, does not make you a hater. Yeah, yeah, everyone who opposes Barry is a racist. Yawn.

      As for Trump, he reflects the attitude of so many Americans, the majority, that borders matter. Nothing scary about that. They do matter.

      Legalizing drugs is, again, a no-brainer.


    2. The fact that Obama was reelected to a second term verifies that the electorate is clueless and is more concerned with Bruce Jenner and his publicity machine. Trump is gaining so much support because the electorate on the other side can relate with him like all the Obama hope for change people did for Obama.
      God help the USA.


        1. But we were going to get free health care that someone else was going to pay for. I didn’t even get an Obama phone. And yet, people voted again for him.


            1. The only thing free is a hard time and the common cold. Call me as soon as you get your Obama phone.


          1. Meanwhile, both my working brothers-in-law in Northern California have lost their company health insurance and their new insurance rates went up 500 dollars a month more than they were paying before. The result is now they no longer have any insurance.

            But somewhere in the country people are being paid not to work.


            1. Tancho: I am sure you have been misinformed by Tea Party racist fanatics. Everyone knows that ObamaCare has brought free medical insurance to everybody in the United States.


  7. Sadly, the War on Drugs will never be curtailed simply because there are too many people (bad corporations, greedy politicians, greedy investment bankers, Wall Street) making way too many gazillions of dollars in the manufacture of associated items like weapons, armored vehicles, guns, riot gear, tasers, prisons, run by the government and privately contracted for, and the legal system, lawyers, judges, etc.

    The money sucked out of the economy is staggering, even though it doesn’t solve one little bit of the real issue. You and I will not see an end to this in our lifetime, just another control Big Brother has gotten his fingers into.


  8. I am as cynical as Tancho, but there does appear to be an awakening to the folly of the War on Drugs.


Comments are closed.