Jacob Sullum isn't saying Dennis Hastert and John Kerry are a couple of lying demagogues. He's just saying he doesn't know.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Sooooooo... tell me again why so many proponents of drug legalization are voting for Kerry?
J | October 1, 2004, 5:34pm | #
Because the only person worse than Kerry regarding drug legalization is...Bush! Or maybe it's the other way around - I forget. Either way, trying to choose one over the other on this issue is an exercise in futility.Unless you're talking about going for a 3rd party candidate over Kang and Kodos. Then you actually have a clear choice, if not a terribly realistic one.
We'll see soon if Republican SCOTUS appointments are consistent and strike down federal prohibitions on pot possession. IF they do as they should, its a big reason to vote Republican, as the best thing libertarians can hope for is more originalists on the court like Thomas.
Andrew Lynch | October 1, 2004, 5:48pm | #
Unless you're talking about going for a 3rd party candidate over Kang and Kodos. Then you actually have a clear choice, if not a terribly realistic one.At precisely this point in time, I'm so grateful that I have that choice.
JSM | October 1, 2004, 7:33pm | #
Sooooooo... tell me again why so many proponents of drug legalization are voting for Kerry?Mainly because of Bush's allowing Asscrack to take out medical marijuana dispensaries and the pressure on federal judges to not allow medical necessity as a defense. Kerry may not be better, but Bush proved to be not the candidate for drug reform. I guess there is no federalism with Compassionate Conservatives.
However, like Clinton, Kerry is probably just playing a little lip service and then demonstrate his centrist edge and crack down on pot smokers, especially if there are accusations that Kerry is soft on drugs.
Queers and pot smokers are political pinatas with nowhere to vote! Maybe its time for a second class citizen party.
Lowdog | October 1, 2004, 7:43pm | #
JSM -Ha! I like it!
But seriously, I keep telling people, now that I've firmly decided that there's no way in hell I can vote for Kerry, and even though I feel it quite important that it's not Bush for 4 more years, that they need to vote for their conscience, not 'the lesser of 2 evils' bullshit. At least I'll be able to go home and not feel that I went against myself. If more people did the same, whether voting Green, Lib, Constitution, whatever, maybe we could get away from this 2 party BS. Of course, my cynical side says most people don't even realise that there are more than 2 parties out there, since the only place they get their political news is from their local broadcasts.
In a way, us libs are a second-class citizens party, since we just want people to be given the freedom to make their own choices. That seems to be an unpopular position these days. People need to be told what to do and how to spend their money...it's for their own good, dammit! :/
joe | October 1, 2004, 8:28pm | #
Um, were you actually going to post a link to the piece by Kerry, so we can decide for ourselves?Or should we just take your word for it?
JSM | October 1, 2004, 8:34pm | #
Kevin,I was quite amused by the Guns and Dope party, but they were overmatched by a pot smoking, gang banging, muscle head turned Republican.
I have always thought that the real saying was, "a conservative is a liberal who partied to hard in their youth." But, it does beg the question if Bush was a liberal in the 70's. But seeing how the twins are, he did have to get conservative on their ass regardless!
joe | October 1, 2004, 8:43pm | #
I mean, putting a link in the story so that it LOOKS like you're linking to the source material, but actually linking to a criticism of the source material, and not actually quoting a single word from the column, but including a quote from a critic about the subject's "thinking," then writing it up in such a way that, at first glance, it LOOKS like a quote from the source material...Those are innocent mistakes, right?
Right?
joe, just believe what you're told. You don't need to read it yourself. Just truuuust Mr. Sullum and all will be well. Don't question; don't fact chect; don't review sources! Geez, it's people like you who make life difficult for the Spin Doctors!
dhex | October 2, 2004, 2:26pm | #
is it possible the piece is not availble online, being 10 years old?seriously, is it that hard to believe that a democrat would be "tough on drugs" and say retarded nonsense, even if he be NOTBUSH savior?
Cletus Nelson | October 2, 2004, 3:30pm | #
If Hastert were smart he would avoid this line of argument entirely. Drug Czar Walters has yet to respond to (or recover from) the brutal rejoinder he received when he tried to invoke this tired shibboleth during his debate with Ethan Nadelman.So WHY does Soros support legalization?
I've quoted Nadleman's response below:
"Soros saw in the American Drug War the same political and intellectual traits that made him hate communism and fascism: political indoctrination substituted for education; bureaucratic apparatchiks disfiguring scientific evidence to serve the state's agenda; massive deployment of police agents and their informants in ever more intrustive ways; politicians mouthing stupid cliches without the slightest hint of embarrassment; official spokesman responding to substantive criticisms of government policy not in kind but instead by impugning the motivations and characters of their critics; and the arrest and incarceration of millions for engaging in personal tastes and vices, as well as capitalist transactions, prohibited by the state for reasons it can no longer recall..."
joe | October 2, 2004, 5:02pm | #
Wouldn't it be funny if Sullum had distorted Kerry's meaning so much, that he decided being called out like this and turning tail would be less embarrassing than actually making the text of the article available?That would be funny strange, and funny ha-ha.
joe | October 2, 2004, 5:07pm | #
Also, in point of fact, Columbian drug barons do support decriminalization - IN COLUMBIA. They don't want their wares legalized in the US, for exactly the reasons we all understand so well. But gaining the freedom to operate without govenrment harrassment in their production/processing areas, while still reaping the profits resulting from prohibition laws in their end markets, is the best of both worlds for them. As a result, they have worked to influence the Columbian legal system to leave them alone, to the extent feasible. For example, they've put all of their money and sway behind blocking extradition.I don't know if this was the thinking behind Kerry's column. I'd sure like to find out.
zorel | October 2, 2004, 5:21pm | #
joe,even if Kerry really said what Sullum claimed he did, you would still be kissing Kerry's ass, right?
Right?
So why make a big deal about not having a link to an old story?
Matt Weiner | October 2, 2004, 5:43pm | #
For kicks I Lexis-Nexised Kerry's article. I forget whether it would be cool with libertarian principles to quote the whole thing, but the first five paragraphs may be relevant; I've put them at the bottom of the post. (Full disclosure: I am not a libertarian; I am a dedicated Kerry ass-kisser.)I think Kerry didn't pull quite the same trick as Hastert. Hastert insinuated that Soros was funded by the drug cartels. Kerry insinuated that De Greiff was influenced by the drug cartels' PR offensive. On the other hand, Kerry does skate kind of close to accusing de Greiff of being one of the corrupt people.
However, there's a big difference here--Kerry wasn't sliming up his political opponents. If Kerry had a beef with De Greiff, it was that De Greiff opposed drug policy. Hastert wouldn't care about Soros' views on drugs if Soros weren't funding Democrats. (Also, Hastert did put a lot of thought into his smear--he was apparently pushing it quite hard off the record.)
Tim C's link is kind of bogus, anyway--you wouldn't know that its hook was 10 years old.
The United States must engage in a major rethinking of its relationship with law enforcement in Colombia. Recent actions and statements by Colombia's chief prosecutor, Gustavo de Greiff, threaten to bring about his nation's capitulation to the Cali cocaine cartel.
De Greiff has declared that we cannot win the drug war except through plea bargains with the kings of cocaine. He has recommended exploring the legalization of cocaine and questioned the very existence of the Cali cartel, the less notorious, but no less sinister sister of Pablo Escobar's Medellin organization. Most disturbing, de Greiff has also held secret negotiations with a senior member of the Cali cartel, about which he neglected to inform U.S. diplomats and law enforcement officials.
The chief prosecutor has argued that he is simply looking for an alternative to the failed war on drugs. But his positions are nearly identical with those of the cartel itself. As such, they demonstrate the degree to which the Cali cartel has already gained influence in the very offices of Colombian law enforcement that are supposed to protect society against the cartel.
For years, Cali has engaged in a public relations offensive in Colombia. It began in 1989, after Luis Carlos Galan, the anti-drug front-runner for the Colombian presidency, was assassinated by the Medellin cartel. Colombian public opinion quickly turned against Medellin and Cali alike. Cali decided that its survival depended on turning around public perception.
Cali began a campaign that included the bribing of Colombian legislators and key journalists. The first test of its success was whether Colombia would continue its extradition treaty with the United States. At the time, the Colombian general public supported sending major drug traffickers to the United States to stand trial.
Cali's public relations offensive converted the extradition issue into a matter of national pride. The Cali line, repeated everywhere in Colombian magazines, TV stations and radio, was that Colombia should prosecute and incarcerate its own offenders, not send them off to the big power to the north. By 1991 the Colombian constitution was rewritten to make extradition unconstitutional. The Cali cartel had won.
joe | October 2, 2004, 9:38pm | #
zorel,As I wrote the last time Reason blogged about Kerry and the drug war, Kerry is wrong on drugs. He is way to the right of where any of us think he should be. He seems to be a kinder, gentler prohibitionist. And he's wrong.
But there was something beyond a disagreement with Kerry's policy position in this post. There was an accusation that he slimed this Columbian prosecutor in a similar manner to Hastert's slime of Soros. But once he made the accusation, Sullum provided no evidence that Kerry actually did what he is accused of. And as we see from MW's post above, Sullum's characterization of Kerry's piece bears little resemblance to reality.
That is why I'm making a big deal of this - because Sullum repeated an inaccurate charge, and either didn't do the basic checking a responsible journalist would do, or knew was passing on sleazy content and decided to deliberately bullshit his readers. In my mind, the way he wrote up a link to an anti-Kerry group's denunciation of Kerry, as if it was a link to Kerry's column itself, makes him look guilty as sin.
Cletus Nelson | October 2, 2004, 11:07pm | #
joe:I think you're being a bit hard on Sullum. He's basically guilty of failing to provide a link to an article that can't be found anywhere on-line.
When this has happend to me, I've either cited another source or quoted extensively. The article referred to a press release from a reform group which came to a similar conclusion regarding Kerry's Colombia opinion.
I have a hard time believing that this qualifies as propagandistic. If Sullum isn't fresh out of journalism school, he's well aware that his alleged rhetorical sleight-of-hand would be immediately exposed as soon as someone located the source document.
Matt has located the source document (thanks dude!) Unfortunately, Nexis-Lexis a for-fee search engine so Sullum COULD NOT link it to the article.
Sullum is engaging in advocacy journalism which often involves citing other groups and organizations which have similar conclusions in order to amplify your argument. While I don't agree with them on every issue, the Drug Policy Foundation is hardly a commie front group.
While you believe that Sullum should hot have compared Kerry's assertions about De Greiff with Hastert's dig at Soros, this is a magazine of political OPINION. Thus, Sullum has every right to interpret Kerry's Colombia views as he sees fit.
One more thing: I've had articles published on-line where an editor has specifically requested that he (or she) be allowed to hyper-link the text. I know many journalistic colleagues who feel more comfortable if an editor does this.
So why then are you so sure Sullum is guilty of the cyber-skullduggery of which you charge?
Why not just DISAGREE with his assessment of the Kerry/Colombia issue and avoid all of the tendentious charges?
Jennifer | October 3, 2004, 9:16am | #
At the defense-industry consulting firm where I work, I recently had to read and edit a series of articles concerning the military force structures of countries like Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. All get a huge chunk of their military budgets from the US, in exchange for which they must pursue our anti-drug interests.This causes HUGE resentment among the populace of those countries. One guy, either in Colombia or Peru (I forget which) wants to relax the laws and allow peasants to resume coca-leaf production, because peasants like to chew a few coca leaves after a day's work. This, of course, made the US go apeshit and threaten to withhold funds.
Why don't these people just legalize and tax their crops, and then they wouldn't need US military money anyway? Hell, they could become a tourist destination for people who'd like to snort a few lines. For these countries to tell the US "We'll destroy our crops in exchange for your money" would be like me saying "If you give me a quarter I'll gladly burn my dollar."
(Now would be the perfect time for South America to declare independence from US meddling, since we're so overstretched in Southwest Asia we can't meddle in our own backyard for a change.)
Mark Borok | October 3, 2004, 10:31am | #
The way to end the drug war is to sway public opinion. The politicians will follow.Jacob Sullum | October 3, 2004, 1:25pm | #
Joe, the reason I did not link to Kerry's 1994 Washington Post op-ed piece is simply that I could not find it online anywhere except Nexis. If you read the whole article, it's clear Kerry is insinuating that the Cali cartel had some sort of inappropriate or improper influence on de Greiff. Since Kerry says bribes were part of the cartel's "public relations offensive," and since this sort of corruption was a familiar aspect of the political scene in Colombia, many readers would have assumed de Greiff was on the cartel's payroll. Kerry does not say so directly, but it's a reasonable interpretation, and if that's not what he meant, he (like Hastert) should have said so.Kerry's motive, I think, was not partisan but ideological. As a committed drug warrior, he found de Greiff's antiprohibitionist views offensive and incomprehensible except as part of a nefarious plot by the Cali cartel. (And no matter how you slice it, this conspiracy theory really does not make sense, since following de Greiff's advice by repealing the drug laws and ending the American anti-drug campaign would not have been in the cartel's interest.) Hastert obviously has a partisan motive--attacking Kerry by attacking one of his big supporters--but he also, like Kerry, is a true believer in the drug war, genuinely angered and dismayed by Soros' support for reform. Kerry and Hastert are alike in their refusal to concede that there is a legitimate case against prohibition.
Jacob Sullum | October 3, 2004, 1:51pm | #
It's bizarre, by the way, to characterize the Drug Policy Foundation as "an anti-Kerry group." Recall that the Soros-funded DPF was one of the "drug groups" Hastert claimed he was referring to in the Fox News Sunday interview. The DPF letter reflects widespread anger within the drug policy reform movement (which is mostly left of center and leans Democratic, if anything) at Kerry's attack on de Greiff.Gadfly | October 3, 2004, 6:01pm | #
I like NarcoNews. It's home-grown, pro-legalization and totally partisan. My kind of folks.Here's their take on one aspect of the de Grieff situation where Roberto "Teddy Bear" Escobar claimed in his book that de Grieff was taking bribes and how Kerry was putting the screws to him: http://www.narconews.com/Issue8/unstuffed.html
Now, Kerry was deeply involved in tracking down the BCIC and their money laundering efforts on behalf of both the drug cartels and terrorist organizations. Our anti-drug legislation has created a situation where there's now not a lot of daylight between the two. Kerry probably had a hard on for anybody that was implicated during the investigation, De Grieff's name came up and Kerry went after him. That's my guess from 10 years and a thousand miles away.
Sorry, Joe. You're a good guy and your argument's valid about the link but Kerry (and everyone else in Congress) is on the wrong side of this one. Never fear, though, it won't hurt him a bit.
kwais | October 3, 2004, 7:01pm | #
Jennifer,weren't you a teacher? Did that change, or am I confusing you with a different blogger?
thoreau | October 3, 2004, 7:06pm | #
Jennifer-As much as I would love to see South America do exactly what you prescribe, I think you mischaracterize the incentives facing them.
If they make noise about legalization they lose a lot of money from the US. Are you sure they could recover that by taxing peasants who chew a few coca leaves? Or even by taxing tourists who snort coke? I suspect that the US would retaliate with embargos on trade and tourism.
Sadly, I see little hope of third world countries that get drug war funding taking the lead on legalization. Maybe Europe will take the lead eventually. Then again, that might only further galvanize US sentiment against legalization, especially if the French have any involvement ;)
joe | October 3, 2004, 10:56pm | #
Sullum: "If you read the whole article, it's clear Kerry is insinuating that the Cali cartel had some sort of inappropriate or improper influence on de Greiff."I hope there's more to back that up than what's in the excerpt quoted above, because that language is pretty thin stuff to compared to Hastert's slander. Trying to build the comments quoted in MW's post as being comparable to Hastert's charge is pretty misleading.
As I've said, Kerry is not a drug reformer. You don't need to convince me that he's on the wrong side of that issue. That's not my objection to this post.
Did you even read Kerry's article before you echoed the Drug Policy Foundation's spin, and built it into an accusation of slander?
Jacob Sullum | October 4, 2004, 10:15am | #
Yes, Joe, I read the article. Did you read mine?If so, it's hard for me to understand how you could accuse me of "not actually quoting a single word from the column," when in fact I quoted two sentences. Or how you could conclude that the "Juan Valdez" quote from Kerry is actually a "quote from a critic." Or how you could describe the Drug Policy Foundation as "an anti-Kerry group."
In these and other mistaken charges (such as when you accused me of saying that Kerry had taken exactly the same position on 527s as Bush), I see a pattern of flying off the handle based on careless reading. If you disagree with my interpretation of Kerry's op-ed piece, that's fine. But given your own track record, you should be a little more careful about accusing others of sloppiness.
Jennifer | October 4, 2004, 12:42pm | #
Kwais-I was a teacher, and then ran screaming back into the arms of the private sector.
Thoreau-
Suppose I give you a million dollars a year but you are forbidden to spend it on anything you want; instead, you have to spend it all on grass seed and fertilizer (and then spend your own time dumping said seed and fertilizer on your lawn). If, one day, you decide that you really don't feel like spending the majority of your time on lawn maintenance and so tell me to keep my million-dollar subsidy, your household budget has decreased by a million bucks a year. But have you really lost anything?
thoreau | October 4, 2004, 1:00pm | #
Jennifer-True, but many governments in the Andes are facing domestic insurgencies from leftist guerrilla armies. The military aid that we give them to fight drug lords is also useful against the insurgents.
joe | October 4, 2004, 1:04pm | #
You know what would blow me out of the water? If Sullum posted a link to Kerry's article, and it totally proved his thesis. Boy, would I look like an ass! Would it be possible to link to the piece, so that everyone could read it and see how fair and responsible Jacob's comparison to Haster's charge is? Please?Sorry about missing the two sentences from the article. They look like they could be spun either way - as either a wrongheaded statement of policy and belief about the drug war, or as a slander comparable to Hastert's sliming of Soros. There have been plenty of Columbian politicians who have worked to take the legal heat off the drug cartels in that country because they were on the the drug traffickers' payroll, so it is entirely possible that Kerry could be assuming corruption where there is an honest disagreement on policy. The section Mark Weiner quotes doesn't seem to support Sullum's accusation of slander. I sure wish we had the context we need to judge for ourselves.
'Or how you could conclude that the "Juan Valdez" quote from Kerry is actually a "quote from a critic."' A critic - one who criticizes. Mr. Valdez was criticizing Kerry. For the gift certificate, the washer/dryer, and the trip to Barbados, what does that make him?
But I did express myself poorly on with the term "anti-Kerry group." I did not mean to imply that they were a group that exists for the purposing of opposing John Kerry, like SBVT. They are a longstanding issues advocacy group, on I agree with, who opposed John Kerry on this issue. My use of the phrase "anti-Kerry group" left the wrong impression. That was sloppy.
BTW, I don't actually think sloppiness is the problem with the Reason article.
joe | October 4, 2004, 1:07pm | #
Sorry, not "Mr. Valdez was criticizing Kerry.""The source of the quote about Juan Valdez..."
I was going to give the name of the Phoenix writer, saw it wasn't provided, and muffed the edit.
Preview is your friend.
jc | October 4, 2004, 1:18pm | #
Jennifer,Your million-bucks hypothetical seems interesting, but don't you think the million bucks all gets spent on other lawn maintenance activities like research trips to find the best grass seed to buy, buying a new tractor every week (and selling the old one, pocketing the proceeds), etc.? Do you think he'd honestly tell you to keep your subsidy when the lawn maintenance is such a boon to his lifestyle?
Before he tells you he's bored with lawn maintenance, he'll probably tell you that a million bucks doesn't even come close to covering his lawn maintenance expenses. Of course, YOU might actually want to see just what the million bucks is going toward and adjust your subsidy accordingly, but if you get paid based on how much largesse you distribute, you probably won't have any incentive to think the million bucks might be wasted.
Jennifer | October 4, 2004, 4:29pm | #
JC-Granted, my lawn-maintenance example has a few flaws. For example, Thoreau isn't facing revolutionaries who are furious because his lawn-maintenance activities are destroying their farmland and starving their families.
There's something else, too, which didn't occur to me until I read those articles I had to edit--even if Thoreau likes all the money I give him, he probably doesn't like me showing up at his house all the time, lecturing him on the proper use of my money, acting like a snob around his wife and basically oozing the attitude "You are a charity case. You owe me big time. I'm smarter than you."
Finally, replace "a million dollars a year" with "a hundred dollars a year." A million bucks might be enough to make Thoreau sell out his dignity. But a hundred? Feh. He can get that much money somewhere else, and not infuriate his peasantry in the process.
jc | October 4, 2004, 5:24pm | #
he probably doesn't like me showing up at his house all the time, lecturing him on the proper use of my money, acting like a snob around his wife and basically oozing the attitude "You are a charity case. You owe me big time. I'm smarter than you."I don't think your example was flawed at all, I just think it's naiive to think most people have a degree of integrity such as yours. Lots of people will kiss ass for money, I'm sure you know plenty of public school teachers who take loads of humiliation in order to continue drawing a paycheck. It's like burning a quarter to get a dollar.
The US gives out aid like Halloween candy. Accounting for proper and legitimate use of funds almost never happens. Occasionally there's a token crackdown, like say against the Taliban, but mostly we prefer to toss out the money and pat ourselves on the back, congratulating ourselves on our generous philanthropy.
Sounds like you went from the frying pan (public schools) and into the fire (military-industrial). I'm sure you are right that there is huge resentment, just like there is huge resentment from parents about the shitty job of educating that goes on in public schools. The response is the same every time: throw even more money around. Actual results and genuine accounting don't mean squat to the people passing out the dough nor to the people who have their hands out, and they always seem to find each other.
Why don't these people just legalize and tax their crops, and then they wouldn't need US military money anyway? For these countries to tell the US "We'll destroy our crops in exchange for your money" would be like me saying "If you give me a quarter I'll gladly burn my dollar."
They take the US money AND tax the local growers. More money in it that way. If they actually eradicated the problem, the US money would dry up. Who's gonna voluntarily take a pay cut? The real deal is "give me a dollar and I'll burn my quarter" and the bureaucracy is satisfied when we see that they've burned two cents. This is the same as the history of domestic agricultural subsidies.