Crime clearly pays

It has to do with "values" and perceptions. What is it that makes a person believe that crime can be made to pay? What is "crime", and is meant by "pay" in the sense of reward?

A few words on Law. Crimes are social taboos adopted by groups for a number of reasons. Most important of all reasons is group stability and survival. Laws are intended to clearly define behavior that the group believes will make life unpredictable, chaotic, and dangerous. The source of laws isn't always entirely rational. Groups are governed by codes of behavior exist because they are traditional (cultural) and/or are believed to be the Will of the group's gods. Defy the gods and one risks bringing divine retribution not only upon themselves, but on the whole group as well. Laws are sometimes brought into existence on a wave of hysteria. They may be a reaction to a great catastrophe, an imminent threat, or after a major victory, but are always driven by emotion. Even when laws aren't enacted on a rational basis, they will often in future times be rationalized and perpetuated.

You might have noted that I've avoided defining laws as "good", or "bad". Laws are fundamentally intended to serve a function, and they will be regarded as "good" or "bad" depending on how successful they are perceived to be in fulfilling that function. If a law results in the extinction of the group, it has demonstrably failed and was a "bad" law. If the law is flouted by a large number of the group, then it becomes almost a dead letter. This is what happened with Prohibition. Interest groups managed to convince enough people that alcohol was dangerous to the social welfare, and Prohibition became the law. Huge numbers of Americans violated the Volstead Act, and it became very difficult to enforce. Many who previously took an occasional drink, drank even more in defiance of the law. Criminal enterprise was made stronger as it supplied the demand. Unregulated alcohol was sometimes poison, and often was of such poor quality as to be almost undrinkable. Criminal competition surrounding bootlegging was keen and alcohol-violence soared. Prohibition made criminals of too many people; it was a "bad" law and had to be repealed in less than 20 years. That is an extreme example. Blue Laws prohibiting certain behavior, especially on the Sabbath, have remained on the books since Colonial times. When was the last time anyone spent the day in the "stocks" for giving a cocktail party on Sunday afternoon?

When a law is perceived to have fulfilled its function and most people adhere to it, it is a "good" law. Most people recognize the value of the traffic laws, and so our streets remain reasonably safe. Homicide is so deeply ingrained in our traditions, culture and law, that it is a relative rarity. Laws that provide harsh penalties for treason illustrate how important society guards its physical security, and when a spy is given a very light sentence the public is outraged … even if there are good, rational reasons for not seeking the maximum sentence allowed by law. Those laws that are most ancient and prominent in law are generally those that society places the highest value on, and so are the most difficult to alter. Though our Constitution specifically permits suspension of Habeas Corpus, and that there is precedent for it (Lincoln during the Civil War), it would be political suicide to even suggest that it might be appropriately applied to prisoners taken in the current "war on terrorism".

What is a reward? In its simplest and most obvious sense, "reward" is consequence. If one does "A" then "B" follows. The expected consequence, or reward, may not always come to pass, but one acts on the assumption that a given behavior will have a specific result. Dad promises Junior that if he takes out the trash he can have the family car Saturday for a date. Junior takes out the trash and calls up Betty to arrange an outing to the local Lover's Lane. Will Junior reap his expected reward? Not if Betty's Dad has anything to do with it. Babbitt lives a life of great propriety, and when he is old expects to have his virtue, thrift and initiative "pay off". His twin brother Bob decides that robbing banks can be made to "pay", and for six months Bob is rolling in the green. Bob then spends forty years in prison for multiple counts of robbery, and two counts of felony murder for the woman and her baby killed by his get-away driver when fleeing from his last "job".

A reward often isn't money, or any other tangible thing. How does one compare rewards? Which is better, a million dollars, a flashy car and a gorgeous call-girl, or; a small pension supplemented by social security and a tabletop filled with yellowing photos of children graduating from college, grandchildren smiling at Gramp's tall tales, and a good friend to play chess with? Is "Life fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse" the sort of motto that you would wish for your favorite child?

Law and consequences. A person adopts a set of values (sometimes rationally, but more frequently by a series of small steps always taken toward whatever is "easiest"), and their thoughts, words and actions then follow. If the person is selfish and impulsive, the rewards they seek will be far different than if they are responsible, patient and look to the future. Criminals tend to place themselves at the center of the universe; they have difficulty in relating to the effect that their actions will have on others. "Suckers work hard for a few bucks. I may not have finished high school, but I'm smart. I can sell heroin and make several thousand free and clear each day. Why should I care if thousands of lives are ruined and a few junkies die of the dope I sell the suckers?" A armed holdup man values a fast score more than he does anyone's life, including his own. Criminals don't save for the future, because they know they have no future. Whatever money they get, by whatever means is thrown to the wind. They are gamblers, addicts of one sort or another, and ultimately the "rewards' of their crimes mean nothing even to themselves, because in the end they value nothing.

What reward do we seek? Which laws should we obey, and which should we beak even if the pay-off is our own death? What should we value more, our own life or the lives of those around us and the generations to follow? Is it better to have instant gratification, or the satisfation of knowing that we've behaved responsibly with courage and honor? Who is responsible for our inner state of harmony, ourselves or the world we find ourselves in? What do we value?

Re: Crime clearly pays


For those who do not feel guilt for their actions, crime can be made to pay.

dislcaimer: the next statement is true only if your not a law enforcer
and only may be true anyway
i claim the 5th amendment!!

when i was young i used to sell drugs mostly pot but the odd bit of other stuff too...and grow pot as well
i made hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds doing this
sure i got busted a few times but i never went to jail cos i was clever, i got the odd fine but that was it...everyone i know was screaming for me to sell them drugs....
so i did....
thanks to this i got to retire when i was thirty and ill probably never have to work again.....
now i own my own massive house,which i rent out... ive got loads of cash stashed around the world, i dont have to work like the rest of society and i get to travel the world and loads of people love and respect me and ive a lot of girlfriends too...

did i do wrong to give people what they wanted ??
cos thats all i did... and it worked...
personally everyone i talk to says im not a criminal at all for what i did
its just the stupidity of the law that makes drugs illegal

ive never commited a violent crime or been into violence and im not into guns either

in my opinion the governments are the biggest criminals there are
if they were good guys they wouldnt sell guns and let people starve and hey the english government is responsible for the biggest opium trade ever and its well know the CIA deal drugs to fund their covert operations...

but im just a subversive evil person dont listen to me it may make you think

Ah yes, let's start with the Opium Wars: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

hehe thats far out
truly cool

i love the quote



c'mon england!!! obviously we were not content just to go around the world taking others countries and killing them in the name of 'civilising them' and 'christianity'......god damned savages..

were gonna sell you drugs and you are going to take our drugs wether you like it or not....

hmm dont you just love the english..i know i do

still i suppose there were no pharmaceuticals companies in them days...... somebody had to do the job

dude i task you to find info on the secret cia drugs ops !
your not american so they wont wire tap you, follow you around, put you on the lefties list, or throw ya in jail for doing it...

hmm you know im no good for this sort of thing
we need someone from a morally superior high ground to find this thread... but it seems no one else is taking the bait

I'll dig up some stuff on the CIA later, but for now, I must think about my battle plan for the Thai noodles, and if I need to go shopping again. Oh, by the way Col Man, I need some money.

Getting back to the philosophy aspect here, Asherman makes very relevent points about how it is all pretty much in the eye of the beholder, especially regarding what constitutes 'crime' and what defines 'law'. I also understand what he is saying about living our lives by what we value. If only the individual in general could define themselves by loftier goals than crime, which does exist both in the legitimate and illegitimate worlds.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in thinking that American culture in particular glorifies crime, makes heroes out of bandits, and has been doing so for years. The media is the message, as a fellow Canadian once said. Couple that with urban decay, the ghettoization of minorities, and the attempt to quash free speech, especially now, and what are we to expect? We surely can't hope for an underfunded school system with metal detectors at the entrance to encourage young people to find their inner urge to act responsibly, can we?

"...American culture in particular glorifies crime, makes heroes out of bandits, and has been doing so for years. The media is the message, as a fellow Canadian once said. Couple that with urban decay, the ghettoization of minorities, and the attempt to quash free speech, especially now, and what are we to expect? We surely can't hope for an underfunded school system with metal detectors at the entrance to encourage young people to find their inner urge to act responsibly, can we?"

It isn't that Americans "glorify crime", its just that one of our primary products/exports is theatrical film/television. Audiences everywhere want drama, action, and strong interesting characters. Would it be fair to typify that Shakespear's England on the basis of Titus Andronicus, Macbeth, Hamlet, etc? what does the Grande Gurguile (sp) Theater of France and the Marquis De Sade say about French perversions? Strong story telling has to put characters at some risk, and then at a climatic moment resolve the problem. Crime stories, action dramas, and special effects all are good boxoffice both in the United States and everywhere else in the world where they are available.

American culture isn't nearly so violent as many would believe. The homicide and violent crime rates in some of our urban areas are large, but given the size and complexity of this country constitute hardly a drop in the bucket. Most Americans are never the victims of a violent crime, nor ever commit more than minor infractions of the laws. We do tend to be individualistic and materialistic. People aren't particularly restrained in expressing their individualism, and acquisition of material success is a high priority for many. Social taboos aren't nearly so universal, nor strongly held in the United States as in many other countries, and that must make us seem not to have much social consciousness. Americans also tend to decide for themselves which laws are important and which can, perhaps even should, be broken as a matter of course. We tend to cheat on tax forms, and drive a bit over the speed limit, but we are outraged by drunken drivers and corporate white collar criminals. Most Americans have never held, much less fired, a firearm, but we fiercely defend our right to own weapons.

You cite "urban decay, ghettoization of minorities, and quashing freedom of speech" as particular problems. Well, in the United States people value home ownership very highly for a host of reasons. Our ideal house is, and has long been, a suburban tract with green lawns where children can play safely, and parents can imagine themselves Lord of the Manor. These sort of houses aren't in dense urban areas, but at ever increasing distance from city centers. Our transportation networks and the automobile makes it possible for many Americans to commute up to a hundred miles every day. Our economy has been shifting for years from "heavy industry" requirinig a large pool of unskilled, or semiskilled labor. Now computer literacy and the internet makes it possible for a worker to be located anywhere. As the population has spread out, they've carried with them many parts of the economy. The city center is no longer necessarily the place where most people even work. As the urban centers become less important, business and money migrate away. As urban property becomes less desirable, values fall, and, unless gentrification occurs, housing deteriorates into slums.

As people and jobs leave the centers of our older cities, those centers have tended to become dominated by those lacking the education/skill or ambition to relocate out to the suburbs. Crime inside those pockets of poverty tends to be higher than elsewhere. Many of those who remain in the urban areas are minorities, but by no means all. The term "ghetto" means a section where members of a specific group MUST live. The term in the United States is meaningless, except as word to excite the emotions. There are no true ghettos in the United States, period.

I see no evidence that anyone here is trying to "quash free speech". There are no media censors in film, radio, television, or in the print media. Publishers can print and distribute anything they want. Our airwaves are filled with speech and opinion that are extremely offensive to some, perhaps many, but it is virtually unregulated. Popular ideas about what can and can not be said in the electronic media tends to make racist and sexually explicit "speech" a rarity, but there are still those who push the boundaries of good taste every day of the week. No one goes to jail, or is subjected to governmental suppression for expressing themselves in this country. We have Nazi's and Communists; Democrats and Republicans, all clamoring along with countless other interest groups for public attention, and no one has the slightest justified fear of being silenced. I seriously doubt that anyone could silence Americans, for we are very vocal about our opinions.

For all the faults of the American educational system, it is not fair to say that it is responsible for "stifling" individualism and discouraging personal growth. Schools are governed by local school-boards, and some are very good, while others are terrible. Some school districts have a lot of money to spend on students, and others can barely keep their halls lighted. In addition to the public schools, this country has a vast number of private schools. Some schools reflect the parental desire that their children not be taught anything that might conflict with their religious convictions. Some are intended to produce a new generation of snobs. Some struggle to interest children in learning just to read and write before they drop out of school. Teachers are not terribly well paid, and so the best and brightest seldom make careers in the teaching profession. People who have moved far from the city thinking that they've escaped crime and drugs are frightened when violence happens, and so security in and around our schools has gotten much more serious.

The bottom line isn't the facility, or whether it has metal detectors at the gates, or whether the class sizes are large or small, but whether the students want to learn what is offered. It helps to have a good, or great teacher, but if the student doesn't value education the whole exercise is of little value. The love of learning is something that starts and is most nourished in the heart of the family. If the parents have college degrees and continue their education, the children will probably also go to university and love learning all their lives. Asian and Jewish families prize and value education, and their children generally do well no matter what school they attend.

America works pretty well by any standard you might wish to apply. Our faults are the faults of all humankind. We tend to be short-sighted, and have little real interest in anything very far outside our daily existence. We crave peace and predictability, but love being entertained by exciting thrillers that keep us on the edge of our seats guessing about outcomes. We tend to be impatient, and can't quite understand why the rest of the world seems to so misunderstand us. We like to pleasant dreams, and resist being shaken into wakefulness. Awaken the American giant, smash it in the nose, at your own mortal risk.

To answer right away the key question, sure, crime pays.
We need to energize to make that if not obsolete, less strong, and I don't mean by gathering warlike forces, exactly. Just make the crime business be less attractive, how, well, if I knew I'd be rich. But if people have creative/productive lives, they aren't usually driven to rule the world in some syndicated way. So, solve the base problem of need for greed. Not by co-opting, but by having possible things to do at hand for people, young and older, and not all hackneyed ideas. I am not against financial reward, unless it scours others, but it ain't all the reward there is. Fewer and fewer people are getting tiny businesses going, as far as I can see, and this cuts down some personal engagement.

I agree with much of what Asherman has to say (the earth upchucks in surprise) with some quibbles after an incomplete review. Some crime is embedding in suburbs and countryside and some central cities are coming back. In the meantime, I read that we have a distressed heartland, as whole towns disappear from life.

While there aren't true ghettos in the US, in the historic sense of the term, there are figurative ones, and some of the filaments enwrapping people are getting tighter. I had such hopes once for people enriching each other across borders of the mind and various railroad tracks or housing levels, and am somewhat dismayed now that yes, the poor get poorer.

I tend to be for government support of ... support, but support has many facets.

There is an article in our small town's newspaper's this week that I found really interesting, in that it has two developers, who, while having very different takes on things political, agree on many points about energizing a lagging economy here. Back with a link in a minute.

Anyone who knows me at all understands that I am all for saving the environment, sometimes rather specifically, but these guys have a point re streamlining the hoops to jump, one way or another.

So there is that article, and oddly, juxtaposed to it, is another from our neighboring more upscale town, decrying the statue of McKinley in the plaza, a symbol of corporate personhood. (I agree, more or less, about his sins.) Hardly anyone is madder at Enron than I, but I don't think corporations or business itself are by definition bad. As one of the developers in the other article mentions, one becomes incorporated in part as a survival mechanism.

All this interests me a lot, as I stopped working myself in certain kinds of development once I went into a landscape practice on my own a couple of decades ago. I want cities to be livable and want to save the irreplaceable zones of the land. Answer, build up. Result, infrastructure trouble, or at least more of it.

This post of mine seems to roam from crime paying, but I am trying to save the baby with the bathwater here. We need good business. We need more craft, more invention, more of cultural backing for good craftsmanship as something worthwhile to do, and not all within the zone of the computer world as such. We need people to appreciate and buy craft and technical invention of many sorts, and they won't if they haven't learned discernment. We need people not to be pegs in a wooden puzzle, but to participate in city life and the economy of it.

To meander on -

part of my previous riff is to engage here on what many people think of as the big monster criminality across the land - gang crime, which is spreading and highly connected to the world drug scene. Kind of hard to argue with for me, who lived for years in gang territory (sholine crips and v13) adjacent. But then again, it bespeaks the reality for families or children involved in it, how it is. I don't think it paid for those there who got into it, it was more a combo of desperation and opportunity, road to nowhere, though I am not sure, maybe someone moved up in the chain. In the main blocks of gang territory, I think it is hard to just walk down the street as a, say, nine year old, unaffiliated.

Lots of efforts over the decades seem to be organized to intervene with the children, and still it goes on, as we all mill in our groups.



Ah, I see I have loused up, I didn't respond re crime at the highest levels. But really, it is all the same, we are not finally all so different. Those who get into it are not engaged in other productive ways in their own minds, own community, for various reasons.

bm

Tricky, since drugs' value is upped in part from illegality, which whole bunches of us disagree with. (Me - why aren't warnings in lots of languages enough?) I know, really bad stuff is distributed, and people overdose on even the ok. I don't have an easy answer for that, but making distribution immensely profitable doesn't seem to be it.

So, the thing from gangs who have more and more gotten into big distribution crime, is more homicides on top of the usual intergang homicides. This really chills neighborhoods and thus a part of a city, and the life of the whole city, and repercussions zing.

What is bringing money to a stressed part of a city is an interdicted substance that can have danger to some, but ya know, is just one more chemical compound. Value seems to increase with interdiction and armies gather to confound that. It is all so damn sad, the people who take too much, the people who direct their lives in distribution wars, and the city, as street life frightens out.

On a roll somewhat off subject, not quite sorry but probably will be tomorrow..

Osso,

Why are folks in your part of the country upset with McKinley? He has been described as one of the most likeable Presidents up that time. Like most people in politics of the time, McKinley felt that the role of the Federal government should be very circumspect. He personally disliked any policy that might get the country into a war, but was swept into the Spanish-American War by popular sentiment whipped up by the Hearst chain. Teddy Roosevelt, as Under-Secretary of the Navy was probably the most hawkish person in the administration. McKinley favored policies that would make the national economy strong. He wasn't a great intellect, but by all accounts was a decent man dong the best he could for the country. He was far from one of the Great Presidents, but there have been so many more who were far more deserving of criticism.

Drugs and a life of crime doesn't pay, though a few thugs may prosper for a little while before being brutally murdered, or sentenced to long prison terms. The money that these leeches on society accumulate is essentially flushed down a toilet. Criminals do not add in any way to the quality of our lives, to business that will give dignity to workers, nor contribute to the strength and security of our country. They are a cancer that subverts justice and induces fear in honest folk. This is as true when applied to the "white-collar" corporate criminal as it is to the drug pushing pimps who terrorize neighborhoods. One class of criminals is just a bit slicker, a little classier than the other. Both steal lives, and prey on the weak and helpless.

What amount of money would it take for you to pop a cap on a stranger? Will you murder for $10, or $10,000? Ten hits at $10K is a hundred thousand dollars, is that enough to buy your integrity and honor? What is it that you have to surrender to be a criminal? Peace of mind, family, friends, and the future are almost certain to be lost the moment you decide that you are smart enough to make crime pay. If you are convinced that you are more clever than society and the police, then you probably believe that you shouldn't have to work for your rewards. If you are arrogant enough, you can thumb your nose at the world ... for a little while. Crime does not pay, even minimum wages. Not one in hundreds of thousands of criminals ever enjoy the same income as an unskilled laborer might make while raising a family. Crime does not pay.

Ask any one who has spent any amount of time in the Justice System if crime pays. I spent a pretty fair part of my career in the Justice System, and I never met a single criminal whose balance sheet wasn't mostly in the red.

BTW, gangs and gang violence is certainly a major criminal problem, but it isn't really all that new. The peak years in criminal careers is between around 14 to 25, and most are underemployed, uneducated, unskilled young men. The average IQ is far lower than in the general population, and as stupid as most criminals are its a wonder that they last as long as they do on the street. Young boys and men with nothing productive in their lives and who believe that working is for suckers, tend to band together and do crimes. Its that simple, and hasn't changed much in at least the last several hundred years. Folks tend to forget the criminals and criminal enterprises of the past, but some of those make todays gangsters look like pantywaists. Society is currently in a cycle where criminals are able to manipulate the Justice System to their own advantage, society's feelings about how to handle criminal behavior could swing back to vengeful and harsh punishments. Neither strategy for dealing with young criminals is ever likely to be totally effective.

I don't think the kids that get into gangs in my old neighborhood are of any lower IQ at birth, given adequate nutrients, than other folks, should IQ ever be measurable at birth, and some are pretty swift.

I don't like that things are so stratified that they have small choice or choices.

I don't think it is all from some personal failure of immense numbers of people, though I do understand that not having clues for getting ahead in other ways than petty crime fairly early is a detriment to doing it. Very few attractants break through other than riches shown on tv via drug distribution.

Though I have the odd qualm about what getting ahead is, nevertheless, I am not keen on crime up the ladder to high end crime being the way to enlightenment, wherever on the ladder one starts, from poor urban areas or major corporate offices... though I understand the pulls along the way.

I will post links on those tangential articles, soon.

As I said, these seem tangential. But these kinds of questions underlie some strain on ways to bring jobs and then more jobs to an area.. jobs historically bringing and taking away hope.

Two developers with different politics re a city's problems

re McKinley and questions about corporate personhood

The environmentalists have very urgent causes in our area. We need to keep the economy growing too. How - exactly - to pay attention to economy without screwing the environment - or vice versa - is a serious problem. Most people here want both to thrive and people of good heart differ. I fall on the environmental side of any chart, personally, but I understand all the qualms discussed by the developers in the article.

On the thing about the McKinley statue, I said I agreed about his sins, that is my memory, but I'll review how I got to that opinion whenever I can get a chance to check about him. In any case, I don't mind the statue being there, but it's not my town. I mention the article in the context of its neighbor on the page, the one by the developers decrying the stasis and breakdown here. I don't think corporate business in general is an enemy, however I may feel about some particulars.

Oh, how nice it would be if no town in America had any more pressing problems than Arcata, CA! Proponents have managed to pass a law (the Corporate Personhood Ordinance) that says that Arcata does not extend the same rights to corporations that it does to individuals. It is argued that a statue of a popular President that has stood for nearly a hundred years should be pulled down. The reason? President McKinley is said to have been "in the pocket of corporate America", and "started the Spanish-American War". McKinley's "Imperialist war" is likened to that of President Bush which seems to be enough to fully discredit an amiable man now dead for a hundred years. One wonders if the statue of any President, except perhaps Slick Willy, would be acceptable to the radicals living in Arcata.

McKinley was, like virtually every President before FDR, convinced that the role of the Federal government was very limited, especially when it came to regulating how businesses were run. The feeling was that unregulated "pure" capitalism was best for the country as a whole. The strength of monopolies and Trusts by the late 19th century had already begun to change. The Progressive Party , strongest probably in the small towns of rural America, supported a host of reforms, and as the century came to a close many of their ideas had made headway in Washington. Monopolies, especially Rail and Steel, were under strong attack, and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act brought the Federal government into the regulatory business. McKinley came to the White House from the Governors Mansion, and pretty much left Congress to pass whatever laws they felt proper. No one ever accused McKinley of profiting personally, nor unethically favoring his friends. Like many Presidents of during the last half of the 19th century, McKinley's administration was pretty much a "hands off" style of government. McKinley and his cabinet were adamant in their efforts to keep America out of any war. These were men shaped by the carnage of the Civil War and its aftermath. They had seen war at its most horrific, and they wanted no part of it, if it could be at all avoided.

Roosevelt, as Under-Secretary of the Navy, was the most prominent hawk of the administration. Whenever the Secretary of War was out of town, Roosevelt spent large sums to build up and modernize the Navy. He sent the Great White Fleet to show the American flag around the world, without permission or even a budget. "If Congress wants the fleet back in American waters, let them pay for it". Roosevelt sent the Main to Cuba to project American power and protect American citizens from the Spanish tyrants. Hearst and other yellow journalists of the time had been whipping up American sentiment against the Spanish for a long time. There were many stories about the slaughter of children and the rape of wholesome young Cubana's (many of the stories had at least an element of truth, and the Spanish were especially hated inside Cuba of the day). The American populace were eager to bring Democracy to Cuba. Cuba, like Canada, had been coveted by expansionists. The idea of Manifest Destiny had been around since long before the Civil War, but by the late 19th century the Frontier was on the beaches of Malibu and few people were especially eager to extend American reach. Roosevelt was regarded as a loose cannon, he at least was an activist "Young Turk" and a radical.

When the public demanded war with Spain after the sinking of the Main, it was Roosevelt again acting on his own who ordered the American Pacific Squadron to sail to Manila. If the American fleet did not engage the Spanish in the Philippines, there the door would be open for the European colonial powers to seize critical territories in the far Pacific. Teddy showed that he had a far better grasp of the strategic elements of the Spanish-American War than almost anyone else of the time. No one even thought about what we might do with the Philippines, the nation was focused on freeing Cuba from a corrupt and brutal dictatorship. At the end of the War, the United States was almost torn apart by the question of what to do about the territories we had so recently gained in the Pacific. In the end, Congress decided that the general good for both the United States and the Philipine People would best be served by making the islands a temporary protectorate until the Philippine People could be made ready for self-government. The controversy that resulted from the decision was just as bitter and divisive as we see today over the occupation of Iraq. Neither war was waged for imperialistic reasons, though both resulted in deep divisions in public opinion. McKinley, a man who never wanted war in the first place, was certainly no analog to President Bush whose administration is much more willing to play the direct action card.

It isn't entirely unfairt to compare the Spanish-American War with our involvement in Iraq, but that is another thread. The similarities should, I think, make us a little less sure that President Bush is somehow the antithesis of what American Chief Executives have been, or should be. Oh well .........

Poor old Bill, an almost forgotten President at the beginning of the 21st century finds renewed rememberance as revisionists smear his reputation. Though McKinley was an exceedingly popular man during his Presidency, its remarkable how few monuments still exist honoring him. Now in a tiny village of Northern California his statue will be pulled down like those of Stalin and Saddam. William McKinley deserved better.

As to Asherman's comment that there is no censorship in the media, I have to question that. I suppose you have not been following the battle between the FCC, Clear Channel and Howard Stern. It's a base example, but it certainly indicates a political shift in the US reagarding the First Amendment. www.howardstern.com

As for those CIA drug links, this is what I could find:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html
http://www.ciadrugs.com/index_right_cia.html

Yes, there recently has been a swell of popular opinion in this country that those using the public airways have gone far beyond acceptable speech. Baring breasts, using obscene language, and explicit sex does not find favor with most Americans. Congress reacting to popular opinion are indeed showing themselves willing to impose large fines when broadcasters violate the terms of their licenses. Whether the fines are justified or not, dangerous to "free speech" or not, is a matter of opinion.

Personally, I'd go on ignoring the Jerry Springers and foul-mouths of rap artists rather than trying to enforce "community standards" regarding what is, or is not, acceptable speech in regard to sexual matters. I would not favor a return to the old Hay's Office that had to approve film scripts as being "fit for family consumption". The crux of the matter isn't really obscenity, but the right of individuals to freely voice their political opinions and to try to persuade others politically.

horses for courses is the way i see it

i think its all a matter of each part of society being able to understand and tolerate the others parts more...
on one hand you got the american purists and moral majority as they are called and on the other you got the pornographers and the gangsters...

im no scholar like asherman and i dont claim to have a sound arguement and it isnt even that well thoguht out
but i think one of our greatest problems as humans is our tendency to make the way we see it right and thus everyone elses as wrong...
from what ive seen all enforcement of standards does is cause more and more people to rebel and 'dig their heels in'

i did what i did with drugs when i was young but now i see the error of my ways so i stopped all that stuff but i had to go thru it to learn that

i think if we had a more tolerant and open minded society then most people would maybe experiment with drugs and crime then realise that its better to love everyone than hate them...

but im still young (32) and ive a long way to go to fully understanding the complexities of this life and these people...

nice cia links btw cav
well done