Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Bradley Schreiber, Drug Warrior, Idiot Where do they get these people? Take the case of Bradley Schreiber. He "served as a senior advisor at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is now president of Homeland Security Solutions." His company (which may be just him and Steven Grossman for all I know) issued a Press Release touting Schreiber's drug war advice, particularly as it relates to Mexico. The following are not misquotes by press, but rather actual quotes written by him for his own press release... 1. "Drug cartels are incredibly nimble creatures - you cut the head off one and another will just pop up." I do not think that word means what you think it means... Nimble? Not very nimble if you cut off their head. "Replaceable," perhaps, or "ubiquitous." Maybe even "regenerative," depending on the context. But definitely not "nimble" in that tortured metaphor. 2. Schreiber said that "the best way to stop them is to stop the flow of money. If we take away the cash, the drugs are worth nothing. The cartels become impudent." "If we take away the cash, the drugs are worth nothing." No, the drugs are still valuable, you've just taken cash away from the cartels.... but then... Shreiber says that without cash the "cartels become impudent." "Impudent"? "Impudent" is a cocky boldness -- certainly not what you'd think Shreiber is trying to effect by taking away their cash. Perhaps he means "impotent," kind of like his writing and ideas. So, now that we've explored his inability to master the English language and the metaphor, what about Shreiber's actual views on the drug war? After all, in his press release he "contends that the current U.S. and Mexican approach to fighting the cartels will fail" But Bradley's got the answer. For that, we turn to Defeating the drug cartels: A broader approach by Bradley C. Schreiber in Homeland Security Today, where he supposedly "outlines steps that must be taken to ensure success." Wow. What are those steps that will ensure success where current efforts guarantee failure? Stop cash smuggling. Gee, I wonder why nobody thought of that? We've already got cops in southern states only stopping southbound cars in the hopes of nabbing some cash (which is worth more to them than the drugs). Increase interdiction efforts in Western Caribbean and Eastern Pacific areas. Interdiction? Yeah, that works. If you want to get about 10% of what goes through and not hurt the cartels at all. Increase interdiction and law enforcement to stop drugs traveling to Europe through Africa. Sure, because we have the resources to patrol every mile of border of every country in the entire world. Anywhere we put interdiction resources, the cartels merely go around. Inspect more shipping containers. Isn't this more interdiction? Isn't supply side what we've been doing that doesn't really accomplish anything? Pass the Colombian Free Trade agreement with Colombia, so the farmers won't grow coca any more. Bradley Schreiber concludes: These are just a few of the steps that are required to succeed in our fight against the drug cartels that threaten Mexican and US national security. We can win this war once and for all, but only if we think more broadly and act more widely. The nimble and impudent cartels are laughing all the way to the bank. 9:30:22 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Bill O'Reilly, math wizard I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, for my own sanity, but Reddit had a link to this video from last night's show -- his Cultural Warriors segment. He was talking about Amsterdam. Some Americans (secular progressives) want to turn the USA into a permissive culture like western Europe. That's what's driving the drug legalization deal, gay and plural marriage, light sentences for convicted criminals.... He went on to talk about the evils of Amsterdam and how the mayor recently talked about the problems of organized crime, the existence of which, in O'Reilly's mind, was due to the legalization of marijuana and prostitution -- which, of course, is patently absurd. Even the two Fox News contributors on the show weren't buying it completely. At one point, one of them asked: Why have so many more people in the USA, where marijuana is illegal, tried it? 40% of people in the USA compared to 22.6%... OREILLY (interrupting): The way they use statistics in the Netherlands is different, plus it's a much smaller country. I stand in awe of his reasoning skills. 8:45:20 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []