Never ask the natives

In New Guinea in the 1960's there was a rather elaborate developmental program going on. The Australian Administration surveyed the island and decided what different areas might be suitable for different cash crops and other developments that would be "good for them." As the natives were short on protein one attempt was to establish Tilapia. The administration went around digging Tilapia ponds and stocking them with fish. The natives refused to eat them, saying they didn't like them and the bones caught in their children's throats. There were no local fish in most places and they had no experience in eating them. No one bothered to ask them if they really wanted fish or not. Areas were selected for development not on the basis of what the people wanted but, rather, on what was thought would grow there. In the Sepik area they tried to establish rice growing. Growing rice is labor intensive and the locals could make more money just killing one or two crocodiles a year. The rice failed. In other areas they tried to introduce cattle as a cash crop. In the one area I was most familiar with they did sort of ask the locals if they would like cattle. Having had no experience with cattle and not understanding what loans and interest were all about they said "no." The powers that were didn't accept that and talked them into trying to raise cattle anyway. It was a grandiose failure. Then it was decided that the natives needed a form of government so they introduced a Counsel System. To have an elected Counselor they were required to have a certain population. As in some areas this could only be achieved by joining two or three groups they ended up having traditional enemies tryhing to share the same Counselor. I could go on and on about this but I think you get the point. In all of these cases the local people were not really meaningfully consulted about what it was they were told to do; raise coffee, rice, cattle, etc. Colonial paternalism at its best (worst). I know this same pattern repeated itself for a hundred or more years in most parts of the world: Australia, Asia, Africa, the Pacific, etc. Thus I do not find it in the least bit surprising that the Iraqis are outraged at being told by American invaders they will have to split up their country into three distinct units. This is truly ironic as the British established Iraq as a country in the first place by forcing disparate tribes to artifically band together. Ah, the joys of Empire and Colonialism.

The babble goes on. The longer this ridiculously long campaign runs the more desperate the newspeople get for something to say. Today on Hardball they spent a lot of time worrying Hillary's laugh. Was it a real laugh or kind of forced? Perhaps it was an ironic laugh. Maybe it was more of a cackle than a laugh. Perhaps she laughed only to stall for time while thinking up a reply. Did it mean she was really relaxed and happy or was it just for show. Honestly, this is what these overpaid people were discussing and dissecting at great length on national television. Political analysts at work. Sigh.

I read today that since 1990 10.4 million people have been busted for pot, still another example of the utter absurdity of our drug laws. Everyone knows that when compared with alcohol, pot is nothing in its effects. And it is also known that it is not addictive. What I want to know is what difference would it make if it were addictive? People take drugs all the time that they are required to take in order to maintain their health and well-being. I take drugs every day but I am not addicted to them. But if I were addicted to them I would still just be taking them everyday. So what's the difference. The difference is, as far as I can see, that some people who are in positions of power and influence have arbitrarily decided that some drugs are worse than others, so if one of your drugs has the wrong label you might not be able to get it even if you need it (doctors are now afraid to prescribe all the drugs their patients might need because of the fear of getting busted by those who think they know best). Who should know best what a patient needs, he/she and their doctor or some jerk in Congress who thinks grass is bad. Drugs should be strictly a medical problem, not a political one. Our drug laws are absurd. Legalize drugs now and solve a great many problems both personal and societal. I notice that more and more politicians are coming around to the realization that something is dramatically wrong with our "war" on drugs. How soon will something be done about it. Don't hold your breath.

LKBIQ:
"I took a speed reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It's about Russia."
Woody Allen