| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caribbean-Latin America |
| The Idiots Abroad (John Tierney) |
| 2005-11-15 |
| If President Bush wants to know what went wrong on his trip south, I recommend a book by three Latin American journalists. Their ''Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot,'' a best seller when it was published nine years ago, remains indispensable for understanding phenomena like Diego Maradona. Maradona, born in a shantytown near Buenos Aires, became the world's most famous soccer player in the 1980's after he left Argentina to play for teams in Spain and Italy. Besides collecting his $5 million salary in Europe, he played exhibition games in Arab countries at $325,000 per appearance and made $10 million annually in endorsement contracts with corporations based in at least four continents, companies like Puma, Fuji-Xerox and Coca-Cola. And what did he learn from this international rags-to-riches tale? During Bush's visit to Argentina, Maradona took time out from his busy schedule (he now has a television show) to help rally tens of thousands of people against that horrible modern scourge: free trade. He was one of the headliners at the rally along with Hugo Chavez, the socialist president of Venezuela, who is determined to prevent a free trade agreement among Latin American countries and the United States. ''We are going to stand against the human trash known as Bush,'' Maradona told the crowd, between puffs on a cigar given to him by one of his heroes, Fidel Castro. To be fair, this sort of thinker exists on other continents, too. But what distinguishes the Perfect Latin American Idiot is his persistence. No matter how far the continent falls behind the rest of the world, its populists cling to the same beliefs in socialism and big government, the same distrust of capitalism and free trade, the same conviction that Latin American poverty is the fault of the United States. ''Maradona embodies the wonderful possibilities of globalization, yet he does everything in his power to deny people poorer than himself to participate in that world,'' said one of the ''Perfect Idiot'' authors, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian journalist (and son of the novelist Mario Vargas Llosa). ''Everything Maradona and Chavez stand for has been tried before. These populists are repeating the mistakes of the Mexican Revolution, of Brazil in the 30's, of Argentina in the 50's, of Peru in the 80's.'' The new wave of populists is led by Chavez, who's been using the recent windfall in oil revenues to expand government and solidify his hold on power. But even while $100 million in oil money pours into Venezuela every day ($60 million of that from those terrible gringos north of the Rio Grande), the poverty rate has risen above 50 percent. Meanwhile, the poverty rate has declined sharply in Chile, to about 20 percent (compared with about 50 percent in the rest of the continent). Chile has become South America's economic success story by embracing capitalism and making its own free trade agreements with the United States and other countries, most recently China. Bush went to the Latin America summit meeting hoping to persuade the rest of the continent to follow Chile's example -- the right message but the wrong messenger and the wrong place. Any American president, especially one as unpopular as Bush, makes too easy a target for the populists and rioters who turned the meeting into their own photo opportunity. ''Nothing has ever emerged from a Latin summit,'' said Jose Pinera, the Chilean reformer who started the first private-account social-security system, and then helped introduce similar systems in two dozen other countries. ''Real change blossoms from good internal public policies. President Bush should not attend and dignify these weapons of mass distraction.'' The best American strategy, as Alvaro Vargas Llosa says, would be to do less in Latin America. Instead of publicly pressuring the whole continent to sign a free trade agreement, quietly make deals with the countries that want one. Instead of denouncing and plotting against Chavez, ignore him. And instead of fighting a drug war in South America, surrender. The war has been utterly ineffectual at stopping the flow of cocaine, which has actually gotten cheaper on American streets. But by infuriating communities in the Andes, the war has created a political base for populists running on anti-American platforms. They may be economic dunces, but in this case the perfect idiots are the drug warriors in Washington helping to elect them. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #26 FS 2083, I don't think my comment is an argument for legalization. If these drugs are legalized, then what's to stop people from comming to work high? I realize alcohol is legal and being drunk on the job can get you fired so I would guess the same would apply to these other drugs but it's a lot harder to conceal alcohol than it is meth or qualudes. I'm in favor of .com's solution. Let these people remove themselves from the gene pool. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-11-15 18:18 |
| #25 The other aspect of this that has not been mentioned is going to raise howls from some, but it exists and that is race. The number of blacks in jail for drug related crimes is astronomical and dispropotionate. We are creating a real problem for ourselves that we could easily avoid. |
| Posted by: Fliting Shuns2083 2005-11-15 17:50 |
| #24 21 & 22 Are arguments for legalization. The junkies get the drugs any way even when it's illegal. But everybody is afraid to do anything about it because it's illegal. But if it were legal you could establish a policy, random blood tests, whaever, and enforce it. JFM, My starting assumption is that no one who wants drugs in the US doesn't get them. The fact that our prisons are full of drugs demonstrates that they can't be kept out. You have little evidence that I can see to support your contention that legalization would result in continued high prices and increased usage. In fact, I suspect the oppositepossibly excepting marijuana. As to how or when junkies die, I could care less, though the sooner the better in most cases. My only concern is that they don't take anyone else with them. 25,000 Americans are murdered every year by drunk drivers. How may are murdered by junkies? I'll bet more in the course of robberies and muggings to get money than as a result of their altered state. |
| Posted by: Fliting Shuns2083 2005-11-15 17:46 |
| #23 Oops, I meant to direct #22 to DB in #21, sorry, bro. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 16:39 |
| #22 JFM - Lol - you did the right thing under the circumstances. I saw a similar thing when I was driving trucks - about 25% of the guys working for the same outfit were wired on speed regularly. When I was asked to double-up with another driver for non-stop routes, I always declined - and told 'em why. The company started to clean 'em out - when they jacked or blew through a corner - the company would insist on a blood test, not just a DUI check. They cost us all, the drivers, the company, the society, everyone, more than they were worth. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 16:37 |
| #21 .com I'm reminded of a guy we had on a construction crew way back in the late 70's, early '80s. He would come to work just find but soon get really fucked up on qualudes. we rescued from dying a few times but got tired of him being paid to get shitfaced. We locked him in a port-o-john one time. He was a danger to the rest of us. We quit baby-sitting him and it didn't take long til he fell down some stairs and messed himself up real good. Tried to sue the construction company but the bloodwork results told the story. I like your solution. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-11-15 16:28 |
| #20 JFM....quick question.... Do you drink? Rarely Or better put; Do you want to abolish alcohol? Because the same logic applies. I vast number of crimes are fueled and enabled by alcohol; should we ban it? Alcohol causes a small number of crimes when it abolishes conscience. Much less than drugs. But unlike what happens with drugs I still have to see people ready to kill for getting alcohol. And unlike with drugs, few drinkers end with delirium tremens while it is the usual condition of a crack or heroin user. Now if you abolish drug prohibition prices would go down, but probably just a bit, because people hooked will pay any price (unlike with alcohol). But quantities will go up (just market effect) meaning more murders to get drug (in case prices didn't drop much) and in case they did significanty we would not have crime but quantiteis would be quite larger so much more accidents, more loss of productivity due to operator being high and much more brain damaged people. See what happenned to the flower generation after using drug. They ended voting for Jimmy Carter. Do you want to end like them? |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-11-15 16:28 |
| #19 I'm just funning with ya - your comments make sense within the envelope folks are willing to consider these days. Legalize it and tax it enough to pay for at least what it costs to administer. But I still like the idea of wirin' 'em up and burnin' 'em out, lol. *buzzzzzzz* |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 16:10 |
| #18 Hey...I get paid to say stuff I don't necessarily "agree with" all the time!!! ;-) |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-11-15 16:04 |
| #17 Heh, I don't drink, but I smoke. I can buy illegal cigarettes at half the price - and that's some serious change these days. You don't think there's much of a black market? Lol. You live in, and stay in, the right part of town, methinks. If you zap 'em with a few microvolts of electricity in the pleasure center they're toast, you don't need ANY of that shit. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. What's so hard to follow? Didn't you read Neuromancer, lol? Okay, I've ranted. You guys wanna play games with drugs, fine. Dumb, lol, but fine. Suit (you're a lawyer, right? LOL) yourselves. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 15:51 |
| #16 To continue the discussion (I don't think I really believe this, but the logic is attractive...) JFM....quick question.... Do you drink? Or better put; Do you want to abolish alcohol? Because the same logic applies. I vast number of crimes are fueled and enabled by alcohol; should we ban it? You see where I'm going with this....this is kind of like getting rid of cars because accidents happen. "We don't need another damned bureaucracy or the black market that would then flourish under the table." .com-- another question. When was the last person killed by gangsters trying to control the distribution of alcohol in the US? Answer-The day before prohibition ended. The day drugs are legalized, there will be no more black market, any more than there is currently a huge and thriving black market for underground and illegal cigarettes or liquor (barring the occasional theft of quantities of cigarettes. This is lucrative mainly because of high taxes, another form of prohibition.) |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-11-15 15:44 |
| #15 Perhaps if I clarify: we don't need no steenkin' drugs. We don't need another damned bureaucracy or the black market that would then flourish under the table. Every society has a percentage of drones. Drugs are incredibly inefficient - even if injected. Go straight to the brain. Wire it up. Zap 'em - or let them zap themselves - at first. Do it until they're dead - wearing the sweet smile of RFSP. Plant 'em. Cheep. Next! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 15:10 |
| #14 JFM, the cost of combatting drugs is higher than the cost that legal drugs would have on our society (health issues etc.). Should fat people pay a special tax to pay for weight related illnesses? You must make a very careful balance between letting people suffer for poor life decisions and creating a safety net that encourages people to make bad decisions with no consequences. Most people don't want to be druggies and it's not the war on drugs that's stopping them. It's common sense, their peers and their family. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2005-11-15 15:09 |
| #13 Make drugs legal and and regulated. Crime would plummet in the US. Drug lords would be out of business over night and terror organizations would be cut off from a very important revenue stream. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2005-11-15 15:02 |
| #12 The Government should not be trying to protect people from themselves Do you remember the story about the British Viceroy in India and the sati? That one where he told to the Indian leaders: "It is my intention to respect your traditions but it is also my intention to respect MY traditions and one of them is kill muderers". Well, if one of my underage daughters is ever proposed drugs, assaulted by some junkie trying to get money, or overrun by a car driven by a pot smoker it is my intention to kill the {dealer,junkie} alongside with a few partisans of drug legalization. I am also voting for any politicain proposing that drug-induced health costs (plus indirect costs like accidents and bad work caused by drug-addicts) being funded by a tax paid only by drug users and by partisans of legalization Use of drugs is not about the user only, it has collateral effects on the whole society that is why the state interferes. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-11-15 14:40 |
| #11 The congress prohibited the DEA from releasing a geneticly modified virus that would kill all the cocaine plants in the world. Said we should not be releasing something that would put a speices on the endangered list. So... how many congress critters were using that coke? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-11-15 13:57 |
| #10 "And just were are the dopers going to get the funds to buy the legal stuff? The same robbery, murder and the like." Cocaine is no more inherently expensive than caffeine. Pot is no more expensive than corn to produce. It is the artificial shortage and cost of transport due to law enforcement activities that make it expensive. If pot costs 5 dollars for the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes, who would steal rather than simply pan-handle for the money? If the next line of coke cost 2 bucks, even a bum could afford it. One of the only drugs that "causes" crime (IMHO) is meth. Remember the old hippy slogan: "Speed Kills"? They werent talking about the taker... they were talking about the people around the taker--extreme paranoia. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-11-15 13:45 |
| #9 Hupegum Snins5616, The crime happens because prices are kept extraordinarily high because of the risks associated with distribution. Let Walgreens sell them with the same level of control we have over Sudafed and watch the price crater. Then the crime stops as do the distribution turf wars. It's just like Prohibition. This war is the dumbest one we've ever fought because we lost it the last time and learned nothing from it. |
| Posted by: Fliting Shuns2083 2005-11-15 12:46 |
| #8 To be fair, this sort of thinker exists on other continents, too. But what distinguishes the Perfect Latin American Idiot is his persistence. No matter how far the continent falls behind the rest of the world, its populists cling to the same beliefs in socialism and big government, the same distrust of capitalism and free trade, the same conviction that Latin American poverty is the fault of the United States. Substitute "Europe" for "Latin America" and the paragraph still works just fine. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-11-15 12:35 |
| #7 The US should promote buy American products all around. Say no to Coke, yes to Pot! Say no to Opium, yes to Meth! Just kidding, sort of. The drug thinking is all upside down. The Government should not be trying to protect people from themselves. Yeah if a product is really dangerous it should be banned, or have a warning, but otherwise let people take the risks. I can't wait to see what would happen when the anti-Tobacco lawyers turned their greedy eyes upon the cocaine industry. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-11-15 11:28 |
| #6 Yes but like the WOT you have to have a winning strategery. True, but first you must have the political will. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-11-15 10:46 |
| #5 I saw a program once (can’t remember the channel) that one military guy said he could stop the cocaine, marijuana, and heroin trade in just two weeks. On a sand table he had outlined all the known farms that were growing the product and he claimed that if we (the U.S) could destroy all of the fields in a matter of days. He said the thrusts of our efforts have been interception and that was the most dangerous way to fight the drug war. We could use high altitude bombardment and unmanned cruise missiles to emaciate the drug lords’ crops and render the fields useless for a while. Simple math from that point on: No crop + No $$$$ = No business. Yes there would be some small fields and growers that would escape but how long would it take to track them down once you eliminate the many and are left with a few. Draconian? Yes but like the WOT you have to have a winning strategery. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-15 10:34 |
| #4 Seen too many crimes committed by dopers taking a toll on the productive members of society. Legalize it? And just were are the dopers going to get the funds to buy the legal stuff? The same robbery, murder and the like. Or in your own rationalization which hates socialism, you're going to support subsidizing the habit? Free drugs for the dopers but pennies for the elderly. Oh yeah, that's a sell. MSM skirts the point that these destructive crimes are done by dopers, just like they avoid the word Muslim when dealing with terrorist. Start popping the dopers and betcha the crime rate drops significantly. The damage is already done to the victims which no amount of time in the slammer is ever going to replace. Just stop repeat behaviors. Sympathy can be found in the dictionary, somewhere between sh!t and syphillis. |
| Posted by: Hupegum Snins5616 2005-11-15 09:11 |
| #3 The perfect solution that is imfeasible. Better to just make drugs legal. Make posession a recordable felony for those 15 and above. Make dealing to anyone under 21 a capital crime. The problem is here, not in Latin America. But to do that we would have to assume self responsibility. And the new deal progessivism/liberalismis now so deeply ingrained in this country's psyche that even conservatives are unwilling to look in the mirror. |
| Posted by: Fliting Shuns2083 2005-11-15 08:34 |
| #2 Offer the dopers free wirehead services. A simple implant, a few pennies to Reddy Kilowatt per day, cheap cafeteria-style food - on the off chance they actually feel like eating, a Potter's Field plot, and let them think they control the the stimulus level themselves (heh) with a fake knob. Ramp it up 5-10% per day. Then take the DEA budget and put it on the borders. Cities can retune their Police Dept budgets to shore up under-funded areas. I'd recommend a national shoot-to-kill policy for both dopers and dealers, too, as an incentive - but that's just me. I believe Moonbattery is a drug, too, by the way. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 07:41 |
| #1 And instead of fighting a drug war in South America, surrender. The war has been utterly ineffectual at stopping the flow of cocaine, which has actually gotten cheaper on American streets. Problem is simple. Every time a coca field is intercepted, a drug cargo is intercepted, a drug dealer arrested it makes prices rise and attracts new people to the drug business. Solution: reduce the demand by reducing the number of drug users. This would put the drug vendors out of business. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-11-15 07:28 |