Clinton Derangement Syndrome vs Bush Derangement Syndrome

[elfs]

Is it possible to suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome on the same day? Because I'm there right now.

First, the Clinton part. Hillary, you know, trained lawyer, sworn civil servant, and full-blown policy wonk known for having absolutely every fact at her fingertips, this weekend said:

Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone. You put them on a plane to wherever they came from.

And I quote from the Constitution of the United States, Amendment Five (you know, one of those rights):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Hillary knows she can't make this claim; a new legal action (like deportation) requires a new legal process. It says "person," not "citizen", and the courts have always taken this to mean any person on American soil. Hillary wants the Gitmo Rules to apply here on US soil. If that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, it should.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration comes forward with another tool for killing people. There's a drug called naloxone which blocks the brain receptors for heroin and can stop a heart-seizing overdose in its tracks. Along with needle exchange programs, public health workers in several states are now giving out or selling for about $10 "rescue kits" to drug users so they can save their friends if one goes too far. People on the front lines are pleased to have another life-saving tool at their disposal.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is not pleased. She's unhappy because the kits "encourage drug use by making it seem safer." She believes, "Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them service."

She believes that letting kids die or, better yet, watching a friend slowly asphyxiate because his autonomic breathing reaction has failed, watching him slowly turn blue, spasm and die in front of his eyes, is a "good deterrent" to drug use.

Mark Klein writes:

Why not just go all the way and poison the heroin supply? If withholding Narcan in order to generate more overdoses in order to scare addicts into quitting were proposed as an experiment, it could never get past human-subjects review. But since it's a failure to act rather than an action, there's no rule to require that it be even vaguely rational.

This is the exact same argument the fundies use when they oppose Gardisil: "If teenage girls are shielded from the cervical cancer consequence of sex, they'll have more sex! We must oppose this cure for cervical cancer at all costs!"

When both Radley Balko and PZ Meyers agree that the Bush Administration is not only wrong, but morally culpable for heinous deaths, I sit up and listen.

Comments

[mouser.livejournal.com]

She believes that letting kids die or, better yet, watching a friend slowly asphyxiate because his autonomic breathing reaction has failed, watching him slowly turn blue, spasm and die in front of his eyes, is a "good deterrent" to drug use.

They think that drug addiction is a choice, not a disease. Of course, they also don't think drug addicts are people.

This is the exact same argument the fundies use when they oppose Gardisil: "If teenage girls are shielded from the cervical cancer consequence of sex, they'll have more sex! We must oppose this cure for cervical cancer at all costs!"

Uh - did you miss the fact they ARE fundies?

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Some days, the mountains of stupidity at every level of policy-making makes me sympathize with the end-of-the-world nutcases who hole up in the wilderness, expecting the imminent collapse of civilization.

Talking sense to people with those beliefs (Hillary's disdain for rule of law as well as the "overdose sometimes make you think" lady) is an exercise in futility, which I know through many years of trying. Wresting control out of their hands through democratic means gives them a sense of being wronged, which tends to translate into Rovian tactics or worse.

Not sure what to do, other than staying informed. Thanks for helping with that.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Don't wait for the end of the world with the spinning - it's incredibly soothing. (I use a drop-spindle and all kinds of fiber. People watch mesmerized at the kitchen table as I turn hair into string...)

Someday it will be useful, maybe; hopefully not. In the meanwhile it's just fun.