3 ms·
The thing that bothers me is that they should've already made this connection. It bothers me, too. But I'm not even mildly surprised. Look also at the histori
by CWuestefeld 11y ago
The thing that bothers me is that they should've already made this connection.
It bothers me, too. But I'm not even mildly surprised.
Look also at the historical record of Prohibition. There's no escaping the parallel between that and the modern (failed) War On Drugs. Prohibition caused huge suffering, and endless societal problems, and much of it was cured after the 21st Amendment. One needs to be quite stupid not to see the parallels.
Maybe they're not so stupid, though. While Prohibition was quite damaging to the nation as a whole, it was a blessing to the few who were in a position (and of sufficiently flexible morals) to capitalize on it. This was the foundation for the power of many, including (implicated by circumstantial evidence) the Kennedies.
I don't think it would be surprising if some of the less scrupulous understand the risks, but think that they can ride the tiger well enough themselves to make hay (and mix metaphors!) from it.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoYou actually have a good point. Just financially speaking, many promoters of NSA have stock or campaign contributions tied to defence contracts. They do better when DOD corruption is higher. Also the power networks to considet but they're harder to map. Finally, there's image benefits for looking like one's taking action on terrorism.