Seventy: Legalize Drugs in New York

In today's Chicago Tribune, there was yet another feature about the debate over legalizing drugs - marijuana, cocaine, heroin. I read most of both sides of the argument. It was pretty predictable. The pro-legalize guy (a liberal Yale law professor) talked about the money which could be raised through taxation, and how removing the profit motive would reduce criminal participation in the drug distribution business. The anti-legalization guy (a former Bush drug war dude) talked about how the war on drugs is succeeding, and how the countries which have easily accessible drugs have been inundated with drug addiction.

Here's an idea. Politicians and academics are always talking about how the the United States is a collection of "fifty laboratories." Okay, so take one state and legalize drugs. Presumably, it would likely, although not necessarily, be a state with a liberal, Democratic bent, such as New York. Let's assume it's NY. Let's see how NY deals with the influx of drug users, drug suppliers, drug treatment facilities and professionals, and of course drug regulators. Let's see how much NY brings in with drug taxation, and how NY uses the proceeds (like states which have legalized gambling to finance schools). Make the chief NY drug dude somebody like Bill Clinton, or Chuck Schumer, or Al Sharpton. Let's see how they do.

Sixty Nine: WSJ Price Increase

Has anybody noticed that the WSJ increased its delivered subscription price by 300%? Has anybody not noticed that the WSJ has taken on a tabloid patina since Rupert took over? Does anyone really care about the WSJ anymore? I can't decide if the Journal is smart to max out its revenues before the inevitable (the end of print journalism) hits the fan, or if the Journal is run by oafs who are inadvertently and incompetently accelerating the process.

Sixty Eight: BO Overseas

By all accounts, the most pressing problems confronting this country today and for the foreseeable future, are economic and domestic. So why is BO on a two vacation to Europe? I suppose that his political handlers have decided that in order to advance his unprecedented expansion of the federal government, BO needs to maintain his popularity. And as we were relentlessly reminded, BO popularity and “approval” ratings peaked in the period just prior to his taking office in January. Once BO started to actually be the CEO and to have legal responsibility for his decisions (or failure to make same), his popularity at home inevitably began to erode. Thus the only place to recreate the fawning crowds of the young and the ignorant, he sprinted off to Europe. Why these Euro-trash crowds will pack themselves into spaces to witness the BO phenomenon is beyond me. I suppose if they have a choice between working on the one hand, and heading off to a drunken rally on the other, there is no much choice.

But the questions must be asked: With trillions upon trillions of dollars being printed and flushed into government programs, shouldn’t the CEO be expected to be minding the store? If Jeff Immelt, or Ken Lewis, or some other beneficiary of government largesse spent two week in Europe polishing his image at a HUGE taxpayer expense, what would be the reaction of BO and Barney Frank?

Once again, BO is demonstrating his complete dearth of executive experience.