It’s almost impossible to find a few stories to reflect one week of news. Considering my only qualification is making Google News my homepage, I’ve forsaken “fair-and-balanced” in favor of “damn interesting.” So if you only consume news to regurgitate headlines in your poli-sci discussion section, then I implore you, on behalf of everyone in your section, to please shut up. If, however, you find the state of affairs on our fine planet to be prime mocking material, then I hope to share with you my biased views on these almost-random stories every week.
Squandering our edge on the meth market
I commend you, United States Federal government, for once again screwing the American entrepreneur and encouraging outsourcing. Thanks to tightened restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter cold medication containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine (key ingredients for making methamphetamine), my mom and pop’s little meth lab has had to close down. How are we going to afford Northwestern’s tuition now? (Just kidding, mom and dad; no one believes you would know how to cook meth.)
The only effect of restricting ephedrine sales has been a decrease in the seizure of the small home-run labs where most meth was cooked. To meet consumer demand, import of “ice” (or crystal meth) usually made in super-labs in Mexico, has increased. A lot of crystal meth is sent from Mexico through FedEx and UPS, so users now also have to pay shipping.
The Mexican crystal variety is more pure and causes a quicker, stronger addiction. Meth addiction and meth-related drug treatment are on the rise, according to the National Drug Intelligence Center. And that increase coincides with the increased trafficking in Mexican meth. The drug cartels are well financed and equipped to pick up the slack in domestic production.
On NPR’s Morning Edition, Mike McDonald, a drug-control detective, warns, “[Drug cartels] can afford surveillance systems. They can afford body armor. They can afford weapons. And we’re going to see more and more of that [violence] now.”
Jesus did pot
Perhaps evidence of Jesus toking up is sparse, but allegedly, one is free to claim without fear of any recourse (except perhaps ridicule) that he did. Freedom of speech is conveniently enumerated in the first of the Constitution’s amendments. To clear up the issue, on March 19, 2007 the Supreme Court heard Joseph Frederick’s case, which is being called the most important free-speech case since Tinker v. Des Moines.
As the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska in 2002, Frederick, then an 18-year-old senior in high-school, attempted to gain national television exposure by carrying a sign reading “Bong Hits for Jesus” (it’s not supposed to make sense, says Fredericks). Unfortunately for him, he was standing across the street from his high school. The principal was not amused, and suspended Fredericks for 10 days.
He sued with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union and his case has worked its way up to the Supreme Court. In an ironic twist, televangelist Pat Robertson has filed a brief supporting the ACLU. However, the bleeding-heart liberal commies of the ACLU are claiming free-speech protection, whereas 2,000-pound leg-pressing machine Pat Robertson, seeing the word Jesus, proclaims it’s a freedom of religion case.
Oral arguments are over in the case, but a decision isn’t expected until early summer.
Mauritania’s presidential election
A 2006 Freedom House index measuring how free countries are gave African country Mauritania a 5 out of 7 (with 1 being most free), alongside Afghanistan and Djibouti. Recent elections there suggest though that progress along the path to democracy is possible. Surprisingly enough, democracy can be achieved without attracting charitable foreign nations to provide a strong military incentive (read: an invasion).
Mauritania gained independence in 1960 from the French, and suffered through a stream of dictators and coups since. The last one, a bloodless coup in 2005, was successfully carried out by a military junta promising to gradually hand over power to civilian leaders. The culmination of the process was the presidential election on March 25, 2007. With a voter participation that puts ASG elections to shame, 67 % of Mauritania’s citizens gave 52% of their votes to — hold your breath — Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdellahi.
Don’t believe this is good news? The head of the European Union Poll Observer Mission to
Mauritania said that the elections since 2006 demonstrate “outstanding democratic progress made in a short time.” Ambassador Charles H. Twining, the US’s top diplomat in Nouakchott (that’s the capital) stated, “People in Mauritania are proud of this election. I think it has great significance, both for Africa and for the Arab world.”
I’m not sure why no major Western news outlet except for the BBC picked up on this story. My hunch? It was unfortunate timing, what with Britney Spears losing 10 pounds in rehab last week.