Here Are Two Victims I Am Happy To Blame: The Late Christopher Dilly And Jessica Lally

overdose3Tell me more about how drug use is a victimless crime. I’m sure these assholes loved that argument

Lally 25, and Dilly, 26, were found dead of overdoses in the den of their McKeesport, Pennsylvania home this week,  with three young children elsewhere in the house. They had recently posted on Facebook about how much they loved their children.

Not more than getting high, of course.

The parents may have been dead for a day or more before their bodies were found, after their 7-year-0ld daughter had told a school bus driver that she didn’t want to go inside her home because she couldn’t wake up her parents before dressing herself and heading to school. The  bus company notified the school, and school officials called the police.

The girl,  her 9-month-old girl, a 3-year-old boy and a 5-year-old boy were examined at a hospital, and  social welfare officials assumed custody of the children. All in all, this is a good development for the children, whose parents were irresponsible, irredeemable, reckless fools.

Nobody has to take heroin, or any illegal drugs. The laws exist to make it crystal clear that illegal drug use is destructive to families, society and the nation, and that the government has a vital interest in discouraging its use, manufacture and sale. Every junkie knows that what he or she is doing is illegal and societally condemned, though less so as time goes by because of wealthy, idealistic and arrogant drug legalization supporters, who make the culture’s anti-drug message weaker with every passing day. They also strengthen a pro-drug message, which kills weak-minded and selfish people like this couple, who cared more about getting high than taking care of their children,

The mayor of a nearby town immediately blamed “poverty, addiction, heroin.” No, poverty doesn’t cause drug use: drug use causes poverty. Addiction doesn’t kill anyone until someone breaks the law, ignores the messages and defies responsibility and common sense by taking drugs the first time. Heroin is illegal; it’s off limits for law abiding citizens, which we ae all obligated to be. It doesn’t jump out of a needle an ambush anyone.

Victimless crimes. Right. Here were four young children brought into the world by an unmarried couple who couldn’t afford them, and who were so self-absorbed that they couldn’t even manage to risk overdosing one at a time, so many the kids would have one living parent for a while. Dally and Lally ended up victims themselves., too. They deserve to be blamed, as do the drug legalization advocates who weakened the cultural messages that might have saved their lives.

A little girl had to dress herself and take herself to school because her reckless, selfish, criminal parents killed themselves getting high.

Victimless crimes.

Right.

74 Comments

Filed under Character, Childhood and children, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Family, Government & Politics, Health and Medicine, U.S. Society

74 responses to “Here Are Two Victims I Am Happy To Blame: The Late Christopher Dilly And Jessica Lally

  1. valkygrrl

    Addiction doesn’t kill anyone until someone breaks the law, ignores the messages and defies responsibility and common sense by taking drugs the first time.

    Were you a tobacco industry lobbyist in a past life?

    It doesn’t jump out of a needle an ambush anyone.

    One day we’ll have a little talk about the kinds of things done to victims of human trafficking and minors who fall into the hands of people who need more ways to control their slaves.

    A little girl had to dress herself and take herself to school because her reckless, selfish, criminal parents killed themselves getting high.

    I’m no fan of heroine and certainly have major reservations that keep me form wanting it to be legal but you do realize that alcohol poisoning could have left them just as dead, yes? Or inhaling too much paint thinner? Yeah, they chose a drug that’s not legal but the real blame should be on their choice to put too much of a substance that could kill them into their bodies not on the legality, or lack thereof, of the substance.

    • Other Bill

      Weird. I haven’t met any recreational heroin users.

    • JM: “It doesn’t jump out of a needle an ambush anyone.”

      VG: “One day we’ll have a little talk about the kinds of things done to victims of human trafficking and minors who fall into the hands of people who need more ways to control their slaves.”

      Are you attempting to say that the couple in question were the victim of human smuggling? Because if you aren’t, then I have no idea where the heck you were trying to take that…. Is the contention that victims of human smuggling might be addicted against their will? Ok. So stipulated for that very distinct fact pattern, where the heroin DID metaphorically ambush them… Can we get back to this situation where it didn’t?”

      “Yeah, they chose a drug that’s not legal but the real blame should be on their choice to put too much of a substance that could kill them into their bodies not on the legality, or lack thereof, of the substance.”

      I think you’re missing the forest for the trees… Pick a law, any law, there’s no fact pattern where these parents did what they did, even with legal substances, where SOME law wasn’t broken. Child abuse? Child endangerment? Abandonment? Generally, I’m all for people wanting to do whatever they want to their noses and veins, but when you have kids, it’s about more than just you.

      • valkygrrl

        Are you attempting to say that the couple in question were the victim of human smuggling? Because if you aren’t, then I have no idea where the heck you were trying to take that…

        I’m saying Jack’s painting with far too large a brush. He took a set of two jackasses and applied it to everyone who’s ever had illegal drugs in their body. It’s not fair and it’s not true.

        Pick a law, any law, there’s no fact pattern where these parents did what they did, even with legal substances, where SOME law wasn’t broken. Child abuse? Child endangerment? Abandonment? Generally, I’m all for people wanting to do whatever they want to their noses and veins, but when you have kids, it’s about more than just you.

        I’m not disagreeing, at least not completely. I’m mostly okay with the majority of people i a given place deciding to make a drug legal or illegal though I have some worries over spillover of stuff that’s legal in one place into places where it’s not. That’s just being a bad neighbor.

        And child abuse, endangerment, neglect, abandonment, whatever you want to call it, absolutely. Total agreement. But that wasn’t Jack’s focus. He focused on the fact that this particular substance was illegal. I’m not the one missing the forest. Legal substances would have still made the two parents a couple of jackasses.

        This is a case of bad people doing a bad thing. The chosen drug is irreverent. You’re agreeing with me.

    • Wow, a straw man and rationalization classic.
      Tobacco should be illegal; don’t pull that one on me.
      So because sometimes people are forced by extortion to kill someone, nobody’s responsible for murder. This is your logic.
      Alcohol IS legal, because society missed its opportunity, if there ever was one, to register successful condemnation of alcohol.
      You do realize that mentioning a legal drug’s dangers supports my position, not yours, right? No, probably not, I’m afraid.
      Still, two parents who drank themselves to death with children needing them would also be assholes.
      Gee, I’m impressed that you’re no FAN of heroin.
      Their fault is that they broke laws intended to protect the children they chose to abandon.
      Lame does not begin to describe your comment.

      • valkygrrl

        So because sometimes people are forced by extortion to kill someone, nobody’s responsible for murder. This is your logic.

        No. Because sometimes people murder, everyone who kills is a murderer. That’s your logic. You blamed every addicted person for their own addiction, full stop.

        Alcohol IS legal, because society missed its opportunity, if there ever was one, to register successful condemnation of alcohol.

        I think that was the late neolithic period. But then again we also have a few thousand years of opiate use. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531513102007690

        You do realize that mentioning a legal drug’s dangers supports my position, not yours, right? No, probably not, I’m afraid.

        Not really. You’re the one hung up on the legality of the substance not the effects. I don’t think legality had anything to do with this case since there are legal ways to achieve the same result and the result is what you’re holding up as a justification for your position.

        Still, two parents who drank themselves to death with children needing them would also be assholes.

        And yet if they drank themselves to death you wouldn’t get to rant about drug legalization even though the end result would be the same.

        Gee, I’m impressed that you’re no FAN of heroin.

        Thank you, always nice to be appreciated.

        Their fault is that they broke laws intended to protect the children they chose to abandon.

        Glad we agree, so why the rant about drug legalization?

        Lame does not begin to describe your comment.

        How about tremendous, or yuge?

        • The post is about illegal drug use, not prescription drug abuse. The issue is legalization of recreational drugs, not abuse of opioids. Just because you can’t prevail on the facts, you can’t change the subject.

  2. 16 years clean

    This is monstrous, Jack. I sincerely hope you never have to deal with addiction in your family. Instead of criminalizing people with addictions and mental illness we need to treat them like people. If you stop calling them criminals and work with them to get off the smack; the whole world wins.

    • I have had to deal with addiction in my family. Interestingly, the family members that never knowingly violated the law, never became addicted. Why do you think this is?

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        I dealt with it too, and it was a tremendous drain on everyone else. The surest way to stop this damaging behavior is never to start.

      • “They deserve to be blamed, as do the drug legalization advocates who weakened the cultural messages that might have saved their lives.”

        Every time, it just kills me that you think governments paying thousands of armed men to break into homes, kidnap the occupants (or shoot them on occasion), and lock them in cages (and, not incidentally, take their stuff) is just society’s way of sending a “message” that drug use is discouraged. I guess you must think it’s a worthwhile trade off.

        • When have I ever written anything positive about enforcement methods? Link, please. ( I wouldn’t waste much time looking for it, WP—no such commentary exists.)

          Nonetheless, the fact that a law is difficult or unpleasant to enforce doesn’t in any way argue for eliminating the law. That this is the default “logic” of the pro-drug lobby shows how ethically bankrupt and legally ignorant it is.

          It’s really hard enforcing child support orders. Your remedy must be to eliminate them, right?

          • Other Bill

            And it’s really hard enforcing laws in lots of predominantly black, poor neighborhoods. So let’s just stop policing those areas.

            • And, you know, all gun laws are hard to enforce, especially in those neighborhoods. Best to eliminate all of them. I think that’s my favorite: the advocates of eliminating drug laws because enforcement is hard tend to advocate maximum gun regulation.

              • Spartan

                Good point. Or just outlaw the manufacture of guns or the selling of ammunition of any kind. That might be easier.

                • That analogy would be correct if there was an amendment reading, “The ability of a citizen to be able to reduce himself to a useless, drooling, inarticulate blob as a lazy recreational substitute for self-improvement, productive work, or coherent social interaction, being essential to a chaotic, dangerous and wasteful society, the right of an individual to get high shall not be infringed.”

                  Fortunately, there isn’t.

              • That is, in fact, a big part of the NRA’s argument. They argue that gun laws don’t prevent crime, so the only thing gun laws accomplish is harassing otherwise law-abiding gun owners, and that’s a bad thing, so gun laws should be minimized.

            • If by “really hard” you mean that police do more harm than good, then that would be a great idea.

          • “Nonetheless, the fact that a law is difficult or unpleasant to enforce doesn’t in any way argue for eliminating the law.”

            Of course it does. If the law and its enforcement does more harm than good, it’s bad policy.

            “That this is the default ‘logic’ of the pro-drug lobby shows how ethically bankrupt and legally ignorant it is.”

            Honest people may have differing opinions on whether the effects of the drug laws are worth their costs, and if that’s all you’re saying, that’s fair. But if you think it makes sense to support laws independently of the effects of their enforcement, then I think you have confusing ideas about right and wrong in public policy.

            “It’s really hard enforcing child support orders. Your remedy must be to eliminate them, right?”

            Define “really hard”? Does the enforcement mechanism taken as a whole harm children and families more than it helps them? If yes, then yes. For example, at some point you may have to threaten non-supportive parents with jail to get them to start paying, but a child support system that throws non-paying parents in jail too often or too soon could end up harming more children than it helps, because no one can support a child from jail.

            • That’s just wrong, WP. A vital function of law is to make society’s values clear. What a society says is legal is presumed to be safe and good for society. Drugs are not safe and good for society, henceforth they are illegal and correctly so. This isn’t a new or bizarre theory: it is firmly rooted in legal philosophy and law. The theory that enforcing drug laws does more harm than good is a nice, rationalizing myth. I don’t call putting people in jail who show no respect for laws or society’s welfare harm. I call what the law’s violators do harm. The focus should be on them, first and foremost. I just watched “Traffic’ again–a terrific movement, but the speeches, like Topher Grace’s rant about how the demand for drugs is the fault of the enforcers, makes me furious every time. Increasing supply and reducing cost is going to reduce demand and use. Right.

              Whatever harm enforcement does, it pales next to the harm of having a twice or three times as many addicts as we have now, and having to pay for all the harm they do to business, families and society.

              • But at some point you have to define a line where costs outweigh the benefits, otherwise you would STILL be vociferously advocation for alcohol prohibition. But you’ve accepted that as a lost cause, if I remember correctly based on cost vs benefit arguments.

                Which then leads to the position that the current collateral effects of the “war on drugs” are acceptable to you on that baasis.

                How bad would it then have to get before you do accept your same stance on alcohol prohibition?

              • valkygrrl

                That’s just wrong, WP. A vital function of law is to make society’s values clear. What a society says is legal is presumed to be safe and good for society.

                That’s a dangerously authoritarian position.

                Things are legal because they’re not expressly forbidden not because they’re presumed to be good. Because we value individual liberty. Because someone can make their own mistakes so long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

                • You are in a fantasy. Who takes care of the children? Who pays for the failed business? Who pays the unemployment benefits when junlies get fired? Who is responsible for the budget deficit when businesses fail and taxes faall short? Who pays for medical costs? Who has to live with homeless begging on every corner, and the stench of urine in Times Square? Who are the crime victims when junkies need money for a fix. You read the post, and you still default to the “victimless crime” lie. What’s the matter with you? How brainwashed are you?

                  Is it authoritarian for government to declare that robbery is wrong? Traspass? Why not? Why are those absolutely destructive and dangerous acts justifiably declared conduct that society won’t tolerate, and incapacisting yourrself so you can’t perform your duties to society and instead become a burden on that society just being free free free!?

                  The theory was self-evidently ridiculous when I first heard it from rock singers and hippies, but that was 50 years ago, they were young, and we hadn’t seen what that “freedom” would do to the nation. Today, there is no excuse for it.

                  • Though I understood what you are driving, and I think it is a cheap shot for valkygrrl to make in attempts to derail the main focus of the discussion, I think it is a very ambiguous statement.

                    “What a society says is legal is presumed to be safe and good for society.”

                    I think would better be worded:

                    “What society says is illegal is presumed to be unsafe and bad for society.”

                    I think that is an absolutely valid statement, but it’s apparent reversal (the statement you made) can’t be considered a perfectly valid opposite – I think the logical fallacy is Denying the Antecedent.

                    Now, given additional conditions your assertion is true: Such as “What society once considered illegal but now says is legal IS presumed to be safe and good for society.”

                    But alone, the statement “What a society says is legal is presumed to be safe and good for society.” is too wide open to include lots of other unspoken considerations to be absolutely true. Such as types of conduct that we believe is unsafe or bad for society but that cannot be made illegal WITHOUT making safe and good conduct of the same category illegal also. For example Free Speech. It is NOT good for society to swear and curse all the time or to announce a platform of racial superiority or denigrating others purely out of malice, but to make that ILLEGAL would require making ALL manner of speech illegal. And we’ve decided free speech is TOO valuable to do so.

                    Examples such as that undermine the general nature of “What society says is illegal is presumed to be unsafe and bad for society.”

                    But I did get what you were aiming for (I think) and I think it would be better worded as the negative I gave above. And I still think it’s a cheap derailing shot on the part of Valky.

                  • Steve-O-in-NJ

                    You’re wasting your breath, Jack. Arguing with a drug legalization advocate is a game of pigeon chess. For reasons akin to what I posted on another thread here, one side in the political discussion in this nation has decided that loosening of enforcement and a few steps toward outright legalization is the way to go to attract the votes of those who cry “free free free” and worship Jerry Garcia and guys like him.

              • Eric Monkman

                Why would you presume that what is made legal is therefore considered safe and good for society? There are many counter-examples.

                Suicide has been legalized across most of the western world (sorry Ruddigore), but this is not a government endorsement of suicide as being safe or good for society. Adultery has been made legal in many states, and no-fault divorce laws are common, but this does not mean society approves of adultery or divorce. Debtors’ prisons are abolished and people can declare bankruptcy. It is good for society that some people can go bankrupt, but that does not mean that the government thinks it is generally a good thing when people do not pay their debts.

                • Adultery will result in serious damages as divorce sttlements: the law still discourages adultery. Suicide is illegal in most states, and aiding in suicide is murder. The rest of the Western world is wrong, that’s all. Suicide is devastating to society and has many victims: it is appropriate for it to be illegal as well as being regraded as immoral: it is definitely unethical. There are good arguments for exceptions to such laws, but suicide supports my position, not yours. People who run up debts with no intention of paying—mens rea is required for crimes; nobody is prosecuted when those drugs jump out and ambush them, you know—are prosecuted for fraud and theft.

                  So let’s see: “everybody does it”, debt, which lacks mens rea, and adultery, which is handled with serious civil penalties. Are those the best you can muster?

                  • Eric Monkman

                    I provided the clearest counterexamples to the assertion: “What a society says is legal is presumed to be safe and good for society”. Few people would presume that suicide is safe or good for society on the basis that it has been legalized. Suicide should not to be a crime even though it ruins the lives of those who do it. Partly this is because, for many people (myself included), suicide invokes more feelings of pity than feelings of blame. Furthermore, from a practical point of view, it is better if someone who attempts suicide seeks help, rather than keeping an attempted crime a secret.

                    In the case of adultery, society is perfectly justified to conclude that it is better to allow the three or four people most directly affected by the act to resolve the matter themselves. This does not mean that society approves of adultery.

                    To return to the topic of drugs, there are some drugs for which it is rational for society to leave it to adults to decide whether the risks and consequences of use are worth it. Other drugs are sufficiently harmful that prohibition is justified. I’ll leave it to those more knowledgeable than me to determine where the line should be drawn.

                    • There is a rationalization on the list that addresses this: If it’s legal, it’s ethical. I’d say a majority of the public believes this, and by a wide margin. It’s not true, of ciurse, but we’re talking about the messages government sends to the public, and how law interacts with culture. I know that what is legal is often unethical. But when a government says “We said this was illegal; now we’ve decided it shouldn’t be” the message received is “It’s OK now.”

      • valkygrrl

        Luck?

        Opiate withdrawal isn’t fun but they’ll sure pump you fill of the stuff in the hospital and then leave you to spend the next six weeks twitching and itching all over.

      • joed68

        A great many addicts became addicts after being prescribed opioids for pain, and this etiology is becoming more and more prevalent . The thing is, the response individuals have to opioids is as variable as fingerprints, because there are an enormous number of alleles that determine this, not to mention the variability in the number and type of receptors involved. This response can range from “meh” to “God held me in his loving embrace, and I knew perfect orgasmic bliss, and I felt normal and good for the first time in my life”. In fact, they’re finding that many people lack the normal complement of endorphins, dynorphins, enkephalins, and other neurotransmitters(genetic predispositions) that render them very vulnerable to opioids and/or stimulants. All sorts of structural and chemical changes, often permanent or nearly so, begin occurring from the very first exposure. We’re only beginning to understand this baffling and complex phenomenon. In fact, we now have post-doctoral fellowships in addiction medicine and research being offered pretty much everywhere in order to try to understand it. I wholeheartedly agree with you about almost everything you stated, but it’s no longer debatable that addiction is an extremely powerful disease, in every sense of the word.

  3. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Heroin is also a fairly advanced drug – it’s pretty rare that anyone takes it as their first high. Usually by the time you shoot up heroin you have been using other stuff, most of it illegal, for awhile. My point being that these two idiots had probably both been using, either on and off or continuously, for a while. In the meantime they managed to squirt out four kids they didn’t have clue one as to how to take care of, the first when they were barely more than kids themselves.

    Poverty didn’t stick the needle in their arms, and neither did society. This is another example of ethical rot. Getting high is a dangerous and disabling distraction, the same as getting drunk, yet now getting high is considered ok and even hip, whereas getting drunk is pretty much frowned upon for anyone who’s out of college. At least you can usually tell when someone is drunk, and when they sober up they are sober. Not so with all these drugs, though you can usually tell long-term users.

    In the end this just wrecked one family. If drugs become more prevalent, who knows who we’ll run into drugged up in our daily lives. Do you want your furnace to explode because the technician who worked on it was high and installed something wrong? Do you want the wheel of your car to come off at 60 mph because a drugged up mechanic didn’t tighten the nuts all the way? Do you want your kid’s eyes burned out because the pool maintenance guy was not quite over his last hit and put too much chlorine in the pool?

    But hey, this is the new America, where we’re supposed to be over our fear of drugs, and nobody’s business is nobody’s business.

  4. Rich in CT

    I’ll bite.

    Dally and Lally were NOT victims of human trafficking or any sort of slavery. You are attempting to use a serious, but completely unrelated issue to distract from Dally and Lally’s illegal behavior and gross negligence towards themselves and their children. One seven year old dress herself and went to school; a toddler and baby were left home alone with a set of corpse! No trafficker forced Dally and Lally into this situation, coercing them on threat of death or assault into taking drugs.

    That they could have overdosed on Alcohol or killed themselves over time with Tobacco is also COMPLETELY irrelevant. They have an duty to NOT kill or incapacitate themselves under any circumstance to the detriment of the children’s wellfare or society as a whole.

    This also includes driving safely, eating nutritiously, maintaining smoke detectors, etc. You could have mentioned any one of these topics, and it would be just as relevant (i.e. NOT relevant) as tobacco and alcohol to the issue of voluntary illegal drug use.

    These drugs are ILLEGAL because they are ACUTELY dangerous. Take too large a hit, you die. Take a tainted hit, you die. Drink one beer, you don’t. Drink 10 beers, you don’t (and then drive, you might, along with bystanders). Eat a cheeseburger, you don’t. Eat ten cheeseburgers, you don’t. Smoke a cigarette, you don’t. Smoke 10, you don’t.

    Take 10 hits of heroine, you die. Take one contaminated hit, you die.

    Everyone has a duty to to not harm themselves, but society cannot be everybody’s mother. We educate on long term dangers of unhealthy eating, smoking, drinking, etc, but we simply cannot mother them and make anyone stop doing chronically harmful behavior. We can, however, make acutely harmful behavior illegal, to send a message that such behavior is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

    Had Dally and Lally heeded society’s message, they would still be alive to mother and father their children.

    • valkygrrl

      That they could have overdosed on Alcohol or killed themselves over time with Tobacco is also COMPLETELY irrelevant. They have an duty to NOT kill or incapacitate themselves under any circumstance to the detriment of the children’s wellfare or society as a whole.

      That they chose heroin to overdose on is completely irrelevant. I’m not the one suggesting that the problem was their choice of poison, your beef is with Jack not me.

  5. Spartan

    This is why most people shouldn’t have children. Perhaps if we paid people NOT to have children, they would use the money to OD quicker and not have left four defenseless children in this world.

    • That was almost callous, Spart… I’m proud of you!

      • Spartan

        I am very callous when it comes to children. Most people have no business having them. Since eugenics always has been abused and most certainly violates all notions of individual rights, the only way around it is to pay people not to have them.

        Money is a powerful motivating factor. You can bet that people will put more thought into self-sterilization or birth control if it means a government hand-out until they are 30 (or whatever the cut-off would be). In addition to improving society and helping diminish out-of-control population growth, I bet that it would cost less to pay people to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready to have children then the way we are doing it now.

        • If we have an ‘out of control’ local population problem, why are we still encouraging immigration? If the problem is not local, but global, how would American domestic programs address the problem?

          But that’s catty, I generally agree, both in a global and national sense.

          • Spartan

            An immigrant population does not add to the world’s population. People are people — no matter where they are. Also, an immigrant population can be hardworking and contribute no matter where they are. None of that changes the fact that people should wait to have children until they can properly take care of them — generally.

            An American domestic program would be a trend-setter no doubt but we can, and should, lead by example. Other first world nations (the ones who are not experiencing a population decline) would follow suit. The remedy for third-world countries is a bit different since they don’t have the tax revenue to fund this. Instead, charitable organizations — many of whom already focus on family planning — would require additional resources. Plus, the more stable and democratic the government, the more control women have over decision-making about when or if to have children.

            • “An immigrant population does not add to the world’s population. People are people — no matter where they are. Also, an immigrant population can be hardworking and contribute no matter where they are. None of that changes the fact that people should wait to have children until they can properly take care of them — generally.”

              Not a single argument.

              The rest… Line by line?

              “An American domestic program would be a trend-setter no doubt but we can, and should, lead by example.”

              ‘No doubt’? I doubt. What’s the last trend that caught on Globally from the rest of the world? I hear things like this and it serves to remind me how little Americans really know about what happens outside their borders.

              “Other first world nations (the ones who are not experiencing a population decline) would follow suit.”

              You realise that were it not for immigration, America’s natural population would be on the decline? 1.88 births per woman in 2012, and that trend isn’t positive.

              “The remedy for third-world countries is a bit different since they don’t have the tax revenue to fund this. Instead, charitable organizations — many of whom already focus on family planning — would require additional resources.”

              Barf. So not only should America offer subsidies for good reproductive behaviour for its’ own people, it should also subsidise the rest of the world’s through charities? When and how did it become the American taxpayer’s burden to pay for the sex lives of half the world over? Or are you suggesting that charities can operate without government aid?

              Globalism only works if the world buys in, and quite frankly, you need to re-evaluate your tendency of believing that people all over the world would think and act like you if only they had the same resources you did.

              • I’m sitting here idly pondering the similarities between globalism and communism.

                • Other Bill

                  Sparty. Sparty. Pay people to not have children? Whew!

                  When I was a year out of college and living with my then girlfriend who had had her daughter by her abusive, mentally ill but very well to do husband who kicked her out of their apartment because she wouldn’t abort the baby, that girlfriend (now wife of forty-two years) and I were having dinner in an Indian restaurant in Cambridge, MA. I was twenty-three and she was twenty-two. The baby was less than a year old. A snotty, not as old as I am now, doubtless Harvard professor (or asshole from some other local school) sitting at the table next to us inquired of his wife very loudly while looking in our direction, “Why do we let everyone have children without a license when we don’t let people drive cars without licenses?”

                  Sure, I was scruffy looking. But it was 1974, and that baby has a masters from Georgetown and manages an adult ed facility in Tucson. She’s been married for fourteen years and has a daughter ten and a son six. Her son is teaching his grandmother how to play chess. Our son is forty and has an eight year old son. He’s been married for ten years. My wife is soon to retire from fairly senior management at IBM after working since she was fourteen. I’m retired from the private practice of law for twenty years. “C’est la vie,” say the old folks, “it goes to show you never can tell.”

                  You really want allegedly smart assholes who have eagerly sought out government jobs deciding who has kids and who doesn’t? You know, the same people you insist aren’t smart enough to follow basic computer security protocols or realize using a private server to transmit highly classified documents is stupid?

                  Say it ain’t so.

                  • Spartan

                    Nothing that I said would have changed your scenario. People can have children whenever they want and at whatever age they want under my proposed plan. But if you have a kid before the age of 30 you lose your government check. After 30, you get your usual tax deduction for each kid you have. See how that works? No smart assholes involved.

                    I’m not sure you read what I wrote — you were too busy focusing on your own anecdote. My mom was 19 when she had my sister and my sister-in-law was 17 when she had my niece. These girls grew up to be smart, capable women as well. So what?

                    • Other Bill

                      SO WHAT? … the mothers would have aborted these wonderful kids to keep their check coming in? SO my point is who is anybody to say anybody should or shouldn’t have kids? Whether it’s a prescription or a taxpayer funded inducement.

                      Or would this program just apply to black people? Or people with a certain SAT score? You don’t think your proposed program is terribly Orwellian? Sorry, it creeps me out.

                      Who decides on thirty being the age? White guys in the legislature. Aren’t they supposed to keep their hands off women’s bodies?

                    • Other Bill

                      And you wouldn’t be first in line to take a pro bono case representing a young woman who thinks the law is unconstitutional?

                    • Other Bill

                      And what about disparate impact? You think the Justice Department would allow such a provision to go unchallenged? And presumably you’d take away welfare benefits for unwed and/or indigent mothers. Or would that stay in place?

                    • Spartan

                      Wonderful mothers would not abort their children to keep their check coming in. Horrible or desperate mothers would. And if the check was so important to them in the first place, they would take more precautions when having sex (like long-term birth control). Except for the serial abortionists out there, most women view abortions as an extremely unpleasant and emotionally devastating act.

                      Nobody is saying when people should or should not have kids — at least no more than now when a tax deduction is available to everybody. It’s just an inducement to get young people to focus on finding the right mate, education (if necessary), a stable job, etc. before pro-creating. And if they want to pro-create at 16? Fine by me — you just don’t get a check.

                    • Spartan

                      The law is not unconstitutional. On what basis? Men get the same benefit as women.

                      We would keep welfare, but that program will dramatically become less costly.

                  • joed68

                    We should pay the social engineering types to live on their own island, totally unsubsidized and free to put all of their schemes into motion. Maybe call it Walden III.

                    • Spartan

                      Well, there definitely would be a lot of trees …..

                    • Other Bill

                      Sparty. You should go into politics. Your self-assureance and arrogance are more than sufficiently breath taking.

                      Your law would be unconstitutional because it discriminates against women or men who have children. And you really want a government policy that encourages women to not have children during their best child-bearing years? You’ll represent pro bono the class of women who are over thirty and haven’t had children and find themselves unable to have children in their thirties because of various predictable complications? And you want to toy with the country’s population like the Chinese did with their one child rule?

                      Maybe you can write a book: “Social Engineering is Fun!”

                    • Other Bill

                      And what’s so magic about being thirty when it comes to raising children? I know lots of mature twenty year-olds and lots of immature thirty year-olds. There are tremendous benefits to having children in your twenties in terms of energy. What would be the rational basis for the thirty year-old cut off? There isn’t one. You’ve just decided it would be neat.

                    • I think, even as bonkers as Spartan’s social engineering scheme is, that arguing against it should avoid the specific details she’s laid out. I think she will admit it’s purely speculative and the details merely examples and possibilities.

                      Stick to attacking the core notion – paying people not to have children. And attack the flaws inherent in that.

                    • Spartan

                      Other Bill — Do you think our current tax code is unconstitutional because it confers a benefit to people who do have children? And that benefit is increased the more children you have?

                      I don’t think it’s arrogant to observe that we (and I’m just focused on the US now) have a real problem. Twenty-five percent of children live below the poverty line. Thirty percent do not have enough food to eat. Our schools are failing and I am certainly not smart enough to fix them. But I am smart enough to observe that many of these problems start at home. Failing kids tend to live in failing communities. Parents are working multiple jobs just trying to keep up with the bills. Families who don’t have time to read to children. Communities that do not have books. Libraries aren’t being funded (e.g., the library in my town is only open for a few hours on the weekend).

                      I grew up in one of these areas. Poverty is not fun — and the primary cause is people having babies too young and having too many of them. This is especially true for a country like ours that no longer has good paying jobs for unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Social policy that encourages, but does not mandate, that people wait until they are in a better decision to provide for their families is PRO-family. How is that wrong? It’s the same lesson I was taught in Church each Sunday. But lessons alone are not enough — especially when it comes to people to have nothing.

                      And no, there is a 0% chance that I will go into politics. I am also smart enough to know that nobody likes this message.

                • joed68

                  “I’m sitting here idly pondering the similarities between globalism and communism.”

                  I think globalism is just communism with a wig and lipstick.

              • joed68

                “When and how did it become the American taxpayer’s burden to pay for the sex lives of half the world over? ”

                Isn’t it already?

            • Spartan

              “Barf. So not only should America offer subsidies for good reproductive behaviour for its’ own people, it should also subsidise the rest of the world’s through charities? When and how did it become the American taxpayer’s burden to pay for the sex lives of half the world over? Or are you suggesting that charities can operate without government aid?”

              I didn’t say America should fund it and I didn’t suggest that it would happen overnight. There are lots of reasons third-world countries can’t control population growth — economic system, culture, lack of retirement income, political instability, etc. But one of the primary reasons is that women do not have access to birth control.

    • They say you get what you pay for. This applies across the spectrum of human behavior. But, it isn’t guaranteed to be consequence free.

  6. The mothers family tried to legally get the children away from them months earlier. In response, the inlaws were apparently accused of child abuse, accusations which the father put on his Facebook page. The inlaws then backed off and there was a complete estrangement. I have no way of really knowing the truth, but I know what I believe to be probable. I REALLY hate false allegations of child abuse. I’ve seen the damage, foster children pulled from loving foster homes because of generally necessary backside covering, custody cases, and angry neighbors. The ‘unsubstantiated’ finding always gets lost and forgotten long after the damage is done to the child. I don’t blame the inlaw’s for backing off, and now in her grief, the sister is blaming herself for the estrangement when she was trying to protect children. It is not my habit to speak ill of the dead. Assholes.

  7. THE Will

    You really are a piece of work. No sympathy at all for two people who died.

    I hope to god you never have to deal with someone who is addicted to opiates and has moved on to heroin. All the laws in the world wont stop them from trying to get it. Its not because they don’t care about the laws , are weak or denigrates its because addiction to opiates and heroin is more powerful then anything you can imagine.

    A good friend of yours and mine just a three months ago had to put their son into rehab to try to save his life because his addition to prescription pain killers, and that’s where almost all of todays heroin addicts addictions start with prescription pain killers that have been over prescribed, moved on to heroin.

    Unfortunately my nephew wasn’t so lucky with his five year fight with addiction to opiates and heroin. He started taking prescription OxyContin for a back injury , all the doctors said not to worry that oxy wasn’t addictive.

    But that wasn’t true. Once he was good and addicted to it the prescriptions were cut off so he moved to buying it on the street. The problem with that is that Oxy on the street is expensive. But you know what isn’t? Heroin. Its much easier to acquire and cheaper to buy. So that was his next step.

    He tried to kick it several times, spent 30 days in rehab, he should have spent more but rehab is expensive and that’s all his health care would pay for. The when he relapsed he lost his job and there went the health care so there was no way he could go to rehab again.

    He eventually got clean over a year ago. He was working two jobs and staying busy as he could because that was the best way to not shoot up. Then this past August his roommate found him dead . We don’t know yet of it was an overdose. We know that the cops found works in his room but they couldn’t tell if he had used them recently. It was either an overdose or his body basically had suffered so much damage from all the years of drug abuse that it said fuck it and quit.

    Next Saturday I get to stand next to his wife and two kids, my older sister his mother, his sisters and brothers and the rest of our family watch the his ashes be placed in a vault in our families cemetery in the hills of Virginia. I wont be thinking that he broke the law or that he was selfish for being a junkie or that he must not of loved his kids. I will be thinking that a 40 year old man lost his life because of the horrible disease of addiction. He tried but he failed. I will also be thinking that if this country put a tenth of the resources it puts in to incarcerating people who use drugs in to treating people who use drugs that maybe we could keep more people from dying. But we wont. Its easier to lock them up and say we are tough on crime then treating the real problem which is the disease of addiction.

    • It’s a terrible disease. It’s also a terrible disease that those afflicted have the responsibility to address. Sympathy for those two people? Absolutely not. You sympathize with them? How? They had kids, they had responsibilities, they knew the risks, and they broke the law to get addicted.

      I can’t discuss the issue with you in the context of your nephew—that isn’t fair it the issue, me, or you. But if it is OK to use heroin illegally to deal with a prescription addiction, then it must be OK to steal to buy the heroin, right? When, if ever, do we place responsibility on the user? Never? When they kill somebody? Or when they knowingly break the law, realizing where it will lead?

    • I will also be thinking that if this country put a tenth of the resources it puts in to incarcerating people who use drugs in to treating people who use drugs that maybe we could keep more people from dying. But we wont. Its easier to lock them up and say we are tough on crime then treating the real problem which is the disease of addiction.

      If it is easier to lock them up than treat them, I would wager a guess it would also be a hell of a lot more expensive to treat them that to lock them up…

      Leading me to conclude that if this country put a 10 of the resources used for incarceration into treatment, we’d be solving even FEWER problems of addiction…

      • “If he’d just pay me what he’s spending to make me stop robbing him, I’d stop robbing him.”—Butch Cassidy (actually Pail Newman, scripted by William Goldman.)

        Will’s really old and really bad argument always reminds me of Butch’s logic, which was intended as a joke in the film. What a deal! waste your money, get stoned, get stupid, be irresponsible, break the law, and then when it becomes a problem for you, make the government pay for your treatment so you can start all over again. good plan!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s