Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010

Wall Street Journal DECEMBER 29, 2008

By ANDREW OSBORN

MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.


IGOR PANARIN
In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

The 48 Hour Film Project

The Lumiere Brothers
Pioneers of Cinema and Color






The original topic for my paper was to be on “Nanook of the North” due to my background in Anthropology and Archaeology and my interest in the concept of cultural impact derived from the mere presence of industrialized peoples influence on isolated culture. This anthropological perspective is well documented and debated, and through my research have come to conclude that Flaherty keeps good company when tromping all over the “Anthropological perspective”. Also, I have come to understand the importance of the Lumiere Brothers as pioneers of cinema and believe their story to be much more interesting.

The Lumiere Brothers were not only the first to project images on a screen for an audience in December of 1895 in a commercial setting, they were also first to make documentaries, called “actualities”, a comedy, “Le Jardinier (l'Arroseur Arrose)” (The Gardener of The Sprinkler Sprinkled), a home movie “Le Repas (de Bebe)” (Baby's Meal), and a host of other first films including “La Sortie Des Ouviers De L’Usine Lumiere a Lyon” or “Workers leaving the Lumiere Facotry”, not only the first series, but also most likely their first films and “Arrivee d'un train en gare a La Ciotat” (Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat), which some sources reported was shocking to its first unsophisticated viewing audience.

Throughout the evolution of both technique and technology, the influence of their filming style, such as using a high contrast medium and the use of the “close-up” can be seen in future filmmaking throughout the history of filmmaking to current films such as Ken Burns’ “The War”.

The Latin for "light" is lumen. What a wonderful verbal coincidence that the Lumiere brothers, Auguste and Louis, were the first to patent a motion picture camera, which they called a "Cinematograph”. The cinematographe was not only a camera housed inside a wooden box, but a printer and projector as well. This first “all in one” device was patented in February of 1895. This device was remarkably compact and did not rely on electrical power. In contrast, Edison’s “Kinetograph” did rely on electrical power to ensure consistency in film speed and operation and therefore was limited in it’s use due to the rarity of available electrical power at that time as well as it’s large size and weight. For both of those reasons, the Edison machine was anchored at the Edison studio called “the Black Maria”. Items were brought before the kinetograph to film there. The cinematographe, however, could be used anywhere to either shoot film or for use as a projector.

The mechanics of the cinematographe included a film transport mechanism, whereby “claws” were inserted into sprocket holes on each side of the film that moved away during exposure of the film thereby leaving the film stationary during exposure. This “claw” apparatus was based on the principle used in the mechanism of a sewing machine. The handle at the rear of the cinematographe operated the rotating shutter and take-up magazine as well as the film transport mechanism. The cinematographe used a film width of 35mm, and a speed of 16 frames per second. This format was an industry norm until the advent of sound in film in the late 1920s. 35mm film shot at 24 frames per second then became the standard.

Each Lumiere show comprised ten films and lasted about 15 minutes. There were twenty shows a day, starting at 10:00 am and ending at 1:30 am the next morning. Admission was one franc. There was little public interest at first, the few papers that reported on it criticized the name “Cinematographe”, but curious passers-by who ventured into the hall were astonished at what they saw and returned with their friends. News soon spread. On some days, lines extended a quarter of a mile, and sales amounted to 2,500 francs.

The first public screening of the cinematographe in Britain took place at the Malborough Hall of the Royal Polytechnic Institution in Regent Street, London in February of 1896. The opening performance attracted only 54 customers but, as in Paris, the cinematographe’s popularity soon increased. Cinema quickly became part of music hall programs and Cinematographe shows started at the Empire Theatre in Leicester Square, London in March of 1896.

In America, the first Cinematographe show took place at Keith’s Union Square Theater in New York in June of 1896. In November the Lumieres established their own agency in New York selling equipment and films. This was very successful for a few months but by April of 1897 the agency began liquidating stock and shortly afterwards transferred its business to the American agents Maguire & Baucus. This transfer was partly because the Lumieres had fallen foul of the American customs by importing apparatus and films illegally. Their manager had to flee the country. Mainly, the transfer occured because films sprockets in the Edison format were becoming the industry standard. The Lumieres issued copies of films in both their original and the Edison format but it signaled the obsolescence of the original Cinematographes. Before the end of 1897 the Lumiere Cinematographe Model B, a projection-only machine designed for film with Edison perforations, had largely superseded the original cinematographe.

In the first years of the Lumiere film operation, cameramen were sent all over the world to record scenes in Russia, Japan, and the Middle East. Auguste and Louis continued to work on technical developments and in 1900 devised a camera that took large format 75mm films. By 1905, however, the Lumieres withdrew from the cinema business and the “Studio System”. They worked instead on inventing the first successful photographic color process, the Lumiere Autochrome. In 1907 they started manufacturing dry plates at their facility in Lyons, France. Shortly thereafter a manufacturing facility was established in Burlington, Vermont, USA. The process, which they sold at that time, was known as the Autochrome process. Louis also worked on a process of stereoscopic cinematography.
The two brothers lived long enough to be fated as pioneers of the cinema, as Louis stated, “On December 28, 1895, was really born the expression:” “I have been to a movie.”


References:


Ballast Quarterly Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, Winter 2005.

Documentary, A History Of The Non-Fiction Film, Erik Barnouw, Oxford University Press, 1993, p 5-29.

Film History Before 1920, Tim Dirks, 1996-2007, www.filmsite.org/pre20sintro2

Lumière and Company

by Sarah Moon, Director
Fox/Lorber Home Video, NY, NY, 1995
DVD, 88 mins. Reviewed by Roy R. Behrens
Department of Art, University of Northern Iowa, USA


The First Practical Color Photographic Process, Dan McNeil, USA, Micscape Magazine, October 2001.

The Lumiere Brothers, Pioneers of Cinema and Colour Photography, Thom Ryan 2006, http://filmyear.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/index.html

They Want To Take Away Everything That Is "New Mexico"!

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Cockfighting Ban Backed by Governor

By Russell Max Simon
Journal Northern Bureau
SANTA FE— Gov. Bill Richardson announced Wednesday that after years of not taking a position on the issue he will support passage of a statewide ban on cockfighting during the 2007 legislative session.
"The time has come to make it happen," Richardson said at the Santa Fe Animal Shelter. "The people of New Mexico want it to happen, and not only will I support a ban, but I will actively try to make it law."
For more than a decade, legislators have battled over whether to ban cockfighting in New Mexico. Opponents of the sport call it barbaric and cruel, while supporters defend it as a crucial part of New Mexico culture and a constitutional right.
New Mexico and Louisiana are the only states where cockfighting remains legal.
Richardson has, until now, stayed out of the fray, and several bills to enact a statewide ban have died at the Roundhouse.
With Richardson's support, state Sen. Mary Jane Garcia, D-Doña Ana, said she hopes a ban will pass in 2007.
"It's a gruesome, barbaric sport, and then they try to convince me it's a cultural sport. I don't think so," Garcia told Wednesday's news conference.
State Rep. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, said Wednesday that he also will introduce anti-cockfighting legislation next year.
Thirteen of New Mexico's 33 counties and 29 municipalities have already enacted bans.
"I'm really pleased with the governor's announcement," Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez said in a written statement. "If successful, this means New Mexico won't be the last state in the union to ban this barbaric practice."
But state Sen. Phil Griego, D-San Jose, said banning cockfighting could set New Mexico on a slippery slope toward eliminating other treasured events.
"You start doing away with cockfighting, then you open the door and they're going to start doing away with rodeos. And when you do away with rodeos, they're going to start doing away with hunting and fishing," Griego said.
"It's a way for these liberals to kick in the door and do away with everything we've ever been accustomed to for over 300 years here in the West."
That New Mexico still permits cockfighting has been the subject of barbs from Jay Leno and criticism from national animal rights activists. It also has drawn questions about Richardson's position from the Washington press corps.
Still, Griego said he didn't believe Richardson's decision to come out against cockfighting was timed to deal with a political liability should the governor, as expected, announce that he intends to run for president in 2008.
"I don't look at it as him trying to get a step up in the political world," Griego said. "I see it as him concerned about an issue that's going to come before the Legislature."
Richardson said the timing of the announcement was the result of having taken care of other pressing issues in past legislative sessions.
"The problem in the past was I wanted us to deal with so many of the other pressing issues, like creating jobs, improving schools, access to health care," he said. "Now that we've made progress in all of those areas, and because the people of New Mexico overwhelmingly want a ban, I believe that as the governor I should throw my support behind a cockfighting ban."
A 2004 Journal poll found that two-thirds of state voters would support a law banning cockfighting. Only 23 percent of registered voters polled statewide said they would oppose such a law, while 11 percent said they were undecided.
"The governor, up to now, has avoided taking a firm stand on the cockfighting issue," said Brian Sanderoff, president of Research and Polling Inc. in Albuquerque and the Journal's pollster. "A small but vocal group of New Mexicans has strongly opposed any legislation to ban cockfighting. But as the governor ponders a run for the White House, it might prove to be politically embarrassing for him to not take a strong stance against cockfighting."
Al Lavallee, the manager of a cockfighting pit in Hobbs, said a ban would likely just drive cockfighting underground.
"We'll fight it, of course, in whatever is available to us," Lavallee said. "But essentially, most of us, to be honest about it, will keep raising our flocks and go on with it."
Lavallee said people who raise roosters to fight have their "weapons of choice," be it razor blades, hooks, or other tools that are attached to the fighting birds' legs, and he acknowledged it's a brutal sport. But he said roosters are naturally disposed toward fighting.
"If you take a rooster and without any training or indoctrination of any sort, and you starve him for a week, and you let him out with a rooster and a hen and a pile of food in front of him, he's going to kill that rooster, (mate with) that hen, and eat that food. It's just the nature of the animal," Lavallee said.
Griego said cruelty to animals is in the eye of the beholder.
"Some view professional football as cruelty to mankind. It's just something you've got to deal with. It's all in how you view it," he said.
As part of a package of animal protection legislation, Richardson also said he will propose funding for creation of a state animal welfare board, animal shelter improvements, spay and neuter programs, creation of sanctuaries for old and neglected horses and other measures.

Now we'll have to go to Juarez to see a good cockfight! The lost tourist dollers will be in the billions! (pesos)

Most of all, don't forget to take home some of my tasty fried chicken! Ha ha! It just tastes so damn good!

You scored as Captain Spaulding. You are Captain Spaulding. You love a good laugh, but when someone needs to die, you dont mind killing them. You hate people who dont like clowns, and feel they should die too. Infact, you just want to wreak havoc on anyone who hates clowns! Then enjoy a nice bucket of fried chicken after the daily killings! Captain Spaulding 75% Leatherface 70% Freddy Krueger 70% Hannibal Lecter 70% Pinhead 65% Jason Voorhees 65% Michael Myers 60% Jigsaw 60% Candyman 55% Buffalo Bill 35% Which Horror Killer are You? created with QuizFarm.com

Continuing Coverage of This Nations Misguided War On Drugs.

Agents seize drugs, guns
(82 comments; last comment posted Today 09:19 am)


A trailer with over 300 marijuana plants with a potential street value of $300,000 outside the Santa Fe County Sheriff Department on August 23, 2006. The plants were confiscated in the Madrid area on Tuesday and Wednesday by the Region 3 Drug Enforcement Task Force. The task force is comprised of the Santa Fe County Sheriffs Department, National Guard, Santa Fe Police Department and the State Police Department.

By Jason Auslander | The New Mexican
August 24, 2006

Police seized tens of thousands of dollars worth of marijuana and cocaine from three areas near Santa Fe on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The cache of drugs was sizable: more than 400 nearly mature marijuana plants from plots near Madrid and Taos, 9.5 ounces of cocaine and several firearms, police said.

Officers from the Region III Narcotics Task Force uprooted 96 marijuana plants, which were about 4-feet high, from a plot near Madrid on Tuesday night, said Lt. Jimmy Glascock, who leads the task force that includes members of several Northern New Mexico law-enforcement agencies. On Wednesday, police seized about 200 more marijuana plants from another growing area near Madrid, he said.

The two plots, which were spotted from the air by helicopter, featured fencing to keep out animals, camouflage nets to disguise the plants from aerial surveillance and elaborate watering systems, Glascock said. The growing areas were in a mountainous, rural area outside Madrid, he said.

No one was found at the two Madrid sites, though police are continuing to investigate who might have been in charge of the operations and have leads on potential suspects, Glascock said.

Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano said agents initially brought the plants to his department's headquarters off N.M. 14 and stored them in a garage. However, after an employee had to be sent home because she said the intense marijuana odor was making her sick, agents quickly removed the trailer-load of plants, Solano said.

He said the department has a ventilated room where deputies normally store marijuana but the quantity Wednesday was too large to fit in that room and had to be put in a garage. Its strong smell permeated the Sheriff's Department building, he said.

Glascock said the plants will be destroyed in an incinerator at state police headquarters as soon as possible. Using a Drug Enforcement Agency formula of about $1,000 per plant, the value of the marijuana seized from Madrid was about $300,000, Glascock said, though he suspected the street value was less than that amount.


Helicopters buzzed around the Taos area, and agents from the task force seized about 220 plants and a half-ounce of cocaine from multiple locations, Glascock said. He did not have specifics on the Taos operation because officers were still working in the field Wednesday evening, though he said one person in the Taos area had been arrested.

In most cases, the marijuana-growing areas near Taos also had been spotted from the air, he said.

Finally, narcotics agents from the Santa Fe Police Department conducted an early-morning raid on a residence in La Cienega on Camino Torcido Loop, where they discovered nine ounces of cocaine, or about a quarter of a kilogram, Capt. Gary Johnson said. Agents also found four guns -- including a semiautomatic rifle and another gun reported stolen from New York -- and bulletproof vests, he said.

The department obtained arrest warrants for two men who were living in the residence, but they were not there when members of the city's Special Weapons and Tactics team and the Sheriff's Department raided it about 6 a.m., Johnson said. The two men were still at-large as of Wednesday evening, he said.

"Anytime you mix narcotics and firearms with body armor, I'd classify (the two men) as dangerous individuals," Johnson said.

A La Cienega neighbor who didn't want to be identified said she saw several city police officers when she walked outside Wednesday morning to water her plants. She said she also saw numerous men dressed all in black carrying machine guns.

The neighbor said police were searching an apartment unit behind the main house.

Contact Jason Auslander at 995-3877 or jauslander@sfnewmexican.com .


Comment on this story


Reader comments contain the opinions of the readers alone. Any factual representations are made solely by the poster and have not been verified by The New Mexican. Approval times vary.

Comments

By sean talbott (Submitted: 08/25/2006 9:19 am) ( Report this comment )
The reason people make so much money off cultivation and distribution is the inflated high prices. Entire communities in Mexico are devastated by the influx of the cartels. Legalizing small amounts and using the money to pay for schools or even to fix social security (and there's enough money in pot to do BOTH) would make a lot of sense. Marijuana, like alcohol, is never going to go away, but we could sure bring some huge, genuinely evil drug syndicates to end by taking away their market and making it into something that benefits all of us, freeing up law enforcement for goign after actual baddies.

By Jim Hill (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:08 pm) ( Report this comment )
Khal:
The folks in charge of our country aren't interested in governing; they're interested in ruling. There's a big difference and having an election every few years doesn't change the reality. That ruler rules best which rules most.

I wonder just how many nanoseconds elapsed after ratification of the new United States Constitution before the first self-serving pol began thinking up ways to subvert it with the effusive applause of the populace.


By stephen SPRAITZ (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:11 pm) ( Report this comment )
has anybody 'out there' EVER made spagetti sauce, pancakes [on the plaza] waffles, and so forth using pot?

tyry it, you'll like it.

on your day off, but make sure you have the next day off also.

while working on my PHD on smoking pot in the late 60's and early seventies in Marvelous Marin it was required to learn this cooking technique and eating habits and writing reports on it.


By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:11 pm) ( Report this comment )
I seem to remember seeing your post, Mr. Johnson. Not sure what happened to it. Mr. Stelzer's second post evaporated as well.

Good discussion overall. Wish the pols were listening. Whatever happened to the concept "that government governs best which governs least", said in various ways by both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

By randy echter (Submitted: 08/24/2006 5:13 pm) ( Report this comment )
With some of the oregano?

By randy echter (Submitted: 08/24/2006 5:12 pm) ( Report this comment )
Dan,what will they be celebrating?And with what?

By Dan Johnson (Submitted: 08/24/2006 5:10 pm) ( Report this comment )
Hmmm, I guess my Lib post didn't make it--I guess that says as much for what I think of Libs. But boy, are the Police gonna party for the next few weeks.

By Rick Salazar (Submitted: 08/24/2006 5:00 pm) ( Report this comment )
More than half of the inmates in institutions in this country are there for drug offenses, most of them pot. The amount of money spent investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating these individuals is in the billions. Legalizing pot is the logical thing to do. The number of people using won't incrase by any significant amount. Those that want to smoke do. What will happen is the government will have enough money to provide treatment to those that have problems and plenty more for things like universal health care and improving education.

By Peter McMillin (Submitted: 08/24/2006 4:59 pm) ( Report this comment )
I would prefer much more emphasis be placed on elimination of the drug that does the most harm of all, the one the police repeatedly state is the biggest problem. Methamphetamines.

By Robert Windsor (Submitted: 08/24/2006 3:53 pm) ( Report this comment )
I personally think that all drugs should be legalized. It will quickly weed out the weak and addictive amongst us, leaving the stronger to survive and prosper.

Taxes on the substances can pay for neighborhood rehab centers or cremation.


By Greg Donoho (Submitted: 08/24/2006 3:51 pm) ( Report this comment )
Thank you Khal, apparently I am not alone. I have bookmarked your site and will read more later.

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 2:42 pm) ( Report this comment )
Mr. Donoho (Greg), although I'm tooting my own horn, go here, in response to your post:

http://www.bikewalk.org/conference/tji.html

There are a bunch of downloads at the bottom.


By M Y Martinez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 2:35 pm) ( Report this comment )
Thanks Jim, that was an insightful post. Donoho, just worry about your own spell/grammar check. You know what Jacquez meant. This is a comment forum, not the news article. Oh wait, they made a typo on that headline too. Duh. Looks like they changed it too. Thanks to Anita.

By Greg Donoho (Submitted: 08/24/2006 2:18 pm) ( Report this comment )
I saw a news report not so long ago that said 37% of the traffic fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. It is these that get the worst press. Now I'd like to know why we are not putting the same effort forth to do something about the other 63%.

Several years ago on this site I mentioned that I thought it was wrong to single out drunk driving for special prosecution. I did not mean to imply these should be given a pass. What is needed is to pass and enforce laws that will correct the problem of bad driving, whatever the cause is.

In this scenario, the driver that kills someone would get the same punishment as the one that has a heart attack, or is just careless, etc. A motor vehicle is a missile, and if it is improperly guided it will kill. Who cares what the excuse for negligence is? It is the negligence itself that must be terminated.

If 37% of the deaths, being caused by drunk drivers is bad, why is the other 63% being ignored? Is it because they can be tested and thus become more verifiable scapegoats? One has to wonder if some of these 37% deaths are not primarily caused by others, who run stop signs, lights, weave to the left side of the road because they don't think they can stay on the right, etc. A car load of teenagers on the way home from a football game gets killed when a drunk fails to not stop when he had a green light and the kids ran a red light at a high rate of speed; test are taken and the cause of this carnage is attributed to a drunk driver on the basis of the fact that he had alcohol in his system. These deaths have nothing to do with someone being drunk. Yet this case will be in the 37% bracket.

This is BS. I don't recommend getting stoned or drunk before driving. But if the true causes of wrecks were properly death with, more people would pay serious attention to their driving habits.

This is just my opinion, obviously not shared by our intelligentsia or I wouldn't be having to express it.


By Harrison Pratt (Submitted: 08/24/2006 2:04 pm) ( Report this comment )
Are we FREE yet???

Vote Libertarian every chance you get.


By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 2:03 pm) ( Report this comment )
Khal, it doesn't matter anyway because even if legal, pot couldn't be smoked in public or in bars and soon in cars and private homes. It will become illegal to use a legal substance.

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 1:49 pm) ( Report this comment )
David, I would be happy to see an impartial cost/benefit analysis of what the costs vs. benefits are on legalization vs. prohibition for pot as well as other drugs. That could include estimates of how many DWS (driving while stoned) arrests or crashes would happen in both scenerios, and added burdens of treatment after legalization vs. added burdens of prosecution under prohibition.




By paul david (Submitted: 08/24/2006 1:47 pm) ( Report this comment )
Here's my $.02 statistical analysis. 90% of the native New Mexicans of my acquaintance smoked pot in their youth. 50% of them still smoke. The other half quit, not because it harmed them or led them to hard drugs and crime, but because continuing seemed impractical: drug testing at work, the police problem, schools encouraging their kids to rat them out, etc. The adults that continue to smoke pot maintain a wide variety of occupations, though self-employment seems to be 3-4X the average.

What is the biggest danger of smoking pot? Getting caught by the police. There is nothing to prevent pot from being legalized except authoritarian stubbornness.


By Don Diego (Submitted: 08/24/2006 1:15 pm) ( Report this comment )
Put that load somewhere under Zozobra's skirt - y que viva la fiesta!!!

By Jim Hill (Submitted: 08/24/2006 1:13 pm) ( Report this comment )
You can see how the American Dream has ended in tatters just by reading this discussion thread. That marijuana has been banned and the burden placed on proponents of legalization to demonstrate safety is the flip side of what this country once was and will never be again. You can betcher that if the prohibitionists had come for Jefferson's choice bud he'd've asked by what Constitutional or indeed moral authority they sought to ban a naturally-growing plant.
Yes, drugs hurt families. So does Dad quitting his job for a better one that evaporates once he's got everyone moved to New Jersey. So does Mom shoving take-out Big Macs down her fat little kids' maws three nights a week because she's too tired from watching "The View" to cook. So does the government doing more to spread athlete's foot fungus than a thousand middle-school PE teachers.

Lady Liberty's a bitch, folks. Sometimes you have to stand on the sidelines and watch people plow their lives under -- because if you don't, if you tell them what they can or can't do, they'll be perfectly justified in extending the same loving care to you.

Ah, but they already have. I'll think fondly on this when I buckle myself into my three-taillighted car and drive not greater than 35 MPH to my up-to-code home and watch television programming deemed by the FCC to be non-harmful before I go to sleep on my tagged-for-my-safety mattress.


By Greg Donoho (Submitted: 08/24/2006 12:35 pm) ( Report this comment )
What is a "waist of taxpayer money "? Some kind of money belt?

By N Jacquez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 12:33 pm) ( Report this comment )
Ridiculous. Busting people for growing/smoking/selling pot is possibly the single biggest waist of taxpayer money and time since the occupation of Iraq.

By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 12:17 pm) ( Report this comment )
OK, I'll settle for studies that show that poeple can still function behind the wheel after smoking pot, even with the giggles and the munchies.

By Anthony Benedict (Submitted: 08/24/2006 11:35 am) ( Report this comment )
I'm finally starting to understand the reasoning and logic behind many of Hector's posts. Pot induced posting, hmmmm an interesting thought!

By Richard Harris (Submitted: 08/24/2006 11:32 am) ( Report this comment )
Wait a minute, David . . . Are you saying that sending people to jail (as will most likely happen when they find the people who were growing these particular crops) doesn't break up families? Nobody is suggesting that we repeal DWI laws, which prohibit driving a vehicle while stoned whether the substance itself is legal or not.

By ROBERTA LUJAN (Submitted: 08/24/2006 11:15 am) ( Report this comment )
There have been studies that it does not impair people like alcohol does. In other countries people not only smoke it but use it for tea and cooking purposes and for medical reasons.

By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 11:15 am) ( Report this comment )
The subject is a big pot bust.

The comments have gone to debating making pot legal or keeping it illegal.

If we want another legal drug, we should make sure that isn't going to contribute to the break up of families, or increase the carnage on the roads. That's not too much to ask, is it?

By Hector Sanchez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 11:09 am) ( Report this comment )
Wait a second, Lopez...the subject isn't driving while intoxicated on a chemical. OF COURSE operating machinery while under the influence of ANYTHING should be illegal...no one here objected to that. So why bring it up?

As for parenting...HUH? How about a little logic, here. think we all know plenty of "clean" parents who just do an terrible job of parenting. And I know some pot smokers who are great parents (though they don't do it in front of their kids).

I'm mainly concerned about the resources that are spent to fight marijauna and whether those resources couldn't be better allocated towards problems which have a larger effect on society.


By Susan Thornton (Submitted: 08/24/2006 11:06 am) ( Report this comment )
Thr legal drugs are a big problem now. The HMO I go to has a notice on the wall about how they do not prescribe such drugs, like valium and oxy...whatever. Also, that lye infested meth is the real deal killer. Pot is NO BIG DEAL! It should have been legalized decades ago and then the cigarette companies would have something to sell. I'm sure they would have some chemical to add to it to make it lethal.

By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:56 am) ( Report this comment )
When that independent study comes out that proves that THC doesn't impair a person's ability to drive, or affect their parenting skills, I say make it legal.

By John Lofton (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:53 am) ( Report this comment )
I agree with Mr. Stelzer. Prohibition did have a positive effect on street violence but like everything there is the other side of the story. Family dysfunctionality due to alcoholism has grown to become a chronic problem in our society, not to mention drunk driving accidents and fatalities. Adding marijuana to the list of approved drunks will only serve to increase the risks to families and individuals to visit the same fate. The pro "legalize pot" faction seems to be gathering momentum which makes me worried about the future. However responsibly that faction decides to handle their usage of pot they cannot pass on and/or expect the next generation to act equally responsibly. Most importantly I don't understand what is the big deal about legalization in a practical sense. If people want to smoke marijuana they can get it 24/7365 anywhere in America. Perhaps the illegality of it is the only thing keeping it from becoming as blatantly obnoxious as alcohol abuse.

By Jordan Snyder (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:49 am) ( Report this comment )
Does anyone think that people choose not to do drugs ONLY because they are illegal?




By Harrison Pratt (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:48 am) ( Report this comment )
The primary results of alcohol prohibition were to increase street violence, place huge amounts of money into the hands of the criminal element, and to create more alcoholics than ever before. Why should we expect different results from drug prohibition? How stupid are we? No matter what we do, drugs are a fact of life that we will never, ever eliminate and hard core drug users will always be with us but, in the name of trying to accomplish the impossible, our Government has taken a class of harmless, casual, recreational drug users and practically overnight has turned them into hardened criminals

By Peter Chorlton (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:44 am) ( Report this comment )
By Rob Stelzer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:11 am)
"Bottom line is that we have enough legal substances people are abusing now, we don't need any more. If illegal drugs are legalized, society has no leverage to force someone into treatment."

So you've never hear of DWI offenders being required to go to AA? Last I checked alcohol was still legal.

We don't even have sufficient treatment now, all the money is spend on interdiction, which is obviously a completely failed policy.



By Richard Harris (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:37 am) ( Report this comment )
When I was in law school, there was no doubt in anybody's mind - professors, students, lawyers, even public prosecutors and judges (who often had their own stashes of the best weed around) that marijuana prohibition would end within a decade. The law reviews were full of articles urging legalization. Now, incredibly, 35 years later, it still hasn't happened. We're still wasting cop time and court time, filling our already overcrowded prisons, creating organized crime and generally spending a ton of public money - for what? Does anybody seriously believe marijuana could ever be a bigger public health and safety problem than alcohol or tobacco? I guess the old adage that "War makes good business" is true, even if the "war" is against a relatively innocuous recreational herb. The only reason marijuana wasn't legalized long ago is that politicians believe such an action would lose them votes. Judging from the responses in this forum (including many from regulars who could not be characterized as "liberal" by a long shot), lawmakers need to wake up. The times aren't just a'changing - they changed a long time ago, and it's high time these guys stopped standing in the doorway and blocking up the hall . . .

By Georgia Armijo (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:35 am) ( Report this comment )
Legalize it!!!

By DH Lewis (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:31 am) ( Report this comment )
By Rob Stelzer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:11 am) Bottom line is that we have enough legal substances people are abusing now, we don't need any more. If illegal drugs are legalized, society has no leverage to force someone into treatment.

What evidence do you offer to show that the current group of illegal drugs are forcing people into treatment? How can you show such treatment is working?


By matthew Montoya (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:29 am) ( Report this comment )
You people should be greatfull of the hard work all of these agents are doing for our communities. How easy for you to sit in the comfort of your homes while these overworked guys are busting their humps trying to fight the endless war on drugs?

Remember, marijuana is STILL illegal and is on the list of illegal drugs. Once the politicos figure out a way to make legal, im sure that the cops will focus on the other many illegal substances out there, not that they already dont do that.

For those of you who see their hard work and appreciate it, Im sure they thank you.


By Harrison Pratt (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:25 am) ( Report this comment )
Don't anyone ever tell the feds that an addictive mind altering drug is being sold at every Starbucks and supermarket in the country and you don't even need an I.D. to buy it. It's called caffeine. Shhhhh.


By Greg Miller (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:24 am) ( Report this comment )
I wonder how many plants are headed right for the streets. Poor propagandized cops, being made to war on Americans. You mercenary cops may have the big guns now, but you won`t always. How will you collect your pay once the dollar is worthless. That will be the day we all go to our own corners. How sad it is to see you sow the seeds of your own destruction.

By M Y Martinez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 10:08 am) ( Report this comment )
Stelzer, get a grip. Just because we joke about it doesn't mean we do it. Of course illegal drugs hurt families, they hurt lots of people but, as John says, it is because they are illegal. I also agree that the damages (in various forms) caused by alcohol far outweigh the damages caused by marijuana. Heroin is a wretched, wretched drug but marijuana is no worse than alcohol. Does, "choose your battles" mean anything to anyone?

By Taylor Thornton (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:59 am) ( Report this comment )
The War on Drugs is the template for the War on Terror ; in other words, the Forever War, Part 2 ....(Great for politicians & soulless businesses)

By Donado Coviello (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:59 am) ( Report this comment )
The photo of the pot is the first picture in the freenewmexican.com that I would like to "BUY A PRINT". JC is right, with the price of pot being so high.... I think high just looking at it. What I find interesting is the story below this one http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/48271.html The relationship of busting pot growers to not having enough money to treat heroin addicts is a direct one.

By J Green (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:56 am) ( Report this comment )
They goes the price of herb, again. I love that "secure" container the narcos are transporting that in. or on. I suuppose the guns they confiscated are just heaped on top of that pile as well. I too, as some of you have stated, think the so called war on drugs is mis-guided and should have more focus on hard drugs, but Meth is the worst of them all! Funny, Khalil Spencer's comment on heroin and elsewhere in todays paper is the story of the methadone clinic closing. @ Pratt, you bring the Hendrix, i'll bring the pink floyd.

By Jordan Snyder (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:43 am) ( Report this comment )
Sean: This is the City Wrong though, they don't do things that make sense or that are efficient. They should have burned it at the site.

Legalize it and spend the time on real crimes!


By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:17 am) ( Report this comment )
Comments such as those made by Mr. Stelzer point out two things. One, that some folks are more interested in ad hominem attacks than in discussing the issue, i.e., how does Rob know whom among us jokers use illegal drugs? Secondly, they show a misunderstanding of the problem. As Mr. Drew says, the violence, killing, and underworld activities result not from the drug itself but from the illegality of it, just as we saw during the violence-prone Prohibition. We no longer see people getting into firefights with each other or with the police over a shipment of beer.

Chronic abuse of drugs happens whether or not it is illegal, so why not legalize it so we can put the money into treatment rather than into jail cells and helicopters?

Legalize the less toxic drugs and tax/regulate them as we do alcohol. Concentrate on harm reduction. Prohibition has not worked to kill the drug trade, but it works just fine in killing people. I think legalization of certain categories of drugs, including pot, is the lesser of two evils.


By Georgia Quintana (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:14 am) ( Report this comment )
And you too, David Lopez, you need to reread the article before making any critical comments. The article states, "Using a Drug Enforcement Agency formula of about $1,000 per plant, the value of the marijuana seized from Madrid was about $300,000, Glascock said." GET IT!!!! The estimated value from the pot seized in Madrid is about $300,000. That doesnot even include the value of the Taos seizure.




By Calvin College (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:14 am) ( Report this comment )
sean : Great Idea, although it makes way to much sense for any official to figure out, they'll burn it and get high in the process.


By Jose villegas (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:14 am) ( Report this comment )
Get this....regardless of what is political correct on the issue of legalizing MJ or whatever illegal drug people want to defend is good or bad....it doesn't matter how much regardless of size or pounds when it is confiscated by our law enforcement officers, the point is: the illegal drug trafficking and substance abuse continues to damage many young lives today. Haven't you people notice? The increase teen suicides, teen DWI's, teen domestic and sexual assualts, gang violence and warfare in Northern New Mexico due to the substance abuse. So how many more death and trauma do we need to experience in our communities, especially when we are burying our kids at a younger age...I thought our kids were suppose to bury us moms and dads when we got old.....So why is this issue a laughing matter on this website? I guess it is just a matter of time before a tragedy of some magnitude will be knocking on your front door.....You want to laugh and joke about this issue...death and trauma due to substance abuse will come to your front door step without a flinch of any eye.Then, you can reconsider your humor on this one.......end of discussion......

By sean talbott (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:07 am) ( Report this comment )
Sell the stuff to the people that can really use medical marijuana and give the money to Santa Fe public schools, fer goshsakes!! $300K would buy a lot of computers/school supplies/etc etc for the ones that need it most. Plants are not inherently evil - except in fantasy comic books.

By sean talbott (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:07 am) ( Report this comment )
The pic of the trailer/blue tarp combo as a 'Buy a Print' is sure to become a winner in the head-shop poster sections.

By M Y Martinez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:05 am) ( Report this comment )
Stelzer, get a grip. Just because we joke about it doesn't mean we do it. Of course illegal drugs hurt families, they hurt lots of people but, as John says, it is because they are illegal. I also agree that the damages (in various forms) caused by alcohol far outweigh the damages caused by marijuana. Heroin is a wretched, wretched drug but marijuana is no worse than alcohol. Does, "choose your battles" mean anything to anyone?

By sean talbott (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:03 am) ( Report this comment )
Sell the stuff to the people that can really use medical marijuana and give the money to Santa Fe public schools, fer goshsakes!! $300K would buy a lot of computers/school supplies/etc etc for the ones that need it most. Plants are not inherently evil - except in fantasy comic books.

By Georgia Quintana (Submitted: 08/24/2006 9:01 am) ( Report this comment )
Mr. Salazar, I think that you need to read the article again. Ninety-six(96) were uprooted on Tuesday & "about 200 more" on Wednesday. I think Glascock knows what he is talking about.

By Flora Madria (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:59 am) ( Report this comment )
There were TWO areas busted in Madrid, one with 96 plants, the second with 200. Therefore, "the value of the marijuana seized from Madrid was about $300,000" is correct, when you add 96 and 200. There was no dollar value assigned to the collections made in the Taos bust. But yeah, I agree that there are bigger problems than this.

By Mike Kitts (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:43 am) ( Report this comment )
In this era of terrorists, and other national concerns, don't you think the several government agencies that plaly this constant game of harassment would have better things to do with their time and money? Where is Osama Bin Laden, not in Cerrillos, or west of Taos, smoking pot!

By John Drew (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:37 am) ( Report this comment )
Rob has a point. Illegal drugs do hurt families, even pot. But it's mostly the illegal aspect of pot that hurts. If pot were legal the damage would be minimal.

By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:35 am) ( Report this comment )
That's $96,000 for the pot. The additional $204,000, adding up to $300,000 is how much the pot costs the growers if they want to keep it, after the police discover it.

Either that, or this is the value of these 96 plants, plus the 200 from Taos.

Why just destroy this stuff. Is there a need for firemen in the county? I say, dry it, clean it and sell it, keeping the proceeds to pay for fire protection.

By Hector Sanchez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:34 am) ( Report this comment )
What are you, Stelzer, spokesperson for Nancy Reagan? "Just say 'no'" was the dumbest concept ever...and it didn't work at all, did it?

Lumping all "drugs" as equally evil because they're illegal is just not logical. Alcohol does far, far more damage to our society than marijauna. I'd rather the authorities crack down harder on drunken driving than waste money on hippies growing pot.


By Rob Stelzer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:16 am) ( Report this comment )
Illegal drugs hurt families and business. Criminals who deal in narcotics kill rivals and law enforcement officers. Remember the old Pogo line, "We have met the enemy and it is us"? If Americans like those making jokes in this forum would just stop using illegal drugs this nation would be a better place.

Use and distribution of illegal drugs is no laughing matter. Just stop now.


By Rob Stelzer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 8:16 am) ( Report this comment )
Illegal drugs hurt families and business. Criminals who deal in narcotics kill rivals and law enforcement officers. Remember the old Pogo line, "We have met the enemy and it is us"? If Americans like those making jokes in this forum would just stop using illegal drugs this nation would be a better place.

Use and distribution of illegal drugs is no laughing matter. Just stop now.


By J.C. Warfield (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:57 am) ( Report this comment )
Can make one's eyes red by just looking at it!

By M Y Martinez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:50 am) ( Report this comment )
I would think so, Dave, but couldn't you just claim that you had no control over it? lol.

By randy echter (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:49 am) ( Report this comment )
Harrison,

But the owners of these gardens will be singing a different tune.....was it by "The New Riders of the Purple Sage"?.........

"...and I'm down to seeds and stems again,too......"


By Dave Nelson (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:38 am) ( Report this comment )
Hmm, can being in the vicinity of that show up on a drug test?

By Kathy Murphy (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:36 am) ( Report this comment )
A helluva load.


By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:31 am) ( Report this comment )
Harrison, find out what the prevailing wind direction will be, too.

By John Perreault (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:27 am) ( Report this comment )
Earlier this week, I saw a DEA copter flying all over the San Pedro's, Ortiz's at tree top level lookoing for crops. Sure had some of my neighbors nervous

By Rita Serrano (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:24 am) ( Report this comment )
The smell is making me sick all the way up here.


By donald salazar (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:18 am) ( Report this comment )
ok jason A. which is it 300 plats or 96 ...there's a big difference......

about $1,000 per plant, the value of the marijuana seized from Madrid was about $300,000, Glascock said, though he suspected the street value was less than that amount.
SHOULDN'T THIS BE 96 x $1000 =====96,000 COME ON NOW WHICH IS IT.........

i agree with you randy on both counts...........how stupid can they (NARCS) be...........

THEN GLASLOCK GOES ON TO SAY they are going to burn it asap......that 's insane.......what are gonna use for evidence................if they burn the stuff..........SHOULD BE QUITE A HIGH FOR NEW MEXICO'S FINEST....
enjoy!maybe they should publish the date and time too for all the local to get a freebeeee...

By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:08 am) ( Report this comment )
Yup.

By Harrison Pratt (Submitted: 08/24/2006 7:08 am) ( Report this comment )
Let's find out when this stuff is going to be incinerated. I'll bring my Jimi Hendrix CD.

By Harrison Pratt (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:58 am) ( Report this comment )
"Glascock said the plants will be destroyed in an incinerator at state police headquarters.................."

Should make for a marvelous air quality in the viscinity of that incinerator. I wonder when this will be taking place.


By Maria Leyba (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:57 am) ( Report this comment )
Harrison if that was the case--Taos and Madrid would be bigger than Albuquerque.

By Harrison Pratt (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:54 am) ( Report this comment )
I thought pot was legal in Madrid and Taos by way of being grandfathered in from the '60s.

By Maria Leyba (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:54 am) ( Report this comment )
that is what I was thinking Randy.

Hell doesn't anyone have a horse trailer? They are more enclosed that this flatbed one. I can see all the "marijuanos" (that is what my parents used to call them) following the cops and this trailer hoping something falls off. hahaha


By randy echter (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:44 am) ( Report this comment )
Wouldn't you think they could've rounded up an enclosed trailer or truck,Eldon?After all,this is evidence,not corn for the cows.Things are a little loose in New Mexico.

By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:35 am) ( Report this comment )
Yeah, not much of a trailer rig, huh Randy? I like the Wal Mart tarp, too. Makes the load look secure in the driver's mirror view, ha ha.

By Anita Koch (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:22 am) ( Report this comment )
Spellcheck anyone? Isn't it SEIZE ?

By randy echter (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:15 am) ( Report this comment )
Looks like the plants were very carelessly hauled in.I wonder how much actually made it to headquarters without falling or blowing off in the wind.Or did they have another guy behind gathering the lost plants to later be stashed for sale by elements of the busting team?


By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/24/2006 6:14 am) ( Report this comment )
Well, the warriors are there in Afghanistan, where the Poppy's are. Put the torch to those plants. Fight the war on drugs to win, not to profit.

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/24/2006 5:55 am) ( Report this comment )
Legalize pot and put the police effort into getting rid of heroin.

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years


WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.



Participants in Saturday's Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, which helped change straight people's tolerant attitudes toward gays.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

The parade, organized by the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA), was intended to "promote acceptance, tolerance, and equality for the city's gay community." Just the opposite, however, was accomplished, as the event confirmed the worst fears of thousands of non-gay spectators, cementing in their minds a debauched and distorted image of gay life straight out of the most virulent right-wing hate literature.

Among the parade sights and sounds that did inestimable harm to the gay-rights cause: a group of obese women in leather biker outfits passing out clitoris-shaped lollipops to horrified onlookers; a man in military uniform leading a submissive masochist, clad in diapers and a baby bonnet, around on a dog leash; several Hispanic dancers in rainbow wigs and miniskirts performing "humping" motions on a mannequin dressed as the Pope; and a dozen gyrating drag queens in see-through dresses holding penis-shaped beer bottles that appeared to spurt ejaculation-like foam when shaken and poured onto passersby.

Timothy Orosco, 51, a local Walgreens manager whose store is on the parade route, changed his attitude toward gays as a result of the event.

"They kept chanting things like, 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it!' and 'Hey, hey, we're gay, we're not going to go away!'" Orosco said. "All I can say is, I was used to it, but now, although I'd never felt this way before, I wish they would go away."

Enlarge Image
Members of the Laguna Beach Leatherdaddy Association make their final pre-march preparations.

Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.

"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood."

The parade's influence extended beyond L.A.'s borders, altering the attitudes of straight people across America. Footage of the event was featured on telecasts of The 700 Club as "proof of the sin-steeped world of homosexuality." A photo spread in Monday's USA Today chronicled many of the event's vulgar displays–understood by gays to be tongue-in-cheek "high camp"–which horrified previously tolerant people from coast to coast.

Dr. Henry Thorne, a New York University history professor who has written several books about the gay-rights movement, explained the misunderstanding.

"After centuries of oppression as an 'invisible' segment of society, gays, emboldened by the 1969 Stonewall uprising, took to the streets in the early '70s with an 'in-your-face' attitude. Confronting the worst prejudices of a world that didn't accept them, they fought back against these prejudices with exaggeration and parody, reclaiming their enemies' worst stereotypes about them and turning them into symbols of gay pride," Thorne said. "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."

"Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.

The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race.

"I have a cousin who's a gay, and he seemed like a decent enough guy to me," said Iowa City, IA, resident Russ Linder, in Los Angeles for a weekend sales seminar. "Now, thanks to this parade, I realize what a freak he's been all along. Gays are all sick, immoral perverts."



Parade organizers vowed to make changes in the wake of the negative reaction among heterosexuals.

"I knew it. I said we needed 100 dancers on the 'Show Us Your Ass' float, but everybody insisted that 50 would be enough," said Lady Labia, spokesperson for LAGALABATATA. "Next year, we're really going to give those breeders something to look at."


www.theonion.com 24 April 2001