for 16 May 2000. Updated every WEEKDAY.
|
|
Colombia House "...these are the same paramilitaries linked to the Army that stands to gain most from the $1.6 billion in American aid..." With all this talk about drug plans for seniors it warms my heart to know that our noble government hasn't forgotten the younger generation. I can't wait for those subsidies to be reflected in lower prices on the street corner. With all the money young hoodlums save in reduced prices from a protected coke market they can revitalize our nation's sagging assault weapon and strip club industries. Not to mention a complex jungle war is just the sort of fertile ground to cultivate a host of gritty dramas about how tragic and pointless complex jungle wars are. It could be The Soprano's meets Full Metal Jacket. I bet Coppola is all over this thing. Still, I suspect Plan Colombia is a Republican tool to give Dubbya an area of foreign policy that he actually does know something about. Snorting Roundup anyway, Clay <clayn@dillonet.com> Clay, You should see the strip clubs in the coca growing towns. Now, that's entertainment! As for Coppola, give him my number, willya? Maybe it'll be my ticket outta here! And hey, paraquat pot was bad enough; stay away from Roundup blow. Thanks for writing; hope you enjoyed the piece. Tim  Your article on the Columbia problem was satisfyingly level and realistic. When the military-industrial complex (Sikorsky Aircraft Corp, Bell Helicopter, etc) stands to make tens and hundreds of millions you can be rest assured that there will be bushels of"impassioned" support from our fair legislators whosepersonal/campaign funds have been fattened by these corporations in some way or another (business contacts or "golf buddies"). Where's the legislative incentive to fight these crocodile-tear spewing paternalists; Bob Graham, Brent Scowcroft, Paul Coverdell, and the blind machine Bob McCaffrey? When is it going to be popular in congress to keep this country's nose in our own business solving problems realistically? How the hell can people get upset about a misplaced Cuban boy and not a horrendous mess like this? Great work. Stephen Ingram <SIngram@iss.net> I don't know, Stephen — I guess the Cuban boy is more kneejerk, gut-level; and the drug problem/Colombia conflict is too much to think about at the end of a long day's work. But the lobbying being done by these helicopter and other industry guys while everybody's droning out definitely should be in the news more. Thanks for writing, man. Tim I don't know dick about Columbia, and I really don't know all that much about drugs, licit and otherwise. I've been to Iran, however. There may be a moral here. Iran sits on the Afghan and Pakistani borders, where most of the world's heroin comes from Inevitably, despite a pretty honest and very motivated police and military, a whole lot of opiate enters the country.It's not aimed at the local market, mind you; they're just trying to get through Iran to other transshipment points. A certain amount sticks. Accordingly, Iran has one devil of a drug problem. It's a poor country which limits their resources for treatment, and this embarrasses them so they don't talk about it much, but they're doing pretty much what they can. There are programs, there's lots of ant drug postering, the penalties are damn stiff. Islam is pretty harsh on opiate use anyway (the Prophet forbade use of stuff that messes up your head, essentially, although they seem to have avoided applying that rule to tobacco). Still, you walk the streets of Tehran you'll see more people nodding out than you'll see in a comparable area in today' s New York. Similar things are happening in other areas where drugs are produced. Columbia I'm told today has a hell of a cocaine abuse problem; opiate and heroin addiction are major problems in Burma and Pakistan; God knows what's happening in Afghanistan these days. The countries that considered drugs a Western problem and sort of laughed off the West's addiction problems as "not happening here" are seeing a major re-roosting of the chickens. It turns out that drugs are addictive. You put in more drugs, you get out more addicts. Sure, there are lots of underlying reasons people get hooked...but mostly, drugs cause addiction. All the treatment programs in the world aren't going to change that; the only way you really keep people from getting addicted to drugs is by keeping the drugs away. If you want to argue that the damage the war on drugs does is worse than the damage drugs themselves do, you may have an argument. Or not. But you can't argue that the war on drugs actually causes the basic drug addiction problem, because it just plain doesn't. And you can't argue that it isn't in the US interest to minimize the flow of drugs coming out of Columbia. That said, I've got &151; as previously noted &151; not a damn thing worth suggesting about what our policy toward Columbia should be. I'd just like to avoid any more discussion about how if we only legalized this stuff and start putting all our resources into treatment everything would be just fine. Because it wouldn't be. Fine, well written piece. Thanks. Alan S Kornheiser <ASKornheiser@prodigy.net> The Doctor Is IN "That thing you're doing...don't do that." Alan, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I couldn't help but be reminded by your letter of a stirring story I read in the April 19 New York Times on the heroin epidemic in Karachi, Pakistan. The UN estimates there are 1.5 million addicts in Pakistan all told! Check out the piece, maybe in a search under author Barry Bearak. As for drugs in general, I can't help but disagree with the notion of personifying drugs — they "cause addiction." In areas like Iran or Pakistan, the police and army may be "motivated," as you say, but the lack of resources you mention means the policing/treatment ratio is a million times more skewed than the already-skewed 2:1 ratio seen in US drug czar McCaffrey's budget. My point is, we just don't know what would happen if we even had 1:1 efforts in U.S., Pakistan, wherever. The idea of spending one dollar in prevention and treatment for every dollar spent "keeping drugs away," as you put it, has not been tried. We don't know. But we do have studies like the 1994 Rand Corporation paper that concludes treatment is far more effective than interdiction alone. And what if we took the same attitude to alcohol (which I guess we did with Prohibition)? Talk to people who have been to AA and benefitted — would they rather you just "kept booze away" from them? Finally, neither I nor those I mention in the story argue that the "War on Drugs causes addiction." I would say, however, that there's now ample evidence that the W on D as it is now conceived isn't doing much to lower addiction. So let's consider other ways to "fight" this war! And I also would say that the U.S. W on D as it enters Colombia may cause a lot of problems in an already complicated scenario — including the loss of lives and money. And that has nothing to do with addicts, or drugs. Thanks again for writing. Tim Hi Tim, Just a quick note to say thanks for your piece on Colombia. It's the best thing on Suck for a long time now. Thanks again, Gary <godard@hotmail.com> Gary — No, thank you for letting me know. Tell the other Tim (Cavanaugh) to hire me weekly! Tim Dead Spots hello holly, i very much enjoyed your last article in SUCK, was very engrossed and intrigued...you put into words what i had on some more subconscious level noticed myself...very well done. the only thing i wish that you had done was expand the notions you were getting at in your last two paragraphs...it seemed bigger than the perimeters you were given. that more expansive write up is something i'd like to read more of. thank you for the article, and by the way do you publish your work anywhere else? Brandon Herndon <nixnox@mindspring.com> Thanks for your kind words. I try to remind the lords of Suck that I always strive to be bigger than the perimeters I'm given, but that's usually when I receive the check from whoever seems to be owning the site these days. As for my other published work, most of it is on subscription-fee sites such as Barely Legal, but if you track down the name behind the Suckonym — available in Suck's helpful Contributor's Index, and recently reported with nonsensical breathless fanfare in The Village Voice — and trot over to a search engine, you can track down literally dozens of my little nuggets of wisdom. Cheers, Holly M. Excellent piece on death. I'm sure you've been asked this before, but have you read any of the Terry Pratchett Discworld books? Reaper Man might be a particularly good choice. Anyway, using death to shill products is nothing new. Besides religions and cults throughout history, I'm told the Romans loved stuff with skeletons on it, and the touristy Day of the Dead is alive and well in Mexico today. It's still kinda disturbing, though. Good job! Michael Kuberry <mkuberry@zianet.com> Thank you, sir. And no, I know not from Discworld, nor have I been asked before. And yes, death has been a great brand developer for world religions of all kinds, but at least they profess to, you know, believe in stuff. Our new cohort of bilious death pitchers just want to extinguish whatever they can of non-product based subjectivity — and when you think about it, death is pretty much the last remaining unbranded experience vouchsafed to us in this particular mediaverse vale of tears. But whatever — I'm off to catch the next episode of Felicity. Holly M. Allow me to congratulate you on a spirited *tour de force.* Sadly, I'm able to remember the first suck. More sadly still, I'm still living the kind of life which allows me the luxury (?) of continuing to read it everyday. I was the first on my block to "blog" (the verb had yet to exist) suck to my friends. I endured suck when it became popular (the horror. . .). With secret glee I nourished its fifteen minutes. Many seasons have passed. Your article is the first thing I've read that *forced* me to reply. Thank you. /begrudgingly joe <ercole@priest.com> PS While I'm at it: thanks for all the good years, I don't expect to be writing again during this life cycle. Sadly, I, too, am able to remember the first Suck — but only long enough for the lithium to kick in... And if you think it's sad to have the sort of life that permits you to read it everyday, just ponder the untrammeled misery that compels one to write for the thing. And as for all the good years, you're more than welcome — and rest assured that at the end of your life cycle, we will subcontract your memory to a Mountain Dew ad. Read in peace, Holly M. No doubt there is an insidious connotation to the Grim Reaper's new role as pitchman, but there is a much more disturbing trend crawling out of the advertising hell mouth: The Super Silly Dance Ad. These steaming piles of giddiness have been featured in ads for The Gap, Old Navy, and even parodied by our favorite iridescent hyper caffeinated beverage. They are wild shots fired into psyche that reveal the cold soullessness and finely tuned desperation of the corporate world. It is enough to make a person consider the Cobianian method to remove at least one consumer from the market. Fortunately, before I can decide on a .357 or a crack pipe to implement my escape The Simpsons come back on, someone fires up the bong, and I remember that you don't really need a Jeep to save a sparrow. Drinking Mt. Dew in the safety of my own home, Clay <clayn@dillonet.com> What, you mean we aren't supposed to break out into hysterical, spontaneous, shrill song and dance routines every time we stumble across a jeans display or an iridescent beverage? What am I supposed to do with this cane-cummerbund-and-tap-shoes getup, then? Facing the music and slouching, Holly M. Holly, Not wanting to take too much time explaining how I agree or disagree with the point/premise of today's piece of suck, I still could not suppress my usual knee-jerk reaction to minor copy errors which kicked in upon reading your bio. Particularly when the error in the spotlight occurs three words after your Ed position at Newsday is mentioned (suburbs is a typo). Other than that, great piece today. A question I kept asking - is advertising responsible for our collective death cheat(?), or is it merely responding to a cultural way of life swing that has sent us leering closer to the edge of a two choice cliff: death by natural gravity, or the brave new Huxley reality suckhole of hyper-consumerist bliss. I'm not quite sure what to do since I lost the hardware to my Ikea urn. Take care, Todd <mentcht@yahoo.com> Be not afraid; the ad death cheat merely expresses a growing hostility to the indignities of a natural life's tragic limits: Birth, loss, disappointment, death — everything, in other words, that can't be shrunken down into a consumer's own gnawing sense of merely personal inadequacy and gleefully plugged in with the product du jour. But, since your very own name means death in German, you can rest assured that the skull at the banquet always gets the last laugh. And not to cavil myself, but shouldn't it be "minor copy errors that kicked in upon reading your bio"? Besides, I do work in the subrubs — but only until next month, when I begin a job in Our Nation's Catipal. Best, Holly M. Now that's smart, and cutting edge, and just generally good writing. Who says Tim can't pick good columnists? Was it Freud who compared life without the fear of death to playing a game without keeping score? It's easy to see what attracted advertisers to thanatos: an emotional hook is an emotional hook. Still, you'd have thought they'd be bright enough to realize that while eros encourages consumption, death focuses the attention quite nicely on the pointlessness of consumption. Useful cross reference: the momenti mori that appear in so much Northern European art; where you find those wonderful floral still lifes, you usually also find dying flowers, insects, and a hint of corruption. Fine, fine piece. Thanks. Alan Kornheiser The Doctor Is Ailing, but thank you so much for asking Why, thank you - especially since, as I'm sure you know, every Suck contributor gets a cash bonus for every Alan Kornheiser letter he or she generates. Though I'm pretty sure the source for the quote you reference was not Freud, but Buck Dharma. As for the logic that led to the current ad game romance with the reaper, my guess is that it's pure marketeering hubris — at some level, I'm sure that most of these copywriters believe, like Patrick Bateman, that the correct alignment of consumer taste and branding strategy really will allow them to conquer death. It's just a shame that we can't be assured that there will be a video on hand to record each of their own individual appointments with the Recording Angel... Yours in petty morbid revenge fantasizing, Holly M. Hey Holly, Great article, however you forgot the best extreme sports/death commercial out there. The faux soft drink ad (splod) showing kids bungee jumping off a bridge to grab cans of their favorite drink, only to have one explode in midair. Ironically enough, the whole ad is part of this ridiculous anti-smoking 'one in three die' campaign. Rather than showing some out of shape guy puffing on a cigarette, you see these photogenic 'extreme' bungee jumping kids (who probably smoke) having a blast (sic) with their soft drink. Here's hoping that at least one of them will die of heart problems related to either high sugar or caffeine intake! Keep the suck sucking suckster! Rob <Robert@logixx.com> Damn, I missed the whole point of that ad - I thought it was for sabotaged exploding bungee cords and have been trying to purchase, and discreetly distribute, them ever since. Yours in extreme consumer disappointment, Holly M. |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||
 |  |
|||||||||||||||
 |   | |||||||||||||||
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
