The more you drive (a country), the less intelligent you are

How else does one explain that it’s only future- and ex-presidents who can see the obvious way to win the WarOnDrugs™ but nobody in a position of power ever just, you know, legalizes the stuff?

Vicente Fox in power
Vicente Fox out of power

Juan Manuel Santos out of power (h/t)
Juan Manuel Santos in power

OK just kidding, I know it has nothing to do with intelligence, and that rather people in power aren’t allowed to be intelligent. Just thought it would be cute to throw in a Repo Man reference.

5 thoughts on “The more you drive (a country), the less intelligent you are

  1. Vinz

    FYI- That’s not a Repo Man reference, that’s a reference off the ripoff remake they made of the original, “Repo Man: The Genetic Opera”, directed by the dude who did the Saw series (and by the looks of it, he was seriously toasted on drugs at the time).
    You can’t compare the kitsch grandeur of seeing Paris Hilton lose her face (litteraly) with the PG remake done this year…
    The Opera is a cult classic.
    The Jude Law movie will be fodder for bored Sunday families soon.

    1. sapitosetty Post author

      Vinz – get thee to an IMDBerry (that’s a reference to William Shakesman, not to the RIMM smart phone) and then come back and tell me Paris Hilton lost her face in a movie at age 3. Actually that would be a good excuse for her current rather plastic appearance.

  2. Kepler

    The question is, as usual: why? Why are they not allow to be intelligent? (well, let’s assume they are particularly intelligent)
    I think I am not a conspiracy supporter (OK, I know, none of them think they are into a conspiracy theory but reality) and yet I think there is much more than just “they do not want to run against a rather conservative society”.

    I do think there are big vested interests: within UNODC, within every single state. How many billions are spent in weapons, in consultancy, just in radios, yachts, extra helicopters and much more in the absolutely stupid fight against drugs? How much?

    Or else, how do you explain? Do you really think it is pure puritanism?

  3. sapitosetty Post author

    In any political culture there are things that can not be said. In the U.S., it is forbidden to say that God is an imaginary friend or that Al Qaeda is motivated by grievances rather than insanity. In South America, it’s taboo to say that international borders are getting in the way of development. I’m not saying that these statements are self-evidently true, but rather that it’s a bit silly for them to be excluded from national debate.

    If someone with political power makes one of these statements, he will spend the rest of his abbreviated political life talking about little else. Until there is a sizable citizens’ movement leading the way, politicians can’t waste their time speaking out.

  4. Kepler

    Instead, they waste time in drinking orange juice or water at OAS meetings and in posing for group pictures.

    I agree very much that there are those taboos you mention. Still, I reckon there is a bit more. When you hear the head of the UNODC department rejecting in such an irrational way the comments made by those ex presidents (first time I remember was last year), you start to think something else is going on. The “war on terror” is so obviously ineffective, it just looks like “war on keeping up drug prices”.

    I don’t think there are heads of states involved in some secret game on drugs (not even Chávez, as many think), but I think the agencies in charge of fighting the drug trade are infiltrated in more ways than many think. Of course, even if they were not, they have their own interests, just like the weapons industry in general would not be happy if more cooperation started to take place.

    In any case, I agree the general public should start bringing about these topics until politicians don’t blush when they mention them.

Comments are closed.