Official Statistics

I will admit, that I will use statistics just as much as the next guy.  I don't have a problem using statistics.  There is no evil in the statistics themselves, as data is amoral.

But there is an old saying in America: "Figures never lie, but liars can figure."

Data doesn't manipulate itself, but it does get manipulated.  People who want gun-control are notorious for doing this.  Politicians come up with stunning ways to spin facts and figures. Two of the easiest ways to do this are to either include way too much information, or leave out a lot of information.  This little essay has to do with the latter.

Take a look at this graph:

See that dip down to zero at 1919 to 1925 area?  That's because of the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent Volstead Act.  Since this graph depicts the number of permits,* I have no problem with this graph.  It makes perfect sense.  The graph would be idiotic if it didn't show the number of licenses for producing alcoholic beverage dropping to zero during the time of prohibition.

But let's look at another graph:

Take your time and ponder it slowly. 

This second graph made the claxons go off in my head.  The question is, can you see the problem with this graph?  Anyone?  Anyone?   Bueller? 

Well, you would have to know the rest of the story.  There were a few characters who became famous during the prohibition era, and most notably two.  One of them was far more honest than the other one and spent 11 years in Federal prison for it.  The other guy was lucky enough to be born the son of a prominent politician in whose footsteps he would follow and use his prestige and connections to sock away millions of dollars under the cover of legitimate business.  Read the passage below to figure out who.

"By 1925, New York was filled with speakeasy clubs that sold liquor illegally. Some historians say there were 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs operating in the city, several of which were well known as watering holes for government officials. Prohibition was an attempt to control and reduce the amount of liquor sold in the states, but like most laws, all it did was drive up the price of the regulated item and stimulate the growth of a well-organized underground black market.
One of the most famous names associated with bootlegging liquor at the time was Joseph P. Kennedy – the successful investor, businessman and political leader. Kennedy traveled to England with President Roosevelt's son, James, and made a deal to be the exclusive distributor of scotch, gin and bourbon from Scotland and England. Kennedy had the connections, the warehouses and the money to make the deal, which became a cash cow for him and the family.
One of the reasons the Kennedy bootlegging stories seem accurate is Joseph's association with Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation based in Montreal. Bronfman specialized in cheap whiskey and took advantage of Prohibition in the United States by bootlegging his whiskey to cities like Boston, New York and Chicago.
Kennedy and Bronfman became business partners of sorts when Bronfman bought Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, but some kind of relationship developed a few years earlier when Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate bought liquor from the Bronfman-run group. Kennedy had contacts with many Irishmen in Boston at the time and Danny was on that list. Some historians say Kennedy didn't have to be a bootlegger; just about every other Irishman in Boston was."

Why didn't I use the Wikipedia entry or a dozen others?  Because the conquerors are the ones who write history, not the slaves.  Too much of the Kennedy dynasty is still alive and kicking.  But I digress.  That's not the main point of this post. The main point is in the first paragraph of the passage.

If I presented a graph showing marijuana consumption in the U.S. based on sales in retail outlets across all fifty States, I think you would fall out of your chair laughing.  Why?  Because everybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cannabis goes up in smoke every year in America.  Are you starting to see the problem with graph number two?

The United States has the peculiar distinction of having a major, multi-billion dollar, nearly exclusively spectator sport that owes its existence to one thing: Prohibition.  That sport is NASCAR.
Please don't cite Wikipedia for me.  I'm from the Southeastern U.S.  I know too many people who are proud as hell to regale you with stories of their fathers outrunning the Feds in cars made fast out of necessity.  We still have names of roads in the deep south that reflect the prohibition era and running moonshine.

The point I'm making, if you haven't already guessed it, is how incredibly silly is that second graph. Does anyone really believe that Al Capone, and probably hundreds of others, made millions of dollars while alcohol consumption dropped to nearly zero?  When you see statistics or figures presented, learn to think.  Ask questions.  Ponder what data might be missing.  Cogitate over who's presenting the data and why.  Anybody who accepts that second chart above without any qualms or questions makes me think of this:

 

But then that's what the global elite have been working so hard for anyway.

 

Now, how long are you going to believe that this whole "War-on-drugs" is a good idea?

 

After the coming meltdown or TEOTWAWKI, if there are enough free people still alive to start a new society and we can write a new Constitution, the following would be two of the articles that I would fight for:

 

 

Article [#] 

Since history has proven that inanimate objects are inherently amoral and can do nothing outside of the hands of man, and since it is self -evident that a person's body is his sole and inviolable property to care for as he sees fit, no branch or any other entity of government shall ever have the power to make any object or thing, whether inanimate or tangible, or even intangible to be banned or restricted or regulated.  This article shall be exempt from repeal or modification by amendment so long as this entire Constitution is in effect.

 

Article [#]

It being obvious to people of reasonable intelligence that there can be no such thing as a crime where there is no victim, no branch or entity of government shall ever have the power to enact any legislation, statute, act, or code which makes any activity illegal or unlawful which does not harm or infringe upon the rights, person, or property of another individual.

 

What say you?

*permits and licensing are an evil and abhorrant thing in a free society.  I hope to do a post in the future that explains why there is no need for any kind of licensing in a free society and just how it actually harms society through the auspices of government.