Thursday Roundup: Curfews, Questions & Quality Control

Jim Olvera leads off the op-ed page of the DMN today in stellar fashion, arguing that Dallas doesn’t need a daytime curfew for juveniles, because 1) all the reasons cited just don’t add up, 2) you’re going to perpetuate the cycle of failure by criminalizing these kids, 3) police already have the tools to fight truancy without needing the jail them. I’ll go Mr. Olvera three more: 1) We don’t need to drill into the heads of young people that they need permission from government to go outside, 2) some police will use this as a tool to harass younger looking adults or as an excuse to initiate illegal searches, 3) this is America, not some freakin’ people’s republic. Daytime curfews? Are you kidding me?

Robert Guest hit a tea party yesterday. He asks a pointed question: Watching the fervor of anti tax conservatives always makes me wonder why fiscal conservatives embrace big government social conservatism (prohibition for example)? Why is it evil for the government to tax and spend billions, but not evil to arrest pot smokers? I don’t get it. It’s two sides of the same coin to me. And I’ll add that War on Drugs Robert alludes to, like a lot of the other things that conservatives back, is likewise a costly, wasteful fiscal endeavor.

Finally, now this is just bad. It’s not an off-the-cuff, live quote, but a written sentence from a news story:

A critical question is whether any constitutional rights are gained from a state legislature stripping the rights of private institutions to decide at their discretion whether they want to permit concealed handguns on their premises (which the vocal majority does not), in order to allow individuals to supposedly more freely express their Second Amendment rights.

I can’t begin to list all the grammatical and logical errors in this sentence. It goes to show the mental gymnastics people will go through to avoid simple truth. But since when are state universities “private institutions?”


  1. Scott J. says:

    Stolen from a blog comment somewhere that I saved, by “PersonFromPorlock”:

    “The real divide in American culture isn’t left-right but puritan-libertarian. The puritans of the left and right agree that government ought to herd the sinners to virtue at bayonet’s point, disagreeing only on who the sinners are and which direction virtue lies in. The libertarians just want to be unherded.

    Needless to say, the puritans are much more interested in governing than the libertarians are, and so end up running things.”

  2. Dallasite says:

    While I disagree with the entire concept of a daytime curfew, it doesn’t change the fact that the dropout rate in DISD is around 50%. This is a much bigger time bomb than anyone seems to realize. When half the children growing up in our city are destined for a life of poverty, what does it mean for the future? I don’t know all of the answers to that question, but it most certainly includes much higher taxes, crime rates, and economic deterioration as those children turn into adults that are incapable of gainful employment.

    As far as decriminalizing drugs, that is the single issue that has prevented Libertarians from ever gaining political ground in this country. If successful, you might indeed remove the financial cost of the drug war and profit from the trade of drugs from society, but the loss will be far, far greater. Cheeze, the drug mixture of black tar heroin and Tylenol PM, is epidemic in S Dallas, primarily among Hispanic youth. These aren’t High School kids either; this drug was created to market to Jr High and Elementary students.

    You go try and tell a mother, whose fifth grade daughter is addicted to heroin, that legalizing drugs will help society. Try telling her that cheaper and more readily available drugs will somehow make things better. Try that and let me know how far you get.

  3. Robert Guest says:


    No one wants fifth graders using heroin. But that is what happens when criminals control the market. Only criminals would sell heroin to children, and it’s criminals who will be out of business when drugs are legalized.


  4. Dallasite says:


    Sorry, but I don’t buy the argument. While your crystal ball tells you that the dealers will be out of business if drugs are legalized, mine tells me that they will continue to sell to the customers that won’t be able to buy drugs legally, and the fact that the price will be lower will make it even worse, not better. The schools will be flooded with cheap drugs.

    I’m borderline Libertarian on a lot of issues, but this is one that I just don’t buy. You can’t let such a large part of society self destruct without having unbearable consequences.

  5. Robert Guest says:


    Good points, but here is where I disagree. When are drugs are legalized (for adult use) the police can spend all their time, efforts, and resources arresting those who would sell drugs to children.

    Compare that model with today’s Pollyannish quest to stop all drug use. Legalization still makes sense. We gain control over the supply, put the cartels out of business, and can focus law enforcement resources on those preying on children. Imaging how many cheese dealers go unpunished because of the time spent arresting adult users and suppliers?