Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The EconomistAgainst Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA HomepageCurriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
17 thoughts on “Consistency”
IOKIYAR is a well-worn acronym. Time for IOKIII. It's OK if it's Israel.
Time to arrest the son of a bitch and prosecute.
For those who are wondering: Mark's views on the Logan Act changed much more quickly than Cantor's. He didn't even need a change in administration, which is the usual trigger for these sorts of things. Go ahead and check the archives.
Reading this post makes me think that this "Mark" persona is just an elaborate high-concept joke. A bravura performance.
Mark once commented on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus during the Bush administration, and noted that she had cleared her trip with the President. She was acting at the request of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert at the time, carrying a message to Syria on his behalf.
If Cantor cleared his meeting with Bibi through the President, then Mark has no grounds for criticizing him. Maybe he did; in that case, Thomas has a point. Otherwise not.
Ed,
Also, Mark did not accuse Cantor of committing a crime. He accused Cantor of doing something that Cantor has claimed is a crime. There's an important difference there. Hence, in regards to the question in your last paragraph, I'm going to go with, "Not."
So two sentence blog posts are too complicated for Thomas to understand.
Who cares about Mark? It's Cantor who is the asshole here.
Rob, you seem to have misunderstood all of my comment, which seems hard to do. It is pretty short. I'm happy to walk you through it, if you don't have a parent around.
Ed, as J. Michael notes, Mark doesn't directly accuse Cantor of a crime. Mark did criticize Cantor for inconsistency. And that, difficult as it is to see, is the source of my criticism of Mark.
"Mark did criticize Cantor for inconsistency. And that, difficult as it is to see, is the source of my criticism of Mark."
That's very amusing, Thomas, your game is at an exceptionally high level today.
(Comments in this style by Thomas always brighten my day.)
What did Voltaire ask of The Lord wrt his enemies? Mark is similarly blessed.
But back to the point of the post. Can you imagine what must be going through
Bibi's mind, that his tiny nation is the subject of obsequious worship by the
"opposition" political party, which controls 2 of 4 parts of the government of
the most colossal military power the Earth has ever seen? I should be fair
and note that a good chunk of the Dems share this intense need to pay
obeisance; that can only make the situation more gratifying for Bibi.
And that's just Israel! In the neighborhood, not friendly to the Israelis,
is a big chunk of OPEC. On which the US economy is a complete hostage. And
there's Iraq (in OPEC too). And Iran (in OPEC too). And a little further,
Afghanistan.
I think it's going to stay a mess, until it all blows up.
So. What are Mark's views on the Logan Act, as distilled from this post?
Seitz? Is that you?
KLG
How about no morals or a level of mendacity that can only be called pathologic?
Russell, I have no idea what you mean, but I'm pleased to have brightened your day. Suzii, Mark's view of the Logan Act depends entirely on who might be said to be violating it.
Russell means you are being dishonest again, Thomas, which is your SOP when it comes to "interpreting" Kleiman's posts.
Thomas: "Mark’s view of the Logan Act depends entirely on who might be said to be violating it."
You have offered no evidence of this whatsoever, much less proof.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
IOKIYAR is a well-worn acronym. Time for IOKIII. It's OK if it's Israel.
Time to arrest the son of a bitch and prosecute.
For those who are wondering: Mark's views on the Logan Act changed much more quickly than Cantor's. He didn't even need a change in administration, which is the usual trigger for these sorts of things. Go ahead and check the archives.
Reading this post makes me think that this "Mark" persona is just an elaborate high-concept joke. A bravura performance.
Mark once commented on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus during the Bush administration, and noted that she had cleared her trip with the President. She was acting at the request of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert at the time, carrying a message to Syria on his behalf.
If Cantor cleared his meeting with Bibi through the President, then Mark has no grounds for criticizing him. Maybe he did; in that case, Thomas has a point. Otherwise not.
Ed,
Also, Mark did not accuse Cantor of committing a crime. He accused Cantor of doing something that Cantor has claimed is a crime. There's an important difference there. Hence, in regards to the question in your last paragraph, I'm going to go with, "Not."
So two sentence blog posts are too complicated for Thomas to understand.
Who cares about Mark? It's Cantor who is the asshole here.
Rob, you seem to have misunderstood all of my comment, which seems hard to do. It is pretty short. I'm happy to walk you through it, if you don't have a parent around.
Ed, as J. Michael notes, Mark doesn't directly accuse Cantor of a crime. Mark did criticize Cantor for inconsistency. And that, difficult as it is to see, is the source of my criticism of Mark.
"Mark did criticize Cantor for inconsistency. And that, difficult as it is to see, is the source of my criticism of Mark."
That's very amusing, Thomas, your game is at an exceptionally high level today.
(Comments in this style by Thomas always brighten my day.)
What did Voltaire ask of The Lord wrt his enemies? Mark is similarly blessed.
But back to the point of the post. Can you imagine what must be going through
Bibi's mind, that his tiny nation is the subject of obsequious worship by the
"opposition" political party, which controls 2 of 4 parts of the government of
the most colossal military power the Earth has ever seen? I should be fair
and note that a good chunk of the Dems share this intense need to pay
obeisance; that can only make the situation more gratifying for Bibi.
And that's just Israel! In the neighborhood, not friendly to the Israelis,
is a big chunk of OPEC. On which the US economy is a complete hostage. And
there's Iraq (in OPEC too). And Iran (in OPEC too). And a little further,
Afghanistan.
I think it's going to stay a mess, until it all blows up.
So. What are Mark's views on the Logan Act, as distilled from this post?
Seitz? Is that you?
KLG
How about no morals or a level of mendacity that can only be called pathologic?
Russell, I have no idea what you mean, but I'm pleased to have brightened your day. Suzii, Mark's view of the Logan Act depends entirely on who might be said to be violating it.
Russell means you are being dishonest again, Thomas, which is your SOP when it comes to "interpreting" Kleiman's posts.
Thomas: "Mark’s view of the Logan Act depends entirely on who might be said to be violating it."
You have offered no evidence of this whatsoever, much less proof.
"O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." – Voltaire
Now you are edified, Thomas!
Though, I doubt it will help.
Well, John Kerry gets a pass, now, right? http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/2…