VLVL The Wayvones; drugs

[jbor]

on 13/10/03 9:01 PM, Otto at ottosell at yahoo.de wrote:

>>> There's an implicit value
>>> judgement in the text about the way America honors big criminals and
>>> prosecutes those you've called "petty thieves" in some other post.
>> 
>> Where, or how, in the text is this judgement made, precisely?
>> 
> Implicit means that it isn't made explicit. But, for example, you can see in
> the difference between Zoyd's self-made home and the Wayvone's house, the
> difference between the hippie-wedding and the Italian wedding.

The differences aren't value judgements, however.

>> Ralph Sr proves himself to be an "ass grabber" (102.23-4, cf. 87.9, and NB
>> that Isaiah is likewise probably a "coke snorter"). The only difference I
>> can see between Ralph Sr and the others on that list of thieves and cons
> on
>> p. 87 is that he hasn't needed "*to seek*" (my emphasis) the "embrace and
>> shelter" of the government like Frenesi and Flash have.
>> 
> Well, even that isn't true given his good connections to the Justice
> Department. Bribing officials isn't a kind "embrace and shelter"? And even
> if this isn't said in the text, it's, like you say, an assumption, from
> experience.

No, bribing officials isn't a kind of "embrace and shelter" at all, and I
think it is fair to assume that Ralph Sr has bribed government and corporate
officials. But Ralph Sr doesn't need "*to seek*" the "embrace and shelter"
of the government like Frenesi and Flash and all those others in the snitch
community do. It doesn't make Ralph any better or worse than Frenesi or
Zoyd, mind you, that's not what I'm saying. You were the one arguing that
Ralph Sr and family are presented in the text as a "mafia cancer".

>> Yes, why *was* he trying to get information from Zoyd, and all those other
>> small-time dopers and dealers like Van Meter and Scott Oof and Leon?
>> 
> Yes, why -- the war on drugs, how it was/is lead is absurd while big
> Mafia-bosses are honored members of society and the government itself is a
> gang of "criminally insane" leading a murderous war in South-East Asia. This
> is what the novel shows.

You were talking about Hector, saying he was a "fool" and morally
reprehensible because he sought information from people like Van Meter and
Zoyd. His job as a DEA agent is to find and prosecute those behind the
illegal drug trade. How else is he going to do that except by following up
leads? Hector is not to blame for the Vietnam War, Otto. That's plain silly.

>> And you still haven't answered the question: how else was Hector
>> supposed to do his job?
>> 
> He should've quit and should've joined the legalize-movement instead of
> trying to put small users and dealers behind bars. Only legalization is able
> to break the big drug cartels.

At least you're showing a bit of a sense of humour. Wouldn't legalisation
just feed into and become subsumed by "fascist" corporate capitalism? Like
alcohol and tobacco and soft drinks and fast food and the media and
computers and whatnot. And, like many people, Hector is truly opposed to
drugs, and he was sincere about the job he was doing back in the '60s. In
the '80s he's become jaded and more interested in self-preservation than he
was, but he's actually trying to help Zoyd. He's still opposed to drugs,
however. 

I don't think it's reasonable to force people to endorse belief systems and
"join" movements which they're philosophically opposed to. That type of
intolerant and oppressive attempt to control what people think and do seems
to me to be one of the major problems with the sort of state-socialism which
gets preached around here so often, one of the major downfalls of all those
totalitarian "Left" regimes of last century. It leaves no room for dissent,
for individuals' freedom to think and believe what they want to.

best