Voters for Liberty and Common Sense Public Policy

In addition to the pressing nature of the presidential race, the importance of voting on state initiatives cannot be understated. For those lucky enough to live in initiative states, they provide a desperately needed way for the people to be directly involved in the establishment of policy. For Californians, several propositions will be appearing on the ballot next week that I feel deserve special attention.

Proposition 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

VOTE NO! First, I want to say that, in regards to this, Prop8 and Prop 9, constitutional amendments should be taken extraordinarily seriously. There is a reason that they are so difficult to pass at the national level, the constitution represents the highest law in the land, and the same is true of state constitutions at the state level. The constitution, for better or for worse, enshrines the ideals that we as a society hold sacred. Only by again amending the constitution can we undo whatever harms are produced. We must therefore be extremely cautious in these matters.

About Prop 4 specifically, this amendment would carve out an exception to the right to privacy (as enshrined in Roe v. Wade) for minors by requiring parental notification before an abortion. This amendment not only fails my liberty test, but is simply ineffective (at best) and dangerous (at worst). Although it offers a safety exception, it would, by its nature, be difficult to prove. For many, it will either result in the breakdown of families or merely mark a return to the days of back alley abortions, endangering the health of countless women regardless.

Proposition 5: NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING,
PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

VOTE YES! It is vital that we pass this! Prop 5 will expand on the already successful programs of 2000's Prop 36, offering treatment instead of imprisonment for non-violent drug addicted offenders. This is the only initiative that will result in a net savings for Californians, estimated at $2.5 billion. Contrary to the claims of the state prison-guards union and police, the primary opponents of the initiative, it is not a get out of jail free card for violent criminals who could merely claim that 'drugs made them do it.' The proposition would only apply to non-violent offenders; other crimes deemed serious under the Three-Strikes Act would be disqualified. Also, contrary to Charlie Sheen's statements (which, although well intentioned and grounded in his struggle with his own son's addiction, are inaccurate--claiming that the threat of prison provides the needed impetus for enrollment in treatment programs and sans this incentive treatment will fail), those who fail to show for the program can still face imprisonment, providing that push. If this passes, not only would we be taking a more effective approach to drug abuse by treating it as the health problem it is, rather than as a crime, but we could also begin to address the problems with California's bloated penal system, which is already well on its way to a federal takeover.

Proposition 6: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

VOTE NO! At a time when California is facing massive budget shortfalls, resulting in a slashed education budget among other things, this would mandate almost $1 billion in annual expenditures on the (again) bloated penal system, codifying the prison industrial complex into law. From the Ballotpedia.org entry, it would also:

-Prosecute youths accused of gang related crimes as adults
-Treat recipients of public housing subsidies as criminals, by forcing them to "submit to annual criminal background checks"

And...most disturbingly, "Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable." This would undermine the very foundation of our criminal justice system, which has always held hearsay as inadmissible, and, at least in my opinion, would violate the 6th Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against [you]".

Proposition 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

VOTE NO! Prop 8 would write discrimination directly into the California constitution by overturning the recent Supreme Court decision forcing state recognition of gay marriages. The fight for marriage equality by gays parallels in many ways previous struggles against anti-miscegenation laws. I was glad to see an anti-8 video along those lines, replacing 'gay marriage' with 'interracial marriage' in pro-8 advertising; it really calls attention to the bigotry of the yes on 8 position. Furthermore, it may interest some of you to know that 40% of Prop 8 funding comes from the Mormon Church in Utah. Oppose this interference in California law by out-of-state interests! Cries from proponents of 8 that failing to pass it will cause kindergartners to be taught about gay marriage is ludicrous. When in kindergarten did we discuss marriage at all? Between finger painting sessions? Even if it did, I say "Who cares?" It's an evolving world in which we live and children would do well to learn this. And finally..."if you don't like gay marriages, don't get one."

Proposition 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

VOTE NO! This is the so-called victim's rights initiative. However, rights are what protect us from the government, not each other. Broadly speaking, we already have "victim's rights" and we call it criminal law. To cite ballotpedia.org again, "Voters already approved many components of Prop. 9 when they passed California Proposition 8 (1982), including the requirements that victims be notified of critical points in an offender’s legal process as well as the rights for victims to be heard throughout the legal process," making Prop 9 completely extraneous where it's not downright wrong. It would further the burden on our prisons (and budgets) by reducing the number of parole hearings a prisoner is entitled to and increasing the length of time required between those hearings while precluding the early release of many inmates, ensuring that our prison overpopulation crises continues for years to come. It also, potentially unconstitutionally, "Limits the use of state-paid defense lawyers in revocation proceedings to indigent offenders," denying the all-important right to an attorney for poor people who have been accused of parole violations, again filling our prisons past the breaking point.

This cycle cast your vote for liberty and proven, common sense public policy and against bigotry and the cradle to prison pipeline. I'll be posting fliers staking out these issues around my community...please do likewise if you feel the same way. At the very least, tell your friends to vote!

Domestic Violence

From this link:

"California domestic violence laws violate men's rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled. The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence. The court said the services don't have to be equal - an agency could maintain a battered-women's shelter while giving men vouchers to stay at hotels, for example - but both sexes must have access to the programs."

This is a major step in the right direction. There is a perception that only women are victims of domestic violence, but, (while they do constitute the majority) this is patently untrue; the figures may turn out to be closer than we may imagine, as domestic violence against men is severely under-reported, due in large part to the cultural stigmatization male victims receive.

The section saying that services don't have to be equal did give me pause though. That would seem to violate the spirit of the California Constitution (as forbidding sex based discrimination). While I can understand the need to house female victims separately due to the inherent psychological distress that accompanies such crimes, I'm not sure how it can be reconciled with a prohibition of sex based discrimination. I'll have to read the decision in full...just giving my initial reaction for your digestion.

National NORML Conference

I'll be leaving for the NORML National Conference tonight and will blog there if I get the chance; I would not count on it though.

Quote of the Day

"We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist, and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mobilizing Youth

It appears as though Barack Obama's ad buying frenzy is not limited to the confines of television, print media, or the internet. He is now placing ads in video games, particularly in Burnout Paradise for the X-Box 360. Let's hope that his mobilization strategy works.

Who Is Palling Around with Terrorists?

Aside from Palin's direct association with the radical Alaskan party advocating secession, it appears that McCain may be, at the very least, palling around with those who pall around with 'terrorists'. From the HuffingtonPost:

"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime. The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."

Ever Feel like Jane Goodall Amongst the Chimps?

Anybody who knows me knows that I have a fondness for monkeys. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for the fascination, but I light up whenever I see one; last night, seeing 'The Fall', I was more saddened by the death of the monkey than by the human's plight (I similarly found the monkey in Speed Racer to be the most engaging character). So you can imagine my delight in reading this article from Wired.com--Chimps: Not Human, But Are They People? The question posed in the title raises a variety of issues that I won't have time to explore fully, but suffice to say, it is equally fascinating for what it tells us about chimps, about ourselves and about our relationship to the world in which we live.

First of all, this is an entirely semantic question, turning on the definition of person. Naturally, therefore, I turned to dictionary.com and received an entirely inconclusive answer.

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

With the exception of the 4th (the one I most closely adopt), they are built on the false dichotomy that humans have established between themselves and 'animals.' I hate to break it to some of you, but we are animals...enormously complex animals...yes; more complex than some... yes; we are animals nonetheless.

According to Deborah Fouts, co-director of the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, "They are a people. Non-human, but definitely persons. They haven't built a rocket ship to the moon. But we're not that different." Indeed, the ways in which we delineate between humans and animals increasingly narrow the more understanding we gain of other species.

The ability to communicate used to be considered the sole realm of human beings, but Koko the gorilla belies that assumption. Scientists have known for quite some time that humans and chimps share both the Broca's and the Wernicke's area in the brain, both intimately involved in language. I wouldn't be surprised if the realm of animal language turned out to be considerably more vast than we acknowledge at this point; we have difficulty enough deciphering ancient languages in the absence of Rosetta Stones, let alone a completely foreign language of barks, meows, chirps or grunts. In fact, it says something about the cognitive capacities of apes that they can learn to communicate with us in sign language, but we haven't done likewise in their language; of course, this could potentially say something about our ability to teach relative to theirs...or, in my opinion more likely, our ability to listen and learn (also, who wants to spend time teaching the asshole that locked you in a cage?).

"Researchers have also found that chimps use hand gestures that vary according to context. The same gesture can be used for purposes as diverse as requesting sex or reconciling after a fight, a linguistic subtlety that suggests a capacity for high-level abstraction." Really though...is it that much of an abstraction? Or does it tell us something interesting about social relationships in the natural world that make-up sex seems to be universal?

Then I've heard 'people' make the claim that it is our ability to utilize tools that distinguishes us. However, chimps are known to fashion spears from tree branches, sharpening them with their teeth, and using them to hunt lesser bush babies. Dolphins too are known to use sponges to probe the sea floor for food. What's more, they pass this knowledge on to their offspring in an act of 'cultural transmission'-- the existence of culture being another distinguishing factor often propagated. In the same link as the preceding, "Michael Krützen referred to a 'cultural revolution' in Australian humpback whales, 'where one particularly popular song was replaced by a new one at sweeping speed.'" It is clear in many cases that cultures exist in the animal kingdom, as in the matriarchal, sex-based, bonobo culture.

Perhaps it is our much vaunted capacity for 'rational thought', or the ability to sublimate our baser, 'animalistic' instincts which separates us. Rationality, however, is purely subjective, much like the definition of person-hood, and differs from circumstance to circumstance and culture to culture. In terms of sublimation of our basic instincts, I have yet to see any of it in practice. When it comes down to the decisions that matter most (often those made under duress), more frequently than not we are ruled by fear, lust, and greed; we have simply become adept at justifying these subconscious impulses on a conscious level in a way which appears rational to our minds. Take for example any of the endeavours of the Bush administration which at one point were championed by groups on both sides of the aisle: institutionalized torture, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, etc., etc...all built on fear and rationalized in one way or the other.

Is it our complex economic systems? Aside from the complete and utter failure of it in recent weeks, it appears that other primates too can master the use of money, and their use of it again tells us a significant amount about ourselves. After training capuchin monkeys to use silver tokens as currency, "...Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkey-kind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)" It is telling that the researcher appeared more ashamed of the act than the monkeys engaging in it.

Prompted by the decimation of the West African chimpanzee population on the Ivory Coast, the (originally cited) article asks: "But should we feel more concern for the chimpanzees than for another animal — as much concern, perhaps, as we might feel for other people?" Coming from the metaphysical underpinnings that I do, that there is only one thing out there and we are all part of it (more on that in another post I suppose), I say no, but only because I ascribe no greater inherent value to any life relative to another. The inclination to do so, however, comes from the same part of human nature that anthropomorphicizes "God" and demonizes minorities; the idea that things that are like you are good and have more inherent worth than things which are dissimilar, which are to be feared. Back to the previous question, this is actually a long standing criticism I have had of many animal rights or similar organizations; they are too often dedicated to saving only the cute and cuddly. Few dedicate their lives to the preservation of slime molds, although fungi are absolutely vital to ecosystem balance (the Earth would very quickly be overrun by dead matter were it not for them).

In a separate article on Wired, researcher Jared Tagliatela commented, "Human language has a lot of properties that we haven't found in chimpanzee communication, but I'd say the difference is more one of degree and complexity, not necessarily of absolute kind." I argue that this is true of every trait in the whole animal kingdom. The only defining trait of humankind is our ability to completely alter the face of the Earth (which is really only an offshoot of our degree of technology so it could be argued against as well)...and we're all seeing how that's turning out.

This article in the Guardian reports, "Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos. The environmental committee in the Spanish parliament has approved resolutions urging the country to comply with the Great Apes Project, founded in 1993, which argues that 'non-human hominids' should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured." Interestingly, we are still debating the right to not be tortured for humans and, while the resolution rightly prohibits product testing and their use in films and circuses, it curiously allows their imprisonment in zoos. Apparently, the members of the Spanish parliament have never seen the "People Are Alike All Over" episode of the Twilight Zone.

I'm often fond of quipping that I sometimes "feel like Jane Goodall amongst the chimps," and have been accused of elitism as a result. This statement says more, however, about my interest in the array of behavior exhibited by my fellow homo-sapiens (and all other animals for that matter)than it is meant to denigrate them. To assume otherwise amounts to species-ism, a denigration of the cognitive capacities of our closest relatives (we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps).

When you think about it, they really are "so like us."

An Addendum to my Previous Post

"Parker" replied to my last post (posted on DoseNation) commenting:

"The end of prohibition would make cannabis much much cheaper(as you acknowledge). The energy intensive indoor grows would become a small boutique segment of the market like expensive artisan cheeses. The larger share of the market would move, to one degree or another, towards being a commodity like other agricultural products. So to invest then call for a change in the law is not a good investment decision, however right it is."

His point is, of course, absolutely correct...which is why you should never post hopped up on cold medicine...I phrased that last part completely wrong and it didn't even occur to me. I'd change it completely but I believe that would violate the extemporaneous spirit of this blog. I should have said:

'The irony is that the last time we needed to end a great depression we ended prohibition, but I doubt very much that that will occur this time.' Politicians these days have too much vested in the drug war...it will happen eventually, probably sometime after the vast majority of states have passed decriminalization laws, but not anytime soon.

I did, however, start to think about what a post-legalization scenario might look like.

While I always think that a market will exist for premium herb, much like for expensive cheese or wine, it is true that the price for the majority of stuff may decrease. However, how much it will decrease is debatable. I wonder if anybody has any data on the extent to which alcohol prices dropped after the end of its prohibition, because when I go into a club or restaurant it's still expensive as all hell. Agricultural products aren't that cheap these days either unfortunately. Plus people are already accustomed to paying inflated prices...I'm not sure how much prices would drop initially, but my guess is not by much until competition drives prices down.

I'm also skeptical of the quality of pot that would come out of an industrialized system. Look at the quality of cigarette tobacco.

My bet would also be that if it were legalized it would be taxed so heavily (thus bringing us out of a recession, but also because that would be the only way politicians could discourage its use--as they do with alcohol) that prices could remain similar to that which existed on the black market for store bought stuff, thus giving your existing supply an entry-point into the market. Additionally, there may be various restrictions as with tobacco. For example, while difficult to enforce, I believe it is currently illegal to grow and cure it for personal use; these restrictions could significantly alter the dynamics of the market.

I guess I'd argue that good bud is always a good investment.

Anyway, if a commodity market is ever established for pot I'd be the first one to buy into it.

**I know these last two haven't been my best posts exactly...so feel free to contact me for a refund of your money.

Quote of the Day- Or- What is Expertise?- Or- Surviving Financial Crisis

From Eli Lake on blogginheads.tv: "The whole blogosphere is predicated in some ways on, like, a guy in his basement who was reading public source documents and realized that this other guy on CNN was full of shit."

This came out of a discussion on the nature (failure) of expertise, certainly inspired by the continued downward spiral in which our economy finds itself. Apparently, the $700 billion bailout did not work and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slips further daily.

With this in mind, I suppose my advice is as worthy as any. Want my financial advice? Invest in weed (well, that and canned food actually). Unlike stocks, weed is a tangible good, which means that even if the Dow and NASDAQ lose all meaning and paper money becomes worthless, you will still have your herb. Ganja, as noted by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich (my paper on the decision here- sorry for the shameless self promotion, even though I suppose this blog is really one big shameless self promotion), is highly fungible, that is, readily exchanged for money, goods and services. Marijuana, especially if grown, but also if purchased in bulk from the right sources, has a high margin of profit (due primarily to its prohibition). Cannabis, if well cared for, will appreciate in value as it cures (much like a bottle of fine wine increases in value as it ages). Mary Jane's worth is not subject to the actions of speculators. Furthermore, so-called 'vice industries' are widely seen as recession proof.

Finally, and the number one reason for investing in pot, (I'm paraphrasing somebody here; if you know, tell me in the comments) the last time our country needed to get out of a great depression, we ended prohibition.

Why?

Why is Beverly Hills Chihuahua the top grossing film at the Box Office? Why was this movie made? Why aren't theaters having promotions where people can bring their Chihuahuas with them for a discount?* Why am I posting about this?

[Insert biting social commentary here]

*Admittedly that would've been better phrased as how long until, but it would've broken the theme

Illegal Wire-Tapping: Protecting Us from the Evils of Phone Sex

Two whistle blowers have come forward to share their experiences working at the NSA, where they listened in on wire-tapped conversations. Despite assurances by both the President and Gen. Michael Hayden, then director of the NSA (now of the CIA) that the privacy of Americans overseas would be rigorously upheld, and that private calls were not being monitored, David Murfee Faulk, recently came forward with this account of a day in the life of an NSA operator:

"'Hey, check this out,' Faulk says he would be told, 'there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy',' Faulk told ABC News."

Data-Mining: Because I Love a Bloated Abbreviation

Commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee on Technical and Privacy Dimensions of Information for Terrorism Prevention and Other National Goals (CTPDITPONG) recently released their report on the efficacy of data-mining techniques currently being used by the U.S. government. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the ACLU blog that I am referencing pointedly describes the crux of it:

"Let’s focus on the fact that our national security policy is largely based on the same kind of techniques and logic that marketing firms use to figure out what kind of cereal you might buy. Sleep tight tonight, guys."

By gathering every single piece of available data on every single person in the United States, the goal is, by inferring patterns in the dataset, to be able to predict the future actions of individuals...which is only slight less creepy (and a lot more flawed) than the 'technology' in Minority Report, whose premise the NSA probably admires but doesn't quite grasp. I rank these technologies right up there with the brain scan used to convict an Indian woman of murder (excellent article by the way) and these "airport bio scanners"-- that is to say that you would get more accurate data employing John Edward.

The Committee, apparently, felt the same way: "The committee made several recommendations in the report including greater external oversight of information gathering programs, a framework for both classified and unclassified programs and an emphasis on the quality, not quantity, of data. The report also discourages using behavioral patterns as a predictive measure, and considers any program attempting to assess an individual’s state of mind as suspect."

In my opinion, mind reading technologies haven't progressed any in the last 3,000 years and 'drag-net' style programs in general will always result in the needless entanglement of innocents while allowing all but the most inept 'criminal and terrorist masterminds' to evade capture. Still, our government seems determined to utilize them.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent write-up on what little we know of the data-mining based, NSA Spying program, AT&T's role, and the resultant scandal. Warning: the deeper you dig, the scarier it gets.

Negative Campaigning and the Keating 5

Campbell Brown of CNN recently pleaded with both candidates to "Please, please, don't let this devolve into a campaign that you are sickened by, that we are sickened by, and that you are embarrassed to be part of." This came in response to what was perceived as increasing negativity on the part of both Obama and McCain. While Palin's renewed insinuations that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" amounts to guilt by association of the worst type (tripe), I hardly find anything abhorrent about Obama highlighting McCain's role in the Keating 5 Savings and Loan Scandal. Whereas Obama was all of eight years old when William Ayers and the Weather Underground carried out their non-lethal bombing campaign, McCain played an active role in the savings and loan debacle of the late 80's and early 90's.

The swindle and resulting scandal was the largest violation of the direct-investment rule (limiting the extent to which a lending bank could own real-estate) in history, allowing for massive accounting fraud, which ultimately cost taxpayers about $125 billion. The Keating 5, of which McCain was one, were the congressmen tasked by Charles Keating, then head of Lincoln Savings and Loan, with impeding the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's investigation into Lincoln's business practices. McCain, who had become good friends with Charles Keating, having been treated to nine separate family vacations in the Bahamas at Keating's expense, received $112,000 in campaign contributions, as well as political advice (the advice--deregulate the savings and loan industry). Although McCain was 'cleared of impropriety' by the Senate Ethics Committee (they merely criticized him for his "poor judgement"), the incident remains a stain on McCain's record and a testament to his 'poor judgement' in all matters economic (especially considering that his chief economic advisor was Phil Gramm, whose Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act led directly to the sub-prime mortgage crisis we now face--Gramm only stepped down from his position after making the now infamous remarks: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners....").

Additional questions remain, however, as to the thoroughness of the investigation into McCain's role: "To [fellow Keating 5 member] DeConcini, McCain was let off the hook too easily, due to the fact that McCain was a member of the U.S. House at the time of the meetings and the Senate concluded it didn't have jurisdiction to look into his unreported trips with Keating."

There is nothing positive or negative about history; these are merely facts of which people need to be aware since they go directly to the soundness of McCain's judgement.

Furthermore, it is ludicrous for Palin to go after Obama's (alleged) radical connections when her own husband belonged to a radical Alaskan party which advocated secession.

The Vice-Presidential Debate

While it certainly isn't saying much, Palin did do better than I expected; her machine gun fire delivery ALMOST masked the vacuousness of her statements. She was helped along by a format change, pushed through by Republicans, that limited both answer time and talk between the candidates (forgive me for misunderstanding what a 'debate' was). It was clear, however, that she was delivering canned answers only partially related to the questions, triggered by keywords. She herself, hoping to dispel criticism, addressed this early on, saying, (roughly) "I may not answer the questions the way Biden or the moderator want them to be...but I'm gonna tell you about my background." This turned out to be the most honest statement she made all night, surpassing "How long have I been at this? Five weeks?"

It was clear who her target audience was--she never failed to mention "Joe six-pack and hockey moms," and I laughed when she said, "main streeters like me." I had to gasp for air when, with blatant disregard for conservative talking points, she made a point with which I agreed: that predatory lending practices were largely responsible for the financial meltdown we're currently experiencing. Then again, you don't get far in politics telling people that the situation they are in is their fault.

Brushing aside the irony of a Neo-Con in training saying, "Patriotic is saying, 'Government, you're the problem'" (which, at least during the Bush years, would make me the most patriotic person on the planet), I have to note, as others have, that when you elect people who believe that government is inherently ineffective, you cannot be shocked when you get leaders who are incapable of governing.

Biden, for his part, did very well, though he was seldom able to mask his incredulity at some of Palin's remarks (his facial expressions were priceless). While he occasionally dove into wonkish detail, he hit his stride, hammering into the minds of voters the similarities between Bush and McCain. I particularly liked the way he couched the taxation of medical benefits under McCain's health care plan, although soon after he fumbled on the issue of tax shelters. He truly shone comparing an unstable Pakistan to a nuclear Iran (and I wholly agree that an unstable Pakistan is more problematic); Palin was clearly out of her league (in everything, but on foreign policy particularly). However, Brendan doesn't like it when politicians refer to themselves in the third person, as in "Nobody is a bigger friend to Israel than Joe Biden."

For me, maybe because I've read a couple studies on political psychology recently, the major cringe inducing moment in Biden's performance was his quip, (in retort to Palin's "freedom on the march" George Bush regurgitation) "The only thing on the march is Iran to the bomb." The reason I cringed at what might otherwise be a cogent remark is this:

"Threats to mortality have also shown to increase the appeal of the conservative party, even among liberals. For instance, a 2004 study by Florette Cohen and colleagues asked participants whether they preferred George W. Bush or John Kerry in the upcoming presidential election. Some participants first filled out a survey about how watching television made them feel and others filled out a questionnaire about how death made them feel. Those who had been emotionally primed with thoughts of death were strongly in favor of Bush, whereas those who had been primed with thoughts of television were strongly in favor of Kerry. This finding is consistent with what's known as 'terror management theory,' which holds that people use ideology to protect themselves psychologically from paralyzing fears of dying."

Perhaps this is one of the reasons Republicans are so good at winning elections, they know how to frame arguments in ways that trigger the lower, reptilian portions of the brain, precluding reasoned thought.

Still, I'm not sure that the debates will have made much of a difference. From the same link as above, researchers examined the brains of political partisans exposed to contradictory statements made by candidates of their own party. Dubbed "motivated reasoning," the thrust is this:

"Not only were the participants unable to see the contradiction for their own candidate, but the neuroimaging showed that they were regulating their emotional response...Essentially, participants detected the contradiction in their reasoning, but they weren't allowing it to affect their opinion...There's more. Westen showed the participants yet another slide, this one offering a rationale for the earlier contradiction: large areas in the ventral striatum became active, suggesting that participants were rewarding themselves for working through the problem. This combination of the suppressed negative emotions and reward for reaching a biased conclusion 'suggests why motivated judgments may be so difficult to change,' Westen wrote. 'They are doubly reinforcing.'"

I Hate the Governator (Part II)

From American's for Safe Access' blog:

"In a terse statement, the Governor said that employment protection was not the voters’ goal when they approved Proposition 215 in 1996."

While it is a known fact that the authors of the bill intended for employment protections to be part of it, we can be reasonably sure that the voters of California, approving medical marijuana usage, did not intend for the state's patients to be uniformly put out on the street. The choice between one's medicine and employment is a losing choice all around--for the patients themselves and for the populace generally which will shoulder the burden of increased unemployment and the claims on the system it entails.

How the Drug War Harms 'Unborn Children'

"...researchers found that prenatal care providers were not comfortable talking with their patients about dealing with drug and alcohol abuse in spite of routinely mentioning health risks of such behavior on the unborn infant" largely due to the fact that "'Pregnant women are sensitive about being asked about substance abuse and some health-care providers may feel that talking about these issues will compromise the provider-patient relationship, however, the evidence suggests that the benefits of a frank discussion about substance abuse far outweigh the costs to the relationship,' said Dr. Frankel, a medical sociologist."

I wonder why pregnant women may be reluctant to talk about substance abuse with their doctors. Could it be because they fear having their children taken away from them by police?

Of course, the results of this study shouldn't shock any supporters of the Drug Policy Alliance, which already has an excellent write-up on the effects this fear has on the potential health of unborn children and their mothers. Fear of prosecution apparently does not deter drug use, but it does deter them from seeking prenatal care and treatment.

I Hate the Governator

I could not have been more incensed over Governor Schwarzenegger’s senseless veto of AB 2279. AB2279 would have afforded employment protections to the state's medical marijuana patients in the wake of the Ross v. Ragingwire decision, which, ignoring basic principles of federalism and the pleas of the bill's authors, revoked them. The veto was not made on ideological grounds (so far as I can tell), with ASA stating:

"The governor vetoed a record number of bills this year, including some that passed both houses unanimously and had no registered opposition, in apparent retaliation for the legislature’s reluctance to adopt his controversial budget."

The only solace I can find in Schwarzenegger's miserable governorship is that if aliens or robots ever attack, we'll all be safe.

Quote of the Day

This one courtesy of Barbara Ehrenreich:

"This year marks the 160th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto and capitalism, aka 'free enterprise,' seems willing to observe the occasion by dropping dead."

It's Official: Hell Has Frozen Over

I NEVER thought I'd see the day where I was agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDou01X5d28

Dreaming of a Martian Christmas

The Mars Lander has detected snow from Martian clouds. While the observed snowfall likely vaporized before reaching ground, mineral presence and pH bolster the hypothesis that Mars may have supported life in the past.

“'Is this a habitable zone on Mars? I think we are approaching this hypothesis,' said Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, the lander’s principal investigator."