Psilocybe Scroll

Yes We Can!!!

2008-11-05T08:14:00.000-08:00

I actually feel as though a burden has been lifted-- the burden of cynicism shackled upon me by eight years of the most corrupt and criminally inept administration in American electoral history. I honestly did not believe that I would see an African-American elected in my lifetime; I began to tear up during his speech, at which point it finally become real for me. For the first and last time I'll ever say this: Thank you George W. Bush! Without your perpetual mangling of the Republican brand and years of dirty politics Americans would not have been disgruntled enough to even make this election possible. We have finally lived up to the dream of America. For so long, all we had was symbols of America, the trinkets of wisdom delivered by elementary school teachers to their pupils, but those symbols and words, that America is a land of opportunity where any child can grow up to occupy the highest office, have been made manifest. We have demonstrated that we are a hopeful nation, capable of change. As Obama indicated, his election is "not the change we seek," but an opportunity to begin the long process of change, an opportunity to apply salve to the long festering wounds of our country's original sin, brought to the surface by the Civil War, exacerbated by Jim Crow, and torn open by the culture wars of the 1960's.

To be certain, McCain's own bungling did not help his cause. His 90% voting record concordance with Bush stymied his claims of being a change candidate himself, having, like Hillary, dropped the experience moniker when polls demonstrated its ineffectiveness (given the nature of the election as a referendum on Bush). His was a largely nasty campaign, having resorted to guilt by association tactics in the absence of substance. Indeed, if McCain had run his campaign with half as much grace as he gave his concession speech we may have actually seen a different outcome. Perhaps we were witnessing the real John McCain, unencumbered by his neo-con handlers. Maybe that's what he meant when he said that the failure was his--his failure to act out of principle, rather than Rovian calculation. Finally, enough cannot be said about the role of Sarah Palin in bringing about his defeat; shortly after her appearance on the national stage, the Republicans began hemorrhaging endorsements from prominent members of their own party (most notably perhaps was Colin Powell)--a phenomenon dubbed by Andrew Sullivan the Obamacons. Of course, none of this detracts in any way from the fact that Obama ran one of the tightest, most disciplined campaigns we have ever witnessed, while bringing a previously unknown sense of ownership of the campaign to the common people. The pride that he (and the rest of us) must feel is very much deserved in every single way.

Despite the historical nature of his candidacy and its primacy in my remarks, Obama will not be the "black President." Indeed, and part of the special quality of his election (especially given the historical marginalization of biracial children by both races), Obama is biracial and multi-ethnic. However, as Obama's speech indicated, he will be all of our President. Does this mean that Obama will herald a new, post-racial age? I don't believe so. Despite the stunning electoral vote margin by which he won (349-163), the popular vote was still close (52-46); even though Obama was the first democrat to win the popular and electoral vote since Carter, the sheer number of Americans voting for McCain (especially in an election where the the economy was the number one issue, and McCain acknowledged that he knows nothing about economics) indicates that we still have a ways to go.

I believe that McCain erred in portraying the victory as one belonging primarily to African-Americans. The victory belongs to us all; it certainly belongs to the conservatives who championed an America in which people pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, as Obama has done; it belongs to everybody who hoped the nightmare of the Bush years would come to an end; it belongs to everybody who hoped to see America's image in the world restored as a beacon of hope; it belongs to the young, who turned out in unprecedented numbers (1,000 students at Penn State at 7:00 am); it even belongs to the internet (and thus Al Gore, I suppose), which allowed a never-before-seen level of networking by people across the nation towards a common goal.

Will his presidency signal a post-partisan world? I doubt that as well; states that were expected to go Republican still went red, though Obama has certainly created more potential swing states. We can count on the fact, however, that the republican brand has been tarnished for many years to come. They now must return to their caves and reevaluate their platform or else be forever relegated to obscurity as the party of fringe gun nuts, racists, and xenophobes. Given the now fractured nature of their party, the Democrat's seat gains in the Senate, while not a filibuster proof majority of 60 seats (unless the 4 remaining seats all go blue, which they won't; maybe Franken will win his very close race, and Georgia, if there is a run-off and the 3% of the vote the libertarian garnered go to the Democrat, but that's it), may be enough to allow Obama to actually pass some legislation, a feat not accomplished by the Democratic controlled Congress after the midterm elections (due to Republican obstruction).

Does that mean that Obama will lead from the left, creating a liberal utopia? I doubt that as well. In fact, Obama will probably turn out to be more centrist than I'd like. The magic of Obama's political career has always been his ability to bring together both sides of the table to mutually agreeable solutions. The question in my mind now is, where is the center? Markedly to the left of its position for the last eight years to be certain--so the pendulum swings. Only time will tell just how far it will swing, but there is clearly momentum there. It is up to us all to continue its path and prevent a premature correction.

Yes we can!

VOTE

2008-11-04T10:40:00.000-08:00

This was me trying to convince a friend of mine to vote. Names have been changed to protect the stupid.

Asshat (9:38:00 AM): did you drink the punch yet?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:38:07 AM): you're a dumbass
FloydZeppelinExp (9:38:23 AM): it's not edgy or cool to not vote...I don't care how contrarian you think you're being
FloydZeppelinExp (9:38:31 AM): but I'm voting after work
FloydZeppelinExp (9:39:17 AM):
Asshat (9:41:17 AM): my vote doesn't count
Asshat (9:41:28 AM): and I don't want to vote for Pepsi vs. Coke anyway
Asshat (9:41:39 AM): my vote is to not vote
FloydZeppelinExp (9:41:49 AM): I'd hardly call the differences between obama and mccain pepsi vs coke
Asshat (9:41:56 AM): bullshit
FloydZeppelinExp (9:41:59 AM): unless you're comparing pepsi one to coke
Asshat (9:42:07 AM): lol
Asshat (9:42:30 AM): they are both cola products, one is red one is blue
FloydZeppelinExp (9:43:12 AM): one of them is so senile he said that he wouldn't have discussions with the president of spain
FloydZeppelinExp (9:43:21 AM): one of them chose sarah palin as his vp
FloydZeppelinExp (9:43:59 AM): for fuck's sake...you're retarded bro
Asshat (9:44:32 AM): no way dude
Asshat (9:44:37 AM): I don't like Obama either
FloydZeppelinExp (9:44:41 AM): why?
Asshat (9:44:43 AM): he stance on drug control sucks
Asshat (9:44:50 AM): his pet programs suck
FloydZeppelinExp (9:44:57 AM): other than choosing biden he's not that bad
Asshat (9:44:59 AM): he will increase the size of gov. and gov. spending
FloydZeppelinExp (9:45:01 AM): he'd end federal raids
Asshat (9:45:10 AM): his stance one gun control sucks
Asshat (9:45:12 AM): imho
FloydZeppelinExp (9:45:17 AM): oh yeah...because the republicans have been really good at curtailing government spending
Asshat (9:45:26 AM): this is my problem
Asshat (9:45:27 AM): they all suck
FloydZeppelinExp (9:45:31 AM): what're his pet programs?
Asshat (9:45:44 AM): he's all about welfare spending etc.
Asshat (9:46:02 AM): give me just a sec. I have to do some actual work
FloydZeppelinExp (9:46:04 AM): dude...you're talking out your ass here
Asshat (9:46:07 AM): I'll be back don't worry.
FloydZeppelinExp (9:46:20 AM): I know you think you're being cool...but really...just stupid
FloydZeppelinExp (9:47:06 AM): and what about obama's programs are welfare?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:47:10 AM): explain this to me
FloydZeppelinExp (9:47:34 AM): because he'd cut taxes for people making less than $250,000 a year and raise them for people making more?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:49:19 AM): obama cut welfare rolls in chicago by 80%
Asshat (9:49:52 AM): http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/14/obamas-trillion-dollar-spending-plan.html
FloydZeppelinExp (9:51:11 AM): and 200 billion is shite compared to what we squirt out our asses everyday for iraq, not to mention that corporate bailout plan we just passed
FloydZeppelinExp (9:52:04 AM): but unlike mccain's plans...which will increase spending too...at least investment in education, national service, foreign aid, green energy, and health care at least pay dividends in increased productivity...not to mention people not blowing us up
FloydZeppelinExp (9:52:21 AM): you gotta spend money to make money
FloydZeppelinExp (9:53:34 AM): you don't think healthcare's time has come in america?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:53:53 AM): we're only behind the rest of the world by 20 years or more
Asshat (9:53:56 AM): nope
Asshat (9:53:59 AM): I know
Asshat (9:54:03 AM): but here is my deal
Asshat (9:54:16 AM): we've given gov. this much power todate
FloydZeppelinExp (9:54:19 AM): what about his gun control stance sucks?
Asshat (9:54:22 AM): and they constantly fuck it up
Asshat (9:54:30 AM): its time to remove power from them
Asshat (9:54:32 AM): take it away
Asshat (9:54:36 AM): they have too much control
Asshat (9:54:43 AM): He's pro gun control
Asshat (9:54:47 AM): and I'm not
FloydZeppelinExp (9:54:48 AM): well sure...and obama, unlike mccain, would roll back the imperial presidency powers
FloydZeppelinExp (9:54:59 AM): he is? he supported the heller decision
FloydZeppelinExp (9:55:16 AM): you believe five year olds should have access to uzis?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:55:23 AM): like the 8 year old that shot himself at a gun show?
Asshat (9:55:38 AM): eh... well, again, I'd like to point out that my vote totally doesn't matter, I live in *** ****
FloydZeppelinExp (9:55:43 AM): you don't have to answer...it's entirely rhetorical
FloydZeppelinExp (9:56:07 AM): because if you support 8 year olds with uzis...you're an idiot...and if you don't...then YOU'RE PRO GUN CONTROL!!!
Asshat (9:56:08 AM): you don't want to know my answer
FloydZeppelinExp (9:56:12 AM): I know I don't
FloydZeppelinExp (9:56:32 AM): like I said...rhetorical question
Asshat (9:56:45 AM): it's a parental responsibility, not a governmental. The gov. is not my daddy.
FloydZeppelinExp (9:57:28 AM): so the parents of career felons should have taught them that using machine guns is wrong?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:57:35 AM): and that's your solution?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:58:07 AM): the government isn't your daddy...so you don't believe in market regulation either?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:58:18 AM): because it'll sort itself out, right?
Asshat (9:58:28 AM): fyi, at 8 yrs old I was an excellent marksman and knew not to shoot myself or others
FloydZeppelinExp (9:58:58 AM): congrats my friend...so...you could've owned an uzi and you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with that?
FloydZeppelinExp (9:59:10 AM): because, hey...you're a good shot
Asshat (9:59:27 AM): nope
Asshat (9:59:35 AM): no problems here
FloydZeppelinExp (9:59:46 AM): good for you
Asshat (9:59:57 AM): my father would have kept it in a safe place, w/ the other guns, and I would have only used it while supervised, and on a shooting range
FloydZeppelinExp (9:59:57 AM): I'm getting your son an ak-47 for his 2nd birthday
Asshat (10:00:02 AM): do it
Asshat (10:00:09 AM): he won't use it till he can handle the recoile
Asshat (10:00:35 AM): but he could totally be using a BB gun by 5
FloydZeppelinExp (10:00:43 AM): I'm sorry jake...but advocating common sense laws isn't the same as supporting fascism
FloydZeppelinExp (10:01:04 AM): but you think your son should be able to go to a gun store by himself and buy one?
Asshat (10:01:52 AM): sure, but how will he get the money?
Asshat (10:01:58 AM): he's just a kid
FloydZeppelinExp (10:02:09 AM): his birthday money of course
FloydZeppelinExp (10:02:17 AM): grandma gave him a hundred bucks
Asshat (10:02:21 AM): if it's so 'common since' why do we need laws enforcing it
FloydZeppelinExp (10:02:36 AM): because...as you're demonstrating...common sense isn't common anymore
FloydZeppelinExp (10:02:53 AM): for fucks sake...you'd let your kid go buy an uzi by himself
FloydZeppelinExp (10:03:03 AM): common sense clearly doesn't exist anymore
FloydZeppelinExp (10:03:57 AM): you think you should be able to carry a sawed off shotgun around in public?
FloydZeppelinExp (10:04:15 AM): loaded I might add...while you visit 18 of your favorite bars
FloydZeppelinExp (10:04:53 AM): and brandish it...maybe pop off a few rounds in the air?
Asshat (10:07:30 AM): look, you are going to keep throwing extreme examples at me
Asshat (10:07:34 AM): and it's simply not the case
FloydZeppelinExp (10:07:47 AM): because SOME gun control is clearly a good idea!!!
FloydZeppelinExp (10:07:55 AM): you're really pro gun control
Asshat (10:07:57 AM): what I am saying is I don't need the goverment to regulate me or my children
FloydZeppelinExp (10:08:07 AM): but you've stuffed yourself into this dogmatic ideology that makes no sense
Asshat (10:08:36 AM): I can do a fine job of executing 'common sense' on my own
FloydZeppelinExp (10:09:50 AM): it's like the republic party...government intervention in markets is bad...EXCEPT for when years of non interventionism massively fucks up everything and we HAVE TO SOCIALIZE THE BANKS
FloydZeppelinExp (10:09:57 AM): *republican
Asshat (10:10:00 AM): no Uzi cost;s a hundred bucks btw
FloydZeppelinExp (10:10:15 AM): dude...you're missing the point purposely
Asshat (10:10:16 AM):
FloydZeppelinExp (10:10:30 AM): ...which, while remotely funny...is still pretty douche-y
FloydZeppelinExp (10:11:27 AM): just admit you're wrong...it's cool...I'll still respect you...at least to the extent that I respected you after you said you'd let your kid buy an uzi
FloydZeppelinExp (10:12:18 AM): oh...can I post this convo on my blog?
FloydZeppelinExp (10:12:47 AM): do you want me to change your screen name so people won't know how massively clobbered you just got?
Asshat (10:12:58 AM): I'm pro gun education
FloydZeppelinExp (10:13:02 AM): me too
Asshat (10:13:13 AM): ok then
Asshat (10:13:15 AM): lol
Asshat (10:13:18 AM): no you can't post this
FloydZeppelinExp (10:13:21 AM): lol
FloydZeppelinExp (10:13:22 AM):
FloydZeppelinExp (10:13:25 AM): I need content
Asshat (10:13:25 AM): I'm at work and not able to fully devote myself
FloydZeppelinExp (10:13:33 AM): sure, sure...excuses excuses
FloydZeppelinExp (10:13:43 AM): whatever gets you through the night
Asshat (10:13:44 AM): I've had to check like 20 preggers chicks in to pre-natal yoga
Asshat (10:14:02 AM): and you are missing the point, my vote doesn't count
Asshat (10:14:04 AM): I live in **
FloydZeppelinExp (10:14:16 AM): I'll add a caveat to the post excusing your poor performance on account of preggers
FloydZeppelinExp (10:14:28 AM): why doesn't it count?
FloydZeppelinExp (10:14:37 AM): surely it counts more than when you lived in DC
Asshat (10:14:54 AM): nope, it doesn't count equally
FloydZeppelinExp (10:15:02 AM): because your state's overwhelmingly blue?
Asshat (10:15:03 AM): because, ** is an overwhelmingly pro-Dem state
Asshat (10:15:06 AM): yeah
FloydZeppelinExp (10:15:10 AM): and?
Asshat (10:15:24 AM): so regardless of how I vote, the electorate is going to vote blue
FloydZeppelinExp (10:15:53 AM): if you're really pissed about the shitty state of government you'd send a message to the republican party that they've fucked up royally and need to reevaluate their basic platform
FloydZeppelinExp (10:16:13 AM): only an overwhelming popular vote will demonstrate that
Asshat (10:16:40 AM): good luck w/ that
Asshat (10:16:52 AM): I don't want either of the parties to think I approve of their douchery
FloydZeppelinExp (10:16:57 AM): well sure...good luck....instead of let's make this happen...cause you're a chode
FloydZeppelinExp (10:18:02 AM): alright...I'll concede that the democrats' performance has been...less than exemplary these past 8 years...but that's primarily due to republican created gridlock
FloydZeppelinExp (10:18:26 AM): ...sure they didn't pass any reform legislation after retaking congress...but that's because of unprecedented use of the filibuster
FloydZeppelinExp (10:19:05 AM): and I'm especially pissed at pelosi for taking impeachment off the table...but pelosi's not running for president
FloydZeppelinExp (10:19:41 AM): sure...dems suck...but your arguments against obama are bunk
Asshat (10:20:08 AM): ok, fine
FloydZeppelinExp (10:20:14 AM): and I still maintain that you're doing this to be contrarian (and for the inflated ego that brings) rather than for honest reasons
Asshat (10:20:25 AM): I go back to my Coke v. Pepsi argument
Asshat (10:20:28 AM): I want coffee
Asshat (10:20:46 AM): it's the blue can v. the red can
FloydZeppelinExp (10:22:09 AM): it's not too late to write in al sharpton
Asshat (10:22:23 AM): this is my deal
FloydZeppelinExp (10:22:24 AM): that'd send a message!
Asshat (10:22:33 AM): this whole vote crap is all band wagon patriotism
FloydZeppelinExp (10:22:34 AM): a message that you're wasting your vote...but a message nonetheless
FloydZeppelinExp (10:22:49 AM): no...I hate this country...I'm still voting
FloydZeppelinExp (10:22:56 AM): because I have to live in this shit hole
FloydZeppelinExp (10:23:16 AM): and if it's gonna suck...it's gonna suck with me having at least made my peace
JavaJakeCO (10:28:17 AM): http://publicreason.net/2008/09/10/polluting-the-polls-when-citizens-should-not-vote/
JavaJakeCO (10:28:21 AM): you could post this
FloydZeppelinExp (10:29:20 AM): yes...and this would be true of people who don't know what they're talking about
FloydZeppelinExp (10:29:42 AM): you obviously don't...but that's why I just provided you with a free education
FloydZeppelinExp (10:30:32 AM): plus his theory isn't defined at all...what's voting badly? voting against your rational self interest...i.e. voting for a republican if you make less than 1 million a year?
FloydZeppelinExp (10:30:48 AM): voting ignorantly? (which is how I interpret it)
FloydZeppelinExp (10:31:13 AM): let me post this...don't be a chode
Asshat (10:33:04 AM): yeah, i don't like that article that much either
Asshat (10:33:08 AM): there are much better ones out there
Asshat (10:33:24 AM): I'd like to revisit something you said much much earlier
FloydZeppelinExp (10:33:32 AM): word...find them...send them to me hear...and they'll get posted when you let me post this on my blog
Asshat (10:33:38 AM): not voting is, factually, cool
FloydZeppelinExp (10:33:41 AM): that you're a chode? revisit away
Asshat (10:33:55 AM): 30% of the population isn't allowed to vote
Asshat (10:34:01 AM): another 30% isn't registered
Asshat (10:34:19 AM): then the percent of people that are registered and actually do vote gets smaller from there
Asshat (10:34:27 AM): I'm a part of the majority, thus I'm cool
FloydZeppelinExp (10:34:48 AM): yes...which is exactly why I said you're doing it
FloydZeppelinExp (10:34:59 AM): thank you for reinforcing my opinions
FloydZeppelinExp (10:38:04 AM): plus...by going along with the majority...you're really just being a sheep
FloydZeppelinExp (10:38:08 AM): which isn't cool at all
Asshat (10:38:24 AM): Baaaaaa-rack, Baaaaaa-rack
FloydZeppelinExp (10:38:33 AM): lol...I'm posting this
FloydZeppelinExp (10:38:40 AM): you're a chode...so I'm posting this
Asshat (10:38:50 AM): damn it, I'm never talking to you on the record
Asshat (10:38:51 AM): ever
FloydZeppelinExp (10:38:55 AM): lol
FloydZeppelinExp (10:39:03 AM): ahhhh...don't be all butt hurt
FloydZeppelinExp (10:39:22 AM): I'll change your name man
Asshat (10:39:49 AM): I expect all references to me to be changed
FloydZeppelinExp (10:39:55 AM): sure sure
FloydZeppelinExp (10:39:58 AM): done and done
Asshat (10:40:08 AM): that includes where I live
FloydZeppelinExp (10:40:12 AM): ahhhhh
FloydZeppelinExp (10:40:15 AM): alright
Asshat (10:40:37 AM): cuz both the people that read your blog know I'm your only friend in **
Asshat (10:40:41 AM):
FloydZeppelinExp (10:40:51 AM): haha...you're an asshat

Voters for Liberty and Common Sense Public Policy

2008-10-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-16T16:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-16T15:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-15T16:28:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-10-14T15:42:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-14T15:37:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-11T17:25:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-10-09T15:04:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-09T11:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-09T10:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-08T14:59:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-07T11:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-03T13:41:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-10-02T08:56:00.000-07:00

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'

2008-10-01T16:33:00.000-07:00

"...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

2008-10-01T16:16:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T13:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T10:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T10:07:00.000-07:00

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."

Guitar Zero

2008-09-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

New Rule: You're not a musician...you're just a douche with a massively over-sized video game controller. Sure, games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero are fun, but you're not actually playing music. You, therefore, don't need a triple guitar stand. Sure, it looks cool, but it just gets people closer to the delusion that they're playing music in some sense. It's one thing to play occasionally, but if you've beaten every level, including every bonus level and download pack, on super-duper expert, you were probably better off just getting some actual lessons. At some point you gotta say, enough with the illusion...just get a real guitar and some real skill ! I mean, who ever got laid for mashing buttons on a piece of plastic?

I'd include the link, but they've gotten enough free advertising from my ranting. Thanks to Jake for keeping me in touch with the world of consumer-whoredom.

What Happened to Passion in Politics?

2008-09-30T13:25:00.000-07:00

I guess Howard Dean's "ye-haw" killed it in 2004. We need more Congress-persons like Rep. Kaptur. Thanks to Amanda for the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds

While I can understand Obama's strategy (painting himself as the reasonable, post-partisan, as an antidote to Bush's extreme polarization of the electorate), after eight years of Bush I think Americans are ready for some righteous indignation. Then again, I would've said the same thing four years ago.

How the Republicans Win (Steal) Elections (Part I)

2008-09-30T11:11:00.000-07:00

I share Marty Kaplan's concern for the integrity of the electoral process and the potentially devastating consequences it could have for the November election. As he notes, it is already under attack (as it was in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000):

"In El Paso County, Colorado, the county clerk -- a delegate to the Republican National Convention -- told out-of-state undergraduates at Colorado College, falsely, that they couldn't vote in Colorado if their parents claim them as dependents on their taxes.

In Montgomery County, Virginia, the county registrar issued a press release warning out-of-state college students, falsely, that if they register to vote in Virginia, they won't be eligible for coverage under their parents' health and car insurance, and that 'if you have a scholarship attached to your former residence, you could lose this funding.'

...If you're one of the million Americans who lost a home through foreclosure, and if you didn't file a change of address with your election board, you're a sitting duck for an Election Day challenge by a partisan poll watcher holding a public list of foreclosed homes.

In the 2006 election...black voters in Virginia got computer-generated phone calls from a bogus 'Virginia Election Commission' telling them that they could be arrested if they went to the wrong polling place; in Maryland, out-of-state leafleters gave phony Democratic sample ballots to black voters with the names of Republican candidates checked in red; in New Mexico, Democratic voters got personal phone calls from out of state that directed them to the wrong polling place."

In these ways (and more in Part II), the Republicans systematically disenfranchise voters which poll heavily democratic: the poor, minority, and students.

"Politics and the English Language"

2008-09-29T15:18:00.000-07:00

On the necessity of thought in composing political speech, George Orwell said:

"You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connexion between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear."

Michael Leddy correctly draws the parallels between the above and everything ever said by Sarah Palin.

Personally, I have certain 'pet phrases' that make their way into my writing, but as more of a conscious, linguistic game with myself. I can, however, easily see Orwell's point about
"ready-made phrases...construct[ing] your sentences for you--even think[ing] your thoughts for you, to a certain extent" occasionally made manifest in my mind. It can sometimes be startling the limited extent to which one has control over their own thoughts. This was a point brought home to me during meditation, as I initially, and counter-productively, struggled to quiet the voices in my head; words and phrases simply swirled within my consciousness with little input from my conscious mind.

Looking to Orwell's essay itself, I particularly enjoyed this:

"The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."

-Take for example, George Bush's much used refrain: “That is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom.”

And this:

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification...Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them."

-The language of the "War on Terror" springs immediately to mind: 'enhanced interrogation techniques' anybody?

It really is true, especially in the world of politics, that "The more things change, the more they stay the same" or, as The Who put it, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Will Barack Obama Cut My Taxes?

2008-09-29T14:25:00.001-07:00

To save you the trouble, the short answer is yes...unless you earn $226,982 or more per year.

If I hear one more person claim that Obama will raise their taxes or is an elitist, I swear I'll scream.

The Bailout that Wasn't

2008-09-29T13:22:00.000-07:00

I was going to write a long post about the $700 billion bailout plan that was voted on today, but since it failed to garner the necessary votes (the vote was 205-228), it doesn't seem quite as pertinent. So instead, I'll just link directly to the relevant posts I was going to discuss. Just as well...I'm no economist.

You can read the whole bill here.

Paul Abrams wrote an excellent piece on the "pathetically weak limitations on executive compensation."

Also check out David Sirota's "Top 5 Reasons to Vote Against Paulson's $700 Billion Bailout." I guess somebody was listening.

Update: For those of you wondering why the bailout failed to pass, it wasn't because of conservative, ideological opposition to government intervention in the market. It was because Nancy Pelosi made a speech before the vote that some Republicans perceived as too "partisan." See and read more about it here.

Clinton's Head Still Buried in Sand

2008-09-28T23:09:00.000-07:00

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, in the spirit of Bill Maher...

New Rule: The news media needs to stop acting like the National Enquirer. CNN's Political Ticker blog ran a story today about Bill Clinton's reluctance to call Barack Obama "a great man," despite using the phrase to describe McCain a week ago. Considering the $700 billion bailout plan that was also published today, this story ranks right up there with Britney Spears and Kevin Federline being in couple's therapy (which I only know because I went to the market and saw the tabloid headlines) on my things I should care about list. Yes, I realize that I perpetuate the problem by propagating the meme, filling your minds with useless blather...but irony sustains me.

The only thing that even phased me about the article (without parsing the semantics of the word 'great' and other than the sheer douche-iness of undermining the Democratic nominee) was this:

"'I think his greatness is that he keeps trying to come back to service without ever asking people to cut him any slack or feel sorry for him or any of that stuff because he was a POW,' Clinton said of the Republican presidential nominee."

Has Bill Clinton been in a coma (or more likely, a simple drug-induced stupor) for the last year? Whereas Rudy Guliani's sentence construction consisted of "a noun, a verb, and a 9/11", McCain's is "a noun, a verb, and a POW," as Andrew Sullivan noted. Off the top of my head: the Katie Couric interview, the View, and David Letterman.

Heroin Purity and Harm Reduction

2008-09-28T18:20:00.000-07:00

Recognizing that humans have cultivated a relationship with psychoactive substances since our evolutionary dawn and, therefore, no prohibitive legislation will curb our appetites for them, I firmly believe that we should instead mitigate the harms associated with their use--the central tenet of 'harm reduction theory.' Thus, I am heartened to see that Spanish scientists are currently developing a faster, more efficient method for testing the purity of heroin samples, as the wide variability of heroin purity is one of the primary causes of overdose deaths.

"The scientists tested the samples using the new analytical method, called Diffuse Reflectance Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (DR-NIR). It involves shooting a beam of infrared light into a sample to determine its chemical composition based on the wavelength of light emitted."

Hopefully this technology will find use at safe injection sites and not go the way of MDMA pill testing under the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation (formerly RAVE) Act (brought to you by staunch drug warrior, Joe Biden-- who tacked it onto the bill which brought us the legitimate Amber Alert System after it failed twice as a stand-alone bill). In short, since the RAVE Act made concert promoters criminally liable for their patrons' on-site possession, promoters became hesitant to allow pill testing organizations like DanceSafe to allow testing on the premises, as it would amount to an implicit acknowledgement of concert-goers' illegal activities.

For the Love of God and All that is Holy, My Anus is Bleeding!

2008-09-28T17:05:00.001-07:00

I saw the premier of Don Hertzfeldt's newest piece "I'm So Proud of You" on Friday. The sequel to "Everything Will Be Okay," it was the second of a three part series. For those of you familiar with his previous work (e.g. Rejected or Billy's Balloon), it is a little more on the 'serious' side, with fewer laugh-out-loud moments, as the main character, Bill, grapples with the meaning(lessness) of life-- although it does have a significant amount in common thematically with his older works (existential despair and the descent into madness being high on the list). At certain points, particularly in "Everything Will Be Okay," the material hits too close to home (not surprising since he acknowledged that the use of stick figures allows for easy identification with the characters--a la the simplicity of Charlie Brown). One instance in particular: Bill reflects on the repetitive, mundane tasks of his life (washing dishes, cleaning, switching lamps on and off, etc.) and realizes that those tasks ARE his life and that the minimal time spent doing other things truly is the exception.

After the presentation, the first time the piece had been played for audiences, he stayed for a Q&A session. Intelligent but soft-spoken, he displayed none of the signs of psychotic depression his work would seem to indicate. I particularly enjoyed his explanation of his artistic 'style': laziness.

Cocaine Submarines

2008-09-26T16:22:00.000-07:00

Imagine walking along the beach one day and finding one of these.

Post for Chris- Or 'Who Wants to See Sarah Palin in a Swimsuit?'

2008-09-26T15:03:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's beauty contest video.

McCain Wins Tonight's Debate

2008-09-26T14:54:00.000-07:00

Somebody should notify Barack Obama not to bother showing up tonight. McCain already won it, interestingly enough, before he even decided to participate. This was an actual ad placed in the Wall Street Journal online. This, of course, after he flirted with not attending because of the economic peril our country faces...even though, by McCain's own admission "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," and, according to his chief financial advisor (whose deregulation policies precipitated the crisis), "the recession is in [American's] heads."

"Mission Accomplished" anybody?

Thanks to Crooks and Liars and the Huffington Post.

Judges--the New Doctors?

2008-09-26T14:34:00.000-07:00

Despite the authorization of his doctor for lower back pain and arguments by his attorney that opiates made him sick, Robert Dalton of Washington was recently convicted of marijuana cultivation. Superior Court Judge Anna Laurie sided with the "Kitsap County Deputy Prosecutor Coreen Schnepf [who] argued during the trial that Dalton was receiving relief from opiate pain medications and that he needed to have pain that was not relieved by other medications in order to use medical marijuana. It is not known where Schnepf obtained her medical degree."

We can now apparently add judges and prosecutors to the list of professionals guilty of practicing medicine without a license--right after the police who decide daily whether or not an individual 'looks sick enough' to rightfully possess medical marijuana.

Also, given the evidence that marijuana works synergistically with opiates to alleviate inflammatory pain, allowing patients to use a smaller effective dose of the addictive opiates, it seems foolish to take a 'one or the other' approach to the use of medical marijuana when opiate medications are also involved.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/533/medical_marijuana_washington_judge_doctor

Al Gore on Civil Disobedience

2008-09-26T11:56:00.000-07:00

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."--Al Gore speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative

I've long admired practitioners of civil disobedience from Thoreau, to Gandhi, to Martin Luther King Jr. and it is refreshing to hear somebody of Gore's stature advocating civil disobedience as a legitimate strategy. I, however, am not sure as to the efficacy of such an endeavor aimed at the prevention of "the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration." It seems a little too nuanced of a position (that some coal plants are okay, but only so long as they utilize a certain technology which mitigates their harms) and if there is one thing I've realized from watching the last two election cycles, it's that the American people don't do well with nuance; the American people need "coal bad, solar good."

Taking the example of the civil rights movement (that of the 1950's to 1960's--again, more nuance), we see that people need dramatic images framed in terms of right and wrong. It was the televised broadcasts of innocent men and women being mauled by dogs and sprayed by fire hoses that aroused the conscience of Americans. I think it would be difficult to frame these coal plant acts thusly. Instead, I see them being dismissed as the isolated actions of tree-huggers--not to be taken seriously. That's not to say it's impossible...solely that their work is cut out for them and a proper frame will be a necessity.

One of the most difficult parts will be garnering sustained media attention, because as a society, we have the attention span of gnats. A mass movement is necessary to raise these actions above the din of the 10 second news cycle. Perhaps if a civil disobedience demonstration were planned for the opening of every single new coal plant that didn't possess carbon capture technology it might be meaningful enough to gain some coverage.

Non-violent civil disobedience, distinguished from other lawlessness by a willful acceptance of the penalty, is a tremendously powerful philosophy--one which the medical marijuana legalization movement would do well to adopt. I've always envisioned a rally on the steps of the Capitol Building with hundreds of patients, the more sickly the better, lighting up and subsequently being arrested. We must harness the lessons of the civil rights movement by employing the power of images. By replacing the image in people's minds of a young person gaming the system in order to get high with that of a police officer hauling off a wheelchair bound cancer patient, we can leverage action by politicians. It is much more difficult to dismiss an injustice when you are confronted with the face of the victim.

This was a criticism I had of a march against the DEA's closure of Santa Barbara's cannabis clubs that I recently attended. For every twenty relatively healthy looking people there was one person who looked seriously ill. Now, as a medical cannabis user who probably fits the stereotype of a healthy looking, college age student, I'd like to say that not all of us carry our scars on the outside. However, I also understand the power of framing and the importance of striking visual imagery.

"Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine."- Thoreau

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."- Thoreau

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is force to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."- MLK Jr.

“One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”- MLK Jr.

Brain as Cerebral Reducing Valve

2008-09-26T09:51:00.000-07:00

Going a ways towards illustrating Aldous Huxley's description of the brain as "cerebral reducing valve" is the discovery of Npas4, a transcription factor responsible for the formation of inhibitory synapses. "...Npas4, regulates more than 200 genes that act in various ways to calm down over-excited cells, restoring a balance that is thought to go askew in some neurologic disorders." Huxley's realization, made possible through his ingestion of Mescaline and written in The Doors of Perception, was that one of the primary functions of the brain is to reduce the amount of information available to us at any one time, distilling what is left into an evolutionarily viable product (i.e. something that lets us fulfill our basic drives: eating, sleeping, and having sex). Npas4, described as a 'master switch', plays a vital role in this mechanism.

Not sure where I was going with that, other than that I really like the phrase "cerebral reducing valve" and wanted an excuse to use it.

Speaking of Huxley's bypassing of the 'cerebral reducing valve', check out this comic from overcompensating.com. Don't worry, they're not actually anti-drugs. In fact, they're the only comic I've seen to feature DMT elves.

The Debates

2008-09-26T09:30:00.000-07:00

It is kind of fitting that tonight's debate will be on the anniversary of the first televised U.S. presidential debate in history. Tonight the world will see Barack Obama and John McCain stand side by side, go talking point against talking point (there won't be any real debate, only rehearsed spectacle), and, if history serves as a reliable guide, Obama will be the victor. Not only because he can actually articulate his positions, whereas McCain is quickly giving way to senility, but because, well...McCain LOOKS OLD. In the 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy, those who watched the debate on television gave the win to Kennedy, while those who listened via radio gave it to Nixon--the difference being the visual component. Kennedy looked vivacious--Nixon, haggard. While I am confident in Obama's ability to win on merit, we can always count on the superficiality of television (hence why Kucinich was never considered a serious contender) to ensure a victory for him.

The Derek Trucks Band

2008-09-26T09:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry that my posting lapsed. I took a few days off of work to go to San Francisco and didn't have computer access.

I saw the Derek Trucks Band at the Lobero Theater on Sunday-- what a great way to kick off my vacation! If you haven't heard of them, they're a fantastic fusion of blues, jazz, rock, funk, folk, and world music. As it turned out, the Lobero show was the last of their recent tour and it really reflected in the band's energy. Every single note, even the 'off-notes', was in place; the off-notes only served to set up dissonance for the eventual, joyous return to the harmony. They played a lot of material with which I wasn't familiar--which is always a treat because it lets you focus on the immediacy of the music rather than anticipating the next chorus; I'll have to hunt down a set list. They really hit their stride with a slithery, Chicago-blues stew, that they quickly brought to a boil. Truck's playing was incendiary; the gentleman next to me pointed out the exit before the show started because "that's where we'll have to run when Derek's playing sets the place on fire." He was right...high, I'm sure, but right. As only Homer Simpson could sum it up, the show was "groin-grabbingly transcendent" in every sense.

I want to thank Lauren and KC, and Angela for letting us crash at their places. We all had a blast.

High Fructose Propaganda

2008-09-20T19:52:00.001-07:00

Anybody else see this video, brought to us by the Corn Refiners Association, trying to convince us that high-fructose corn syrup isn't really killing us?

Miracle Fruit (Part II)

2008-09-20T19:39:00.000-07:00

Something else about the article caught my eye: "During the 1970s, a ruling by the Food and Drug Administration dashed hopes that an extract of [the harmless] miraculin could be sold as a sugar substitute"--demonstrating that the "Sugar-Industrial Complex" (mine) still exerts a tremendous influence over policy. If you think I'm nuts, see: the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. (The trade in sugar, composing 1/3 of the Triangular Trade, was a primary impetus for the slave trade, which provided the human capital necessary to quench Europe's hunger for sugar and thirst for its derivative, rum).

Quote of the Day

2008-09-20T19:33:00.000-07:00

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F Kennedy
Our actions are not isolated in time and space; rather, they reverberate throughout the world. Every gesture, every utterance absolutely counts. We, by our actions and inaction, are constantly in the act of redefining the world in which we live. This should make us hopeful for the possibility of change, even in the face of ingrained power structures trying to maintain the status-quo.

Miracle Fruit (Part I)

2008-09-20T17:12:00.000-07:00

I'd like to thank DoseNation for cross-posting my National Coming Out Day story. I've been following them for quite a while and it's nice to have finally contributed something. I really admire their open posting format; drawing from the collective minds of everybody who surfs the Internet, it provides a great variety of perspectives.

Read their article on Miracle Fruit. It demonstrates a fact known to anybody familiar with psychedelic drugs. The senses, our interface to the world around us, are not static. Although we do have a normative level of consciousness, it is subject to a great deal of things, and our senses can be fooled (and altered) rather easily. This can be done by many things, not the least of which, but certainly not the only, being drugs.

"The miracle fruit, Synsepalum dulcificum, is native to West Africa and has been known to Westerners since the 18th century. The cause of the reaction is a protein called miraculin, which binds with the taste buds and acts as a sweetness inducer when it comes in contact with acids, according to a scientist who has studied the fruit, Linda Bartoshuk at the University of Florida’s Center for Smell and Taste."

However, our perceptions can be altered in far more routine, but no less fascinating, ways. Check out Illusion Sciences to see what I mean.

I find these things so interesting because I believe that, at least in many ways, perception dictates reality. This may seem like an odd concept, because, one might argue, consensus reality operates regardless of the state of one's consciousness (e.g. even if I'm on PCP and believe I can fly, it's still not smart to jump off the room of my house). However, to use a simple example, say that you're not really listening to somebody and you mishear something that they say. You react to what you heard, say a perceived slight, and respond with something not too delicate, resulting in an argument. You perceived argumentativeness and made it a reality. This can be extrapolated to a grander scale by considering the philosophical implications of Chaos Theory, particularly the Butterfly Effect (no, not that awful Ashton Kutcher movie)--summed up best by Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park.

I Am Full of Shit

2008-09-19T16:27:00.001-07:00

I'd like to file an addendum to my National Coming Out Day post. Thank you to a good friend for pointing this out. In South Dakota you can be prosecuted for having been high. It's a concept called 'internal possession' that perverts the 4th Amendment in ways standard drug law jurisprudence never could. Armed with a search warrant and allegations of marijuana trafficking, police entered the home of Dave Johnson and, despite finding only a small pipe with marijuana resin in it, proceeded to arrest him. "The cops took me downtown and said if I didn't piss for them, they'd stick something in my dick and take it by force." Frighteningly, "the Huron police weren't lying. Under state law, they could, with probable cause, seek a warrant from a judge ordering an individual to provide a urine sample, and if he refuses, forcibly extract one from him." They found traces of cocaine in his urine and prosecuted him for possession. Indeed, the state Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction, despite arguments by his attorney that "the court has traditionally held that once a substance is in your body you can no longer exercise dominion and control, which are key elements of defining possession." The Court cited a "2001 amendment to the state's drug laws [that] erased the dichotomy between laws that make it a crime to ingest a drug and laws that make drug possession a crime."

Massachusetts also has a bill pending which, if passed, would criminalize so called 'internal possession.' This is particularly problematic in the case of marijuana, whose metabolites, which are stored in body fat, can be detected in urine for up to a month depending on frequency of use.

So, to the people of South Dakota, sit down unless you're willing to engage in an actual act of civil disobedience.

Here is the source article I used.

Also, please feel free to call me out on anything you disagree with or point out something I've missed. I'd love for this to become more than me talking to myself.

Selling Out

2008-09-18T14:28:00.006-07:00

Anybody else ever wonder what happened to artistic integrity? Ever think that the advertising industry couldn't possibly develop anymore insidiously insipid ways to convince you that you absolutely need some item of useless crap? If so, this post probably won't make you feel any better. While this should come as no shock to anybody who has watched a movie or TV show in the last six decades, product placement now unequivocally extends to the music world.

I won't go into too much detail because Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired has already done an admirable job. However, the gist of it is that "...Kluger explained via e-mail that for the right price, Double Happiness Jeans could find its way into the lyrics in an upcoming Pussycat Dolls song...The thing is, Double Happiness Jeans is not your everyday brand -- it's a virtual sweatshop organized by EyeBeam for a display at the Sundance Festival, which involves paying Second Life citizens 90 cents an hour to make real, customized jeans designed in the virtual factory." Jeff Crouse, the e-mails recipient, also happens to be affiliated with the Anti-Advertising Agency, a group vehemenantly opposed to exactly that sort of thing, and promptly posted the e-mail on his website. Kluger is now suing Crouse for disparaging comments left on the post. This is right up there with Bill O'Reilly lambasting Daily Kos for comments left on several of their threads, calling them hate-mongers. I thought it was reasonably well-established that bloggers were not responsible for the content of their reader's comments. We'll see. In the meantime feel free to leave any comments you want here.

Check out Neil Young's This Note's For You for great commentary on product placement in music--although I've always quibbled that by mentioning the names Pepsi and Coke, even in railing against them, that he does in fact advertise for them (remember, all publicity is good publicity, which probably explains Kluger's lawsuit, which could only serve to draw greater attention to his imbecility). Still, great song with a smokey nightclub feel.

Also check out Bill Hicks on marketing. I agree with his sentiments almost completely. I say almost only because to a very limited extent marketing is essential for making us aware of unknown products that may actually be useful in our lives. Suffice to say, the percentage that actually accomplishes that is miniscule.

Interesting Application of District of Columbia v. Heller

2008-09-18T14:28:00.005-07:00

Some of you may not be familiar with the Heller case; it was the Supreme Court's attempt to, for the first time really, clarify the scope of the 2nd Amendment. At issue was whether or not the language of the amendment suggests a personal right to bear arms or is solely intended to allow possession by state militias. In high school, I argued that the text suggests a militia oriented interpretation and with militias being replaced by the national guard, the amendment was moot (in the name of defending an assault weapons ban). I've since come to the more radical interpretation that it does indeed preserve a public right, since the only right to bear arms that matters is the right to bear them against a tyrannical government (a position that wouldn't have been lost on the Founders given their then recent war against a tyrannical government), but that's neither here nor there. As it turns out, the conservative Court found a right to personal possession, largely in the name of self-defense. Their decision is now finding a unique application in a drug case where the defendant was given a mandatory minimum sentence of 55 years because of his (alleged) possession of a fire arm during the course of routine, hand-to-hand, marijuana sales, although the weapon played no part in the actual sale. This is what the defense wrote in their memorandum:

"In light of the Supreme Court’s broad and forceful recognition of the right of all citizens under the Second Amendment to possess firearms to effectuate 'the inherent right of self-defense,' District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct 2783, 2817 (2008), the extreme sentence imposed upon Angelos for gun possession are now clearly unconstitutional and his 55-year sentence must be at least partially vacated."

Now we will wait to see if the courts will accept this reasoning or carve out yet another 'drug exception' to the Bill of Rights. I'll keep you posted.

National Coming Out Day

2008-09-18T14:28:00.004-07:00

Let me rant for a moment about an incident I had with a coworker that I feel is sadly revealing, but will eventually bring me to a point. Names have been changed to protect the innocent...and the irritating...and my job. I work processing gifts made to a local institution. It's not fulfilling in the least and I frequently enter existential crisis mode, but it pays $18/hour, plus great benefits, which because of my Crohn's disease, are a necessity. We have a new woman working with us in the office who, suffice to say, is not well liked...not for lack of trying as much as severe personality deficits (she can be overbearing--the type that will corner you in your cubicle and tell you about the problems she has with her kids without any prompting). I'll call her Jill.

When the kids downstairs (mostly freshman and sophomores from the nearby university) call to generate pledges, they sometimes leave comments about the person they called for future reference. The new group of callers have proven fond of potty humor (not that I'm not...I just recognize that there's a time and a place for it...and work...not so much) and in the comments section wrote, "did I just fart?" I remarked, "that's what happens when you make listings calling for fun and energetic people instead of professional and hardworking ones." Jill replies, "they should just fire all the drug users."

Being a medical marijuana patient, I took exception to that remark. My coworkers, in unison, chimed in with "if you did that there wouldn't be anybody downstairs." And I, irritated, added, "you obviously never went to college." Certainly it wasn't the best approach, but I'm seldom at my most diplomatic at 8:30 in the morning. She retorts snippily, "I did go to college and I graduated with honors, but that's because I never did drugs--I studied."

My level of irritation rising, I reply "It is possible to do both. I graduated from UCSB with high honors and I happen to be a medical marijuana patient." I wasn't prepared for what she said next: "Well, my Dad was a pothead so I don't buy that." You don't buy it? I'm not selling it to you! Before I could say "sorry your Dad was a crappy parent, but it wasn't the pot's fault," another coworker rightfully intervened and told us to get back to work.

Now, I honestly believe that I could not have made it through college without marijuana to combat the pain, nausea, diarrhea, etc. that are typical of Crohn's disease (an autoimmune disease resulting in chronic inflammation and ulceration of the intestinal lining) and if there's one thing I won't tolerate it's condescension, but I let it go.

My coworker's issues aside though, I feel that one of the major areas of neglect in the drug law reform movement is in combating stereotypes of drug users. Admittedly, this is making headway in popular culture. Harold and Kumar (at least the first one) went a tremendous ways towards depicting 'stoners' in a positive light.

What the world needs, however, is a National Coming Out Day for marijuana smokers. We need people to realize that there are a host of successful individuals, judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists and other professionals who have and still smoke marijuana to no ill effect. Although successful, nobody would be shocked to hear that Snoop Dogg smokes and therefore would do nothing to change people's opinions of the drug. Just like racial prejudice can be combated by knowing multiple successful people of different races, so too can drug user prejudice. Certainly, this is complicated by marijuana's status as an illicit drug, but nobody can be arrested for admitting that they have smoked previously, or even for being high--only for possession. This idea will only work en masse. Without a critical mass of people, any individual could be subject to persecution, but you can't fire half of your workforce. One of the members of NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) once remarked at a national conference that if 1% of marijuana users joined the organization and paid dues they would be the most powerful lobbying group in the nation and pot would be legal. There is strength beyond imagine in numbers, so stand up and be counted!

The Great Gig in the Sky

2008-09-18T14:28:00.003-07:00

While I'm catching up, I want to give my thanks for all of the music Rick Wright has brought into this world. On the 15th, he left us to go play The Great Gig in the Sky, which, incidentally, happens to be the foundation for the single most spiritually and intellectually profound moment of my life.

I'll post the account of that experience, my first LSD trip, when I get the write-up off of my old computer. In the meantime, here are my thoughts on death, largely gleened from that trip:

I believe that death is as much a part of life as birth. In the Toaist sense, creation is destruction and destruction is creation; life and death, like Yin and Yang, are merely two sides of the same coin, not distinct entities. Like the myth of the Phoenix, from the ashes, life springs anew. Death should not be feared as the end of life, because neither the physical, spiritual, nor essential aspects of existence are ever lost; the matter that constructs us never disappears, the soul, as a metaphysical expression of the energy that permeates us, is eternal, and so long as you leave a legacy behind, in the memories of those that loved you and in your children, and your children's children, the essential will always carry on. Death, should instead be celebrated, not as an end, but as a transformation. Just as one wouldn't say that a caterpillar dies when it becomes a butterfly, neither should the perishing of a human form be considered our end; we are in fact composed of the very matter scattered by supernovae--our lives made possible by the death of a star.

Happy Belated Constitution Day!

2008-09-18T14:28:00.002-07:00

Since I only started this blog today, I clearly have some catching up to do. The Constitution (including my favorite section, the Bill of Rights) is the single most important document in our nation's history. It is the foundation of our entire government and our national heritage. It is, however, trounced and disregarded daily in the name of protecting us from whatever the day's bogey-man happens to be. From elementary school onwards, we are indoctrinated into the belief that America is “the land of the free” and that the Bill of Rights is paramount in securing our liberty. The war on drugs, however, represents one of the greatest threats to this American ideal to date: chilling freedom of speech, rendering our right to be secure in our homes and free from unreasonable searches and seizures moot, depriving us of due process, preventing us from confronting our accusers through a system of secret informants, imposing cruel, disproportionate punishments, and completely stripping the Ninth and Tenth amendments of any semblance of meaning.

For more information check out the great post on the ACLU's website: http://blog.aclu.org/2008/09/17/this-is-your-bill-of-rightson-drugs/

As an aspiring attorney, currently applying to law school (more on that later), I can only hope that one day I'll be lucky enough to work for the ACLU, safeguarding our vaunted civil liberties from the government sworn to protect them.

Another Thing to Lower People's Self Esteem

2008-09-18T14:28:00.001-07:00

Everyday it seems as though the world in which the media dwells becomes more divorced from what I call 'reality land.' Now they have one more tool at their disposal to ensure that the people we see on TV look less like us normal folks (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link). Israeli researchers from Tel Aviv University are working on a program that would "automatically make photographed faces more attractive," as if air brushing and photo-shopping out every blemish from a model's face wasn't enough. I feel as though standards of attractiveness are already ludicrously high thanks to the constant media bombardment in our image obsessed society. As a side note: I feel infinitely more confident since I cancelled cable.

I suppose this raises the question of what is attractiveness? It is cliche to say that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Still, there are certain features that are found attractive across cultures. Facial symmetry is largely considered an indicator of attractiveness, apparently linking with sexual dimorphism, the existence of differing masculine and feminine forms. A few days ago I read an article saying that people are attracted to mates with different immune systems than their own, presumably to increase the range of illnesses to which their offspring would be resistant.

I'm sure I'll be discussing beauty and the like more in the future.

Sarah Palin

2008-09-18T14:28:00.000-07:00

I cannot believe that John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. How stupid does the Republican Party think Americans are? A more serious question: are they right? Based on the polling numbers, they are. Now, I know not to put too much stock in the polls (they got a typical post convention bounce which will fade, the polls don't account for people with cell phones, etc.), but it's hard not to get depressed when I read them incessantly. We are talking about somebody who had to return to Alaska after her selection to cram for three weeks before anybody was allowed to speak to her in even the most controlled sense. Let's forget for a moment that she's a bible thumping creationist who slashed funding for unwed teenage mothers (of which her daughter is one); tried to ban a library book and then get the librarian who refused fired; made the victims of rape pay for their own rape kits; supported the Bridge to Nowhere and then kept the money that was left when the project was decried and abandoned for being a complete waste, all while claiming, even in the light of massive evidence to the contrary, that she was against it; left the town she was mayor of almost $20 million in debt; has requested and received $450 million in the earmarks she supposedly despises; and that she shoots wolves from a helicopter. (See Sarah Palin, by the Numbers for substantiation)

In her first interview with Charlie Gibson, he asked her what her opinion of the Bush Doctrine was and she didn't know what he meant. Even after Gibson explained to her that it was the doctrine of preventive war, she still didn't get it and went on to articulate the long standing policy of preemptive war. We have always accepted that if a country is about to attack us, there is no need to wait for the first bomb to fall before defending ourselves. What is controversial is the notion that we can attack a country that could, maybe, hypothetically, be preparing weapons that might, at some point, because we've pissed them off so much, be pointed at us.

Now, I've read people on the Internets (even though I've seen only one so far) who say 'who cares, the average person doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either.' However, the average person should not be running our country. I thought we learned that lesson from eight years of the Bush administration, when Americans decided to 'elect somebody they wanted to have a beer with.'

For God's sake people! Her claim to foreign policy experience is being able to see Russia from Alaska! Does that mean I am qualified to be Secretary of State because I have a map?

AIG Bailout

2008-09-18T11:28:00.001-07:00

Now that our government officially owns almost 80% of the American International Group, for all intents and purposes nationalizing a significant portion of the insurance market, can we stop pretending that socialism is the devil? We already have socialism; it's just corporate socialism.

As Steven Brant noted, discussing the use of 'cost plus' contracts by arms manufacturers, in which those businesses are guaranteed a profit regardless of the project's outcome, "There is no Capitalism in the Military Industrial Complex. It's all Socialism, justified by the concept that these weapons are so important to American security that the companies that manufacture them have to be guaranteed a profit, so they don't accidentally go out of business." As Milton Friedman said, the drug war (and the attendant prison-industrial complex) is similarly socialistic.

What we have experienced in America with the subprime mortgage crisis is the "privatization of profits and the socialization of risk." The denizens of the corporate world get to undertake extremely reckless business ventures (i.e. sub-prime mortgages) and when their shortsighted short-selling blows up in their faces, they get massive, taxpayer funded bailouts because they're "too big to fail." The CEOs that piloted these corporations into the ground...they get million dollar bonuses. On the other hand, when people's houses are foreclosed as a result, they get told to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' because they shouldn't have taken on loans they couldn't pay. And this whole time I thought that the American public was "too big to fail."

Finally, a nobel prize winner in economics is willing to admit what every fan of The Boondocks knows already, that Ronald Regan is the devil. Not in so many words, but essentially, the market de-regulation that he presided over led to the current crisis. Joseph Stiglitz said, "During his reign as head of the Federal Reserve in which this mortgage and financial bubble grew, Alan Greenspan had plenty of instruments to use to curb it, but failed. He was chosen by Ronald Reagan, after all, because of his anti-regulation attitudes...Our country has thus suffered from the consequences of choosing as regulator-in-chief of the economy someone who didn't believe in regulation."

I'm not sure what the etymology is of laissez-faire, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with lay off our profits and get fucked. Take that you Ayn Rand fans.

First Foray

2008-09-18T11:28:00.000-07:00

Although I tend to agree with Hank Moody from Californication when he opines that, "...people don’t write anymore, they blog; instead of talking, they text; no punctuation, no grammar. LOL this and LMFAO that. You know it just seems to me that it’s just a bunch of stupid people psuedo-communicating with a bunch of other stupid people in a proto-language that resembles more what cavemen used to speak than the king’s English," I have decided to try my hand at blogging. It seems as though this is the only way a common person can make their voices heard these days with the strangehold the corporate media has over all discourse.

Insulting my readership and peers...a great way to start.

I'll be posting about politics, the law, movies, music, art, life, and anything else that pops into my head. Basically, I'll be talking about things that piss me off and things that make me hopeful for humanity. Hopefully somebody will enjoy what they read here.