The article goes into a variety of problems with marijuana cultivation and farms ("grows"), of the sort not usually trumpeted on the front page.
Reading the article, it seems that at least 90% of the problems described could be addressed through legalization — leading to taxation, zoning laws, and removal of the need/cost of violent activity in protection of grows. The pool of personnel to deal with enforcement would grow, grows wouldn't have to be kept under wraps. etc.
Would there still be illegal grows? Sure. We still have bootleggers, even with a vibrant commercial alcohol industry. We have tobacco smugglers trying to avoid taxes. But they are relatively minor problems.
The other 10% of the problems seem to come from the very nature of agricultural commodities — the impact of farming and fertilizing, and the boom/bust of commodity prices.
It would be nice to see a legitimate debate over this matter in this country sometime soon. I suspect strongly that it's coming, within the next decade. #ddtb
Here are my thoughts on SOPA and PIPA, consolidating about a dozen other posts I could have written today.
Copyright is a cool thing. Creators should have their creations protected. They should also be able to profit by selling their rights to something to a third party, who should then be able to profit from it. For some length of time, at least.
Copyright has also been dreadfully abused by Big Media, among others — leveraging extensions of copyright periods ad infinitum, abuse of copyright protection law like DMCA, etc.
Indeed, the abuse of DMCA by Big Media (false takedown notices, robotic takedown notices, mass takedown notices, extravagant damages claims, perpetual “let’s teach this 90-year old grandma a lesson” suits, etc.) show precisely why Big Media, et al. cannot be trusted with copyright enforcement. Which is a big problem with SOPA and PIPA.
It’s bitterly ironic that DMCA, which is itself a pretty awful bill with plenty of room for abuse (see above) is mentioned in the context of SOPA and PIPA as a reasonable law with lots of protections that the newer bills lack. A more slippery slope of expectations has rarely been seen.
SOPA and PIPA are parallel bills in Congress (the House and the Senate, respectively). They try to address an area that DMCA doesn’t cover — what if pirated material is being hosted someplace that US law doesn’t directly reach? While one is tempted to say, “Hey, welcome to that global economy that’s been so profitable to you in so many other ways,” it’s still a legitimate concern.
Unfortunately, they do so in a Bad Way and through a Bad Process.
The Bad Way they use is by intentionally breaking the Internet. Essentially they say, “Hey, there’s an infection on your index finger, dude. We have to cut off your hand.” SOPA/PIPA would try to amputate “pirates” from the Internet by doing things like
(a) telling US-based DNS servers (the Internet computers that translate “wearepirates.com” from someone’s browser to the actual underlying numeric address on the Net, “123.45.6.78”) to block pirate domains (“wearepirates.com” would be purged from the US-controlled part of the Internet, like Pharaoh purging Moses’ name from all monuments);
(b) telling search engines to purge anything they have about those sites (ditto);
(c) telling financial institutions — credit card companies, PayPal, etc. — to stop doing business with those sites.
Of course, this doesn’t really stop real pirates.
(a) Real pirates can set up shop at wearepirateshaha.com, and very quickly be back in business.
(b) And, of course, this only affects entities under the control of the US. Folks in France or Taiwan or Russia or Mexico will still be able to get to wearepirates.com.
(c) And, of course, the underlying IP addresses of that content will still exist (123.45.6.78, which DNS would conveniently translate to “wearepirates.com”), so if someone knows and can distribute that information, folks can still get to that information.
It’s like playing whack-a-mole with a chain saw. It’s cutting American uses off from chunks of the Internet. And it will do almost nothing about actual piracy. It’s the legal equivalent of not diplomatically recognizing a country you don’t like; it may make you feel better, and it might be an inconvenience for those poopy-heads over there, but it doesn’t make that country disappear.
The real problem comes with … the Bad Process (how the Bad Way is invoked). All that needs happen is the Department of Justice or a private copyright holder (Big Media!) goes to court, says someone’s a pirate, and gets a court order identifying the given site as being a pirate site. That’s it. There’s no notice to the accused pirate. No defense allowed or invited. No “due process.” Depending on the version of the bill, there’s no penalty for lying through your teeth (or being grotesquely mistaken) in applying for such a court order.
The problem is, we know this process will be abused — through negligence, stupidity, or malice — by Big Media. We know this because they’ve been doing the same with the DMCA. Only now, instead of dealing with false threats with a sledge hammer, they’re being given the power to do so with a chain saw with pretty much nothing to restrict them.
Further, it’s also open to abuse by the government. Hey, all you folks worried about Big Government Oppressing You, are you worried about this bill? You should be. Because your site — your domain, your web page, your company’s web presence, your organization’s web system — can be wiped off the Internet by someone at the Dept. of Justice who doesn’t like those articles you’ve been printing or those accusations you’ve been making. And we know that the government does abuse such powers, because it has abused such powers (see “War on Terror,” “War on Drugs,” J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, etc.). Sure, you might be able to go to court to get yourself back online — just pay some lawyers (though now your site is no longer getting any credit card payments or donations, so hope you have deep pockets) and wait for a looooong while. Oh, and your domain email is gone. And nobody can find you. And you can’t sell t-shirts. And most hosts probably won’t touch you with a ten foot pole because they don’t want to be taken down as a whole (if they haven’t already) for doing so, so you probably need to run your own server, except that Internet providers might now also be reluctant to hook you up. Remember, a lot of the impetus for this bill came not just from Big Media but by folks in government outraged over WikiLeaks. Whether you’re a peace activist or a tea partier, this should be a huge red flag for you.
Better yet, even if you say, “Hey, I’m no pirate, I don’t do anything like that,” there’s still the chilling effect. Yeah, you don’t think you’re a pirate, and your friends don’t think you’re a pirate … but how much of that song are you going to quote? How much of that article can you quote in your blog post under fair use — and is that really going to be a defense here if your domain is shut down? Are you going to post that news photo, or even link to that YouTube video? Are you going to be worried about what you might do that would attract someone’s attention — someone who doesn’t like you, or who doesn’t understand the nuances of copyright law, or who doesn’t care, or some robot search engine that sees four words that match something its owner says is copyrighted and generates a report somewhere to be walked into a court by a lawyer? Or are you going to play it perfectly safe and restrain yourself from doing something that might draw someone’s ire, or attention? And, thus, go far beyond avoiding “piracy” from a “reasonable” standpoint, and into self-censorship?
Beyond that, it’s not just the content you post that you have to worry about, but the content you link to. Are you sure that site you just linked to in your blog isn’t a pirate? Or someone who might be accused of being a pirate? Or someone who might otherwise draw attention? Because simply linking to them could make you a target, too. Guilt through association. With just the same lack of finesse and due process, and the same potential for abuse, chilling effect, etc. Which is also why web hosts and Internet Service Providers will tacitly back up such a penalties, because they don’t want to be pulled down, either. And this part of it is primarily why folks like Google and Wikipedia and BoingBoing and Reddit, et al., are so opposed to this bill.
So how might this be abused? Consider my site.
– Could US Bank — who might be unhappy over my oft-commented-upon “Why US Bank Sucks” post — claim I was infringing on their copyright by including pictures of copyrighted logos?
– Could Bryan Fischer or the AFA claim that my extensive citation of some of Bryan’s doltish screeds are a violation of their copyright?
– I link to a fair number of YouTube videos; if someone decided those videos were a copyright infringement, could they argue in court that I’m a chronic infringer of copyright?
– If I were to speak supportively (or even non-critically) of WikiLeaks, and link to a site that has or discusses leaked material, could I be targeted as providing support (through links) of an organization that the US government claims is releasing classified material and is therefore also subject to penalties?
More importantly, could any of the above, in a vacuum (i.e., without any defense by me), convince a friendly judge of such infringement?
In that case, I could wake up one day to discover that hill-kleerup.org had been obliterated from the Internet, without any notice or warning. No email coming in to my hill-kleerup.org email. Possibly discovering that bank accounts and credit cards that are associated with that email address have been frozen.
Now, it seems unlikely (my ego is not that big) that I’m nearly significant enough for anyone to notice me and want to stomp on me that way. On the other hand, that hardly means that it’s a good law (“Don’t worry — only prominent people and sites will be slapped down!”). And the room for abuse is broad. Copyright holders (or claimants) don’t have to be multinational corporations to file for a court order. Or someone who gets torqued at me (an angry neighbor, an ex-friend, etc.) might be a friend of someone who is in position to do something. It could happen to me. It could happen to you. It could happen to me if it happens to you and I linked to you.
What could make this better? Fixing the Bad Process that leads to a Bad Way of combating piracy, fundamentally. I.e., scrap the law and start over.
(a) The process has to allow some sort of means to protest, some sort of due process. Copyright holders argue that such a process allows folks to continue to sell pirated material and rob them of profit, but that cannot be an excuse to allow folks to be accused and punished on nothing more than some lawyer’s say-so.
(b) In addition, these bills should not apply to people and entities within the US. Recall that they are intended to deal with places where the DMCA could not reach. By making these laws global in scope, including within the US, it’s all the more clear that the purpose is not dealing with that limitation, but to supplant the (already-draconian) DMCA regime with something new.
(c) The tools used by these bills to actually try and take these folks down need to also be considered, as their effectiveness is dubious at best to actually combat piracy, but, really, the fundamental first step is making sure that any penalties are only applied properly. Until that happens, these laws are a dangerous mess and should be rejected.
Lyndon Johnson, a man who knew a lot about lawmaking (and power-wielding) said, “You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.” SOPA and PIPA both claim to be for the benefit of American business / Intellectual Property holders, by combating piracy. That’s fine as a goal, if somewhat sketchy in the reality of what the bills will be able to do.
But the potential for abuse, for “improper administration,” is tremendous. That there is (a) no due process here, (b) in the face of known high probability (to a certainty) of abuse (through stupidity, negligence, or malice — by the government or by Big Media and other IP holders), with (c) such dire consequences to innocent targets, is legislative malpractice of the highest order. It’s a sign of congressional representatives who are either clueless about the Internet or due process or both, or who are in the pockets of those who stand to profit or otherwise benefit from such laws.
A quote from the story: "Today there are more African-Americans under correctional control — in prison or jail, on probation or parole — than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began. There are millions of African-Americans now cycling in and out of prisons and jails or under correctional control. In major American cities today, more than half of working-age African-American men are either under correctional control or branded felons and are thus subject to legalized discrimination for the rest of their lives."
Another incremental bit of federal crackdown on pot dispensaries in Colorado
This is a weird one. The Feds should be seeking to get rid of medical marijuana shops, under existing drug laws. Instead, they're targeting ones they deem to be too close to schools.
Which sounds like a zoning issue — and Colorado state law takes that into account. But selling pot within a certain distance of schools triggers additional federal penalties, so I guess there's some vague rationale for it.
Whether our federal tax dollars are best spent pursuing this kind of activity is another matter.
This whole mess is another example of cross-purposes in federalism vs. states rights. I suspect that most conservatives — the ones always talking about how we have too much central government and the states should be able to set their own policies in a variety of ways — are whole-heartedly behind the hardly-beloved Feds cracking down on dispensaries, even when legal in a state (and even when that legality is a direct result of popular referendum). Whereas most liberals (cough), who usually push for a uniform federal policy to trump states are the ones crying out for states rights here. #ddtb
Which is kind of a surprise, because I'd expect regular (in this case, a joint a day) inhalation of any kind of smoke — tobacco, marijuana, or wood — would lead to problems. Apparently not. #ddtb
The Liberty Counsel has issued a “Declaration of American Values” which they are, of course, trying to get everyone and their brother to sign off on. It is, of course, nice of them to assume that they know what “values” are truly “American,” so that they can “declare” them … presumably to those Godless Islamicist Socialist Hordes in other countries, as well to those Commie Secularist Liberals here who Hate America So Much (cough).
(Note: though some folks have raised this as something new in this pledge-happy election cycle, it actually dates back to 2008. It’s still very prominently displayed on their front page, though, and the rhetoric really hasn’t changed, so it’s fair game.)
What does this Declaration have to say? Are its Values truly American? Well …
First off, it’s not at all clear to me that the values embodied in the founding documents — the Declaration of Independence, as well as the (amended) Constitution of the United States — need to be supplemented or rewritten. So my assumption, going into this, is that it’s going to be a bunch of cultural and social issues that the LC would like to see become (or even, in some cases, restore as) “American Values.” Which is fine, but … well, get in line, guys.
””]
The Declaration of American Values
We the people of the United States of America, …
Note that this borrows, for the Declaration, the language of the Constitution. But the Constitution really was a statement by the People (capitalized), as it was voted on and approved by their representatives at the national and state levels. The Declaration used “we” language, but not in this way.
… at this crucial time in history, …
Is this time more “crucial” than other times in our national history? Really?
… do hereby affirm the core consensus values …
Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it? Are the following “core consensus values”? How do the LC know? If so, is an affirmation and declaration necessary? If not … well, then why call them that?
I know, I know — the Right is convinced that all the Bad Stuff in our country is due to tiny minority liberal populations on each coast that have somehow taken over this great nation, seizing the media and the government and somehow brainwashing the masses into despair, apathy, and tacit support for the Godless Liberal Agenda.
… which form the basis of America’s greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal …
Well, I give them kudos for noting racial and ethnic equality, as well as sexual equality. I suspect some of the LC’s fans aren’t quite as sanguine about that, or would attach some caveats (including some of the clauses below) to that statement of equality, but …
… and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As well as it’s Officially and Societally Sanctioned Happiness, of course.
We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States …
Good to know.
… and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded.
As long as it’s liberty to do the things we think people should be doing.
In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, …
More Constitutional(ish) language.
… and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing Nation, we declare our allegiance –
An odd use of the term. It’s usually allegiance (loyalty, devotion) to some noun (the flag, the nation), rather than to some verb; in this document, though, all the clauses start with “to secure”. That’s also an interesting choice of terms.
1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, …
Does that include government programs to assist in preserving (with dignity) that life, including food, shelter, heat in the winter, and medical care?
Does providing dignity of life include allowing someone to end their life should they so choose?
… and for the unborn from the moment of conception.
I.e., personhood amendments.
Sorry, while acknowledging that abortion and contraception are thorny issues few bright lines, it’s difficult for me to recognize an unimplanted (or even just-implanted) pair or quartet of cells the same rights and consideration as a homeless person on the street, a sick person in the hospital, etc.
Every person is made in the image of God, …
Not every person believes that particular declaration.
… and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith …
Or communities of non-faith.
… to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.
I concur. Does that include governmental programs “to care for those in poverty and distress”?
2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage …
If we have a “national interest in the institution of marriage,” we aren’t doing much about it except debating whether we should allow gay folks to be included in it.
… and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.
I would suggest to the Liberty Counsel that current polling of the national population disagrees that this statement doesn’t reflect the values of most Americans.
3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.
An interesting one — I’d like to know what, specifically, LC is concerned about here. What cases of these “fundamental rights” are in danger such that we need to secure them?
4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression …
I'm sure the Liberty Counsel would be tickled to have public institutions acknowledging Cernunnos
But how do we reconcile “acknowledging God through our public institutions” without imposing on those whose concepts of God (which the LC seems to want to secure freedom for as well) are different? Though it may shock and dismay the LC, not everyone in the nation of “all people” believe in Jesus, or believe in the Abrahamic God, or believe in a higher power whatsoever. When someone “acknowledges God through our public institutions,” they alienate, offend, and impose upon those fellow Americans that believe differently as much as how some Christians would be if someone acknowledged Allah, or Vishnu, or Zoroaster, or Odin, or the Horned God, or the Godless Universe through a “public institution.”
The LC’s statement only makes sense if everyone acknowledges the same God. I know they’d like to think that everyone does, but they don’t.
… and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.
Yes, we should certainly make sure there are no legal restrains on public expression of religious beliefs
As soon as the LC agrees that Native Americans should be able to use peyote, Rastafarians should have free use of marijuana, that fundamentalist Mormons should be allowed polygamy, that Quakers should be allowed to exclude the Defense spending from their federal taxes, that Hindus should be allowed to exclude federal beef subsidies from their federal taxes, that people who believe that abortion and euthanasia are religiously acceptable are allowed to engage in them, and that human sacrifice is acceptable for descendants of the Aztecs … I’ll take this request seriously (i.e., as something other than a weasel clause to have some Christian town clerks not be required in their job to register gay couples for marriage, some Christian pharmacists be not required in their jobs to sell contraceptives, etc.).
In other words, the LC needs to demonstrate that it’s pushing for freedom of religious conscience for “all people,” not just for Christians (or Christians of a particular flavor).
5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and traditional morality.
This would be a more compelling statement of American values if we didn’t see so much evidence that pornography is widely partaken of throughout America, including among folks who identify as conservative Christians.
So is the LC trying to say “America wants to be saved from itself,” or “We disagree with the majority, but we’ll call it an American value”?
If obscenity, pornography, and indecency were (a) subject to an agreed-upon national standard, and (b) agreed-upon as something bad, then it wouldn’t be an issue. But there is no national standard (heck, two next-door neighbors may have different views on what’s “indecent”), and it’s clearly not, at some vague level, not consensually agreed upon as wrong.
Everyone (well, nearly everyone, sadly) agrees that hardcore child porn is wrong. Some people think the SI Swimsuit Issue is obscene, though most people disagree. Who gets to decide?
6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.
This clause is as close to a Mom & Apple Pie statement as this Declaration has. I doubt many people couldn’t agree on it … but the devil, of course, is in the details. What would the LC consider “arbitrary interference”? What is “proper and balanced” in caring for the environment? Are new EPA regs on mercury levels in coal power plants right or wrong? Is protecting a given set of wetlands, even if privately owned, arbitrary or proper? Where’s the balance?
7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.
Well, that seems to be ensured at present by the Second Amendment as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court, so, questioning the proposition aside, there doesn’t seem to be much needed to “secure” this.
8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch – particularly the judiciary – usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.
We have a system of checks and balances. The problem is that the Right doesn’t like how it works — i.e., that some judges have ruled against them, overturning particular laws. Note that the Left is pretty darned unhappy about some court rulings, too — SCOTUS in particular — but I don’t hear anyone there saying that the judiciary needs to be reformed, restrained or ignored.
We also have a federalist system. The problem is, again, that the Right doesn’t like how the country has grown, such that running a confederation of fifty sovereign nations doesn’t make sense, thus the evolution of recognizing more legal authority to the federal government.
But it would also be useful if the Right (including the LC) were consistent on this. So, for example, the Right (speaking broadly) loves letting states do what they want to do when they dislike the federal policy … but prefer federal laws when the states aren’t toeing the line they want. Abortion is a great example of this.
9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; …
How strong is strong? Nobody’s promoting unilateral disarmament. Which weapon systems does the LC propose we need? How many simultaneous wars do we need to be able to fight at any given time? How does our military spending need to compare to other countries around the world — do we need to spend as much as the next nine top-spending countries, or could we get away with just outspending the next five?
… establishing and maintaining secure national borders; …
Mom & Apple Pie. Nobody disagrees with the principle, just with the implementation details.
… participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights;
Which plenty of folks would argue means “that requires us to do anything we don’t really want to do.”
… and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.
On first glance, it’s buzzwords. On second glance, it’s “No illegals!”
10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family …
Ah, the old “marriage penalty” thing. It’s amazing, given how punitive that the tax system is against marriage, that so many gays are looking to get married.
… and are not progressive in nature, …
No progressive taxes? Nice big break for the wealthiest and additional imposition among the least.
Or, put another way, 20% (let’s say) of the income of someone earning $30,000 a year is less in dollars than 20% of the income of someone earning $300,000, but it has a much greater impact on their standard of living, if not economic survival. That’s the idea of progressive taxation (and doesn’t even get into progressive tax brackets).
Given current polling, I would not say that this declaration is an American value.
… and within a limited government framework, …
I.e., the government shouldn’t be able to tax us more than we want or to pay for stuff we don’t agree with.
… to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.
Because government is all about money.
We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values.
Interestingly enough, the original signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor. I guess that sounds too much like taxation for the Liberty Counsel.
So, is this a Declaration of American Values (vs. a Declaration of Liberty Counsel Values)? Well, since the LC are, presumably, American, they are the values of some Americans. But I’d say that the values presented here (or, rather, the hot button social/political issues presented as values) are of two categories:
Causes so generic that nobody could argue with them in principle (but which LC and the Right’s known interpretations of what they mean by it are, in fact quite arguable).
Causes that this particular American disagrees with.
I don't have any personal stake in this — I've never used pot and have no particular urge to. But looking at the excessive costs of anti-pot policing, vs. the marginal gain, treating it as anything worse than alcohol is just foolish. #ddtb
Colorado asks DEA to reclassify marijuana Denver, Colo., USA
Wed Dec 28, 5:48 p.m. MST: The head of the Colorado Department of Revenue has written a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration asking that federal controls on marijuana be loosened slightly to account for its "potential medicinal value," +The Denver Post reports.
Colorado is the third state with a medical-marijuana program to ask the DEA to reschedule marijuana.
We in the US are, for all that we claim to be about liberty, freedom, and pursuit of happiness, a deeply moralistic and Thou Shalt Not nation. Prohibition in the early 20th Century and the War on Drug in the late 20th/early 21st Centuries demonstrate this very clearly, and our adherence to them beyond all available evidence as to their failures, are icing on the cake. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Time to end the war on drugs
Visited Portugal, as one of the Global Drug Commissioners, to congratulate them on the success of their drug policies over the last 10 years…
I would criticize GOP congresscritters and federal executives for ignoring their long-stated dedication to states rights in the case of state legalization of medical marijuana … except that the Dems have been no better about it.
The problem being, of course, that nobody ever lost a federal vote based on being too tough on drugs, and the national law enforcement "War on Drugs" regime has far too much to lose if their particular money pit were to be narrowed. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Two Governors Ask the DEA to Reschedule Marijuana
Today the governors of two states that allow the medical use of marijuana asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to reclassify the drug so that doctors
Market Instability and the Plight of the Rich by David Atkins – Eek! The ultra-mega-rich are sometimes dropping down into being only mega-rich because they own so much on the stock market! Sometime they even have to sell their private jets! Weep, my nation!
Officials use ruse at high school to clear halls for drug search – Actually, a valuable lesson served up to the kids here: some authorities will, in fact, lie to you and play on your fears in order to get away with what they want. Not a nice message, but a useful one. Of course, now I expect to hear about some kid being hurt in a real intruder incident because they thought it was just more administration drug-searching bullshit.
Consumers shifting money from big banks – It would be nice were it so. I suspect there will be a substantial bump, but not enough to change the big banks’ behavior (except, perhaps, to “force” them to raise fees further because of some loss of business).
Pat Robertson: Those Struggling Financially Must Keep Tithing – I object less to Robertson suggestion that those who are struggling financially should continue to give donations to God, as much as his basically suggesting that they can do so because, really, they aren’t managing their money correctly in the first place, and that’s why they’re struggling, so it’s ALL THEIR FAULT. Thanks, Pat.
Crackdown politics – Really? Obama’s Dept of Justice is going full tilt against state-legal medical marijuana (and people who rent property to dispensaries, and newspapers that take ads for them, etc.)? Wow. Must be a slow campaign cycle …
Cantor to address the rich-poor gap – POLITICO.com Print View – Note: I think nobody (or very, very few) are talking about “pushing different people down the economic ladder.” Most folks are just talking about not stealing pieces from the bottom of the ladder in order to make the top of the ladder that much higher (and more rickety).
Cagle Post » Christian Heaven for Buddhist, Steve Jobs – Some of these (and there are many others on the web) can be seen as simple cultural shorthand, and others as humorous jokes. On the other hand, imagine the reaction in some quarters about a cartoon of a dead Christian showing in a Muslim heaven, or circling around again on the Wheel of Life, or some other non-Christian afterlife setting.
US ties Iran to plot to assassinate Saudi diplomat – The Denver Post – (1) Yikes! (2) How dare another country stage an assassination on US soil?! We’d never — um … (3) Article followed by one comment saying it’s all a Obama hoax to bolster his ratings, and the another saying that the US must immediately declare war on Iran. sigh
The Fox Poll on OWS – And, yes, Internet polls are freaking useless. But this it’s always fun to see something like this.
A Peek Inside A Christian Right Anti-Gay Strategy Session – If “Marriage is a ‘pre-political’ institution, and therefore not a civil right,” could not the same be said for race (which obviously is “pre-political”) or, for that matter, religion? Or perhaps some would like to argue that racial equality and religious freedom are not civil rights, either.
JP Morgan Calls For Corporate Tax Break That JP Morgan Analysts Found Won’t Work – ” Congress already tried such a holiday in 2004.The companies that benefited most wound up cutting jobs, and companies started stowing even more money offshore in anticipation that another repatriation holiday could be wrung out of Congress.”
Quote of the moment: John Adams, celebrating the 2nd of July – “The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” Though, with the high fire risks in so much of the country, I suggest we refrain this year a bit from the Bonfires and Illuminations.
Team John Jay – Jay’s an interesting guy. Like all of the Founders, he refuses to be put into a simple ideological box. There are things he did that were admirable, others I disagree with. Why we want to have the Founders as some sort of monolithic set of demogods who deigned to create the perfect nation for us — a concept they, themselves, would have been appalled by — is beyond me. Heroes? Sure, albeit with more than a few feet of clay. People to admire, to study, to consider and remember? Definitely. But attempts to both deify them and to scrub their records are not only unworthy of the freedom they fought for, but dangerous besides.
It’s Reagan’s party no more – “Or more to the point, doesn’t it bother Republicans, just a little, that Barack Obama is more in line with the Reagan legacy than they are?” It sure bothers the Democrats …
Pawlenty and the line that cannot be crossed – The fact that Reagan could never be nominated — let alone elected — in today’s GOP makes the situation even more laughworthy (or sad).
The Craig T. Nelson problem – Of course, one could see this, in perspective, as a sign of how we’re all in this together, how we all help one another as an organized society over the rough spots, promoting the general welfare and acting as a unified nation. Unfortunately, that idea is anathema to the “I got mine, you go pound sand” devotees of Ayn Rand.
When a party refuses to consider bipartisanship – It’s difficult to tell whether the GOP are simply being gone crazy, or if they figure by staking out increasingly extreme positions they can wangle increasingly extreme “compromises.” Neither bodes well.
Bill Bennett Explains Why Freedom Is Slavery – Do I particularly want an incremental increase in public intoxication and the attendant safety issues? No. But as a trade-off from the massive costs of the pot-based War on Drugs? Sure. We know how to manage public intoxication, etc.; we do it now with the very legal but regulated alcohol industry. To argue that the sky will fall if pot is legalized (or decriminalized) is ludicrous.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
It’s Only Illegal to be Stupid; Gender Discrimination is Fine – “Any amount of gender (or, presumably, racial) discrimination is acceptable to the Court’s Republican appointees as long as you’re not dumb enough to actually explicitly state it as a formal policy.”
Fail Whale – The new generic TLDs sound attractive, but I think (a) they are going to create a terrible mess (furtherdriving people to use Google rather than actually type in the domain), and (b) it’s rather unfair that they’re only available to folks who can pony up that amount of cash.
Bolling concedes, ‘We did go a bit too far’ – “I’m glad Bolling is ‘sorry.’ I’d be even more pleased if his ugly worldview didn’t lead him to say things like this in the first place.” Fox News is endlessly fascinating …
The most egregious of the bogus claims – “And so we’re left once again with the eternal question: whether Bachmann is deliberately trying to deceive the public or is strikingly ignorant. I can’t say with certainty which of these two options is the right explanation, but I also can’t think of any alternatives.”
Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Brain Surgeons – (Rolls eyes.) If my daughter said she wanted to be a brain surgeon, I’d support her whole-heartedly. I’d also have life-work balance conversations with her (before and after and probably naggingly). Ultimately, it’s her responsibility to handle (and to divide child-rearing duties and time allocations with her mate).
Badass Quote of the Day [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] – The War on Drugs (Marijuana Edition) is so clearly a failure and carries such terrible costs in lives and money, that clearly it’s still around for other reasons — budget/power protection, seizure laws, feel-good law-and-order posturing by pols, racism, classism, or just the general slide into a police state.
Fanny Pack-Wearing Terrorist Ignites Montana Shoot Out [Fugitives] – “Now, replace ‘David Burgert’ in any of the articles on the manhunt with, say, a non-white dude sounding name and… shazam! You’ve got an international terrorism media feeding frenzy.” Because, of course, we can’t refer to American white guys as “terrorists” because, well, OPPRESSION! OBAMA! GULAGS!
Too Big To Fail? Little Ol’ Me? – Too big to fail if there are bail-out dollars around … too small to matter if there are regulations afoot that might avoid future bail-outs. Got it.
Herman Cain Would Want A Loyalty Test From Muslims In His White House – Right. It’s not “discrimination” if you just ask people of a certain religion (or race, or …) to take a special loyalty oath. And, of course, no true terrorist who wanted to “kill all of us” would ever lie in taking such an oath … Dolt.
Google Chromebook – The First Reviews Are In! – I’m considering work I do that is non-browser-based. This wouldn’t work for me, as I currently work, as my only computer, but as a second system (assuming WiFi is available) it would serve as well as a netbook or tablet.
The post-PC era is happening, but not yet at the expense of PCs – I’m sure I could find use for a tablet, but a huge amount of my computer activity requires a keyboard — and not a virtual one on a tablet. What I think the “Post-PC Era” means that that a PC is not the only choice you have for computing and communication — and, yes, as suggested, people are likely to have multiple devices they use for different circumstances.
Your Body is Obscene if You’re a Woman, or Look Like One – “Pejic isn’t being censored because he’s skinny. He’s being censored because he is styled like a woman, and women’s torsos are sexualized to the point that we consider them obscene while men’s are not.” Which is what makes this so sad and so hysterical. Is the fear that someone will be offended by a bare woman’s torso without anyone having the chance to explain it’s actually a man? Or that some guy will get all lustful over it, thinking it’s a woman, then fly into a rage when they realize it’s not? It’s just plain crazy. Granted, I have a vested interest in wanting to see pictures of women’s torsos, but frankly our sexually schizophrenic American society is just plain crazy-making.
ginandtacos.com » Blog Archive » PROHIBITION – “The purpose of the War on Drugs is not to keep people safe or healthy. The purpose of the War on Drugs is to put people in prison, and from that perspective it has been a smashing success.”
Palestine – “Or will it turn out that our paeans to non-violence were just cynical tactics in an amoral international power contest staged by militaristic Israeli and American right-wing groups whose elective affinities lead them to shape a common narrative of the alien Arab/Muslim threat?”
Obama’s Communist Nightmare Continues – “Clearly, Obama’s plan to turn the United States into a Marxist — not to mention Muslim and atheist — workers paradise is working like a charm.”
Single Ladies–Ruining It For Everyone – Actually, I’d raise the question of what the heck “Household Headed By Women” really means … as opposed to the “default” of headed by men?
