Archive for the 'General Politics' category

Chris Christie, State's Rights and Marijuana

Sep 17 2015 Published by under General Politics

Governor Chris Christie thinks that being a hardliner about the states which have legalized marijuana for recreational use is a way to distinguish himself in the race for the Republican nomination for US President.

This is in an era in which the Republicans seem to be softening on their stance on marijuana, so this is a bit strange.

What was weirder is that at the debate last night Christie argued that he was in favor of medical marijuana decisions by States and indeed bragged that his State of NJ made medical use of marijuana legal on his watch as Governor.

Christie tried to soften his hardline stance by claiming "I'm not against medical marijuana."

Here's what I find strange.

Christie seems to be standing on the notion of "federal law", States' rights be damned.

“If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it,” Christie warned. “As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.”

When you take an oath of office, Christie said, you’re agreeing to enforce the laws. President Barack Obama has ignored the law and looked the other way as states like Colorado and Washington have moved toward legalization, he said.

The DEA still lists marijuana on the Schedule I list. This is distinguished from Schedule II drugs not on a "high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence" (on which both Schedule I and Schedule II substances qualify) but on accepted medical use. The federal law does not recognize any medical use of marijuana at this time.

So Christie makes no sense. He has to be against both recreational and medical marijuana laws enacted by States if he is going to stand on Federal law as his reason.

2 responses so far

Keen Political Insight

10 responses so far

Can you imagine the police treating your 14 year old daughter like this?

Jun 08 2015 Published by under Anger, General Politics

If you can't, you should probably think about that.

(3:04 in case the time stamped link doesn't work for you)

For additional context


25 responses so far

Medical Experiments on Slaves

An article by Dan Vergano at Buzzfeed alerts us:

Electric shocks, brain surgery, amputations — these are just some of the medical experiments widely performed on American slaves in the mid-1800s, according to a new survey of medical journals published before the Civil War.

Previous work by historians had uncovered a handful of rogue physicians conducting medical experiments on slaves. But the new report, published in the latest issue of the journal Endeavour, suggests that a widespread network of medical colleges and doctors across the American South carried out and published slave experiments, for decades.
Savitt first reported in the 1970s that medical schools in Virginia had trafficked in slaves prior to the Civil War. But historians had seen medical experiments on slaves as a practice isolated to a few physicians — until now.

to the following paper.

Kenny, S.C. Power, opportunism, racism: Human experiments under American slavery. Endeavour,
Volume 39, Issue 1, March 2015, Pages 10–20[Publisher Link]

Kenny writes:

Medical science played a key role in manufacturing and deepening societal myths of racial difference from the earli- est years of North American colonisation. Reflecting the practice of anatomists and natural historians throughout the Atlantic world, North American physicians framed andinscribed the bodies, minds and behaviours of black subjects with scientific and medical notions of fundamental and inherent racial difference. These medical ideas racialised skin, bones, blood, diseases, with some theories specifically designed to justify and defend the institution of racial slavery, but they also manifested materially as differential treatment – seen in medical education, practice and research.

I dunno. Have we changed all that much?

12 responses so far

Congress is dissatisfied with NIH's spending priorities!

This passage appeared in a highly prestigious journal of science.

"Important elements in both Senate and the House are showing increasing dissatisfaction over Congress's decade-long honeymoon with medical research....critics are dissatisfied...with the NIH's procedures for supervising the use of money by its research grantees....NIH officials..argued, rather, that the most productive method in financing research is to pick good people with good projects and let them carry out their work without encumbering them...its growth has been phenomenal....[NIH director}: nor do we believe that most scientific groups in the country have an asking and a selling price for their product which is research activity...we get a realistic appraisal of what they need to do the job..the supervisory function properly belongs to the universities and other institutions where the research takes place....closing remarks of the report are:...Congress has been overzealous in appropriating money for health research".

Continue Reading »

3 responses so far

On Compromising

Oct 03 2013 Published by under #FWDAOTI, Anger, General Politics

I thought a little graphic representation of the current Republican Congressional demands for Obama to "compromise" on his Affordable Care Act was in order.


[click to enlarge]

In 1993 the Clinton Administration tried mightily to provide universal health care coverage for all Americans. According to Wikipedia it:

required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate "regional alliances" of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule. People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing. The act listed funding to be sent to the states for the administration of this plan, beginning at $13.5 billion in 1993 and reaching $38.3 billion in 2003.

The plan was not entirely lefty-liberal because it kept HMOs in business and in fact mandated employers to spend more money on them. Nevertheless, the plan failed and mightily.

The lefty-liberal position would be more akin to mandating everyone be covered but doing it through the single payer of the Federal government. Preferably with a lot of measures to cut out the profit margin and mandate a lot more efficiency. Remember that now. THAT is the starting point for the leftward position.

The right wing, you will recall, fought Medicare and Medicaid tooth and nail. The true right wing starting point* is that the Federal government should have no role in the health care of citizens whatever.

So even the Clinton attempt was a considerable compromise.

Along came Obama in 2008-2009 and he decided to take another run. Obviously, in the post-Clinton era, the landscape for what was possible to pass and how to pass it was not completely open. Since Obama came on board determined to change the politics of Washington and to seek consensus and compromise....his first offer was already compromised far to the rightward position.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was introduced in Congress in October of 2009. It took until March 2010 for Obama to be able to sign the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obamacare) into law. In the mean time there was much jockeying, arguing and compromising in an attempt to get the right wing on board. It ended up with so many protections for the profit-based health care industry and so many potential uncrossable fee gaps for poor people that it is most assuredly a right-leaning compromise past the true middle of the full spectrum of the debate.

Now we come to the fall of 2013 and the Congressional Republicans temper tantrum over "compromise". The anti-government party has refused to pass any appropriations for the new Fiscal Year, thereby shutting down the government. Their supposed reason has been (over the past several years there have been 40+ futile attempts in the House to repeal the ACA) that they wish to "fix" Obamacare. Now they are making it clear that they have no intention of fixing it, they simply want to dismantle it entirely.

Their current talking point is that Obama refuses to "compromise".

Is it any wonder? They are not interested in "compromise" since we are already far past the middle point on this particular issue. The ACA is a step too far in their direction.

And now they have the chutzpah to demand further "compromise".

*Yes, I realize the true right wing starting point is that health care should only be for the very wealthiest people, full stop. And that nobody is responsible for health care beyond the individual person and whatever rapacious corporate entity sees fit to provide them with it. Lets toss them a bone for this discussion.

22 responses so far

Fifty Years On

Aug 28 2013 Published by under General Politics

7 responses so far

No Return

Jun 27 2013 Published by under General Politics

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama look out of a doorway that slaves departed from on Goree Island in Dakar, Senegal on June 27, 2013. (REUTERS/Gary Cameron)

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama look out of a doorway that slaves departed from on Goree Island in Dakar, Senegal on June 27, 2013. (REUTERS/Gary Cameron)

via Washington Post article by David Nakamura

One response so far

Unfortunately I detest Cheerios

May 31 2013 Published by under #FWDAOTI, Anger, General Politics

Context, context and more context.



I have no problem with interracial couples but I am tired of having it shoved in my face constantly. The same goes for the LGBT agenda and religion. I could care less who you marry, what your sexual preference or religion is, just stop constantly shoving it in our faces.

ahh, yes. the "shoving it in my face" objection. Beloved of the anti-gay bigots but I haven't heard this one about skin-tone or ethnic diversity since the 80s era of Benetton's "shocking" ads. So if we're going on a principle and all, what about those tired of the mainstream, traditional relationships being shoved in their faces? That's called an own-goal, o ye bigotrim. Try another ploy.

kinda quiet

It's not racist to want to preserve your own racial and cultural heritage. Whites and Europeans in general have their own racial and genetic heritage.

In Israel, it is against the law for Jews to intermarry with non-Jews. But nobody complains about that because they respect the right of the Jewish people to exist as a unique people. If Whites in America have a law such as this, there would be thousands of affidavits filed in Federal Court and special interests groups crying racism. This article is "cry wolf" sensationalism demonizing Whites for wanting to protect their own unique cultural and racial heritage. LaRaza, NAACP, ADL these are groups that are race-based and designed to protect their own heritage. But if Whites do this they will be publicly humiliated they will start to lose their jobs and some even be criminally prosecuted.

Right because there is absolutely nothing whatsoever unique about Israel and the treatment of Jewish folks around the world within the last couple of generations.


If the commercial is to be about the cereal then why so much focus on who is in the commercial and not on the product its self. Bad choice by General Mills and its promotion team to use your product to promote an agenda other then the product. Not everyone is going to agree with what you do in a commercial, so stick with the product and not with trying to promote a personal agenda.

Amateur marketing geeeeenius weighs in! Take note oh Saatchi and Saatchi, you dilettantes!


You Don't go against nature you don't mix a tiger with a loin that's not right

With the benefit of the doubt for fumble fingers, I give you Ligers. Just like mixed-race kids are objectively cuter, the Liger is more badass than even a Tiger. Which kicks the shit out of a Lion anyway. So yeah....Ligers.


Psh, that pairing is everywhere. Try merman and sandwoman to get my attention.

A merman is real, no matter what the cabal of denialists say. Not sure about sandwoman. I'm sure they will be happy together.

22 responses so far


May 17 2013 Published by under #FWDAOTI, General Politics

For me, last night brought awareness of a new low point in the dismal, embarrassing behavior of the rank and file of the Republican party in these fair Uuuuunited States. It was noticeably more depressing then usual because it was so tawdry and pathetic. No, not AP wire tapping. Not Benghazi.

I refer to umbrellagate.
First the idiot mouthbreathing knuckledraggers were delighting in the notion that Obama "had" to have someone else hold an umbrella over him. Complete with anecdata showing other Presidents holding their own umbrellas.

Of course, that was cherry picked bullshit and it is clear that Obama holds his own....and other Presidents (including St. Ronnie) find occasion to take a helping hand.

I concluded this morning that it is really rather remarkable, and a testament to basic American decency, that despite all their machinations the Republicans have not been able to produce the rampant, postapocalyptic movie fantasy USA that they seem to desire for some reason.

13 responses so far

Older posts »