One nation, under God

How fair, is this painting to all the non Christians in America who make up this country based upon Freedom, and the right to pursue your happiness, regardless of Race, Creed, or Color?

I recently signed the petition online to remove "Under God" from the pledge of Allegiance. The only way to be fair and decent, is simply to remove the references to God, or any one group's God, from the Governing authorities.

So I signed the petition to return to the words this country had used since its founding by the founding Fathers. If it was good enough for them, those brave individuals who fought and died for this country to be created, who are we, far lesser beings to be cowardly enough to change that to our lesser understanding of all the great concerns they bore for us?

So, I said my peace by signing. And the Obama Administration retorted theirs.

Here is the response I received via email. I thought it was a good and considered response. We agree to disagree....

Religion in the Public Square   

By Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships


Thank you for signing the petition “Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase ‘Under God.’” We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.


The separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.


Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.

While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.


When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.  

A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.

That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans. As the President said in his inaugural address, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country.


Related Links:

• Inaugural Address 

Check out this response on We the People.

The trouble is, the place for religion on the public square, is within each individual and not on a platform, or a general open agenda, and so there is therefore, no place for religion on the public square.

How is that a complicated thing to understand? Once you put religion out on the public square in politics and government, it is the beginning of the end, and the road to fascism. We have seen this time and again and we have seen it in modern times by ancient societies in the Middle East.

We are at a dangerous time, when these things are out and about and alive world wide, we cannot allow them to seep into our culture on a national, governmental level. This is something the conservatives, the Republicans, and those running for national office have failed to see. It leads to blindness, it leads to foolishness like the world was created 4,000 years ago. It leads to ignorance. And that isn't even getting into the Seriousness of it.

Religion should be a personal thing. Not something that is legislated. Not something to be in the government. Because it is too easy to live again through those McCarthy "communism" years, only on the side of God and Religion as the ruling bodies. Should we be afraid? I don't think there is any doubt about it.

Should religion be wiped out? No. Why? Because it will eventually die out on it's own. We just don't need it to go the route again of another repression, or inquistion, or bullying, or oppression.

We just need to live and let live, support our country for what it was founded for. Yes, you can have your own religion. No, you cannot push it on others.

Occupy What?

I find this a bit offensive.

Why? Because it presupposes a few things. Like the person/group who wrote that, knew better before Obama got elected. Like, the other viable candidate would have done better, not worse. Like Obama didn't indeed do a lot of good, simply by being elected; I submit that he could even do worse than he has and still have served his purpose by having been elected. 

Even giving the author of the photo consideration that they are correct, and I assume it is a Republican (and no, I'm not a Democrat), to look at the vast wasteland that is the Republican party, and its candidates (Herman Cain? Really?), had it gone the other way, the supporters of Obama would easily have been able to say the same thing right back at them about their candidate. 

Saying "YOU idiots elected" not only passes on responsibility for the lack of superior candidates on the Republican side, it completely avoids who badly we needed that shot in the arm that Obama winning gave the America spirit and not just on the side of African Americans. Even whites were proud to live in a country where a Black man can achieve the highest office in the world. Yes, reverse discrimination of a sort, but a positive kind of sorts.

But political rhetoric like in this photo shows more the type of intellect involved not only in the Republican party, but in US politics in general. It's a sad state of affairs that is only pointing out the banality of the other side when they poorly try to cut down their opponents in useless negative comments.

What really is the problem? Obama? No.

I agree and I said when he was elected, people are going to be disappointed in him. Not because of his personality, history or orientation. But because people had put him on a pedestal. One that no one could maintain. I'm feeling let down by him myself.

Obama's attitude that he will not expend political capital to end the billions of dollars involved int he drug war, in Cannabis persecution, in ruining thousands of American citizens lives through repression and incarceration, is simply disillusioning in and of itself. Yes, I agree with him that we need the healthcare situation fixed, the economic situation and others. But he was hired not to do one thing. He was hired to do the undo-able. To fix, many things. To run the bad in government down and crush it.

When do we get THAT president?

The President has an army of people under him to do his bidding. I'm pretty sure he can make some vast changes to fix, or lead to fixing this situation. In fact, it may be one of the most easily rectified situations in his arsenal. Yet, obviously, he is choosing not to "bother" with it. I think about the guy sitting in prison who shouldn't be there at all, his family, wife, children, suffering, all do to immoral laws. It is easy for Government officials to lean on the Supreme court ruling that abusing America citizens is "okay". But that still doesn't make it right.

Sometimes, we just have to do what is right, even if people don't like us for it.

I have to wonder, if Obama hit the floor running, butt heads with all the jackals in Washington, if he showed the American people he was trying, he was relentless, he was going to evoke massive change, if that shock would ripple through the government and things just might have gotten done.

We need a house cleaning. Occupy Wall Street. Occupy your town. Occupy those lazy officials we hired to fix things, who are simply having their daily afternoon drinks, relaxing, while people are starving, sitting in prison for no real reason, watching their American Dream dissolve right before their eyes, and that of their children's future evaporate on a daily basis.

We need to educate our children, or we are lost. We don't need to burden them with bills to get that education for the rest of their lives as some are now. We don't have the money, you say? Well, how'd we get there? Where IS that money, because you know what? It's out there, somewhere. Someone has it. And we need to take it back.

Peacefully. But we need to stand in their face, as we are now, and say, do it. We are the boss pal, not you, not your gang of Washington Hooligans, corporate whores, lobbiest prostitutes, ignorant superstitious religious addicts, diseducated urban hicks and just basic racists and assholes.

So, now that we've been paying you guys for decades, how about doing what we pay you for. Make things functional. Protect the common interest. Protect and propagate the public trust. And stop worrying about yourself only.

The New Blade Runner Sequel

From IMDB today:
"Back in August, we reported the surprising news that director Ridley Scott would be returning to the world of his 1982 film Blade Runner although we didn't know if the new movie would be a sequel, prequel, or a spin-off."

"There was also the question of where the movie would fall into Scott's massive line-up of potential projects. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal [via Badass Digest], Scott offered some brief updates on the project. He says the new Blade Runner will be his next film and it "is liable to be a sequel," but that it will feature none of the original cast or even the character of Deckard. However, he also says "we’re quite a long way in, actually," even though he's still in the process of finding a writer "that might be able to help me deliver."  To me that sounds like he's mapped out an outline » Matt Goldberg (IMDB.com)

As far as I know, there are three Blade Runner books, I read the first by Phillip K. Dick, titled "Do androids dream of electric sheep?". It is not the movie. And the second by K.W. Jeter called, "Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human" (1995). Now this was based on the movie and yet, it does't faithfully follow the storyline. But then even in Ridley's Director's cut, he had cut the sixth replicant being mentioned.

I see on Wikipedia that there are actually now four novels. BR three is also by Jeter and titled, "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night (1996); and BR four also by him is "Blade Runner 4: Eye and Telon" (2000),

What Ridley and Syd Mead did with Dick's book was miraculous. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. I've heard few people complain that the book was better. Unlike a similar situation with "The Shining" between it's author Stephen King and the Auteur Director, the late Stanley Kubrick. I find that book "The Shining" a good read but I find the film "The Shining" a work of art. King has said that he felt their main differences were that the book was hot and the film was cold. In the book, the Outlook Hotel was burned to the ground in the end, but in the film it was frozen and continued on.

I once drew up a sequel to Blade Runner back in 1991 that had the Gaff character coming after Deckard, finding them in the woods up north living in a cabin, leading him to return to the city. The idea of the woods came from the end footage that Ridley used from the left over footage of Stanley Kubrick's, "The Shining".

I still have the audio tape of my working it out with my wife at the time, my son's mother. It was hard for me to even talk about it, so we had some drinks and started talking, brainstorming. We ended up having a pretty good time and realizing that indeed, a sequel could be made.

I posted that I was working on a BR sequel to a writer's news forum (before the web and all) that I was known on and I received three death threats about it and one offer to help me write it. When I got the first death threat, I blew it off, the second, was getting weird and the third (three different people) was just bizarre. I finally posted saying I had gotten three death threats over my considering writing a sequel to Blade Runner and that if anyone wanted to talk to me about it in person, here I am. Bring it on.

I got mostly support from people on the news group when they heard I was being threatnened, but also, people kind of backed away from the subject after that and I just let it go and didn't mention it online anymore. It does give you an idea of how passionate people are about the film. I have to wonder if Jeter ever got death threats for writing the sequels, but then, they weren't movies.

From the Amazon page for the fourth novel comes a posting that I think explains much about Jeter, more than I knew about him anyway:

"This is K.W. Jeter's third sequel to Blade Runner, and I suspect it will be the last. It has never been published in the USA and is only available via pricey imported copies. I was lucky enough to stumble across a relatively inexpensive copy from an Amazon Marketplace dealer; if I had paid what other copies are selling for, I'd feel much more disappointed than I already am. 


"I should add that I'm a Jeter fan; I've read all of his novels and I think he's a tremendously talented writer. I consider him the most accomplished writer to emerge from Dick's circle of friends. Unfortunately, Jeter's output is very uneven and his pacing is often maddeningly ponderous. This could have been a far better novel if Jeter had allowed information to emerge from the narrative, rather than having a character spend 50 pages explaining everything. Maybe the author was facing a deadline and just needed to get it done in a hurry." - Steve

Back to the movie... Harrison Ford will forever be Deckard for me. So I don't know who they could possibly get to play his role. I wish I could find some more info, photos, or whatever on the new project, but perhaps it's just too soon.

On a side note:


"Scott, 74 years old, recently finished shooting the sci-fi movie “Prometheus". With production on the Alien quasi-prequel Prometheus recently wrapped, Scott said he is in the process of lining up writers for the new Runner film. “I think I’m close to finding a writer that might be able to help me deliver…we’re quite a long way in, actually.” Marc (IMDB)


Also, I do hope they make a place for Ford should he not be playing the part of Deckard in the sequel. The idea of a sequel for an iconic film such as this is definitely hard to consider and anyone attempting to do so, is brave indeed. I certainly look forward to watching it when it comes out, with great anticipation, fear and trepidation.

I do hope Ridley doesn't get any death threats, though.

Weekend Wise Words

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

Zack Galifianakis smoking pot on the Bill Maher Show

Because of the ignorance running rampant through our Government and the Obama Administration, I think we need to spread around rational truths.

“One's condition on marijuana is always existential. One can feel the importance of each moment and how it is changing one. One feels one's being, one becomes aware of the enormous apparatus of nothingness -- the hum of a hi-fi set, the emptiness of a pointless interruption, one becomes aware of the war between each of us, how the nothingness in each of us seeks to attack the being of others, how our being in turn is attacked by the nothingness in others.”
Norman Mailer

“I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug. Marijuana is an herb and a flower. God put it here. If He put it here and He wants it to grow, what gives the government the right to say that God is wrong?”
Willie Nelson

“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?”
Bill Hicks

“Marijuana is self-punishing. It makes you acutely sensitive, and in this world, what worse punishment could there be?”
P. J. O'Rourke

“Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”
William F. Buckley, Jr

“Whenever the people are for gay marriage or medical marijuana or assisted suicide, suddenly the "will of the people" goes out the window.”
Bill Maher

“Researches tested a new form of medical marijuana that treats pain but doesn't get the user high, prompting patients who need medical marijuana to declare, "Thank you?"”
Jimmy Fallon [This is a good point, why in the world is the government so fearful of allowing people to feel good?]

“If adults want to take such chances (with marijuana) that is their business”
Ronald Reagan

“Marijuana is the finest anti-nausea medication known to science, and our leaders have lied about this consistently. [Arresting people for] medical marijuana is the most hideous example of government interference in the private lives of individuals. It's an outrage within an outrage within an outrage.”
Peter McWilliams

Feminism

Last week I found this poster on an acquaintance's Facebook page. I "borrowed" it and posted it myself. 

I expected some noise about it.

My daughter is 19 and traveling throughout Europe. She posted that she was not happy with it.

But, she didn't realize I was looking beyond the surface of it. You see, Facebook screwed up when I posted it. The upload failed. So I re-posted it and then wrote my two paragraphs explaining why I was posting it. But that explanation as to why I was posting it, didn't post to the first image which did not fail after all (to my surprise).

So my daughter simply saw that I had posted this without explanation. And I can see where posting it might require some. Explanation.

When I went to her comment on that photo and saw her disparaging comment, I went back to the original posting, from the woman who I had gotten it off her her Facebook page and discovered that the original comments I made were now gone. So I have to assume she caught enough flack from it, and she pulled it (I later found she hadn't, I just couldn't find it, so good for her).

I have thicker skin (apparently not).

Here is what I had said in response to this photo when I first saw it. And I should mention that when I saw this woman had posted this poster, I didn't think for a minute that she meant it in the way that many might take it; and so that was the inspiration in my re-posting it.

You see, I got the joke.

But before that just let me say, if this poster really upsets you, you need to lighten up. If you can't laugh at yourself, you should reconsider your life in general, because, we're pretty funny. Or, foolish.

What is this all about then? Is it picking on unattractive women? Is it a slap in the face to those hearty women who fought for Women's Rights? Are attractive women making fun of those who aren't well endowed with, whatever, those things our society holds dear?

Bollocks.

Look, believe it or not, women didn't fight for the right to not be objectified, and right there is where this topic usually goes to Hell. They fought for the right to be treated equally, if anything, to not be objectified IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE, or so that they didn't have to be, so that they could have the freedom to be who they wanted to be, not dictated by outside forces or convention. Because, let's face it, being objectified, when we want to be, can be fun. Same goes with manipulation. I love being manipulated, if it is being done by someone whom I want to have doing it to me, at a time I would enjoy it, and I understand what is going on (okay, sometimes it's even fun if you don't know what is going on).

That, you see, was a very relevant point that many of the original feminists completely seemed to have missed. But then they can be forgiven that, for they had so very much to deal with back then. No. Really. It was a lot to take on and women (and men) owe them a lot for taking the fight to the public forums. And winning.

Yes, women are still paid less than men but I think we are all getting screwed, not just women. I believe it will progress and eventually we'll all be paid according to what we know (and as always WHO we know, I doubt that will ever change and in some ways, it shouldn't), and how well we play "the game". That is one thing that women did have, they could use sexuality to win; but the battle wasn't over killing that predisposition (at least for some), the battle was to kill that being the only way they could get what they wanted, or that they never would be able to get what they wanted, regardless. And frankly, much of that has now changed.

So, when situations as pictured in the poster above, happened, some of these fighters were offended rather than feeling they had achieved their goals; many even felt they had lost, or that some women were even working against them or were turning the clock back on progress.

But they had won, in my book, at least in many ways.

Women in America CAN now be who they want to be, they don't HAVE to be that way anymore. Although, much more can be achieved when going with the "current" (sexy does sell, works for men too, you know, it's Human Nature). But, they really don't have to anymore (not so much anyway, and no things are perfect, but they are better and there are laws now regarding this). That even being a factor, ever, is something I don't think they will ever win over completely until we remove the differences of gender at the molecular level; and please, just don't.

Removing sexuality isn't winning, it is trapping us in our own arguments.

As for women not being decoration, no, they shouldn't have to be. Unless they want to be, unless they can have fun with it, and and unless they can not feel burdened by it. What these changes did in part, was to show men that they had the same capability in fashion and health.

The balance always was too far to the woman, it's now leveled off some in that respect.

But understand, we will always prefer what is attractive because we are genetically predispositioned toward it. And that's okay, just don't let it get oppressive.

Getting back to the poster in question.

"Sexism, Only ugly bitches complain about it."

To understand that, you have to define what is "ugly", don't you? You can take it at face value and it's not really worth the time to look at it. It's funny, yes, but mean spirited in that vein. But if you look at the extremes, then try to consider for a moment the disparity and the feelings of the woman holding the poster, and the women with the drinks. The women with the drinks don't look to me in the least of having bad feelings toward anyone. But you have to figure that the woman with the sign is feeling outclassed, maybe outgunned, maybe let down; but then she doesn't really dress to be anything else, does she? She doesn't have to dress sexy, but how about, nice?

The sign being held says, "Women are not for decoration." First of all, this argument is over. We know that. It's really pretty passe. The only people still fighting that battle are the ones who don't have self esteem to take them above and beyond that. You can be the "ugliest" person on the planet but if you put effort into your presentation and attitude (mostly attitude), you can be accepted, if not as much, possibly more than the "Barbie" in the room. Women really are for decoration, but not JUST for decoration. Just the same as men are. And again, that's okay, as long as it doesn't go to extremes or lead to unfair or mean spirited prejudices.

It's like with the term prejudice. Nothing wrong with being prejudiced. We live our lives by it. We're prejudiced against many good things. Like eating poison. Shooting people. Killing our children. Liking nice people over that of mean people and bullies. Just be reasonable and consider other's feelings in your decisions... and prejudices.

So lighten up, if this all upset you. It was a joke.

On the other hand, you know it's quite possible that I simply over think things and the poster is just wrong....

What [Obama Has] to Say About Legalizing Marijuana

This email from the Whitehouse's Drug Czar. And can I just say that the American people really don't need a Czar to fight a "drug war" against them? We have so much more to deal with. And the letter (below) explains so much about what is going on with the Obama Administration regarding Cannabis legality and it just might point at some of their other problems. 

Cannabis History Video

You know... it also kind of makes our own national law enforcement people seem like "terrorists" if you think about it. Even if they aren't attacking me, I feel terrorized by the thoughts they are thinking and the things I see on the news that they are doing.

It is quite obvious from Gil's letter, that the ignorance level is highest as you reach the pinacle of the Government. We don't need his type of ignorance, we need scientific data. But even so, unless we smoke a joint and explode, they really need to get out of our bodies. They seem to be clueless about what is going on with Cannabis, then they are trying to make decisions that affect millions of citizens though a long term, knee-jerk reaction. They don't seem to really know what is going on in the real world. Not unlike many of our Law Makers being unaware that there are scanners at check out counters at grocery stores. They are simply disconnected from the reality of most of our citizens, the so called 99%. 


So how can thet properly govern us? I mean, obviously, they aren't, right? I have to agree in part with Young Turks video about this. They claim it has much to do with the Drug companies. Maybe, and in part, I'm sure they have something to do with it. But I think there are many diffident causes that have their fingers in this. That would explain why this has gone on for so long, and why it is so hard to pinpoint who and why this has drug on so long.


When you have information such as this MPP video, "Two minute Truths on Cannabis and the brain", you can't help but be curious as to the disconnect between "Government scientific data" and that of all other scientific data, especially that from other countries in the world, and real life scenarios as in Amsterdam where they have shown that decriminalization does not raise the crime or addiction rates as is feared in this country by those ignorant law enforcers and fear and money grubbers. It's a curious situation.


If as Pres. Obama says in this video, he doesn't want to expend Federal Law Enforcement resources to prosecute Cannabis users, clinics and Doctors, then why have they started doing that again this year? Here is a video of Pres. Obama responding to a direct question from a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). His first statement? "I don't believe in legalizing it." Next President please... we need someone with the balls to expend the political capital to put an end not just to Cannabis Prohibition, but to the vast waste of resources expended day by day, by out extensive Law Enforcement arm of government. Not to mention all the little people who have been crushed and at times, literally killed, by it.

What is needed to be done, to counter the foolish statements below, is to compare it to Alcohol. The arguments against that fall short. It remains that if Alcohol is legal, Cannabis should have the same capability. If you compare the alcoholics to those addicted to Cannabis, I think you would find pretty much the same situation. Therefore, Alcohol should be prohibited.

Oh, wait, that didn't work. But they can bully Cannabis people, so they do. Not surprising, this email response to the legalize Marijuana poll I responded to came from the US Drug Czar. This is not something that should have been responded to by Law Enforcement, but by Law Makers. Gil is only as ignorant as those he listens to and those who tell him what to say.

I was stunned at this response from official channels in the Obama Administration. Stunned. And I lost a lot of respect for the Obama Administration. They are spewing the same old (basically right wing, Republican) fear mongering rhetoric going back to Harry Anslinger, who himself is an embarrassment in this history of prohibition of both alcohol and Cannabis.  

It's the same old thing. The counter to their argument below is simply that it is none of their business regarding legal use and ownership. We will always have addicts. They need help. But when you look at the numbers who are defective in this way and the numbers who aren't and can be adult and rational in their behaviors, the argument to retain illegality to protect the few, falls apart.

To be sure, it starts to look like a reason to spend more money on law enforcement.

The government has no place inside our bodies, or our minds for that matter, unless it is in response to an overt danger such as food poisoning or fraud being perpetrated upon the masses.

I could pick apart the email below, bit by bit, but I think, if you are an intelligent, rational educated person, you won't need me to hold your hand, like they think you need them to hold your hand so you won't fall into addiction and death. And probably pedophilia and communism, in their minds.

Here it is, read it and weap for the levels of ignorance from those running our government:

"What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana"

By Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.

Resources:

• National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
• Marijuana Facts (ONDCP)
• Drug Abuse Warning Network (HHS)
• Treatment Episode Data Set (HHS)
• National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS)

Check out this response on We the People.




The above letter is scary. Yes, many of the facts are true. But it is not the "facts" that are at issue. My brother says the government pays the NIH to get the results they want. I think that is a bit over the top, but possible. I see things more that they are doing what is far easier, skewing the stats, something that is so easy to do, which I learned in Psychology Statistics at the University. It is amazing how you can make stats say whatever you want. It is how they are being abused where the government is being literally criminal in their actions. Believing Cannabis is dangerous is big business. Treatment centers make big bucks keeping the myth alive. Yes, people use, criminals use, people get "addicted" but it is not a physical addiction like heroin, no matter how much the want to make it sound like it. 


"Innocent civilians and hardworking law enforcement officers are dying every day because of our failed policies," said Terry Nelson, a board member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and a retired U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent.. "The fact that we keep ramping up the 'drug war' instead of changing course is unconscionable."


From that Canadian treatment center's web page:

• 3 out of 4 drug-related criminal charges are associated with marijuana. [if it were legal, this statistic would go away]
• 65% of people arrested for marijuana related crimes are for simple possession. [if it were legal, this statistic would go away]
• About 50,000 Canadians are arrested each year for cannabis related crimes. [if it were legal, this statistic would go away]
• 600,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. [if it were legal, this statistic would go away]

Typically, serious Cannabis "abusers", or any kind of abuser, have emotional or psychological issues that need to be treated. By "abuser" I mean serious users. Nothing should be used 24 hours a day, not even milk. If you stop a serious user, they are irritable for a few days, then they go back to normal. If they continue having issues, that is a psychological condition, not a drug condition.

So while the governments are abusing its citizens with criminal penalties they are actually abusing people with psychological issues. This is far more true than with heroin, meth, or crack cocaine addicts. Basically people abusing Cannabis are self medicating for other issues. Many ADD and ADHD persons are incorrectly self medicating and should be on appropriate meds. Sometimes, Cannabis is enough however and that shouldn't be overlooked.

Smoking it is smoking. There are other safer ways to ingest, cooking, vaporizers, etc. New research (out of Canada, why isn't the US finding this?) is showing Cannabis can actually cure some forms of cancer.

So, let's stop maintaining very old ways of looking at things. Users need education. Yes, Cannabis is far stronger than it used to be. Keeping it silent and only penalizing users isn't helping. Legalizing it and educated users does. If someone like climbing cliffs, they may well die pretty soon. If you show them the right way to do it, they may climb Mt Everest one day.

A 2009 NY Times article indicated admissions for addiction treatment went up to16 percent in 2007 from 12 percent in 1997. The percentages of those seeking treatment for cocaine (13 percent of admissions in 2007) and alcohol addiction (22 percent in 2007) declined slightly. This is still a level that is typical for addiction through a national statistic. In any group you will have a certain subset of certain indications. Legalizing, not legalizing, may never make all that much difference. Education seems to be the key, and appropriate availability, keeping it out of the hands of the criminal underworld. Legalizing makes it harder for kids to acquire and use. Treating it like alcohol (esp., considering it is far safe than alcohol which is closer to cocaine in affect than Cannabis) allows it to be monitored and taxed; and we could certainly use both. 

According to Dr. Sanja Gupta on Anderson Cooper's show, they know what percentage of people will become addicted to various inebriants. The good Doctor also indicated that you can titrate by smoking or vaporizing Cannabis for dosage far more easily than with a pill where it is too easy to take too much or too little. Also he said that the Drug Company produced effort to make money off of what is a vertually free weed, Marinol, just "isn't there yet". The percentages of people who will become addicted (that is physical addiction, not emotional addiction which some like to lump into the stats thereby skewing them even further) are approximately (according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse) as follows:

• Tobacco 31%
• Heroin 23%
• Cocaine 17%
• Alcohol 15%
• Stimulants (Non Medical Use) 11%
• Cannabis 9%

Those stats also point out that those other drugs are not the use it once and you are an addicted, out of control criminal, as the government likes to chant. I am not pro any one of those other drugs, which also is a relevant point. Tobacco, is simply bad, but do we have the right to stop someone from smoking it? Especially if they have it under control? No. Of course not. Does it cost society for health costs? Yes. But, too bad. We should educated to end its use, not legislate. Heroin, bad. Cocaine, bad. Alcohol, very dangerous too, but we've seen from prohibition, that you can't get rid of it. Stimulants, bad, but even there, mostly bad. I like a drink now and then, but I have a life, I use it sparingly, in control, and when it gets out of control, it is very easy to see its detrimental effects.

The American government, in the land of the brave home of the free(?), I'm just not seeing it when you have cowardly efforts to lie, cheat and incarcerate citizens over things like this. But they would far prefer to push kids into having access to drugs on the street, and criminalize otherwise legal citizens into breaking the law and consorting with real law breakers. Why?

Why are we supporting the criminal underworld, the drug cartels, supporting their ability to spread far worse drugs around like heroin, forms of cocaine and meth? The "War on Drugs" had failed decades ago almost as it began and even Law Enforcement Officials have admitted to that. The Law Enforcemnet people who have the guts to stand up to the lumbering monster that is our Government, had to start an organization (LEAP) to try to combat the waste and immoral efforts of a Government out of control and in the pockets of some very questionable lobbies and cartels.

So why do they still insist on pursuing punitive efforts that do not work and only harm the citizenry?

When you consider all these things, and you read a letter like the one from the Whitehouse, from their Drug Czar, it simply makes them look foolish, or at very least, uninformed at the bigger picture.

Use your head. Treating people like criminals or patients, takes the control over their lives away from them. The government is not your parent. They are your servants. They need to be reminded of that. The Occupy Wall Street movement is doing just that. It may be economically based, but it is all about treating the citizens like people, and not resources to be used and abused and thrown away.

Fight for your right to party. And hey, it's dangerous out there people, so be careful.

Here are a few random videos on it. These aren't the end all be all of Cannabis facts. But even if SOME of what these say are completely wrong, there is still enough truth and reason for ending the drug war on Cannabis. They point isn't even if it is bad for us, the point is, it is none of the Government's business if citizens are interested in it simply because some citizens are against it. If you are so against it, well, don't use it. But leave the other law abiding citizens alone.

• Cannabis History Video
• The Facts They Don't Want You To Hear
• Things you should know

"Look over where?" asks my dog

I have a German Shepherd. His name is Buddha Thai. Don't ask, it's a very long story.

Okay, I'll tell you the second part of it. He was named after my ferret that I had for five years while I was in college. I named him Buddha Thai. He was a great pet, like a kitten that never grew up. People were amazed by what a cool ferret was, especially ferret owners. He never bit me, he was funny, had a great laugh, a great sense of humor and when we had a party, he would pull all the empty beer bottles under the couch. As well as someone's watch if they put it on the floor next to them. Or their keys. Or anything shiny.

I can remember a few times when a friend came over the next day after a gathering asking me if I saw something they lost the night before. My first question? Was it shiny? If they said yes, I went under the couch and found it, and typically things belonging to other people and myself, and empty beer bottles.

The point here is, he was a cool pet. So when we got this Shepherd, his markings reminded me of my ferret. Everyone has raved about what a good looking dog Buddha is. I remember when I told my friend at work (now moved on to a different company), that I had a dog named Buddha, he frowned. I've followed the teachings of The Buddha for decades. He was a Vietnamese Buddhist, a very good one. He said, "you named your dog after the Buddha?" I said yes, and asked what the matter was. He said, "is it spelled differently" I said no, I hadn't thought of that, spelling it, "Booda" or something.

Then I said, actually, I named him more after my ferret, who was named Buddha Thai too. Then he frowned deeper. "You named your ferret Buddha?" I said yes, but he was named after something else called "Buddha Thai". He frowned deeper.

He said, "Would you name your dog Jesus?" I said, well no. Oh. I get it. Then I said that I thought Buddhist's would feel differently and that every time I called my dog's name, I thought of The Buddha. And I said, people do name their son's, "Jesus". He thought on that for like a full minute while I was sweating out his answer. Finally he said, "Okay, I guess that's okay, I mean, I don't think you meant any disrespect, and you meant well, so I guess I'm good with that."

Anyway, that's my dog. He's a very cool dog. Everyone thinks so anyway. So sometimes my dog walks up to me. I'm watching TV. He wants to go out. I've been trying to train him for a decade to bark, and then you get to go out. But somewhere along the line I messed up.

Originally I was doing quite well. He wanted out, he would bark, but way too much. So I tried to train him down, to modulate his bark to out. It worked. But then he wouldn't bark at all thinking that was what I wanted. It wasn't. So he would have accidents at times when he hadn't been taken out. This was back when he was younger.

And then one day I figured out what was going on.

I had trained him not to bark. He didn't get the whole modulation concept at all. If he had to go out, and I was upstairs in my home office, he would go downstairs and stand by the back door and probably, wonder why I wasn't taking him out. He would wait until he couldn't hold it any longer and then, the gift that keeps on giving.

As soon as I would walk downstairs later, I could smell what I was about to walk into.

It took about a year but I finally got him back to barking when he wanted out. But in that whole process somewhere, I had broken what was a perfectly good function. So that now, he goes to the back door and stands there looking out through my double paned full length glass door. When he gets tired of that he will start moaning, which is really annoying if you are trying to watch a good movie.

Maybe, he will come to me when he gets annoyed (or desperate) enough and stand in front of me and look at me, then he will look past me out the back door, expecting me to get it. "Take me out." I just tell him, looking isn't going to get you outside, you have to bark. Eventually he gets it and woofs, then I try to get him to be more forceful, then he barks loudly and bounces around. I'm sure he's thinking, "what a jerk." But he's probably just thinks, "Gotta go gotta go gotta go...." I think this is a contest I'm never going to win again, I had my one chance and blew it.

But that is the other thing that always has bugged me. When I point to something, he never gets it. Many may have noticed this with their own dogs and cartoonists have made fun of it too. If you point to something, your dog doesn't look at what you are pointing at, he looks at your hand, "Why's his hand sticking out from his body like that?" he is probably thinking. When we play ball outside, sometimes he gets distracted and when he goes back to finding the ball he has trouble locating it. Which I thought was weird, he's a do, smell it out dude. So I point, and from twenty feet away he looks at my hand. Probably thinking, "Is it in his hand?"

AHHHHHHH!

Just now I was at the top of the stairs. He likes to lay there and stare out the tall thin window next to the front door and look all the way up the long drive way to the street. He reigns there, sits there, sometimes sleeps there and is always in control. Or thinks he is, I'm sure.

So I'm talking to him just now and asking him where his toy went. I look down the stairs and there is his toy, by the front door. So I point, "there's your toy" I say. He looks at me. Then he looks at my hand.

Frustrated, I look at the toy. Then I notice, immediately he looks at the toy, too. He's seeing my eyes pointing to what I'm looking at and he follows THAT. Now we are both looking at the toy. He's not getting up, I'm not going to go get it, so I realize I'm wasting my time. I walk into my office here at home and sit down and realize why he never follows my finger when I point at something. And I start to write, this. Then I get to this point. Right here. This... period "."

Now what do I write?

Suddenly, I'm ahead of my writing and I don't know why I'm writing... or what.

It's no wonder my dog sometimes has a look on his face of dismay. Or, sympathy? Or, wonder that I can breathe and walk at the same time.

And I have to wonder, has he been considering this since puppyhood?

Is this dismay or sympathy for me, or himself? I think we probably already know the answer to that one.