Never pass up a chance to sit down or relieve yourself. -old Apache saying

Saturday, November 8, 2014

The US of Weed


There's a good compilation here of all 50 states and their current laws concerning medical use, recreational use, or penalties for using weed.  

Two things stuck out to me.  One, about Texas:

A medical bill will be introduced in the next legislative session

What? Medical marijuana in Texas? Hey, you know, maybe there IS a god!

And the second was about the state of Michigan:

There is no state legalization bill currently in play, but 15 Michigan cities, including Detroit and Lansing (the state capital) have legalized the possession of small quantities of pot for private use.

Did you know that?

All sorts of good information. 

With marijuana now legal in four states and the District of Columbia, the movement to end the prohibition of pot continues to gain steam. Another five states are expected to introduce ballot measures to legalize recreational pot in 2016, including California, Massachusetts, and Nevada. And by the end of the following year, pot activists expect five more states will vote on legalization bills in their state legislatures. But that's not all: six other states are looking at creating or expanding medical-marijuana programs, or are vastly scaling back penalties for small-time possession. With a slew of polls now showing that most Americans think pot should be taxed and regulated like alcohol, it's probably only a matter of time before legalization sweeps the nation.

Check it out here.

Friday, November 7, 2014

30 years of nonsense


I appreciate the research that went into this article I found on Vanity Fair magazine. It's much easier for them to do this than the regular atheist in the street. And, surprise! Surprise! The GOP is totally full of shit and has been for 30 years!  Ronald Reagan, heralded today as the "greatest President EV-ER" (gag) by the GOP, started this downhill slide. And it's still going.

30 Years of Conservative Nonsense, An Explainer

Are conservatives ever right?
The question isn’t meant to suggest that liberals are never wrong. But reviewing the last few decades of conservative policy initiatives—or their objections over that timespan to policies they hate—shows a consistent pattern of failure: predictions never pan out, and intended results turn to catastrophic flops.
Given the G.O.P.’s midterm victories this week, the question is of particular import. Come January, conservatives will have control of both houses of Congress, and hold a considerable legislative advantage in the last two years of the Obama presidency. Yet not a week ago, conservative politicians and commentators were screaming out batty ideas as they demanded that President Obama close the borders over Ebola, ignoring the advice of infectious disease specialists who know that shutting borders against a disease leads people to make travel by means that aren’t easily tracked, escalates danger, and harms the ability to stop the infection at its source. Conservative know-nothings dismiss the professionals as know-nothings themselves, despite their training and expertise.
And that could be the problem. Too often, it seems, conservatives have scorned experts as incompetent, biased, or otherwise worth ignoring because they came up with answers that didn’t fit their politically desired answer. Often, they proclaim experts have a liberal bias. Of course, plenty of Democrats have voted for conservative ideas, but that is beside the point. The question is whether policies proposed by conservatives failed, not whether they were passed into law. And this question is all the more important now, with the Republicans having re-captured control of the Senate. Will they govern based on a knowledge of history and the analysis of experts? Or will they resort to faith-based, sure-we’re-right policies—like trying to impose a border ban to stop Ebola—that may lead the ignorant to cheer but will leave turn the experts’ hair white with fear.
Before venturing through the rogues’ gallery of past disasters, an exception that proves the rule: the 1983 decision by the Reagan Administration to deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russian SS-20s was a success, ultimately contributing to the Soviet collapse. But otherwise, there is not a lot in the last three decades to give conservatives bragging rights, and with almost every fiasco, they blame someone else. So let’s look at the record of the last 30-some years:
There are 10 different areas highlighted in this article. I will bring only two here. For the others, follow the link at the bottom of this post.

Tax cuts pay for themselves.
The fantasy: In 1981, as he championed massive tax cuts, President Ronald Reagan promised there would be no growth in the federal budget deficit because the economic boom that would follow would lead to higher revenues.
Reality: Budgeted federal revenues dropped, leading to a huge fiscal hole. Deficits rose to 6 percent of G.D.P. by 1983, then the highest in peacetime history. Reagan tacitly admitted failure by reversing directions and raising taxes multiple times, starting in 1982.
Blame: Conservatives claimed Democrats in Congress ran up spending so much that the growth of revenues could not keep up with the growth in outlays.
The excuse is false: According to a 2002 report prepared by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, when all appropriations bills during the Reagan administration are taken into account, the big spender was Reagan himself. All told, the report shows, Reagan requested about $4.7 trillion in his budgets submitted to Congress—including the regular annual budget, the supplementals and deficiency appropriations. In the final action, Congress spent a bit less than that amount. (I know, Republicans’ heads just exploded. Read the official report.)
The Aftermath: History is ignored. Conservatives still insist, on no evidence, that cuts pay for themselves. Trillions of dollars in debt have been run up over 30 years because of tax cuts. Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation that would force the Congressional Budget Office to change how it calculates projected losses from tax cuts to make future results align more closely to conservative predictions.
Raising Taxes Will Cause a Recession
The Fantasy: This is the corollary of the “taxes pay for themselves” canard. When President Bill Clinton championed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, it included significant tax increases on wealthy Americans. For that reason, it was often called the Deficit Reduction Act. No Republicans voted for the measure, with many publicly saying it would cause a recession. For example, Newt Gingrich, then a Republican Congressman from Georgia, stated, “I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession.’’ Then-senator Phil Gramm said, “The Clinton Plan is a one-way ticket to recession. This plan does not reduce the deficit.”
Reality: While Clinton subsequently decided the tax increases were too large and pared them back a bit, one of the largest economic booms in history followed the adoption of the law. The deficit shrank to nothing, and policy makers at the Federal Reserve began publicly fretting about how to handle a projected surplus.
The Excuse: While refusing to acknowledge that they were wrong about a recession, conservatives have attributed the economic performance afterwards to an assortment of factors other than taxes. They have denied that it was the tax increases that closed the deficit.
The Lesson: Conservatives were partially right—a lot of factors beyond just tax policy played into the economic boom. Which goes to prove that their belief in taxes as the driving force of all economic performance is wrong however you look at it.
Will the GOP ever change its ways and face reality? Hmmm....tough question. Read the rest of the article here.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

a short night

They say that Tuesday, Election Day, was a long night for Democrats. I'm a Democrat, but it wasn't a long night for me, as I didn't watch any election returns at all. It was obvious how it was going to go.

According to the Washington Post, or actually the "Religion News Service" (huh?), it was also a long night for atheist voters.  (Uh, not if they turned in early!)


Election night was a long one for atheist voters

Election night was not a good night for Democrats. Ditto for atheists.
Daniel Moran, a Democrat and an atheist running for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives, lost his race, as did James Woods, an Arizona Democrat and atheist who was looking for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Woods was the only openly atheist candidate seeking a seat in Congress.
Both men had the support of several nontheist groups, including the Secular Coalition for America and American Atheists. In his concession speech, Woods described his loss as something of a win.
“We ran a campaign I think my atheist community can be proud of, and I hope we made it a little easier for other candidates to be open about their nontheism in the future as well,” he said. “We’re playing to win the long game. And we’re winning it.”
Election night was not a total loss for atheists. Democrat Juan Mendez, an atheist who led a secular invocation from the floor of the Arizona Statehouse, won a second term as a representative there.
And voters rejected two Rhode Island politicians who criticized Jessica Ahlquist, the teenage atheist who successfully fought to remove a religious banner from her high school in 2012. Peter Palumbo, who called the 17-year-old Ahlquist an “evil little thing,” lost his bid for that state’s Legislature, and Allan Fung, mayor of Ahlquist’s town, won’t be the state’s new governor. Fung, a Republican, wanted the prayer banner to stay.
“Good riddance,” wrote atheist activist Hemant Mehta on his Friendly Atheist blog, referring to Palumbo. “Finally, a Democrat whose loss doesn’t upset me.”
Another result atheists are trumpeting is the defeat of Illinois Republican congressional candidate Susanne Atanus. Atanus announced to a local newspaper’s editorial board that “I believe in God first” and characterized bad weather, autism and other diseases as a divine punishment for gay marriage.
The mixed results for atheists come despite last month’s launch of AtheistVoter.org, a website encouraging atheists to vote as atheists — and let their representatives know it. Secular Coalition for America has been publishing state-by-state “secular voter guides” for three years. Still, polls show atheists are the least popular of all political candidates; a 2012 Gallup poll found that only 43 percent of Americans said they would consider an atheist for president.
“AtheistVoter.org is the first step in making the huge number of atheists that are out there heard,” said Nick Fish, development director of American Atheists, which created the site. “This is not a one-election, two-election thing. This is something we are working on for the long haul.”
Atheist voters used the hashtag ?AtheistVoter on social media to show their strength and support in last night’s elections.
“The results of yesterday’s vote is disappointing but not surprising,” one man tweeted under the hashtag. “Entrenched dogma takes time to overcome. Don’t give up.”


Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is quite the anomaly in Congress. He is an Independent and a self-avowed socialist. 

That word "socialist" has been so effectively demonized by demagogues that it would be hard for him to run for national office, but I do hope that he and Elizabeth Warren toss their hats into the ring for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. 

They would both pull the conversation much closer to where it needs to be. I don't have much confidence in Hillary.

Here are a few quotes from Bernie.








remember

remember

deja vu

deja vu

indeed

indeed

Delete Fox "News"

Delete Fox "News"

Probably

Probably