Real Heavy Politics - July 30th Links

Stormy Daniels' Political Advisor May Have Been Hit By Car Bomb:--- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/political-advisor-to-stor_n_246663.html A car bombing - in the USA -- politically motivated -- and it doesn't make the news?

18 shot in Baltimore, how's that prohibition working out? The bloody results of drug prohibition - http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.rodricks29jul29,0,3117328.column

Imagine Pot Was Legal. How Would You Brand It? --- http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/imagine-pot-was-legal-how-would-you-brand-it Interesting article with pictures and more.

CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4325774.html

Real Heavy Politics - Today's Links - July 28th

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0725/p02s13-usgn.html From the article - "What I see as more significant [than race] is the phenomenon of persons being arrested who challenge the authority of police," says David Rudovsky, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in Philadelphia. "It's street punishment."

China's hidden debt problem - http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/27/news/international/china_debt.reut/index.htm This information was news to me.

http://www.switched.com/2009/06/22/civilians-run-city-wide-surveillance-in-pennsylvania-town/ File this one under disturbing; I guess.

And, here's an incredible and cool YouTube - make sure to watch the whole thing.

Real Heavy Politics - Today's Links - July 27th, 2009

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1185406&srvc=home&position=emailed 78 percent of Pot citations in Boston go unpaid - find out why.

http://www.squidoo.com/Explorer3 Understanding the President Obama birth certificate controversy.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141481/executives_receive_one-third_of_all_pay_in_the_u.s./ "Executives Receive One-Third of All Pay in the U.S."

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/07/home-office-designates-drug-posession.html "Its inclusion here perhaps reflects the wider trend towards acknowledging personal drug use is not rightly the subject of criminal sanction even if it is the subject of social or state disapproval in one form or other"

http://realheavypolitics.blogspot.com/2009/06/if-government-arrested-800000-tobacco.html Did you miss this one?

Drug Czar - "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,"

To those of you who thought there is some, any, even a small difference between the rhetoric of a republican administration and a democrat one - think again. To those of you who voted for `hope and change' - how's that working out? LOL. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - this time his name is Gil Kerlikowske who believes that "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," - in addition to "the federal government views marijuana as a harmful and addictive drug".

Indeed, this idea that pot is ADDICTIVE seems very prevalent in the High Drug Office as just this month I re-butted Keven Sabet, a former drug policy wonk for Clinton and Bush, who said in May that " `addiction is the price' of legal marijuana. http://realheavypolitics.blogspot.com/2009/07/rebuttal-to-kevin-sabet-about-marijuana.html

Such a shame it isn't true - but - is left unchallenged - as usual - by our worthless media lapdogs. Indeed, why would we expect any knowledge of what real addition is from that office - when our now media famous former drug czar William Bennett had the post while addicted to nicotine (cigarettes) AND gambling. What a F'ing joke.

Oh, and did you know that our current czar was someone that while the head of Seattle's Police Force received a vote of no confidence from the "Seattle Police Officers' Guild" (in the very same year he took the job to boot)? And, that one of his earliest jobs in government was "saluting then-President Richard Nixon as he boarded the presidential helicopter". Or, that in 2007 the NAACP called for his resignation? Thought not.

More links for you today:

Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot - http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1553061.html

"The Drug Czar's High Math" "How phony statistics about cocaine prices hide the truth about the war on drugs" - http://www.reason.com/news/show/134481.html

Oakland Passes Pot Tax - http://estoypacheco.blogspot.com/2009/07/oakland-passes-pot-tax.html WITH 80% approval. Are you listening Gil?

"Legal Pot Would Bring in $1.4B for Calif."
"Tax Officials Release Analysis of Revenue Benefits for Cash-Strapped State; Legalization Bill Pending" - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/15/national/main5163119.shtml Meanwhile, buffalo Gil destroys plants rather than selling them to the co-op's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Kerlikowske

http://realheavypolitics.blogspot.com/2009/07/dismantle-tobacco-marketing-prohibit.html

"$190,000 withdrawn in $20 bills" Irate bank customer hits back http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills/ After he was refused an 80K dollar loan.

And, today's fun link - Called Fantastic Machine -- You won't believe this!

Health Care Never Never Land - By Bob Barr

Received in my E-mail from Bob Barr

Health care Never Never Landby Bob Barras published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, July 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM
In "Sicko," iconoclastic filmmaker Michael Moore extols the virtue of health care in such liberal "paradises" as the United Kingdom and Cuba. Leaving his audience to wonder where he would choose to go for treatment if he were facing a life-threatening illness — the People's Hospital in Havana or the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. — Moore exhibits the same Alice-in-Wonderland delusion that has settled over the Obama administration.A majority of members of Congress, too, seem to believe that if only enough bureaucracy and taxpayer dollars are thrown at the health care "crisis," then everyone in the country will have their every medical need met, when they want it, and at much reduced cost. Such a mind set turns Peter Pan's Never Never Land into a reality show.For starters, advocates of the House legislation might want to talk to governors of those states, like Massachusetts, that have already implemented "universal" coverage plans. Increasing program costs, coupled with decreased state revenues as a result of the economic downturn, are causing serious fiscal problems and are forcing those states to consider cutbacks in coverage.However, witnessing the irrational, "gotta-do-this-now" push in our nation's capitol to pass comprehensive health care "reform" within the next few weeks, it is obvious the proponents of Obama-care are not interested in anyone throwing the cold water of fiscal reality on their parade.The House version of the legislation, unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, includes substantial mandates on American businesses (including a severe, 8 percent payroll tax on any business that fails to offer health insurance coverage to its employees). Still, the Pollyannaish Pelosi claimed (with a straight face) it would "lower costs to businesses." This is government logic at its finest — you lower the cost of doing business by raising taxes on those businesses.Pelosi's obvious inability to grasp even the most basic of economic concepts was further displayed when she claimed that the "costs to consumers," too, would be lowered. Apparently, this would be accomplished by placing a new surtax on those American consumers whose income exceeded the levels deemed worthy by the legislators.Analysts of the 1,000-plus page legislation calculate its 10-year cost to exceed $1 trillion. Other experts fear such a figure greatly underestimates its true cost. Even the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the government subsidy for health care coverage will amount to some $6,000 per person within the next decade, which figures to more than $1.8 trillion.Pelosi's bill would also create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Such a scenario, of course, is never a fair "competition," because the government "owner" can always print money, spend borrowed money indefinitely, operate without regard for cost-benefit analysis, and threaten legal sanctions for those who fail to comply. None of these remedies are available to businesses (except, of course, for the "new" General Motors).The smoke-and-mirrors approach is evident also in the fact that high-income taxpayers, who would already be taxed in order to pay for the "universal" coverage for their less-well-off compatriots, would face escalating taxes if the government fails in the years ahead to achieve targeted "savings" in Medicaid and Medicare. In other words, the government will set "savings targets," but if it fails to meet them, it is taxpayers who will pay the penalty, not those members of Congress or federal bureaucrats who decide how much to spend on the entitlement programs.Other industries, including pharmaceuticals, will face increased taxes as well, in order to pay for this "reform." The more successful drug makers will pay a higher percentage tax than their smaller, less successful colleagues. Once again, success in the business arena is punished in the government arena.Truly, this bill is a monstrosity.
###
Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

Dismantle Tobacco Marketing - Prohibit `Commercial' Cigarettes - Save Billions In Healthcare - Employ 10's Of Thousands As `Tobacco Rollers'

I know, I know, it would never happen - but, just for a minute, think of the premise: overnight, the government makes `commercial cigarettes' illegal, seizes the production lines and orders the tobacco companies to destroy their production factories. Indeed, the tobacco companies are told that they can now only sell real tobacco - unaltered with chemicals to keep the product burning in cigarettes when not puffed enough. Real tobacco. And, that they can only sell it in quantities of 5 pounds or more - processing it no more than grinding the leaf in preparation for rolling or pipe smoking - and, the tobacco can be sold only in recyclable tin cans.

If the government did something this bold; - immediately, consumption would decrease - resulting in healthcare savings of significant amounts over time (lowering everyone's bill?); - immediately, there would be a huge demand for `rollers', employing thousands and raising the price on hand rolled Tobacco Cigarettes to connoisseur levels (comparable to pot), resulting in even less consumption; and, immediately, there would be a significant decrease in housefires and possibly even car accidents as usage behaviour becomes less.

With the machines destroyed that turned out billions of cigarettes while employing just a handful of people, small businesses could form to supply the remaining 60% reduced demand of true tobacco lovers with `legal hand-rolled cigarettes' - tobacco shops could open or expand within headshops to supply bulk tobacco. Small, artsy, pipe shops could open - with thousands of hand skilled artists joining the wood carving niche now opened. (Bringing REAL jobs down to `the people' is one way Japan keeps its unemployment low - jobs such as elevator operators pushing the desired floor.)

Growers of connoisseur tobaccos would be encouraged and rewarded by the marketplace. After all, is there ANY reason that the plant that produces tobacco should virtually only be marketed by big business? Isn't this the kind of `manufacturing job' that the US needs to bring back to this country?

Do politicians ever do thought exercises like this?


More Links To Enjoy:

http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/state/story/Oregon-to-allow-farmers-to-grow-hemp/4LxWy-FgYESFFtcgtLrKRw.cspx "Oregon to allow farmers to grow hemp"

Active Ingredient In Cannabis Eliminates Morphine Dependence In Rats - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706090440.htm

And for Today's Fun Link: (use if video doesn't work) - Magic, with Lasers. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706090440.htm

Will Media Cheerleading Of Economy Continue With `Depression' Level Unemployment?

As a regular listener to CNBC and user of their website - and - a regular user of the cable newschannels -- it's strange to consider the continuing language they use concerning the economy -- specifically, the term `green roots'. To the common man in America, that term implies `an improvement' or a sign of better things happening. This in an economy and government that is often borrowing nearly 100 billion a MONTH - just to keep the whole ball rolling at all.

Cheerleading the economy with a backdrop of Michigan's official unemployment rate now exceeding 15% -- the first state since West Virginia in the mid 1980's. Cheerleading the economy with a backdrop of 15 states with an unemployment exceeding 10% - and with 38 states showing increases in unemployment last month. Cheerleading the economy while knowing that certain counties in California have unemployment nearing 20% and one county, Imperial, OFFICIALLY at over 27% unemployed.

Cheerleading the economy while the `official' U-6 - government unemployment figure exceeds 16% - (this includes the those underemployed and those who have given up looking) and in Michigan the number is now over 22%. Cheerleading the stock market rally, while knowing the biggest rallies that ever happened before happened in the Great Depression. Cheerleading the economy while knowing that the `wealth destruction' in this downturn - The Great Recession - is unmatched by any recent `recession'; indeed, palling in comparison.

Finally, cheerleading the economy while knowing that much of the `stimulus money' - isn't spent - and what is appears to be wasted or inefficient in it's allocation. And, lastly - cheerleading the economy while knowing that the `stimulus money' `saved' state and even local government jobs - such as teachers and firemen - and knowing that they will be lost jobs within a year without MORE `stimulus'.

Here's some links used in putting this post together:

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/percent-84524-county-unemployment.html Proof of 27% official unemployment in a California county.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iG41E9cl-hj1iLR6_ln6q-z8FY4QD99GEABO4 Proof of Michigan's official soft unemployment over 22%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/07/02/broader-unemployment-rate-hit-165-in-june/ Proof of U-6 unemployment in USA now over 16%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836938251967565.html "How a Modern Depression Might Look -- If the U.S. Gets There"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/01/15/intrade-market-betting-depression/ 56% betting ON a depression based on this definition. Real betting.

Today's Fun Link: (just hit the red x for a cool picture)
http://drewt333.deviantart.com/art/Undead-and-In-Love-70233797

America's Most Popular `News' `Journalists' - Jim Lehrer, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart

Welcome to Real Heavy Politics:

Hello, welcome to Real Heavy Politics - thanks for your visit today. Several months ago - a new marketing research website was formed (out of another database of people participating in movie research - I will explain that some other time) and `screened' me to see if I had the qualifications to participate in an on-going sample (nearly daily I answer 3-5 questions) about `Politics'. The ultimate sample is composed of folks who exhibited some political knowledge (for example - I knew my Georgia State House Representative's Name) and a willingness to participate regularly.

And, one of the subjects they recent did covered Political Talking Heads ---- After the results are done (usually a few days) - they send the results to the participants and also put them on their webpage. So, today, I got the results of their first `Political Talking Heads' survey. (They `weight' the final sample to reflect the current American mix of Republicans, Democrats, and `Independents' - my category.)

Now, since I've done marketing research for decades myself, I'm always interested in what the results of ANY survey are - but, these are very interesting to anyone with an interest in politics or the talking heads themselves. For example, the favorite of Republicans are (in order): Glenn Beck, Hannity, Neal Cavuto, Mike Huckabee, and Bill O'Reilly -- Most Hated by Democrats: O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Geraldo Rivera, Mike Huckabee.

Likewise, the favorites of Democrats: John Stewart, Colbert, R.Maddow (I don't even know this name), Jim Lehrer, and Bill Moyers -- Most Hated by Republicans: Katie Couric, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Larry King. Which means - Democrats hate who the Republicans like most -- but -- Republicans don't hate (as much) who Democrats like most.

Therefore, as usual, it's the independents - who matter the most - and, they like: Lehrer, Stewart, Brian Williams, Colbert, and (s) Schieffer (could this be Bob Scheiffer in a misprint?) -- and they hate most: Rivera, O'Reilly, Hannity, Larry King, and Katie Couric. And, other than Geraldo Rivera, the Independents are much more likely to `hate less' and `like less' -- than either the Republinuts or Democraps (sorry, I couldn't resist -- as you might be aware - I hate each party).

Finally, the poll shows how much each Talking Head's public perceptions have changed in the last month -- Up this month are Colbert and O'Reilly -- and down this month are Gretta Van Susteren and Charlie Gibson.

Here's the link for the graph used for this post: http://page.politicshome.com/usa/tracking_americas_talking_heads_july_2009.html

More links of interest:

The Eighteen Million Dollar Web Site. --- http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/the-eighteen-million-dollar-web-site/ This is how much it costs our bloated government to get a website up and running.

A homeless man in Georgia has been jailed for over a year for failure to pay child support for a kid. He is not the biological parent and the judge knew he wasn't the biological parent at the time he sent the man to jail. http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/judge_of_the_day_only_if_you_r.php Our too full of itself Justice System.

Finally, enjoy Jesse Ventura - who appeared on CNN earlier this week:

Bob Barr on Cap and Trade

As I have mentioned before - I am on Bob Barr's mailing list - which is where this is from (it also appeared in the AJC - Altanta's paper)

Cap-and-trade's a lot of hot airby Bob Barras published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, July 06, 2009Americans inclined to support President Obama's health care overhaul might want to first look at the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation passed by the House of Representatives with the president's support.Its 1,200 pages must rank among the most complex and convoluted pieces of legislation ever devised, making old, Soviet-style government edicts appear streamlined by comparison.Former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the last formal effort Washington undertook to mandate comprehensive energy usage, was a novice compared to the heavy-handed, global-oriented approach by Obama and his Democratic colleagues in the House. Where Carter, a generation ago, was content to turn down the thermostat and lecture the country while wearing a cardigan sweater in front of a warmly glowing fireplace, Obama uses 21st-century communications tools and offers to change not just America's energy system, but the entire world's — with taxpayer dollars by the trillions.The regulatory behemoth that would be unleashed by the cap-and-trade legislation, if it were to become law, starts with a group of "experts" deciding how much carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" the earth's atmosphere can withstand. These then become the "targets" that bad-guy emitters (such as manufacturing plants) would have to meet by "buying" annual "emission permits" from Uncle Sam or on the secondary market. They could trade — that is, buy and sell — their permits to meet their target or cap; hence the term, "cap-and-trade." The number of permits drops annually until a "safe" level of emissions is reached.Some 85 percent of the initial offering of permits would be given to certain favored industries, states and Indian tribes. These entities, of course, could then trade them to other "polluters." All this would be monitored and enforced by government bureaucrats.As if this scenario would not be enough to make your eyes roll and your hands rush to grab your wallet and hold it near, there is yet another bureaucratic overlay nestled in the legislation . The bill establishes a mechanism for "polluters" to obtain two billion "offsets" that would allow them to emit more greenhouse gasses than their permits would otherwise allow. These "offsets" consist of paying for "green projects" in the U.S. or — get this — somewhere else on the globe.Thus, a manufacturing plant in, say, Gary, Ind., that is exceeding its "permitted" expulsion of CO2, could continue to commit this sin against humanity by paying for a Brazilian farmer to plant some trees in the rain forest. A more patriotic company might achieve the same result by paying an Iowa former to implement more "Earth-friendly" farming practices. Of course, to guard against some nefarious polluter trying to cheat Uncle Sam and the world by claiming bogus "offsets," there must be a monitoring mechanism. Enter the "Offsets Integrity Advisory Board" — yet another group of scientific "experts" that would be tasked with compiling a list of qualifying offsets around the globe.Utility companies would be required to purchase increasing percentages of their electricity from "renewable sources," but they could meet these mandates, at least in part, by forcing their customers to reduce their energy usage. Those customers — that is, every individual, family and business in the country — also would be forced to change building codes in order to use less energy, change lighting systems employed in homes and outdoor areas, and buy more expensive "energy-efficient" appliances.This discussion barely scratches the surface of the Byzantine system of mandates and favors that would be doled out by the government if this legislation reaches Obama's desk. The cost is impossible to calculate, except to know it will be in the trillions of dollars. For a plan based on bad science and proposing to implement a model that's already failed in Europe, that's a price no responsible American ought to accept. But, how can you put a pricetag on saving the world and all of mankind?
###
Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

Another link for you today:

A Rebuttal To Kevin Sabet About Marijuana Policy

Almost exactly a month ago - someone named Kevin Sabet - formally a drone at the Office of National Drug Control Policy under Bush and Clinton - wrote a piece that appeared in Hempnewstv.wordpress.com titled "The price of legalizing pot would be too high" - to which I offer a rebuttal point for point.

Kevin begins with talking about how Schwarzenegger called for a discussion about Pot Legalization (due to budget problems) and that the governor was responding to "new public opinion polls showing greater interest in the policy idea" and then goes on to say "and with the mounting problems associated with the drug trade in Mexico and here in the U.S., it is hard to blame anyone for suggesting that we at least consider all potential policy solutions."

Well, at least Kevin got one point right - the governor was indeed floating a trial balloon -- but NOT because of peoples interest being due to "the mounting problems associated with the drug trade" --- NO, Kevin - policy maven - he was responding to the WASTE of money not being collected in taxes - a typical politician view suddenly given `cover' by the national and state polls about taxing and legalizing the drug. Sorry you missed that point Kevin.

Then, Kevin, the drone from the National Drug Control Office says "Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits". So, let's take a look at ALL of the impressive (not) things that the Knowledgeable Kevin has to enlighten us with. The first point Kevin the policy wonk wants to make is "What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, health-care costs would rise and productivity would suffer."

I'll wait a moment while all those smarter than this policy wonk absorb the stupidity of the words "the already high costs of marijuana use". Let's see, `accidents would increase' ----- alas, Kevin, the policy wonk, must not be aware that `stoned drivers' are NOT `drunk drivers' and indeed in tests have been shown to be even more cautious than `straight' drivers. So, point one - totally unfounded.

And, so therefore,`health care costs' --- would NOT rise ---- despite Kevin's ideas from being surrounded by straights for years in the Drug Control office. So, point two - totally unfounded. Next, `productivity would suffer' -- you'll notice, in the link that Kevin offers NO proof or even reasoning on this point http://hempnewstv.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/the-price-of-legalizing-pot-would-be-too-high/ -- So, point three --- show me the data Kevin - I don't believe you.

Next, Kevin does what any good policy wonk for the government does -- looks at the usage of the legal HARD drug of alcohol - noting how the taxes collected do not in any way reflect the harm the product does to society or the cost it brings to society. The wonks call this the `diversion facts' - he does the same for the costs that tobacco bring to society - in comparison to the taxes that tobacco brings in and with a flair says " our two already legal drugs — alcohol and tobacco — offer chilling illustrations of how an open market fuels greater harms"

Are you sick to your stomach yet? Can you believe that the word `right for an adult to choose' hasn't been mentioned? Believe me, it gets worse - as it only can when listening to a policy wonk advocate. So, he continues "Commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance. High profits make aggressive marketing worthwhile for sellers. Addiction is simply the price of doing business."

Yeah, I thought that line would bring up your vomit.

First, or rather, fourth -- Commercialization is VERY unlikely to be the case if pot is legalized --- as I believe that all `marketing' would be illegal -- we are VERY unlikely to see BC bud ads - simply being available is all the advertising that would be needed. Too bad that Kevin doesn't understand that -- so, point four - unfounded. Next up -- Kevin's point that being legal would further the social acceptance --- well, Kevin, you are right --- SO WHAT?

Then we are hit with what I assume the wonk thinks is his best point -- `addiction is the price' ----------- I mean, what can one expect out of a policy wonk within the Drug Control Office ----------- Kevin -- I suggest you look up the word and find some PROOF that pot is addictive like tobacco (nicotine) OR alcohol. Even writing the words Kevin makes your whole article stupid on the face of it -- if your worry is `ADDICTION'. It would be laughable if it wasn't probably true that you and your cronies believe it. Nevertheless, point five - laughable.

You would think, that by now, Kevin has trotted out all of his lousy stupid points, right? Hardly, he goes on next with: "Would marijuana use rise in a legal market for the drug? Admittedly, marijuana is not very difficult to obtain currently, but a legal market would make getting the drug that much easier. Tobacco and alcohol are used regularly by 30 percent and 65 percent of the population, respectively, while all illegal drugs combined are used by about 6 percent of Americans." All I can say to this is -- Kevin, get your `facts' straight -- tobacco is currently used by 21-24% --- alcohol by about 50% (in the last year) and illegal drugs -- mainly pot -- by about 10%.... One should certainly hope that folks in charge of dispensing hard facts would have them a little better than this slop. But, Kevin doesn't -- obviously -- then again, why would someone in the Drug Control office care about things like Facts.

Next, Kevin has the audacity to use these words: "An honest debate on marijuana policy also carefully considers the costs of our current approach. Arrest rates for marijuana are relatively high, reaching about 800,000 last year. " Kevin, 800,000 is `relatively high'? You have got to be shitting me? Are you F-ing serious? He then goes on to say that serving jail time is relatively rare for pot -- tell that to the 20,000 held in pre-trial detention based on the last estimate. Do you think, Kevin, that 20,000 in jail for POT EVERYDAY is `relatively rare'? And, Kevin, would the 800K need lawyers? And, Kevin, would the 800K pay fines? Oh, and Kevin, you are aware that lawyers love having that business right - of course you are -- and of course you know that lawyers are one of the biggest supporters of BOTH political parties.

You would think that enough shit had come out of his mouth by now - but no - he continues "Finally, legalizing marijuana would in no way ensure that the most vicious drug-related problems — violence, economic-related crime, street gang activity — would disappear." One doesn't find someone this stupid very often, right readers? Yeah, Kevin you are right - Pot is NOT related to violence, economic related crime or street gang activity ---- SO F'ing what?

So, after all these shitty non-valid points -- Kevin brings home his ideas with "Moving beyond the simplistic and unrealistic option of legalization, what can we do to reduce marijuana use and the costly harms it brings?" Kevin, wake up, it's the LAWS that are the costly harm! And then finishes with "an open market for the stuff? That doesn’t pass the giggle test.'

NO, Kevin - it's your logic and facts that don't pass the giggle test.


More links to get under your skin:
During my 18 years of police service I was sent to zero calls because of the use of marijuana and about 1300 caused by alcohol. http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1554485.html Maybe Kevin needs to read this.

Subway Will Use Phelps in Ads Despite Bong Photo http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10002843/subway-will-use-phelps-in-ads-despite-bong-photo/

Law enforcement group launches drug legalization campaign http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=3001 The politicians are going to be very lonely when the cops stop enforcing their stupidity.

Australia town bans bottled water - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8141569.stm

Has The Trial Ballon For Marijuana Legalization Burst?

Hello, welcome to the Real Heavy Politics blog - thanks for hitting the link or for returning today. As you can tell from the title of this post, I suspect that the `topic' of `marijuana legalization' (as opposed to any real acknowledgment of the multitude of issues about pot) - paraded around as a trial balloon during President Obama's early `heady' days in office (when the `idea' that `change' was possible) - will soon be off the table entirely.

As you see in this link of Google Trends http://www.google.com/trends?q=marijuana+legalization&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=2009&sort=0 searches on the term `marijuana legalization' peaked on or about April 15th - the Tea Party Day - and one of the biggest `different America' protest days ever. Indeed, as you can see from the chart - the trend has largely been all downhill since President Obama dissed the whole marijuana community by insulting the `internet question' in the TownHall meeting of late March. Seems that even by that point of time that the `heat' on the issue was one that the President simply wanted to dismiss in his typical cool casual style. (Even drawing a laugh.) To make sure that he drew the line in the sand at `legalization' being good for revenue during The Great Recession. And, that line in the sand said - NO way.

Indeed, if you look closely at the graph - you can see that huge emphasis the media gave to Obama's negative views on pot being legal. And, regardless of surveys showing more public support for legal pot (a time for the so-called `liberal' media to step forward with MORE coverage) - the spirit of the trial balloon has been burst and the media will not be going down that road again for sometime; evidently.

(One has to wonder about the `freeness' of `free press' coverage of an issue that for the first time might approach a majority of all folks and dramatically change the way things are done and approached --- obviously, we have a media afraid to shake up the politicians and advertisers they so much depend upon such as Beer Advertisers, Lawyers and Pharmaceuticals.)

This simply is NOT how a free press works.

If you want a long term look at this issue - here's that link for you - http://www.google.com/trends?q=marijuana+legalization&ctab=0&geo=us&date=all&sort=0


Here's more links to get under your skin:

California Stations Reject Ad Calling For Pot Legalization - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/07/california-stations-rejec_n_227442.html - Of course, one of the best ways to not allow change is to have your mouthpiece - the big TV media (who might lose advertising dollars if pot is legalized) to prohibit the advertising of the legal pot issue.

'We're in the Middle of a Crash' - http://www.cnbc.com/id/31706523 Might the US economy be MUCH worse than the cheerleader media is telling us?

Meltdown Reveals Causes of Housing Bust - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/haynes6.html - And, guess where the blame is laid - yep - the Fed.

Pro-Marijuana TV Ad Campaign Successful; More Are Planned This could be one of the most important things NORML has EVER done -- great findings via research about who saw these ads and the incredible number of folks who joined NORML as a result. Amazing and well worth your time.

How about bookmarking my blog today and returning next week?

And, for today's fun link - (in case the YouTube video doesn't work) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyMvkXjctaE

Defending Boortz About Global Warming

Recently, Jason Easley of PoliticUsUsa.Com thought he would use a clip from Media Matters of a recent radioshow of Neal Boortz. Using the clip from the show he quotes things that Boortz says about Global Warming - here's that link - http://www.politicususa.com/en/Boortz-Climate-Change.

Now, being an Atlantan, I've been an on and off listener and indeed a fan of Mr. Boortz for years if not decades. For those who do not have access to the franchised version of Boortz's show -- he is a great talker, with strong values and a good sense of humor. Often Neal tells his listeners to NOT believe anything he says (or that others say) without checking the facts out for themselves. Neal also loves to jerk the proverbial `chain' of those who call-in to his show.

And, indeed, what we have here is another example of Neal able to jerk Mr. Easley's chain. Indeed, Easley somehow thinks that Boortz represents the "right wing loony fringe that is being willing duped by corporate America into doing their bidding".

I bet that Mr. Easley votes for the Democraps. He doesn't even recognize or realize that Boortz is an avowed libertarian (with a small l) - is disgusted with BOTH political parties (the way EVERYONE should be) - and is the LAST person who is going to be `duped' by corporate America. But, then again, what can be expected of Mr. Easley if he hasn't `checked his facts' about Global Warming.

Indeed, this link - shows the actual `science' about Earth temperatures since 2001 - and - unfortunately for those who `believe' that `warming is happening' the FACTS don't back them up - http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature. Indeed, from the article "in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect."

Yes, the REAL truth is that it IS warmer than before -- but -- now seems to have peaked and NO longer is warming. And, it hasn't warmed in nearly a decade already. How long will the LEFT repeat the dying slogans of `global warming'?

The other areas that Mr. Easley `goes off' on about Boortz are `government schools' and Boortz saying the communists and socialists are behind the cap and trade bill. And, concerning `government schools' a Boortz staple - may I ask if Mr. Easley is touting the great educational system the government has put together? I hope not. And, as far as `communists and socialists' passing such legislation - those are indeed Boortz's `codewords' for democraps -- especially for democraps who don't check the facts - and - who love their chain getting pulled.

More Outrageous Links:

http://logiclifeline.blogspot.com/2006/06/neal-boortz-global-warming-factoids.html Here is a list from the Neal Boortz website of facts about Global Warming. I wonder, why ARE Mars polar caps shrinking?

India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aR7yfqUwTb4M Daily the drumbeat mounts - are the days of the dollar numbered? And, if so, what happens then?

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html?today=1 Seven banks failed on July 2nd - oh, you didn't hear that news - wonder why.

Have ChemTrails Stopped Global Warming? - http://theheavystuff.com/?p=63 As the top link shows - something has stopped the warming in its tracks - could it be contrails intentionally put into the sky?

BOOM!" (More Obfuscation) - http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1177-BOOM!-More-Obfuscation.html Is there still another shoe to drop in the banking system?

And finally, today's fun link: http://mindcrap.com/media/1014/Baby_loves_boobs/

Watch lists, guns and government - By Bob Barr

A couple days ago I received this E-Mail from Bob Barr (having been on the 2008 mailing list) - the article also ran in the Atlanta paper. Here it is - and it's dead on point:

as published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, June 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM The secret government "Terrorist Watch List," reportedly already swelled to more than 1.1 million names, will have an addendum, if gun control advocates in Congress have their way. This new addendum — also to be cloaked in secrecy — would empower the U.S. Attorney General to deny a person the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to purchase a firearm.While it is not surprising that some members of Congress are again using fear of terrorism to implement a gun-control agenda, the openly unconstitutional legislative language proponents are employing is troubling.Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is leading the effort in the Senate, while another well-known gun control advocate — Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) — is directing the House initiative. They have introduced identical bills — the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009." This proposal would give the attorney general the power to unilaterally and in secret develop a watch list of persons believed to be unworthy of possessing a firearm or any explosive.This new "dangerous terrorist" watch list would include names based not on hard evidence of criminal activity, but on nothing more than the subjective conclusion by the attorney general that a person is "appropriately suspected" (whatever that means) of engaging in some manner of assisting or preparing for acts of domestic or international terrorism. The American people would never be privy to what criteria might be employed by the attorney general to determine whether someone is an "appropriate suspect," and they would have no way of knowing why they might be denied the ability to purchase a firearm.If a person were to be refused "permission" to purchase a firearm or explosive, and if they subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court to find out why, the government still could keep such information secret. In other words, the attorney general could deny a U.S. citizen the ability to own a firearm, and never have to give the reason.For legislators like Lautenberg and King, who apparently have absolute faith in unelected government officials to make the right decisions for the right reasons at the right times (and never be required to explain those decisions), one has only to consider the checkered history of post-9/11 "terrorist" watch lists to see the folly of such perspective. Stories abound of persons denied the ability to board a commercial aircraft, or greatly delayed in being allowed on board, for no reason other than their name erroneously appeared on some "watch list." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have been among this not-so-elite group.A report earlier this year by the FBI's inspector general chronicled extensive internal problems with the terrorist watch list maintained by that agency. The IG found numerous examples of inaccuracies, incomplete entries, out-of-date information and inclusion of information "unrelated to terrorism." While the inconvenience of not being able to board an airliner for a business trip or a vacation can be a real headache, being refused the ability to purchase a firearm to protect one's life clearly raises the stakes.The government already has remedies already at its disposal to keep firearms out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. Under existing federal law, there are numerous categories of persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms; including persons in violation of immigration laws, convicted felons, illicit drug users and others. And if a person truly is a known or suspected terrorist, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — as the federal law enforcement agency primarily responsible for enforcing the nation's gun laws — certainly should be made aware of that information. We don't need a secret, anti-Second Amendment watch list to implement effective law enforcement in America.
###Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

To donate by mail: Barr 2008 Presidential Committee900 Circle 75 Pkwy., Ste. 1280Atlanta, GA 30339To donate by phone:Call 770/836-1776Paid for by Barr 2008 Presidential Committee.
Federal law requires us to report the name, address, and name of employer and occupation for any individual whose aggregate contributions total over $200 in a calendar year. Corporate contributions and gifts from foreign nationals are prohibited. Personal Credit Card gifts only. Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Limit of $2,300 per person per election and $4,600 per couple if signed by both parties and drawn on a jointly held bank account.