STP

Seriously, I believe much of the partisan divide is a smokescreen. Social issues like gay marriage and abortion, talk about a constitutional amendment to end flag burning, crap like that which evokes a visceral response as opposed to cerebral dominate talk radio, tv, etc,. These side issues take front and center while more significant issues are bypassed by the political process to be quietly introduced and propagated by the business/economic syndicate. You've heard of the military-industrial complex? How about the prison-industrial complex, the media-industrial complex...? Media matters: kd6P8obJmjo BWZMOQcDnyk

Everyone knows that cherry blossoms signal Spring! K08akOt2kuo

Don't know why but ya remind me of Nigel recently interviewed about the builders of Stonehenge. 5DJcOa0Wijc

Head north and climb Challenger instead (when it's in).

Somethings smells like Soros. George Soros: rocketing oil price is a bubble

Another liberal mischaracterization of Republicans ...and state of our nation? muNmpI-4yOI

Seems that one of the questions that should be debated is 'what is the proper role of gov't in the corporate realm'? For instance, could regulation and oversight have prevented the subprime mess and other problems associated with credit? On the other hand, how much should gov't intervene to mitigate the result? Maybe, more corectly, when should gov't intervene and how much? Not sure these are questions that have a set answer but it seems in either case that the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. Regarding climate change, I certainly don't debate the causes/effect etc. but rather the gov't response i.e., essentially it will translate into gov't intrusion, an issue which should be at the root of our national debate as citizens. I personally don't believe an effective climate change response will happen at a grass roots level no matter the amount of hope we project, short of going through a prolonged economic depression. Sure, you can have your Earth Day or whatever, but it'll boil down to large scale intervention.

First, glasnost. Then, perestroika.

H02h0nGBryU

I've read numerous stories where the SWAT team storms a drug house only to find that they've raided grandma...oops, wrong address...sorry grandma for busting your door off its frame and scaring the crap out of you. That said, I also see a need for SWAT in certain situations but, damn it, get your intelligence correct if you're gonna take these extraordinary steps in the fight against lawlessness... There definitely seems to be a common thread running through many contemporary events (leading up to the Iraq War, warrantless surveilance, weakening of habeas corpus, etc.) and it's this: expediency over due process. (Maybe the large numbers of lawyers are on their way out, ie instead of fighting for your rights they'll work for gov't to curtail them.) Anyway, even with a shift in the WAR on Drugs it seems, short of adopting JayB's approach, free distribution that there'll still be the problem of theft. I suggest in this case setting up something called a honeypot. A honeypot is an intentional trap used to capture criminals. It won't take care of the problem by itself but it has to serve a deterrent effect if criminals realize that they could be walking into a trap where they will be tracked down back to their fence.

No doubt, there definitely is a human cost associated with drug use whether legal or illegal. So why legalize at all? Well, for one it seems the punishment for marihuana use seems disproportionate to its actual threat. A blanket approach to legalization is destined to failure so to frame your argument in those terms is ridiculous. A sensible approach would selectively target marihuana for legalization, first by reclassifying it from its Schedule 1 status. An argument could be made for this change by examining its use for medicinal purposes, a use that has been sanctioned by a number of states in defiance of the federal drug laws. I suppose you might not want to see this though: XcCrTahsLg0

TXpGaOqb2Z8 Through a Scanner Darkly

I agree with you regarding prevention but how many of us when faced with the information actually have the will to conform to a safer lifestyle? It seems that taking on risk is hardwired into our genetic code.

That’s well and good but sometimes I get the nagging suspicion that public health departments have a vested interest in promoting these types of programs, i.e., to support the establishment and perpetuation of bureaucracy designed to oversee these programs. The State is a hungry beast (and we feed it often for the sake of the public good). I wonder if actually these programs would lead to making it “safer” for some folks who wouldn’t think of using and essentially produce a new generation of addicts. I suppose, however, in the name of “trying something completely different”… LayaGk0TMDc

So, I suppose while you're on the subject of psychopaths... Is your boss a psychopath?

Yeah, Jane's Mountain Song. The following songs aren't about climbing but more about something nebulous...feeling about the land, nature, the past... But maybe not your thing. John Barleycorn Reborn Scroll the player near bottom of page. Try, for instance, Pumanjaw--The Burning of Auchindoun. It's another dimension...

It seems the issue is nearly always distilled down to the often partisan dialectic of individual responsibility versus systemic cause (societal reform). At one extreme are believers in free will and individual culpability while at the other extreme the individual is absolved and personal behavior is viewed through the lens of the collective. Isn’t history replete with social experiments by politicians and lawmakers to mold society into their conceptions of the ideal state? I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are those who see the Bill of Rights and our liberties as an antiquated obstacle, that technology is the long sought panacea to societal ills characteristic of the human condition ( NYSE listing: ID). As far as deterring theft, one area where the problem is being addressed is having a requirement for something akin to a paper trail where accountability of the seller and the buyer is produced. The burden should be put on the scrap metal dealers to not accept undocumented salvage materials. Personally, I don’t believe the solutions for every problem should be examined in isolation. For example, take the drug problem. Conservatives such as the late William F. Buckley have called for the legalization of drugs as an answer to minimizing the myriad problems caused by our need for chemicals and to actually enlist this legalization as a change with more upside benefit (e.g. another revenue stream for gov’t) than downside cost (addiction/aberrant behavior) for society. So, legalization is the solution, simple enough. Do I buy that? No, I’d rather see something more radical and far-reaching. For instance, changing how we view money. I can’t articulate this fully. I can only direct you to this ( How deep is the rabbit hole?).

Not murder but second-degree reckless homicide, a charge that carries a punishment of up to 25 years in prison. --http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21296/madeline-neuman Not neglect? As far as autism, I read recently that there is a more likely causal link between the child's autism and the parent's mental health, eg, one parent suffers from undiagnosed (and perhaps mild?) schizophrenia. So, per that line of reasoning, is genetic screening in order if the link is congenital?

This is tragic but somehow when I saw Laura Bush I just knew the issue would become politicized. And no, I'm not talking about the junta's response. Shitheads.

Incorrigible Bastard... Incipient Bitch...

That's 'funny,' I didn't know you even needed a toy gun for the cops to shoot you on the spot without question. Anything to avoid challenging a cop's right to murder out of fear and fear alone... I had to bump this back up because I thought it was contradictory that some people made the comment about not ever pointing a gun, toy or real, at anyone yet there are video games such as Halo where you can kill with abandon. Every action starts with an intention.

It's stuff like this incident that lends some credibility to what people like Jeremiah Wright say. And, I can't really say if it's a self-feeding cycle. Someone in that community says something to incite resistance and so on, it continues as an engrained social pattern. As far as police brutality, you can take steps to minimize it but i believe that it'll always happen. For one, maybe Internal Affairs is a joke and every incident should have outside review by another law enforcement agency. But maybe this suggested approach is ridiculous if, for instance, this incident is the tip of an iceberg and there actually are more cases which are similar but involve other devices such as tasers. Is brutuality simply institualized as the raw exercising of power? Has torture been given more legimitacy by John "Torture Memo" Yoo and others?

I had an acquaintance who trained in Okinawan karate. Like usual he was told to use it at last resort, walk away from conflict. So he got his ass kicked several times before he got wise. Likewise with guns. Sure, I'm not advocating Bernard Goetz (what a putz) but if you obtain a gun for self-defense then be prepared for the eventuality of using it.

But...the second man is also married! What's different?

The WTO protest of 1999. What do you remember about it? The majority of folks were ok but some agitators pushed things over the line. I'd be hardpressed to blame the business damage to hardcore political groups rather than some criminal opportunists who took advantage of the situation. You would think that Evergreen is some hotbed of radicalism that serves as a gathering place for the training of potential unlawful enemy combatants.