Had a fabulous conversation with the prosecutor in the Eureka Springs/Berryville Arkansas area. Tony Rogers. Real class act. He put a violent criminal on the public payroll, and when I called to ask him about his vetting process he became extremely agitated and ended the conversation with a threat to "investigate me."
I am working on a letter to Rogers that I will post, it should be fun. Holding elected officials accountable for their actions is one of my callings in life. Nothing like holding an arrogant prick accountable for their poor decisions, especially one that is in the position of prosecutor. It's kinda like throwing a cop or judge in jail.
North Central Arkansas, you deserve better than to be Nifong-ed any longer by the likes of Tony Rogers, a belligerent horses' ass that hires violent criminals, and refuses to be accountable. Why should he? He's entitled.
We'll see...
peace
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
IN THE FIGHT AGAINST AIDS
From the Physicians for Human Rights website:
December 14, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Congress Lifts Ban on Federal Funds for Needle Exchanges Aimed at AIDS Prevention
Media Contacts:
Jonathan Hutson
jhutson [at] phrusa [dot] org
Cell: +1-857-919-5130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Washington, DC) — Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) commends Congress for ending the ban on federal funding of syringe exchange programs intended to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS.
"For 22 years this ban has been an obstacle to effective and comprehensive services that address HIV and other health needs of injecting drug users in the US and around the world," said PHR CEO Frank Donaghue.
More than 20 years of research in the US and internationally show that needle exchange is an effective public health approach to reducing the transmission of HIV, viral hepatitis, and other blood-borne pathogens. Research has also shown that syringe exchange programs do not encourage drug use nor increase crime rates in communities that offer these services.
"This is a huge victory for HIV and viral hepatitis prevention and a sign of hope for human rights," said PHR Senior Global Health Policy Advocate Paola Barahona. "It's hard to believe that it took 22 years for policy to catch up with common sense. Syringe exchange programs help safeguard public health by encouraging drug users to access health systems. These programs have demonstrated positive impacts on the health of individuals, families and whole communities."
There are an estimated 16 million injection drug users (IDUs) worldwide — 3 million of whom live with HIV. Almost a third of new HIV infections outside of sub-Saharan Africa are attributed to injection drug use, yet as few as 8% of drug injectors have access to HIV prevention services of any kind. In the US, 16% of new cases are attributed to injection drug use.
"What many people do not realize is that the impact of the syringe exchange ban extends beyond our national borders," Barahona stated. "The ban has been applied to foreign assistance and has prohibited PEPFAR from funding this important intervention in resource-poor countries facing rapidly expanding injection-driven HIV epidemics, such as those in Vietnam and Eastern Europe. It is crucial that the Obama administration move swiftly to enact this legislation and amend PEPFAR guidance to allow funding of effective needle exchange services in countries around the world."
The bill will next go to President Obama to sign into legislation that will officially end the ban. PHR calls on President Obama and the administration to act swiftly to enact this legislation.
But the work doesn't end there.
"We need to make sure that this policy is implemented well and that these programs are properly supported in communities where they are needed across the country and around the world," concluded Barahona.
PHR's Harm Reduction Campaign advocates for the United States Government's adoption and implementation of health policies that are evidence-based, practical, rights-based and appropriate for injecting and other drug users.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) mobilizes the health professions to advance the health and dignity of all people by protecting human rights. As a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, PHR shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
December 14, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Congress Lifts Ban on Federal Funds for Needle Exchanges Aimed at AIDS Prevention
Media Contacts:
Jonathan Hutson
jhutson [at] phrusa [dot] org
Cell: +1-857-919-5130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Washington, DC) — Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) commends Congress for ending the ban on federal funding of syringe exchange programs intended to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS.
"For 22 years this ban has been an obstacle to effective and comprehensive services that address HIV and other health needs of injecting drug users in the US and around the world," said PHR CEO Frank Donaghue.
More than 20 years of research in the US and internationally show that needle exchange is an effective public health approach to reducing the transmission of HIV, viral hepatitis, and other blood-borne pathogens. Research has also shown that syringe exchange programs do not encourage drug use nor increase crime rates in communities that offer these services.
"This is a huge victory for HIV and viral hepatitis prevention and a sign of hope for human rights," said PHR Senior Global Health Policy Advocate Paola Barahona. "It's hard to believe that it took 22 years for policy to catch up with common sense. Syringe exchange programs help safeguard public health by encouraging drug users to access health systems. These programs have demonstrated positive impacts on the health of individuals, families and whole communities."
There are an estimated 16 million injection drug users (IDUs) worldwide — 3 million of whom live with HIV. Almost a third of new HIV infections outside of sub-Saharan Africa are attributed to injection drug use, yet as few as 8% of drug injectors have access to HIV prevention services of any kind. In the US, 16% of new cases are attributed to injection drug use.
"What many people do not realize is that the impact of the syringe exchange ban extends beyond our national borders," Barahona stated. "The ban has been applied to foreign assistance and has prohibited PEPFAR from funding this important intervention in resource-poor countries facing rapidly expanding injection-driven HIV epidemics, such as those in Vietnam and Eastern Europe. It is crucial that the Obama administration move swiftly to enact this legislation and amend PEPFAR guidance to allow funding of effective needle exchange services in countries around the world."
The bill will next go to President Obama to sign into legislation that will officially end the ban. PHR calls on President Obama and the administration to act swiftly to enact this legislation.
But the work doesn't end there.
"We need to make sure that this policy is implemented well and that these programs are properly supported in communities where they are needed across the country and around the world," concluded Barahona.
PHR's Harm Reduction Campaign advocates for the United States Government's adoption and implementation of health policies that are evidence-based, practical, rights-based and appropriate for injecting and other drug users.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) mobilizes the health professions to advance the health and dignity of all people by protecting human rights. As a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, PHR shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
Friday, December 4, 2009
IN LOVING MEMORY
On December 2, 2009, my brother lost his little boy, Asa Lyn. He was 10 months old; he was born in January.
Our family is heartbroken over the loss of Asa, his beauty and joy will remain forever.
My greatest heartfelt condolences to Adrian, Patty, and Sammie Jo, Asa's twin sister. Much love, peace, and harmony to you and your family my brother, we love you.
Asa Lyn Cook-
January 2009-December 2009
Our family is heartbroken over the loss of Asa, his beauty and joy will remain forever.
My greatest heartfelt condolences to Adrian, Patty, and Sammie Jo, Asa's twin sister. Much love, peace, and harmony to you and your family my brother, we love you.
Asa Lyn Cook-
January 2009-December 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
THE VANCOUVER WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
Check out this invaluable link:
FLEX YOUR RIGHTS at flexyourrights.org
Use them, or get them taken away.
Peace-
INTERESTING ARTICLE FROM THE TELEGRAPH REGARDING ILLEGALITY OF IRAQ WAR IN 2001
As most of you know, I supported George Bush et al regarding the war in Iraq. When I finally opened my eyes to the facts regarding WMD and the "war on terror," it was too late, we were mired ass deep and then some in Iraq.
what I find extraordinary is the fact that the Brits knew it was BS from the start, and did nothing. Now they have the blood of the dead in Iraq on their hands, and me and millions of others have the blood of kids and families on our hands...Oh to turn back the clock, right?
Peace-
From telegraph.co.uk:
By James Kirkup and Gordon RaynerPublished: 4:48PM GMT 24 Nov 2009
On its opening day of public hearings, Sir John Chilcot’s public inquiry into the invasion heard that British diplomats heard the “drumbeat” of war emanating from Washington even before the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The inquiry into the war, which cost 179 lives, opened yesterday with a promise from Sir John, a former Whitehall mandarin, to "get to the heart of what happened" and "not shy away" from criticising anyone who made mistakes.
The first day of the inquiry in central London was attended by several relatives of service personnel killed in Iraq. Outside, a small number of protesters gathered, several with fake blood on their hands accusing Tony Blair, the former prime minister of war crimes.
Inside, the inquiry’s questioning focussed on British policy towards Iraq in 2001, the year George W Bush became US president.
Sir William Patey, head of Middle East policy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time, told the inquiry that he wrote a briefing paper on the options for Iraqi policy.
“We had at the end the regime-change option,” he said, “We dismissed that at the time as having no basis in law.”
Sir William said that the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam. "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington. Our policy was to stay away from that," he said.
The inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under international law.
Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, told the inquiry: "We quite clearly distanced our self from regime change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal base for."
The diplomats’ evidence will focus attention on the decisions that led Mr Blair to change Britain’s policy and support the military action that removed Saddam in 2003.
Sir Peter, who also chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee, said that only weeks after the September 11 attacks, US officials began to discuss “phase two of the war on terrorism,” shifting their attention from Afghanistan to Iraq.
“We heard people in Washington suggesting that there might be some link between Saddam and [Osama] Bin Laden.” he said. “We began to get that sort of voice early on.”
Officials suggested that it was the September 11 attacks and the events that followed had ultimately shifted the British view.
In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of containing Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil sales through the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq.
The diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was failing in 2001, but it could have remained viable if the United Nations had agreed to new "smart sanctions" on Saddam and the return of UN weapons inspectors.
The September attacks changed that, Sir Peter said. "I think if 9/11 had not happened, we would have remained convinced that a strengthened sanctions regime, tightened, narrowed, was the right way to go and we would have continued to push to get weapons inspectors back in.”
Simon Webb, the former policy chief at the Ministry of Defence, told the inquiry that the September attacks increased Britain’s concerns about the possibility of terrorist groups obtained weapons of mass destruction from a regime like Saddam’s.
After the attacks, he said, “the focus didn’t shift to regime change, the focus shifted to
WMD. In order to order to deal with the WMD problem in Iraq, you would probably end up having to push Saddam out. That was the sequence of events. It wasn’t hopping straight to regime change.”
what I find extraordinary is the fact that the Brits knew it was BS from the start, and did nothing. Now they have the blood of the dead in Iraq on their hands, and me and millions of others have the blood of kids and families on our hands...Oh to turn back the clock, right?
Peace-
From telegraph.co.uk:
By James Kirkup and Gordon RaynerPublished: 4:48PM GMT 24 Nov 2009
On its opening day of public hearings, Sir John Chilcot’s public inquiry into the invasion heard that British diplomats heard the “drumbeat” of war emanating from Washington even before the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The inquiry into the war, which cost 179 lives, opened yesterday with a promise from Sir John, a former Whitehall mandarin, to "get to the heart of what happened" and "not shy away" from criticising anyone who made mistakes.
The first day of the inquiry in central London was attended by several relatives of service personnel killed in Iraq. Outside, a small number of protesters gathered, several with fake blood on their hands accusing Tony Blair, the former prime minister of war crimes.
Inside, the inquiry’s questioning focussed on British policy towards Iraq in 2001, the year George W Bush became US president.
Sir William Patey, head of Middle East policy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time, told the inquiry that he wrote a briefing paper on the options for Iraqi policy.
“We had at the end the regime-change option,” he said, “We dismissed that at the time as having no basis in law.”
Sir William said that the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam. "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington. Our policy was to stay away from that," he said.
The inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under international law.
Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, told the inquiry: "We quite clearly distanced our self from regime change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal base for."
The diplomats’ evidence will focus attention on the decisions that led Mr Blair to change Britain’s policy and support the military action that removed Saddam in 2003.
Sir Peter, who also chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee, said that only weeks after the September 11 attacks, US officials began to discuss “phase two of the war on terrorism,” shifting their attention from Afghanistan to Iraq.
“We heard people in Washington suggesting that there might be some link between Saddam and [Osama] Bin Laden.” he said. “We began to get that sort of voice early on.”
Officials suggested that it was the September 11 attacks and the events that followed had ultimately shifted the British view.
In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of containing Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil sales through the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq.
The diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was failing in 2001, but it could have remained viable if the United Nations had agreed to new "smart sanctions" on Saddam and the return of UN weapons inspectors.
The September attacks changed that, Sir Peter said. "I think if 9/11 had not happened, we would have remained convinced that a strengthened sanctions regime, tightened, narrowed, was the right way to go and we would have continued to push to get weapons inspectors back in.”
Simon Webb, the former policy chief at the Ministry of Defence, told the inquiry that the September attacks increased Britain’s concerns about the possibility of terrorist groups obtained weapons of mass destruction from a regime like Saddam’s.
After the attacks, he said, “the focus didn’t shift to regime change, the focus shifted to
WMD. In order to order to deal with the WMD problem in Iraq, you would probably end up having to push Saddam out. That was the sequence of events. It wasn’t hopping straight to regime change.”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
ANOTHER HURDLE JUMPED FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
It seems the American Medical Association is getting on board and calling for a reclassification of marijuana. It remains on the list as a Schedule I drug, the same as heroin. So, courtesy of the LA Times, here is a tidbit, you can catch the whole article here.
Medical marijuana gets a boost from major doctors group
The American Medical Assn. changes its policy to promote clinical research and development of cannabis-based medicines and alternative delivery methods.
By John Hoeffel
November 11, 2009
The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.
The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.
In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.
The decision by the organization's delegates at a meeting in Houston marks another step in the evolving view of marijuana, which an AMA report notes was once linked by the federal government to homicidal mania. Since California voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996, marijuana has moved steadily into the cultural mainstream spurred by the growing awareness that it can have beneficial effects for some chronically ill people.
This year, the Obama administration sped up that drift when it ordered federal narcotics agents not to arrest medical-marijuana users and providers who follow state laws. Polls show broadening support for marijuana legalization.
Thirteen states allow the use of medical marijuana, and about a dozen more have considered it this year.
It's nice to be on the West Coast...Total legalization, now.
Peace-
Mike
Medical marijuana gets a boost from major doctors group
The American Medical Assn. changes its policy to promote clinical research and development of cannabis-based medicines and alternative delivery methods.
By John Hoeffel
November 11, 2009
The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.
The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.
In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.
The decision by the organization's delegates at a meeting in Houston marks another step in the evolving view of marijuana, which an AMA report notes was once linked by the federal government to homicidal mania. Since California voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996, marijuana has moved steadily into the cultural mainstream spurred by the growing awareness that it can have beneficial effects for some chronically ill people.
This year, the Obama administration sped up that drift when it ordered federal narcotics agents not to arrest medical-marijuana users and providers who follow state laws. Polls show broadening support for marijuana legalization.
Thirteen states allow the use of medical marijuana, and about a dozen more have considered it this year.
It's nice to be on the West Coast...Total legalization, now.
Peace-
Mike
Monday, November 9, 2009
WELL "IT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY..."
This is a Mini-Documentary done by a Berliner...It is excellent.
Peace-
Mike
Peace-
Mike
Sunday, November 8, 2009
PROFOUND DVD EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH: "THE ANGRY EYE" WITH JANE ELLIOTT
A week or so ago in my Communications class I had the pleasure of watching the short video, "The Angry Eye" with Jane Elliott.
Jane Elliot gained notoriety after Dr. King was shot in Memphis in 1968.
She began a blue eye/brown eye exercise that segregated her all white third grade class (according to Wikipedia she did not see a Black person until she was nineteen,) in tiny Riceville, Iowa into two groups: The Blue Eyes, the Superior Group, and The Brown Eyes, the Inferior Group. She had the "brownies" wear neck collars to further set them apart.
The response was stunning. The blue eyed kids were told the brownies were inferior because of their eye color, and as a result of their eye pigmentation they were unable to learn at the same level, they were unable to hold jobs, and the blue eyes should lower expectations for the brownies and then castigate them for not doing better, etc...
It didn't take long and the blue eyed kids were bossy, arrogant, and mean to the brown eyed kids, and the blue eyes actually began to do better academically, while the brownies suffered, and even brown-eyed kids that were excelling in class saw their grades and their confidence slip.
I watched a version of the exercise that was filmed on a college campus in the United States that involved young college students, and it blew my mind. The reaction from the white students was predictable yet unreal nonetheless...I believe this should be a required video in every school in the United States, it is that good, and it is that necessary.
The video that I posted is not from the vid I saw in class, however, it is just as poignant as the one I saw...we will be investing in these videos as time goes by, take the time to watch the video.
Some links:
Wiki
Jane Elliott website
IMDB -The Internet Movie Database
Peace-
Mike
Jane Elliot gained notoriety after Dr. King was shot in Memphis in 1968.
She began a blue eye/brown eye exercise that segregated her all white third grade class (according to Wikipedia she did not see a Black person until she was nineteen,) in tiny Riceville, Iowa into two groups: The Blue Eyes, the Superior Group, and The Brown Eyes, the Inferior Group. She had the "brownies" wear neck collars to further set them apart.
The response was stunning. The blue eyed kids were told the brownies were inferior because of their eye color, and as a result of their eye pigmentation they were unable to learn at the same level, they were unable to hold jobs, and the blue eyes should lower expectations for the brownies and then castigate them for not doing better, etc...
It didn't take long and the blue eyed kids were bossy, arrogant, and mean to the brown eyed kids, and the blue eyes actually began to do better academically, while the brownies suffered, and even brown-eyed kids that were excelling in class saw their grades and their confidence slip.
I watched a version of the exercise that was filmed on a college campus in the United States that involved young college students, and it blew my mind. The reaction from the white students was predictable yet unreal nonetheless...I believe this should be a required video in every school in the United States, it is that good, and it is that necessary.
The video that I posted is not from the vid I saw in class, however, it is just as poignant as the one I saw...we will be investing in these videos as time goes by, take the time to watch the video.
Some links:
Wiki
Jane Elliott website
IMDB -The Internet Movie Database
Peace-
Mike
ISLAM IN AMERICA: WHEN AMERICAN STUPIDITY SHINES BRIGHTLY
I am working on securing a series of interviews from a local Imam. In light of the shooting in Texas at Fort Hood, I thought it would be in my best interest, my family's best interest, and the best interest of those I will interact with in the future to have a better understanding of Islam.
I read a write up about Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter, on MSNBC, and it's rather disturbing.
It is not disturbing in the sense that most Americans, especially white Americans would think, you know the type Searchers: "That guys a Muslim...I betcha he's gots him some bombs and guns and I bet he's a-fixin to blow up (insert local shitbox .50 cent-draft-night-on-tuesdays bar here.) No, read the excerpt, the disturbing part is the local shit kickers giving a man shit who is trying to mind his own business and serve his Country at the same time.
"'Everyone else just sat down there and drunk their beer, and looked
at him, and giggled at him,' the woman said starting to cry. 'They
just would laugh at him when he walked down with his Muslim clothes...he was
mistreated. He was all alone. He went to his apartment there and was
all alone.'"I know the type. I used to go to church with the worthless idiots, and Mrs. Searchers entire range of kinfolk in Arkansas are precisely this way. Redneck, and total pussies when it comes to individual confrontation. Like Mrs. Searchers brothers, Hank and Samuel Chris Flanagin, and the racist coward Pat Flanagin.
In addition to verbal harassment, Major Hasan also had to deal with rednecks vandalizing his vehicle.
What cracks me up about the worthless red necks is Major Hasan is educated; he is an Army Psychiatrist. That means he is a Doctor. MD. And the rednecks outside their crappy little apartment units probably have less than a GED, probably have less than a mouthful of teeth, and probably have the equivalent of a 9th grade education.
The only People I am prejudiced against and the only People I believe should be sent to re-education camps are Rednecks. No mercy, either change or be eradicated.
So, I am trying to secure at least one interview with the folks that run the local mosque. I'll keep ya posted. Peace,
Mike
Thanks Washington Post and MSNBC
Saturday, October 24, 2009
NEW JERSEY DEBATING MEDICAL MARIJAUNA
Good news out of New Jersey, I was unaware of this until I got a tip from a Searcher in New Jersey. Thanks NJ, fight the good fight, the enlightened ones know that Marijuana is so much more benign than Alcohol which kills upward of 100,000 people a year, and that's without vehicle deaths...it is time to legalize Marijuana, as well as row crop hemp, forget about all of these timber companies raping and pillaging the US, especially here in the PacNorthwest. Here is the story:
TRENTON Ð Jack O'Brien feels shooting pain in his hands and feet that can become so intense that it wakes him out of a sound sleep.
The Cumberland County resident said the excruciating pain, resulting from a birth defect that also left him without fingers or toes, travels along his nerves all the way to his head. He takes pain medications but worries they will damage his liver or kidneys. And he says prescribed drugs leave him with little ability to function normally.
O'Brien has found that the one thing that does provide relief, without the often demobilizing side effects of pain pills, is marijuana. But he says he rarely uses it because he fears being arrested.
"I'm not a pot-head, I'm not a partier," the 54-year-old Commercial Township resident said. "But I need to live a quality of life that's better than (just) laying on the couch."
O'Brien and other New Jersey residents suffering from serious medical conditions could soon have the legal ability to use marijuana for pain relief.
O'Brien and other New Jersey residents suffering from serious medical conditions could soon have the legal ability to use marijuana for pain relief.
Legislators are considering a controversial measure that would make New Jersey the 14th state in the nation to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.
The Senate has already passed the bill. The Assembly Health and Human Services Committee approved the legislation Thursday by a vote of 8 to 1, with two abstentions, after amending it to further limit access to marijuana.
The bill would give residents, with their treating doctor's recommendation, the ability to obtain a registration card from the Department of Health and Senior Services to use marijuana for medicinal purposes without the possibility of arrest, prosecution or penalties.
The drug could be obtained from one of at least six "alternative treatment centers," facilities that would be designated to grow and distribute the drug.
The initial version of the bill also allowed for state-registered users to grow up to six marijuana plants at home, but the Assembly committee amended the legislation Thursday to prohibit home-growing after hearing concerns from critics, who said it would make marijuana too widely available and vulnerable to abuse...
And that's the way the story ends, and we all know that last statement about availability and abuse is total bullshit, it's a throwback from the 1930's, and William Randolph Hearst's successful smear campaign that went with ridiculous propaganda films like "Reefer Madness" ("Tell Your Children" is the original, Reefer Madness is the re-issue title)
Peace-
Mike
OUTRAGE IN SAUDI ARABIA
I read this on MSNBC, I'm currently unaware if other news outlets have it online...So it seems a Saudi Arabian female journalist, Rozana al-Yami, and a Saudi man, Mazan Abdul Jawad had a t.v. show on in Lebanon that dealt with sex and sexual issues. Evidently this is a major fuckup in Saudi Arabia, because a Saudi court has sentenced the woman to 60 whip lashes, and the man to 5 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.
What in the fuck are we doing dealing with these people? George Bush was surely bent over for these barbarian religious freaks, and even though 19 of the hijackers were Saudi, Bush invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia teaches and trains terrorists.
Another argument for renewable energy sources, cut the Saudis out of our money pool, until they can get their ridiculous asses out of the 11th century.
Lest you think, Evangelical Righties, I have eased up on you, forget about it. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that if the Religious Right had their way, the Pat Robertsons, The Jerry Falwells the Pat and Chris Flanagins, the Sarah Palins, (you get the picture) they would run this country in the same fashion.
I have actually had people, religious people, in Arkansas (my dad in Illinois is no different and just as worthless) say that there should still be public whippings and executions for adultery and having sex before one is married. And this has been in the last decade. Make no mistake, I am out to eradicate the Religious Right in the United States, and Evangelical (pentecostal) religion, I know that these movements are no different than radical Islamic Caliphates. I am coming for you, Righties...
Below is an excerpt from the story and you can read the whole story here.
Saudi female journalist sentenced to 60 lashes
Program on Lebanese cable TV dealt with man's frank sex talk
via AP, through MSNBC
Peace-
Mike
What in the fuck are we doing dealing with these people? George Bush was surely bent over for these barbarian religious freaks, and even though 19 of the hijackers were Saudi, Bush invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia teaches and trains terrorists.
Another argument for renewable energy sources, cut the Saudis out of our money pool, until they can get their ridiculous asses out of the 11th century.
Lest you think, Evangelical Righties, I have eased up on you, forget about it. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that if the Religious Right had their way, the Pat Robertsons, The Jerry Falwells the Pat and Chris Flanagins, the Sarah Palins, (you get the picture) they would run this country in the same fashion.
I have actually had people, religious people, in Arkansas (my dad in Illinois is no different and just as worthless) say that there should still be public whippings and executions for adultery and having sex before one is married. And this has been in the last decade. Make no mistake, I am out to eradicate the Religious Right in the United States, and Evangelical (pentecostal) religion, I know that these movements are no different than radical Islamic Caliphates. I am coming for you, Righties...
Below is an excerpt from the story and you can read the whole story here.
Saudi female journalist sentenced to 60 lashes
Program on Lebanese cable TV dealt with man's frank sex talk
via AP, through MSNBC
We, as Americans, owe it to ourselves and our ideals to hammer down on the Saudi's and express our outrage by calling our Senators and Reps., as well as the White House and news outlets. While we are doing that, hammer down on the Religious Right in the US, because, as Chris Matthews said, there isn's anything closer in the US to radical Islam than the Religious Right. Conservadems are included in that blanket statement as far as I'm concerned...RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi court on Saturday convicted a
female journalist for her involvement in a TV show, in which a Saudi man
publicly talked about sex, and sentenced her to 60 lashes.Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman
journalist to be given such a punishment. The charges against her included
involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the
Internet.In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC
satellite channel, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an
active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same
court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000
lashes.
Peace-
Mike
Friday, October 23, 2009
EXCELLENT COMMERCIAL FROM MEDIA MATTERS REGARDING THE FOX NEWS PROPAGANDA MACHINE
Most of you know I watched Fox News for years before I became enlightened. I was watching the Ed Show and he aired a clip from the vid below. It's five minutes or so, and well worth the time. It is a very concise rundown of propaganda promoted on Fox since we elected President Obama:
Peace-
Peace-
RELIGIOUS RIGHT MOST LIKE TALIBAN IN THE UNITED STATES: CHRIS MATTHEWS OF MSNBC
I caught the video below on MSNBC, it's about 14 minutes long, but I found a 50 second clip on Huffington Post of the end of the segment with Ron Reagan and Frank Gaffney, they were discussing, of sorts, the situation in Afghanistan.
The focus of most has been on the insult Gaffney, a neocon, threw at Ron Reagan, the son of President Reagan and a radio host on Air America, you'll hear it at the end, Gaffney tells Reagan, "Your father would be ashamed of you."
Totally below the belt, and you have to expect that from a neocon, but the thing that really perked up my ears was Chris Matthews' comment at the end, I'll paraphrase it-the religious right are the closest thing we have to the Taliban in the United States, and I couldn't agree more. In parts of the U.S., the "religious right" doesn't necessarily mean those with Republican leanings. I know plenty of Democrats that are racist hatemongers.
Here's the brief write up from HuffPo:
Peace-
Right-wing neoconservative Frank Gaffney went on "Hardball" Thursday night to defend Dick Cheney but ended up just insulting his fellow guest.
After a long exchange with Air America host Ron Reagan on the war in Afghanistan, Gaffney gave up on arguing and went for a personal attack. "Your father would be ashamed of you," he told Reagan, whose father was the late president.
"Oh, Frank," Reagan replied, "you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.
And here's a brief write-up about Frank Gaffney from Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly:
Now, Gaffney probably knows he crossed a line of decency; in fact that probably why he said what he said. Gaffney's a right-wing nutjob whose job it is to say ridiculous things.
And that's really what matters here. Gaffney's insane rhetoric isn't the problem; the fact that he was invited onto national television (again) to share his insane rhetoric is the problem.
Gaffney probably isn't a household name, but inside the media establishment, he's a pretty well known figure, as evidenced by his joint appearance with Dick Cheney on Wednesday night. And when offered a major media platform, Gaffney takes full advantage.
In April, for example, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC to argue that whenever President Obama uses the word "respect" in foreign policy, the word is "code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." He wasn't kidding.
In June, Gaffney wrote a column insisting that President Obama might really be a Muslim. In March, Gaffney argued that "evidence" exists connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Last September, Gaffney argued that Sarah Palin has learned foreign policy through "osmosis," by living in Alaska. (Bold is mine)
He's argued that U.S. forces really did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the media covered it up. He's used made-up quotes and recommended "hanging" Democratic officials critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. He even believes there's "evidence" to support the "Birthers," and once recommended a military strike on Al Jazeera headquarters.
So why is it, exactly, that MSNBC's "Hardball" invited Gaffney on to talk about foreign policy? What is it the viewing public can learn from listening to his unhinged perspective?
To be sure, Gaffney is certainly entitled to believe obvious lunacy, but that doesn't mean he deserves a microphone or the opportunity to convince a national television audience that his lunacy is legitimate.
Honestly, is there nothing conservatives can say that would force them from polite company? Just how nutty must far-right activists be before they're no longer invited to share their ridiculous ideas?
The right wing is getting more and more in the outfield, if any "wing" should be closely observed it is the right. And do not forget: Right Wing does not necessarily mean Republican. I cannot stress that enough.
Peace-
The focus of most has been on the insult Gaffney, a neocon, threw at Ron Reagan, the son of President Reagan and a radio host on Air America, you'll hear it at the end, Gaffney tells Reagan, "Your father would be ashamed of you."
Totally below the belt, and you have to expect that from a neocon, but the thing that really perked up my ears was Chris Matthews' comment at the end, I'll paraphrase it-the religious right are the closest thing we have to the Taliban in the United States, and I couldn't agree more. In parts of the U.S., the "religious right" doesn't necessarily mean those with Republican leanings. I know plenty of Democrats that are racist hatemongers.
Here's the brief write up from HuffPo:
Peace-
Right-wing neoconservative Frank Gaffney went on "Hardball" Thursday night to defend Dick Cheney but ended up just insulting his fellow guest.
After a long exchange with Air America host Ron Reagan on the war in Afghanistan, Gaffney gave up on arguing and went for a personal attack. "Your father would be ashamed of you," he told Reagan, whose father was the late president.
"Oh, Frank," Reagan replied, "you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.
And here's a brief write-up about Frank Gaffney from Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly:
Now, Gaffney probably knows he crossed a line of decency; in fact that probably why he said what he said. Gaffney's a right-wing nutjob whose job it is to say ridiculous things.
And that's really what matters here. Gaffney's insane rhetoric isn't the problem; the fact that he was invited onto national television (again) to share his insane rhetoric is the problem.
Gaffney probably isn't a household name, but inside the media establishment, he's a pretty well known figure, as evidenced by his joint appearance with Dick Cheney on Wednesday night. And when offered a major media platform, Gaffney takes full advantage.
In April, for example, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC to argue that whenever President Obama uses the word "respect" in foreign policy, the word is "code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." He wasn't kidding.
In June, Gaffney wrote a column insisting that President Obama might really be a Muslim. In March, Gaffney argued that "evidence" exists connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Last September, Gaffney argued that Sarah Palin has learned foreign policy through "osmosis," by living in Alaska. (Bold is mine)
He's argued that U.S. forces really did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the media covered it up. He's used made-up quotes and recommended "hanging" Democratic officials critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. He even believes there's "evidence" to support the "Birthers," and once recommended a military strike on Al Jazeera headquarters.
So why is it, exactly, that MSNBC's "Hardball" invited Gaffney on to talk about foreign policy? What is it the viewing public can learn from listening to his unhinged perspective?
To be sure, Gaffney is certainly entitled to believe obvious lunacy, but that doesn't mean he deserves a microphone or the opportunity to convince a national television audience that his lunacy is legitimate.
Honestly, is there nothing conservatives can say that would force them from polite company? Just how nutty must far-right activists be before they're no longer invited to share their ridiculous ideas?
The right wing is getting more and more in the outfield, if any "wing" should be closely observed it is the right. And do not forget: Right Wing does not necessarily mean Republican. I cannot stress that enough.
Peace-
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR RIGHT WING STUPIDITY; ANOTHER VICTORY FOR MEDICAL MARIJAUNA PATIENTS
Of course you know I am in favor of the legalization of Marijuana. Not ALL drugs right-wingers, so calm the hell down. I have been a medical MJ patient, and I believe people would benefit from the use of herb. My parents were Cutty Sark Scotch addicts (alcoholics) they never left home without it. Whether we were heading to South Carolina, or Wisconsin, or wherever, that damn green bottle with the yellow label came with. No wonder I have had problems with alcohol.
Another comment: My mother was an individual that could have used marijuana. For instance, if she would have just smoked a joint instead of drinking, maybe she would not have slammed my head against walls so often. Maybe she wouldn't have pulled my hair out in tufts. Maybe she wouldn't have beat me and my sister with sticks or belts or hairbrushes or shoes. Maybe she wouldn't have slapped me in my pre-adolescent face so often. And Daddy-o, you lazy bastard, maybe if you smoked a little weed you would have insisted ole Barbara gotten some psychological counseling. Surely after your wife violently attacked your daughter at the dinner table that night when she was in 7th grade (but truth be told it was just another incident in a long line of years of out of control behavior by our mother and father)....and what did you do Stanny? Sit and watch and plaintively whine, "Barbaraaa."
Yes, my parents should have smoked weed, but they were all about obeying the law, except, of course, when it came to beating up their children.
Legalize it, period.
From the Philly Inquirer, Josh Meyer, L.A. Times, author
U.S. eases prosecutions on medical marijuana
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration told federal authorities yesterday not to arrest or prosecute medical-marijuana users and suppliers, paving the way for some states to move forward with plans to create officially sanctioned dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for a series of maladies.
The move by the Justice Department ended months of uncertainty over how far the Obama White House planned to go in reversing the Bush administration's stance on the issue, which held that authorities should continue to enforce federal drug laws even in states with medical-marijuana laws on the books
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
The move clarifies what some critics had said was an ambiguous position of the Obama administration, especially in California, where authorities raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years. Some of those raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after, as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups welcomed the move as an important step toward a comprehensive national policy on medical marijuana because it will allow states to implement their own laws without fear of interference from the federal government.
In all, 13 states have some form of medical-marijuana laws. But some, like New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Michigan, have been reluctant to implement programs amid fears they would be struck down by courts or shut by authorities, said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's California-based Drug Law Reform Project.
In New Jersey, the state Senate approved a medical-marijuana bill in February, with bipartisan support. An amended version, tightened to address concerns that marijuana could become too readily available, awaits a floor vote in the state Assembly. If approved, it would return to the Senate for a second vote. Gov. Corzine has said he would sign the bill if the Legislature approves it.
Under the amended bill, the state would issue identification cards to patients diagnosed with a "debilitating medical condition." Those patients would be permitted to obtain marijuana from authorized nonprofit alternative-treatment centers, in person or via courier or delivery.
Roseanne Scotti, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey, which favors medical marijuana, said of yesterday's Justice Department move: "We're thrilled.. . . We think it bodes very well for the future of medical marijuana in New Jersey."
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the new guidelines were adopted, in part, because federal law enforcement agencies had limited resources and need them for more pressing priorities. One of those priorities is countering the spread of violent Mexican drug cartels, which use the vast profits from their marijuana sales in the United States to support other crimes, the guidelines say.
The new guidelines stress that authorities should go after those who improperly abuse or obtain medical marijuana or use clinics as a cover for drug dealing and other illegal activity.
In particular, the Justice memo urges authorities to pursue cases that involve violence, illegal use of firearms, sale of marijuana to minors, excessive financial gains, and ties to criminal enterprises.
The change in policy was criticized by many law enforcement advocates, and some conservative groups and members of Congress. (who gives a shit? that's my comment, not the author's)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision undermined the administration's get-tough plan to attack the Mexican cartels, which he said were fueling drug-related violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
One comment regarding Lamar Smith of Texas, in the Pacific Northwest, at least on the wet side of the mountains, all of our herb is local, it doesn't come from a Mexican cartel. We here in the PacNorth believe in local sustainability, supporting our local farmers, microbrewers, and small businesses, and smoking only the best around...
Peace-take care, HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!
Mike
Another comment: My mother was an individual that could have used marijuana. For instance, if she would have just smoked a joint instead of drinking, maybe she would not have slammed my head against walls so often. Maybe she wouldn't have pulled my hair out in tufts. Maybe she wouldn't have beat me and my sister with sticks or belts or hairbrushes or shoes. Maybe she wouldn't have slapped me in my pre-adolescent face so often. And Daddy-o, you lazy bastard, maybe if you smoked a little weed you would have insisted ole Barbara gotten some psychological counseling. Surely after your wife violently attacked your daughter at the dinner table that night when she was in 7th grade (but truth be told it was just another incident in a long line of years of out of control behavior by our mother and father)....and what did you do Stanny? Sit and watch and plaintively whine, "Barbaraaa."
Yes, my parents should have smoked weed, but they were all about obeying the law, except, of course, when it came to beating up their children.
Legalize it, period.
From the Philly Inquirer, Josh Meyer, L.A. Times, author
U.S. eases prosecutions on medical marijuana
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration told federal authorities yesterday not to arrest or prosecute medical-marijuana users and suppliers, paving the way for some states to move forward with plans to create officially sanctioned dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for a series of maladies.
The move by the Justice Department ended months of uncertainty over how far the Obama White House planned to go in reversing the Bush administration's stance on the issue, which held that authorities should continue to enforce federal drug laws even in states with medical-marijuana laws on the books
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
In new guidelines circulated yesterday, the Justice Department told prosecutors and federal drug agents that they had more important things to do than to arrest people as long as they were obeying the laws of states that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.
The move clarifies what some critics had said was an ambiguous position of the Obama administration, especially in California, where authorities raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years. Some of those raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after, as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups welcomed the move as an important step toward a comprehensive national policy on medical marijuana because it will allow states to implement their own laws without fear of interference from the federal government.
In all, 13 states have some form of medical-marijuana laws. But some, like New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Michigan, have been reluctant to implement programs amid fears they would be struck down by courts or shut by authorities, said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's California-based Drug Law Reform Project.
In New Jersey, the state Senate approved a medical-marijuana bill in February, with bipartisan support. An amended version, tightened to address concerns that marijuana could become too readily available, awaits a floor vote in the state Assembly. If approved, it would return to the Senate for a second vote. Gov. Corzine has said he would sign the bill if the Legislature approves it.
Under the amended bill, the state would issue identification cards to patients diagnosed with a "debilitating medical condition." Those patients would be permitted to obtain marijuana from authorized nonprofit alternative-treatment centers, in person or via courier or delivery.
Roseanne Scotti, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey, which favors medical marijuana, said of yesterday's Justice Department move: "We're thrilled.. . . We think it bodes very well for the future of medical marijuana in New Jersey."
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the new guidelines were adopted, in part, because federal law enforcement agencies had limited resources and need them for more pressing priorities. One of those priorities is countering the spread of violent Mexican drug cartels, which use the vast profits from their marijuana sales in the United States to support other crimes, the guidelines say.
The new guidelines stress that authorities should go after those who improperly abuse or obtain medical marijuana or use clinics as a cover for drug dealing and other illegal activity.
In particular, the Justice memo urges authorities to pursue cases that involve violence, illegal use of firearms, sale of marijuana to minors, excessive financial gains, and ties to criminal enterprises.
The change in policy was criticized by many law enforcement advocates, and some conservative groups and members of Congress. (who gives a shit? that's my comment, not the author's)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision undermined the administration's get-tough plan to attack the Mexican cartels, which he said were fueling drug-related violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
One comment regarding Lamar Smith of Texas, in the Pacific Northwest, at least on the wet side of the mountains, all of our herb is local, it doesn't come from a Mexican cartel. We here in the PacNorth believe in local sustainability, supporting our local farmers, microbrewers, and small businesses, and smoking only the best around...
Peace-take care, HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!
Mike
Friday, October 9, 2009
REST IN PEACE DR. ERNESTO GUEVARA DE LA SERNA
Today, some 42 years ago, Che was killed at the hands of the U.S. and Bolivian Governments. He remains an icon, a physician, a father, a brother, an author, and a revolutionary. Rest in peace, Doctor Guevara
“Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.” Che Guevara
“Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.” Che Guevara
CONGRATULATIONS PRESIDENT OBAMA
Today Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let Rio have the Olympics; we have the President with the Peace Prize.
Peace-
Friday, October 2, 2009
WE MUST BECOME THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD
Happy birthday Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi 10.2.1869-1.30.1948
Sunday, September 20, 2009
THE DEMON POSSESED BALWIN BROTHER (STEPHEN) APPEARED IN D.C.
The right wing oughta loves this- 'God Bless The Great White Right'-and all of the (my dad should love this)imps, John Boehner, Eric Cantor (when is he going to come out of the closet????) Carrie Prejean at the "values voter summit" as though no one has values unless they're banging their choir director...or has fake boobs, or can bring a gun to a Presidential Meeting...you should be proud right wing: now we all know how you operate, and we should make sure we watch you closely...
Peace-
Thursday, September 17, 2009
AND HERE'S A GOOD STORY-MAKE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES PAY UP
UPDATE: I DROPPED THE REST OF THE STORY, I'VE ADDED IT.
This is why health care reform is so desperately needed in the U.S. Please get in touch with your Congressperson for true and real reform...
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."
That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements - sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.
The ruling emerges from a conservative Southern state with one of the most pro-business climates in the country. And it comes as progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing for health care reforms, such as a public insurance option, that reflect wariness about the private insurance industry's motives.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court's verdict against Fortis Insurance, now known as Assurant. The trial jury had awarded the former college student, Jerome Mitchell, $15 million in punitive damages; the Supreme Court reduced that amount by $5 million.
Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.
Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?"
The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward.In the ruling, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible ... Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."
An investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone made at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.
In Febuary 2008, a private arbitration judge in Los Angeles ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient whose health insurance it revoked shortly after her diagnosis and while she was undergoing chemotherapy. The plaintiff in that case, Patsy Bates, a then-52-year-old grandmother and hair-salon owner, was unable to continue her chemotherapy for several months.
During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded. The judge who awarded Bates the $9 million said in his decision: "It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive."
William Shernoff, the attorney who represented Bates, said in an interview Wednesday that he was not unhappy that there was a new verdict larger than the one he won for Bates. "I am glad to see that the courts in other parts of the country are coming down hard on this reprehensible practice of dumping sick patients," he said. "It has been a practice going on decades, is widespread, and ruins lives."
Shernoff currently said he has more than 100 pending cases against California insurance companies on behalf of patients he alleges were wrongly rescinded. He said he has already settled about 90 similar cases over the last three years.
President Obama cited other cases of rescission in his recent speech before a joint session of Congress as a major reason that health reform is necessary.
Obama cited the case of a retired Texas nurse, Robin Beaton, who had her heath insurance canceled by her insurance company as she was about to undergo breast cancer surgery. As a result, Beaton had to delay her surgery for five months. In the interim, the size of the mass of her tumor had grown from 2 centimeters to 7 centimeters, greatly reducing her chances of survival.
A "woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne," the President asserted in his speech, "By the time she had insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more then doubled in size. This is heart breaking. It is wrong. And no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."
Obama wasn't exactly correct in his telling of Beaton's ordeal. Beaton's insurance was canceled because a doctor wrote that she potentially had a precancerous lesion on her face. Further investigation showed that she instead had acne. But even after her physicians pointed out the error, her insurance remained rescinded. Only with the help of her congressman, was she able to pressure her insurance company to pay for her breast cancer surgery--five months later. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Shut these bastards down...
Peace-
thanks to the HuffPo for the article.
This is why health care reform is so desperately needed in the U.S. Please get in touch with your Congressperson for true and real reform...
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."
That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements - sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.
The ruling emerges from a conservative Southern state with one of the most pro-business climates in the country. And it comes as progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing for health care reforms, such as a public insurance option, that reflect wariness about the private insurance industry's motives.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court's verdict against Fortis Insurance, now known as Assurant. The trial jury had awarded the former college student, Jerome Mitchell, $15 million in punitive damages; the Supreme Court reduced that amount by $5 million.
Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.
Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?"
The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward.In the ruling, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible ... Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."
An investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone made at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.
In Febuary 2008, a private arbitration judge in Los Angeles ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient whose health insurance it revoked shortly after her diagnosis and while she was undergoing chemotherapy. The plaintiff in that case, Patsy Bates, a then-52-year-old grandmother and hair-salon owner, was unable to continue her chemotherapy for several months.
During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded. The judge who awarded Bates the $9 million said in his decision: "It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive."
William Shernoff, the attorney who represented Bates, said in an interview Wednesday that he was not unhappy that there was a new verdict larger than the one he won for Bates. "I am glad to see that the courts in other parts of the country are coming down hard on this reprehensible practice of dumping sick patients," he said. "It has been a practice going on decades, is widespread, and ruins lives."
Shernoff currently said he has more than 100 pending cases against California insurance companies on behalf of patients he alleges were wrongly rescinded. He said he has already settled about 90 similar cases over the last three years.
President Obama cited other cases of rescission in his recent speech before a joint session of Congress as a major reason that health reform is necessary.
Obama cited the case of a retired Texas nurse, Robin Beaton, who had her heath insurance canceled by her insurance company as she was about to undergo breast cancer surgery. As a result, Beaton had to delay her surgery for five months. In the interim, the size of the mass of her tumor had grown from 2 centimeters to 7 centimeters, greatly reducing her chances of survival.
A "woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne," the President asserted in his speech, "By the time she had insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more then doubled in size. This is heart breaking. It is wrong. And no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."
Obama wasn't exactly correct in his telling of Beaton's ordeal. Beaton's insurance was canceled because a doctor wrote that she potentially had a precancerous lesion on her face. Further investigation showed that she instead had acne. But even after her physicians pointed out the error, her insurance remained rescinded. Only with the help of her congressman, was she able to pressure her insurance company to pay for her breast cancer surgery--five months later. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
Shut these bastards down...
Peace-
thanks to the HuffPo for the article.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
I'M WITH RACHEL MADDOW-A PRO-PROMISCUITY ZEALOT. BEATS AMERICAN RIGHT WING CHRISTIANITY.
disclaimer: a catholic organizaton called her that. not far from flanagins christianity.
FINALLY THE CHRISTIANS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CALLED OUT
It is about time. Check out Rachel Maddows show today.
Oh and by the way, American Christianity is utterly against Jesus' teaching. Not a big surprise. Fuck off American Right wing Christianity, it is no surprise that hate is espoused by your teachings, and by Pat Flanagins' "bible fund." Also, thanks Flanagins for giving me fodder, and trying to kill me.
Peace-and everybody cares...
fuck off pat flanagin and joe wilson...
come on with your punk ass, Pat, and Chris and hank yank yank and tasha, bring it.
Oh and by the way, American Christianity is utterly against Jesus' teaching. Not a big surprise. Fuck off American Right wing Christianity, it is no surprise that hate is espoused by your teachings, and by Pat Flanagins' "bible fund." Also, thanks Flanagins for giving me fodder, and trying to kill me.
Peace-and everybody cares...
fuck off pat flanagin and joe wilson...
come on with your punk ass, Pat, and Chris and hank yank yank and tasha, bring it.
THANK GOD WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION.
OH AND BY THE WAY DEATH IS NOT AN OPTION, CUNT, THERE WILL BE NO GETTING OVER IT. PEACE-
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
BEING ATTACKED FOR BELIEFS-
I'm down with that; it has happened before....And since my AIDS posting, I have received more hate mail than at any other time. It is not surprising that when I research where the hate is coming from I find it originates in Searcy, AR, Little Rock, AR, and Northeast and Northwest/NorthCentral Arkansas
After all, the KKK website originates from the Arkansas Section of the Bible Belt. Big Surprise.
Disclaimer: My inlaws espouse hate. I do not. They encourage hate speech such as when Samuel Christian Flanagin called me a Nigger, and violently attacked me and my wife in our home. His father, Patrick Henry Flanagin former State Representative, embraces his sons behavior. Ironically, their home state of Arkansas hosts the Ku Klux Klan in Harrison AR, according to the Klans' website: KU KLUX KLAN.
Welcome to the Bible Belt and Pat Flanagins' home state.
Get out while you can; come back when the good ole boys are shut down for ever.
Peace
After all, the KKK website originates from the Arkansas Section of the Bible Belt. Big Surprise.
Disclaimer: My inlaws espouse hate. I do not. They encourage hate speech such as when Samuel Christian Flanagin called me a Nigger, and violently attacked me and my wife in our home. His father, Patrick Henry Flanagin former State Representative, embraces his sons behavior. Ironically, their home state of Arkansas hosts the Ku Klux Klan in Harrison AR, according to the Klans' website: KU KLUX KLAN.
Welcome to the Bible Belt and Pat Flanagins' home state.
Get out while you can; come back when the good ole boys are shut down for ever.
Peace
Friday, September 4, 2009
AND SOME GOOD NEWS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST AIDS
I have a friend that has been recently diagnosed with HIV, so the disease has finally touched my life in a personal way. Hillary Clinton has said HIV has become manageable in the United States, but it remains a decimating disease in other parts of the world. It is also still stigmatized in the U.S., and I believe people have become lax about protecting themselves while having sex...these two factors, and others, are contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. among straight people at a rate far higher than most understand. So it's not just a gay disease. I'm looking toward the day when there is a cure for HIV and a vaccine to prevent it. And I have hope for you my friend :) Peace-
From the L.A. Times:
Antibodies found that prevent HIV from causing severe AIDS
Scientists were able to isolate two antibodies responsible for resistance to the disease in an African patient. The discovery could be key to the development of a vaccine.
By Thomas H. Maugh II
After nearly two decades of futile searching for a vaccine against the AIDS virus, researchers are reporting the tantalizing discovery of antibodies that can prevent the virus from multiplying in the body and producing severe disease.
They do not have a vaccine yet, but they may well have a road map toward the production of one.
A team based at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla reports today in the journal Science that they have isolated two so-called broadly neutralizing antibodies that can block the action of many strains of HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS.
Crucial to the discovery is the fact that the antibodies target a portion of HIV that researchers had not considered in their search for a vaccine. Moreover, the target is a relatively stable portion of the virus that does not participate in the extensive mutations that have made HIV able to escape from antiviral drugs and previous experimental vaccines.
"This is opening up a whole new area of science," said Dr. Seth F. Berkley, president and chief executive of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which funded and coordinated the research.At least 33 million people worldwide are infected with HIV, and at least 25 million have died from AIDS, according to the World Health Organization.
Two large trials of experimental vaccines have failed -- the most recent, in 2007, because the vaccine apparently made people more susceptible to infection.
To find the neutralizing antibodies, researchers collected blood samples from more than 1,800 people in Thailand, Australia and Africa who had been infected with HIV for at least three years without the infection proceeding to severe disease. Such individuals are most likely to produce antibodies that interfere with the replication of the virus.
Researchers at Monogram Biosciences in South San Francisco studied the samples most resistant to infection, then a team from Theraclone Sciences in Seattle isolated the antibodies responsible for the resistance.
They ultimately isolated two antibodies, called PG9 and PG16, from one African patient. The antibodies were able to block the activity of about three-quarters of the 162 separate strains of HIV they tested it against.
Immunologist Dennis Burton of Scripps and his colleagues then showed that the antibodies bind to regions of two proteins on the surface of the virus, called gp120 and gp41, that help the virus invade cells. These regions had never before been considered as targets for vaccines.
Researchers still have a long way to go to produce a vaccine, however.
The antibodies themselves could potentially be used as a treatment for infected patients who develop severe disease.But the long-term hope is to find molecules, either synthetic or natural, that can stimulate the body to produce the broadly neutralizing antibodies. Such molecules could potentially be the basis for a successful vaccine.
From the L.A. Times:
Antibodies found that prevent HIV from causing severe AIDS
Scientists were able to isolate two antibodies responsible for resistance to the disease in an African patient. The discovery could be key to the development of a vaccine.
By Thomas H. Maugh II
After nearly two decades of futile searching for a vaccine against the AIDS virus, researchers are reporting the tantalizing discovery of antibodies that can prevent the virus from multiplying in the body and producing severe disease.
They do not have a vaccine yet, but they may well have a road map toward the production of one.
A team based at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla reports today in the journal Science that they have isolated two so-called broadly neutralizing antibodies that can block the action of many strains of HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS.
Crucial to the discovery is the fact that the antibodies target a portion of HIV that researchers had not considered in their search for a vaccine. Moreover, the target is a relatively stable portion of the virus that does not participate in the extensive mutations that have made HIV able to escape from antiviral drugs and previous experimental vaccines.
"This is opening up a whole new area of science," said Dr. Seth F. Berkley, president and chief executive of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which funded and coordinated the research.At least 33 million people worldwide are infected with HIV, and at least 25 million have died from AIDS, according to the World Health Organization.
Two large trials of experimental vaccines have failed -- the most recent, in 2007, because the vaccine apparently made people more susceptible to infection.
To find the neutralizing antibodies, researchers collected blood samples from more than 1,800 people in Thailand, Australia and Africa who had been infected with HIV for at least three years without the infection proceeding to severe disease. Such individuals are most likely to produce antibodies that interfere with the replication of the virus.
Researchers at Monogram Biosciences in South San Francisco studied the samples most resistant to infection, then a team from Theraclone Sciences in Seattle isolated the antibodies responsible for the resistance.
They ultimately isolated two antibodies, called PG9 and PG16, from one African patient. The antibodies were able to block the activity of about three-quarters of the 162 separate strains of HIV they tested it against.
Immunologist Dennis Burton of Scripps and his colleagues then showed that the antibodies bind to regions of two proteins on the surface of the virus, called gp120 and gp41, that help the virus invade cells. These regions had never before been considered as targets for vaccines.
Researchers still have a long way to go to produce a vaccine, however.
The antibodies themselves could potentially be used as a treatment for infected patients who develop severe disease.But the long-term hope is to find molecules, either synthetic or natural, that can stimulate the body to produce the broadly neutralizing antibodies. Such molecules could potentially be the basis for a successful vaccine.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
BACHMANN 'HEARING VOICES' OTHER THAN GOD'S, SAYS TOP DEMOCRAT
By Chris Steller 9/2/09 1:38 PM, Of the Minnesota Independent
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s talk of stopping health care reform by fasting, praying and wrist-slitting has prompted not only lefty pundits but a top Democratic colleague to question what’s going on between her ears. Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, remarked Tuesday: “I don’t think God’s talking to her anymore. I think she’s hearing other voices.”
Bachmann said in 2006 that she was running for Congress on God’s recommendation (video), and last month said she would run for president if she “felt that’s what the Lord was calling me to do.”
It wasn’t a one-off gag line for Oberstar, who earlier called Bachmann “a sweet woman” but had this advice for elderly health care reform advocates in Duluth who were planning to visit her: ”Tell her that there are voices other than God that are informing her.” [Via Tom Elko]
It wasn’t immediately clear whether one of those voices is that of Rep. Ron Paul, who has Bachmann’s ear on financial policy and will appear with her at a town hall in her district this month.
Oberstar’s comments are of the sort more commonly heard from cable TV yakkers like Ed Schultz, whose show featured her “psycho talk” two days in a row, and Dan Savage, who linked God-inspired politics to hate rhetoric of the worst sort:
"When you have a party that claims to speak for God or says God is on its side, the rhetoric heats up and the anger heats up, because it’s not just a battle about ideas and positions and what’s good for the country and bad for the country. It’s a battle about what God wants and what God doesn’t want. And it’s easier to demagogue about your enemies and to despise them and to dehumanize them in this really personal and vicious way. And the religious right is fomenting this kind of hatred in this country at our peril. I really do think that the Michele Bachmanns of the world and the Glenn Becks of the world are actively and consciously, or subconsciously, trying to get — I’m just going to say it — trying to get the president killed. This kind of rhetoric — this paranoid style on the religious right, from Birchers to birthers — doesn’t usually end well. And somebody’s got to put the brakes on it. Unfortunately in the Republican Party, there’s no adults left in the room. There are only the Michele Bachmanns and the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs running the show."
Thanks to The Minnesota Independent.
A bit of commentary: the Republican Party does not have a corner of Religious Stupidity, Mrs. Searcher's father Pat the deadbeat Flanagin (and S. Chris Flanagin of Thurman and Bishop law firm, violent criminal extraordinaire) has a "bible fund" and can't keep his dick in his pants. Oh yeah, he also was in office as a Democrat. Pat Flanagin and the ever nuts Dora F. Hughes, Mrs. Searcher's aunt were part of my inspiration to vote for Bush, and until we got out of the south for a length of time, I learned that liberal democrats have a different, a better and less hateful ideology than the Christian Conservative Arkansas Democrat and his sister that have contempt for the poor, supports violent crime and hates his daughter (and she her niece) while hiding behind religion as an excuse for their abhorrent behavior. Shout out to this Democrat that has the balls to say what everyone else is thinking-these right wing bible bangers are nuts, but I know plenty of Dems that are right wing bible thumping psychos, and it's time to push them all into the sea.
Peace
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s talk of stopping health care reform by fasting, praying and wrist-slitting has prompted not only lefty pundits but a top Democratic colleague to question what’s going on between her ears. Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, remarked Tuesday: “I don’t think God’s talking to her anymore. I think she’s hearing other voices.”
Bachmann said in 2006 that she was running for Congress on God’s recommendation (video), and last month said she would run for president if she “felt that’s what the Lord was calling me to do.”
It wasn’t a one-off gag line for Oberstar, who earlier called Bachmann “a sweet woman” but had this advice for elderly health care reform advocates in Duluth who were planning to visit her: ”Tell her that there are voices other than God that are informing her.” [Via Tom Elko]
It wasn’t immediately clear whether one of those voices is that of Rep. Ron Paul, who has Bachmann’s ear on financial policy and will appear with her at a town hall in her district this month.
Oberstar’s comments are of the sort more commonly heard from cable TV yakkers like Ed Schultz, whose show featured her “psycho talk” two days in a row, and Dan Savage, who linked God-inspired politics to hate rhetoric of the worst sort:
"When you have a party that claims to speak for God or says God is on its side, the rhetoric heats up and the anger heats up, because it’s not just a battle about ideas and positions and what’s good for the country and bad for the country. It’s a battle about what God wants and what God doesn’t want. And it’s easier to demagogue about your enemies and to despise them and to dehumanize them in this really personal and vicious way. And the religious right is fomenting this kind of hatred in this country at our peril. I really do think that the Michele Bachmanns of the world and the Glenn Becks of the world are actively and consciously, or subconsciously, trying to get — I’m just going to say it — trying to get the president killed. This kind of rhetoric — this paranoid style on the religious right, from Birchers to birthers — doesn’t usually end well. And somebody’s got to put the brakes on it. Unfortunately in the Republican Party, there’s no adults left in the room. There are only the Michele Bachmanns and the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs running the show."
Thanks to The Minnesota Independent.
A bit of commentary: the Republican Party does not have a corner of Religious Stupidity, Mrs. Searcher's father Pat the deadbeat Flanagin (and S. Chris Flanagin of Thurman and Bishop law firm, violent criminal extraordinaire) has a "bible fund" and can't keep his dick in his pants. Oh yeah, he also was in office as a Democrat. Pat Flanagin and the ever nuts Dora F. Hughes, Mrs. Searcher's aunt were part of my inspiration to vote for Bush, and until we got out of the south for a length of time, I learned that liberal democrats have a different, a better and less hateful ideology than the Christian Conservative Arkansas Democrat and his sister that have contempt for the poor, supports violent crime and hates his daughter (and she her niece) while hiding behind religion as an excuse for their abhorrent behavior. Shout out to this Democrat that has the balls to say what everyone else is thinking-these right wing bible bangers are nuts, but I know plenty of Dems that are right wing bible thumping psychos, and it's time to push them all into the sea.
Peace
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
AH YES, ARKANSAS-THE DUGGARS SUCK AND SO DOES THEIR RELIGION...
● The Duggars: Also eco-terrorists are this Arkansas couple who today were reported to have birthed their 19th child. But unlike The Gosselins or Suleman, this family isn’t horrible (not yet anyway). They’re just deplorably clueless.
click on the link for thanks, and these evangelical pentecostals are horrible as well as deplorably clueless.
Peace
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
RACHEL MADDOW SHOW: 77% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT A PUBLIC OPTION HEALTH-CARE OPTION
Chillin watching Rachel, she is on the game, and exposing the foolishness of the Consevadems as well as the right wing politicians and gun toting Conservative citizens and elected officials.
She played a clip from the Sarah Palin twin Michelle Bachmann, member of the Great White Right and pseudo-christian extraordinaire, and rabid anti-abortionist, and she declared she did not want the government telling her what to do with her body... but she's very content to tell other women what to do with their bodies, largely because she is "enlightened by God."
What a doofus, a prime example of Right wing Christianity, much like some people we know, the Flanagins, Dora F. Flanagin, and Chris Flanagin, Hank Flanagin, and the ever-compromised career politician-Pat Flanagin, Arkansas State Representative.
It is time for systemic change in America, health care for all...and remember these faces: compromised politicians and violent criminals: Pat Flanagin and Chris Flanagin...soon to be posted, Hank Flanagin, the brother in law that wants his 6 year old nephew killed by a bus, and Dora Flanagin Hughes, employee of the Arkansas Employment Security Office, (and she uses her computer to hack into Mrs. Searchers personal employment records, and mine as well.) It is time to expose hate for what it is: Hate, that is fueled by contempt by these well-off elitists that hate the poor and people with skin color other than Caucasian...this is reality and these people are haters.
She played a clip from the Sarah Palin twin Michelle Bachmann, member of the Great White Right and pseudo-christian extraordinaire, and rabid anti-abortionist, and she declared she did not want the government telling her what to do with her body... but she's very content to tell other women what to do with their bodies, largely because she is "enlightened by God."
What a doofus, a prime example of Right wing Christianity, much like some people we know, the Flanagins, Dora F. Flanagin, and Chris Flanagin, Hank Flanagin, and the ever-compromised career politician-Pat Flanagin, Arkansas State Representative.
It is time for systemic change in America, health care for all...and remember these faces: compromised politicians and violent criminals: Pat Flanagin and Chris Flanagin...soon to be posted, Hank Flanagin, the brother in law that wants his 6 year old nephew killed by a bus, and Dora Flanagin Hughes, employee of the Arkansas Employment Security Office, (and she uses her computer to hack into Mrs. Searchers personal employment records, and mine as well.) It is time to expose hate for what it is: Hate, that is fueled by contempt by these well-off elitists that hate the poor and people with skin color other than Caucasian...this is reality and these people are haters.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANK (D-MA) LAYS THE SMACK DOWN ON A DELUDED RIGHT WINGER
A Right Wing woman with virtually no sense asks Rep. Frank a question regarding Obama in the context of Nazism and Adolph Hitler. People such as this woman are welcome to their speech, but the lack of education and research by most of the screaming right, the Great White Right is astounding.
This psycho woman with her psycho talk reminds me of Mrs. Searchers aunt, Dora Flanagin Hughes, (not to be confused with Dora Hughes the counselor to Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, an accomplished woman with education.) No, this Dora Hughes is a bible banging, hate-filled right wing nut. She is the sister of the clown Pat Flanagin, the dipshit with the moustache pictured below. An uneducated classless adulteress in her own right, she believes people that see through her bullshit and stupidity are demon possessed. Life in the Bible Belt, go figure.
Peace, healthcare for all, and let's work for systemic change in the United States.
Onward!
Thanks to CNN, YouTube and HuffPo...
This psycho woman with her psycho talk reminds me of Mrs. Searchers aunt, Dora Flanagin Hughes, (not to be confused with Dora Hughes the counselor to Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, an accomplished woman with education.) No, this Dora Hughes is a bible banging, hate-filled right wing nut. She is the sister of the clown Pat Flanagin, the dipshit with the moustache pictured below. An uneducated classless adulteress in her own right, she believes people that see through her bullshit and stupidity are demon possessed. Life in the Bible Belt, go figure.
Peace, healthcare for all, and let's work for systemic change in the United States.
Onward!
Thanks to CNN, YouTube and HuffPo...
DAILY BEAST: FDA APPROVES FIRST LSD RESEARCH IN 40 YEARS; MARGE SIMPSON TRIPS ON ACID
Caught an article on the Daily Beast regarding LSD research. Apparently some say the drug helps with cluster headache relief. It will be interesting if it is proven that it can help with severe headaches, perhaps the research will lead to other breakthroughs, according to the article it may help with anxiety as well.
On a personal note, my mother suffered at length with terrible headaches that would cause vomiting, etc., and I used to suffer from migraines in the early '90's. It's interesting that after I got out of the crazy pentecostal/evangelical churches that the headaches stopped...check out the article, they have a gallery of pics that showcases famous people that have tripped in the past...Marge Simpson being one of them.
Peace-
On a personal note, my mother suffered at length with terrible headaches that would cause vomiting, etc., and I used to suffer from migraines in the early '90's. It's interesting that after I got out of the crazy pentecostal/evangelical churches that the headaches stopped...check out the article, they have a gallery of pics that showcases famous people that have tripped in the past...Marge Simpson being one of them.
Peace-
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
NINE YEARS AND COUNTING!! HAPPY ANNIVERSARY MRS. SEARCHER!
You're a great Lady, smart, funny, accomplished, beautiful. Our boy and I couldn't ask for a better Momma and Bride-we love you!
Monday, August 17, 2009
NEWSFLASH! RIGHT WING IMPLODES! JESUS IS LAUGHING HIS ASS OFF!
Fuck off right wing American Christianity, it's your movement that would still have Blacks enslaved, it is you that would stone people for who they love, it is you that would deny healthcare for my children and all Americans, it is you that has warped and distorted the teachings of Jesus, and it is you that hides behind your lame church doors and use religion as an excuse for bad behavior and hate.
SUPPORT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE.
Hater of the moment, but he's a constant hater, meet Pat Flanagin:
Pat Flanagin and his "Bible Fund." Here is the quisential Right wing "Christian" nut job: Pat Flanagin: kicked his oldest kid to the curb as an infant, sent his namesake Junior into exile in Northwest Arkansas, forced Junior to give up his kid for adoption, rejected and kicked his only daughter to the curb, and embraced his violent criminal son for his crimes against humanity. Oh yeah, while his wife and kids were living in Forrest City, AR, he was using state funds to bang his whore in Little Rock while the Legislature was in session. What a gem. Sure makes me want to serve Flanagins god...
Remember, Jesus was not a capitalist.
SUPPORT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE.
Hater of the moment, but he's a constant hater, meet Pat Flanagin:
Pat Flanagin and his "Bible Fund." Here is the quisential Right wing "Christian" nut job: Pat Flanagin: kicked his oldest kid to the curb as an infant, sent his namesake Junior into exile in Northwest Arkansas, forced Junior to give up his kid for adoption, rejected and kicked his only daughter to the curb, and embraced his violent criminal son for his crimes against humanity. Oh yeah, while his wife and kids were living in Forrest City, AR, he was using state funds to bang his whore in Little Rock while the Legislature was in session. What a gem. Sure makes me want to serve Flanagins god...
Remember, Jesus was not a capitalist.
WRITE UP REGARDING RIGHT WING GOD LOVING LUNATICS AND HEALTH CARE
The writer makes some good points regarding the right wing nutbags, and gets a good dig in on Sarah Palin. His wrting is dead on, so listen up you god fearing righties that hate people of color and don't want health care for everyone: Would Jesus deprive us of healthcare for all? Of course not you schmucks, furthermore, the right wing has devolved into nothing more than a Facsist movement. For those of you with Provincial thinking (I'm talking about you midsouth) who do not understand the difference between Fascsim and Socialism, look it up.
From the New York Daily News Mike Lupica, writer:
President Obama is the real target of health care protesters, not policy
The woman went to an airplane hangar in Belgrade, Mont., the other day, prepared to actually listen to President Obama talk about health care reform in America.
She has watched, the way the rest of us have watched, as the debate about health care has turned into a sideshow and in some cases even more of a freak show than Glenn Beck's. Now she wanted to see for herself, along with more than 1,000 others, if it would happen this way in Montana.
This is what she said about the event when it was over:
"Yes, there were a few protesters en route. But the Montanans who were excited to hear the President far outnumbered the fringe groups."
Then she said this about Obama: "He was smart, fair, funny."
So this wasn't an occasion when people with legitimate concerns and legitimate points to make were overwhelmed by the wing nuts and screamers who take their marching orders from right-wing radio and television and the Internet.
Those idiots come to these town hall meetings more to be seen than heard, and think creating chaos makes them great Americans.
Those people have been convinced by the current culture that we are dying to hear from them, and the louder the better. People who think that all they need to star in their own reality series is a couple of TV crews. But then this is Twitter America now, where no thought is supposed to go unspoken.
We hear that all of this is democracy in action. It's not. It's boom-box democracy, people thinking that if they somehow make enough noise on this subject, they can make Obama into a one-term President.
The most violent opposition isn't directed at his ideas about health care reform. It is directed at him. It is about him. They couldn't make enough of a majority to beat the Harvard-educated black guy out of the White House, so they will beat him on an issue where they see him as being most vulnerable.
In the process, they'll come after him on health care the way Kenneth Starr went after Bill Clinton on oral sex in the Oval Office.
With that kind of zealotry, screaming about government programs as if Medicare isn't one. It is why so many of them, all these wild-eyed red faces in the crowd, look completely certifiable, screaming about how Obama wants to kill Grandma, as if he's suddenly turned into Jack Kevorkian.
And by the way, if Sarah Palin is involved - Palin as uninformed as ever about these so-called "death panels" - the debate just got dumber, if that's possible. No kidding. If foreign policy was a brain-buster for Palin, something as truly complex as health care will make her feel as dizzy as if she just rolled down a hill.
So much of this comes from people who get all their information from right-wing media, or their cheerleading from political has-beens like Betsy McCaughey, people who don't see this as a fight for better and more inclusive health care, but who now see it as something grander and more noble, a fight to reclaim America from Obama.
They couldn't win the fight last November, when he laid out John McCain and Palin and a whole party with one election, so they try to do it now, with lies and rather amazing distortions. They want everybody to believe that if Obama gets his way, he'll eventually be in charge of insurance and doctors and whether you use CVS or Duane Reade. He's a Socialist selling socialized medicine. He'll kill Grandma. Come on. The notion that this is all honest dissent is just one more lie.
Even in Montana, the Swift Boaters who would line up against any health care plan endorsed by Barack Obama ran one television ad 115 times over a day and a half before the President arrived.
"Every time we are in sight of health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got," the President said outside Bozeman. "They use their influence and run their ads. They use their political allies to scare the American people."
He is right about that. But the special interests aren't fighting the reform, in a system that cries out for reform, as much as they are fighting him. They see their first real good opening and they go for it.
They don't just want to hijack this debate, they want to hijack his presidency. The rest of it, about your coverage and everything else, is just the cover story.
Peace-
From the New York Daily News Mike Lupica, writer:
President Obama is the real target of health care protesters, not policy
The woman went to an airplane hangar in Belgrade, Mont., the other day, prepared to actually listen to President Obama talk about health care reform in America.
She has watched, the way the rest of us have watched, as the debate about health care has turned into a sideshow and in some cases even more of a freak show than Glenn Beck's. Now she wanted to see for herself, along with more than 1,000 others, if it would happen this way in Montana.
This is what she said about the event when it was over:
"Yes, there were a few protesters en route. But the Montanans who were excited to hear the President far outnumbered the fringe groups."
Then she said this about Obama: "He was smart, fair, funny."
So this wasn't an occasion when people with legitimate concerns and legitimate points to make were overwhelmed by the wing nuts and screamers who take their marching orders from right-wing radio and television and the Internet.
Those idiots come to these town hall meetings more to be seen than heard, and think creating chaos makes them great Americans.
Those people have been convinced by the current culture that we are dying to hear from them, and the louder the better. People who think that all they need to star in their own reality series is a couple of TV crews. But then this is Twitter America now, where no thought is supposed to go unspoken.
We hear that all of this is democracy in action. It's not. It's boom-box democracy, people thinking that if they somehow make enough noise on this subject, they can make Obama into a one-term President.
The most violent opposition isn't directed at his ideas about health care reform. It is directed at him. It is about him. They couldn't make enough of a majority to beat the Harvard-educated black guy out of the White House, so they will beat him on an issue where they see him as being most vulnerable.
In the process, they'll come after him on health care the way Kenneth Starr went after Bill Clinton on oral sex in the Oval Office.
With that kind of zealotry, screaming about government programs as if Medicare isn't one. It is why so many of them, all these wild-eyed red faces in the crowd, look completely certifiable, screaming about how Obama wants to kill Grandma, as if he's suddenly turned into Jack Kevorkian.
And by the way, if Sarah Palin is involved - Palin as uninformed as ever about these so-called "death panels" - the debate just got dumber, if that's possible. No kidding. If foreign policy was a brain-buster for Palin, something as truly complex as health care will make her feel as dizzy as if she just rolled down a hill.
So much of this comes from people who get all their information from right-wing media, or their cheerleading from political has-beens like Betsy McCaughey, people who don't see this as a fight for better and more inclusive health care, but who now see it as something grander and more noble, a fight to reclaim America from Obama.
They couldn't win the fight last November, when he laid out John McCain and Palin and a whole party with one election, so they try to do it now, with lies and rather amazing distortions. They want everybody to believe that if Obama gets his way, he'll eventually be in charge of insurance and doctors and whether you use CVS or Duane Reade. He's a Socialist selling socialized medicine. He'll kill Grandma. Come on. The notion that this is all honest dissent is just one more lie.
Even in Montana, the Swift Boaters who would line up against any health care plan endorsed by Barack Obama ran one television ad 115 times over a day and a half before the President arrived.
"Every time we are in sight of health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got," the President said outside Bozeman. "They use their influence and run their ads. They use their political allies to scare the American people."
He is right about that. But the special interests aren't fighting the reform, in a system that cries out for reform, as much as they are fighting him. They see their first real good opening and they go for it.
They don't just want to hijack this debate, they want to hijack his presidency. The rest of it, about your coverage and everything else, is just the cover story.
Peace-
Thursday, August 13, 2009
BRITAIN REBUTS REPUBLICAN B.S. REGARDING HEALTH CARE
FROM HUFF PO:
LONDON — Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.
Pilloried by right-wing critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan, Britain's National Health Service, known here as the NHS, is fighting back.
"People have been saying some untruths in the States," a spokesman for Britain Department of Health said in a telephone interview. "There's been all these ridiculous claims made by the American health lobby about Obama's health care plan ... and they've used the NHS as an example. A lot of it has been untrue."
He spoke anonymously in line with department policy.
A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. editorial, printed in the Investor's Business Daily, claimed that renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who is disabled, "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Hawking, who was born and lives in Britain, personally debunked the claim. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian newspaper. Investor's Business Daily has since corrected the editorial.
As the debate over how best to look after American patients rages on, Britain's socialized health care system has increasingly found itself being drawn into the argument. Critics of the Obama administration's plan to overhaul US health care say the president is seeking to model the U.S. system on that of Britain or Canada – places they paint as countries where patients linger for months on waiting lists and are forbidden from paying for their own medication.
A Republican National Committee ad said that in the U.K. "individuals lose their right to make their own health care choices." Another ad launched earlier this month by the anti-tax group Club for Growth claimed that government bureaucrats in Britain had calculated six months of life to be worth $22,750. "Under their socialized system, if your treatment costs more, you're out of luck," the ad says, as footage of an elderly man weeping at a woman's bedside alternate with clips of the Union Jack and Big Ben.
The online attacks on Britain's health care system have been paired with strident criticism from Republican lawmakers.
In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old. Another Republican, Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, said that the U.K. and Canada "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently."
The criticism, widely covered in the U.K. media, has clearly stung Britain's left-leaning Labour government. The Department of Health took the unusual step of contacting The Associated Press and e-mailing it a three-page rebuttal to what it said were misconceptions about the NHS being bandied about in the U.S. media – each one followed with the words: "Not true."
At the top of the list was the idea that a patient in his late 70s would not be treated for a brain tumor because he was too old – a transparent reference to Grassley's comments about Kennedy.
And what of Republicans' claim that British patients are robbed of their medical choices? False again, the department said.
"Everyone who is cared for by the NHS in England has formal rights to make choices about the service that they receive," it said in its rebuttal.
Then followed a fact sheet comparing selected statistics such as health spending per capita, infant mortality, life expectancy, and more. Each one showed England outperforming its trans-Atlantic counterpart.
The British government offers health care for free at the point of need, a service pioneered by Labour in 1948. In the six decades since, its promise of universal medical care, from cradle to grave, is taken for granted by Britons to such an extent that politicians – even fiscal conservatives – are loath to attack it.
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.
Nevertheless, many in the British press bristled at the criticism from America's right wing.
"How dare the Republicans bad-mouth our free health care system?" Guardian columnist Michele Hanson wrote Wednesday. "If I'd been born in the U.S., I'd probably be dead by now."
Good for them, it's about time people start refuting the right wing.
Peace-
LONDON — Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.
Pilloried by right-wing critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan, Britain's National Health Service, known here as the NHS, is fighting back.
"People have been saying some untruths in the States," a spokesman for Britain Department of Health said in a telephone interview. "There's been all these ridiculous claims made by the American health lobby about Obama's health care plan ... and they've used the NHS as an example. A lot of it has been untrue."
He spoke anonymously in line with department policy.
A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. editorial, printed in the Investor's Business Daily, claimed that renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who is disabled, "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Hawking, who was born and lives in Britain, personally debunked the claim. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian newspaper. Investor's Business Daily has since corrected the editorial.
As the debate over how best to look after American patients rages on, Britain's socialized health care system has increasingly found itself being drawn into the argument. Critics of the Obama administration's plan to overhaul US health care say the president is seeking to model the U.S. system on that of Britain or Canada – places they paint as countries where patients linger for months on waiting lists and are forbidden from paying for their own medication.
A Republican National Committee ad said that in the U.K. "individuals lose their right to make their own health care choices." Another ad launched earlier this month by the anti-tax group Club for Growth claimed that government bureaucrats in Britain had calculated six months of life to be worth $22,750. "Under their socialized system, if your treatment costs more, you're out of luck," the ad says, as footage of an elderly man weeping at a woman's bedside alternate with clips of the Union Jack and Big Ben.
The online attacks on Britain's health care system have been paired with strident criticism from Republican lawmakers.
In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old. Another Republican, Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, said that the U.K. and Canada "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently."
The criticism, widely covered in the U.K. media, has clearly stung Britain's left-leaning Labour government. The Department of Health took the unusual step of contacting The Associated Press and e-mailing it a three-page rebuttal to what it said were misconceptions about the NHS being bandied about in the U.S. media – each one followed with the words: "Not true."
At the top of the list was the idea that a patient in his late 70s would not be treated for a brain tumor because he was too old – a transparent reference to Grassley's comments about Kennedy.
And what of Republicans' claim that British patients are robbed of their medical choices? False again, the department said.
"Everyone who is cared for by the NHS in England has formal rights to make choices about the service that they receive," it said in its rebuttal.
Then followed a fact sheet comparing selected statistics such as health spending per capita, infant mortality, life expectancy, and more. Each one showed England outperforming its trans-Atlantic counterpart.
The British government offers health care for free at the point of need, a service pioneered by Labour in 1948. In the six decades since, its promise of universal medical care, from cradle to grave, is taken for granted by Britons to such an extent that politicians – even fiscal conservatives – are loath to attack it.
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.
Nevertheless, many in the British press bristled at the criticism from America's right wing.
"How dare the Republicans bad-mouth our free health care system?" Guardian columnist Michele Hanson wrote Wednesday. "If I'd been born in the U.S., I'd probably be dead by now."
Good for them, it's about time people start refuting the right wing.
Peace-
Thursday, July 2, 2009
WOULD JESUS LET CHILDREN STARVE? AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY THINKS SO
Cynthia Davis,(R) State Rep from Missouri's 19th district. (what is with these bums? Kinda like Arkansas worthless Percy Malone or Pat the adulterer Flanagin) made an over the top comment about children receiving subsidized food programs because she thinks "hunger is a motivating factor." Watch the clip from The Colbert Report. This Cynthia Davis actually owns a Christian Book store, which brings me to this: Fuck off American Christianity, you are so far from Jesus' teachings, you may never be able to get back.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag - Cynthia Davis & Fox News | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, June 25, 2009
13 YEAR OLD GIRL STRIP SEARCHED IN SCHOOL WINS SUPREME COURT CASE
I've been paying attention to this case involving Savana Redding, pictured above with her attorney Adam Wolf because I believe the "zero-tolerance" policy schools and the Police have adopted lead to the abuse of children and adults. Savana, when she was thirteen, was forced by school officials to strip to her underwear and shake out her panties because she was suspected of carrying two prescription Advil.
This Supreme Court (8 to 1, the only dissenter was Clarence Thomas, wtf?) ruling reinforces my belief. Whether the student is a girl or a boy, schools are dead wrong when they force frightened school kids into their underwear without parental consent, oversight, and complete control. Try this shit with my daughter or son.
It is time to end this policy that assumes the citizenry is guilty of a crime or to be held in suspicion because they just might commit a crime at any time!
The "Zero-Tolerance" policy especially gives licence to those in positions of authority to abuse the more vulnerable in our society, the poor, working families, minorities and children.
Congratulations to Savana Redding in her monumental victory.
Peace!
Read the rest of it on msnbc.com
image
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST-AGAIN
So Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina has been fooling around with a woman from Argentina. His wife isn't Argentinian, I'm pretty sure she's South Carolinian...Perhaps he was using public funds to get to Argentina...It looks like the "Family Values" Party is imploding on itself, more power to it, I'm sick of conservatives, both democrat and republican, this is just another affirmation of my correct decision to turn my back on the conservative movement completely.
Another shooting star for the Repubs in 2012 has shot himself in his (or rather with his) dick. Who do we have left? Sarah Palin? Bobby Jindal? Mitt freaking Romey? Please don't offer up the doofus Haley Barbour from Mississippi. Or maybe that would be a good idea...a sacrificial lamb.
Peace, y'all Obama '12, Health Care now...
COMMON SENSE BEGINGING TO REAR ITS HEAD REGARDING INTERNATIONAL DRUG POLICY?
As most of you know, I am for the legalization of marijuana. The following is from the HuffPo, it is in regards to the UN's drug report that praises Portugal's switch from incarceration of addicts to treatment. It makes sense, then we can have room for real criminals like Chris Flanagin, (chris@thurmanbishop.com Thurman and Bishop, Arkansas Community Foundation.)
Make no mistake: I am for the complete outlawing of hard drugs such as Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Alcohol. (I know we already tried that, so I can hang that one up. However, Alcohol is the TRUE gateway drug.) Marijuana is a "soft" drug, with little or no collateral consequence, unlike Alcohol, which kills upward of 100,000 Americans yearly, and that statistic does not include deaths by vehicles. So onward Searchers, it is time for the legalization of marijuana, and a sea change in our Hemp production policy...Peace, I think I'll go smoke! From HuffPo:
UN Backs Drug Decriminalization In World Drug Report
In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism."
But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased."
In its upbeat appraisal of Portugal's policy, the UN finds itself in agreement with Salon's Glenn Greenwald.
The report, released at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., also puts to rest concerns that decriminalization doesn't comply with international treaties, which prevent countries from legalizing drugs.
U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is scheduled to appear at the announcement of the report. (He has said "decriminalization" is not "in my vocabulary.")
"The International Narcotics Control Board was initially apprehensive when Portugal changed its law in 2001 (see their annual report for that year), but after a mission to Portugal in 2004, it "noted that the acquisition, possession and abuse of drugs had remained prohibited," and said "the practice of exempting small quantities of drugs from criminal prosecution is consistent with the international drug control treaties," reads a footnote to the report.
The UN report also dives head first into the debate over full drug legalization. Last year's World Drug Report ignored the issue entirely, save for a reference to Chinese opium policy in the 19th Century.
This year's report begins with a lengthy rebuttal of arguments in favor of legalization. "Why unleash a drug epidemic in the developing world for the sake of libertarian arguments made by a pro-drug lobby that has the luxury of access to drug treatment?" argues the report.
But the UN also makes a significant concession to backers of legalization, who have long argued that it is prohibition policies that lead to violence and the growth of shadowy, underground networks.
"In the Preface to the report," reads the press release accompanying the report, "[UN Office of Drugs and Crime Executive Director Antonio Maria] Costa explores the debate over repealing drug controls. He acknowledges that controls have generated an illicit black market of macro-economic proportions that uses violence and corruption."
Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and a retired undercover narcotics detective, objected to the report's classification of current policy as "control."
"The world's 'drug czar,' Antonio Maria Costa, would have you believe that the legalization movement is calling for the abolition of drug control," he said. "Quite the contrary, we are demanding that governments replace the failed policy of prohibition with a system that actually regulates and controls drugs, including their purity and prices, as well as who produces them and who they can be sold to. You can't have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933."
Again, it is time for the legalization of marijuana, but I do want you to pay close attention to the ridiculous statement by the U.S. "drug czar" :"decriminalization is not in my vocabulary." Maybe our "drug czar" needs to be shitcanned so he can go back to fifth-grade vocab class.
Peace!
Make no mistake: I am for the complete outlawing of hard drugs such as Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Alcohol. (I know we already tried that, so I can hang that one up. However, Alcohol is the TRUE gateway drug.) Marijuana is a "soft" drug, with little or no collateral consequence, unlike Alcohol, which kills upward of 100,000 Americans yearly, and that statistic does not include deaths by vehicles. So onward Searchers, it is time for the legalization of marijuana, and a sea change in our Hemp production policy...Peace, I think I'll go smoke! From HuffPo:
UN Backs Drug Decriminalization In World Drug Report
In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism."
But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased."
In its upbeat appraisal of Portugal's policy, the UN finds itself in agreement with Salon's Glenn Greenwald.
The report, released at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., also puts to rest concerns that decriminalization doesn't comply with international treaties, which prevent countries from legalizing drugs.
U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is scheduled to appear at the announcement of the report. (He has said "decriminalization" is not "in my vocabulary.")
"The International Narcotics Control Board was initially apprehensive when Portugal changed its law in 2001 (see their annual report for that year), but after a mission to Portugal in 2004, it "noted that the acquisition, possession and abuse of drugs had remained prohibited," and said "the practice of exempting small quantities of drugs from criminal prosecution is consistent with the international drug control treaties," reads a footnote to the report.
The UN report also dives head first into the debate over full drug legalization. Last year's World Drug Report ignored the issue entirely, save for a reference to Chinese opium policy in the 19th Century.
This year's report begins with a lengthy rebuttal of arguments in favor of legalization. "Why unleash a drug epidemic in the developing world for the sake of libertarian arguments made by a pro-drug lobby that has the luxury of access to drug treatment?" argues the report.
But the UN also makes a significant concession to backers of legalization, who have long argued that it is prohibition policies that lead to violence and the growth of shadowy, underground networks.
"In the Preface to the report," reads the press release accompanying the report, "[UN Office of Drugs and Crime Executive Director Antonio Maria] Costa explores the debate over repealing drug controls. He acknowledges that controls have generated an illicit black market of macro-economic proportions that uses violence and corruption."
Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and a retired undercover narcotics detective, objected to the report's classification of current policy as "control."
"The world's 'drug czar,' Antonio Maria Costa, would have you believe that the legalization movement is calling for the abolition of drug control," he said. "Quite the contrary, we are demanding that governments replace the failed policy of prohibition with a system that actually regulates and controls drugs, including their purity and prices, as well as who produces them and who they can be sold to. You can't have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933."
Again, it is time for the legalization of marijuana, but I do want you to pay close attention to the ridiculous statement by the U.S. "drug czar" :"decriminalization is not in my vocabulary." Maybe our "drug czar" needs to be shitcanned so he can go back to fifth-grade vocab class.
Peace!
Monday, June 22, 2009
ON DEADBEAT MOMS AND DADS, AND A LITTLE HISTORY PART 2
I decided to post the third comment from "Anonymous" that appears after "On Deadbeat Moms and Dads..." because I wanted to discuss it briefly. Here is the comment:
"So why aren't you paying your child support if you love them so much? Do you think that clothes, food and the rest just fall from the sky? Do you think your excuses put food on their table? Although, truthfully they may be better off not knowing what a deadbeat their father is. What kind of man doesn't financially provide for his minor children? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way)"
And here is my rebuttal:
Anon's comment is typically American; it is one that ignores the body of the issues and focuses solely on one small aspect, and that aspect is always dollar-driven. Shortsighted, knee-jerk comments and actions are an unflattering trait we in the United States have developed over time, and they have led to debacles such as the Iraq War.
That idea was bullshit when Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman sold it to us in 1981 and it remains bullshit to this day.
"Anon"- get the back story right next time, read my posts in their entirety, and realize abusive comments designed to denigrate me regarding support and visitation with my children create not only dysfunction in the children, they also strengthen my tenacity (and my desire) in the fight for equality in this horribly skewed, abusive "child support" system in place in the U.S. today.
Thanks for the comment, "Anon", don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Peace, Searchers, we do need a systemic change in America.
Oh Yeah-The face of a true "Deadbeat Dad" Arkansas State Representative Pat Flanagin:
image
"So why aren't you paying your child support if you love them so much? Do you think that clothes, food and the rest just fall from the sky? Do you think your excuses put food on their table? Although, truthfully they may be better off not knowing what a deadbeat their father is. What kind of man doesn't financially provide for his minor children? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way)"
And here is my rebuttal:
Anon's comment is typically American; it is one that ignores the body of the issues and focuses solely on one small aspect, and that aspect is always dollar-driven. Shortsighted, knee-jerk comments and actions are an unflattering trait we in the United States have developed over time, and they have led to debacles such as the Iraq War.
Your comment, "Anonymous" is the "drill baby drill" chant all over again.
The Conservative Democrats and Republicans believe, as you probably do "Anon," that scrapping food programs for the poor children of our nation, or denying health care and education to millions of Americans is going to force poor working families into the middle class or beyond, so magically the world becomes an economic utopia for all.
"Anons" inability to look beyond today and look to the brighter future (thus the reason I am pursuing my University education) has become synonymous with American Culture today: Trade long term (future) stability for a quick profit today.
Couple the discriminatory policies of the OCSE with Conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, that continue to allow the outsourcing of good manufacturing jobs, continue to slash money for education, and continue to slash social programs (while propping up our defense department) and you get economic hell for working families.
This mind set has driven our nation into deep economic trouble, just as the policies of the OCSE have driven families into deep economic trouble.
Couple the discriminatory policies of the OCSE with Conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, that continue to allow the outsourcing of good manufacturing jobs, continue to slash money for education, and continue to slash social programs (while propping up our defense department) and you get economic hell for working families.
The Conservative Democrats and Republicans believe, as you probably do "Anon," that scrapping food programs for the poor children of our nation, or denying health care and education to millions of Americans is going to force poor working families into the middle class or beyond, so magically the world becomes an economic utopia for all.
That idea was bullshit when Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman sold it to us in 1981 and it remains bullshit to this day.
"Anon"- get the back story right next time, read my posts in their entirety, and realize abusive comments designed to denigrate me regarding support and visitation with my children create not only dysfunction in the children, they also strengthen my tenacity (and my desire) in the fight for equality in this horribly skewed, abusive "child support" system in place in the U.S. today.
Thanks for the comment, "Anon", don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Peace, Searchers, we do need a systemic change in America.
Oh Yeah-The face of a true "Deadbeat Dad" Arkansas State Representative Pat Flanagin:
image
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
