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-
Showing posts with label huffington post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label huffington post. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
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-
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
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!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
"RATFUCKERY"
This is from a great article I read on the Huffington Post during an insomniac episode...
The made up, false persona's we as Americans swallow is indicative of the shallowness, lack of thought, and intellectual curiosity that has come to embody the very fiber of America.
Just make sure my fucking Ipod works, and I'll be alright...Ya know, Mussolini just made sure the trains ran on time cause he understood the sheep mentality.
Peace-
Mike
LUKJ
Toss in Senator McCain's $8,500-a-month Hollywood makeup artist, and the
fake "man of the people" maverick scam totally disintegrates. Underneath we find
a spasmodic, filthy rich, Mr. Magoo -- a typical Bush Republican who embraces
the same kind of divisive ratfuckery we've
endured for too many years from the likes of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Richard Nixon
(McCain has shamefully resurrected the Southern Strategy) and, most
disturbingly, the politics of Joe McCarthy.
The made up, false persona's we as Americans swallow is indicative of the shallowness, lack of thought, and intellectual curiosity that has come to embody the very fiber of America.
Just make sure my fucking Ipod works, and I'll be alright...Ya know, Mussolini just made sure the trains ran on time cause he understood the sheep mentality.
Peace-
Mike
LUKJ
Thursday, October 16, 2008
MUST SEE TV! JESUS LOVES BIGOTS, HATES BLACKS
Caught this on HuffPo, the mixture of religion and bigotry is very dangerous indeed...this flows together with my other posts on the Christian Right...
I am adding some quotes from the video courtesy of crooksandliars:
It was kind of strange, dintcha think, that John McCain came to the defense of his supporters last night after Barack Obama pointed out that people at McCain/Palin rallies were shouting out "terrorist" and "kill him!" in reference to Obama.
Now an Al Jazeera camera crew caught the honest sentiments of McCain/Palin supporters at an Ohio rally:
“I’m afraid if he wins, the blacks will take over. He’s not a Christian! This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?”
“When you got a Negra running for president, you need a first stringer. He’s definitely a second stringer.”
“He seems like a sheep - or a wolf in sheep’s clothing to be honest with you. And I believe Palin - she’s filled with the Holy Spirit, and I believe she’s gonna bring honesty and integrity to the White House.”
“He’s related to a known terrorist, for one.”
“He is friends with a terrorist of this country!”
“He must support terrorists! You know, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. And that to me is Obama.”
“Just the whole, Muslim thing, and everything, and everybody’s still kinda - a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11, but… I dunno, it’s just kinda… a little unnerving.”
“Obama and his wife, I’m concerned that they could be anti-white. That he might hide that.”
“I don’t like the fact that he thinks us white people are trash… because we’re not!”
Yep, McCain must be so proud.
The rest of us, well ... let's just say those polls should tell the story.
[H/t to Ta-Nehisi Coates, via Spencer Ackerman. Transcript via Prose Before Hos.]
This is from the heartland of America, Ohio.
We need to marginalize, at the very least, the Christian Right, we need systemic change in the US and we for damn sure do not need McCain or Sarah fucking Palin in office. If they do get in, we are in for real trouble.
I am adding some quotes from the video courtesy of crooksandliars:
It was kind of strange, dintcha think, that John McCain came to the defense of his supporters last night after Barack Obama pointed out that people at McCain/Palin rallies were shouting out "terrorist" and "kill him!" in reference to Obama.
Now an Al Jazeera camera crew caught the honest sentiments of McCain/Palin supporters at an Ohio rally:
“I’m afraid if he wins, the blacks will take over. He’s not a Christian! This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?”
“When you got a Negra running for president, you need a first stringer. He’s definitely a second stringer.”
“He seems like a sheep - or a wolf in sheep’s clothing to be honest with you. And I believe Palin - she’s filled with the Holy Spirit, and I believe she’s gonna bring honesty and integrity to the White House.”
“He’s related to a known terrorist, for one.”
“He is friends with a terrorist of this country!”
“He must support terrorists! You know, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. And that to me is Obama.”
“Just the whole, Muslim thing, and everything, and everybody’s still kinda - a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11, but… I dunno, it’s just kinda… a little unnerving.”
“Obama and his wife, I’m concerned that they could be anti-white. That he might hide that.”
“I don’t like the fact that he thinks us white people are trash… because we’re not!”
Yep, McCain must be so proud.
The rest of us, well ... let's just say those polls should tell the story.
[H/t to Ta-Nehisi Coates, via Spencer Ackerman. Transcript via Prose Before Hos.]
This is from the heartland of America, Ohio.
We need to marginalize, at the very least, the Christian Right, we need systemic change in the US and we for damn sure do not need McCain or Sarah fucking Palin in office. If they do get in, we are in for real trouble.
Peace-
Mike
LUKJK
Thursday, September 25, 2008
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
According to the HuffPo, on wednesday, the 24th, the House of Reps voted to give a $25 billion to struggling automakers.
In light of the current situation brought on by the free market neocons, I decided to write my Congressman Brian Baird to ask some questions. I posted the letter. I suggest all U.S. citizens write their congressman/woman to tell them NO BAILOUT!
The freemarket deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman are coming back to bite the US in the ass.
Wall Street is the absolute epitome of Capitalism. The right wing economic conservative has pushed policies that has encouraged this financial meltdown, this is what they have worked for, that is free, unfettered "Capitalism."
This is one reason why Congress should send Wall Street, AIG, etc., packing and give that money to the people.
Here's the email:
Feel free to copy it and send it to Baird in your name...
Mr. Baird-
You voted in favor of the 25 billion for automakers. Passed on Wednesday, Sept. 24. News reports relate how heavily the top people in the big three in Detroit lobbied for the loan. This is separated from the 700 billion Congress will most likely approve.
Here are my questions-
When is Congress going to stop bailing out the irresponsible people in big business and start giving aid again to the people who sent them to D.C.?
When is Congress going to allocate funds to keep my family in food, shelter, utilities, while we better ourselves through obtaining a college education?
When is Congress going to wake up and make higher education available to all?
When is Congress going to abandon the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman?
Pay attention to the people Mr. Baird.
We want money for education. Money for doctor visits. We want money for food when we are struggling.
We want education and the support structure to succeed.
Enough with Congress's generation-long experiment with Milton Freidman's horrible economic theories that have thrown this nation into turmoil and is giving us an economy in shambles and discontent with our public officials akin to Pinochet's Chile.
I have made a concerted effort to discuss issues with you, yet I keep getting passed off to your aides.
I am a constituent, as is my wife and son, Mr. Baird, and we expect to be treated with respect.
My address is on the form and my phone number is: (deleted for obvious reasons)Have an aide call me to set up a face to face with me, my wife and my son.
I will be expecting a return call as well as an email.
Sincerely,
Mike
I have plenty to say, and plenty of comments to make. It's things like this that fires me up and gets me to class.
It is time for a systemic change in the United States.
Peace-
In light of the current situation brought on by the free market neocons, I decided to write my Congressman Brian Baird to ask some questions. I posted the letter. I suggest all U.S. citizens write their congressman/woman to tell them NO BAILOUT!
The freemarket deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman are coming back to bite the US in the ass.
Wall Street is the absolute epitome of Capitalism. The right wing economic conservative has pushed policies that has encouraged this financial meltdown, this is what they have worked for, that is free, unfettered "Capitalism."
This is one reason why Congress should send Wall Street, AIG, etc., packing and give that money to the people.
Here's the email:
Feel free to copy it and send it to Baird in your name...
Mr. Baird-
You voted in favor of the 25 billion for automakers. Passed on Wednesday, Sept. 24. News reports relate how heavily the top people in the big three in Detroit lobbied for the loan. This is separated from the 700 billion Congress will most likely approve.
Here are my questions-
When is Congress going to stop bailing out the irresponsible people in big business and start giving aid again to the people who sent them to D.C.?
When is Congress going to allocate funds to keep my family in food, shelter, utilities, while we better ourselves through obtaining a college education?
When is Congress going to wake up and make higher education available to all?
When is Congress going to abandon the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman?
Pay attention to the people Mr. Baird.
We want money for education. Money for doctor visits. We want money for food when we are struggling.
We want education and the support structure to succeed.
Enough with Congress's generation-long experiment with Milton Freidman's horrible economic theories that have thrown this nation into turmoil and is giving us an economy in shambles and discontent with our public officials akin to Pinochet's Chile.
I have made a concerted effort to discuss issues with you, yet I keep getting passed off to your aides.
I am a constituent, as is my wife and son, Mr. Baird, and we expect to be treated with respect.
My address is on the form and my phone number is: (deleted for obvious reasons)Have an aide call me to set up a face to face with me, my wife and my son.
I will be expecting a return call as well as an email.
Sincerely,
Mike
I have plenty to say, and plenty of comments to make. It's things like this that fires me up and gets me to class.
It is time for a systemic change in the United States.
Peace-
Friday, September 19, 2008
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ABOVE THE LAW
So Todd Palin, husband of Sarah Palin Veep candidate is refusing to testify after the legislative body of the State of Alaska subpoened him (read here)The obvious rhetorical question is: "What would happen to me if I did that?" Of course, we all know the answer. I would be hauled off to jail, without ceremony.
I emailed a letter to the Alaska Attorney Gerneral, Talis Colberg, and I suggest you all do the same here is the address: attorney.general@alaska.gov.
I left my last name off of my blog but included it in the email along with my address, etc. I guess I'm just begging for a visit from the New American Gestapo! AKA (insert your police department here. Oops, my bad-I guess they're called "law enforcement officers" now. What a fucking joke.)
Here's the email to A.G. Colberg, Alaska:
You are a partisan hack, a coward, and you should be disbarred. I will use you in my closing years in law school to solidify my studies, focus on my goal: To put cowardly pieces of trash like you, todd palin, and sarah palin, scooter libby, karl rove, in jail for breaking the law, and acting as though you are royalty while the rest of us are expected to not only obey this law of the United States, but are called upon to shed our blood so garbage like you can disrespect the memories of the dead and trample on the very things that are supposed to make this country great. Sleep well AG, your turn will be coming. People like you is the reason I have abandoned the Republican Party after 21 years of party line voting.
SARAH PALIN=BAD FOR AMERICA
Mike, Vancouver, WA
I suppose I should have included George Bush in my list as well as Prick Cheney. War crimes? The Hague? Naw, just do it here and lock them away forever. Or bestow upon these two the same fate their lies and deception brought thousands and thousands of Iraqi people and American Soldiers: put their backs against a wall, and then give them a great state funeral. At least we'll be rid of them.
Peace and Love to all you Searchers!
Don't give up hope, revolution is coming. And if McCain/Palin get in, it will be closer than ever.
Mike
I emailed a letter to the Alaska Attorney Gerneral, Talis Colberg, and I suggest you all do the same here is the address: attorney.general@alaska.gov.
I left my last name off of my blog but included it in the email along with my address, etc. I guess I'm just begging for a visit from the New American Gestapo! AKA (insert your police department here. Oops, my bad-I guess they're called "law enforcement officers" now. What a fucking joke.)
Here's the email to A.G. Colberg, Alaska:
You are a partisan hack, a coward, and you should be disbarred. I will use you in my closing years in law school to solidify my studies, focus on my goal: To put cowardly pieces of trash like you, todd palin, and sarah palin, scooter libby, karl rove, in jail for breaking the law, and acting as though you are royalty while the rest of us are expected to not only obey this law of the United States, but are called upon to shed our blood so garbage like you can disrespect the memories of the dead and trample on the very things that are supposed to make this country great. Sleep well AG, your turn will be coming. People like you is the reason I have abandoned the Republican Party after 21 years of party line voting.
SARAH PALIN=BAD FOR AMERICA
Mike, Vancouver, WA
I suppose I should have included George Bush in my list as well as Prick Cheney. War crimes? The Hague? Naw, just do it here and lock them away forever. Or bestow upon these two the same fate their lies and deception brought thousands and thousands of Iraqi people and American Soldiers: put their backs against a wall, and then give them a great state funeral. At least we'll be rid of them.
Peace and Love to all you Searchers!
Don't give up hope, revolution is coming. And if McCain/Palin get in, it will be closer than ever.
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
