Friday, May 6, 2011

Last Call

Mark my words, Mitt Romney will never survive the GOP primaries with his MassCare record.  How toxic is the guy to the Tea Party right?  This toxic.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) takes Dave Weigel for a spin in South Carolina. In 2007 DeMint endorsed Mitt Romney for President -- indeed, served as his campaign co-chair -- but reportedly won't do so again unless Romney disavows his Massachusetts universal health care law, which served as a model for ObamaCare. Reflecting on his past support, DeMint now suggests he was duped.

"I got involved with him before that," DeMint said, "and the concept that was presented to me was the idea of moving people from government plans to private plans. That's what the goal was. That's how my conversations went, and that's how it was presented. But the way it ended up.... I cannot accept all the mandates, all the government exchanges. And it hasn't worked."

Flashback to January 2007. RomneyCare is such a well known achievement that Romney wins DeMint's endorsement because of the law's success.

"[Romney] has demonstrated, when he stepped into government in a very difficult state, that he could work in a difficult partisan environment, take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured," DeMint said. "Those kind of ideas show an ability to bring people together that we haven't seen in national politics for a while. We don't need the nation to be more polarized."

Then in February of that year DeMint explained on Fox News that Romney should do for America what he had done for Massachusetts with health care: "Well, that's something that I think we should do for the whole country." 

You know, even Tea Party hero Jim DeMint thought MassCare was a great idea...and that it should be made national.  A whole lot of Republicans did.  But since Obama was the one to do it, Republicans have been spending the last two years railing against their own ideas, all because they hate Barack Obama.

That's really the core of it.  If George W. Bush had passed the exact same provisions in the PPACA, Republicans would be praising it across the country.  Because back when George W. Bush was President, that's exactly what Republicans were saying about the ideas that became law in 2010 under Obama.

It would be pathetic if it wasn't such a blood-boiler.

Exciting New Horizons In Obama Derangement Syndrome

As I keep saying, we need all new branches of mathematics just to quantify how much the right despises President Obama.  Oliver Willis catches our old friend Doug "Director Blue" Ross failing at life, and the rest of the wingers failed right along with him.

ABC News' Jake Tapper published the following Tweet yesterday, showing cranes removing a U.S. flag from the Ground Zero site with the caption, "One minute to air and they decided to take the flag down from the live shot".

Some conservative bloggers took this to mean that President Obama ordered the removal of the flag.

And they all picked it up.  Malkinvania, Weasel Zippers, Matt Drudge.  Funny thing happened on the way to Ground Zero.


One problem. It isn't true. Multiple photos show that the flag was on full display when Obama arrived at Ground Zero. Tapper's tweet was posted at 6:30 pm -- hours after the President had left. In all likelihood, Tapper was saying that the flag was being removed before his live shot for ABC World News when he made his tweet.

To their credit, both Malkin and Ross have acknowledged that they got the story wrong, though Malkin erased her erroneous post rather than add a correction to the initial, inflammatory post, while Ross claimed "perhaps Tapper just confused all of us" and added, "I'm sticking by my "Marxist coup d'état" comment."

Conservative media correcting falsehoods is the exception to the norm (here are just a few from Malkin and Ross that have gone uncorrected). Perhaps if they checked if a story sounded plausible before running with it, they'd spread less untruths.

Oops.  Facts don't matter when you have HOT DRUDGE SIREN WOOP WOOP WOOP ACTION to go with.

In all seriousness, folks, Michelle Malkin is still taken seriously by the Village and ends up on TV quite a bit.  Perhaps somebody should pay attention to this flag story the next time they think of calling Malkin in as an expert on anything other than "suffering from serious delusions."

Warren Peace?

Andy Knoll at MoJo has an interesting piece on Elizabeth Warren, the presumed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  All of a sudden, the banks have stopped using Godwin's law to describe her.  Something's definitely up...


While Warren's nomination was too-toxic-to-touch mere months ago, the momentum of the past few weeks could be enough to convince the White House to tap her for the job. Whomever Obama picks, he'll need to do it soon: The deadline for having a permanent CFPB director in place is July 21, according to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. But no matter who the nominee, he or she faces massive opposition in Congress, with Republicans maneuvering to block not just Warren but any CFPB nominee if their demands to weaken the bureau are not met.

The warming to Warren is due, in large part, to a months-long outreach campaign aimed at members of the banking industry. According to calendars posted on the CFPB's website, Warren's schedule has included 150 appointments with industry officials since her first day in September—phone calls, in-person meetings, industry conference speeches, even visits to local bank branches. She's spoken with everyone from Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan to the head of the American Bankers Association to community bankers in states from Maine to Texas.

The charm offensive appears to be paying off—and at precisely the right time.

Michael Grant, president of the National Bankers Association, which represents more than 100 minority- and women-owned banks throughout the country, is another fan. He met with Warren in February and says he would support her as the nominee to run the CFPB because of her "genuine concern for protecting the rights for consumers and for her appreciation of the role banks play in the financial infrastructure of this country." Grant adds, "She's a win-win both for our industry and for the consumer if she is nominated and made permanent chief."

Paul Hickman, president and CEO of the Arizona Bankers Association, says he, too, came away impressed after he and a group of Arizona bankers and business leaders met with Warren in Washington. A former staffer for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hickman says Warren went a long way toward allaying the industry's fears of a consumer bureau run amok that would slap banks with new regulations and bury them in paperwork. "I thought Elizabeth Warren did a really good job of letting the members of that meeting know, and the business people of Arizona know, that her mission was not to somehow suppress community banks," Hickman recalls.

But for some state banking chiefs, Warren's outreach has changed their mind about her but not about the CFPB itself. George Beattie, president and CEO of the Nebraska Bankers Association, told Mother Jones last fall that, in his view, Warren simply didn't understand community banks. Today, he's more positive about Warren, noting her "better appreciation for what banks in this country do for their communities." He worries more about having a single director run the CFPB, whether that's Warren or not. Beattie says he'd prefer a panel of directors run the bureau, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, though he ultimately thinks the bureau should be scrapped altogether. "The congress has created an exceedingly strong governmental agency with little oversight," he says. "I think that's a bad thing for this country regardless of who runs it."

So Elizabeth Warren isn't pure evil as far as the banks are concerned.  The problem is, the CFPB still is.  Sen. Richard Shelby and 44 other Senators have vowed to permanently filibuster any nominee to head the outfit until the CFPB itself is significantly weakened.  Dave Arkush:

Here’s what’s really going on, that the papers won’t be reporting: This letter signals that the Senate Republicans have surrendered their fight against Elizabeth Warren. In recent weeks there has been a strong, growing belief in Washington that the president will nominate Warren to head the CFPB. Public Citizen has been urging Obama to nominate her since last summer, and saying it’s a fight worth having. Warren is an outstanding champion for consumers. If the American public gets more exposure to her, they will love her. Wall Street and its congressional allies would be bruised and muddied by a nomination fight; she and the CFPB would be strengthened.

Apparently the Senate Republicans understand this. So they are doing the best they can to retreat strategically. It’s not a bad strategy: First, they are pretending their fight is about something else. They say they would oppose any nominee, not just Professor Warren, because the agency is structurally flawed. Second, they are forcing the president to make a recess appointment, which they will use to claim that he and the agency are unaccountable and undemocratic. Their arguments about the agency are specious, as recent congressional debate has shown. It’s clear that they simply oppose a strong consumer protection agency.

Or any agency, for that matter.

Your Political Cartoon Of The Moment

Gary McCoy provides some needed perspective:


WTH: What's Up, Sony?

Sony said the Internet security breach targeting its networks was more extensive than originally thought.

Hackers also gained access to databases containing subscriber information for Sony Online Entertainment, a San Diego subsidiary that makes online multiplayer games for computers and the PlayStation 3. The Sony division took its Web services offline Monday.

That shutdown came 12 days after Sony Computer Entertainment disconnected the PlayStation console game network and Sony Network Entertainment shut down Qriocity media streaming services. Sony said last week that it expected to start restoring some services this week, but they remain offline.

The fact that Sony is remaining quiet while the facts get worse is worrisome.  They have upped the numbers of those who "may" have been exposed, and are still offline after multiple extensions on the date they planned to be active.  If the truth comes out, I expect it is very  bad.  I hope that vulnerable networks have taken note and are upping their security measures so this doesn't happen again.  I hope.

When Jesus Helps With Homework


The Poincare conjecture was a seemingly unsolvable theorem that was first proposed in 1904. Dealing with a branch of spatial mathematics called topology, the theorem sought to prove that any shape without a hole can be formed into a sphere. Sounds simple enough, right? Tell that to the math world, which, for over a century, struggled to prove the elusive conjecture even possible, inadvertently turning it into one of the community's Holy Grails.

But Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman published two proofs of the theorem back in 2002 and 2003, and according to The Utopianist, it wasn't until last year that a team of advanced mathematicians at the Clay Mathematical Institute (CMI) finally proved his results valid.

His reward? One million dollars and the Fields Medal, or the math world's equivalent of the Nobel Prize. But the private Perelman shrugged off the invite to accept the cash, saying that the knowledge he gained from proving the conjecture was more valuable than any monetary gain.

How did he do it?  He looked to Jesus.  The article explains his logic, but I am amazed as always as to how math rules the universe, and how the right outlook and asking the right questions is sometimes as important as knowledge on the subject.  A creative look has established Perelman as a legend among his own kind, and well deserved.

I'd have taken the satisfaction and the million bucks, though.  Just so you know where I stand on that.

Beshear Madness At Fort Campbell

President Obama is coming to Kentucky today to Fort Campbell to meet with the Navy SEALs that took down bin Laden.  But the real news is who won't be there:  our "Democratic" governor, Steve Beshear (up for re-election this year).  Joe Sonka over at Barefoot and Progressive has plenty to say about Beshear pussing out.  Beshear is claiming he has too much to do in Louisville today with the Kentucky Derby this weekend.  The reality is much different:

Considering the fact that Beshear's office or campaign won't even answer my question on whether he will support Barack Obama's re-election next year, this isn't exactly shocking. Horsey duties or not, I assume he's not really anxious to have that photo op next to the president, nor having reporters there asking him that question. With David Williams' ads attacking Obama, Beshear's "get off our backs" campaign strategy, and Obama's poor numbers in Kentucky, I assume his campaign isn't exactly heartbroken about the conflicting schedules.

P.S.- Yes, and his decision is quite lame.

UPDATE: Oh, and the SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden will be there, too.

Did I say quite lame? I meant monumentally lame.

One of Sonka's readers argues that Beshear should show up and bait his Republican opponent (most likely David Williams) into attacking Beshear supporting the guys that killed OBL.   But that would indicate Beshear A) wants national attention as a Democrat, B) is smart enough to play the political jujitsu game with a schlub like Williams in the first place, and C) actually could stand being in the same zip code as the President anyway.

On Twitter Joe puts Beshear's odds of changing his mind and showing up at about 40%.  I put it at precisely zero.  It would be interesting to see what Obama's job approval in Kentucky would be post-OBL, but I'm guessing it's not going to be too much more than the 35-39% he's been clocking since 2009.  Considering it's been going so badly in Kentucky for Obama in the last several months, pollsters have simply stopped asking since October or so, I'm betting it's even lower than that, or was up until this week.  Still, Obama might have topped 40%, and Beshear's too chicken to risk it.

Beshear doesn't have the guts nor the brains to defend even showing up to greet the President to thank the guys that killed bin Laden, and that's a pretty damning assessment given that he's the guy I would vote for in a heartbeat over any of the Republicans running for Governor here.

Jobapalooza

Finally, a solid, kick-ass month for employment at first glance...but not all good news.  In fact, it's pretty lousy.

Employment increased more than expected in April as private companies created jobs at the fastest pace in five years, pointing to underlying strength in the economy, even though the jobless rate rose to 9.0 percent.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 244,000 last month, the most in 11 months, the Labor Department said on Friday. The private sector accounted for all of the job gains last month, with payrolls rising 268,000, the largest rise since February 2006.

The gain in overall payrolls, above economist expectations for a 186,000 increase, was supportive of views the economic recovery would regain speed this quarter after stumbling in the first three months of the year on high commodity prices.

Data for the previous two months was revised to show 46,000 more jobs were added.

The internals, though, were less encouraging.

The total amount of unemployed was unchanged from March at 13.7 million people.

The labor participation rate also was stuck at 64.2 percent, refuting the notion that the rise in the unemployment rate reflected more discouraged workers looking for jobs.

Also, the so-called real unemployment rate—which the government calls the U-6—which encompasses discouraged workers as well, actually rose in the month two-tenths of a point to 15.9 percent.

None of those last three numbers are good signs at all.  Remember, McDonald's added some 62,000 jobs...but those are minimum wage, part-time positions for summer.   May should be a good month too overall, but those other numbers are real head-scratchers.  We're back at 9.0% even after adding 244,000 jobs, which means the number of people who dropped out of the work force completely was significant.  In fact, Tyler Durden notes that minus the McJobs and the +175,000 birth/death adjustment by the department of labor, the number of other jobs created in the economy last month?

7,000.

We'll see.

Quietly Burying The Ryan Unicorn Plan

It's not like the Ryan Unicorn Plan had any chance of passing the Democratically-controlled Senate or getting past President Obama intact, but after all but four House Republicans voted to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher program that wouldn't even guarantee health care coverage, they're now quietly hoping you'll forget about their little plan to destroy the social safety net.  That's not sitting too well with the Tea Party freshmen, who want to happily throw 90% of America under the bus.

Some members — especially freshmen from districts with steep re-election hills to scale — were upset to hear that the plan could be scotched after they had voted for the budget proposal and then invested so much hard work trying to sell it back home over the spring recess.

“I would be very disappointed if we didn’t follow through,” said Representative Joe Walsh, whose district lies in the Chicago suburbs. “We have spent, gosh, a month or two now trying to educate the American people to a pretty good reception. I appreciate the chairman’s notion, but I would continue to respectfully challenge him to get this thing through committee.”

Representative Bobby Schilling of Illinois said backing down now would be giving in “to lies and deceit told by the other side.”

“We’ve just got to address this problem,” he said. “Is it going to be perfect? No, but it needs to be addressed.”

The House speaker, John A. Boehner, said Thursday that the party was not backing away from the Medicare overhaul. But he said Mr. Camp’s view was a recognition of the “political realities that we face.”

Democrats said it did not matter if Republicans decided to jettison their Medicare plan because they had already voted for it as part of the budget.

“The Republicans are slowly realizing their plan to privatize Medicare is a political disaster,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat. “But until they renounce their vote for it, they are still going to own it.” 

It's that last part I have problems with.  The Republicans will only "own" wanting to destroy Medicare if the Democrats make them do so, and the Dems' record on doing things like that is abysmal at best.  This one's a gift wrapped dozen seats in the House easily, and quite frankly if the Demcrats continue to attack on this point for 18 months it could be worth enough to get the House back.

We'll see how this plays out.

StupidiNews!

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Last Call

The subtle art of the deal, as presented by Orange Julius.

House Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday that Republicans will not vote to raise the debt limit without budget reforms and spending cuts totaling trillions of dollars.

Boehner said he was optimistic that bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joe Biden would "lead somewhere" in an effort to allow the government to continue its borrowing activity, while keeping the rapidly growing debt load at a manageable level.


Trillions in spending cuts (and tax breaks for the rich) or the country defaults on its debt.  So the Republicans are offering a choice between massive suffering for 90% of the country as social programs are eliminated and the economy implodes, or massive suffering for 90% of the country as borrowing costs skyrocket and the economy implodes.  Eric Cantor chimes in on the other end, saying that the Republicans will refuse to allow even one dime of tax increases.

This is their opening position, he demands.

But something's fishy.  Orange Julius and Cantor talk tough, but behind the scenes...

U.S. budget negotiators are considering, as one option, a straight up-or-down vote on increasing the country's borrowing authority, without spending cuts attached, a Republican aide said on Thursday.

"It is being considered among a lot of options. It hasn't been taken off the table," said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Under such a scenario, there could be separate but parallel legislation on cutting spending.


How quickly will the cries come from the Tea Party to primary their hero Cantor?

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

Hey look, Texas again.

A ninth grade algebra teacher was suspended from a Texas school district after making offensive comments to a Muslim student in front of the entire class.

"The teacher told the student that 'I bet you're grieving,'" the mother of a student in the same class told ABC13. "And she basically looked at him and said what are you talking about? And he said I heard about your uncle's death and she said wow, because she understood that he was referring about Osama bin Laden being killed and was racially profiling her."

She added that the teacher "just kind of smirked and giggled and walked away" after the Muslim student ended up crying over the comments.

But note the reaction of the Houston Muslim community:  not anger, just a resigned sadness that I personally understand all too well.


Aziz Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, said he believed the offensive remarks were an isolated incident.

"It's just one individual," he said. "A lot of people suffer because of the actions of one individual. This little girl suffered. The teacher is going to suffer. I think every society has some people who are a little off. He may be one of those."

Not anger, but pity the for the ignorant.  When you've seen incidents like this happen to others and have walked in that girl's shoes yourself for more than a few miles, I can tell you anger becomes far too exhausting and you only really have energy left for some pity before you move on to the next asshole's display of ignorance.

Also, a teacher? Really?

Pop Goes The Bubble Cause The Bubble Goes POP

That wet ripping sound you heard coming from the direction of Wall Street was the bottom coming out of the commodities market this afternoon.  Good ol' Asariel documents the atrocities at the Great Redoubt:


So, what happened?  We'll turn to Reuters first for some ideas.  In Oil plummets 8 percent as commodities battered, the article quotes Chris Jarvis, senior analyst for Caprock Risk Management, for some theories.  "Crude oil is selling off sharply for two primary reasons:  QE2 is coming to an end in June and without a QE3 behind it, it will take liquidity out of the market, hurting risky asset classes such as commodities....  With Osama bin Laden dead, the market is adjusting the geopolitical risk premium down accordingly.  Given this, speculative money is being taken off the table."
 
Silver took a beating  because the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group is raising margin requirements for the 5000-ounce COMEX silver futures, according to Silver deepens dive to 5-week low, gold slips.  The margin requirement was $11,745 per contract.  Starting May 9, it will go to $21,600 per contract.
 
If you don't follow commodities much (and I don't), that's comparable to taking the house requirement for a stock from 30% to 55%.
 
Michael Shaoul, chairman of Marketfield Asset management, chalks it up to panic in Commodities Sink Most Since 2009 as Stocks Fall.  "You have those super crowded trades.  Now you're in liquidation mode.  There's nothing to do with weak US economic data.  It's not a global financial crisis.  It's  a classic liquidation move in a crowded trade."
 
One final piece of the puzzle:  the dollar was up against the euro, the British pound, the yen, and the Australian dollar.  Since commodities are traded in dollars, a strengthening dollar will help push commodity prices down.
 
Makes sense to me.  Silver's gone from $20 in January to $48 last week, dropping to $36 today.  Speculation, much?  Oil too burst, dropping a whole ten bucks today.  See if that does anything to gasoline prices where you live.

The flight to safety in recent months has been not to the dollar, but to silver, oil, gold, just about any commodity speculators could get their hands on the futures contracts for, and as the dollar continued to fall against the Euro, people bid up the prices of everything.  But today, Jean Claude Trichet of the European Central Bank mentioned the dreaded "R" word..."responsibility".

In a dinner speech at a central banking conference organized by the Bank of Finland in Helsinki, Trichet told his audience that Europe's monetary union must allow countries that have pursued sound policies to reap the benefit of them, while others pay for their own mistakes.

His remarks came on the same day that the EU and International Monetary Fund formally unveiled a EUR78 billion rescue package for Portugal, the third debt-laden member of the euro zone to seek assistance from its partners in less than a year.

Portugal's bailout means that euro-zone and other EU governments have now committed more than EUR250 billion in aid to economies that have failed to live with the constraints of the common currency, a trend that was largely responsible for the dramatic increase in support for a previously marginal right-wing party in Finland's parliamentary elections in April. 

With Trichet signaling that the Europeans are cutting off the Eurozone version of Helicopter Ben's magic printing press, the dollar's plummet against the Euro reversed itself big time today.  And as Asariel correctly notes, a stronger dollar means lower commodity prices.  Likewise, a sharply stronger dollar means sharply lower commodity prices, and that was enough to pop the bubble across the board on commodity's Big Casino game as everyone got spooked and headed for the exits.

We'll see where the commodity markets head after this, but this bubble was due to burst some time ago, and until the dollar starts weakening again, commodity traders will be seeing red.  It doesn't hurt that dropping commodity prices on things like oil and grain right now will only help the US economy, which was in real danger of locking up due to extended high gas prices.  I'm hoping this will cause a steady drop this month depending on how long the dollar rally lasts.

Having said that, can QE3 be too far around the corner?

They Have A Taco Bar?

And now, a Cinco de Mayo message from former President Bush 43.




Meanwhile, the actual Dubya is way too busy being pissed off that Obama won't give him credit for finding bin Laden (after of course Bush shut down the program that was hunting him in 2006) to join President Obama in Manhattan today, mainly because it would take away from Dubya's "me" time.

Enough Already, Part II

The article from this morning had me reading up on my drug facts yet again.  I will pick up where I left off, and make a related but different point.

Law enforcement is exhausted?  Prisons are overflowing?  States are going bankrupt supporting prisoners?  Budgets are hungry for tax money? Drug dealers making billions of dollars selling pot to everyday folks?

Enough already. Legalize pot.  Bankrupt the petty drug dealers, take them out with one move.  Hey, tax the crap out of it and get thousands out of prison while you're at it, and take a huge load off law enforcement.  Just for kicks and giggles, let's free up some courts and reduce the strain on multiple budgets across all branches of government.  Then police can stop chasing in circles and go after the real problems like meth and the increases in thefts and violent crime.  It would stop their cash cow and force them to go in a new direction, but that is the reality for many of us.  

This isn't a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution.  This option would at least make a difference, something the (coughcough) war on drugs has so far failed to do.  The people who don't want to legalize pot may just have to make decisions for themselves and not enforce it on others, heaven forbid.  They can exercise their right to choose not to participate, just like nonsmokers and nondrinkers do every day.  If that isn't enough for them, there's always Planned Parenthood or juicy books in high schools to keep the judgmental busy.

To keep control over a substance that isn't even that potent, are states willing to starve while a perfectly good cash crop puts money in the hands of the criminals?  Let's face it, just about everyone alive knows a drunk and a pothead for comparison.  I've known drunks who forgot their name, wore vomit-encrusted shirts and in one case killed innocent people from sheer stupidity.  I've watched stoners turn pizza love into an art form and lose their car keys. Oh, and don't forget the giggles.  Those damned giggles.  Sarcasm aside, for every one marijuana smoker I know that takes it to extremes, I know a dozen who abuse alcohol and drink themselves into utter oblivion.  People who cannot or prefer not to drink (like me) are caught in the middle.  I obey the law, but because of my diabetes alcohol is not an option for me.  My choices are to risk blindness or going into a coma, or risk jail or worse by using an illegal and unregulated system.  Not really much of a choice, and without any real justification.

I realize I might be missing something.  So I'll put out a challenge, because if there is another choice that makes more sense I want to hear it and understand it.  The challenge: tell me why we shouldn't do the above.  However, "because I don't like it" and "I think I have the right to tell adults they cannot use a substance that has yet to produce an overdose" are not acceptable reasons.  The fact that it isn't good for you also is not an option, because alcohol is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be more abusable, more commonly abused, more likely to impair judgment.  It fries your liver and kidneys while enjoying a perfectly legal status, and doesn't contribute to helpful things like tolerating chemotherapy.

It's time to put judgment down and look at facts and be creative.  What other solutions can address so many different problems and direct the money and choices back to the best possible places?  I have mulled this over and read many opinions, and the best I can tell this makes perfect sense.  The best anti-pot arguments I have heard amount to personal judgment and trumped up symptoms.  The best pro-pot arguments make economic and judicial sense and don't seem to reply on hyperbole to make their point.  Even if there is an overdose I can't find, it is safe to say more people die from Tylenol overdoses.  Millions have died as the result of drunk driving or alcohol poisoning, which we do with the government's blessing.  Prohibition failed for logical reasons, and this is the same principle except "Jesus smoked a joint, so I'm sure this is okay" can't be called into play.

I will try to leave this alone, but it bugs the hell out of me, and occasionally I spout off.  If it were legal, I'd enjoy a weekend indulgence here and there.  I think a lot of people would, on a responsible and occasional basis.  There will be those who abuse it, but those guys are already paying their money.  It's just being used to buy guns and heroin instead of helping keep states afloat.  This is a logical way to kill 20 birds with one stone.
Related Posts with Thumbnails