Clinton & Obama on medical Marijuana

.

The Marijuana Policy Project is noting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave the following responses this past Saturday when asked by Oregon’s Willamette Week about her stances on medical marijuana:


What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Program as legal?
We’ve got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that’s already been done. I don’t think it’s a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes.

So you’d stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s raids on medical marijuana grows?

What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There’s a lot of other more important work that needs to be done.

Should medical marijuana be covered by insurance?

I don’t have enough information to know anything about that.


In contrast, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said the following during a March 22 interview with Gary Nelson, editorial page editor at the Mail Tribune of Medford, Ore.:


“When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.

“Again, I’m not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate…

“I would not punish doctors if it’s prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that — I mean I want to be honest with you — whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on that issue when we’re trying to get health care passed or end the war in Iraq, the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely… What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.”

I am pretty sure they were questioned by somebody looking like this,

Why Are Americans So Proud Ignorants

Why Are Americans So Ignorant Of The Hell Their Greed Produces?


Americans believe that we "deserve" access to all of the planet's resources that will satisfy our every basic human need. Clean water, nutritious food, safety from the elements and from the aspects of nature that frighten us are simply expected to be delivered through the stores or the airwaves without end.

Americans firmly believe that our needs cannot really be satisfied unless we can also waste most of those resources. This comes from our complete inability to ever understand the reality of "enough".

We want our food "super-sized" but we throw away large portions of what we buy. We want our cars huge, fuel inefficient, poorly designed and heavy in order that we can feel "safe" from the other huge, fuel inefficient, poorly designed and heavy vehicles that clog the roads and spew filth into our air. We then sacrifice our own children and the children of the world to keep the cost of that fuel low.

We want our swimming pools full and our lawns green and our behemoth, ugly station wagons clean .

We want to pour pesticides and fertilizers onto our lawns and farms but we don't want to be reminded where all that toxic crap eventually flows to.

Americans just don't give a damn how wasteful and ignorant they are. They just want to get home from work or school so they can turn the TV on and sink into the fog of "entertainment" and "news" that never makes them feel uncomfortable. Americans don't want to see how the rest of the world lives and the misery and desperation that millions of human beings face every single day so that Americans can continue to wallow in wasteful materialism and ignorant over-consumption. If possible, and the corporate media makes it all quite possible, Americans simply don't want to be depressed or made to feel shame for their consumption of the world's wealth nor do they want any images placed before them that might make them lose a moment's worth of slumber. Hell, Americans just want the rest of the planet's passengers to either go away or shut up and let us enjoy our greed and stupidity in comfort.

When an American is thirsty, we can just go to the refrigerator for a cold beer or soda or just to the tap for water that we know is clean and healthy. Of course, we also let the tap run for a minute or so to make sure that the water is also cooler. We watch that water go spinning down the drain and I would bet that not one in a thousand Americans can tell you just where that wasted water flows to.

For too many of the rest of the world's inhabitants, water is more precious than gold. When they must endure a drought, you never see American corporate or military might being called on to provide that treasured substance by drilling wells or donating filtration systems or any other assistance. Americans believe that they have no responsibility to help these wretches. Instead, all Americans can muster sympathy for is their own greed and their constant demands for lower and lower taxes and the rest of the world's needy can go screw themselves.

Well, imagine, if you would, your child or your grandchildren or your brothers and sisters being forced to make the most horrendous choices in order to just stay alive for a couple more hours. Imagine the people you love having to make the unbelievably depressing decisions that the dying human beings below have been forced to make.



you must be ignorant if you don't notice



Go into your local fast food place. Take a quick peek into the trash receptacles they place around the dining area. Are most of them full? Can you see the remains of half-eaten burgers and orphaned French fries? Do you see overweight parents with their chubby little children ordering obscene amounts of fat and sugar?

Go to your local school. If they offer subsidized lunches, then go check out the trash cans there, too. Do you see the hundreds of pounds of uneaten food that is destined to be taken to the same dump as all of the old car batteries and sofas and paint cans and the other crap that our society casts off 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Have you noticed that, even though the kids throw away the vast majority of their meals at school, they're still mostly overweight, out of shape and already on their way to the massive coronary that their parents are just around the corner from? In fact, some of those kids are the poster children for the obesity epidemic in America. That food they threw away doesn't mean that they'll go hungry, of course, since all they'll have to do is walk out of the lunch room and buy themselves a sugar-filled Coke or Pepsi from the vending machines and maybe a candy bar or two in order to satisfy the unnatural and constant hunger that comes from the diabetes-inducing lifestyle.

Hell, look at the trash cans in your own home. How much wasted food will you find there? If you have a garbage disposal unit under your kitchen sink, how much edible food do you send into the sewers every single day of your life?

Want to bet that, first, we throw enough food away every day to sustain this little guy's needs and, second, we really don't want to know what he's eating?



If you can look at this last photo and then toss away even a crumb from your plate, then it will only prove that Americans are too far gone into the vile sea of greed and ignorance and sloth to offer any hope of redemption. If you can look upon this image of hell on earth and not suddenly understand just how ghastly life is for the vast majority of this planet's youngest and most defenseless passengers, then I can only feel pity for the reality that America has dug itself into such a deep pit of filth and ego and gluttony and we will never be able to climb back out those stinking, slippery walls.

Read the caption under the photo. Look at the world that we have allowed, shit, the world that we ENCOURAGED to exist. If your heart doesn't break, if you don't lie awake at night in moral agony that America and Americans can ignore this nightmare that occurs every single day in tens of thousands of lives in hundreds of countries, then there is no possible hope for mankind.

I completely understand the photographer's actions. How can anyone sleep at night knowing the a child is dying so needlessly? How can we sit down in front of the TV with a bag of chips or some cookies knowing that we have done nothing to ease the pain that even one child endures? How can we make love to one another knowing that our children are dying from obesity while children everywhere are dying from such massive hunger and thirst? How can we write checks to save the whales or to adopt a wild horse or to save the redwoods when tiny, defenseless and heart broken, lonely children are dying every minute of every day? Have we become so hardened to the world's suffering that we will allow such misery to exist for a child but will ease it for some stupid damned Chihuahua?

What, in the name of whatever god you choose to worship, is wrong with us?

Now, what is this?

Banned from cruise 4Life

Are you one of those people who complains about every little thing that goes wrong on a cruise? Better be careful, or you just might find yourself banned from your favorite ships.

That's the takeaway from a fascinating story today at expertcruiser.com about a Cleveland couple that apparently complained just a little too much about their frequent trips with Royal Caribbean. The site says the fed-up line recently told them not to come back. Ever.

The site says that while Brenda and Gerald Moran liked sailing on Royal Caribbean, they had a habit of documenting all sorts of problems big and small that occurred during their cruises, from a birthday greeting delivered to the wrong cabin to a toilet malfunction that spilled sewage into their bathroom. And they weren't shy about talking about the problems in online cruise forums.

At first, Royal Caribbean tried to make nice by offering the couple a discount on a future cruise and other perks. But after the Morans kept posting at online site cruisecritic.com about their complaints -- and the compensation that they were getting out of Royal Caribbean by complaining -- the line changed its tune, says expertcruiser.com. The site says the Morans received a phone call from a Royal Caribbean executive and then an official letter informing them they were banned from the line forever.

A spokesman for Royal Caribbean tells expertcruiser.com that the couple had complained about all but one of six cruises with the company since 2004. “In a small number of cases we agreed and compensated them appropriately. In most cases, however, we disagreed," the spokesman told the site. "Having concluded that we are unable to meet the expectations of the Morans, we have told them that they would be best served by sailing with another company."

The Morans, meanwhile, say they're now sailing on Norwegian Cruise Line.

English Prime Minister vs. Dalai Lama

Gordon Brown appeases Chinese Government by refusing to meet Dalai Lama at Downing Street

Press Release - May 12, 2008 .

Free Tibet Campaign is dismayed to learn that Gordon Brown is refusing to meet the Dalai Lama at Downing Street during the latter’s visit to Britain later this month. The Times reported today that Gordon Brown’s meeting with the Dalai Lama will take place instead at Lambeth Palace, the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is understood that other religious leaders will also be at the meeting on May 23, enabling the Prime Minister to tell Chinese leaders that he is meeting the Dalai Lama in a religious rather than political capacity.


Anne Holmes, Acting Director of Free Tibet Campaign, wrote to the Prime Minister on hearing rumours that he not would meet the Dalai Lama at Downing Street, saying: “You will be the first world leader to meet the Dalai Lama since the current unrest began in Tibet and Tibetan regions of China. It is crucial at this time that the Dalai Lama be recognised for what he is: the legitimate symbol of the Tibetan people’s struggle for self-determination. Nothing could make this plainer than a meeting at 10 Downing St.”


Last year George Bush, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel all faced down Chinese diplomatic pressure by receiving the Dalai Lama either in their offices or, in George Bush’s case, by conferring the US’ highest civilian honour on the Dalai Lama on Capitol Hill. Merkel went as far as to say that she would decide whom to meet and where, commenting: “I cannot sacrifice my principles for the sake of a trade relationship with China.”


Anne Holmes commented on today’s announcement: “By meeting the Dalai Lama at Lambeth Palace Brown has signalled his determination to appease the Chinese government. The Prime Minister must immediately reconsider his position and agree to meet the Dalai Lama at Downing St which is where he would meet any other world leader. The overwhelming message from Tibetans during recent protests inside Tibet was for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet, showing that he is still considered the legitimate voice of the Tibetan people and that he holds the key to a lasting negotiated settlement.”

Matt Whitticase
Press Officer, Free Tibet Campaign

Notes:

For further information please contact Matt Whitticase at matt@freetibet.org
Or call on +44 (0) 207 324 4605/+44 (0)7515 788456

p.s.

Dear Gordon, you could have at least a little chat with the great spiritual leader, like your friend George W.

The Fusion Man Can Fly

by Mike Krumboltz



"No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings." That's what the poet William Blake wrote many years ago. Until recently, the line was just one of those metaphorical dealios, but now, thanks to a brave inventor, it can be read far more literally.

A Swiss aviation enthusiast named Yves Rossy has done what the rest of us only dream of. He has invented his own jet-powered flying suit. And, unlike the ones we made out of cardboard, his actually works.

Rossy, aka "Fusion Man," recently gave a performance for the astonished public and press. He soared high above the Alps at 186 mph, doing loops, flips, and figure eights. According to a post from Aviation.com, the daredevil even executed a perfect 360-degree roll to "impress the girls."

Earthbound folks eager to see footage of Mr. Rossy pushed queries on "flying man" and "fusion man" into the stratosphere. For whatever reason, 91% of the searches on "yves rossy" came from males. Why are men so much more interested? We haven't a clue, but we'll let you know if the trend continues when Rossy attempts his next flight across the English Channel.



Yves Rossy, known as the 'Fusion Man,' flies with a jet-powered single wing over the Alps in Bex, Switzerland, Wednesday, May 14, 2008. Some people go fishing on their day off. Yves Rossy likes to jump out of a small plane with a pair of jet-powered wings and perform figure eights above the Swiss Alps. The revolutionary human flying machine comes after five years of training and many more years of dreaming

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

.By LISA LEFF,
Associated Press Writer




SAN FRANCISCO

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.


Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.