Providing the ammunition for austerity is a paper written by two Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, that maintains that as debt reaches 90% of GDP, economic activity grinds to a halt.  Growth stops, and economies actually shrink.  The paper, “Growth In a Time of Debt,” has been cited by proponents of austerity measures as evidence that austerity works and is necessary to rescue economies that are deep in public debt.  In the U.S., leading austerity cheerleader Congressman Paul Ryan has used the Reinhart and Rogoff work for justification of his draconian budget proposal which drastically slashes most spending other than military spending.  According to the Ryan proposal:

Essentially, the study [Reinhart & Rogoff] confirmed that the massive debts of the kind the nation is on track to accumulate are associated with stagflation — a toxic mix of economic stagnation and rising inflation.

It took a homework assignment given to graduate students at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to reveal that “Growth In a Time of Debt” suffered from massive flaws.

According to the BBC, students were given an assignment to pick a study and attempt to replicate the results.  PhD candidate Thomas Herndon chose the Reinhart and Rogoff study, but no matter how he tried, he could not produce the same results they had presented.  Herndon was convinced that he was missing an error somewhere in his work.  His professor, Michael Ash, was also certain that something was amiss, but as the semester proceeded and Herndon had not found the error, both he and Ash began to suspect that what wasn’t quite right was with the Reinhart and Rogoff paper, not with Herndon’s work.  Ash and his colleague Professor Robert Pollin suggested that Herndon contact Reinhart and Rogoff.

After an exchange of correspondence Reinhart and Rogoff provided Herndon with the spreadsheet they had used to produce their results.  When Herndon looked at the spreadsheet he saw why he had been unable to replicate the study–the spreadsheet contained serious errors.  From the BBC:

The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark were missing.

As Herndon and his professors studied the spreadsheet, they found other errors.  For example, they had concerns about the weighting of some of the data.  Ash points to the data for New Zealand, where one bad year was given equal weight with the UK’s 20 year span of high public debt.

“New Zealand’s single year, 1951, at -8% growth is held up with the same weight as Britain’s nearly 20 years in the high public debt category at 2.5% growth,” Michael Ash says.  ”I think that’s a mistaken way to examine these data.”

Naturally Reinhart and Rogoff have sought to defend their findings, releasing this statement:

We are grateful to Herndon et al. for the careful attention to our original Growth in a Time of Debt AER paper and for pointing out an important correction to Figure 2 of that paper. It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful. We will redouble our efforts to avoid such errors in the future. We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work.

Herndon, Ash, and Pollin took a look at a group of countries in the Reinhart and Rogoff paper that they felt were most applicable to the current debt debate in the U.S. and Europe and found that the economies of those countries grew by an average of 2.2% per year.  Reinhart and Rogoff found that those same countries’ economies declined by an average of 0.1% per year.

The U Mass group attributed the difference to “spreadsheet errors, selective exclusion of available data and unusual weightings of the statistics” by Reinhart and Rogoff.

The entire Herndon/Ash/Pollin paper, “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth?” is available from the U Mass Amherst Political Economy Research Institute.

Image Source

Feeling perhaps a bit embarrassed by the affair, Jeff Woods, writing on NashvilleScene.com used the incident to attack the “liberal media.”  Unfortunately, Mr. Woods leveled his attack not on news sites, but on Wonkette and Gawker, both of which he accused of poking fun of Tennessee using “mockery and sarcasm,” apparently missing the point that both of those sites use mockery and sarcasm as their stock in trade.

Image Source

The United States Supreme Court to Decide on Marriage Equality.  

This week the United States Supreme Court is undertaking the challenge of ruling on marriage equality. For those mired in religious dogma, this issue is a non-issue and there is no discussion or consideration other than it is not appropriate. But as a person, it should matter to everyone whether the government has the right to dictate whom we can marry and spend our lifetimes with making family history. The two most personal, private, and committed decisions we make in life are with whom we share our life, and whether we create and bring a new life into this world. Those two decisions have been hijacked by the religious right, and while one was decided by the Court decades ago and is under attack, the other is just now getting its day in court. It is about so much more than two people of the same sex being able to legally marry, though…so much more.

The religious right would have us believe that marriage is a commitment between one man and one woman and that’s how God created and wants it. They romanticize the notion of marriage, and fail to fully grasp the history of marriage and what is has typically meant. Marriage has historically been about power and wealth. Families merged based on economic or agricultural needs of the family, not as a result of moonlit walks on the beach by one man and one woman. Women were property, chattel, or bargaining chips, to be used to bring men and or the families of the women some benefit. They had no choice; they had no options; they had no power.

For centuries in this country, the government could control whether people from different races could marry. After time, that was struck down, as it should have been. We are now at the precipice of the only legal gap regarding marriage and who can choose to be married that is left. We are deciding whether people of the same sex should have the same right millions of us across this nation already enjoy: The right to choose whom to marry.

I have to say I do not understand why it matters to others who people marry. I do not. I have seen enough heterosexual couples marry who had no business doing so that I can’t imagine those of the same sex doing it any worse. The hang up, I’m assuming, is the sexual expression that occurs with people of the same sex. Again, I don’t understand what that has to do with the average American. When one of the bestselling books last year was about a dysfunctional bondage relationship, I’m having trouble figuring out how gay sex could be much worse.

But discussions about sex and sexual preference aside, there are some REAL and life changing considerations that must be factored into any decision the court makes. The first of these is the reminder of the fact that marriage is a legal status, above and beyond any religious implications. You can be married in the church in front of God and witnesses, but if you haven’t applied and completed a marriage license, it’s not legally binding. We seem to forget that in the discussion of marriage. It is first and foremost a legal representation. THAT is why the Court will be deciding its legal standing. People need to be reminded that aside from whatever their Bible or Quran tells them, the legal standing takes priority. They are free to believe what they want, but that does not, and should not, impact legal precedent.

Even more important is what that legal standing ACTUALLY represents.  Right now, as a legally married woman to a man, my husband and I have mutual financial benefits assigned to us. We fill out combined tax forms, we will be able to receive Social Security benefits from each other’s account if one of us dies once we’re receiving benefits, and under group health benefits we have the option of inclusion of the other. These are not inconsequential considerations. They go to the heart of economic stability and independence. Why Republicans, who don’t want to support people through governmental entities wouldn’t support more ways for Americans to be financially stable, is beyond me. For me, this is the number one reason we need the Court to decide this, and not condemn it to state’s rights issues.

Although a handful of states have already taken the plunge and legalized same sex marriage, until it has the stamp of approval from the federal government, the financial implications I stated will be negatively impacted. The state of Iowa can legalize same sex marriage, but that doesn’t mean Social Security benefits, a federal benefit, will transfer to a same sex spouse. If there is any question why this needs to be decided at the federal level and not the state, this should answer it. Legal protections need to be endorsed by the federal government. Period.

A right of marriage that I hope many of you have not experienced and will not have to, is the experience of the hospital, and what the title of “wife” or “husband” can mean. My husband’s health has been compromised since 2000 when he had a massive heart attack cardiologists were amazed he survived. He’s gone on to have multiple life threatening conditions, the last being a diagnosis and treatment for stage 4 bladder cancer. I have long since forgotten how many days we’ve spent in hospitals; they are too numerous to count at this point. But what I cannot forget is the compassion of medical professionals when they realized it was my husband lying in that bed, and why I was so concerned. It DOES make a difference. You ARE treated differently when you have the legal standing to be the one determining what happens with your loved one. And aside from the ability to make decisions is the opportunity to just be there. As a spouse, you are given much more latitude in access to the medical professionals, or decision making, or even the right to be at the bedside of the one you love.

Because a woman is lying in the bed, why should it matter that it’s a woman standing by her bedside concerned for the patient’s well being? Why should it matter if a man has cancer, that it’s a man bringing him to treatment and caring for him at home? It doesn’t. What’s more, the heterosexual community has no claim on love. We have no standard that makes our love more real or more important than love felt between two people of the same sex. It’s asinine to try to make an assumption like that. But that’s exactly what we do when we deny the gay and lesbian communities the right to love whom they choose. We invalidate their feelings, and demean their commitments to their loved ones, because we don’t deem it real.

If we agree as Americans that strong families are one of the cornerstones of our greatness, then we must be willing to accept families as they are made and as they stand. The old image of the typical American family of one dad, one mom, one son, and one daughter is long gone. Families are multi-colored, multi-layered, and potentially same sex. That doesn’t make them bad. It makes them a family of their choosing, their creation, and of their consensus. Isn’t that what we all deserve? To be surrounded by those who love and accept us? Why does anyone think they have the right to deny that to someone else?

For the life of me, I cannot understand how giving legal standing to any two adults to marry, same sex or otherwise, diminishes my marriage, or the strength of this nation. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. I feel when people have the freedom to live the lives of their destiny, the rest of it falls into place. Happy people are productive people, and productive people are assets to their communities. Shouldn’t that be our goal? Shouldn’t we strive to strengthen and support families, knowing that will support and enhance our nation in the long run? Shouldn’t we give the opportunity to marry to those who are willing to commit to their choice for a lifetime?

Anyone who is against same sex marriage is against it because it makes them uncomfortable in some way. They don’t understand it, and as a result, they don’t like it. But that doesn’t mean those who want the same protections of marriage and are of the same sex don’t deserve it. I’ve yet to hear validation about why this is a bad thing for the Court to support. Providing economic protections, providing acceptance in society, and condoning ALL families seem like no brainer opportunities for strengthening our nation to me. I’m hoping the Supreme Court Justices will be willing to consider it that way as well.

In these times of lean budgets a number of states have moved to ban capital punishment largely for fiscal reasons.  States are beginning to realize that built in delays, mandatory appeals, and the like that come with a death sentence cost the state more than simply locking up an offender for the rest of his/her life.  But Maryland lawmakers had to weigh the virtues of capital punishment from a more human perspective.  Meet Kirk Bloodsworth.

Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine year old girl in Baltimore County, and was sentenced to death in 1985.  Bloodsworth’s case, like the case of Randall Dale Adams (made famous by filmmaker Errol Morris in “The Thin Blue Line“) and many others that received less media attention, was a textbook study of prosecutorial incompetence and misconduct.  Since his release in 1993 Bloodsworth has been a tireless campaigner for the abolition of capital punishment, and his case was undoubtably on the minds of many delegates as they cast their votes on the repeal.  Bloodsworth watched the vote from the vistors’ gallery.

The death penalty debate now moves next door to Delaware, as lawmakers there prepare to discuss putting an end to executions.  Delaware had briefly banned capital punishment in the late 1950′s, but it was brought back in the early 1960′s, when it was reinstated following an override of then governor Elbert Carvel’s veto of a new death penalty bill passed by the legislature.  There have been recent attempts to bring the issue up for debate in Delaware, but they have been stymied by conservative  Democrats in legislative leadership positions.  However, those Democrats have retired or have been voted out of office and death penalty opponents in the First State believe that they now have a good opportunity to end the practice.  There are two known death penalty opponents among Republicans in the Delaware state Senate, and their votes, along with the votes of a majority of Democrats in that chamber could possibly put a death penalty repeal bill over the top despite what are likely to be “no” votes from several conservative Democrats.  The vote in the state House of Representatives, which is also controlled by Democrats, is somewhat less clear.  Governor Jack Markell has sent mixed signals on where he stands on capital punishment, as he has permitted two inmates to be executed during his term, but he also commuted the death sentence of convicted murderer Robert Gattis in early 2012.  Delaware has executed 16 inmates since 1992.

List of states that have banned capital punishment (repeal year in parentheses)

Image Source

Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0

Congress’ inability to do the work they were elected to do has now led to the largest self inflicted hit on the US economy and financial stability of millions of Americans in our collective history.  The idea of a sequestration of the federal budget that was originally enacted by Congress as a mechanism to force action on the budget has now turned into a program slicing, services hacking, national security cutting, and policy slashing disaster.  It was supposed to be such a hardship to the American public that it would never go through to fruition. Surprise! There is no depth to which Republicans won’t sink, and allowing the reality of the sequestration of the federal government’s budget proves it. They blame Obama for the fire, all while still holding the matches that caused the fire.

After several battles on the debt ceiling (which historically had never been grounds for partisan politics in passing the increases) Obama signed the mandatory spending cuts into law as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011. It required cuts in all programs based on a percentage, with no regard for the program being cut if budget compromises by Congress were not reached. Republicans are quick to point out now that they have opted for inaction, that the idea was Obama’s. But Congress had to vote on it, and did, so the blame placing for that one is already out of line by the GOP. When they failed to act on it by the end of February, the implementation was automatic. The part that stuns me is how Republicans, the anti-people party, is controlling the dialogue and discussion of this by claiming Obama and other Democrats wanted this to happen.

Democrats fight for the rights of people. They fight to alleviate suffering. To claim Democrats and their elected leader, Barack Obama, wanted these disastrous cuts to occur is just ridiculous. When Congress did not act to prevent the sequestration from becoming reality, Obama had no choice but to sign the order.

Here is a copy of the order signed by President Obama on March 1, 2013 in response to a lack of action by Congress:

SEQUESTRATION ORDER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 PURSUANT

TO SECTION 251A OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND

EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED

By the authority vested in me as President by the laws of the United States of America, and in accordance with section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (the “Act”), 2 U.S.C. 901a, I hereby order that budgetary resources in each non-exempt budget account be reduced by the amount calculated by the Office of Management and Budget in its report to the Congress of March 1, 2013.

Pursuant to sections 250(c)(6), 251A, and 255(e) of the Act, budgetary resources subject to sequestration shall be new budget authority, unobligated balances of defense function accounts carried over from prior fiscal years, direct spending authority, and obligation limitations.

All sequestrations shall be made in strict accordance with the requirements of section 251A of the Act and the specifications of the Office of Management and Budget’s report of March 1, 2013, prepared pursuant to section 251A(11) of the Act.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 1, 2013.

The intent of the sequestration was that cuts would be so dramatic and deep that Congress would work to come to consensus about what to do to make the budget work.  Billions had already been taken in program cuts prior to this action, and while Republicans argue they agreed to revenue increases after the start of the new Congressional session and would not agree to more, the cuts currently outweigh the tax increases. This means these cuts are being unleashed on the poorest of the poor to endure, while the richest of the rich continue their prosperity.  There is not a thing about these cuts that advance the needs of this nation…not a single one. Even the cuts to the military which is admittedly bloated and over funded is going to take away jobs.

An article on Alternet by Igor Volsky highlights the significant cuts to come:

Health care

$20 million cut from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs
$10 million cut from the World Trade Center Health Program Fund
$168 million cut from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
$75 million cut from the Aging and Disability Services Programs

Housing

$199 million cut from public housing
$96 million cut from Homeless Assistance Grants
$17 million cut from Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
$19 million cut from Housing for the Elderly
$175 million cut from Low Income Home Energy Assistance

Disaster and Emergency

$928 million cut from FEMA’s disaster relief money
$6 million cut from Emergency Food and Shelter
$70 million cut from the Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund at USDA
$61 million cut from the Hazardous Substance Superfund at EPA
$125 million cut from the Wildland Fire Management
$53 million cut from Salaries and Expenses at the Food Safety and Inspection Service

Obamacare

$13 million cut from the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program (Co-ops)
$57 million cut from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control
$51 million cut from the Prevention and Public Health Fund
$27 million cut from the State Grants and Demonstrations
$44 million cut from the Affordable Insurance Exchange Grants program

Education

$633 million cut from the Department of Education’s Special Education programs
$184 million cut from Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
$71 million cut from administration at the Office of Federal Student Aid
$116 million cut from Higher Education
$86 million cut from Student Financial Assistance

Immigration

$512 million cut from Customs and Border Protection
$17 million cut from Automation Modernization, Customs and Border Protection
$20 million cut from Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

Security

$79 million cut from Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
$604 million cut from National Nuclear Security Administration
$232 million cut from the Federal Aviation Administration
$394 million cut from Defense Environmental Cleanup

These program cuts are not inconsequential. They are at the heart of what we do for our citizens as the greatest nation on earth. We are cutting education, healthcare, national security, and disaster funding as though those funding streams mean nothing. We are turning our backs on those who have committed to a life of public service in teaching, or security, or emergency relief, and telling them their sacrifices are less important than having those who benefit the most from those services paying for the privilege of having those services. It is unimaginable to me how someone rationalizes that putting more people out of work, and people who make a difference in our communities, no less, is a more palatable option than making those who have it all give back in order to sustain the American way of life.

If you don’t think this is about money and allowing those who have it to keep it, then you’re either very naïve or not paying attention. A video showing the wealth inequity in this country and how that’s happened will enlighten you. And it should make you angry.

http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

If the wealthy had suffered the same levels of financial devastation that the impoverished had experienced I think we all would be in agreement that asking more from them would not be a prudent course of action. That isn’t the case, however, and it should be time for them to step up to help this country that has made their wealth possible. If you’re reading this without having watched the video you may not understand. Watch the video. It will be abundantly clear that what we have been doing does not work, and if we want the eventual fall of our economy and financial control to be in the hands of the few with no opportunities for advancement for anyone else, then we should continue on this path.

You may think the topic of the sequestration has been lost in the face of discussion about the wealth inequities. But they are inextricably tangled together. There wouldn’t be one without the other. We need to come to grips in this country about what we value. If we value things, and people who have it all, then we are doing what we need to do to ensure that continues. If, however, we value people, then it’s time to quit talking about it and time to start changing it. When people have no hope and no future, there is no impetus to try harder. There has to be the promise of something better for those who work hard and play by the rules.  That’s what this country represents. It’s what it used to represent, anyway.

We’re watching dysfunction at a whole new level in current American politics. A willingness by Republicans in Congress to allow the greatest economy in the world to flounder is the height of arrogance, and the world is watching, knowing they will be impacted as well. It’s a sad commentary on what’s passing for public service these days, and we’re all fed up with the drama.

In early February, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow did a video segment titled “Arkansas GOP Struggling to Keep up with America” (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tvrachel_maddow_show#50673493). The segment concerned recent reforms in abortion regulations in Arkansas. She also exposed several politicians in the state for their blatant racism, particularly the man sponsoring the stringent Human Heartbeat Protection Act, Tea Party Republican Senator Jason Rapert. The video has been circulating around the state via social networking and local news sites, and Arkansas has been receiving some unexpected attention.

The proposed radical abortion bill that passed in the Arkansas senate, the “Heartbeat” act, would ban abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected, with exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is compromised. The bill would prohibit the procedure as early as five weeks into pregnancy, as the fetal heart develops between weeks five and seven of gestation. The Arkansas act would also require women to undergo a vaginal probe to detect the heartbeat. When Rapert was asked by Sen. Stephanie Flowers “Can you imagine what kind of feeling that would cause when inserted into a woman?,” the bill’s sponsor replied “No”. The Republican-controlled Senate passed the bill 26-8. Senator Rapert insists the bill will pass, saying on Twitter that the abortion bill would not be stopped.

Additionally, a 20-week abortion ban passed in the house on Monday, February 4th. Unlike the “Heartbeat” bill, that particular ban has no exceptions for rape or incest. The 20-week ban, which prohibits the procedure based on the disputed notion that a fetus can feel pain at that point, was approved on a 75-20 vote. Arkansas’ Democratic Governor Mike Beebe vetoed the 20-week ban when it reached his desk, but the veto was overturned 19-14 on February 28^th. He said that he’s still looking at the House-backed restrictions but that his office’s research suggests the “heartbeat” bill is unconstitutional. If the Human Heartbeat Protection Act does pass, it will become the most stringent abortion bill in the nation.

Also circulating is a condemning video of Sen. Rapert that surfaced on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/172584/meet-jason-rapert-koch-backed-evangelical-steering-arkansas-radical-abortion-restriction#). In the video, Rapert is speaking to a crowd in Arkansas and makes many racially and religiously charged comments such as “I wonder sometimes when they invited all of the Muslims into the White House,” and “We’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in.” When confronted about the comments, Rapert took to Twitter to make his defense saying “Context is everything. Attacking me won’t stop the Heartbeat Bill from passing in Arkansas. Tactics of the weak.”

As a female resident of Arkansas, I can say firmly that the state of Arkansas doesn’t have the right to tell me when my unconscious, non sentient fetus is alive. The Heartbeat bill is suffocating, unconstitutional, and impractical, seeing as the state will have to pay hefty sums of money when the bill is challenged by the Supreme Court. Women are the majority in this country and we must do more to have our voices be heard. If these measures pass in Arkansas, other conservative states are likely to try to impose these harsh regulations on their citizens. If we do not take a stand for the constitutionality of choice, more and more women will lose just that—their choice.

Alexis is a political science and journalism student at the University of Arkansas with a passion for civil rights and labor law. She intends to devote her life to public service. She loves debating, Mexican food, and adventures.

As I scrolled down the list of search results I began to see some sites that had information about marijuana and cancer.  Of course, there was a lot of information about how marijuana eases the symptoms of cancer and the side effects of some of the cancer treatments such as chemotherapy.  But I also started running into sites that had claims that marijuana, or more specifically the active ingredients in marijuana, may actually fight cancer.  As I looked over some of these sites I took the information with a grain of salt.  Most were “stoner” sites that mixed conversations about medical marijuana with recipes for pot brownies and such.  Some were apparently sites that were run by marijuana dispensaries in places like California.  While I found the information interesting, I didn’t put a lot of faith in what I was reading.

Yesterday I went back to my surgical oncologist for a followup to last week’s surgery and to have my stitches removed, and I learned that I have to go back for further surgery.  So I went back to the internet for more information, and this time I wound up on the National Cancer Institute‘s site.  After reading some of the other information that they provided, I decided to see what, if anything, they had to say about marijuana and cancer.  I was astounded by what I found.

Cannabinoids, the active ingredients in marijuana, have been suspected to have the following potentially beneficial effects:

1. Anti-inflammatory activity
2. Blocking cell growth
3. Preventing the growth of blood vessels that supply tumors
4. anti-viral activity

On the same page, the NCI lists the following information about laboratory studies that have been conducted using cannabis or cannabinoids:

•  Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.
• A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.
• A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.
•  A laboratory study of cannabidiol in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells.

After all of the information that suggests that cannabinoids and marijuana may have valid uses in cancer treatment, the NCI offers this:

No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.

In other words, despite animal and laboratory studies that offer results that beg for further study and clinical trials, nothing is being done.  Why?

One possible reason is the federal government’s marijuana policy.  One one hand, a federal agency, the NCI, lists a variety of potential therapeutic uses for marijuana and cannabinoid extracts, while on the other hand another federal agency, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, offers up “reefer madness” type material on their site.  In a time of tight money for medical research, is part of the reason that no one is looking into the possible anti-cancer benefits of marijuana because they believe they would be driving down a dead end street?  In other words, that the federal government would reject any potentially positive results out of hand and the researchers’ time and money would simply be wasted?

When President Obama came into office he indicated that prosecuting medical marijuana users would not be a priority.  After last fall’s election, which saw Colorado and Washington state approve recreational use of cannabis, the president again said that prosecuting users would not be a priority.  However, in reality, the federal government continues to close down marijuana dispensaries in states like California, and confusion over federal policy has caused states like Delaware, which passed a medical marijuana law that was signed by governor Jack Markell, to suspend implementation of the law until the federal Justice Department provides clarification of the status of medical marijuana.  Thus far the only response that anyone seems to have gotten from the federal government is that marijuana is a Class 1 controlled substance and that state laws approving medical marijuana do not prevent citizens from being the subject of federal prosecutions.

Most people (including, I’ll surmise, most politicians) do not even know the following about marijuana:

• Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for over 3,000 years.  It became popular in the 1800′s as a way to treat pain, inflammation, and convulsions
• The U.S. Treasury began taxing marijuana in 1937 under the Marihuana Tax Act.  That act set a $1 per ounce tax for medicinal marijuana and $100 per ounce for recreational marijuana.
• Marijuana was removed from the U.S. Pharmacopoeia in 1942, and was linked with narcotic drugs by the Boggs Act in 1951.  It became linked with hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine thanks to the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.
• The United States government holds the patent for medical marijuana.

The fact that the federal government distributed marijuana to certain patients under the Compassionate Use Investigational New Drug Program between 1978 and 1992 is another example of the federal contradictions on marijuana.  By definition, Class 1 controlled substances have “no currently accepted medical use.”  Since the government provided therapeutic marijuana is that not an acknowledgement that it does have an accepted medical use, and therefore should not be a Class 1 drug?

The evidence is plain that marijuana has at least the potential to provide benefits to cancer patients beyond the currently accepted uses for nausea and appetite stimulation. By either discouraging or not actively encouraging clinical trials of marijuana and cannabinoids in cancer patients, the federal government may be keeping people from access to a drug that used in combination with other treatments could at least improve patients’ quality of life, or even save lives.  It is time to change the marijuana laws.

Image Source

Paul Ryan has learned nothing about compromise.

I’m feeling snarky after watching replays of Paul Ryan’s smug arrogant face complaining that Republicans want to get things done, but Obama just won’t work with them. As if!! I just need to make sure I’m following the logic being presented by Republicans in defense of why they are willing to let the country financially tank, because right now it seems to be a case of the childhood taunt, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, boo boo, stick your head in doo doo” and that can’t possibly be the position of the Republican members in Congress. Can it? Is it? We’re getting ready to find out.

To understand why this is so offensive to those of us who watch and pay attention, it’s necessary to go back to the very beginning of Obama’s first term. It was literally as he was being sworn in that the dysfunction by the Republican Party began to form. Paul Ryan was one of twelve US Congressmen (this was an all boys, all white club going on) who met the night of Obama’s first inauguration in 2009. This group met at an establishment in DC, plotting not only to oppose Obama at every turn, but to focus their attention on winning back the White House and both houses of Congress. There was no discussion about advancing the needs of the nation; only advancing their own limited agenda. And that’s exactly what they’ve done since.

Also in attendance were Rep. Eric Cantor and Sen. Jim DeMint, who happen to be two of the most vocal opponents to Obama’s legislative initiatives. That helps explain the reason House Speaker John Bohner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell cannot work with the White House to come to compromise. They reach an agreement, and The Dirty Dozen do what they can in Congress to shut it down. Not only has this group created dysfunction when working with the White House, but they have immobilized the US Congress. Pragmatic, reasonable, and rational recommendations are ignored by Republicans in order to further their own cause, with blatant disregard for the political, social, and economic fallout.

We had an election in November of 2012 in which Paul Ryan can only be described as a loser. He ran on the Republican ticket for Vice-President with Mitt Romney, and they failed to convince voters their direction was the right direction for the country to move. But that means nothing to men like Paul Ryan who are motivated by self interests and power. What I cannot understand, is how conspiring to work against President Obama is not tantamount to treason. To propose alternatives to his agenda is reasonable. It’s what’s expected from the two party system. What isn’t expected is a blanket of obstruction and inaction thrown over the efforts of those in Congress who want to do the job they were elected to do. They aren’t producing workable alternatives to Obama and the Democrats. They are simply doing nothing, and pointing fingers of blame while they are actively working against the best interests of this country. Treason?

Republicans, in the face of the looming sequestration and massive budget cuts coming next month in March, want to paint a picture of a president who is aloof, motivated by political posturing, and who has refused to work with them.  Their record, however, paints a much different picture. Think Progress identified the six most important bills blocked by Republicans in 2012.  Republicans voted against a minimum wage increase; campaign finance transparency; The Buffet Rule; The Employment Non-Discrimination Act; U.N. treaty to protect the equal rights of the disabled; and The Paycheck Fairness Act. Throw in voting during Obama’s first term against jobs bills, veterans’ benefits, the Violence Against Women Act (not even allowing the Senate passed bill to have a vote on the House floor), voting 33 times to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), 9/11 responders healthcare, delaying Hurricane Sandy relief, and well, you get it. If it was going to benefit an American they were having no part of it.

They’ve tolerated racist innuendo within the party, including he is an illegitimate president because he was not born here, and they’ve done little to stamp down outrageous rumors that simply are not true. And why would they? They’re more interested in looking down the road to the next election than in dealing with the problems of today in a real and constructive manner.

But Paul Ryan would lecture Barack Obama on being a leader and getting bills passed that the American people want passed, all the while ignoring the bad behavior of his party that got us into most of these messes needing attention. Republicans are doing all they can to undermine the POTUS, as well as the Democratic agenda. They are deaf to the concerns of their constituents, and they are blind to the damages being wrecked on the nation by them and their policies. When they ignore the will of the voters who said in November they didn’t want the Republican way of governing, they are indeed shouting “Nah, nah, nah, nah, boo boo, stick your head in doo doo!”  I guess my only response to that realization is “I’m rubber and you’re glue” and what’s sticking to them is very unpleasant, and unnecessary.

Just get on board, guys, and let’s take care of this country. It’s the least you can do after what you’ve already done.

]]> http://dailynewsfinder.com/2013/02/19/nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo-becomes-new-republican-mantra/feed/ 187 http://dailynewsfinder.com/2013/02/13/joe-walshs-new-life-as-a-taker/ http://dailynewsfinder.com/2013/02/13/joe-walshs-new-life-as-a-taker/#comments Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:55:18 +0000 CarenR http://dailynewsfinder.com/?p=1259

Tea Party Member and “Deadbeat Dad” Joe Walsh

Former US House Rep. Joe Walsh joined the ranks of the unemployed recently when he was not re-elected to his position in Congress. He is known to most people as the “deadbeat dad” Congressman who refused to pay back child support to his ex-wife and children while in office, and who belittled his opposition candidate in the most recent election who is missing limbs as a result of military sacrifice, because she “talked about her military service too much” he complained. What a guy…

The interesting transformation that has occurred with Joe Walsh is a new appreciation for how difficult it is to meet your financial obligations when you’re unemployed. Now that he is no longer sucking off the teat of the American taxpayers, he’s chosen to spend the money he has on legal battles rather than attempting to find a job and be responsible for his obligations. His ex-wife just learned of his filing to terminate child support. He’s not asking to have it reduced; he’s asking to have it terminated because he argues his obligation is 20% of his income, and he has zero income right now. What. A. Guy.

Oh, Joe, say it ain’t so! Don’t let your fall from grace include becoming the type of person you railed against as a US Congressman.  What kind of person with the opportunities he’s been given goes to court to be declared free from any financial responsibility for a child he helped create and put on this earth? What kind of MAN does that? Joe Walsh, that’s who does that.

It’s not his fault he doesn’t have a job. It’s not his responsibility to pay for the support of his child because he doesn’t have a job. Someone else should be responsible. But it’s not enough for Joe Walsh to deny his own child. He wants to sue a newspaper for, get this, reporting the news that he has filed to change the child support obligation. He is threatening to sue the Chicago Sun Times for their reporting.

Not only is he now a “taker” instead of a “maker” but he’s also declared himself to be a victim. He is everything he supposedly didn’t like. It’s amazing how much your perspective changes when it’s your life at stake and not someone else’s. I think most people are rational enough to know that if you didn’t have a job to fall back on you might have some financial struggles. But Joe knew early in November that he didn’t have a job after January, and he did nothing in those three months to even try to plan ahead. Once the paychecks from the government stopped the child support payments stopped as well. And the ridiculous part of that is his youngest son turns 18 in May, and Walsh won’t be financially liable after that point. He couldn’t even plan and provide for four more, at the most, months of child support. He is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the Republican Party right now. Demand accountability from everyone else, but lie and deny if it helps you somehow.

It will be interesting to see where Walsh goes from here. One thing is for certain. His son will always know his dad wouldn’t even do the minimum that was required of him by law, despite being an elected member of the United States House of Representatives. If he can’t do it, how does he expect financially struggling American families to do it? Welcome to reality, Joe. How you like “taking” now?

Malala Yousufzai, the 15-year-old Pakistani girls’ rights activist, was officially nominated for a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize by three members of the Norwegian parliament last Friday.

Malala first rose to prominence at the tender age of eleven when she began writing a BBC blog where she documented her life under Taliban rule. She made international headlines last October when the Taliban, who felt threatened by her promoting education for girls, nearly killed her by shooing her in the head. She went through multiple surgeries at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in the UK and was just released from the hospital this week. Malala recently released a statement saying that she plans to continue her activism despite all that she’s been through.

“I want to serve the people,” she stated in a short video released on Monday. “I want every girl, every child, to be educated.”

Since the attack, Malala has become a symbol of the fight for women’s rights in areas where extremist ideologies rule. She was a runner-up for Time’s Person of the Year and recently announced the creation of The Malala Fund, a charity dedicated to promoting girls’ education. The Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded this October. If Malala were to win, she would be the youngest recipient of the award, beating current record holder Tawakkol Karman, who was thirty-two when he received it in 2011. Other reported nominees include Belarusian Ales Belyatski and Russian Lyudmila Alexeyeva.