Open Letter To The Democratic Party

Dear Democrats:

My name is Max Canning and I am a registered Independent. Although I usually avoid labeling myself, I can tell you that I’m on the progressive end of the political spectrum, if that helps you understand where I’m coming from.

On January 20, 2009, I was one of the two million people standing in the cold on the Mall in Washington D.C. for Barack Obama’s inauguration. On that day, my rank cynicism about American politics was tempered somewhat by the site of a black man from a modest background saying encouraging things about where he wanted to take the country after eight years of national misery and disgrace. And for one of the few times in my life, I was optimistic—albeit cautiously—about an elected official.

But now almost thirteen months later, my cynicism has returned tenfold. I don’t know how it happened, but you have managed to squander a clear mandate from the American people who gave you the White House and huge majorities in the House and the Senate, which, to remind you, are all you need in order to pass laws. For some reason, the Republicans continue to thoroughly kick your asses up and down the aisles and halls of the Capitol Building, in the media, in public forums, and any other place where it’s possible to get your asses kicked. Your performances in the policy and rhetorical arenas have been so weak, so unimpassioned, so mind-bogglingly pathetic, that I am ashamed to think I once believed that the Democratic Party could possibly bring about some real, positive changes for the majority of Americans who have been smashed by thirty years of deregulatory neoliberal economic policies.

Speaking of which, where is your banking reform legislation? I seem to remember Obama blowing a lot of hot air on the campaign trail and even in the early days of his presidency about how we needed serious banking reform:

When you see more and more of the financial sector basically churning transactions and engaging in reckless speculation and obscuring underlying risks in a way that makes a few people obscene amounts of money but doesn't add value to the economy—and in fact puts the entire economy at enormous risk—then something’s got to change.

President Obama

January 21, 2009

When the Democrats took the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress last year, the country was in the midst of economic nosedive brought on by the unbridled recklessness and greed of tunnel-visioned Wall Street oligarchs. Not surprisingly, most Americans were calling for their heads, especially after the banks received what is at this point, trillions of dollars in taxpayer money. Not since Franklin Roosevelt did a president have such a golden opportunity to pass serious economic reforms. The “too big to fail” problem had (and still needs) to be remedied. Over-the-counter derivates were (and still are) in desperate need of regulation. I imagine that if you really, truly wanted to, you could have rammed through all kinds of reforms designed to rectify these and other glaring problems with the gargantuan financial services sector. And yet over one year later, the Senate is still bickering about the details, including the “controversial” proposal to regulate the $450 trillion OTC derivates market. Republicans are leery of the idea, and representatives from the financial services industry are lobbying members of congress on both sides to keep the legislation as toothless as possible. For some strange reason I think they might succeed.

Then there is your effort to reform health care. What an unbelievable train-wreck that has been. Up until 2009, polls regularly showed that a majority of Americans wanted a single-payer, European-style, Medicare-for-all, national health insurance system. But not anymore. You have been on the defensive on this issue since day one. You have been getting your clocks cleaned as usual in the public debate by people advancing some of the craziest talking points ever to be offered in a policy discussion. Inexplicably, the issue of single-payer was never on the table. You never even considered it. If you had, you could’ve started with single-payer in the negotiations—even if you didn’t actually want that—in order to strike an eventual compromise at a public option. Instead, you started with a public option, and surprise, surprise, that’s been purged from the legislation thanks in part to your allowing Joe Lieberman and his spiteful ego to hold the entire party hostage. Pardon me for asking, but why is this man still the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? After all, this is the person most responsible for the death of the public option and the Medicare buy-in extension to people fifty-five and older. He also campaigned for John McCain against Barack Obama. What does this man have to do to get stripped of his chairmanship? Or are you just going to let him continue to run your party through the ringer whenever he feels like it without any repercussions whatsoever?

By the way, why is there no provision in any of the bills currently under consideration that allows the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies? Also, why is there is no provision that allows Americans to re-import cheaper drugs from other countries? Oh that’s right. Because the White House made a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to oppose those measures in exchange for Big Pharma’s support and lobbying resources to pass health care reform. I’m so glad that worked out.

In case you couldn’t tell, I’m absolutely disgusted by your abysmal showing to this point. George W. Bush never had the majorities that the Democrats currently enjoy, and yet he managed to get even unpopular pieces of legislation passed. There was no concern about bipartisanship. No stopping to make sure that Democrats felt their ideas were being heard too. Just straight, cold, calculated political maneuvering in the White House and in both chambers of Congress—Democrats and the American people be damned.

All of this has reaffirmed my long-held belief that your party is simply a centrist party unwilling to go to bat for the very people who put you into office. People don’t vote for Democrats because your party has great candidates. People vote for them so they’ll stand up to the Republicans who started but could not finish two wars, spit on the Constitution of the United States, and racked up an unfathomable amount of debt during the last decade alone. Yet you haven’t delivered. While no one expected everything to reverse course in just one year, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have been virtually invisible, which is strange considering the horrid state the country was in when Obama assumed office armed with a heavily Democratic Congress. Historically, in times of national crisis, the executive branch has taken charge with Congress to ensure that the necessary measures are enacted to deal with said crisis. But not this president and not this Congress. And it appears that your window of opportunity has closed. Not that that matters. Because in order to take advantage of an opportunity, you have to want to, and I just do not get that impression from this sorry excuse you call a political party.

You may have sensed that this was coming, but unless your party grows a set I will be staying home for the 2010 November midterm elections. You have given me no reason to vote for you whatsoever. If the best you can come up with in your defense is that you’re better than the Republicans, then that is not good enough. Not anymore. Not even close. I refuse to be a participant in this charade any longer, and I encourage my fellow progressives to do likewise. Maybe what this country really needs is the Republicans to regain control of all three branches so they can finally succeed in destroying the bottom 95% of this country by dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and implementing wonderful market-based reforms that will give this country’s corporatists even more power. That way there will be no doubt about what kinds of reforms need to take place in this country.

So even though I admit that you had me thinking that 2009 could be the start of good things to come, I can’t say I’m really surprised by any of this. I know how cozy you are with the soulless lobbyists who lurk around the capitol brandishing fistfuls of dollars to donate to your campaigns and PACs. Yes, you’re not as bad as the GOP, but that says virtually nothing about whatever real merits you may have. If this past year is any indication, I’d say you have none.

With sincerity and regret,

Max Canning

Doctor Claims To Prove Existence Of Immortal Soul

Is there life after death Mommy? Of course there is you silly goose; Dr. Long said so on Bill O'Reilly’s show last night.

A massive douche has recently been making the rounds on popular news programs claiming to have proved the existence of life after death. In his new book, “Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences,” Dr. Jeffrey Long submits his “evidence” of the soul’s immortality, which is based solely upon a large accumulation of anecdotal reports from people that have had near-death experiences (NDEs). His research suggests that NDEs reveal fairly consistent themes across different age groups and cultures (e.g., approaching a white light, leaving one’s body, meeting a deity, revisiting long-forgotten memories, etc). Although these phenomena are certainly interesting and worthy of study, they do not in any way prove the existence of an afterlife.

Dr. Long’s wild claim that he has uncovered proof of an afterlife constitutes a shameless act of quackery. If he cared at all for the scientific method of which he was trained, he never would have dared to go public with such a bold statement. The title of his book really should be something like: Anecdotal Evidence of Afterlife-type Phenomena: The Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences. This would be a scientifically honest title and represent an accurate assessment of the data that has been accumulated through his research. Of course, this title would not likely land his book on the bestseller list, nor would it attract the type of publicity he so obviously craves.

I suspect that Dr. Long was inclined to believe in an afterlife before he began researching near-death experiences. If this is true, then perhaps the “evidence” he has compiled serves to help him feel more secure in this belief. In any case, I think it’s clear that his primary motivation for writing this book was fame and fortune. The grandiosity inherent in his claims can also be viewed, ironically, as a herculean attempt to secure a taste of symbolic immortality. By championing himself as the first professional (official) person to “prove” the existence of life after death, Dr. Long must see himself as a renegade hero among the medical establishment. Indeed, his claims suggest that all who have ever grappled with the great spiritual mysteries of human life can breathe a collective sigh of relief now that he has scientifically proven that humans possess an immortal soul. Way to go Dr. Quackjob! The reality is, however, that his “evidence” really comes no closer to proving the existence of an afterlife than the billions of such claims that have been made from time immemorial.

Most of Dr. Long’s evidence of an afterlife is based upon the significant similarities of reports from people that have had NDEs, which by itself does absolutely nothing to support his main hypothesis. The most important question to consider is whether or not NDErs have any brain functioning at the time that they report having these lucid experiences. If we could be sure that all of the reports Dr. Long analyzed took place when the subjects’ brains had entirely ceased to function, the evidence for an afterlife would be much more compelling; however, this cannot be proven conclusively. Most of the subjects were surely close to death and thus were unconscious in the usual sense while having their NDEs, but that does not mean that their brains had stopped working entirely.

Human consciousness is a fascinating subject of which we are learning new things about all the time. Recent (2006) fMRI research has demonstrated, for example, how some comatose patients can actually be capable of processing thought. When a girl in a completely vegetative state was asked to imagine herself playing tennis, the same brain activity expected to be witnessed in healthy subjects showed up on her scan. This is just one example of how someone that is typically considered unconscious may still be capable of using various modes of perception. This same rule probably applies to those who are on the brink of death as well. Dr. Long, however, seems to have a fairly unenlightened perspective on what it means to be conscious (or unconscious). Here is a quote of him explaining perhaps his best argument for the existence of an afterlife:

“Medically, I can’t conceive of any meaningful experience that could occur near death. Aren’t people near death generally unconscious? Doesn’t the very term unconscious mean that there is no possibility of an organized conscious experience? Yet despite what should be a blank slate for NDErs, they describe highly lucid, organized, and real experiences.”

Dr. Long’s dimwitted explanation here leads me to believe that he would dismiss the aforementioned evidence that comatose patients can be capable of processing thought, simply because they appear to be unconscious. What a douche. People are also “unconscious” in this sense when dreaming. In fact, the experiences described by NDErs closely resemble the types of altered states of consciousness witnessed in lucid dreaming, for example. In this state, a certain level of consciousness is attained while in the dream, although this is still significantly different from usual waking states. As far as I can tell, Dr. Long is conveniently leaving out of his discussion the parallels between NDEs and various other altered states. This parallel, however, seems to indicate that at least some part of the brain remains functioning in NDEs. In other words, NDErs are never completely deceased and hence are likely still capable of generating some state of consciousness, even if we don't currently understand exactly how that process works. Thus, although NDEs certainly constitute an anomalous experience in the realm of human consciousness, there is no basis from which to assume that these experiences account for actual journeys to the great beyond.

Since the brain is likely still working on some level during the NDE, we should not view this as evidence of an afterlife any more than similar experiences brought about by other means. If we follow Dr. Long’s logic, however, we should probably consider afterlife phenomena brought about by psychedelic use, for example, to also be evidence of the soul’s immortality. While we’re at it, we could also conclude that the common experience reported by DMT smokers of communicating with aliens and machine-elves should serve as proof for the existence of both of these entities. Again, the fact that people who come close to death often have subjective experiences of an afterlife cannot be refuted. It cannot, however, be proven that those experiences are representative of any kind of objective reality, which is essentially what Dr. Long is claiming. Have fun quacking all the way to the bank you douche.

I would not be taking issue with Dr. Long’s beliefs had he not taken things a step too far by trying to pass off his research data as objective proof of an afterlife. I personally prefer to take an agnostic position on such things, which to me seems like the most honest way to go. Religious people have an easy enough time believing things based on faith alone; they do not need quacks like Dr. Long throwing around the label of science to add an air of legitimacy to their beliefs.

Here is a recent clip of Dr. Long on the O‘Reilly Factor. Despite his tossing around of words like “scholarly” and “evidence,” it is hard to tell whether or not Dr. Long is the more sensible one in this exchange.



~Wolf

Citing The Existence Of Snow, Right-Wingers Delcare Climate Change Bogus

Doh! A polar bear reacts to Sean Hannity’s suggestion that the occurrence of snowstorms calls climate change into question.

Let me begin this post by saying that I am not at all qualified to speak in depth about climate change. Any person who wishes to investigate this matter will find an abundance of online resources from renowned climatologists and scientific academies that comprise the “climate change is real” consensus. What I would like to discuss here is the startling ignorance and gleeful anti-science sentiment displayed by some of the nation’s most visible conservatives.

Sean Hannity, whose highest degree is a high school diploma, presents himself as an expert on a whole variety of issues. The confidence with which he speaks on these topics serves primarily to mask the plain fact that his understanding of the problems of the day consist of predictable platitudes and right-wing talking points. One of the issues on which Hannity is an “expert” is climate change, as evidenced by his reasoning that because the eastern United States has recently experienced a slew of snowstorms, climate change is therefore a fake. “Global warming, where are you? We want you back,” was his ludicrous reaction. Glenn Beck, who also has no college degree, showed similar skepticism on his radio program by suggesting that climatologists commit mass suicide. And many Republican congresspersons, such as Jim Inhofe (R – Oklahoma) have made statements ranging from suspicious to outright disbelieving on the entire phenomenon.

The idea that because the month of February has brought snowstorms and cold weather to the eastern seaboard, this somehow imperils the science supporting climate change, is so stupid, so profoundly idiotic, that one wonders if the people who say such things are being serious. I am aware of no climate change theory that posits there will be no snowstorms or cold weather from here on in. Unfortunately in some circles, the science of climatology is as simple as looking out one’s window in order to gauge the feasibility of climate change. But fear not, my fellow climate change believers; summer is right around the corner. And if we use the skeptics’ own methodology, we should have no problem demonstrating an empirically verifiable warming trend starting very soon. That should buy us some time, at least until October.

These types of criticisms of climate change are quite curious. Hannity, Beck, et al. do not dare discuss or debate the actual science with reputable scientists who have researched and analyzed this problem because they would surely be exposed for the frauds they are. Listening to people like these rail against climate change, one gets the impression that they believe the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by an agenda-minded global scientific community. But cui bono? Whom does worldwide acceptance of global warming benefit? If climate change is real, it would seem to be a giant inconvenience to most everyone on the planet. Governments, businesses, individuals, everyone. It has been suggested that climate change is being pushed by the green industry, but this is an insane assertion when we consider the relative power of the non-green heavy-hitting lobbyists from oil companies, the auto industry, and other sectors who wish to see a status quo approach to climate change. The last time I checked, “Big Solar” does not occur in the Washington lobbying vernacular. And if you think climate change is simply a scheme to make money for Al Gore, please check yourself into the nearest emergency room and tell the receptionist that you require an immediate psychological evaluation.

It isn’t so much the skepticism of such individuals that irritates me. Rather, in denouncing climate change as a hoax and citing the recent snowstorms, people such as Hannity and Beck assume a rather giddy tone. It is as if they truly enjoy ridiculing the scientific professions. We saw the same thing a few years ago when theocrackpots were at their most vocal and obnoxious in attempting to insert creationist hogwash into the science curricula in public schools. President Bush himself supported the idea “so people can understand what the debate is about.” Of course, there is no debate—not a serious one, anyway—involving Darwinian evolution and creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever else the religionists want to call this horseshit hypothesis. When scientists—specifically biologists—across the country condemned this uninformed statement, the theocrackpots reverted to the standard line about the scientific community and its own problems with dogmatism. However, the only dogmatism involved in science is the unchanging adherence to the scientific method, which demands a staunch commitment to evidence, logic, and truth-seeking, even if it means drawing a conclusion that is unexpected or unwelcome. Scientists are in fact “dogmatic” in this sense, in that they are beholden to reality. Living such a life is not always convenient, but it is generally free of the delusional wishful thinking that often plagues the reasoning of so many people.

It’s funny. We’re constantly hearing fiscally prudent Americans denounce the massive debt their country has accumulated, because they say they don’t want their children and grandchildren to be saddled with that burden. But when it comes to climate change, the kids are on their own, which just goes to show that “The Children” talk is merely pious rhetoric masking a self-centered, I-don’t-give-a-flying-fuck worldview. It’s only the planet we’re talking about—the only humanly inhabitable piece of real estate in the known universe. And yet, there are some who would have us believe that the rapidly growing population of humans can burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels on a planet with an atmosphere that retains a good amount of heat, without any repercussions whatsoever. Indeed, in the Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union speech last month, Virginia Governor Bob O’Donnell declared, “We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.”

Use them all? Really? All of them? Sadly that is the attitude of many citizens in this zombie consumer horror show we call America. People rarely think beyond what’s right in front of them at the time, let alone worry about the state of America and the world fifty or one hundred years from now.

- Max Canning

Happy Islamic Valentine's Day!

Well hey, at least the ban on cards and flowers seems reasonable.

This picture was taken a couple years ago at Hussain Sagar Lake in Hyderabad, A.P., India by the author of an anti-Islam website. Apparently this poster was placed right outside of a park that was full of cute Indian couples doing their best to ignore it and enjoy a bit of privacy. They must have been blissfully unaware of the price that their ignorance will cost them. The same goes for all of you heathen infidels out there.

So I hope you all enjoyed showering your lovers with candy and flowers today, for it will surely cost your souls an eternal penance in blazing hellfires.


~Wolf

On Jesus Christ's Alleged Sacrifice

No

It is a common assumption among many simple intellects that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself so that mankind could be “saved.” Ignoring for a moment the preposterousness of the Gospels as reliable historical accounts, let’s assume that Jesus existed, was the Son of God, and was crucified as a scapegoat for the alleged iniquity of humankind. Even when we grant all of this, we are left with a shamelessly authoritarian doctrine which describes not sacrifice, as Christians claim, but a despicable metaphysical servitude.

A “sacrifice” occurs when something valuable is given up for the sake of something else. As a corollary to this, the person performing the sacrifice does so selflessly in that he does not expect to be rewarded for his actions. One friend does not help another because she thinks it will increase the likelihood of him returning a similar favor in the future. A batter who drops down a sacrifice bunt to advance a runner does not figure his teammates “owe him one” for committing that act. A courageous soldier who uses his body to smother a live grenade to shield his buddies from the impending blast cannot possibly expect anything in return.

These are all examples of sacrifice, and to suggest that the beneficiaries of these magnanimous acts must somehow repay the favor debases the whole idea. Even in the case of friendship, which is in some sense predicated on the principle of reciprocity, friends do not keep a running tally between them of who is owed what from whom. An enduring friendship is founded on an intellectual or emotional affinity that each has for the other. In friendship, a favor is done not on pragmatic grounds or with future considerations in mind, but out of a sincere desire to see the other better off.

The crucifixion of Jesus is many things, but a sacrifice is not one of them. Recall this famous passage in John:

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

As well as this ominous advice in Ephesians:

2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And in Galatians:

2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

And then the somewhat contradictory line in James:

2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Thus, god sent his only son earthward to be sacrificed in rather brutal fashion, so that humans could have their sins forgiven and be given eternal life. It is one thing to make this ridiculous claim that one man sacrificed himself—or was sacrificed by god, which was (confusingly) actually god himself—to absolve the sum total of every human transgression in history. It is quite another to say that in exchange for this act, Jesus/god demands that we recognize this “sacrifice” and accept him as the lord and savior of humanity. If we do, we are “rewarded” with an afterlife of perpetual groveling at the feet of the deity. If we do not, we are punished with everlasting torment and suffering. It is said that god has given humans free will. Well, that is some choice. But at that point the crucifixion of Jesus ceases to be a sacrifice and becomes an unsolicited quid pro quo. This arrangement is not all that different from the “protection” offered by mafia thugs who lend their “services” to business owners in exchange for a cut of the profits. Protection from what? From the very people who are offering it. Jesus and his father are offering you protection from hell. Pay up or that is what you are in for.

Christ’s “sacrifice” does not seem so selfless and benevolent when we pause to consider what he asks in return. Indeed, that he asks for anything defeats the purpose of a sacrifice. As I noted previously, many Christians have even taken to calling themselves “slaves” to Jesus. Perhaps that is a minority opinion, but the consensus on the matter of vicarious redemption entails some level of devotion to Jesus for what any decent person should consider an unwelcome offer. In our everyday lives we understand the importance—indeed, the necessity—of taking responsibility for one’s actions. Christianity is immoral for two main reasons. First, it teaches humans that they are by nature bad because Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree. Second, it teaches that people can be absolved of their alleged wickedness and their responsibilities if they will only commit themselves to Jesus and thank him endlessly for his “giving his life” for them. Notice how Christianity makes people a slave to history as the bible reveals it. Did you ever eat from a tree that god told you not to eat of? Did you ask Jesus to die for you on the cross? Too bad. It’s a done deal. The mafia don has spoken.

The entire premise of Christianity is scandalous and bunk. If the crucifixion actually happened under the above conditions, it would not be a noble sacrifice as Christians claim, but an act of totalitarianism designed to enchain humanity to forever serve a master. In this way, Christianity is much worse than the slavery humans practiced for thousands of years. At least then you could die and get out of bondage.

- Max Canning

Newt Gingrich Proves Our Point About Republicans Appealing To Emotions

Newt Gingrich is a pathetic, carping has-been.

Last night on the Daily Show, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a surprising admission.

Gingrich was talking with Jon Stewart about the underwear bomber, and the former was belching the same tired lines about how absurd it was to read Amdulmutallab his rights. Stewart then pointed out that the Bush administration did the same thing with shoe bomber Richard Reid. Gingrich then falsely responded with all the confidence in the world, “Richard Reid was an American citizen.” Reid was not, and is not, a U.S. citizen. He’s a U.K. citizen, and as such has the same legal standing in the United States as the Nigerian underwear bomber. Unfortunately, Stewart did not correct him during the interview.

Is Gingrich lying? Does he really think Richard Reid was an American citizen? If he does, then clearly Gingrich’s opinions on counterterrorism warrant no respect whatsoever. If he was lying, then Gingrich himself deserves no respect whatsoever. Either way, we should not be taking policy advice from Newt Gingrich.

Shortly after Gingrich’s gaffe/lie, he blabbed some more about terrorism and the American people, and at one point the following exchange took place:

Stewart: That’s a very emotional way to put it.

Gingrich: That’s part of our job—is to reach out to the emotions of the American people.

Stewart: I think that’s wise. And don’t let reality get in the way.

Gingrich didn’t specify which “our” he’s a part of, but I think it’s safe to assume he means conservatives/Republicans. Here we have a crystal-clear admission from the most important Republican of the 1990s that appealing to people’s emotions is an important part of their M.O. Never mind that the underwear bomber is providing authorities with information despite being read his rights. All that matters to Gingrich and company is the opportunity to portray the other side as weak on terrorism. But it seems to me that conservatives are not nearly as interested in acquiring valuable intelligence as they are in meting out draconian punishments to satisfy a primal urge for revenge, even it comes at the expense of obtaining useful information. I mean, what else are we to conclude from this whole charade? The suspect is talking. He didn’t have to be sent to Gitmo. He didn’t have to be waterboarded. If he’s cooperating with the FBI what the fuck does it matter if he was read his rights?

Of course, we know that Gingrich and his ilk are playing politics with the underwear bomber because they raised no stink about the Bush administration’s handling of Richard Reid, which was the same. This is a calculated move by them. They are simply appealing to the lizard-brained folk. And it’s probably working. The politics of fear usually does.

- Max Canning

Scott Brown Votes Against Workers

In due time, the people of Massachusetts will see just how full of shit Scott Brown was on the campaign trail.

Yesterday, new Senator Scott Brown voted in lockstep with his Republican colleagues and two Democrats to block President Obama’s pick for the National Labor Relations Board. The nomination of Craig Becker—a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union—was effectively killed when the Senate failed to muster the sixty votes necessary to end debate on the nomination in order to take an up-and-down vote. Becker is viewed as a threat by the GOP because, among other reasons, he favors card check. Card check is considered “controversial” because it allows a majority of members in a bargaining unit to sign cards authorizing the formation of a union. And because Republicans love big business and hate unions—i.e., American workers—to them, Becker is bad news. They are also claiming that Becker would bring a “personal agenda” to the NLRB, which is another way of saying he’d stick to his convictions about looking out for the welfare of working class Americans.

So thank you, Scott Brown, for bravely casting a vote against the working people of America.

The minority has spoken.

- Max Canning

Obama Nominates Bush-Era Supreme Bitch To Head DEA

Obama seems to be exhibiting short-term memory loss when it comes to his stated policies on federal marijuana laws.

Last night I posted about the difficulties facing researchers who are investigating the drug ecstasy (MDMA) as a possible medical treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Shortly after writing this, I discovered some similarly unsettling news from the war on drugs front. “Last week, President Obama quietly announced that he would nominate Michele Leonhart to lead the Drug Enforcement Agency.” This is the same power-crazed, drug-hawk bitch that was “initially appointed and promoted by George W. Bush and oversaw the Bush administration’s tactic of raiding the homes of desperately ill individual medical marijuana patients in California.” This type of action flies in the face of Obama’s claim that, under his watch, the federal government would no longer “waste justice department resources” on prosecuting marijuana offenses “that circumvent state laws.” Oh how the times they are a-changin.

Here is a quote from the Washington Times from February 5th of last year in response to some of the first medical marijuana raids of Obama’s presidency:

“Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama’s campaign promises to stop the raids.

The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of the DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.”

The irony here, of course, is that Michele Leonhart was the primary “Bush administration holdover” who was essentially "in charge of the DEA” at the time. Apparently the president wants no part in appointing new leadership to this backwards federal agency. Oh ya, I almost forgot to mention that “Ms. Leonhart also has a record of adamantly fighting against allowing scientific research of the potential medicinal value of marijuana. She is on record as “ignoring the ruling of a federal judge” in a case where she “single-handedly blocked applications from respected university researchers studying medical marijuana.” This is yet another glaring offense Leonhart has perpetrated which directly contradicts Obama’s stated position on marijuana laws.

It seems that Obama is suffering from an acute case of the “fuck-its” syndrome with regard to these issues, which is exhibited by the symptoms of just not giving a shit, combined with a touch of cowardice in the face of potentially having to navigate politically murky waters at this most turbulent time in his presidency. A look at Obama speaking about marijuana laws in 2004 vs. 2008 tells this tale much better than I can.

In the following video, you can see how self-assured and to the point Obama is in this 2004 interview. This is Obama un-filtered, exhibiting that ray of hope that everyone who voted for change was expecting him to deliver.



Now notice how uncomfortable the president is when discussing these issues while on the campaign trail in 2008. The only bit of genuine honesty that appears to leak through is in the last 40 seconds when he discloses that, as president, he would simply have bigger fish to fry than to worry about silly marijuana laws.



In light of his new nomination of Ms. Leonhart to the DEA, Obama’s current position on federal marijuana laws seems all too similar to that of his predecessor. He is pushing to elect a woman with an abysmal track record for “using justice resources to circumvent state laws,” as she did in the aforementioned California raids in 2009. If any of this seems the least bit unsettling to you, please take a moment to sign the digital petition urging senators to block the appointment of Michele Leonhart to the DEA. At this point, however, the audacity of hope for significant drug law changes in this country seems beyond audacious; it may be delusional. Still sign the petition though. Seriously!

~Wolf