'Should Casey Anthony face death penalty? ' Yes, of course she should. It's hard to believe that there are people out there who would say no to that. Yeah, everyone deserves the right to a fair trial and by all means give her one, but definitely base it on the fact that if convicted, she gets the death penalty. It's only fair.
'Last of Nadya Suleman's octuplets leaves hospital.' Who gives a shit. She's just in it for the publicity and frankly I wish I could opt out of financially supporting her and the 14 kids that will never get as much parental attention as they deserve. Those kids should be placed in the homes and arms of people who will love, care and provide for them, not the media attention they attract.
'We think: Don't rob the future.' Precisely. Cutting back on school funding, firing teachers and even closing schools, is NOT the right way to handle the situation. The people in this state (and most of the country as well) are retarded. I blame the educational system. No one cares to educate anymore. The school boards seem to be run by a bunch of greedy good for nothings out to cut everything as long as it isn't their own pay. Basically politicians. I’d like to know who decided that providing a strong education for the next generation should be put on the back burner. At this rate, the country as a whole will rot even faster as a result of current practices and proposed implementations.
Something else to ponder on throughout your day: If we are only allowed to water on certain days of the week to save on water consumption, why aren't those philosophies the same for printing money? Why are we not conserving the value of the American dollar? We print and print and print till our hearts content, which by the way is never enough, and our monetary value is fading fast as a result. Printing trillions of dollars to bail out the economy is only contributing to the problem. Why do we need to save companies who weren’t smart enough to survive on their own? Why not let them fail and make room for the ones who were prepared? There are already a billion insurance companies, banks and retail chains out there. Personally, when this is all said and done, I'd rather be banking with a company that had no problem surviving the recession. Reason being: I know that if they can take care of themselves, without asking for handouts, the people running the show are doing a damn good job and my money is safe there.
On a totally unrelated note (that I thought you should also think about): It is my belief that the people out there creating computer viruses and worms are just as malicious as the ones who contract AIDS, find out about it, and decide to sleep with everyone they possibly can just out of spite.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Mic Check 1 2
If I started a podcast or even compiled a magazine/booklet of questions and possible answers/outcomes worthy of hearing by the ears of those who make all the decisions that have so far doomed this country, WOULD THEY LISTEN?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
From the Weekly:
4:34 p.m.: The cops busted a man with crack.
And now, allow me to climb back atop my soapbox. Last week – the day after the Obama administration pledged money, technology and manpower to secure the border and help Mexico battle its drug cartels – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this: “I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said.
“Insatiable.” America’s demand for drugs cannot be satiated. Forty years of a war on drugs hasn’t stopped people from consuming drugs, and no increase in anti-narcotics funding or DEA agents is going to change the human desire to get twisted now and again. So long as there’s a demand for something, there will be a supplier. Prohibition can’t stop demand, so prohibition will fail.
So yeah, there’s American culpability in the unrest that could topple the Mexican government. But it doesn’t lie with the pot-smoking frat boy, or even the crack-addled prostitute. It’s all about policy – and if Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration followed their own logic to its zenith, that reality would be staring them in the face.
You can’t stop the demand, but you can regulate supply (see alcohol). You can limit to whom it is sold, and in what quality and quantity. You can more effectively deal with addictions and obliterate the black market both here and in Mexico. But you can only do that if the products are legal.
The truth is that black markets cause many of the problems we associate with drugs. Its purveyors are, by definition, criminals who operate in a system without rules, which leads to chaos (see Wall Street). The prohibition of liquor gave us Al Capone, after all.
Taking drugs off the black market means they’ll be regulated and taxed, which would come in handy right about now, considering how this state and others are closing schools and laying off teachers to close giant deficits. The state would license dealers, who would have to conform to government regulations lest their licenses (and livelihoods) be revoked. Sales to minors would be prohibited, as they are with alcohol and cigarettes now. We could focus our money and energy on treating addicts, rather than busting two-bit stoners with a hookah in their living rooms. The black market would fold like a Murphy bed.
Is legalization a panacea? Of course not. There would still be overdoses and traffic accidents and enough drug-related horror stories to fill your evening newscasts. There would, especially with marijuana, be people who simply grew their own, thus depriving the state of any additional tax revenue. Some people would get hooked that otherwise wouldn’t. And the notion of readily available, store-bought heroin is more than a little disconcerting.
So maybe there shouldn’t be a blanket legalization of all drugs. I don’t presume to know which drugs should be decriminalized and which shouldn’t. But when it’s abundantly clear that the war on drugs is a failure of epic proportions, maybe it’s time to at least start rethinking our approach, before we dump billions more dollars into a war we’re losing. You know: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Our demand is, as Clinton described it, “insatiable.”
Unfortunately, that’s not the direction we’re headed. At a recent online town hall, President Obama simply laughed off a question about legalizing pot, as if the subject weren’t even worthy of discussion.
All I have to say is : Right on!
To whom do I pass this on to so that it's read by the right persons? How do you get this message into Washington? With all the people "running things", with all the hands in the pot (no pun intended), how is there not someone who can come up with this theory on their own? Why are all the thinkers working outside of the white house/rule making bubble?
And now, allow me to climb back atop my soapbox. Last week – the day after the Obama administration pledged money, technology and manpower to secure the border and help Mexico battle its drug cartels – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this: “I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said.
“Insatiable.” America’s demand for drugs cannot be satiated. Forty years of a war on drugs hasn’t stopped people from consuming drugs, and no increase in anti-narcotics funding or DEA agents is going to change the human desire to get twisted now and again. So long as there’s a demand for something, there will be a supplier. Prohibition can’t stop demand, so prohibition will fail.
So yeah, there’s American culpability in the unrest that could topple the Mexican government. But it doesn’t lie with the pot-smoking frat boy, or even the crack-addled prostitute. It’s all about policy – and if Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration followed their own logic to its zenith, that reality would be staring them in the face.
You can’t stop the demand, but you can regulate supply (see alcohol). You can limit to whom it is sold, and in what quality and quantity. You can more effectively deal with addictions and obliterate the black market both here and in Mexico. But you can only do that if the products are legal.
The truth is that black markets cause many of the problems we associate with drugs. Its purveyors are, by definition, criminals who operate in a system without rules, which leads to chaos (see Wall Street). The prohibition of liquor gave us Al Capone, after all.
Taking drugs off the black market means they’ll be regulated and taxed, which would come in handy right about now, considering how this state and others are closing schools and laying off teachers to close giant deficits. The state would license dealers, who would have to conform to government regulations lest their licenses (and livelihoods) be revoked. Sales to minors would be prohibited, as they are with alcohol and cigarettes now. We could focus our money and energy on treating addicts, rather than busting two-bit stoners with a hookah in their living rooms. The black market would fold like a Murphy bed.
Is legalization a panacea? Of course not. There would still be overdoses and traffic accidents and enough drug-related horror stories to fill your evening newscasts. There would, especially with marijuana, be people who simply grew their own, thus depriving the state of any additional tax revenue. Some people would get hooked that otherwise wouldn’t. And the notion of readily available, store-bought heroin is more than a little disconcerting.
So maybe there shouldn’t be a blanket legalization of all drugs. I don’t presume to know which drugs should be decriminalized and which shouldn’t. But when it’s abundantly clear that the war on drugs is a failure of epic proportions, maybe it’s time to at least start rethinking our approach, before we dump billions more dollars into a war we’re losing. You know: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Our demand is, as Clinton described it, “insatiable.”
Unfortunately, that’s not the direction we’re headed. At a recent online town hall, President Obama simply laughed off a question about legalizing pot, as if the subject weren’t even worthy of discussion.
All I have to say is : Right on!
To whom do I pass this on to so that it's read by the right persons? How do you get this message into Washington? With all the people "running things", with all the hands in the pot (no pun intended), how is there not someone who can come up with this theory on their own? Why are all the thinkers working outside of the white house/rule making bubble?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Idling Forever...
To Orange County Traffic Engineering and the personnel responsible for the signal at the intersection of S. OBT and Consulate Dr:
Since you’ve opened up two highway exits into the already claustrophobic traffic, containing all the area’s “nine to fivers” and the jerk offs at MMI, could you at least make the light a little longer. Six cars at a time is a little ridiculous!
Since you’ve opened up two highway exits into the already claustrophobic traffic, containing all the area’s “nine to fivers” and the jerk offs at MMI, could you at least make the light a little longer. Six cars at a time is a little ridiculous!
Can we get any dumber?
A woman called Kissimmee police to say she was locked inside her car at the Walgreen's on John Young Parkway near Poinciana.
"My car will not start. I'm locked inside my car," the unidentified woman said."Nothing electrical works. And it's getting very hot in here, and I'm not feeling well."
The dispatcher asked the woman if she was able to manually pull the lock up on the door.The woman said she would try, and then, she said, "Yes, I got the door open."
This is from today's Orlando Sentinel...and they want to cut even more of the educational budget!
"My car will not start. I'm locked inside my car," the unidentified woman said."Nothing electrical works. And it's getting very hot in here, and I'm not feeling well."
The dispatcher asked the woman if she was able to manually pull the lock up on the door.The woman said she would try, and then, she said, "Yes, I got the door open."
This is from today's Orlando Sentinel...and they want to cut even more of the educational budget!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
