INTERESTING TIMES

Jeff Sessions is not my favorite Senator, even though I also am from the south. He spoke at length on the senate floor about the threat imposed by judicial nominees who are affiliated with the ACLU. Really? I'll vote for candidates who offer their time and talents to the ACLU more reliably than I would for anyone like Sessions. What's wrong with the ACLU, anyway? Do you believe that they, and I, have a "liberal, progressive agenda"? He certainly does.

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (2/3 of the 50) States to require congress to convene a Constitutional Convention. A Convention, once it comes to pass, can change the constitution. This can happen at the federal and the state level.

The question at hand is whether members of congress and the senate should have to obey the laws that are applied to the rest of us. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered.. in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

The proposed Amendment to the US Constitution would be the 28th. It would read something like this: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

To me, this makes great sense. I personally would like to modifiers of the constitution to reverse the parts that allow corporations to have "personhood". Business should not have all the rights of personhood but none of the responsibilities. And money from a business should not be protected as free speech, though I understand the slipperiness of the question and the difficulty the supreme court found in drawing a reasonable line. Then there is the suggestion of a balanced budget amendment. While we may not be able to have a balanced budget in the short term, we could begin to require that governments spend within their means. There is no shortage of work to do.

Just finished reading this book. It is the most comprehensive analysis of literature, theory, science, opinion and politics surrounding addiction and drug law that I have found. I definitely need to read it again. He offers some great treatment ideas for addicts. He draws on Buddhism for his title and metaphor, and for many of his recommendations for addicts.


1/29/11 Book got a great review: http://addictiontreatmentmagazine.com/addiction/hungry-ghosts-book-review/

Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal

( nice argument by Mike Adams )

Way back in 1973 the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was passed, requiring that the ingredients in products be listed so we'd know what we're buying. Fragrances were specifically exempted from the law, because perfume makers would never let anyone know what was in their scents. Since then, under market pressures, companies have begun to use this loophole to put all manner of toxic materials into products. Any scented personal care product you purchase may contain hormonally active substances that could damage a developing fetus or reduce your fertility, trigger allergies, or be toxic in undiscovered ways. Many of these chemicals have not been tested at all. So use "fragrance" at your own risk, and please don't go perfuming yourself around pregnant women. Unless...you use pure essential oils from beneficial plants.
( notes on the EWG study and other findings )

Three times now men have been acquitted of rape charges because a jury or judge believed that a woman's pants could not be removed without her assistance. I'm skeptical. Maybe I should get some skinny jeans. I suspect they can be peeled off rapidly and forcibly once the buttocks are cleared, considering that the hips are so far above the top of the jeans. But on the other hand, there are plenty of unfair rape accusations made too, there should be repercussions for wrong accusations. Thank goodness we have the right to a jury of our peers! Too bad so many of our peers have gone stark raving mad.

Medicine is a social science,
and politics is nothing more than medicine on a large scale.
The physicians are the natural attorneys of the poor,
and the social problems should largely be solved by them.
~ Rudolph Virchow

Well, almost. Actually they intend to penalize a TV personality who predicted the future as part of his show.  They are going to kill him. The charge is 'sorcery'. Must have been a convincing show.