Marijuana.com - Politics

Obama's Fort Hood speech...

Bhikku — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:34:39 GMT

Does anyone else think that it was abysmally tacky of the president to do a "shout-out" to his Department of the Interior at a speech which should have been addressing a national tragedy that left thirteen American soldiers dead?

Bipartisan Puppetry

Yana Usdi — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:14:41 GMT

We've talked about this a little in the past but normally the examples aren't quite so blatant so I thought this was an interesting article. Ever wonder why some talking points pop up all the sudden with everyone repeating almost the exact same things, sometimes word for word? Often a lobbyist just sticks their hand up their butts and does a ventriloquists act for a bit. This was a good example of that and bipartisan enough that we shouldn't get sidetracked with partisan arguments. Article is a bit long but worth the read I'd think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us...pagewanted=all

In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists�

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 14, 2009

WASHINGTON � In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world�s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points � 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: �I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.� He said he got his statement from his staff and �did not know where they got the information from.�

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to �revise and extend my remarks.� It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the �author� of the documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

In an e-mail message to fellow lobbyists on Nov. 5, two days before the House vote, Todd M. Weiss, senior managing director of Sonnenschein, said, �We are trying to secure as many House R�s and D�s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.�

He told the lobbyists to �conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements (or an edited version) for the record.�

In recent years, Genentech�s political action committee and lobbyists for Roche and Genentech have made campaign contributions to many House members, including some who filed statements in the Congressional Record. And company employees have been among the hosts at fund-raisers for some of those lawmakers. But Evan L. Morris, head of Genentech�s Washington office, said, �There was no connection between the contributions and the statements.�

Mr. Morris said Republicans and Democrats, concerned about the unemployment rate, were receptive to the company�s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States.

The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines.

Democrats emphasized the bill�s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs.

Republicans opposed the bill, but praised a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech.

Lawmakers from both parties said it was important to conduct research on such �biosimilar� products in the United States. Several took a swipe at aggressive Indian competitors.

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: �This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.�

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: �One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.�

In remarks on the House floor, Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, recalled that his family had faced eviction when his father was sick and could not make payments on their home. He said the House bill would save others from such hardship.

In a written addendum in the Congressional Record, Mr. Hare said the bill would also create high-paying jobs. Timothy Schlittner, a spokesman for Mr. Hare, said: �That part of his statement was drafted for us by Roche pharmaceutical company. It is something he agrees with.�

The boilerplate in the Congressional Record included some conversational touches, as if actually delivered on the House floor.

In the standard Democratic statement, Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania said: �Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. This bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology and research in the United States.�

Mr. Brady�s chief of staff, Stanley V. White, said he had received the draft statement from a lobbyist for Genentech�s parent company, Roche.

�We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record,� Mr. White said. �I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There�s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.�

Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, �I see this bill as an exciting opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.�

Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same words, but said the bill would improve the lives of �ALL Americans.�

Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would �create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.� Mr. Pascrell said the bill would �create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.�

In nearly identical words, three Republicans � Representatives K. Michael Conaway of Texas, Lynn Jenkins of Kansas and Lee Terry of Nebraska � said they had criticized many provisions of the bill, and �rightfully so.�

But, each said, �I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options.�

Communism!

TwoGreenOneRed — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:55:15 GMT

This is a cartoon about the communist manifesto. Whether or not you're a communist, it is worth watching. The animation is great, especially if you're high.

YouTube - The Communist Manifesto illustrated by...

Thoughts?

Politically conservative and a smoker?

cutlassvillager — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:26:05 GMT

I have a few friends that are very conservative politically, but love to smoke weed. It seems (correct me if I am wrong) that the "war on drugs" and the ignorance around marijuana use is fueled the most by the Republican party. I don't understand how you can be politically conservative while supporting smoking marijuana at the same time. By supporting the Republican party, are you not also supporting the people that believe you belong in jail and should be deemed a criminal for smoking marijuana?

Of course there are always exceptions and this is a gross generalization. There are reasons why I would like to support the Republican party, (their fiscal views and views regarding unions for example), but there are so many other reasons, such as the rise of the religious right, gay rights, national defense, stem cell research (I am diabetic) and marijuana prohibition that make me feel that there's no way I could support the Republican party even if I felt they have a more qualified candidate. So, those of you that are conservative but love to smoke...I am interested to hear your reasoning.

The Tortured Logic Continues

intangible child — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:22:37 GMT

�Extraordinary rendition� is White House-speak for kidnapping. Just ask Maher Arar. He�s a Canadian citizen who was �rendered� by the U.S. to Syria, where he was tortured for almost a year.

Just this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York City, dismissed Arar�s case against the government officials (including FBI Director Robert Mueller, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and former Attorney General John Ashcroft) who allegedly conspired to have him kidnapped and tortured. Arar is safe now, recovering in Canada with his family. But the decision sends a signal to the Obama administration that there will be no judicial intervention to halt the cruel excesses of the Bush-era �Global War on Terror,� including extraordinary rendition, torture and the use of the �state secrets privilege� to hide these crimes.
The Tortured Logic Continues

http://cdn1.libsyn.com/democracynow/...4a702029a906a3

Prediction

1956 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:30:24 GMT

Perhaps this belongs in current events. I chose Politics because it involves President Obama. I am writing this at 9:30am EST on Nov. 5, the day after the shootings at Ft. Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan. A US Army officer.

If it hasn't happened yet, who will be the first right-wing mouthpiece to somehow connect one guy with a middle eastern name to the president?

Sadly, if I can think about it, it is probably already somewhere on the web.

Boehner's Boner

1956 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:23:59 GMT

John Boehner (R-Ohio) is the Minority Leader for the 109th Congress and before a crowd of anti Obamist, reffered to by Republicans as a press conference. Produced his copy of the United States Constitution, then claiming to quote it, read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

This is one of Obama's biggest critics. A man who seems to have a permanent scowl chiseled into his face, and the leading Republican in the House of Representatives. It often seems that the Right likes to critique the Left without offering reasonable alternatives, but if this guy doesn't know any more than this about some pretty basic aspects of our foundational documents I don't think he has any credibility left.

Representative Boehner, we want to see your birth certificate.

Massachusetts State Mandated Medical Care

LowRider — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:33:45 GMT

Well i'm not for the UHC and just by looking at there's, its not looking good. There already thinking if not already limiting health care, its drove new business out of state and the ones already there are leaving. Taxes have gone up but whats new there. People are getting turned away from doctors cause there overloaded (yea that happens when there is an influx). Not to mention doctors are leaving because there is to much paperwork and just aren't getting payed to do what they do.

111 new Gov't entities...........awesome.

Texas Toker — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:24:47 GMT

House Republicans Find 111 New 'Bureaucracies' in Health Care Bill - FOXNews.com

House Republicans Find 111 New 'Bureaucracies' in Health Care Bill

In its latest attempt to portray Democrats' reform package as an unwieldy expansion of federal government in the health care sector, the House Republican Conference circulated what it called a list of "new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs" created in the House health care bill.

House Republicans claimed Monday that the health care reform bill pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would create a whopping 111 new "federal bureaucracies."
In its latest attempt to portray the Democrats' reform package as an unwieldy expansion of federal government in the health care sector, the House Republican Conference circulated what it called a list of "new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs" created in the House health care bill.
Among some off the new agencies, the list cites a Health Insurance Exchange; the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; the Public Health Investment Fund; the Public Health Workforce Corps; an Assistant Secretary for Health Information; the Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health; grant programs for alternative medical liability laws, infant mortality programs and other issues; and about 100 other government-sponsored creations.
"That ought to tell you all that we need to know, that we're going to have 1,990 pages of legislation," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in an interview Sunday. "The word 'shall' exists in this bill 3,345 times."
The list underscores the GOP complaint that the health care reform bill over-burdens taxpayers and the government itself. Republicans said Monday they plan to read aloud the massive bill -- in the space of four hours -- on the House floor Tuesday.
A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported."
Republicans, for instance, have called for medical malpractice reform, which is referenced in the list of new government agencies. The Democratic source said offices like "ombudsman" and "inspector general" are just individual offices in "existing agencies" and not new bureaucracies.
House Democrats unveiled their unified bill last week, which was estimated to cost $1.055 trillion over 10 years. House lawmakers are expected to begin debate this week, but Republicans -- vastly outnumbered in the House -- continue to push back hard.
Boehner said Sunday that Republicans are preparing an alternative health care reform plan. However, pressed by FoxNews.com on Monday, Boehner's office and the House Republican Conference committee provided few details of that plan.
"Rather than a trillion dollar government takeover, it's going to be a step-by-step reform of the current system," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, adding only that there will be no so-called public option in the GOP plan.

well hell! There's your 3 million jobs created.

Ready for round 2?

Yana Usdi — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:14:13 GMT

It won't happen real soon, but from what I'm seeing in the news we will have another financial collapse and probably sooner rather than later. It took a couple of decades between the savings and loan collapse back in the 80s and this one now, I'm betting maybe half the time and we'll be back here again. The reasons are simple but the solutions a bit harder to come by

I'll use Goldman Sachs as an example. The revolving door is a big part of the problem, it applies to other financial corps and to pharmaceutical ones and others as well. But for Goldman Sachs the revolving door between them and government looks something like this.

Goldman Sachs Revolving Door Graphic

A brief article on the double dealing of Goldman Sachs when it came to the housing market, even as they were reducing their liability in expectation of a collapsing housing market they were still selling it to the rest of us as an investment. They knew what they were doing all along, it wasn't an accident.

McClatchy Busts Goldman on Double Dealing | ePluribus Media

At the bottom of the article are several more links for articles and information on the subject, including the graphic I linked above, they are worth a look as well.

Ok, that's the past and how we got here, so how's it looking for reform? Not good. We blew right by our window for reform when the public and parts of Wall Street admitted that what we had been doing didn't work, we should have changed things then when frustration was high and the corps that caused all of this in need of bailouts and on the defense. But we didn't.

Now not only is that window gone but we're actually trying to solidify our current approach, the same approach we used in the savings and loan fiasco, of privatizing profits but socializing losses. We took the hit decades ago, we took it again recently, and they are setting us up to take the next hit as well. Next time maybe without even the congressional debate, but by fiat, just on the say so of those in charge at the time.

Truthdig - Reports - TARP on Steroids

The last few decades have seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle and the bottom to the top that we've seen since the days of the robber barons. It isn't happening by honest competition and free markets, but by manipulation of the system and transfer of power and wealth through fraud and the power of government. And it's been happening under both parties. I'll skip other aspects for now and leave it at this but if we want to get out of this mess neither party as they now stand is the answer because in the end they both serve the same master. The dollar and the power that enough of them represents to them. If we want to skip the next round of this mess we've got to make some changes. Now.

Nancy made her trial lawyer friends happy

Texas Toker — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:47:52 GMT

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled �Medical Liability Alternatives,� establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]�� a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys� fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can�t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you�ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!:soapbox:

Why are doctors demonized and lawyers get to rape and pillage ?

So if we didn't spend any money on military development in the USA...

cj117 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:50:26 GMT

We would overcome our nations debt in <20 years..
We currently have almost 12 trillion dollars in debt.

Check these out:

If we didn't spend so much #@$&ing money on blowing the @#$% out of each other, we'd all be out of debt =_=
THE WORLD IS DEBT!!! WAAHHHHH!!!

Net neutrality: John McCain says no, Glenn Beck sees a Marxist plot

Freedom_User — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:36:45 GMT

Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, introduced a bill late Thursday that would short-circuit the FCC's ability to enforce its proposed open Internet rules. In a press release, McCain said the new rules will "stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market." McCain is particularly opposed to extending net neutrality to the wireless space, and his bill, the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, comes as opponents of net neutrality launched a furious attack on the FCC and the Obama administration.

Glenn Beck, the popular TV and radio host with 3 million nightly viewers, has blasted net neutrality as a "Marxist" plot by the Obama administration to take over the Internet.
For the last several nights leading up to Thursday's FCC vote moving forward with the open Internet rule-making process, Beck has been warning his viewers about net neutrality, the idea that broadband providers should not favor their own content over competing programming.

"So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are believers in net neutrality" to "control content," the outspoken Beck said Tuesday night.

Art Brodsky, the communications director at pro-net neutrality group Public Knowledge, said Beck is actually arguing against his own interests.

"Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann's Countdown. That could happen if NBC's owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission."

Beck is not the only opponent of the rules pushing back. Hours after the Federal Communication Commission voted Thursday to begin the rule-making process aimed at ensuring net neutrality, the principle that broadband providers should treat Web content fairly, a Republican lawmaker blasted the proposal by likening it to the dreaded "fairness doctrine."

Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, spoke out against the new rules at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance, The Hill newspaper reported. As a representative of Nashville, Blackburn said she spoke for the creative community when she argued that the federal government should stay out of how creators want to get content to consumers via the Internet, according to the paper. "Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," Blackburn said.

Blackburn said that creators "fully understand what the fairness doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet."

The Fairness Doctrine was a long-ago-abandoned F.C.C. rule which required radio broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. Some Congressional Democrats have made no secret of their desire to resurrect the doctrine, which was effectively ended by the Reagan Administration. Republicans reviled the rule -- and certainly benefited from its repeal -- and frequently use it to try to convince people to oppose net neutrality.

It was a day of running rhetorical clashes. After Blackburn's remarks, Brodsky said she was dead wrong.

"Net Neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine," Brodsky. "While that now-repealed rule required some balance in views, Net Neutrality takes away the ability of any entity, government or company, to control speech."

This is not the first time that net neutrality opponents have raised the specter of the fairness doctrine. Last year, Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the F.C.C., warned that net neutrality rules might somehow force bloggers "to give equal time or equal space on their website to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas" determine their content.

Blackburn's comments were just the latest in what Brodsky termed "a brutal assault on the FCC" over the issue in recent weeks. Blackburn also said that Congress needs to ensure that groups receiving stimulus money for broadband expansion deploy "reasonable and effective network management tools" so they can be helpful in tracking down illegal activity.

McCain, who introduced the bill to undermine the new rules, has received some $894,379 in contributions from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other broadband interests over his career, many of those dollars directed to his 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

Net neutrality: John McCain says no, Glenn Beck sees a Marxist plot -- DailyFinance

(Freedom: So much for freedom of speech and individual rights.. And fuck the constitution.

Does this mean I can't say this anymore Mr. Beck? Is this what you wan't stopped?!)

Ron Paul the man that should have been president

Aceboogi — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:01:13 GMT

Title says it all. This is the only politician that speaks the truth about what's goning on in this country. He's a congressman from texas under the republican umbrella. But inreality he's his own man and doeant follow any of the two political parties. As read more about him and hear him speak i find myself thinking why wasnt he elected into the presidentsy. While Obama enchanted the nation with his words about hope, Ron Paul spoke about the true issues in this country. This is the only man in politics that talks about the Federal Reserve Bank and how it's behind the destruction of this country. Ron Paul the man that should have been president.