Deyz in yur government mezzin' up yer medizin!

My dear congressional Republicans, there is a problem in this country which needs your action. Right now, Federal bureaucrats are preventing doctors from making medical decisions regarding their patients. A specific treatment which has proven beneficial and cost effective is being blocked by big government, and some committee which thinks it know better than physicians how patients should be treated. Seeing as how that's one of the major arguments Congressional Republicans have against the Public Option, I am looking forward to seeing some brave Conservative get up and say it:

It's time to repeal the Federal ban on medical marijuana.

Seriously, regardless of my Centrist views, I also do NOT want some committee deciding who gets particular treatments. However, if we're not going to let a death panel decide an 80 year old can't have a new liver, then why are we still allowing the FDA to say doctors can't prescribe marijuana? I am not talking about legalizing it for recreational use (that's another argument). I am talking about a doctor prescribing to his or her patient who is undergoing chemo, or suffers from glaucoma, or has breast cancer, or even as some studies show, Alzheimer's- a natural remedy which is easy and cheap to produce, and has far less ill effects than the pharmaceutical alternatives.

I'm talking about a treatment supported by the American College of Physicians, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and of course Chris Robinson of The Black Crowes.

I'm talking about an easily delivered treatment which some evidence shows may treat or alleviate up to 250 different ailments.

Now, let's be fair- this list was assembled by a doctor who may not be totally objective about this subject, but if it works for even ten things on this list, isn't it worth using? Five? Even one, if it can bring relief for a single ailment, and doctors want to use it, why are we letting the Federal government say otherwise? They're the doctors right? And not just some quacks, but real doctors (see the list above).

So, what is the government's argument against it? The hazards of smoking. No really, you can't have relief for your nauseous reaction to the chemo you have treating your cancer because the period you smoke the MJ might give you lung cancer. Well, what if it becomes a gateway for the patient? According to the Rand Corporation, the Gateway concept is bunk, and so say these doctors.
Even the 1999 study the FDA cites on usage in general only says:

"The gateway analogy evokes two ideas that are often confused. The first, more often referred to as the 'stepping stone' hypothesis, is the idea that progression from marijuana to other drugs arises from pharmacological properties of marijuana itself.

The second is that marijuana serves as a gateway to the world of illegal drugs in which youths have greater opportunity and are under greater social pressure to try other illegal drugs." (Institute of Medicine in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base")

Not really a damning statement. Here's how Lynn Zimmer, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Queens College at the City University of New York put it:

"In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs.

A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities. For example, most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter.” (his 1997 book “Marijuana Myths - Marijuana Facts”).

More than that, 13 States have voted to use medical marijuana- aren't the Republicans the party of State's Rights? Why aren't Republicans screaming about the Federal Governments insistence on imposing their will over these States' decisions? Who's going to be the brave Republican to get up and call for the end of these laws? John McCain, whose state is one of those who passed a local proposition? Sarah Palin, who is vehemently against Federal controls and bureaucratic interdiction in medical decisions? Joe Wilson, who obviously feels very passionately about health care. Who?

I am not trying to be a smart ass here- this is exactly WHY I want to see two parties in government. Any argument however must follow to the logical consequences. Opposing Government Health care on the grounds of bureaucrats not being allowed to countermand doctors has to apply to any reasonable medical decision. The facts are in- MM is reasonable, with the FDA's stats being spurious at best. Further, wanting to shrink Federal power in favor of State power means allowing States to make certain decisions on their own. The tenth amendment says they can do that, if there is not an existing Federal law- Federal Laws came from the control of recreational use- you know what? I can't use Vicodin for recreational use either, but no one in the Federal Government is asking to ban it as medicine.

So as a citizen, I ask a Republican to take advantage of the argument about health care right now and do the right thing. You would have doctors, States, facts, and logic on your side. Be the party of Smaller Government and put this tool back in the hands of doctors.

My last comment on the 2008 Presidential election.

I want everyone who reads this to understand something right up front: I am not being snarky or sarcastic. I know it can be hard to tell in blogs and emails whether or not someone means what they say. I want to assure everyone, I do mean this, I am not being facetious. I really would like my Christian friends to consider the following.

On October 22nd, Governor Sarah Palin said "God will do the right thing on election day." Indeed:

“And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

In response the renowned and popular minister James Dobson, with whom Governor Palin was speaking, said that he and his wife were praying for the right outcome as well. I am sure millions of faithful conservatives prayed all year, right up to the election, that God would do the "right thing" on election day. That's a lot of prayers going to God. Yet, at 8PM Pacific Time (when the West Coast polls closed) on the 4th of November, every major news network declared Barack Obama to be the President-Elect.

I honestly, honestly want my conservative friends to consider something. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the outcome God wanted.

I know President-Elect Barack Obama does not seem to have the exact Christian values espoused by a lot of more Conservative Christians, in particular regard to salvation exclusivity. Would this however be the first time God made someone who was not orthodox in their beliefs to do His work?

Pharaoh gave the Israelites sanctuary during famine at the behest of Joseph. He was obviously not a follower of the God of Abraham. God chose a man raised as an Egyptian to lead His people back to Canaan after successive Pharoahs enslaved the Hebrews. Nebuchadnezzar assisted Daniel and in some stories is the first human to proclaim the Christ. The Roman Empire's roads, language, and technology carried Christianity to the world when it should have been nothing more than a minor sectarian disagreement in the First Century. Saul was a man who actively persecuted the nascent church until he was quite literally knocked off his ass. Jerome, a monk who couldn't keep his hands off the Nuns, gave the Church the Latin translation of the Bible, which would be the Word of God until Vatican II. Thomas Jefferson, a man whose "Christian beliefs" were FAR more unorthodox* than Barack Obama's, rolled the Word of God secularly into our nation's birth with the phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So why do we have to think that everyone who does God's work agrees with a specific orthodoxy? Isn't God far more able and capable than to be stymied by a presidential campaign? Isn't He perfectly capable of having someone be part of the plan, regardless of specifics?

So, I ask only for a moment's consideration, and perhaps a prayer tonight to ask the Lord His opinion: Governor Palin said God would do the right thing on the 4th. Maybe, just maybe she was absolutely correct.


So that's it, I am done with politics here for a while. Next post will probably be about how much I am starting to dislike the new Star Trek movie, while I am keeping a close eye on the new President since it's We the People's job as his employer. Hopefully this President remembers that far more than the outgoing administration.




*If you don't believe me about how unorthodox Jefferson was, check out his Bible Translation with a miracle-free Jesus...

Anti-Intellectualism

So, there I was looking through the news at CNN (I like to hit the American news spectrum: I start at Fox, dart left and hit MSNBC, then settle in the middle with CNN. Then I go find the wacko channels; much fun). I read an article about Conservatives having issues with the McCain campaign keeping Governor Palin under wraps. I came across this quote:

In defense, Republicans say the complaints are coming from "intellectual" conservatives -- not Main Street Republicans, who they insist love the "hockey mom," from Alaska, as Palin describes herself.

"These are the folks that really have responded to the candidacy of a McCain-Palin ticket. These are the folks that are showing up in huge numbers, tens of thousands, to the rallies," Leslie Sanchez, a CNN political contributor, said.

So, correct me if I am wrong here. The complaints regarding Palin and her complete on air meltdown with Katie Couric are only coming from the intellectuals. Let me rephrase that:

Disregard the problems, only smart Republicans are having problems with Palin.

Similarly, I keep hearing that only eggheads and intellectuals are voting Obama.

The educated, smart people are voting Obama.

Now, please don't take this as "only dummies are voting McCain." I know very intelligent people who for whatever reason have decided to go that way. Yet, I can't get over the continued vilification of the intellectual. You know, the people who invented vaccines and make schools work so we are not a third world country.

No, smart doesn't always equal right.

Just the vast majority of the time.

Liberal Bloggers are dumb.

Ok folks, let me admit I was wrong. I always admit I might be, but it
is less usual that I have to admit I was. I was wrong about Sarah
Palin. She isn't a joke. She's far worse. She's attractive enough
to make people not listen to what she's really saying, and she has
enough problems around her for Liberal bloggers to blow out of
proportion to be dangerous.

See, here's the thing. The left is taking every little rumor about
Governor Palin and hitting it with Pym particles (google it if you
must) to make it much bigger than it should be. Case in point: a list
was floating in the blogosphere of books MAYOR Palin wanted banned.
The list was plainly false. It was a dirty lie. It was made up. The
fact was the Mayoral candidate Sarah Palin simply asked the local
Wasilla librarian if she would remove books if Palin deemed it
necessary, and then proposed this once again when she was elected as
mayor. No book ban. Just a...

Wait a freakin' minute.

She asked if the librarian would be willing to remove books from the
library? Are you serious? According to the NY Times, the Anchorage
Daily News, and Anne Kilkenny it happened.
Witnesses have come forward. In modern America this newly elected
mayor was looking into what it would take to censor books from her
community. This repugnant truth has been tied to an easily disproven
lie... and the lie drags the truth overboard with it when it is washed
away.

I am registered third party, but consider myself a
"Constituitonalist." The idea of a public servant considering
censorship is anathema to me. That alone would be reason enough not
to vote for her (and let's face facts- I hope John McCain passes
quietly in his bed well past his 120th birthday, but odds are a job
like president is not going to sit well with this man, so SHE is
likely who you are voting for).

So, Liberal Bloggers-- Stop being morons. Sarah Palin is raising her
own child, not her daughter's. Sarah Palin has not posed nude, or
even bikini clad holding a rifle (darn). Sarah Palin HAS made
prepatory actions toward censoring books, and MAY have asked a
librarian to resign for the sin of disagreeing with her. Sarah Palin
IS under investigation for possibly firing Alaska's top cop because he
did not fire her ex brother-in-law. The facts are bad enough.
Discrediting yourself by running the unsubstantiated rumors makes you
look like the people who claim Barack Obama is a secret Jihadist.
This election is too important to ignore facts. Play fair, or don't
play at all.

God- I'm asking politicos to play fair. Now I'M the moron!

John McCain proves he has a sense of humor!

Did you hear the one about the Vice Presidential candidate? Oh man, I thought McCain was old, and completely out of touch, but instead here he is totally punking the entire country. He had the balls to get on national TV and pull off the best practical joke I've seen in years! He actually acted like he picked a former beauty queen with a BS from the University of Idaho in journalism to potentially run the country! Oh man, that's rich! That's less education and foreign policy experience than I have! It's so funny because the Democrats are now tripping over each other to dis this Mary-Anne look alike as if McCain would really pick someone with an active misconduct investigation against her to be his running mate. As if that's not enough, he hilariously said Sarah would pick up Hillary supporters, although she is anti-abortion, anti-conservation, and is literally married to someone in the oil industry. That's high satire! Oh, the irony is funnier than Arrested Development and How I Met Your Mother combined!

You got us John, and it's a good one. Funny stuff. Now who's really your VP pick? No, seriously, quit playing around. Who are you really picking? John? JOHN???!!!





Oh Shit.