When there’s a will…
When there’s a will…
Comment: I can’t resist pointing out that the Obomber looks like the Antichrist in the picture below, Baphomet sign and all.
With permission from
In a strange and subtle turn of events, the Obama administration came to the defense of legal marijuana by telling the U.S. Supreme Court that they should not even entertain a lawsuit raised by Oklahoma and Nebraska
Both state’s politicians seem to have strong hatred for nearby Colorado’s recreational marijuana trade. As such, they have tried to actually sue to bring an end to the legalized plant in Colorado.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., wrote a brief suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court is not the proper venue for such a grievance.
“The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint should be denied because this is not an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction,” Verrilli penned. “Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here — essentially that one State’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another State — would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court’s original jurisdiction.”
Colorado is fighting back too, demanding that the Supreme Court dismiss the case. This has prompted the justices to ask the federal government to give their thoughts before a decision is made.
On behalf of the Obama administration, Verrilli’s letter says that the U.S. Supreme Court should reject hearing this lawsuit.
“Nebraska and Oklahoma essentially contend that Colorado’s authorization of licensed intrastate marijuana production and distribution increases the likelihood that third parties will commit criminal offenses in Nebraska and Oklahoma by bringing marijuana purchased from licensed entities in Colorado into those states,” Verrelli explained. “But they do not allege that Colorado has directed or authorized any individual to transport marijuana into their territories in violation of their laws. Nor would any such allegation be plausible.”
The Justice Department’s opinion has been celebrated as a major victory.
“This is the right move by the Obama administration,” Tom Angell said. Angell is from the Marijuana Majority. He told the magazine High Times, that “Colorado and a growing number of states have decided to move away from decades of failed prohibition laws, and so far things seem to be working out as planned. Legalization generates tax revenue, creates jobs and takes the market out of the hands of drug cartels and gangs. New federal data released this week shows that as more legalization laws come online, we’re not seeing an increase in teen marijuana use, despite our opponents’ scare tactics. The Justice Department is correct here: This lawsuit is without merit and should be dismissed.”
The implications of the move by the Obama administration are that marijuana should be federally legalized – even for recreational use. The Justice Department’s rejection of the federal prohibition of the plant – at the request of the current administration – is not just a bold move, it is an outright rejection of the standing federal law, which would see marijuana in Colorado federally prosecuted, if this law was deemed anything but antiquated.
What do you think is next for marijuana legalization? Will it officially become federally legal soon?
“In any art you’re allowed to steal anything if you can make it better.”
Jan 17, 2016
“As a writer you should not judge. You should understand,” Ernest Hemingway (July 21, 1899–July 2, 1961) counseled in his 1935 Esquire compendium of writing advice, addressed to an archetypal young correspondent but based on a real-life encounter that had taken place a year earlier.
In 1934, a 22-year-old aspiring writer named Arnold Samuelson set out to meet his literary hero, hoping to steal a few moments with Hemingway to talk about writing. The son of Norwegian immigrant wheat farmers, he had just completed his coursework in journalism at the University of Minnesota, but had refused to pay the $5 diploma fee. Convinced that his literary education would be best served by apprenticing himself to Hemingway, however briefly, he hitchhiked atop a coal car from Minnesota to Key West. “It seemed a damn fool thing to do,” Samuelson later recalled, “but a twenty-two-year-old tramp during the Great Depression didn’t have to have much reason for what he did.” Unreasonable though the quest may have been, he ended up staying with Hemingway for almost an entire year, over the course of which he became the literary titan’s only true protégé.
Samuelson recorded the experience and its multitude of learnings in a manuscript that was only discovered by his daughter after his death in 1981. It was eventually published as With Hemingway: A Year in Key West and Cuba (public library) — the closest thing to a psychological profile of the great writer.
Shortly after the young man’s arrival in Key West, Hemingway got right down to granting him what he had traveled there seeking. In one of their first exchanges, he hands Samuelson a handwritten list and instructs him:
Here’s a list of books any writer should have read as a part of his education… If you haven’t read these, you just aren’t educated. They represent different types of writing. Some may bore you, others might inspire you and others are so beautifully written they’ll make you feel it’s hopeless for you to try to write.
This is the list of heartening and hopeless-making masterworks that Hemingway handed to young Samuelson:
Not on the handwritten list but offered in the conversation surrounding the exchange is what Hemingway considered “the best book an American ever wrote,” the one that “marks the beginning of American literature” — Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (public library).
Alongside these edifying essentials, Hemingway offered young Samuelson some concrete writing advice. Advocating for staying with what psychologists now call flow, he begins with the psychological discipline of the writing process:
The most important thing I’ve learned about writing is never write too much at a time… Never pump yourself dry. Leave a little for the next day. The main thing is to know when to stop. Don’t wait till you’ve written yourself out. When you’re still going good and you come to an interesting place and you know what’s going to happen next, that’s the time to stop. Then leave it alone and don’t think about it; let your subconscious mind do the work.
Then, echoing Lewis Carroll’s advice on overcoming creative block in problem-solving, Hemingway considers the practical tactics of this psychological strategy:
The next morning, when you’ve had a good sleep and you’re feeling fresh, rewrite what you wrote the day before. When you come to the interesting place and you know what is going to happen next, go on from there and stop at another high point of interest. That way, when you get through, your stuff is full of interesting places and when you write a novel you never get stuck and you make it interesting as you go along. Every day go back to the beginning and rewrite the whole thing and when it gets too long, read at least two or three chapters before you start to write and at least once a week go back to the start. That way you make it one piece. And when you go over it, cut out everything you can. The main thing is to know what to leave out. The way you tell whether you’re going good is by what you can throw away. If you can throw away stuff that would make a high point of interest in somebody else’s story, you know you’re going good.
He then returns to the psychological payoff of this trying practice:
Don’t get discouraged because there’s a lot of mechanical work to writing. There is, and you can’t get out of it. I rewrote A Farewell to Arms at least fifty times. You’ve got to work it over. The first draft of anything is shit. When you first start to write you get all the kick and the reader gets none, but after you learn to work it’s your object to convey everything to the reader so that he remembers it not as a story he had read but something that happened to himself. That’s the true test of writing. When you can do that, the reader gets the kick and you don’t get any. You just get hard work and the better you write the harder it is because every story has to be better than the last one. It’s the hardest work there is. I like to do and can do many things better than I can write, but when I don’t write I feel like shit. I’ve got the talent and I feel that I’m wasting it.
When Samuelson asks how one can know whether one has any talent, Hemingway replies:
You can’t. Sometimes you can go on writing for years before it shows. If a man’s got it in him, it will come out sometime. The only thing I can advise you is to keep on writing but it’s a damned tough racket. The only reason I make any money at it is I’m a sort of literary pirate. Out of every ten stories I write, only one is any good and I throw the other nine away.
Hemingway tempers this with a word of advice on ambition, self-comparison, and originality:
Never compete with living writers. You don’t know whether they’re good or not. Compete with the dead ones you know are good. Then when you can pass them up you know you’re going good. You should have read all the good stuff so that you know what has been done, because if you have a story like one somebody else has written, yours isn’t any good unless you can write a better one. In any art you’re allowed to steal anything if you can make it better, but the tendency should always be upward instead of down. And don’t ever imitate anybody. All style is, is the awkwardness of a writer in stating a fact. If you have a way of your own, you are fortunate, but if you try to write like somebody else, you’ll have the awkwardness of the other writer as well as your own.
In a sentiment that calls to mind Neil Gaiman’s magnificent commencement address on the only adequate response to criticism, Hemingway cautions Samuelson about the petty jealousies that arise with success:
When you start to write everybody is wishing you luck, but when you’re going good, they try to kill you. The only way you can ever stay on top is by writing good stuff.
With Hemingway: A Year in Key West and Cuba brims with the celebrated writer’s wisdom on literature, life, and the creative experience. Complement it with Hemingway on knowledge and the dangers of ego and his short, spectacular Nobel Prize acceptance speech, then revisit the essential reading lists of Joan Didion, Leo Tolstoy, Susan Sontag, Alan Turing, Brian Eno, David Byrne, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Patti Smith.
“Why don’t we drug test all the members of Congress here,” McGovern asked. “Force everybody to go urinate in a cup or see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are turning out the way they are.”
Article by M.A. Hussein; M. David and Shante Wooten
Representative Trey Radel was a major proponent of Republican legislation to make food stamp recipients submit to drug tests before receiving assistance.
The proposal for those on food stamps to urinate in cups to prove they’re not on drugs received widespread praise from Republicans. But only a month after he backed the proposal, police busted the Florida Republican on a charge of cocaine possession.
“It’s really interesting it came on the heels of Republicans voting on everyone who had access to food stamps get drug tested,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said to BuzzFeed. “It’s like, what?”
The House approved an amendment by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), back in the summer of 2013, that allowed states to decide whether or not to test people on food stamps.
The amendment passed by voice vote. That means there was no record of who voted which way for the amendment.
But later, Radel voted for even further-reaching legislation that allowed for broader food stamps restrictions, including Hudson’s measure.
Hudson cited state legislatures around the country which had proposed similar things in recent years. But in time these efforts would prove ineffective – a waste of tax-payer money, that actually found virtually no one on food stamps using drugs.
“This is a clear and obvious problem in our communities as nearly 30 states have introduced legislation to drug test for welfare programs,” Hudson stated. “We have a moral obligation to equip the states with the tools they need to discourage the use of illegal drugs.”
Back in June of 2012, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) asked why recipients of crop insurance and other government benefits haven’t also been targeted for drug testing.
In fact, the majority of Americans support such a measure. They want to see politicians drug tested. After all, they are the ones passing so many of the drug laws in this country, and they are doing so on our dime. Isn’t it time that they step up to the plate and prove they aren’t using drugs like Rep. Radel was?
Obama went into office after the 2008 election owing $778,642,962 worth of favors. It may not be surprising, therefore, that since Goldman Sachs was Obama’s largest single contributor, it was never prosecuted for its part in the financial crash.
The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the incumbent, President Barack Hussein Obama, from running for a third term. Some – including perhaps Donald Trump – might argue that Article Two of the same Constitution should have prevented him from running for a first term; and that being the case – why should he not now run for a third?
But it seems the baton is set to be passed to someone new, and the question – as pressing as ever for any American – comes down to this: what flavor of sweet, sickly, fizzy poison do you want to spend the next four years drinking: Coke or Pepsi?
To me, the entire left-right paradigm is a long-winded, blathering version of Punch and Judy where the populous gets to vote on which puppet is going to have a giant corporate hand no-one elected shoved up its rear-end while it reads words on teleprompters written by people who have a far better understanding of what the game-plan is than the politicians themselves.
Meanwhile, the seeming changeover will make no difference; the underlying narrative will not miss a beat: more countries with brown people in them will get blown up, more countries with white people in them will be run into the ground, and a small number of international banks will continue to live off the labor and suffering of both.
I see so-called elections as public festivals, choreographed charades where masquerade combines with burlesque in a meaningless – though well-attended – pageant. They are theater, WWE wrestling with a very short multiple-choice question at the end – one in which there is no real choice.
An election is a public relations stunt to keep people convinced that they have a real say in things, and it serves to train them like Pavlov’s dogs to begin salivating – yet again – at the prospect of things being different this time, when only an idiot doesn’t know that things will be exactly as they have been up to now – only worse.
The other great thing about elections – besides the spectacle and distraction they provide – is that they generate a lot of money.
In the 2012 elections, a total of $1,325.4 billion was received in contributions, with the Democrats sucking in $722.4 million and the Republicans $598.3 million.
To better understand exactly how much money that is, consider this: You could make the four most expensive Hollywood films of all time (the two costliest Pirates of the Caribbean, plus Avengers: Age of Ultron, and John Carter) and still have enough left over for a good slice of Tangled. All those films – with the exception of John Carter – went on to make a robust profit.
Presidents never make a profit. Currently, Obama is responsible for more debt in dollar terms than any previous president, adding $6.167 trillion to the deficit – a 53 percent increase. George W. Bush managed $5.849 trillion.
This is excellent news for the so-called Federal Reserve and the secret cabal which runs it since it creates this ‘money’ out of thin air and charges the US taxpayer interest on it.
But it is tragic for everyone else.
And rather than call time on the highly questionable Federal Reserve Act that allowed the creation of the so-called Federal Reserve under Woodrow Wilson, new presidents do nothing about the financial tyranny under which the people who think they elect them live.
Quite the reverse.
Marc Rich – a financial fraudster who was on the lam in the face of 300 years in prison was pardoned by Bill Clinton in the final hours of his presidency. Rich died in 2013 in Switzerland and is now buried in Israel. Obama went into office after the 2008 election owing $778,642,962 worth of favors. It may not be surprising, therefore, that since Goldman Sachs was Obama’s largest single contributor, it was never prosecuted for its part in the financial crash.
The fact is that by the time presidents get to sit their posteriors behind the desk in the Oval Office, that part of them is owned lock, stock and barrel.
One of the key actors in the charade this time round in the role of Judy – I mean the Democrats – is Hillary Clinton. Clinton would be a strong choice since she withdrew her candidacy in favor of Obama during the last charade – and that move will have come at a price. And since she has made it clear to the Council on Foreign Relations (which she admits tells her what to do) that she will continue to support the military industrial complex, Halliburton stock will do well on her watch.
So far as I can work out, the producers of the soap opera known as Party Politics both sides of the Atlantic have decided to chuck in an echo from the days when the US and the UK had people living in them with solid jobs and who made actual stuff.
The UK got Jeremy Corbyn – a man who looks like a geography teacher on a field trip the purpose of which he has forgotten – and the US got Bernie Sanders. These dramatis personae are supposed to appeal to those who are disillusioned with the more polished and glitzy parade of falsity and special interests, and to inject some street-level authenticity into the mix.
In the US, it seems Sanders has been given some time on the pitch in case anyone asks why it is that two key contenders – Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush – are close relatives of previous presidents.
As a key representative for Punch this time we have Donald Trump. Like the career politicians, he says what he thinks people want to hear. Unlike them, he doesn’t practice his lines in front of the mirror first.
Trump is considered a renegade. Something like Ross Perot back in 1992, he is self-made and not shy of telling it like he sees it. His lack of political polish is something that also plays well to the spin-weary masses.
Unlike most the competition, Trump is already mega-rich – he has around 4.5 billion dollars. The implication is supposed to be that because he is mega-rich, he is incorruptible. That’s a nice idea, except for the fact that 3.5 billion clearly wasn’t enough for him or he would have stopped there, so there’s little reason to believe 4.5 billion will do it for him, either.
But he’s not averse to sticking his neck out. Trump told Republican Jews that they wouldn’t support him because he “didn’t want their money” – a fact which given the traditional full-body prostrations by presidential hopefuls before the altar of AIPAC might lead one to conclude that he’s dead in the political waters. However, he can cite a wealth of pro-Israeli credentials, including a Jewish daughter and two Jewish grandchildren. The Times of Israel quotes him as saying: “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.”
It remains to be seen if such protestations of undying loyalty to this other country will be enough to save his bacon, so to speak.
As of now, the Republicans’ coffers have seen $269.5 million and those of the Democrats $122.2 million for this year’s show. The Supreme Court struck down any cap on overall contributions in a controversial move in 2014, so if you want a say in who reads the teleprompter, you’d better get writing those cheques.
The fact is: it doesn’t matter who wins. We all know what we are going to get. It will be more of what we already got: more brutal police activity, more false-flag ‘terrorism’ justifying the lock-down big government wants, more surveillance, diminishing rights, and the promotion of a ubiquitous bogeyman (one with suspiciously professional marketing materials and matching fleets of Toyota off-road vehicles), more lies, more corruption, more wars which do not benefit the US, and then even more lies.
So why do it to yourself? Why waste any more of your life falling for this nonsense? Go and find a really old person – the oldest person you can find – and ask them if voting ever made a difference. We all know the answer: of course it didn’t. The rich and the powerful ran roughshod over everyone else and the controlled media spouted a fantasy version of reality then just as it does now.
But the tax drones still think they live in a free country and if they just vote hard enough and long enough everything – one day – will be great.
You believe it if you want to. I don’t.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Source:Clowns Against Child Poverty
What about making a new law whereby any politician who signs decrees of war must send at least one of his children to the front line?
Analyzing brain scans of 105 children ages 7 to 12, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have found that key structures in the brain are connected differently in poor children than in kids raised in more affluent settings. In particular, the brain’s hippocampus — a structure key to learning, memory and regulation of stress — and the amygdala — which is linked to stress and emotion — connect to other areas of the brain differently in poor children than in those whose families had higher incomes.
Many negative consequences are linked to growing up poor, and researchers at Washington University St. Louis have identified one more: altered brain connectivity.
Analyzing brain scans of 105 children ages 7 to 12, the researchers found that key structures in the brain are connected differently in poor children than in kids raised in more affluent settings. In particular, the brain’s hippocampus — a structure key to learning, memory and regulation of stress — and the amygdala — which is linked to stress and emotion — connect to other areas of the brain differently in poor children than in kids whose families had higher incomes.
Those connections, viewed using functional MRI scans, were weaker, depending on the degree of poverty to which a child was exposed. The poorer the family, the more likely the hippocampus and amygdala would connect to other brain structures in ways the researchers characterized as weaker. In addition, poorer preschoolers were much more likely to have symptoms of clinical depression when they reached school age.
The study is available online Friday, Jan. 15, in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
“Our past research has shown that the brain’s anatomy can look different in poor children, with the size of the hippocampus and amygdala frequently altered in kids raised in poverty,” said first author Deanna M. Barch, PhD, chair of Washington University’s Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences in Arts & Sciences, and the Gregory B. Couch Professor of Psychiatry at the School of Medicine. “In this study, we found that the way those structures connect with the rest of the brain changes in ways we would consider to be less helpful in regulating emotion and stress.”
Those changes in connectivity also are related to a risk of clinical depression. Those in the study who were poor as preschoolers were more likely to be depressed at age 9 or 10.