More Palin please!

Oh, yay! She's got a twitter feed! You'd think she's got someone writing this stuff for her, but here is her first post ...

This is my official Twitter feed - from here I’ll provide updates on issues concerning Alaskans. Learn more about AK at www.alaska.gov.

So we're establishing that the purpose of the feed is to write about issues concerning Alaskans. Because, you know, she's the governor. Of Alaska. Remember?

So yeah, a feed by an Alaskan, for Alaskans. But then her very next post ...

AP gravely misquoted my staff, saying I 'changed my mind' on the stimulus package. For accurate info, go to http://tinyurl.com/c7v84t.

Contradicting one sentence with her very next sentence? It's her! It's really her! Whew! Baby, you had us worried there! I thought maybe this would really be about Alaskan issues, and not just a chance to put more of your 2012-focused nonsense out there! Thanks for always being there for us, Sarah Palin. Even if 'there' is in outer space.

On Connecticut State Senate Bill 349

SB 349 would change possession of small amounts of marijuana from a misdemeanor (punishable by jail time) to an infraction, which would be merely ticketed.

I followed some link and sent my state senator, Toni Boucher, an e-mail asking her to support SB 349, which has passed the senate's Joint Committee on Judiciary. Senator Boucher wrote back and relayed her testimony before the Committee against the bill.

What follows is my response to her, on which I CC'd Governor Jodi Rell.

Toni

Thanks very much for writing back. I respect that your views differ from mine. It's why I voted for the other guy in November. But the way I understand it, you represent me nonetheless. So I hope you will not impose your own views on the state, but rather aim to represent the majority's will. You might know that a Quinnipiac University poll this year indicated that 58 percent of Connecticut voters favor SB 349.

It would be even better if I could sway you by illustrating where your thinking is, in my opinion, misguided. Since you were kind enough to relay your views to me, I offer the following rebuttals.

You cited a couple, many years ago, who lost their son to drugs. You do not say that the drug on which the son overdosed was marijuana, and I imagine that's because it wasn't the drug on which he overdosed. To my knowledge, marijuana has never killed anyone. This, of course, is not true of alcohol or tobacco, two legal substances. In fact, you call marijuana a gateway drug, and say it was identified by the parents as "the real killer," which again I assume is merely evidence that it was not the real killer. Perhaps you also favor illegalization of alcohol and tobacco, as any 15-year-old can tell you that these are the gateways to marijuana use. Most people against marijuana legalization don't favor outlawing cigarettes and alcohol, and therefore are guilty of hypocrisy. Perhaps you are the exception; I have not researched your views. But the state of Connecticut has not outlawed alcohol or tobacco; it instead has satisfied itself with laws governing the two substances' use.

The same should be true for marijuana. It is not physically addicting, the way tobacco and alcohol are, and so there is no evidence that there would be health issues -- especially where marijuana is potent enough to deliver its effects with minimal substance ingestion. If one could feel the effects one desired from as little alcohol or tobacco, there would be no health issues with those substances either. I'm afraid any studies you cite are going to be of extremely limited value; most are conducted or sanctioned by the federal government, which outlaws marijuana in the first place, and what few remain relied on government-supplied marijuana, which of course is not representative of the many strains available to users. Have the studies looked at both indica and sativa strains? For what other variables have these supposedly scientific studies accounted? I also find that critics draw highly spurious conclusions from these studies, like the 40 percent statistic you cite. If marijuana increased the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent, there would be a great many college graduates with mental disorders in this country. Assuming relationships to be causative is a fallacy that extends far beyond drug studies, but it certainly is a popular one among anti-marijuana lawmakers.

There absolutely are people who have other issues -- motivational, organizational, social -- related to their marijuana use. Marijuana does not cause these issues. It sometimes enables them. A shut-in who doesn't answer the door because he's high would be a shut-in without marijuana. And he likely would seek some other substance instead -- doubtlessly a more dangerous substance, since marijuana is the least dangerous of illicit substances. Rather than trotting out a story of a couple, many years ago, who lost their son to some other substance, I suggest you talk to more marijuana users. You can find many of them achieving at the highest levels of our country -- although some are not free to admit their use, thanks to stigma of the drug's illegal status -- as well as working at the nearest Burger King. Talk to former users, too, including those who say their lives were miserable while they used. Many of them will tell you that they came to realize that the drug made it easier for them to avoid working out the issues that challenged them, but that in most cases, when they stopped smoking, they still needed to work out those issues. And while you're talking to them, see if those serious and costly long-term health effects you presage have come to pass. I also would love to the the sourcing for much of what you cited in your testimony to the Joint Committee. Sixty percent of Connecticut drug treatment center admissions are for marijuana addiction? I'd love to hear more about that.

You worry that SB 349 will overturn decades of progress "combat[ing]" marijuana use. How are you measuring that progress? Is progress combating measured in arrests? In prison sentences? This kind of "progress" is easy to achieve. Do lower percentages of the population use marijuana? Impossible to measure, of course, since respondents would need to admit to lawbreaking. But anecdotally, I can tell you there has not been significant progress of anything. I can direct you to any number of peers who use habitually, and others who did for years before stopping. They are not in hospice care, or mental wards. If you are against adults' being legally allowed to smoke marijuana, I assume you are not aware which of your friends and family are smokers (although if you did know, I imagine you would prefer they be ticketed for marijuana use, and not put into the criminal system). I urge you, for the purposes of researching this issue, to widen your circle. And the percentages of college kids who smoke marijuana today will not be appreciably lower (if, in fact, they're not higher) than they were 20 years ago when I was in college. So I wonder what kind of progress you had in mind.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the statistics and purported evidence you cited in your testimony. But it is not easy. It reads like the boilerplate claims I've seen elsewhere so many times from other lawmakers who were closed on the issue. These "facts" fit their argument, and these were the "facts" they were sticking with. I hope you will consider it your responsibility to seek out the other side of the story. I suspect it would lead you to question some of the "evidence" that seems so compelling to you now. I believe you owe it to yourself, and I am certain you owe it to me and the rest of your constituents.

Yer pal
troy

No, seriously -- shut the @&#^ up

She's baaaaack!

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter," said Bachmann. "And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

Note that her sentence construction is starting to resemble our girl's; "... back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then ..."? Even? Also, it might not surprise you to learn she's wrong. I don't think that's an interesting coincidence.

Ranking the monsters of rock my damn self

I came kind of late to rock. I remember bringing in a cassette to fifth-grade art class and playing a song on it for the whole class in one of those school cassette players you remember if you went to elementary school in the '70s. Why art class? And why did the teacher let me? I suspect the answer to each question is the same: She hated me. The song was 'Stairway to Heaven.' I don't really remember anyone in class thanking me for showing them the light. I do remember my ears turning red, so red I didn't need a mirror to see it.

This glorious debut had a couple of follow-ups. In sixth grade, I found my Dad's 'The Best of Bread' cassette, with the song 'Freedom.' I didn't get mocked too much for playing it at recess. No, I got mocked more for playing the tape on this candy apple-red 'portable' stereo that was like a Walkman, except I insisted on bringing in the speakers that came with it. A little unwieldy. In seventh grade, when we had to do a project for The Fellowship of the Ring, I went to my guitar teacher's basement, where he had a four-track and makeshift studio, and wrote and recorded a song called "The Road Leads to Nowhere." I still don't get why that wasn't a good idea, although I do still remember everyone laughing at me so hard, I slammed the door shut on my finger running out of there. Hurt like hell, too.

By the end of high school, I was listening to Metallica and Celtic Frost and M.O.D. and S.O.D., so I'd more or less caught up, having already found Rush, AC/DC, Zeppelin, and of course the Beatles. I pretty much stopped listening to all of the classic rock bands except the Beatles at one point or another, although Zep and the Police certainly got airings from time to time, but recently, I've been filling in the gaps in my collection. Last month, I downloaded my favorite Cheap Trick. A couple of nights ago, I found some free Kinks on emusic. And I was thinking of how the Kinks had aged, and that got me thinking about how I perceived the bands back when I was a teenager and how I perceive them all now. Of course, if I want to post about it, I have to rank them. So here's one man's thoughts, in reverse order of how much I want to listen to them today:

16. Kiss

Never liked 'em.

15. Black Sabbath
Then: Seemed a little scary. I mean, even when I was listening to Celtic Frost and looking for the scariest metal I could find, I was a little afraid to check out Sabbath.
Now: Well, of course I eventually checked them out, and they're still a little scary; Ozzy would scare me if he were a temp working for me. I find that I really like what I really like by them, but they don't go as deep (in terms of quantity of quality songs) as I would like.
Songs I still like: Supernaut; Fairies Wear Boots

14. Yes
Then: I liked these guys. The musicianship was impressive, and I have a prog side to me. I liked 90215.
Now: Seem a little silly.
Songs I still like: I thought I liked "I'm Running" off Big Generator, but it turns out not so much.

13. The Kinks
Then: Seemed like a kind of generic classic rock band. I liked them OK, liked some of their songs a lot.
Now: I still admire the songwriting, but the music hasn't really aged well at all; it sounds very dated now. Don't like the arrangement, don't like the production. And that tends to make Ray Davies sound silly, even on a potentially good song like 'Living on a Thin Line.' Dave Davies is woefully underrated though.
Songs I still like: Tired of Waiting for You

12. Queen
Then: Wasn't interested.
Now: I admire the musicianship, and the production was good. And you've got to give it up for the ambition of Freddie Mercury. Most songs don't really resonate for me, though.
Songs I still like: Under Pressure

11. The Who
Then: Liked 'em fine. I really liked some of their songs a lot. I owned tapes of theirs, although you kind of had to back then. I remember really loving "Athena."
Now: They're definitely passe, and I can mock a Who fan as well as the next guy, but I suspect I'm due for a renaissance with them, where I'll pick up some of their hits. But my strongest feeling about them is that they had no heart.
Songs I still like: The Seeker (helped by its appearance in 'American Beauty'), and I guess Join Together and Who Are You.

10. The Doors
Then: See The Kinks. I liked some of what they did a lot, though. But overall, they weren't anything special.
Now: I came to be a big fan in college, bought all the discs, and when they were on, they were on. But I don't have anything by them now, and don't plan to.
Songs I still like: Peace Frog; Soft Parade

9. Cheap Trick
Then: See The Kinks. Liked them well enough.
Now: I really like their best songs. They really influenced the distorted-guitars brand of power-pop that I love, bands like Sloan. They just don't go all that deep. I've come to want to be entertained for every second of a song. I don't want it to take two minutes to warm up. I don't want it to go on one verse and chorus too long. And I don't want a pedestrian rock song. I kind of feel like too many of Cheap Trick's songs fit that last category; I only bought four of their tracks. In their favor, they aged great, especially if you like "Tonight It's You," from their '80s resurgence, which I do.
Songs I still like: Dream Police; Surrender; I Want You to Want Me; Tonight It's You

8. Rush
Then: Had to respect the greatness in the writing, and the proficiency of all three guys, but I found some of their stuff a little goofy, like Yes's. I mean, 2112 and 'The Trees' were a little silly, right? Or was I missing something?
Now: I really like the songwriting, which turns out to have been a big influence on my own, especially their '80s hits. But the production sounds a little too '80s. The 'classic' '70s stuff aged better.
Songs I still like: The Big Money; Time Stands Still

7. AC/DC
Then: Mostly I just gave props to Back in Black, which was a really deep album. I mean, they buried "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution," you know?
Now: I later came to love the Bon Scott stuff, but after a while, a lot of it sounds a little pedestrian, bar band, and formulaic. I have all the Bon Scott stuff, but only because I got it free off Napster eight years ago.
Songs I still like: Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution; Highway to Hell; half of Powerage

6. Pink Floyd
Then: I was a huge fan of the "Wish You Were Here" album and selected stuff off The Dark Side of the Moon, and LOVED "Comfortably Numb" and "Hey You." But I only listened to what I heard on the radio.
Now: I guess they're kind of a band I'm keeping in reserve, that I can always get more into someday when I've got no one else to listen to. But I wouldn't mind getting my hands on "Wish You Were Here" again. Not really into the Syd Barrett stuff, or the The Division Bell era.
Songs I still like: Breathe; Shine On You Crazy Diamond

5. Van Halen
Then: I mean, any teenage guitar student is going to be into Van Halen. The first song I ever was taught to play was "Dance the Night Away," which I don't know why, because I'd never heard it at that point; my teacher chose it, probably because it wasn't hard. I eventually got into all of it, especially lesser known stuff like Van Halen II and Women and Children First.
Now: They lost me when Sammy came aboard. I still like the old stuff that got second-tier radio play, but only have it from Napster, and don't listen very often. Still sound great though; it's usually the writing that damns the weaker Halen.
Songs I still like: Little Guitars; Beautiful Girls

4. The Rolling Stones
Then: I mean, I knew they were bigger than The Kinks, but I wasn't much more impressed with them than I was with The Kinks. You know?
Now: I admire their oeuvre and everything, but after hearing everything I needed to hear 100 times, well, that was enough. When people say they like the Stones better than the Beatles, I get confused, and tilt my head, the way a dog will look at you.
Songs I still like: Gimme Shelter; The Last Time; Miss You; Only Rock 'n Roll

3. The Police
Then: One of the first albums I ever got was "Synchronicity." I really didn't hear any of the early non-radio stuff until college ...
Now: ... when I got really into it. Great songwriters, and great players, and it still holds up today. They wrote more songs that I like than a lot of other bands, but not everything they did was up my alley.
Songs I still like: Can't Stand Losing You; Next to You; Don't Stand So Close To me; Driven to Tears; Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic; Does Everyone Stare; On Any Other Day; Synchronicity I

2. Led Zeppelin
Then: Maybe my first love. The Beatles, I had those stupid Red and Blue albums, and you really miss out on the color that makes the Beatles great if that's all you're hearing -- no "And Your Bird Can Sing," and "For Sale" is just woefully underrepresented. On the other hand, I had the first five Zeppelin records in high school, and thought they were the balls; I listened to Houses of the Holy every night when I went to bed for like two years.
Now: More than anyone else above them on this list, they stand up. Still sounds great to me, although I know they've been remastered. The songs were just excellent, and diverse for classic hard rock.
Songs I still like: Immigrant Song; Celebration Day; Since I've Been Loving You; Battle of Evermore; Misty Mountain Hop; Song Remains the Same; Rain Song; Over the Hills and Far Away; Custard Pie; The Rover; In My Time of Dying; this is getting a little ridiculous, isn't it?

1. The Beatles
Then: I knew what I was hearing was amazing in terms of sheer quantity of quality, but I really think you've got to own them to get them. On those two greatest hits records, you got stuff you didn't like (well, I didn't like) like Michelle and In My Life instead of Hey Bulldog and, you know, pretty much anything great from Abbey Road. (I think the White Album choices are awful too.)
Now: Well, I mean, they're the freakin' Beatles, now aren't they?
Songs I still like: Um ...

OK, you may go now

So suddenly, Dick Cheney's got a lot to say:

"What I find disturbing is the extent to which [President Obama] has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth.

“And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests.

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world… I don’t think we have much to apologize for.

Well, depends who you mean by 'we.' Me and my friends? Not so much. But 'we' as in Dick Cheney and, well, anybody Dick Cheney might have anything to do with? Let's just say that if he would apologize -- or, you know, wouldn't have done all the messed-up stuff he did -- the current president wouldn't have to.

Cheney said that as long as we're going to start declassifying memos showing what sick twists he and his puppets were, we should also declassify the ones that show that the torture was entirely productive. “And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

Yes, I think we'd all like to see those. Cheney also knows how we should deal with Central and South America, parts of which, for reasons unkown, also don't like us much lately:

“You have millions of people all across South America who are watching how we respond. And if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it's not helpful. I think it sort of sets the wrong standard.”

“I've seen Hugo Chavez in operation before, and Daniel Ortega down in Nicaragua. These are people who operate in our hemisphere, but who don't believe in and aren't supportive of basic fundamental principles and policies that most of us in this hemisphere adhere to.”

“Basically, the position we took in the Bush administration was to ignore it. I think that was the right thing to do.”

"OK, now I'll take some questions. Yes?"
"Uh, yeah, Mr. Former Vice President/Torture King, troy from kinde words here. Can you please cite the evidence of 'ignoring it' being 'the right thing to do'? And I have a follow-up."

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world. We have for a long time. And I don't think we've got much to apologize for. You can have a debate about that."

Gee, you think? Cheney also said he never got a chance to share his thoughts with Joe Biden, who didn't ask Cheney for his insights. Go figure.

Move over, crazy, there's a new crazy in town

Can this really be her first appearance here on kinde words? I find that hard to believe. Anyway, Sarah Palin's chief competitor for ... um, whatever had this take on the president's recent G20 summit appearance:

I think that there may have been agreements made behind closed doors that we aren’t even aware of, that could be ceding American sovereignty.

Can't he just cede Minnesota? Or Congress? Bachmann continued:

That would be very frightening.

She would know.

I have seen ...

... this black SUV. Up close. From behind.