http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/22/inside-waka-flocka-flames-misguided-presidential-campaign/
So Waka Flaka Flame, a rapper that I have never heard of, says he's running for president. The rapper says if he's elected, the first thing he's going to do is legalize marijuana. Some people aren't taking this declaration seriously, but other people are and it has generated some discussion across the Internet about politics and whether a man who is obviously uneducated and who perpetuates black stereotypes through his very existence would make a good president. In the end it doesn't matter because Waka Flaka Flame is 28, and you have to be 35 to be president. Oh no...WhAt A sHaMe...
I think it's hilarious that people are actually seriously discussing this guy's claim that he's running for president. Seriously, people? You think some rapper who is probably high 90% of the time has any kind of shot at even getting nominated for the primaries? He won't even get that far, much less far enough to appear on the final ballot as a valid choice. Hillary Clinton didn't even make it there in the last 2 elections. Personally I just this this whole thing is funny, but I would love to see what is campaign ads would look like.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Weed approval is high, and so is half of America
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/marijuana-legalization-polls_n_7063768.html
A new survey shows that nationally and in several swing states, Americans are warming up to the idea of marijuana legalization. Nationally 53% of people think weed should be legal with young people between the ages of 18 and 34 being the biggest supporters at 68% approval. People who described themselves as more liberal and left-leaning were more likely to support legalization (big shock, I know.) Only 39% of Republicans supported legalization, but the survey says that's the highest it's ever been since 1969.
I personally don't have an opinion about marijuana legalization because I don't really know what to think about it. I'm not real strongly opposed to it, and that's probably a good thing because it looks like it's going to get legalized if these numbers keep going up. It'll be interesting to see if public opinion influences the politicians in this case.
A new survey shows that nationally and in several swing states, Americans are warming up to the idea of marijuana legalization. Nationally 53% of people think weed should be legal with young people between the ages of 18 and 34 being the biggest supporters at 68% approval. People who described themselves as more liberal and left-leaning were more likely to support legalization (big shock, I know.) Only 39% of Republicans supported legalization, but the survey says that's the highest it's ever been since 1969.
I personally don't have an opinion about marijuana legalization because I don't really know what to think about it. I'm not real strongly opposed to it, and that's probably a good thing because it looks like it's going to get legalized if these numbers keep going up. It'll be interesting to see if public opinion influences the politicians in this case.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Party in Ireland, everyone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/ireland-legalized-drugs-_n_6842766.html
Because of a legal hiccup, drugs such as ectasy, ketamine, crystal meth, and magic mushrooms are temporarily legal in Ireland. On Tuesday their Court of Appeal found the 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act to be unconstitutional. As a result, portions of the act have been repealed, including parts outlawing certain club drugs. Higher level drugs such as cocaine and heroine are still illegal, but other things are fair game. Irish lawmakers are currently freaking out and rushing to push legislation through that will make those drugs illegal again. This legislation is likely to be passed Thursday night at midnight, so take your drugs now.
Personally I think this is hilarious. How does a government screw up so badly that they make a bunch of drugs legal? This is made even more hilarious by the fact that this same week it was discovered that the wording in the Gaelic version of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage makes it seem like men can only marry men and women can only marry women, thereby making heterosexual marriage illegal. I don't know what's going on in their government, but I have to admit I'm enjoying the show.
Because of a legal hiccup, drugs such as ectasy, ketamine, crystal meth, and magic mushrooms are temporarily legal in Ireland. On Tuesday their Court of Appeal found the 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act to be unconstitutional. As a result, portions of the act have been repealed, including parts outlawing certain club drugs. Higher level drugs such as cocaine and heroine are still illegal, but other things are fair game. Irish lawmakers are currently freaking out and rushing to push legislation through that will make those drugs illegal again. This legislation is likely to be passed Thursday night at midnight, so take your drugs now.
Personally I think this is hilarious. How does a government screw up so badly that they make a bunch of drugs legal? This is made even more hilarious by the fact that this same week it was discovered that the wording in the Gaelic version of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage makes it seem like men can only marry men and women can only marry women, thereby making heterosexual marriage illegal. I don't know what's going on in their government, but I have to admit I'm enjoying the show.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Get out of my head, Charles!
http://www.science20.com/inside_science/will_brain_images_and_thoughts_be_protected_under_the_4th_and_5th_amendments-153485
Science has made leaps and bounds in the field of brain science. By studying brain scans and live images of people's brains through MRIs and other machines, scientists can tell to a degree what people are feeling or thinking about. This has been done many times with volunteers in studies, but now people are wondering if something like this could be used in a criminal investigation. Would brain scans be admissible in court, or would that violate one's 5th amendment rights that protect against self incrimination? Some say that in the future brain scans may be treated the same way DNA swabs or urine tests are when collecting evidence in a criminal investigation. Right now, however, the science likely isn't strong enough to be used in court, but in the future it could be.
I think brain scans would probably be treated like lie detector tests in court since both look at brain waves and physical responses to questions. I don't think they would violate the 5th amendment since lie detector tests don't. Of course, looking at the way your brain reacts to certain things in a more sophisticated way than was previously possible is a bit more "invasive" than a lie detector test, but if you think about it there aren't many other differences. If unreliable lie detectors can be used in court, why not brain scans administered by professionals?
Science has made leaps and bounds in the field of brain science. By studying brain scans and live images of people's brains through MRIs and other machines, scientists can tell to a degree what people are feeling or thinking about. This has been done many times with volunteers in studies, but now people are wondering if something like this could be used in a criminal investigation. Would brain scans be admissible in court, or would that violate one's 5th amendment rights that protect against self incrimination? Some say that in the future brain scans may be treated the same way DNA swabs or urine tests are when collecting evidence in a criminal investigation. Right now, however, the science likely isn't strong enough to be used in court, but in the future it could be.
I think brain scans would probably be treated like lie detector tests in court since both look at brain waves and physical responses to questions. I don't think they would violate the 5th amendment since lie detector tests don't. Of course, looking at the way your brain reacts to certain things in a more sophisticated way than was previously possible is a bit more "invasive" than a lie detector test, but if you think about it there aren't many other differences. If unreliable lie detectors can be used in court, why not brain scans administered by professionals?
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Naked Bicyclists: Ruining things for everyone since 2014
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/montana-lawmaker-moves-ban-yoga-pants-article-1.2111137
David Moore, a Montana law maker, is seeking to strengthen the state's indecent exposure laws. The new law would consider ANY nipple exposure indecent (yes, guys, you have to put a shirt on) and it would outlaw clothing that "gives the appearance or simulates a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area, or female nipple." This means tight fitting clothes could be considered indecent exposure, which includes yoga pants. To this Moore said "Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway." And all of this was started by a bunch of nude bicyclers who participated in an even called Bare As You Dare in Missoula in August. Nice work, guys.
It seems to me that this whole debate about how much clothing people should be wearing stems from the perception that bodies are inherently sexual and should be hidden (this is especially prevalent when talking about women's bodies, but that's a debate for another day.) Say it with me everyone: bodies are not inherently sexual. Why are we so ashamed of something literally everyone has? Why do we see the forms God gave us as disgusting? Human bodies are beautiful. Have you ever watched a dancer? Or stopped to watch someone's hands while they work? Or watched athletes showing off their fitness? People are just as amazing as anything else in nature, and we are a part of nature. Our bodies are no different from the bodies of cheetahs or bears or fish or birds. We're all just built for different things. People need to stop freaking out about tight clothes and worry more about the nude bicyclers, because anyone who puts their bare flesh against a metal contraption moving at high speeds during the hottest month of the year has GOT to be crazy.
David Moore, a Montana law maker, is seeking to strengthen the state's indecent exposure laws. The new law would consider ANY nipple exposure indecent (yes, guys, you have to put a shirt on) and it would outlaw clothing that "gives the appearance or simulates a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area, or female nipple." This means tight fitting clothes could be considered indecent exposure, which includes yoga pants. To this Moore said "Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway." And all of this was started by a bunch of nude bicyclers who participated in an even called Bare As You Dare in Missoula in August. Nice work, guys.
It seems to me that this whole debate about how much clothing people should be wearing stems from the perception that bodies are inherently sexual and should be hidden (this is especially prevalent when talking about women's bodies, but that's a debate for another day.) Say it with me everyone: bodies are not inherently sexual. Why are we so ashamed of something literally everyone has? Why do we see the forms God gave us as disgusting? Human bodies are beautiful. Have you ever watched a dancer? Or stopped to watch someone's hands while they work? Or watched athletes showing off their fitness? People are just as amazing as anything else in nature, and we are a part of nature. Our bodies are no different from the bodies of cheetahs or bears or fish or birds. We're all just built for different things. People need to stop freaking out about tight clothes and worry more about the nude bicyclers, because anyone who puts their bare flesh against a metal contraption moving at high speeds during the hottest month of the year has GOT to be crazy.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
How many times do we have to say it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-politics-for-2016/
2016 Presidential candidate hopefuls are weighing in on the vaccine issue. People such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and President Obama have all been quoted saying that vaccines do far more good than harm, and not vaccinating kids is dangerous for everyone. They all maintain that the science is good and that vaccines work. Rand Paul, however, surprised people by saying that he'd actually heard of kids developing mental diseases because of vaccines, a position that the medical community heartily disputes. What's even more surprising is Rand Paul actually has a medical degree. Many politicians do agree that parents should have the freedom to raise their kids how they want, but vaccines are vital to keeping communities healthy. This has opened up discussions about mandatory vaccinations and whether or not such a thing would be legal.
The vaccination issue is probably what makes me the most angry out of the current issues we face as a country. This is because vaccinations are based firmly in science which, as Neil Degrasse Tyson as said, "works whether or not you believe in it." Things like gay marriage and abortion come with moral and constitutional elements, but this does not. The fact that parents are letting totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases COME BACK because of some misplaced sense of "well I'm just protecting my kids from autism!" pisses me off so much. It has been said over and over again that the study that said vaccines cause autism was skewed, and it discredited a while ago, but mother STILL refuse to get their kids a very simple shot that almost NEVER causes complications (except in very, VERY rare cases.) I can't even begin to articulate just how STUPID this issue is. This should not be an issue! It's science, and it works. End. Of. Story.
2016 Presidential candidate hopefuls are weighing in on the vaccine issue. People such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and President Obama have all been quoted saying that vaccines do far more good than harm, and not vaccinating kids is dangerous for everyone. They all maintain that the science is good and that vaccines work. Rand Paul, however, surprised people by saying that he'd actually heard of kids developing mental diseases because of vaccines, a position that the medical community heartily disputes. What's even more surprising is Rand Paul actually has a medical degree. Many politicians do agree that parents should have the freedom to raise their kids how they want, but vaccines are vital to keeping communities healthy. This has opened up discussions about mandatory vaccinations and whether or not such a thing would be legal.
The vaccination issue is probably what makes me the most angry out of the current issues we face as a country. This is because vaccinations are based firmly in science which, as Neil Degrasse Tyson as said, "works whether or not you believe in it." Things like gay marriage and abortion come with moral and constitutional elements, but this does not. The fact that parents are letting totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases COME BACK because of some misplaced sense of "well I'm just protecting my kids from autism!" pisses me off so much. It has been said over and over again that the study that said vaccines cause autism was skewed, and it discredited a while ago, but mother STILL refuse to get their kids a very simple shot that almost NEVER causes complications (except in very, VERY rare cases.) I can't even begin to articulate just how STUPID this issue is. This should not be an issue! It's science, and it works. End. Of. Story.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Prison Blues
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-halt-executions-supreme-court-drug-review-28489823
Oklahoma may put three executions of prisoners on hold until the Supreme Court rules on a case concerning the drugs used to put criminals to death. Lethal injection is a three stage process that uses three different drugs to first sedate the prisoner, then paralyze them, and finally stop their heart. The issue is with the sedative, midazolam. The three inmates whose execution may be halted, along with a fourth who has since been put to death, sued the state over concerns that the sedative would not prevent their suffering during the procedure. These concerned were raised after Oklahoma used midazolam for the first time in an execution which ended with the prisoner dying painfully 43 minutes after the lethal drugs were administered. The government is still investigating the drug, so any executions may be halted until a substitute is found.
I could get into whether death or a life sentence is worse and whether or not death is actually too good for our worst criminals, but that's not what this is about. I think people who do get lethal injection shouldn't have to suffer horribly during the procedure. We're not barbarians. This is not the medieval ages where people were killed by being drawn and quartered. If we kill people in cruel and awful ways, we're no better than the criminals. We are no more humane. Some people might see criminals suffering as justice or something they deserve, but then we're getting into revenge which doesn't solve the problem. Hopefully the Supreme Court will get this fixed if there is, in fact, a problem with the drugs.
Oklahoma may put three executions of prisoners on hold until the Supreme Court rules on a case concerning the drugs used to put criminals to death. Lethal injection is a three stage process that uses three different drugs to first sedate the prisoner, then paralyze them, and finally stop their heart. The issue is with the sedative, midazolam. The three inmates whose execution may be halted, along with a fourth who has since been put to death, sued the state over concerns that the sedative would not prevent their suffering during the procedure. These concerned were raised after Oklahoma used midazolam for the first time in an execution which ended with the prisoner dying painfully 43 minutes after the lethal drugs were administered. The government is still investigating the drug, so any executions may be halted until a substitute is found.
I could get into whether death or a life sentence is worse and whether or not death is actually too good for our worst criminals, but that's not what this is about. I think people who do get lethal injection shouldn't have to suffer horribly during the procedure. We're not barbarians. This is not the medieval ages where people were killed by being drawn and quartered. If we kill people in cruel and awful ways, we're no better than the criminals. We are no more humane. Some people might see criminals suffering as justice or something they deserve, but then we're getting into revenge which doesn't solve the problem. Hopefully the Supreme Court will get this fixed if there is, in fact, a problem with the drugs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)