That's all right. In a way that article does much to dispute the notion of THC's unavoidable evilness.. some form of low temp delivery along with a metered dose of aspirin, vitamin E, or some combination (maybe including other chemicals) might well completely avoid the toxicity (and thus, I hope, the memory loss) while still delivering the high.

It also strikes me as possible that the people who note no problems at all with memory may just have diets high in vitamin E, or maybe they take aspirin. And the kids (for they certainly were teenagers) I hung out with in high school weren't real big on eating vegetables. Shrug. As has been exhaustively discussed, anecdotes don't prove much of anything ;].

Coming from you, that carries a fair amount of weight. I became irritated when my pov was dismissed on account of poorly formed arguments, and reacted vigorously. Maybe too much so. I don't think any of the claims I made are false, though.

Also, politics is unavoidably informed by and shaped by science. Whether it's reaction to the science, rejection of it, etc.. when it comes to a thing like a drug, science pervades the topic. What arguments you can sanely use politically will depend on the topology of the situation. I hope you can see that.

The key word there is 'threatened'. Many times in a poker game you make a bet are sure your opponent won't call, when you have no intention of calling a raise (because you either have nothing, or because it signals that you're beat). I don't doubt the US did so. I also don't doubt, for example, that the British court decision to reveal the details of Binyam Mohamed's torture will result in the cancellation of US/UK intelligence sharing. Link in sig.

From my point of view or yours, yes. That is, if either of us were the dictator of the USA, we'd be insane to do that. From the point of view of the politicians who have done what they've done.. I think they're sane. Cowardice is sane, and so is graft, if it goes unchecked. They're damned shortsighted though.

All at once? If so, I think he probably won't serve five years, unless they deliver the lashes at the end. 1000??

to avoid ever admitting to ourselves that maybe we shouldn't procreate beyond the ability of the Earth to sustain us. Rather than trying to convince people to give up many, many things they enjoy, might we not have more success trying to convince people to make exactly one sacrifice (to have only one child)?

Gingrich/Palin 2012. Palin/Gingrich? It's hard to know which would be more amusing.

They're on the books, but so are laws forbidding oral sex, down south. They aren't enforced and therefore might as well not exist. And as long as the paychecks of the legislators come directly from the big companies, that will not change.

What about the last 9 years makes you think the terms 'president' and 'king' are meaningfully different.

in terms of guaranteed health care for life, for any condition whatsoever, with no prior conditions or premiums to pay. Period. You give an organ, you get help forever, including transplants if need be.

The individual doesn't need cash in hand. People do stupid things with cash in hand. So don't do that.

You're saying "I told you so" a little soon. We'll see.

There are Way too many Capitals in your post to take Seriously. I keep Giggling when I Read it.

There are only so many clunkers out there, and many who own them can't afford a new car no matter the incentive. Unless it's free, I guess.

We should instead build bridges, modernize the power grid, etc. Spend money, but in ways that have lasting benefits. No more circuses.

You can't do anything unless it's going to enhance your status among the other vapid trend-followers, right?

I miss 10000 Maniacs. It's really sad they hated each other and broke up.

It's Oily Taintz. Never go away lady.. please. The comedy gold must continue.

How dare you. It's the One True Long Form. In Japan leaving off the o can get you into big trouble, and so it is in this case. The black helicopters are already en route to your place, just stuffed with ninjas.

Brave New World appears to be not a cautionary tale, but a practical manual.

I compulsively read articles about shows I will never watch.

Why even bother trying to work for change? What exactly do you want to do, Andrew? Find the perfect deck chair layout for the Titanic?

You miss the point. The problem, which is that the nature of corporations is to push limits, cannot ever be addressed while they are allowed to grow to such a size that they cannot be allowed to fail. Sanders' measure is an entirely reasonable first step. After that, aggressive regulation on both size and lobbying would give us some chance of reacting to these kinds of disasters in non-buyout ways, in time.

Therefore analysis of why he might have had trouble, if he had done, is premature.

"republican" had a slightly different meaning in that time and place, though.

"Real estate, especially in the transactional sub-sectors (e.g., brokers, etc.), accounts for a significant share of the California labor force."

Here is a real problem. We've allowed a society to come into existence where "a significant share of the labor force" derives its income from facilitating the sale of property from one party to the next.

Is any value created there? If it was much simpler and easier for property to change hands, what would these people do?

What I suggest we do about this is incentivize professions that actually produce value, while neglecting to incentivize ones that don't. The professions I have in mind are education, medical, production, research, mining, farming, etc. Professions that actually produce something of value.