Crunchy Frog
Crunchy Frog's JournalDo you really think that Bill didn't try to appeal to and get Reagan voters
or that Obama didn't do the same with BushII voters? Or that the 'pukes don't do the same with trying to get traditionally Democratic voters?
It's not about "sympathy", it's about the reality of how the game of politics is played. As a party, we should be going after the political figures, and not the voters. I know that it "feels good" to demonize voters, but doing so is suicide as a political party.
Not defending those views at all, but they don't exist in a vacuum.
People who live under perpetual occupation, while facing continual harassment and dispossession, seldom have any love for their occupiers. Populations that live under a state of perpetual conflict, frequently harbor some pretty unsavory views towards one another.
I wonder what a similar poll would have revealed about the attitudes of black South Africans during Apartheid, or Native Americans towards white Americans during the 1800s. I'd be curious to see a poll of the attitudes of Israeli Jews towards Palestinians, or Arabs as a whole. I'd be curious to see the same poll of just the settler population.
I would seriously question whether it's religiously motivated bigotry, or simply a natural outcome of long term occupation, dispossession, and conflict.
I'm not expecting a reasonable answer on this one.
It's not right, it's not fair, and I absolutely hate it, but currently it's the rules of the game.
The only issue of interest to me in the election outcome, is, does she or doesn't she get sworn in as President of the United States. The current rules of the game say that winning a larger number of popular votes is irrelevant, and only the number of Electoral College votes matters, as far as winning the presidency goes.
Can you comprehend the fact that for some of us, the only really important issue here is that Trump is going to be taking the Oath and moving into the Oval Office, and then sacking and pillaging this country four the next 4 years. It's totally wrong, and I would change it if I could, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary's nearly 3 million more votes than Trump's makes absolutely no difference as far as outcome goes.
The fact that she won a hell of a lot of votes in Californial and NYC doesn't alter the fact that she didn't win enough votes in critical swing states that she needed to take in order to get sufficient EC votes to take the presidency. I won't say that "she didn't connect with voters", but I will say that she didn't connect with enough voters in the critical swing states that she needed in order to win the presidency.
We are not saying that the majority of voters should be discounted. It's the fucked up electoral system in this country that says that, and most of us hate it, and would love to see it changed. It would take a constitutional ammendment to change it, though, and that isn't going to happen any time in the forseeable future.
It seems to me like the thing that's really eating you is that not all of us have the kind of emotional investment in Hillary Clinton that you do. That not all of us are ready to give her a pat on the back and a 2nd place medal. That some of us are more invested in the country and what Trump is about to do to it, than we are in Hillary as a person.
Do you honestly believe that the campaign was perfect, and that there was nothing within their control that they could have done differently that maybe would have produced a different practical outcome? If you do, that's fine, it's your opinion, but not all of us share it. Some of us believe that there is value in evaluating things that our side did wrong in an election that failed in the only metric that has any practical meaning. Some of us want to think about how we can do better next time, so that we not only "win", but actually end up with the presidency, and hopefully some down ticket offices as well.
It actually boggles my mind that some people don't understand where this side is coming from. It's not about disrespecting the candidate. It's about wanting to get our candidate into the Oval Office.
Kratom Drug Ban May Cripple Promising Painkiller Research (Scientific American)
Although the kratom compounds have yet to be clinically studied in humans, Andrew Kruegel, a pharmacologist at Columbia who was not involved in Varadi’s study, says the results hold promise for better designer painkillers. “Those compounds alone may already be superior to codeine and oxycodone. At a minimum, if you can get rid of respiratory [problems] then you can save thousands of lives,” Kruegel says. “But we can tweak their properties to make them even better than the natural starting point.” Or they would do so if the research were able to legally continue, he adds.
Scientists can obtain a license to study Schedule I drugs but they are hard to acquire and significantly slow down research, says Chris McCurdy, a kratom researcher at the University of Mississippi. “I don’t oppose it being regulated, I just oppose Schedule I,” he says. “That’s where the frustration comes in, realizing you have to shut everything down because we don’t have a Schedule I license.”
At the moment, neither do several other kratom researchers, including Majumdar. “We’ll have to destroy all our samples in the lab,” Kruegel says. The DEA’s emergency scheduling of kratom will expire after two years if the agency does not move to make the scheduling permanent. But for that to happen, Kruegel thinks scientists will likely need to show further proof that kratom is medically useful. “That we’ll have any progress in the next two years is very unlikely,” he says.
Much more at link.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kratom-drug-ban-may-cripple-promising-painkiller-research/
This policy kind makes a mockery of all the recent handrwinging about the "opioid epidemic"
Signed the petition. Thank you for posting.
I've never tried it, and only recently become aware of its existence, but am nevertheless following this story very closely. It seems like this herb is helping an awful lot of people who would otherwise be in intractible pain, have substance abuse or addiction issues, or problems with depression and anxiety.
As someone who suffers from chronic, treatment resistant depression and anxiety, it's possible that I could have gotten help from this, where I have not been helped by any pharmacueticals out there, and now I will probably never have the chance to find out.
Some good places to follow this issue:
https://www.reddit.com/r/kratom/
The facebook page for the American Kratom Association, https://www.facebook.com/Americankratomassociation/
A couple of good videos:
This should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about the overreach of th DEA and the drug war, whether or not you're an active user. Let's keep this kicked.
Yes, there's a mass hysteria going on in this country right now
concerning prescription pain medications.
There's a "crisis" and an "epidemic" of unimaginable proportions.
I'm sorry that you're having to deal with this bullshit.
Just be grateful that you're not a chronic pain patient. They are literally being treated like criminals, getting cut off of their medications, some of them turning to street drugs, others to suicide. It's insanity.
Hope you're feeling better very soon.
Probably because of the relative dearth of good female characters.
There's alot fewer female "Hermiones" than there are male "James Bonds".
Oh, and BTW, they were originally going to cast Susan Hayward in the role.
Profile Information
Name: Debbie DownerGender: Female
Home country: A republic if we can keep it.
Member since: Sun Oct 26, 2003, 05:06 AM
Number of posts: 26,579
