I signed up for the GOP for a laugh, and after the House Dems finally succeeded in passing Healthcare Reform into law tonight, Michael Steele sent out a typically-dishonest, fearmongering fundraiser e-mail in response. Here’s how that makes me feel:
(see below for original e-mail from the RNC)

Dear Mr. Steele,
Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats who took a political risk and fought to pass Healthcare Reform on behalf of the American people certainly do reflect our will, and serve our common good. I, and many millions of others, voted the Dems into their majority in both houses of Congress and the White House, and this is just one of the things that they have promised and put effort into making a reality.

Do you remember, Mr. Steele, when you ran for Senate in Maryland? You didn’t get my vote. Do you remember what happened in the 08 election? McCain was hopelessly behind before the conventions, and had to pander to the base and select a female running mate who doesn’t even support women’s rights as a pure token and nod to Hillary Clinton’s popularity. But you know what? Neither McCain nor Palin, nor Boehner, Graham, McConnell, Bush, Cheney, or most other of your Republican colleagues are what the American people need: people who will serve the interest of we the people who elect our government to represent us and serve our common good. The GOP was totally complicit in wasting our resources, and expending lives, to fight an unjust war in Iraq — to you, that lie was a worthy use of our government and an example of a way you purport that government should serve the people. If our government can fight and kill on our behalf, and protect corporate profits and political views with complete disregard for the actual people who work to power our economy, certainly it is even more important–a moral imperative–that it also help ensure healthcare and education for American citizens. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

Change might not be easy, but I am certain that deep down most of you Republicans probably know that this healthcare bill, while not perfect, is a start toward the security and affordability that we need all people to have. If we have any civil rights that our government protects, our health must be the foremost among them. And if you really believed that this bill was not a benefit to the American people, you would surely have saved the funds and hot air, and just let the Dems pass the bill so that it could stand for itself to prove your points. But you know almost as well as I that this new law will help many Americans directly so that their lives may be saved in times of illness, and they will not lose their life savings or livelihoods in their most difficult times. And I bet you also know that the new efficiencies and healthier, better covered workforce will be even more productive. And that will benefit all industries, and all homes and communities — even the private-sector healthcare companies who are bound to welcome millions of new customers by this bill, and will then be bound by law to guarantee the health care and insurance that they promise the insured.

I have to thank you though, for being such a buffoon and a mockery of any morality or good at the core of the few sincere conservatives’ beliefs, and for raising so much funding for the Democrats. By the way, it’s time to drop your party’s denial of equal rights and dignity toward certain minorities and people who are just not lucky enough to be born into wealth or to be born in America. Fiscal conservatism may have some logic. But social conservatism is just plain hatred, and makes you act like a party of uncompassionate bigots.
-Evan Cooper

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Michael Steele, RNC Chairman wrote:
> > Dear Evan,
> > In defiance of the will of the American people, Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cronies have authorized a government takeover of your health care. She even considered an unconstitutional backdoor process that involved passing the bill without a vote on it before she realized that she could simply cajole, bully, and even buy off members of Congress in order to get enough “yeas” to ram President Obama’s socialist scheme down our throats.
> > Nancy Pelosi has gone too far. She is no longer serving the American people and the Constitution of the United States. She is beholden to left-wing special interests, and does not represent the will of the people. It is time to fire Nancy Pelosi.
> > In order to fund our efforts to oust Speaker Pelosi, the Republican National Committee is launching a Money Bomb to raise the resources we need to gain 40 House seats. If we gain just 40 House seats, we will fire Nancy Pelosi. Please donate, and then tell your friends to donate, so that we can end the tyrannical reign of the most aggressively left-wing Speaker in American history. Donate, so that we can fire Nancy Pelosi!
> > Sincerely,
> > Michael Steele > Chairman, Republican National Committee

Politics is not Public Service.

Problem:
You’re at a bar, and the bartender serves you a drink with a lime. What do you do with it?

Answer:
You’re not alone…
(READ THE FULL ARTICLE: “WHAT TO DO WITH THE LIME…”)

in DC, it’s who you know…but in the end, it’s who you are. don’t give up on one to focus on the other.

I am granting this article an open-source copyright, including free use without attribution.

I believe that Madame Speaker stands strongly and authentically against the practice of torture on an ethical basis, and rejects “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” authorized by the Bush administration because of the potential harm they bring to national security and America’s standing in the world. If I was in a position to advise Pelosi regarding her public statements today, here is what I would suggest saying:

“The interrogation strategies used by the Bush Administration — which turned its back on bipartisan cooperation and collaboration and mocked opposing views as “unpatriotic” — were part of a highly classified set of policies and materials which members of Congress and the House Intelligence Committee were not in a position to expose or comment on publicly — and were not included in the process of deciding and formally approving policy, even in the few cases where we were fully and openly briefed at all. Under Bush Administration policies members of the House Intelligence Committee were simply informed that lawyers in the Department of Justice, hand-picked by Alberto Gonzales to give Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld carte blanche approval for any of their flawed and failed policies, had approved some vague idea of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.” While we had suspicions that the Bush Administration may indeed have authorized and directed torture in violation of the Geneva Convention, we were never told what, when, to whom, or under which circumstances these illegal interrogation techniques could or would be used.

“Torture, including waterboarding, is inhumane, unethical, illegal, and unacceptable. However even our strongest objections to the policies forced into place by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad could not be made public; because despite our disagreement and abhorrence with the potential for violation of human rights, or even war crimes outlawed in the Geneva Convention, we could not just breech security protocol to rush a debate in order to eliminate any policies that the Administration had put in place which might have opened the door to torture. The interrogation practices in question were entangled with larger strategies and policies that Bush and Cheney claimed were in the interest of Homeland Security and anti-terrorism, and to bring the full content and specifics to public attention would have put the mission and lives of our servicemen and women in the Armed Forces into jeopardy.

“However, within Congressional protocol and federal law regarding classified information, I along with other Democratic leaders and even many concerned Republicans used every avenue open to us to push for the elimination of these practices which are downright un-American. I could not reveal classified information to the public in an argument against the Bush Administration’s policies. However, I consistently stood up and universally rejected the prior administration’s potential use of torture, and have done everything in my power to push these policies into debate so that we may be fully briefed into the actual interrogation practices authorized and–God forbid–used under Bush and Cheney.

“We are doing everything we can to fix the mess Bush and Cheney left America to deal with after the people overwhelmingly rejected the flawed and unethical policies of the last 8 years. Today, President Obama has begun the process of opening up formerly-classified information to our full attention. We must now institute a bipartisan commission to investigate the actual techniques approved practiced by the Bush Administration, and if and when illegal techniques may have been used. The commission must have the latitude and power to make their decision based on complete information, so that it can bring to light exactly who decided, formally authorized, or knew the complete range of interrogation tactics used under the Bush Administration. Once everything is known about the details and extent of ethical and legal violations that may have been committed under the previous administration, it is even possible that we will be able to prosecute those responsible for potential war crimes, if that is what is necessary to bring justice. At this time, however, I can not comment on my opinions regarding prosecution.

“President Obama is also working with us in Congress (not against us the way Bush and Cheney turned their back on the balance of power and the Constitution) to restore our security policies to truly protect the American people, while once again respecting human dignity for people around the world. Doing so will not only make America safer and more secure than we were under Bush/Cheney policies, but will also restore our strength and standing in the international community.”

from August, 2005

Video still from the movie Garden State.
Frou Frou – “Let Go” (opens in new window)

I think the warm welcomes and bittersweet farewells that go down in airports and train stations are some of the most beautiful displays of connectedness and shared feeling that we have to live for. But why should travelers get to have all the fun? Eating lunch every day in Union Station never gets old…the building is magnificent and airy, and filled with the a buzz as people do their thing, mostly minding their own business.

Wouldn’t it be amazing, to meet in the middle of the randomness and chaos and share one of those perfect kisses that let everything else melt away, even if only for a moment? What would happen after we came back to reality? Would it just be kiss and go? Could there be a spark to ignite something more? Or is this too dreamy an idea altogether?

I posted the following comments on our Stanford Alumni e-mail network, adding my thoughts to an ongoing discussion on some of the big issues facing the nation and the world (as well as a few small issues facing the e-mail network itself)

It should be mentioned specifically that different substances can be considered and treated differently in a reformed drug policy.

Some call for legalization or decriminalization of marijuana and other natural, unrefined substances such as mushrooms. Both of these substances are far less addictive than nicotine, cocaine, heroin, and other “hard” drugs. However the delineation based on a substance being natural vs. processed or refined does not always take into account the consequences or damage of particular drugs such as Opium, which can be highly addictive and very dangerous.

One line of thought is to decriminalize all drugs for the sake of reducing the demand for unregulated dealing and trafficking, thereby helping to curb organized crime. Decriminalization would also reduce the cost to our society of imprisoning offenders (especially in the cases of consumption or possession), and allow for a way to provide substance abuse treatment without stigma.

Others suggest treating different substances in different ways, according to the harm of use. Some substances could be legalized, others decriminalized to provide social services to curb use, and a few could remain completely illegal (perhaps drugs that are used as part of violent acts such as date-rape drugs).

Particularly with marijuana it is nearly impossible to die from an overdose, the effects of intoxication are not as severe as those of alcohol in most cases, and there are proven medicinal benefits (especially if you factor in the so-called benefits of legal psychoactive pharmaceuticals such as antidepressants, even “feeling good” is a relative benefit). And being widely grown across the country, regulated and taxed trade would generate tremendous revenues.

There are complicating issues, such as the difficulty in testing for intoxication. For example, a person involved in a car accident may have been impaired due to having smoked just before getting into the car. Or the driver could have been completely alert, attentive, and sober at the time, but may have smoked at some point a month earlier. Both drivers could test positive for THC in their body, but there is currently no fast and affordable way to see which driver was under the influence at the time of the accident and which was driving responsibly. Still, the behavioral impairment of marijuana use is likely testable in the field — just like walking a straight line or counting backwards, an officer could perform some sort of screening in the field. And unlike alcohol, where people get drunker and drunker (toward the point of unconsciousness) the more they drink, people just get high and stay there on marijuana rather than getting higher and higher. The high for some people may impair them to the point where they absolutely could not drive safely, and for others they may actually be more focused on the road under the influence. At any rate, it should not be society’s decision to exert over the individual, since there are so many analogs between marijuana and legal (not to mention profitable) substances such as alcohol, tobacco, alprazolam, zolpidem tartrate (look them up…the SOLAR spam filter thinks I’m some kind of internet pharmacist spammer), etc.

Concluding, this isn’t intended as a well-organized argument…just some thoughts. But I am convinced that our current drug policy, enforcement, and cultural stigmatization of drugs need to change to reflect the actual effects of drugs, both positive and negative, rather than discriminatory gut reactions and intentional marginalization (see Nixon) of individuals and communities who use these substances. Or worse yet, plain legislation for corrupt political ends — for example favoring the pharma lobby over the drug reform interests (not to mention the paper and textile industries which felt threatened by hemp fibers), or criminalizing substances out of Jim Crow era hatred toward the minorities who were associated with the use of certain drugs.

This is a complex issue that needs a balanced solution that respects individual health, choice, privacy, and liberty as well as the stability of society. That, I hope we can all agree on.

(part 1 of 3 – the other segments will automatically load and play after the first clip is completed)

Here’s what you do:

1 – Go to Wikipedia’s “random” page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

The first random Wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.

2 – Go to Quotations Page’s “random quotations”:
http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3

The last four or five words of the very last quote on the page is the title of your album.

3 – Go to Flickr and click “explore last seven days”
http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days

The third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.

4 – Use Photoshop or similar to put it together.

5 – Post your photo to your FB page with this text in the “caption” or “comment” and tag friends you’d like to join in. If you don’t know Photoshop just post your photo, listing your band name and album title above these instructions.

Thanks, Eva, for posting this on Facebook!