Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Republicans in the House have announced they are now ready to do something on immigration. I only mention this in passing here, because the entire talking points section is going to be devoted to a warning for Democrats: there will be traps laid by the Republicans, so Democrats have to be vigilant about defusing each one as it pops up.
We would like to take the time to mark the passing of a great American, Pete Seeger.
Sooner or later, though, whether it is 2014 or 2016 or beyond, the "Year Of The Marijuana Voter" is coming.
A new and extensive interview with President Obama recently appeared in the pages of The New Yorker magazine. In the middle of this wide-ranging piece there is a short section where interviewer David Remnick asks the president -- after previously discussing his "evolution" on gay marriage -- about his views on marijuana and the law. Obama answered with as honest an evaluation as I think I have ever heard from an occupant of the Oval Office, during my entire lifetime. Which makes me wonder a bit, since it is indeed that season of year when presidents traditionally "run a few things up the flagpole to see who salutes" (as they say). In the weeks just before the State Of The Union address, pet policy ideas are often floated in just such a fashion, in an attempt to gauge public reaction to new ideas or proposals. Perhaps I'm wrong about all of this, but the timing did seem more than a little coincidental.
For those of you not up on the lingo of the marijuana subculture, that headline is meant to be a pun of sorts, combining the Super Bowl (more on this in a moment) with the phrase "packing a bowl." Barack Obama, back in his "Choom Gang" days, would certainly have known what this is meant to refer to -- cramming marijuana in the bowl of a pipe constructed to smoke the substance.
Before we begin this week's political wrapup, please be advised that President Obama's speech on reforming the National Security Agency won't be covered here today. Obama just gave the speech this morning, and we feel it is too important to offer up snap judgments, preferring instead to let it percolate for a few days before commenting on the substance of the speech or the newly-announced policies.
President Obama is slated to give a momentous speech tomorrow, on the subject of what changes should be made to the National Security Administration and all of the other alphabet-soup agencies which provide intelligence to the federal government. Much attention has been paid to the N.S.A.'s activities, due mostly to the revelations from Edward Snowden. But there's one subject which Obama should address which has been discussed for years -- ending the blatantly unconstitutional practice of issuing "national security letters." Obama should take the opportunity tomorrow to announce he is adopting one of the key recommendations his oversight commission proposed: forcing judicial oversight of national security letters. In plain terms, making them similar to all other search warrants, to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
Welcome back to our regular Friday roundup of politics! We've been on hiatus for quite a while now, since we took two weeks off to dole out our year-end awards, and then last week we were just sick as a dog, which precluded all rational thought (much less trying to type coherently). So we've got a lot to cover this week, and our apologies in advance for all the stuff we're bound to have missed in the past month.
The dawning of the new year may usher in a seismic shift for at least two subjects in the political arena, because for the first time both proponents and opponents will be forced to frame their arguments based on actual, verifiable reality rather than just wildly overblown hopes or fears. The outcomes are uncertain at this point (since the new year is barely a week old), but the shift towards discussing hard data and facts rather than "this or that might happen" should be a welcome one, if only because we've had so much previous speculation (both good and bad) on the issues of Obamacare and marijuana legalization. From now on, asserting the inevitability of any particular outcome will become impossible, because there will be proof rather than just unfounded supposition. Which should be a welcome change to anyone wishing to intelligently weigh the benefits and drawbacks rather than just exchange political spin.
In short, if I had the time, money, and energy to propose a statehouse monument somewhere (where a Ten Commandments display already exists), what I would propose is a honkin' big statue to honor the god of Venus. Create a "Temple of Venus" group and sue to erect a gigantic statue of a beautiful nude female, arising from the waves! Hey, I warned you this was going to be an immodest proposal, right up front.