Working in the restaurant business, I run into lots of different people. It's like people watching at work. It's extra interesting because our shop is right next to Union Station. But it has its up and downs. I love hearing about different types of people. I remember one guy who was about to catch a train to Las Vegas. He was getting a sandwich on a Tuesday right before his train. He told us he would make it to Las Vegas on Friday night. Whoa! There are also some bitches. People who are rude and people who seem to think their demands are normal. I constantly wonder what makes people happy. But this is not what I want to talk about.
What I wrote on a note to myself last week is the following: "2 sides. Who am I to tell people how to live and what to enjoy? OR Come on do you really need bacon added on this sandwich? Live! What's more important? Living well? or just living?" These are my exact words. I wrote it down after a lady came in who is clearly overweight and could be so dangerously. She got her usual Ham, Mushroom, Egg and Swiss sandwich. As I was finishing the sandwich, she asked me to add bacon to the sandwich. I love bacon just as much as the next guy but I don't find myself needing to add it to every sandwich I get. Am I missing out? Am I the one who is refusing to live? Or am I the one who is living by avoiding excess?
This is not the only time I have had these sorts of thoughts. I remember a family of three came in near closing time. It was a mom, a dad and a daughter, who was not older than 14. All three looked like a veggie salad could do wonders. Instead, they all ordered BIGs Meatball, Italian, and Wreck. Quite possibly the worst three things to order on the menu. At that time, I couldn't help but ask myself why parents set such poor examples for their children. The dad even made sure that his daughter wanted a BIG sandwich! I laughed on the inside but felt seriously conflicted about whether or not to say something.
Once again I am forced to ask myself what is important in life. Is life about enjoying and living as happily as possible at every individual moment? or is it about knowing that life does not last and that is it the most precious thing we have and that it must be protected at all costs?
I am reminded of our campfire song "Fight Test". While the song might be about subject material completely unrelated, I am still inspired by the lyrics: "I don't know how a man decides what's right for his own life. It's all a mystery." In the final analysis, I fall on the side of living with the knowledge that this will not last forever.
My eyes won't enjoy looking at the blue skies, and the blue lakes, and the lovely people forever; and my ears won't hear laughing and music and fast cars and conversation forever; and my hands won't touch the Stanley Cup and guitar pic and grass and the steering wheel and the grip of the golf club or baseball bat forever; and my nose won't smell freshly cut grass and tasty food and red wine and cold beer forever; and my mouth won't get to taste french fries and sushi and ice cream and steak forever. So let's enjoy what we have while we have it but while always being mindful of the fact that no one has forever.
8.11.2010
6.02.2010
5.09.2010
Cooking the slowplay
I had a day off from work and decided to play some poker online. I had my usual 5 table action going. After playing for about 30 minutes, I realized that I had not eaten at all. Multitasking while playing online poker has become an art form for many people, I'm sure. My laptop sat on my counter while I started to boil some water. While waiting for my noodles to finish cooking and while I was stirring occasionally, I was dealt AA. I made a standard raise to 3x the big blind or in my case 30 cents. I got one caller and took a flop of A5J. Recently, I have had some issues getting action from monster hands like this one so I decided to slowplay. I checked the flop and got a check behind. The turn was a blank and it went check check again. River came and I finally bet out .50 cents. Ahhhh no action! It's so tough to get action sometimes. Anyway, I was pretty excited to see my multitasking skills at their prime. I could not help but think how much greater it would be to have the same scenario at a casino where multitasking is not even a thought....I think I'll make that happen very soon ;)
I'm not sure I have mentioned this before about what is going on with me and my quest for online poker domination. Back in October or November I got an email from UB.com. It said that they missed me. And that in order to see me more often, they were going to give me $25 to come back to them. It was a nice gesture but these things usually have plenty of strings attached. Most of the time it involves a bonus after making a deposit or something along these lines. Basically they usually suck and are not worth it. After reading through the email I could not find any of those sorts of strings. So after getting the UB app for Mac, I was quickly on my account and saw that I had $25.59 in my account. I had apparently left .59 in my account from a few years ago. So I decided to give it a shot. I played two tables of .05/.1. I had $20 of my $25 at the tables. Obviously this is not optimal but at this point, what else can you do? Play .01/.02? Pshhh! No chance. Let's fast forward to May of 2010. It's now been about 6 months and lots of up and downs. I have played 29,000 hands since I got this $25. My account now stands at $294. I'm not finished yet, of course. I would love to turn it into $10k. That will be extremely difficult as I have not even moved up a level yet. Ahhhh! It could be a while before I even move up to the .1/.25 game. Hopefully I'll keep building and I'll have more to talk about in a few months. Good luck out there!
I'm not sure I have mentioned this before about what is going on with me and my quest for online poker domination. Back in October or November I got an email from UB.com. It said that they missed me. And that in order to see me more often, they were going to give me $25 to come back to them. It was a nice gesture but these things usually have plenty of strings attached. Most of the time it involves a bonus after making a deposit or something along these lines. Basically they usually suck and are not worth it. After reading through the email I could not find any of those sorts of strings. So after getting the UB app for Mac, I was quickly on my account and saw that I had $25.59 in my account. I had apparently left .59 in my account from a few years ago. So I decided to give it a shot. I played two tables of .05/.1. I had $20 of my $25 at the tables. Obviously this is not optimal but at this point, what else can you do? Play .01/.02? Pshhh! No chance. Let's fast forward to May of 2010. It's now been about 6 months and lots of up and downs. I have played 29,000 hands since I got this $25. My account now stands at $294. I'm not finished yet, of course. I would love to turn it into $10k. That will be extremely difficult as I have not even moved up a level yet. Ahhhh! It could be a while before I even move up to the .1/.25 game. Hopefully I'll keep building and I'll have more to talk about in a few months. Good luck out there!
4.08.2010
Long missing, I'm back with 4 topics
I have not written for a long time. I have been super busy with whatever. In this edition of the Sweet Up and Down I want to discuss 4 topics. On the plate today, we have Duke basketball, a stupid rule in basketball, Tiger Woods, and Major League Baseball.
1. Duke won the title in 2010. Whoop de do. Has there ever, in the history of the tournament, been a less-deserving champ? Over the course of the 3 week tournament, Duke beat the likes of Arkansas Pine-Bluff, Cal, Purdue, Baylor, West Virginia, and Butler. On the other hand, Butler, this year's runner-up beat the likes of UTEP, Murray St, Syracuse, Kansas St, Michigan St, and then lost in the final by 2 to Duke. I think it is safe to say Butler deserved the title and would have had it had they gotten a call or two go their way. Specifically, Jon Scheyer drew a charge midway through the second half. It was easily the worst call I have ever seen and had it been called the right way, Butler would have gotten an 'and 1' from the play. Boom, 2 points, tie game.
2. A stupid rule in basketball. This rule works in both college and the NBA. Let's picture a late game scenario. Let's say you are LeBron James. You are down by 3 points late in the game. You have one last chance to hit a shot to possibly tie the game. As you take the ball down the court, you are fouled before you get the chance to take a shot. The other team is not letting you get the chance to tie the game. Instead of playing defense, they foul. Is that good for the game? Is it good for the fans? No and No. I can understand when you are losing at the end of a game, the need to foul. A team that is trailing needs possessions. In this situation, a foul is justified as a way to try to steal. BUT when you are winning the game and you foul someone so blatantly, how is that justified? I think this is the single dumbest rule in the game and it should be changed. A foul at the end of a game that is intentional in nature by the team that is winning should be called intentional. The best way to fix it.
3. Tiger Woods is presently playing his first round at Augusta. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Masters, Billy Payne, decided to read a statement about Tiger Woods. He basically said things like Tiger has let us down and that he is sincerity is what we must now look to. And on and on. I can only think that is just not the place or the time or even the person to be saying these sorts of things. Who the F cares what Billy Payne, Chairman of the Masters, thinks we need to feel about Tiger? Who is he to judge? I thought his comments were wholly inappropriate and at best misguided.
4. MLB. I just read the quotes from Jerry West about the length of the Yankees-Red Sox games. What the hell is going on here? Their games last for nearly 4 hours? Last night Angel Hernandez had to deny 4 (yes, 4) timeout requests. Why does everyone need a damn timeout after every pitch? I saw a few days ago that there was some research done in this and they went and looked at a game from 1957, I believe, and in that game they found that not one batter ever stepped out of the box once they had stepped in. No one batter, not one time during an entire game. Nowadays, people step out of the box after every pitch for every at-bat for an entire career, much less a season and even more lesser, a game. This isn't just a Yanks Sox problem. It's league wide and needs to stop. Now, please.
1. Duke won the title in 2010. Whoop de do. Has there ever, in the history of the tournament, been a less-deserving champ? Over the course of the 3 week tournament, Duke beat the likes of Arkansas Pine-Bluff, Cal, Purdue, Baylor, West Virginia, and Butler. On the other hand, Butler, this year's runner-up beat the likes of UTEP, Murray St, Syracuse, Kansas St, Michigan St, and then lost in the final by 2 to Duke. I think it is safe to say Butler deserved the title and would have had it had they gotten a call or two go their way. Specifically, Jon Scheyer drew a charge midway through the second half. It was easily the worst call I have ever seen and had it been called the right way, Butler would have gotten an 'and 1' from the play. Boom, 2 points, tie game.
2. A stupid rule in basketball. This rule works in both college and the NBA. Let's picture a late game scenario. Let's say you are LeBron James. You are down by 3 points late in the game. You have one last chance to hit a shot to possibly tie the game. As you take the ball down the court, you are fouled before you get the chance to take a shot. The other team is not letting you get the chance to tie the game. Instead of playing defense, they foul. Is that good for the game? Is it good for the fans? No and No. I can understand when you are losing at the end of a game, the need to foul. A team that is trailing needs possessions. In this situation, a foul is justified as a way to try to steal. BUT when you are winning the game and you foul someone so blatantly, how is that justified? I think this is the single dumbest rule in the game and it should be changed. A foul at the end of a game that is intentional in nature by the team that is winning should be called intentional. The best way to fix it.
3. Tiger Woods is presently playing his first round at Augusta. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Masters, Billy Payne, decided to read a statement about Tiger Woods. He basically said things like Tiger has let us down and that he is sincerity is what we must now look to. And on and on. I can only think that is just not the place or the time or even the person to be saying these sorts of things. Who the F cares what Billy Payne, Chairman of the Masters, thinks we need to feel about Tiger? Who is he to judge? I thought his comments were wholly inappropriate and at best misguided.
4. MLB. I just read the quotes from Jerry West about the length of the Yankees-Red Sox games. What the hell is going on here? Their games last for nearly 4 hours? Last night Angel Hernandez had to deny 4 (yes, 4) timeout requests. Why does everyone need a damn timeout after every pitch? I saw a few days ago that there was some research done in this and they went and looked at a game from 1957, I believe, and in that game they found that not one batter ever stepped out of the box once they had stepped in. No one batter, not one time during an entire game. Nowadays, people step out of the box after every pitch for every at-bat for an entire career, much less a season and even more lesser, a game. This isn't just a Yanks Sox problem. It's league wide and needs to stop. Now, please.
1.16.2010
The Curse of the Era
The 'steroids era' lasted roughly from 1989 to 2003. During this time, more players hit more homeruns more frequently. This is a statistic that can be proven. Hundreds of players were using either steroids, HGH or some other PED. Big name players have either come out or gotten caught using. Players like Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, David Ortiz, Rafael Palmero, and others that are suspected like Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa. Are these players all bad people? Were they chosen to play in this era and use drugs? No and No. I am sick and tired of hearing from other older players who ridicule the steroid users. As if the players not playing in the era are somehow morally superior. I heard Matt Holliday who plays now, after the era, talk about how he does not approve of McGwire using. Of course you don't approve. If he had played in the era, he could have easily been a user. I can say the same for Hank Aaron, Jack Clark and whoever else. Babe Ruth? This guy was an alcoholic, womanizer. If there were steroids, would he have used? How can we give moral superiority to those who were lucky enough to play outside of the era? It is unfair and I can't stand it anymore. The point is this: No one outside of the era can possibly understand what it was like to play in the era. So judging those within the era is wrong and needs to stop.
12.29.2009
12.22.2009
Re: The Heisman
I reply to my Heisman article found here, I have an article from espn.com about Suh being named AP Player of the year. Where do these opinions come from and why are they so varied? Everyone gets a vote and everyone thinks differently? Let's start to get some real consensus. It's like the BCS but with awards.
12.13.2009
Fox v CNN
On my bookmarks toolbar, I have FoxNews and CNN right next to each other. They are in between facebook and weather.com. I like to compare the headlines. Each site has their own agenda and from time to time, it becomes extremely obvious. Here are the two right now...
The article about spending is spun very differently for each agenda and the recession article is a bit pessimistic.
The article about spending is spun very differently for each agenda and the recession article is a bit pessimistic.
12.11.2009
The Heisman
I was reading this article on espn.com about the greatness of the Heisman trophy. The article talks about how there is only one Heisman given out each year. There are many Academy Awards, many Grammy's, and so on. There is only one Heisman. It is given annually to the best college football player. Last year the winner was Sam Bradford. He was an obvious pick. Past winners from this decade are Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Troy Smith, Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford. Here is the problem I have with the award. This might just be the nature of the award and hence, can never be changed. But fight on, I will. Out of the players who have gone into the NFL, (Weinke, Crouch, Palmer, White, Leinart, Bush, and Smith) only 2 have had success. Why is that? The 2 of those 7 that have done anything are Palmer and Bush. The Heisman voters have this obsession with giving the award to a quarterback. Only 1, Bush, is not. There is no rule that says it must go to a quarterback. Let's start giving the award to the actual best player in the game, not the one who is popular and gets the credit. For this year, my vote is going to Ndamukong Suh. This guy will be a force in the NFL. I know it is hard to predict but I think it's much easier to say that Suh will dominate in the NFL than it is to say Colt McCoy will dominate in the NFL. He is the best player and has the brightest future. Give it to Suh.
12.01.2009
Rose Bowl Ad
Just saw a Rose Bowl ad describing the game as "all eyes will be on Pasadena" and "the grand daddy of them all." Let's see here....no and no.
11.07.2009
!!! (UPDATE) College Football is the BEST!!! Weee (UPDATE) !!!
Great read here from Yahoo! Sports writer Dan Wetzel.
It goes well with this article.
Check out this sweet graph (plus commentary) that helps us figure out why teams are ranked in their position.
I thought we could compare this chart to some other sports and see how the BCS really is superior.
For instance, in the 2009 NCAA Tournament (pictured below) the team that wound up being the champion was the one won one the tournament. I know it seems amateur, but the people over in basketball think it's wise to have a team win on the court !!! in a tournament !!! I'm seriously laughing out loud at how stupid this idea is. I mean when you think about it, it really is stupid to play the games on the court. Just think how much better College Basketball would be if there was no tournament. Oh man, I can't wait for the day when this tournament no longer exists and we can have a basketball BCS. That will really be a good day for the sports world.
Here is another one that I think you might find ridiculous....
Let's be honest. The BCS clearly has the best system. A system based on playing games on the field is laughable. The computers know best. They definitely can predict who the best teams are, even if they have never played each other. Putting those teams against each other would be a mistake because that way, we wouldn't need the computers!!! And we all know that computers are very important in life. So, based on this logic, the actual game of football is not the best way to figure it out. One of the best things in college football is the bowl games. You cannot forfeit those in order to have a champion. It would be much too big of a sacrifice to drop the bowl games in order to have a real champion! HA! Removing bowl games in order to have a champion! That would be really stupid. So, no one complain about this system. After all, it is based on the computers!!! OOOooooo
It goes well with this article.
Check out this sweet graph (plus commentary) that helps us figure out why teams are ranked in their position.
I thought we could compare this chart to some other sports and see how the BCS really is superior.
For instance, in the 2009 NCAA Tournament (pictured below) the team that wound up being the champion was the one won one the tournament. I know it seems amateur, but the people over in basketball think it's wise to have a team win on the court !!! in a tournament !!! I'm seriously laughing out loud at how stupid this idea is. I mean when you think about it, it really is stupid to play the games on the court. Just think how much better College Basketball would be if there was no tournament. Oh man, I can't wait for the day when this tournament no longer exists and we can have a basketball BCS. That will really be a good day for the sports world.
Let's be honest. The BCS clearly has the best system. A system based on playing games on the field is laughable. The computers know best. They definitely can predict who the best teams are, even if they have never played each other. Putting those teams against each other would be a mistake because that way, we wouldn't need the computers!!! And we all know that computers are very important in life. So, based on this logic, the actual game of football is not the best way to figure it out. One of the best things in college football is the bowl games. You cannot forfeit those in order to have a champion. It would be much too big of a sacrifice to drop the bowl games in order to have a real champion! HA! Removing bowl games in order to have a champion! That would be really stupid. So, no one complain about this system. After all, it is based on the computers!!! OOOooooo
11.02.2009
Deserving Sports Fans
I read a blog on Yahoo! about Green Bay Packers fans and how they didn't deserve to lose to Brett Favre twice. The post goes into really no detail about why they did or did not deserve to lose to Favre twice. He does say, though, some things....
"Most of us will never see our hero, arguably the best player in the history of our franchise, come back in the colors of our arch-rival and then destroy us, cementing the fact that his new football team is now clearly better than his old one."
This might be true. But what other things will most of us never see? Let's see. The Detroit Lions, from 2007-09 lost 19 games in a row. Not many cities get this privilege. The Pittsburgh Pirates currently hold the record for most consecutive losing seasons at 17. This record is ongoing and I don't see an end in sight. Most fans won't see this happen, either. So, who really cares what most of us will ever see. In sports, anything can happen.
"Karma failed us. After everything that's happened, all the breathless media reports, all the spin, all the lies, all the hurt feelings ... Brett Favre gets to come out on top, both times? This time, in your own front yard? That is not right. That is not just."
Karma does not care about Packers fans or Vikings fans or Yankees fans. Justice and karma and 'things working out right' don't exist, especially not in sports. There is no justice in sports. There is just sports. Karma doesn't help out a franchise. Things just happen.
"I guess "deserve" is a concept that doesn't apply here, though. Things happened the way they did because Minnesota has a better football team. They have a better defense and a better running attack. In this case, that means they win. It sucks, but that's how it works."
This last quote negates the entire article. If only the author would have come to this realization at the beginning of the article, he could have stopped writing. He finally understands. The Red Sox were never cursed. They had inferior teams. The Cubs are not cursed. They might be a bit unlucky. But overall, they have not had the best team. In sports, justice, fairness, karma, 'getting what's yours' and whatever else do not exist. The best team usually wins, no matter the colors on the uniform.
"Most of us will never see our hero, arguably the best player in the history of our franchise, come back in the colors of our arch-rival and then destroy us, cementing the fact that his new football team is now clearly better than his old one."
This might be true. But what other things will most of us never see? Let's see. The Detroit Lions, from 2007-09 lost 19 games in a row. Not many cities get this privilege. The Pittsburgh Pirates currently hold the record for most consecutive losing seasons at 17. This record is ongoing and I don't see an end in sight. Most fans won't see this happen, either. So, who really cares what most of us will ever see. In sports, anything can happen.
"Karma failed us. After everything that's happened, all the breathless media reports, all the spin, all the lies, all the hurt feelings ... Brett Favre gets to come out on top, both times? This time, in your own front yard? That is not right. That is not just."
Karma does not care about Packers fans or Vikings fans or Yankees fans. Justice and karma and 'things working out right' don't exist, especially not in sports. There is no justice in sports. There is just sports. Karma doesn't help out a franchise. Things just happen.
"I guess "deserve" is a concept that doesn't apply here, though. Things happened the way they did because Minnesota has a better football team. They have a better defense and a better running attack. In this case, that means they win. It sucks, but that's how it works."
This last quote negates the entire article. If only the author would have come to this realization at the beginning of the article, he could have stopped writing. He finally understands. The Red Sox were never cursed. They had inferior teams. The Cubs are not cursed. They might be a bit unlucky. But overall, they have not had the best team. In sports, justice, fairness, karma, 'getting what's yours' and whatever else do not exist. The best team usually wins, no matter the colors on the uniform.
Nightmarish Happenings
I played for 30 minutes today and went set under set for my stack. In three sessions, about 5 hours, I had a net gain of $206.
10.28.2009
10.27.2009
SportsNation sucks bad
You know what sucks at television? ESPN show SportsNation. Could they talk about anything less-relevant? I think it's nearly impossible. Here is some great programming ideas..... Let's ask "SportsNation" how many people they think don't know the NFL overtime rules. Then, ( and this is the genius part of the show) we can have two unknown, idiot hosts, talk about the question and (more genius) guess what they think "SportsNation" thinks about the subject. Seriously? This is the show. I'm not exaggerating, either. They ask people a question and then the hosts guess what they think the people think. Worst. Show. Ever.
10.25.2009
Re: The New Cursed
A little while back, I wrote an article (here) detailing why I think the New York Yankees are the new cursed team. I went on and on about how the Boston Red Sox destroyed their curse by coming back from a 3-0 deficit to beat the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS. Well, the time has come. With a win in Game 6 of the 2009 ALCS, NY has made it to the World Series for the first time since losing to Josh Beckett and the Florida Marlins in 2003. We finally find out if the curse has been placed on the Yankees. I have held this theory since the loss in 2004. There has been evidence to support my theory. The loss in 2004 was the start. 05, 06, 07, and 08 helped support it. Can 2009 add more to the curse? Is there a curse? The World Series is next...
10.24.2009
I'm a daydream believer
I had a dream. On Friday, at about 1pm, I took my paycheck from Joel Waraday and drove to the casino to play poker. In this dream, I got to the casino and sat down in a 1/2 game. On my second hand, I had QQ and doubled up my $150. I only played for two hours and in that span, I had a set of 7's, a set of Aces, queens twice, and got paid off with two pair when I held AJ. After two hours, I got up after turning $185 into $450. I checked my wallet later and found 4 one hundred dollar bills ;)
10.21.2009
Re: Pros and Cons of Legalizing Marijuana
Here we go...
Marijuana is originally from Asia. It has been used there since at least 3000 BC. It eventually made its way to the Greeks. It has also been found in regions of China dating back 2,500 years. The coolest part of the history of Cannabis is its connection to Shakespeare. "Pipes dug up from the garden of Shakespeare's home in Stratford upon Avon contain traces of cannabis." They decided to research his estate after it was hypothesized that 'noted weed' from Sonnet 76 and 'journey in my head' from Sonnet 72 are references to pot. Even though pot has a long history of use, it became illegal in the United States in 1937.
Theories abound as to why Marijuana eventually became illegal. One is that the paper and chemical companies did their best lobbying to make it illegal for fear that they would be run out of business by the affects of marijuana and the benefits of hemp. Another theory criticizes the theories about economics for not taking into account the social aspect. This theory states that it became illegal because of a deep seeded racist attitude toward African Americans and Mexicans.
But this 1937 Act did not make the possession or use of marijuana illegal. All it did was levy a tax on anyone who dealt with it. This act, though, was the first step toward illegalization. The second step was the 1964 Convention on Narcotics. And the third step was the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The 1964 Convention basically was a treaty of countries to regulate and stop drug abuse. The 1970 act was the United States implementing that treaty.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created five Schedules or classifications of the various drugs. The DEA and FDA were in charge of placing each drug into the appropriate schedule. Schedule 1 drugs are drugs that "have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." Marijuana falls into this schedule. As you go down each schedule, you get drugs that are less and less controlled. By the time you get to IV and V, you are dealing with drugs like cough suppressants, Xanax, Valium, and Ambien. This is the first joke of all. Drugs that are highly addictive and regularly abused are at the very bottom of the list. And, to make matters worse, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are NOT ON THE LIST ANYWHERE. The chart below shows some startling facts...
In 1968, Nixon was preparing to start enforcing the Convention of 1964. He hired the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to study the affects of marijuana.
After the study, It's chairman, Raymond Shafer, said "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance'". President Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act anyway.
Since then, the violence on the borders of US and Mexico has been deadly. There are hundreds of people killed each year in the drug trafficking scene. There is so much money at stake, it has to be kept tight by the drug lords. They have semi-automatic weapons and they have millions of dollars. When there is a drug user, there is a drug dealer. The United States government has spent billions of dollars trying to stop something that simply cannot be stopped. How is this rational? Does it make sense to let the money being made off of marijuana go to Mexico and Mexican drug dealers instead of the United States government? A few days ago, President Barack Obama eased regulations of medical marijuana stores. He has told federal authorities not to target medical marijuana suppliers or users. This is the first step toward legalization. The public opinion on pot has gone from 25% in favor of legalization in the 1970s to 44% today.
Pros versus Cons. The pros of the drug are obvious. It can prevent nausea and vomiting, stimulate hunger for chemotherapy, lower intraocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma. It has also been shown to stop schizophrenia, help with multiple sclerosis and depression.
Putting money in the hands of the taxpayer and not in the hands of drug cartels is a pro. Ending violence on the border is a pro. Not wasting money trying to stop the cultivation and distribution is a pro.
The cons are not so obvious. The most obvious, though, is the effect it can have on the respiratory system. It is smoke going into your lungs, just like tobacco smoke from a cigarette. With the drug being illegal, adulterants are bound to happen. With the legalization of marijuana, this would not happen.
What about the Gateway drug theory? This is a major con. Or is it? According to a 2005 study in the "Drug and Alcohol Review", "pre-existing traits may predispose users to addiction in general... the availability of multiple drugs in a given setting." The study says that there are many other factors, aside from the actual cannabis that contributes to the use of other harder drugs.
It seems that rational minds can conclude that the pros heavily outweigh the cons. It would be a good thing to let patients who need marijuana have easy access. It would a good thing to stop Mexican drug cartels. It would be a good thing to tax marijuana and make money. It would be a good thing to stop wasting taxpayer money in an effort to stop a drug that is not harmful. The DEA would be better utilized stopping the trafficking of many other drugs. It would be a good thing for marijuana to become legal in the United States.
Sources:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/09595230500126698
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/77339/?page=entire
http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/03/01/shakespeare.cannabis/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1195939.stm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200612/23/eng20061223_335258.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/govt%E2%80%99s-latest-action-on-medical-marijuana-first-step-in-legalizing-pot/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
Marijuana is originally from Asia. It has been used there since at least 3000 BC. It eventually made its way to the Greeks. It has also been found in regions of China dating back 2,500 years. The coolest part of the history of Cannabis is its connection to Shakespeare. "Pipes dug up from the garden of Shakespeare's home in Stratford upon Avon contain traces of cannabis." They decided to research his estate after it was hypothesized that 'noted weed' from Sonnet 76 and 'journey in my head' from Sonnet 72 are references to pot. Even though pot has a long history of use, it became illegal in the United States in 1937.
Theories abound as to why Marijuana eventually became illegal. One is that the paper and chemical companies did their best lobbying to make it illegal for fear that they would be run out of business by the affects of marijuana and the benefits of hemp. Another theory criticizes the theories about economics for not taking into account the social aspect. This theory states that it became illegal because of a deep seeded racist attitude toward African Americans and Mexicans.
But this 1937 Act did not make the possession or use of marijuana illegal. All it did was levy a tax on anyone who dealt with it. This act, though, was the first step toward illegalization. The second step was the 1964 Convention on Narcotics. And the third step was the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The 1964 Convention basically was a treaty of countries to regulate and stop drug abuse. The 1970 act was the United States implementing that treaty.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created five Schedules or classifications of the various drugs. The DEA and FDA were in charge of placing each drug into the appropriate schedule. Schedule 1 drugs are drugs that "have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." Marijuana falls into this schedule. As you go down each schedule, you get drugs that are less and less controlled. By the time you get to IV and V, you are dealing with drugs like cough suppressants, Xanax, Valium, and Ambien. This is the first joke of all. Drugs that are highly addictive and regularly abused are at the very bottom of the list. And, to make matters worse, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are NOT ON THE LIST ANYWHERE. The chart below shows some startling facts...
In 1968, Nixon was preparing to start enforcing the Convention of 1964. He hired the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to study the affects of marijuana.
After the study, It's chairman, Raymond Shafer, said "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance'". President Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act anyway.
Since then, the violence on the borders of US and Mexico has been deadly. There are hundreds of people killed each year in the drug trafficking scene. There is so much money at stake, it has to be kept tight by the drug lords. They have semi-automatic weapons and they have millions of dollars. When there is a drug user, there is a drug dealer. The United States government has spent billions of dollars trying to stop something that simply cannot be stopped. How is this rational? Does it make sense to let the money being made off of marijuana go to Mexico and Mexican drug dealers instead of the United States government? A few days ago, President Barack Obama eased regulations of medical marijuana stores. He has told federal authorities not to target medical marijuana suppliers or users. This is the first step toward legalization. The public opinion on pot has gone from 25% in favor of legalization in the 1970s to 44% today.
Pros versus Cons. The pros of the drug are obvious. It can prevent nausea and vomiting, stimulate hunger for chemotherapy, lower intraocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma. It has also been shown to stop schizophrenia, help with multiple sclerosis and depression.
Putting money in the hands of the taxpayer and not in the hands of drug cartels is a pro. Ending violence on the border is a pro. Not wasting money trying to stop the cultivation and distribution is a pro.
The cons are not so obvious. The most obvious, though, is the effect it can have on the respiratory system. It is smoke going into your lungs, just like tobacco smoke from a cigarette. With the drug being illegal, adulterants are bound to happen. With the legalization of marijuana, this would not happen.
What about the Gateway drug theory? This is a major con. Or is it? According to a 2005 study in the "Drug and Alcohol Review", "pre-existing traits may predispose users to addiction in general... the availability of multiple drugs in a given setting." The study says that there are many other factors, aside from the actual cannabis that contributes to the use of other harder drugs.
It seems that rational minds can conclude that the pros heavily outweigh the cons. It would be a good thing to let patients who need marijuana have easy access. It would a good thing to stop Mexican drug cartels. It would be a good thing to tax marijuana and make money. It would be a good thing to stop wasting taxpayer money in an effort to stop a drug that is not harmful. The DEA would be better utilized stopping the trafficking of many other drugs. It would be a good thing for marijuana to become legal in the United States.
Sources:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/09595230500126698
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/77339/?page=entire
http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/03/01/shakespeare.cannabis/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1195939.stm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200612/23/eng20061223_335258.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/govt%E2%80%99s-latest-action-on-medical-marijuana-first-step-in-legalizing-pot/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
Twitter kinda sucks
Twitter is failing like Facebook used to fail. They need to stabilize the server or people are going to quit using it. It seems like its popularity is slowing already. They can't afford to have it constantly failing.
10.20.2009
Pros and Cons of Legalizing Marijuana
Cafferty Blog
It's a hot button issue nowadays and I'm going to do some research and give my take. Look for it in the next couple of days.
It's a hot button issue nowadays and I'm going to do some research and give my take. Look for it in the next couple of days.
Music Songs
Just some of the music I've been listening to lately. Check out some of these songs and post some of the ones you've been listening to lately...
The Helio Sequence - Hallelujah
Vampire Weekend - Horchata
Arcade Fire - Haiti > Rebellion (Lies)
Owl City - Fireflies
Dave Matthews - Let You Down
The Decemberists - Rake's Song
Van Morrison - Ballerina
Fleet Foxes - Mykonos
Regina Spektor - Eet
Alberta Cross - Low Man
The Helio Sequence - Hallelujah
Vampire Weekend - Horchata
Arcade Fire - Haiti > Rebellion (Lies)
Owl City - Fireflies
Dave Matthews - Let You Down
The Decemberists - Rake's Song
Van Morrison - Ballerina
Fleet Foxes - Mykonos
Regina Spektor - Eet
Alberta Cross - Low Man
10.19.2009
19-1
I haven't blogged in a while because I've been thinking about this. I wish I was more eloquent in my retelling of this story. It deserves as much as it can get. Luckily, there is an article which chronicles this story much better than I have here. When I get a copy, I'll type it up...
In March 1945, Henry William Hayden Jr. was in a foxhole on the side of a hill. He was with one other soldier. At the top of the hill, there were 19 Germans bearing down on them. The rest of their battalion was at the bottom of the hill, too far away to help. The other soldier with Henry decided it was a suicide mission to try and take these Germans on. He got up to run back down the hill and was shot in the eye. I guess he was right, for him. Henry thought differently. He had one clip for his M1 Grand, which held 8 rounds. He also had 3 hand grenades. He was not afraid to die, just afraid of being captured. With his battalion watching from a distance, Henry stood up and fired all of his 8 rounds and did not miss. He went 8/8. Part of the 19 Germans was a machine gun rig. He quickly took it out with one of his 3 grenades. He took the remaining Germans out with his other 2 grenades. 19-1. Nineteen to One. Winner, Henry. For this, he was awarded the Silver Star - "for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States." Thank you. Thank you.
In March 1945, Henry William Hayden Jr. was in a foxhole on the side of a hill. He was with one other soldier. At the top of the hill, there were 19 Germans bearing down on them. The rest of their battalion was at the bottom of the hill, too far away to help. The other soldier with Henry decided it was a suicide mission to try and take these Germans on. He got up to run back down the hill and was shot in the eye. I guess he was right, for him. Henry thought differently. He had one clip for his M1 Grand, which held 8 rounds. He also had 3 hand grenades. He was not afraid to die, just afraid of being captured. With his battalion watching from a distance, Henry stood up and fired all of his 8 rounds and did not miss. He went 8/8. Part of the 19 Germans was a machine gun rig. He quickly took it out with one of his 3 grenades. He took the remaining Germans out with his other 2 grenades. 19-1. Nineteen to One. Winner, Henry. For this, he was awarded the Silver Star - "for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States." Thank you. Thank you.
10.09.2009
Joe Nathan = Joe Sebok?
Here is how you connect the 'boring' baseball with the 'always exciting' poker.
10.08.2009
Why do you root for them?
I was thinking about the teams that I root for. Kansas Jayhawks, St. Louis Blues, St. Louis Cadinals, Chicago Bulls, Chicago Bears (kind of). Why do I root for these teams and not others? I remember when I was young, I hated KU and I wanted Mizzou to beat them everytime in any sport no matter what. Based on the recommendation of a friend, I looked at Kansas for a college choice. He talked so highly of it and I took his opinion very seriously. There were also other factors. It was a school that was close to home, but not too close. It was not Mizzou. Not being Mizzou had become a positive. So many of the usual bro's went to Mizzou from my school, I knew I could not follow that path. It was not only not Mizzou, it was the rival of Mizzou. So I could actually root against those people I grew to despise. Kansas was, from what I gathered on a visit, a great place. The campus was and still is beautiful. The town was great and the people were very supportive of the school and its sports. I was blown away seeing everyone wearing Kansas shirts, hoodies, and hats. I knew I wanted to stay. Kansas was perfect. It's weird because at one point in my life, I felt the exact opposite. I had this passion for seeing Kansas lose. Now I have this passion for seeing Kansas. My connection to Kansas is now so great, I would never waver from my love for it.
The same goes for the St. Louis Cardinals and St. Louis Blues, although to a smaller degree. I witnessed the Cardinals win the World Series and I witnessed the Jayhawks win the National Championship. I feel even now that it was better seeing the Jayhawks win than it was seeing the Cardinals win. But why? Throughout my time at Kansas, I became a part of something. I was in the crowd when Dickie V gave Nick Collison a standing ovation. I was standing at Potter Lake when the goal posts were carried from the field to the water. I was on Mass St. when we beat UNC and when we beat Memphis. For all of these reason and even more, I love Kansas and will forever.
What about the other teams? It seems like I don't have the connection to these teams like I do to Kansas. Why not? I have never had the experiences around these other teams like I have at KU. Pro sports come and go. Life on a college campus is year round. Basketball might not be playing but you walk by the Fieldhouse everyday and see the players walking campus. Same for football. I remember waiting for Todd Reesing to get cash so he could pay for his beer while I was bartending. He thought he could get his beer for free because of who he is but I waited for him and sure enough he came back with a twenty dollar bill. These things don't happen with other sports teams. Players play for money and usually don't give a shit about fans. Well, that's a bit harsh but they are there to collect a check. That is a fact. It's different. There is an emptiness involved in cheering for a professional sports team that does not exist in college sports.
While I know that I'll never stop cheering a rooting for Kansas, I cannot say the same about the other teams. I like to think that I'll root for the Cardinals and Blues forever but I can't be certain. I really do not care about the Rams. Every once in a while I check on how they are doing but beyond that, I don't really care. I used to love the Rams. Could the same happen for my love of Cardinal baseball and Blues hockey? Unlikely. But, still I know it will never happen to my love for the Kansas Jayhawks.
Does anyone know what I mean? Anyone have that connection to a team that is unwavering?
The same goes for the St. Louis Cardinals and St. Louis Blues, although to a smaller degree. I witnessed the Cardinals win the World Series and I witnessed the Jayhawks win the National Championship. I feel even now that it was better seeing the Jayhawks win than it was seeing the Cardinals win. But why? Throughout my time at Kansas, I became a part of something. I was in the crowd when Dickie V gave Nick Collison a standing ovation. I was standing at Potter Lake when the goal posts were carried from the field to the water. I was on Mass St. when we beat UNC and when we beat Memphis. For all of these reason and even more, I love Kansas and will forever.
What about the other teams? It seems like I don't have the connection to these teams like I do to Kansas. Why not? I have never had the experiences around these other teams like I have at KU. Pro sports come and go. Life on a college campus is year round. Basketball might not be playing but you walk by the Fieldhouse everyday and see the players walking campus. Same for football. I remember waiting for Todd Reesing to get cash so he could pay for his beer while I was bartending. He thought he could get his beer for free because of who he is but I waited for him and sure enough he came back with a twenty dollar bill. These things don't happen with other sports teams. Players play for money and usually don't give a shit about fans. Well, that's a bit harsh but they are there to collect a check. That is a fact. It's different. There is an emptiness involved in cheering for a professional sports team that does not exist in college sports.
While I know that I'll never stop cheering a rooting for Kansas, I cannot say the same about the other teams. I like to think that I'll root for the Cardinals and Blues forever but I can't be certain. I really do not care about the Rams. Every once in a while I check on how they are doing but beyond that, I don't really care. I used to love the Rams. Could the same happen for my love of Cardinal baseball and Blues hockey? Unlikely. But, still I know it will never happen to my love for the Kansas Jayhawks.
Does anyone know what I mean? Anyone have that connection to a team that is unwavering?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
