"Holy Governmet, Batman"

I think that in this post it was very opinionated but lacking in general facts to support the thesis. I enjoyed reading the very straight forward take on how the consumer feels though. I think that this is a great way to connect with the readers. I also think that it was written in way that is easy to read and follow. It kept my interest and I would look forward to reading another post written by "Holy Government, Batman".

Obama Reelection Odds...

What are the odds of Obama making his way to the top again? Good. Why are the odd so good?

Well, first of all, unemployment is a pretty big factor. More important than the actual unemployment figure is the trends. If unemployment is coming down, it will look better for Obama, even though it's still high.

Secondly, more important than unemployment is the alternative vision presented by the Republicans. At this point, they don't have one! There's no better way to ensure a second term for Obama than for the Republicans to continue to rely on simply bashing everything Obama does and promising that more tax cuts, will fix all our problems.


At this point, if I were betting, I'd bet on Obama getting a second term.

Iraq War Critique

http://httpwwwnytimescom-kris.blogspot.com/

I think that this article speaks the truth, and hits some key issues. I understand what he was saying and completely agree. When something as big as a war is at a go, we need to have a goal. If that goal is not reached, we need to make a new goal or stop! The way he covers this side of the war by taking a negative stance against staying in Iraq is productive to its readers. In general though everything thing he says is easy to relate to and understand. This makes reading this article effective.
I wanted to hear a little more about the weapons they were searching for though. I am an uneducated reader to the Iraq War and know little about it. It would have been nice to get an understanding of what exactly they were looking for.

Prop 19!!

Proposition 19 the Cannabis Act of 2010, which would have legalized recreational use and possession of marijuana, was defeated with only 44 percent of Californians voting “Yes,” 56 percent voting “No”.

 

Perhaps they need to come up with a different number for the next ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California. It was also a “Prop 19” that would have legalized pot in California in 1972. That attempt also lost but by a much wider margin.

 

The margin of defeat for the 2010 Proposition 19 was the opposite of 1996’s Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized medical marijuana in California with 56 percent voting ‘Yes’; the overall political climate of the country seemed to be less conservative in ’96 than it is now in post-9/11 America. A lower voter count was taken of younger people at the polls in 2010 than in 2008, when the Barack Obama presidential campaign energized voters under 30.

 

Prop. 19 was launched by longtime marijuana activist Richard Lee, entrepreneur of the highly successful Oaksterdam University, established in 2007, which provides education and training for those interested in pursuing careers in the burgeoning medicinal cannabis industry. Lee appeared at a final “Yes on Prop. 19” rally in Oakland. Lee sank over a million dollars of his own money into Prop. 19, and noted philanthropist and anti-prohibitionist George Soros donated another million dollars at the last minute, but it was too little too late to save Prop. 19.

 

One consideration is the possible role polls may have played in influencing the Prop. 19 vote. Wide discrepancies in Prop. 19 poll results revealed potential errors in polling companies' procedures. It appears more respondents denied support for Prop. 19 when interviewed by a live person, as opposed to those polled by Automated Computer Telephone Interviewing (ACTI). This is a phenomenon called the “Bradley effect”; pollster Nate Silver quipped that the Prop. 19 poll variations were due to the “Broadus effect”.

The official “Yes on 19” group conducted a poll using both live interviewers and ACTI, and the difference was staggering; when responding to a voice-recognition machine, 56 percent said they’d vote “Yes” on Prop. 19, but when talking to a live person the support dropped to 40 percent, even less than Prop. 19 actually received from voters.

 

There is a deeper, more disturbing outcome of flawed poll results. Once people – especially undecided voters – view repeated polls in the media projecting the same result of a proposition (either winning or losing), at least some (if not many) tend to vote in that direction, preferring to feel their vote was validated by being cast on the “right side.” Early polls had Prop. 19 winning, but during October, they predicted Prop. 19’s eventual doom. Was it a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

Some of the negative news media coverage in the weeks before the election also likely played a role in swaying some of those undecided to vote “No” on Prop. 19. Even in the generally pot-friendly Bay Area, the local nightly newscasts featured stories of the “high risks” of pot legalization to neighborhoods from booby-trapped “pot houses” or home invasions by criminals looking to rip off plants being legally cultivated.

 

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated his opposition to Prop. 19 when he signed a bill on September 30 that downgraded possession of less than an ounce from a misdemeanor to a mere infraction. Some activists speculated that it was an attempt by Schwarzenegger to undermine Prop. 19’s potential impact, and it’s possible the publicity over this change in law may have also deflated some of the voter enthusiasm to legalize cannabis outright.

The Smiriking Chimp's "**ck it and give up"!

Jeff Tiedrich really gives a new meaning to controversial. In his very short and to the point blog post he aims his comments not at just one party but to both by stating "So Republicans suck and Democrats suck. Yeah, we get it" as his opening statement. This is first off a notion to what he wants his intended readers to get, but he goes just a tad bit further to include his ideas on how to fix everyone sucking. Why is this controversial? It is because not a lot of people get up and just say the truth nor do they even try to suggestion calmly in the same idea how someone might go about fixing it.  Is what he said right or wrong? I think he did a great job by keeping his post simple and short. He wanted it to be read and understood so he didn't write a two page rant, he simply wrote what mattered. I think this gets the best reaction and response clearly seen by his commentators. He seems to know what he is talking about and being on the staff for five years means he is pretty creditable. I give this guy an A+ for keeping things straight.

This is what I think about the article "Why it's so hard to win the war against US oxycodone epidimic"

Honestly I think that Patrik Jonsson covered the article well as far as informational fact goes but due to his personal opinions he blew the whole story into a bigger deal that it actually is. He even states that the "abuse of oxycodone is not new" and yet he continues to write the article with a hyperbole like "the most dangerous, most addictive, and most deadly drug problem of our lifetimes" as an evidence statement. He uses things like that to probably make the reader see things from his side, a scared American who is blaming the doctors for prescribing pills like their job entitles.I think that the main source of his attitude is reflected in the fact that he is writing for the Christian Science Monitor. They are often known to publish articles like this one that tends to come off to the reader as a BIG problem when really it is just another of many problems in this world. In all though I think even if you read it you still feel like you have the right to make your own opinion and he is not cramming a judgment down your throat. 

Smirking Chimp

When you first start reading this blog you will find that this web site is about as partisan progressive and anti Bush as it gets, so be warned. That said, it also publishes very level and thoughtful essays as well. It is updated every day and that is great for people who like to read new stuff often. Another great thing about it is the easy layout they have. The titles of all the articles are placed well and are easy to read so you can jump right into your favorite conservative bashing article. With fun cartoons and creative writers and comebacks this site makes government seem fun!