Marijuana is not benign. Anyone who thinks it is is a few bricks short of a patio. Fortunately, practically no one thinks that. Marijuana is not benign; it is comparatively benign. But is marijuana prohibition benign? It is important to ask, because the marijuana prohibition "treatment" is being administered by the government to the population.

Does marijuana prohibition meet the FDA's safety and effectiveness standards? Does it meet those standards so convincingly that it should be administered to the entire population of the United States—forcibly in the case of a huge percentage of people? If not, the treatment should be pulled from the shelves forthwith.

I see a lot of posts saying that "we" would not have approved of taking out Anwar al-Awlaki if Bush had done it. Not me. I would have approved of it. I would have approved of Bush taking out OBL too.

Of course, he didn't do that. Bush and his Republican "panic-attack" approach to security failed miserably. But if Bush and the Republicans hadn't been such world-class, metaphysics-straining f-ups and had gotten OBL and al-Awlaki (like Obama did), I would have applauded.

Along with the Buffett rule, I think we need a Non-Job-Creation Tax. In order to encourage job-creating investments, we raise taxes on non-job-creating ones. This would go for corporations and individuals doing business in the United States, not just based here.

How could the Republicans possibly object?

The problem with the Republicans' "don't tax the job creators" argument is that the wealthy aren't necessarily creating jobs in America. Republicans just expect us to believe them when they say the wealthy are creating jobs. I don't believe them. The so-called job creators are not doing their job creating jobs. That's clear.

So what can we do to dis-incentivize non-job-creating wealth in order to incentivize the job creating kind? And I'm talking about American jobs.

It's only fair that the government do it sometimes too. Seriously, if Republicans think taking money from the rich costs jobs, then Republican politicians should stop taking so much money from the rich. All that money that is going out the door to Republicans in Congress could be used for job creation.

Just what the hell are you trying to say, Republicans? Are you seeing Communists under the bed again? What is it about taxing millionaires and billionaires that so resembles "warfare" to you? Stop being so hysterical all the time! Get a grip on yourselves!

...and so on...

We need to stop being so adult about this class warfare bullshit. Any Republican who uses the term needs to have it shoved back down his or her throat. Cool explanations don't counter this sneaky insinuation. They never say it straight. The little "class warfare" gem is always in a sub-clause for these brave people or in parentheses. Let's take offense.

It also doesn't pay, IMO, to counter-insinuate that they are waging class warfare on the middle and working class. That only validates the warfare frame. They aren't warring against the middle and working class. It is more like screwing them.

It always mystifies me, and maybe someone could explain it. Where are people getting the idea that there are legitimate half-way choices to be made in elections? Meaning, why do some people think it is reasonable to say they will vote for X, but not contribute or volunteer? That's like saying, "I prefer to win but am willing to lose."

It's not like voters have a line-item veto. They always have a candidate or an initiative to vote on. They get to select the check box, darken the square, punch a hole, or not vote. There's no place to enter "I support Smith, but oppose his/her position on off-track betting on greyhound races." There is only voting for Smith, voting for Smith's opponent, or not voting.

The time for half-way measures and supporting candidates "to a degree" is before the slate is set for the election. Once that's done, the decision is all about cause. If you are for the cause, you choose the candidates most in line with it and support them all out—whatever all out is for you. Once the slate is set and the team is fielded for the cause, the mission is to sell and win.

There's nothing to be gained by holding back on the throttle and jumping the motorcycle half-way over the gorge.

...after having a secret meeting with them. Or he should have just been on their payroll. Or he should have had Solyndra give lucrative consulting contracts to Democratic political flaks. But you're right, most of all Obama should have made sure that the government lost at least $1 trillion and that it was for a bad reason or a lie rather than trying to do something "good."

Republicans hate "do-gooders." They like "do-badders" and they like them as bad as possible. Pull a few hairs from America's head, and it will say ouch and get annoyed. Gut shoot America's economy, its reputation, and its treasury, and the country will be too sick and damaged to complain. That's the Republican way.

Most people think of environmental conservation as costing jobs. They have been fed a steady stream of snail darter and unemployed lumberjack stories for quite a while now. It's nothing like the seventies when I grew up. Woodsy Owl was in network prime time ads with a catchy jingle. We had a crying Indian who guilted us out several times a day, and John Denver was on the top of the charts. Now we have people like Rick Perry and James Inhofe claiming to discern global conspiracies of climate scientists, while funny farm guards look on helplessly. It's no wonder Americans think conservation and sustainability are a drag on the economy and a burden.

We should be turning the tables on that. What seems to be largely missing from the jobs vs. environment debate these days is that the project of creating a worldwide sustainable civilization would actually produce a lot of jobs. Sustainability, which we ultimately can't avoid, could be a tremendous source of demand, and demand produces jobs. We seem to focus so much on the creation of goods that we forget about the reduction of "bads." But we only have to look at how big health care—an industry that depends entirely on disease, damage, and other misfortunes—has grown. Planetary health care could be big too.

Survival translating into demand is hardly new, and global warming is not just a scary death threat and source of misery. It could be seen as a challenge, a call to arms, and an opportunity to put people to work. Global warming, fishery and water supply depletion, pollution, etc. are exactly as big a promise as they are a threat. Inaction threatens us with a slow motion train ride through ugly scenery followed by a wreck. Action holds out the promise of useful, well-paying employment on a large scale, not to mention a better world.

I'm not talking about new "green jobs," although I am glad to hear about those. If our entire production/consumption/reclamation loop were a closed, sustainable circuit, then all jobs would become green. Our plans should be as big as our challenges. Ultimately, all jobs should be green. Just getting there would take an awful lot of work, and that happens to be something we need right now, an awful lot of work.

The devil is in the details, which explains why Republicans tend to keep their details to themselves. They need to be asked for specifics.

What are the exact regulations they want to eliminate? I'm tired of hearing that they want to eliminate "onerous" regulations on "health care, banking, industry..." I want them to pony up some specific regulations and explain why those regulations or the laws behind them are wrong. They can have a week or two to make a list and post it on-line.

And lets include the abortion laws. The Republicans shouldn't get to say that they are "pro-life" and they "want to protect the unborn." They need to give us the exact wording of the laws they want to enact, the enforcement mechanisms (police tactics and regulations), and the penalties for violators. Again, an on-line list would be best.

In writing is ok, right?

I don't know why Obama doesn't invite the Republicans to an interactive "President's Questions" session like he did last year at the Republican Retreat. By engaging the Republicans face-to-face, Obama turned around the health care debate. There is nothing worse for a Republican talking point than having someone with the facts in the room and responding in real time. Obama's great strength is his prodigious intellect and command of the facts. At the Republican Retreat, the back-and-forth allowed Obama to show that the Republicans had come to a battle of wits unarmed.

Presidential policy speeches are a thing of the past. Information doesn't work that way any more. Obama will give his speech. Then the Republicans will give their response. Few people will listen to either. The main message most people will take away will be "Obama talked, and the Republicans disagreed." The speech will be forgotten in a week.

Obama's reelection team may think that they can point to the speech as an example of Obama trying to do something about jobs and the Republicans refusing to listen, but that dog won't hunt with most people. The Republicans will simply sell the pitiful crap they are already selling, that Obama's ideas have failed, and they considered his so-called new proposals just more of the same.

I think Obama has to be in the room with them. Otherwise they all get to act like tigers when they are really basically cowardly ignorami. Is that a word?

I guess I just don't get it. Here is Mother Nature practically beating us over the head with the economic opportunity of a lifetime, and the GOP says "No, give us more buggy whips." Clean production, environment preservation, efficiency, recycling...you name it. These things take loads of human effort, and human effort means jobs.

Why not make a car and toss all of the production waste straight into the nearest river? It would be cheaper, obviously. The car would cost less. Fewer people would be needed to make the car. Jobs would be lost.

Now just reverse that. Instead of making the car in the dirtiest way possible, make it in the cleanest way possible. Forget the environmental benefits if you want to. Look at the jobs.

The challenge of living within our means ecologically is demand. Mother Nature is making us an offer. To me, it's the biggest challenge and opportunity the human race has to face.

Why are Republicans stifling worldwide sustainability demand when we need jobs? The buggy whip manufacturers ain't hiring like they were.

I know, I know. We're just too good for that. Blaming is so primitive, so human, so icky. Everyone knows that anyone who watches anyone blame anyone actually looks down on the one who is doing the blaming. People are incredibly bright, rational, and adult after all, not emotional, easily misdirected nincompoops.

But just this once can we try doing the primitive thing? We could try acting all outraged and retaliatory and, well, you know, blame the Republicans for what they did. I mean, I guess humans evolved these feelings of anger and this icky "social mechanism" of blame for all these thousands of years. It always seems to work for the Republicans. Maybe, just maybe, blaming is actually part of life that is not completed outmoded, even in the sophisticated, just, and stable civilization of our times.

Blaming people for doing bad things and causing problems for everyone is horrible, I know. Terrible to think of really. Maybe just this once, though?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/06/cre...

The budget of the United States of America shall be balanced. In the event that a budget cannot be agreed upon for a given year, then the previous year's budget shall be used. All existing programs will continue to be funded as legislated, complete with cost-of-living increases. All creditors shall be paid. Any shortfall necessary to assure the balanced budget shall be funded through a special tax on the income and property of those with incomes greater than X$ (scaled for inflation) or net worth greater than Y$ (scaled for inflation).

...something that could be sold as protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Defense for good. I just don't see why a BBA should be complicated, and I especially don't see why it has to inherently imply "across-the-board" spending cuts or (sabotage-able) tax legislation. Just automate it.

Ok, where's the flaw?

On edit: I should be clear about one thing. The budget would be balanced, not frozen. The budget would continue to rise and fall just as it does now. All emergency outlays would be made as needed--through new or existing legislation, just like now. The only difference with current practice is that a special tax on the wealthy would be used for any and all shortfalls. There would be no borrowing. The idea is to counter the idea of "across-the-board" spending cuts as the main way to achieve a balanced budget.

We often hear Obama and other well meaning rich folks making the argument that raising taxes on rich people "like them" is OK. They can afford it; they don't mind. "Trust me, I'm raising my own taxes, so I'm obviously not doing this for myself. I'm doing it for 'you people.' And, by the way, I speak for all the wealthy when I say 'we' don't mind taxes..." Their hearts are usually in the right place, of course, but the altruism argument is just no good. It is annoying and presumptuous. Taxes are not a form of philanthropy. Philanthropy is voluntary. Taxes are like exercise and cleaning the bathroom. You can feel good about taxes, but it's difficult.

Meanwhile, the Republicans' "strongest" arguments for protecting the wealthy from paying the same tax rates they easily paid under Clinton are paradoxically based on a mix of "fairness" and selfishness. It's not "fair" to take more money from the wealthy than from someone else. And besides, if you do take that money from the wealthy they won't invest in creating jobs for you. It's mean and selfish to take their money, and if you do, you're only hurting yourself.

Both sides of the Republican argument are ridiculous at best. Let's not say whether we think their hearts are in the right place. To give only one example, it is clearly "not unfair" to take more money from the wealthy than from other people. To dispute it you have to assume that the current world economic system is inherently fair, that it always rewards and punishes justly, proportionately, and rapidly. Few familiar with life on Earth would try that one. Disproportionate taxation of the wealthy isn't "fair," but neither is life. Our standard should be life.

And, as for the other Republican argument, the wealthy aren't going to just hand Americans jobs to reward them for keeping taxes low. The wealthy will gladly continue creating jobs overseas, because even with zero taxes, American labor frequently costs more than overseas labor. Someone needs to tell the Republicans and their gullible, red-faced Tea Poops that the wealthy are not our Moms and Dads. The wealthy are rational actors who are out to maximize their own take, just like everyone else. They will create American jobs when they can get a good deal or when they feel they should do it for their own good. Our Republican "leaders" worship the wealthy on bended knee when the right, non-lapdog thing to do would be to deal with the wealthy like human, American adults.

The wealthy need to do their part to re-balance the books and get the jalopy sputtering along again, not because they are nice, not because they are mean, not because it's "better them than us." We simply need to loudly and repeatedly make the point that things work better when some of the wealthy "ownership of the world" bubble is depressurized. Things were indisputably better and fairer overall in the 90's and the wealthy, like the rest of us, don't get a pass when they say "trust me." And of course, never forget that the Republicans are credulous at best, bought-and-paid-for at worst.

Never forget the Maher principle: The American People are Stupid. They frankly seem to think that money taxed from the rich just disappears into thin air. The Republicans, of course, encourage that.

Accusing Obama of adding tax revenue to the debt ceiling deal, John Boehner said, "The extra $400 billion would have had come from increasing taxes on the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and to create jobs."

That's ridiculous. There's no other word. The U.S. wealthy are going to take the $400 billion and invest it, all right. But what keeps them from investing it all in foreign economies? Patriotism? Inherent niceness?

On the other hand, if the government taxes that $400 billion, there would be no doubt that the money would go into the U.S. economy. Taxation of people who leak gouts of money into foreign economies actually reduces the leakage.