"Moral Seriousness?" You've got to be kidding me.

On the 75th anniversery of the repeal of alcohol prohibition, outgoing (not fast enough) Drug Czar John Walters claimed that if nothing else, President-Elect Obama could change nothing about our nation's drug policy. Most Americans who know Walters claim that if nothing else, President-Elect Obama could change our drug czar.

I have a few more specific observations, "realities" if I can be so bold, about the Office of National Drug Control Policy and American drug policy in general.

1. The ONDCP is flawed in its organizational design, the effectiveness of its policies, spending and goals, and finally its institutional accountability or communication of its activities.

2. Enforcement spending succeeds at dispersing some drug production, prosecuting some trafficking networks, and intercepting significant amounts of illicit drugs from the public. However drug production levels continue to meet demand, or elicit greater profit for dealers and cartels, which have consistently shown an ability to spend, gather information, and evade authorities at any level of enforcement spending. Widespread availability of drugs remains unchanged after 35 years of the “war on drugs.”

3. Treatment spending is inadequate given its greater per dollar value effectiveness than punitive actions. Supplying quality addiction treatment is cheaper than prison costs, and more likely to stop drug use and lower recidivism. Drug courts are a positive step, but cannot determine between serious addiction and casual use. So the hundreds of thousands of arrestees retain criminal records and are to often shoehorn into inadequate treatment “classes” that do not help addicts.

4. The ONDCP repeatedly insulates or outright ignores criticism general oversight from government agencies, independent scientific study, public scrutiny, and the opinions of foreign governments and NGOs.

5. While ONDCP may be acting in good faith towards laudable goals of a drug free society and safe streets without a violent narcotics trade, its behavior is neither accomplishing these goals, nor effectively adapting its strategy for greater success. As drug use rates have gone up and down under the ONDCP’s tenure, with no general change in priorities this only strongly suggests that in ONDCP’s current form is ill-suited to sustain long term effects in drug use.

6. These failures are a result of a number of factors that include hasty conclusions on the part of lawmakers, government bureaucrats, and special interest groups all with a greater interest in strong social messages than effective policies. Fault also lies with a passive media and public who are easily lead to alarm and drama, but become uninterested in specifics about effective methods of treatment or enforcement.

As we move forward, I hope people will think about the long term effects of a policy that hasn't achieved success after 35 years, and push newly elected officials to act in the interest of policy, and not a ideological message.

Obama 365 / McCain 173 (provisional)

Well the odds of me being exactly right were slim, and my only regret is that I didn't do more to deliver my state to the President-Elect. Still my electoral vote was close (thank you nebraska's first congressional district!) and I'm thrilled with a new course for the country.

My main focus now is to see how the president elect staffs the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). I've put together what I think is a compelling arguement for change, accountability, and success in the ONDCP and already sent it into the Transition Team at:


I'll add it here soon, and then I encourage both of you readers to pass it on!

Obama- 367 / McCain 171

This is my hunch about tomorrow's election. An upset in North Dakota and a close loss in Indiana. Missouri will be a squeaker, but I honestly believe Obama's rural turnout will end up giving him an ample cushion, allowing KC and StL to push him over the top.

Georgia, Montana, Indiana, and Missouri could all flip from my predictions as well, it's just too hard to tell. But either way, can we say President Barack Hussein Obama? I knew we could...

Tricks (Election) and Treats (Halloween)

Well one nice person brought to my attention that my blog might be ok, and upon second viewing I suppose it will alright until I can get some sorta laser show effect.

As the massive gap in posting will positively inform you that my situation is much different now then when last I mocked my beloved Bill Murray.

I'm living in my hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri with my parents. I'm a lot like Matthew McConwhatever in "Failure to Launch," except younger and less ruggedly good looking. I am among the top delivery drivers at my local Jimmy John's, and actually making money with a damn near full time job. Better yet this Merry Halloween is my first Friday off in three months. I'm going to be the ass-kickingest ghostbuster your momma ever did see. (Pictures to come)



With some 4 days until we pick our next president I'm proud to be the least-important, lowest-profile, and latest-announcing supporter of Sen. Barack Hussein Obama! I'm not using the name to be inflammatory of course, I actually think it's more shocking we'd elect a guy with the name of the guy we just overthrew than it is that we'd elect a black guy. If James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman can do it...

I don't think this election is about voting for someone who has all the answers. I think this is about picking the person we believe will find the answers, and maybe keep a person like me in mind while they're doing it. I believe Barack Obama is that candidate. I think we need to pick someone who listens to all sides and makes a conclusions based on what will work best, rather then decide what will work best and try to make the facts fit. I believe Barack Obama is that candidate. I think we need someone who truely considers the views of the rest of the countries we deal with, even if he won't always go along with their advice. I believe Barack Obama is that candidate. I think we need a president open to more than just more prisons to win the drug war. I believe Barack Obama is that candidate.



Barack Obama was not my first choice for president, but he's my last one and the right one. I hope every voter who reads this in the next few days will join me in doing everything they can to make Barack Hussein Obama our next president.

P.S. I'm really just doing this cause he's giving me a bigger tax break than McCain, ooo capitalist burn!

Maybe Bill Murray is a loser too!

As Bill Murray's wife Jennifer files for a divorce saying Venkman fooled around, drank and smoked pot, and was even randomly violent. Always cool to know Murray tokes the ganja, never cool to find out he hits his wife. I assume he just smiles and then sucker punches.

I'm trying to decide who was supposed to be surprised, look at his movies in the last few years. "The Live Aquatic," "Lost in Translation," and "Broken Flowers" are all about a guy coping with being not as good at what he did than he used to be. Conscience or otherwise, Murray has had to work harder to be the kinda A list actor he was in the 80s and 90s. An Oscar nomination is good, respect of your peers and all, but it's also cliquish and political.

But Bill Murray can still get a gig (Read: Ghostbusters Video Game...August!) Not the same can be said for me thus far. Leading to 4+ months out of work, preparing to move (again!!) and a possible obsession with(parentheses and excamation points!!!)

I got turned down for a one-two job combo with a certain well respected marijuana reform group whom I had worked for, for free. It's either the Catch 22 of not being able to get a job without experience while not getting experience without a job. Or, the higher ups just do not like my wicked cool muttonchops.



Check out this action!

Anyway, since my entire justification for moving to D.C. was "Work for free, and they're bound to see your potential and hire you." Which turned out to be incorrect, I'm terribly adrift, and looking at applications for 7/11 and Applebees with quiet desperation. Oh well, I can solider on, cause what else is there?

"I was put on earth to play this game." -The Ghosthead who beat me to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqkN8XsYtJI&eurl=http://7.gmodules.com/ig/ifr?url=http://www.google.com/ig/modules/youtube_videos.xml&nocache=0&up_prefs_version=

[URL=http://www.ghostbustersgame.com/][IMG]http://www.ghostbustersgame.com/us/downloads/banner.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]

One of those banners will graze the top of my massive interest in this game. For a long time Ghostbuster fans, (Ghostheads, yes, we have a nickname you finks.) Have layed in wait, teased with a string of bad video games and hints of a third movie never to be. But the lurking paid off, and now the classic as old as I myself shall finally get the tribute fit for people here to save the world.

When there's something strange, in your neighborhood, this is who you call.

Q: What's in a number? A: Marijuana

In the pastime that need not speak its name, no term encompasses the culture like 4/20. The significance of 420 used to be more myth than fact. In the early 1990s the time/date/number was one of the few universal pot-smoking terms. Names for good pot, the act of smoking, or the marijuana counter culture are as diverse as strains of grass themselves. Yet the number 420 has become the widest known inside reference to modern marijuana culture. How this happened is somewhat interesting, but my main concern is what it means for the future of the war on pot.

The widest accepted theory was that 420 had been a municipal code for “marijuana in use” by a police department. While this is reasonable enough because many police agencies have unique systems of coding infractions/situations, it’s not true. To date no law enforcement agency uses 420 to denote marijuana offenses.

Where the term actually comes from was only revealed in 2007. In 1971 a group of high school students in San Rafael, CA began to use 420 as a covert term, and time for marijuana use. A group met around 4:20 p.m. after school to smoke pot. While I’m less than thrilled that 420 has it’s roots in teen use of the drug, I won’t feign shock. The term ultimately became the group’s salute (420 Louis) and got popularized in a Grateful Dead song in the late 1980s. This history only came to light after postcards circulated among the students with numerous 420 references which were postmarked well before popular use of the term.

Knowing where the term came from is nice, but I’m more interested in what 420 says about marijuana in America. Please enjoy the following educational video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHdjqsSSa_A

Without a single mention of pot this guy let his entire 15 minutes of fame be immortalized with weed. But more importantly he re-enforced why marijuana will never disappear from American culture. The number 420 means cannabis, one can no more legislate it out of existence then you can remove April 20th from the calendar or 4:20 from the clock. Any attempt to banish the term would only enhance it’s power and meaning, which ironically is exactly what prohibition of the plant did. Instead of keeping it out of our schools it mandated a reason for marijuana to be taught in every U.S. classroom for the last 35 years. No one who can change our dreadful pot policy knows it, but by outlawing the use of marijuana they cultivated an ambiguous term that immortalized marijuana use. So happy 420 everyone; especially my friends at the Office of National Drug Control Policy because without you, today might be just another date on the calendar.

If you don't think you're better than us, then what the f*ck are you doing?!

So the media is jumping up and down on my friend Obama (that's right, he's in my top 8) over making some rational points about rural Pennsylvanians priorities. But don't take my word for it, just look at the fake news:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074&title=gaffe-in

In fact he was pointing out that some people who suffer most because of failed economic policies prefer to focus on second amendment or social issues. He was trying to explain the political attitudes of what (to rich San Franciscans) was a completely alien world. In reality Obama's blunder to me, is assuming that rural voters are confused about what's pertinent to them. If gun rights and gay marriage have a bigger impact on your voting thats fine as long as you don't go on to bitch and moan about how the person didn't do anything that helped you get a job or loan.

However in his explaination, Obama said words like "cling" and "bitter" while explaining his view. So whatsay we skip the meaningful analysis and move straight to hearsay. You see for every negative thing you say in a campaign for office, the press and your opponents get to say negative things about you. It also helps to imply that only the negative comments are "real" and all those other positive things are the candidate's "lies." I like that people actually act as if we can "learn" the most about candidates by breaking up sentances for the least context and the most threatening tone.

Sterwart's point is fair, this is the President of the United States, a position supposedly so elite that it helps if your dad had the job before you. Furthermore Clinton and McCain have both touted their experience or service, which is just another way of saying they have elite traits that make them better suited to be president. You're all elite people following in elite footsteps, just say so. Hasn't the last eight years suggested theres difference in being of the common man, and just being a common man?

If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan, or his public service record, or his skin color, fine, vote that way. Just understand that EVERY candidate for EVERY office can have dialogue edited to sound like a loon, dick, or moron. If you really think you're backing the one horse who won't be made to look like a douche on YouTube, go to bed until after the election, please. People believing a candidate's goals and convictions can best be understood by some floating soundbytes would have voted for them anyway.

Democrats need to stop thinking about who is electibility is highest. Dems picked their last candidate based on qualifications that Bush & Co. mocked anyway (while going on to praise every other American in uniform). Republicans are going to try and make any Democratic candidate look out of touch, it's what you do if Christ is running against you "This Son of God don't know what it's like sheparding flocks from here to Jerusalem..." And fretting about it isn't going to stop it, ease it, or help you counter it.

Democrats have been running from the term 'liberal' for 20 years, the same 20 years that lead to a Republican presidential candidate practically having to sell a fragrence called 'Conservative' just to get the nod. Maybe Dems would get an equal or greater base of support trying to embolden liberals. Granted it didn't work in 1972 or 1980 when liberal candidates lost 49 states, a scary prospect for any political movement, but since 80, no one has argued the liberal case with conviction. It seems that conservative voters are going to get whipped into a frenzy either way, so what can you lose?

Dictators note, nothing is better than a big juicy steak.

See this movie http://www.free-tv-video-online.info/internet/movies/(2008)_land_of_the_blind.html

Now it's just older.

So here's to my first post since turning 24, ending the magical youth of early 20s and starting the blossoming bitterness and desperation of the mid 20s. Sunrise, sunset.

The birthday-day itself was not much to speak of save for some nice gifts from the 'rents and some wonderful smelling Starbucks. Note to self in this new age, get job. My last-ditch prospect should become available this week, but then again I thought that last week.

I rarely delve into the world of sports, but I have some thoughts on the 2008 Olympics, I have no comment on the events themselves, though I do support an underground movement to make the games more traditionally Greek with nude requirements (just for summer games), as usual though my real issue is with the politics of it all.

Any expert on Chinese history and culture will tell you that I am not one. However I did take 3 credit hours of Imperial Chinese history, and wet my beak in reading about Chinese politics whenever a suitable article appears on my browser (usually after porn, as I do have priorities).

Americans talking about China usually start going wrong by assuming a few things.
1. America 'deserves' to be a superpower, while China does not.
2. We can keep China from becoming a superpower.

Whats wrong with these assumptions? Cause as those poet-visionaries, or "pisonaries" of Maroon 5 said (apparently) "nothing lasts forever." Not this blog post, not March Madness, not your erection, nothing lasts forever. To expect anything else is to delude yourself about the nature of the universe.

Now an empire's lifespan usually takes longer than your erection to wilt, and though things are different than Rome or Britain, the ending of American geo-political dominence will happen, likely in our lifetime. That is if we don't destroy ourselves trying to stop it. Every American must come to terms with this nature of history and the universe they expect to understand China. Also these articles will be a big help:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/45669?tid=relatedcl
http://www.newsweek.com/id/120109

Since you're not going to read those (it's ok, I just wanted you to have a choice) let me sum it up, Americans believe America, not China, kicks ass. Chinese believe China, not America, kicks ass. What happens when two groups each believe only their side kicks ass? They compete, which is finally what this has to do with the Olymipics. Protesting the torch, the games, or China's government itself is the right of many people with legitimate grievances, even if it's a right that can get you riot police. But like my right to fore-go pants (The sign said, no shirt, no shoes!) having the right, and using it well are different things. The Beijing games is China's debutant ball, China's sweet 16.

Now pretend with me for a moment:
You have a friend from school named China, you didn't always get along, but now you do. China's parents have been getting wealthier during a time when your parents got the short end of say, a sub prime mortgage. Since then your family is still the most prominent in town, but owe China's family a lot of cash too.

Now you and China have loads of mutual cronies, BFFs, and trade a lot of gossip and belongings but lately a lot of other kids at school are angry at how China acts or treats them or their stuff. So angry they want you to skip out on China's sweet 16, China's been talking about it forever, and you know it means a lot. You could probably talk with China about it in private but some think China will never learn unless they're embarrassed at their own party.

What do you do?

P.S. Both you and China have nuclear weapons pointed at the other's house from when you didn't get along.

Tragically the best description of the leaders of our planet and the sacred tradition of athletic competition can bessed be summed up as a group of 15 & 16 year old girls at a birthday party. Still my best read is that calling China out in front of everyone will make them dig in their heels and not change, maybe even become a bigger douche about things. How do I know I'm right? I don't, but I have Fareed Zakaria on my side.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131751

Zakaria knows more about international politics than you're mom. He embraces the strange habit of trying to explain the perspectives of others, rather than explain why they're not seeing things our way. It's just if you buy an American flag, your probably supporting a Chinese family, another difficult reality in a difficult world.

Locks and life.

I got nothing done Monday because I got locked out of my house and car. Yep, I was industrious enough to sign on to a medical marijuana lobby day in Annapolis, and as I left on time and in my best suit, and made it out the door with everything, except my keys.




In my last post I mentioned being a stoner. This seems like a classic short term memory blanch, I probably shouldn't have smoked so much pot before I left for Annapolis. Wait, I didn't. No dope to smoke, hence no smoking dope. (No that wasn't a typing short term memory blanch, I was illustrating a point, you stoner.) But without marijuana, how would such a mistake get made?

There's what a stoner's supposed to be like:

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/stoners/default.aspx


Then there's what a stoner is:

This is me, I'm a stoner.

You're probably saying "But Bailey, you're well dressed, clean and upright, not what the linked video said a stoner would be like." It's ok if you're not saying this, because if you were you'd be talking to yourself, or at least saying something random to that other person in the room.

My point is that the broad stereotype that was financed with your tax dollars is not totally accurate. In fact, it's hardly accutare at all. I was active, clean, presentable, and motivated, all things that "Dr." Puck told you I would not be. Yet failure to bring my keys embodies the situation, and solidifies my stereotype.

I won't act like every pot user is sterilized Olympic athlete in formalwear. Barack Obama won't act like all black guys are punctual, socially content farmers who have little dicks. Ellen DeGeneres won't act like all gays are macho prudes who hate Bette Midler. And Dick Cheney had better never act like all Republicans are poor, bi-racial Muslims. Like it or not stoners, blacks, gays, and Republicans need to accept that some of their ilk share the negative virtures that everyone else keeps stereotyping them with. Stereotypes don't come from nowhere, some stoners are lazy (w00t), some blacks live chronically behind schedule, some gays are effeminent clothes horses, and some republicans are old money bigots. We take the worst of the traits we see and focus on them, building the rest of the opinion around it.

So if it's so innacurate why fixate on it? Good question, thanks me! I fixate solely because the stereotype is being popularized with my money (with your money too, but it's up to you to get mad about that). If Exxon Mobile thinks kids need to hear this type of narrow thinking, fine. If Pizza Hut wants to scare folks with manipulated stats, whatever. But when the government spends money they took from hard working people (and me, who is not yet working) to give you psuedo-official, quasi-factual directives about who to hate or fear, I start to get concerned. The government doesn't make videos telling kids why all terrorists are the same (yet) it lets the gravity of their actions (and the hype of cable news) do the talking.

It's the beginning of the end when our government teaches kids who the bad guys are (stunting the development of the childrens own ability to detect bullshit). But obviously they've been doing it for years, the end had already begun. But don't worry, from now on the end of the world has my blog, so everything is safe.

What was the internet missing?

As I've been flooded with time for self reflection lately I've been searching for an outlet for my angst and creative urges.

I have been told I'm a good writer often enough to believe it. But it turns out I wasn't the only one good at it, and my good was hardly even satisfactory. I'm like the girl from the farm who everyone said she's such a good actress. So she up and moves to Hollywood before college, only to find out there are about 3,000 other farm-girl actresses that just got off the train from the midwest that morning. Soon our girl, realizing she's no better than the other few thousand all looking to make their mark, must decided how much fellatio she's going to engage in for a two-bit, guest spot on CSI: Miami. I'm like the farm girl except I'm sure no amount of fellatio will get me a gig, which is good cause I have too much of a gag reflex to be any good at it.

I'm going on two months unemployed, little particular savings or networking, and prospects with both such optimism and sparse substance as to remind you of a weatherman: "It's a beautiful morning, with 50/50 odds of thunderstorms as we approach the afternoon."

With such little structure and purpose to my life I thought to myself what could I bring to the world, and how could I bring it there without leaving my room? Ok, well I can use the internet, sweet that's half the criteria met. Now what is the internet lacking? Sports statistics? No. Pornography? No, plenty of that. How about a giant bird's eye view of the whole planet? Shit, has that too!

Wait! What about another series of self-centered, self-aggrandizing, fanatical rants which endlessly mocks a flawed popualr culture that I as the writer hate so much as to dissect and revel in without prompting? Perhaps I could throw out views about politics, art, science, ethics, history, life, death, sex, and K-Fed? Maybe I could offer my own opinions without invitation, accountability, or relevance! Maybe I could toss my non-existant digital hat into a non-existant digitial ring, so full of conflicting voices and information as to make Jacques Hadamard say "Fuck, this is just too crazy."

Yes, it sounds like I have no choice. The internet is a lost little lamb, wandering and incomplete, so full of dirty pictures and recycled English-Lit papers it just doesn't know what to do with itself. Certainly the world-wide-web is crying out for someone to make more sense of this cyber community then to call it "a series of tubes." Clearly the internet needs someone's opinion to sort everything out, with the tonage of unemployed free time I have, I'd be crazy not to step up.

Ok these rants sound doable, but only if they're badly needing proper editing and rational counterpoint to views so extreme as to once get me called John Lennon. I want to be sure that whatever dirvel I spout doesn't get capped by some Madison Avenue, key-demographic, soul patch sporting asshat worried about what they might think in Peoria.

It seems like the blog is the only method that will allow me maximum opinion-making with minimal imput or oversight. My blog will be at the end of the world, the world wide web, and if you are so kind as to read this with any regularity, then please read it last. Take in everything the world offers you every day, and right before bed, log on here to see if there's anything you missed.

Well, it's agreed then, I'll constuct a witty, astute narrative, seemlessly combining meaningless common activities into mass metaphores about how the world would be better off listening to a nearly 24 year old unemployed stoner with no job, no girlfriend, and no acomplishments to his name. What? I forgot to mention I'm a stoner? Well I'm going to need something to write about next time....