By Pat Garofalo on Jun 14, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Today, the House is debating the Republican’s 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, which, as we’ve been documenting, slashes funding for food assistance, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from accessing aid. In addition to lopping more than $800 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the GOP’s bill would cut $38 million from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSIP), as well as $63 million from the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAB).
The CSFP provides food assistance to 600,000 low-income families every month, 96 percent of whom are seniors, while the TEFAP “provides our nation’s emergency food bank network with food commodities and storage and distribution support.” We previously noted that the cuts to WIC are roughly equivalent to the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires alone for just one week.
Ben Santer is the kind of guy you could never imagine anyone attacking. He’s thoroughly moderate—of moderate height and build, of moderate temperament, of moderate political persuasions. He is also very modest—soft-spoken, almost self-effacing—and from the small size and non-existent décor of his office at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, you might think he was an accountant. If you met him in a room with a lot of other people, you might not even notice him.
But Santer is no accountant, and the world has noticed him.
He’s one of the world’s most distinguished scientists—the recipient of a 1998 MacArthur “genius” award and numerous prizes and distinctions from his employer—the U.S. Department of Energy—because he has done more than just about anyone to prove the human causes of global warming. Ever since his graduate work in the mid-1980s, he has been trying to understand how the Earth’s climate works, and whether we can say for sure that human activities are changing it. He has shown that the answer to that question is yes.
Santer is an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Project, an enormous international project to store the results of climate models from around the globe, distribute them to other researchers, and compare the models, both with real-world data and with each other. Over the past twenty years, he and his colleagues have shown that our planet is warming—and in just the way you would expect if green house gases were the cause.
One way of maintaining the hegemonic dominance of any particular paradigm is through the McCarthyesque exercise of banning commenters.
While this blog has a high set of spam filters that keep it from being flooded with trolls and scammers wanting to sell drugs and devices for ED and those filters catch a lot of posts from even regular commenters, very few people have actually been banned, although a number are permanently moderated and may think they are banned.
Having an opinion doesn’t get you banned. Bringing an argument with someone else here and using my blog to further the fight with someone who may not even read my blog will get you moderated.
Posts are open for comments for 10 days with a few rare exceptions which are closed for comments.
I don’t fight with transvestite Men’s Rights Advocates.
I used to read Pam’s House Blend on a daily basis. I thought it was one of the better blogs around even though I was Blacklisted by Autumn Sandeen for advocating for the rights of post-transsexual women.
I saw Autumn doing things I considered praise worthy and told her so. I then started posting again occasionally on PHB.
I tried to ignore how devoted it was to pushing the Transgender Borg Collective’s hegemonic ideology.
Then Autumn went off the tracks with a four part attack upon Ashley Love. Ashley is a friend of mine, we speak on the phone rather often. I do not like bullying and Autumn’s attack on Ashley went beyond a simple rebuke of Ashley and veered into a baseball bat level assault using all the power of a major blog to execute this assault.
I realize Pam has been ill and has delegated a great deal of power and authority to Sandeen. Sandeen has chosen to abuse that power and Pam seems unwilling or unable to step in and set limits on Autumn’s abuse of post-transsexual women.
In the mean time she has an entire amen choir acting as gang members out to subdue any dissenters from the Borg Collective’s Gospel according to Virginia Prince.
This has escalated over the last few weeks hitting a low point with:
I read the post and thought here comes the Transgender Borg Collective counter attack.
We are too useful to them to be allowed to peacefully leave the tattered umbrella.
It doesn’t matter when their arguments make zero sense or contradict our actual lived experiences.
It doesn’t matter that it is psychologically self-negating and emotionally harmful for a post-SRS woman to continue to believe in the ideology of the Transgender Borg Collective and that staying in that ghetto prevents her from growing as a person. (None of which implies truth to any of the generally fictitious charges leveled against post-transsexual women who leave the hive.)
One of the latest slurs used by Autumn is “Genitalia Surgery Essentialist”
If the ones who get the operation are then truly women, it means that those who do not, are not and will never be.
Uh-oh, can’t let THAT happen!
So the goal-posts move. For the never-ops, it’s still just the clothes and makeup that makes the woman. For the post-ops, the threshold changes to something uncorrectable – that also leaves the never-ops as not-women-at-all in the process too, oops.
So it’s not about being “truly women” at all, it’s about making sure no one else can be.
Add the straw-man “Genitalia Surgery Essentialist” concept, and that rules out everyone with vagina.
The only women left have penises.
(by Absentee Thoughtlord)
(This earned a warning of moderation)
So Pam’s House Blend has become a space where one may of their own free will join the amen choir of the Stalinistic transgender Borg Collective or enjoy the freedom of not posting.
I chose to remove PHB from the Blog roll
The War on Drugs has been responsible for many more deaths than the illegal drugs have ever been.
In the US more people die each year from prescription drugs than from illegal drugs.
The war on Drugs has turned the US in to a Prison/Police Industrial State with more people in prison or the criminal justice system than any other nation in the world (total numbers, not based on percentage of population.)
It has turned Mexico and other Latin American nations into a war zone.
Whose interests are being served by this budget busting corrupt and useless war?
Slash funding for the War on Drugs. Free all prisoners in jail for non-violent drug charges and cut funding for the Police/Prison Industrial Complex.
When will we abandon what is arguably the most disastrous public policy in American history since chattel slavery and the jim crow legacy?
Forty years ago this week, President Richard Nixon declared illicit drugs “public enemy #1.” The ensuing war on drugs has been fought in fits and starts by every ensuing administration and is arguably the most disastrous public policy in American history since chattel slavery and its Jim Crow progeny. This ignominious anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect, to ask ourselves and our leaders some very hard questions, and to demand a new direction in U.S. drug policy once and for all.
Initiated by President Nixon and escalated under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, the war on drugs was said to be fought to keep Americans, particularly children, safe from harmful psychoactive substances. After four decades and at least $1 trillion, illicit drugs are actually cheaper, more potent, and widely available to Americans of all ages. Addiction remains persistent among a relatively small percentage of drug users, yet the overwhelming majority of people who want to access drug treatment don’t, most often because they simply can’t afford it. What’s more, overdose deaths as well as HIV and hepatitis C transmissions have all skyrocketed despite recognized, low-cost public health interventions. That’s because the drug war focuses on criminal justice — rather than health-centered — solutions to problems caused by drugs.
In fact, the acceleration of drug-related prosecutions is the largest contributor to the six-fold ballooning of this country’s prison population since 1970. Of the 2.3 million Americans behind bars, half a million are there for drug offenses, the vast majority for possession of small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. For context, the United States incarcerates more people just for drug crimes than Western Europe — with 100 million more people — incarcerates for all crimes combined. Here in California, we imprison 8,500 each year for drug possession, at an annual cost of nearly half a billion dollars.
Our over-reliance on a criminal justice approach to drugs is made even uglier by easily-documented racial disparities that reveal system-wide selective enforcement of our drug laws. Despite what we’re used to seeing in the mainstream media, people of all races and ethnicities consume and distribute drugs in roughly equal proportion. That means white Americans take and sell the vast majority of illicit drugs. Yet, African Americans and Latinos represent a startling two thirds of all people arrested for drug crimes. The impact of a permanent drug arrest record, let alone a felony conviction, has well-documented lifelong consequences. The mass criminalization of people of color, particularly young African American men, has become as profound a system of racial control as the Jim Crow laws were in this country until the mid-1960s.
Why is that the drugs they make illegal often seem to have more positive effects and less negative ones than the drugs pushed on us by the Drug Industry?
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011
Scientists at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine claim to have determined the proper dose levels needed to create positive changes in attitudes, mood, life satisfaction, and behavior that persist for more than a year with the psychoactive substance in so-called “magic mushrooms.”
The findings are the latest in a series of experiments done at Johns Hopkins to investigate psilocybin, a psychedelic substance contained in certain mushrooms. The findings were published online this week in the peer-reviewed journal Psychopharmacology.
“In cultures before ours, the spiritual guide or healer had to discern how much of what type of mushroom to use for what purposes, because the strength of psychoactive mushrooms varies from species to species and even from specimen to specimen,” said Roland Griffiths, Ph.D., a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the study’s lead scientist.
“In our laboratory, weʼre working with the pure chemical psilocybin, which we can measure out precisely,” he added. “We wanted to take a methodical look at how its effects change with dosage. We seem to have found levels of the substance and particular conditions for its use that give a high probability of a profound and beneficial experience, a low enough probability of psychological struggle, and very little risk of any actual harm.”
The researchers said 94 percent of the study’s 18 participants rated their experiences with psilocybin as among the top five most or as the top most spiritually significant experience of his or her life at a 14-month follow-up. Eighty-four percent also reported positive changes in their behaviors, changes like improved relationships with family and others, increased physical and psychological self-care, and increased devotion to spiritual practice, which were corroborated by family members and others.