‘Day One’ Will Be On TV!

The Pilot/Movie ‘Day One’ that I’m editing got picked up by NBC for 12 more episodes and will air as a mid-season drama next year following the Winter Olympics.

NOTE: This post has been edited because it is off topic. Please go to the original, longer post at GreenBoxCar.blogspot

The Con of Rath

Back in the Smokin’ Toads days of the early 90’s, I ran into a lot of hippies and characters at the Electric Studio that had plenty of entertaining and/or ridiculous conspiracies and such to talk about (I actually possess the entire xeroxed tract laying out the case that the Moon Shot was staged).  One well-known Venice character was always obsessed with the latest health-fad of the day, and I remember hearing about the whole “high-dose vitamins cure cancer” con back then. Jefferey would corner a hapless stoner on the couch and go on and on about the researcher “from the Linus Pauling Institute” who had not only discovered that vitamins cure heart disease, but that they cured cancer better than chemotherapy. Of course, the “pharmaceutical companies” wanted to quash this information, but Matthias Rath was willing to sell you a bunch of life saving high-dose  vitamins.  I’m sure there was a high-colonic or a detox regimen in there somewhere too.

I never gave this stuff another thought until I read this newly released chapter from Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science.” Besides the point that someone as vile as Rath is allowed into any kind of polite company, is the damage that the supposed “universal, God-given morals” that religious followers are always pointing to can actually do to real humans when it inserts itself between science and a cure. Rath is not pushing religion, of course, but the magical thinking that is at the core of his appeal is the same thinking that causes us to do this:

Development charities funded by US Christian groups refuse to engage with birth control, and any suggestion of abortion, even in countries where being in control of your own fertility could mean the difference between success and failure in life, is met with a cold, pious stare. These impractical moral principles are so deeply entrenched that Pepfar, the US Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has insisted that every recipient of international aid money must sign a declaration expressly promising not to have any involvement with sex workers.

Sex workers are a major vector of AIDS transmission, and so are dirty needles – yet politians under the spell of magical thinkers who only want to condem and proscribe behaviour continue to insist that we not direct resources to combatting disease at these points.  This is absurd.

The people in Goldacre’s article allow millions to waste away of AIDS, but at least we can understand the greed at the heart of their deception.  Those who campaign against condoms or needle-exchanges, for instance, have no such excuse or motivation.

Go read the article.

Rep. Doogan, Meet Constitution

Turns out Alaska Rep Mike Dugan’s theory about the need for transparency in public debate is, shall we say, a bit wrong.  Via comments at The Mudflats, it turns out that the Supreme Court has definitely ruled on this sort of thing, notably in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court said:

“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society”

One of Doogan’s contentions is that anonymous blogging is akin to wearing a hood at a KKK rally, so it’s also rather ironic that the part of the Civil Rights Act that covers this stuff traces it roots back to the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871. I don’t know for a fact, but my hunch is that this was designed to go after any civil officials that aided the Klan, such as local Sheriff’s, etc:

Section 1983 of title 42 of the US Code provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

This would seem to indicate that when Rep. Doogan used his official website in his capacity as State Congressmen he not only violated her First Amendment rights under the Constitution, but he also opened himself up to a civil lawsuit.  This in addition to any other State laws he may have violated in denying a constituent their rights (some indicated this may be a violation of the state Constitution as well).

This one has exploded across the blogosphere, and from the look of the Mudflats front page, into the political realm of the state legislature as well.

Nevermind etiquette – I’m thinking Rep. Doogan wishes he’d learned a bit more about internet traditions about now.

This Really Burns My Buns

Via Hilzoy I learned today that State Rep. Mike Doogan (D) of Alaska decided on his own that bloggers don’t have a right to privacy and anonymity, and so he outed an Alaska blogger at Mudflats.

Here is a copy of the email I just sent to Rep. Doogan:

“Would You Have Outed Thomas Paine Too?”

Since at least 1775, when Paine published “Common Sense” anonymously, there has been a tradition in this country to honor the words in a political argument, rather than the name of the person who wrote it.  Have you forgotten this, sir? Why on earth would you decide to violate someone’s privacy in such a despicable way?

As AKMuck said in her post regarding this matter:

“I might be a state employee. I might not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I might alienate my best friend. Maybe I don’t feel like having a brick thrown through my window. My spouse might work for the Palin administration. Maybe I’d just rather people not know where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be true.”

Did you consider any of these things before you decided to publish her name?  No, you didn’t. You just decided that your “own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name.”  Well, I’m sure I’m not the first to point out that your theory sucks.  And there is a long list of patriots, including Paine and Ben Franklin, who think it sucks to.

You owe AKMuckraker an apology. Dickhead.

I’m sure my name is attached to the email, and if he figures out how to follow trackbacks, that means he’ll be able to out me too.  Not that it would be all that hard to for a determined person to figure out anyway, given all the clues and links to other blogs that do have my name on it.  I don’t happen to have a politically sensitive job, nor do I have children that might be affected should I write something offensive or controversial.  Nor do I have many readers, so even if I did, no one would notice.

The point is, a blogger/citizen has a right to maintain anonymity should they want it.  Our patriot forefathers thought so too.  If you feel like it, write Mr Doogan and let him know just how wrong his “theory” is.

Coming out of the Pot Closet

Discussing yesterday’s lame-ass dismissal by Obama of the Marijuana question, one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers writes:

The argument “duuuude, I want to get wasted all the time” is written off by most people. The argument “I would never touch the stuff but we can save money sick people libertarianism blah blah blah” is cold.

We need credible people to stand up and say “I contribute to society, I work hard, I love my family, and I smoke pot. This is the only way I break the law. The law is wrong.” And we need a lot of them. There are a lot of people that could make this argument. Unfortunately, society being what it is, a lot of people, myself included, are (excuse the metaphor) in the closet.

I’ve written about legalization issues several times on this blog, but I’ve never been explicit, so here goes:

I contribute to society.  I work hard, pay my taxes, love my girlfriend and family – and I smoke pot.  And I inhale.  And not just in my youth, or occasionally with friends on weekends.  It has never been an ‘indiscretion’ or a ’stupid thing I did once.’ If I have it, I smoke it practically every day, and have done so for 30 years.  I like smoking pot. It relaxes me. I’d rather get high than drunk any day. It helps me be creative. I have a job (film editing) that is both very technical and very creative.  Often I will bring DVD’s of my work home, get high and then watch it again.  Being a bit buzzed allows me to get out of the technical headspace and just relax and enjoy the show.

My girlfriend is a chronic pain patient.  She lives everyday in pain that you or I would classify as “11.”  In addition to her prescribed medication, marijuana helps her – allot.  Here in California she could easily get a legal prescription – she is who the law is made for.  I could not, not without fibbing about my “chronic” back pain.  So I don’t.  I buy it illegally on the black market. This is the only way that I break the law.  The law is wrong. Pot should be legal.

The Bureaucratic Burden

Ezra comments about the hassles of the DMV and hits upon one of my pet peeves of American Life: bureaucracy overload.

Every facet of citizenship in the US demands it’s own bureaucracy – sometimes even two or more.  To drive a car in California, one must maintain three bureaucratic loops, at least – two at the DMV, licencing and car registration, plus an insurance bureaucracy.  In order to remain an upstanding citizen on the federal level, there are at least three – the SSA, the IRS, and the State Dept (optional, for passport) plus a seemingly infinite number more if you require social assistance of any kind.

Then there’s health care, bank accounts and various goods and services that we all volenteer to become a part of.

Not that I have a solution, or even much of a point here except venting – but has anyone ever done study of how much time and productivity is lost to stupid bureacratic hassles?  And is there any sensable way to combine any of these, especially at the state and federal leval?

Co-Ops: The Next Step or Tipping Point?

Mark Kleinman has re-visited his stance on how to legalize marijuana without creating a marketing bonanza, and it’s interesting how his evolution in thought is being borne out by real-world events.  The question is, are things moving too fast for even his enlightened thinking?

In a previous post, tipped by Marks thought that pot should be legal to grow or “give away” but not to sell or advertize in the open market, I took a journey thought the current medical pot landscape  here in California.  I don’t know what state Kleinman lives in, but I think other states that are thinking about what to do about pot should really investigate everything that is going on here. Because every county here has been left to deal with the implementation of very vague medical laws, the resulting patchwork of good and bad ideas should be a learning lab for the rest of the country.

Interestingly, Marks compromise position of establishing non-profit co-ops which grow and sell pot for members has become the preferred method here in Los Angeles.  From 2003 to 2008 LA was the wild-west of weed, a period when hundreds of medical dispensaries exploded across the basin and valley.   Small incorporated cities were often able to keep out dispensaries with local zoning authority but in large swaths of unincorporated LA, where setting up a retail business is relatively easy, medical outlets bloomed like wildflowers.

Slowly, through a process of Federal and local busts and confiscations, some of the more brazen and shady organizations have been shut down, and a process of pressuring the remaining dispensaries to establish themselves as non-profit co-ops began in earnest.  The good dispensaries now offer a wide variety of organic marijuana in an astounding array of products – from the weed itself to candy – produced by reliable growers under co-operative arrangements, and they pay their taxes.  Exactly the scenario Mark envisions.

So what’s the problem with all this? Nothing, if you’re intention is to make marijuana as legal as possible without it actually being fully legal. In other words, it’s the wildly imperfect system that evolves under a regime where at any moment the Feds could come busting down your door.  It’s a compromise system that attempts to put a home grown co-op feel to not growing at home, but what happens when all this edifice goes away?  What if Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s bill to legalize and tax marijuana were to become law, but as Mark suggests, this system of non-profit co-ops was made part of the deal, would it work?

My sense says no, as we’d end up with a situation like going to a bar in Utah, with membership cards and ridiculous barriers to entry.  It’s like this: currently going legal with a marijuana fix in LA is kind of a hassle.  You have to go see a doctor and pay him $200 to tell him about the pain in your lower back, and he writes a prescription which is good for a year.  Then you go to a medical dispensary, show them your prescription and drivers license – which they xerox and put in your file – and issue you a co-op membership card. Then, after consultation with a proprietor about which killer bud will cure your back pain, your sealed package emerges from a hidden room after payment and you leave. For patients with genuine need – those with sever pain or undergoing chemo – it’s a manageable system, but it’s also enough of a pain to keep out Joe citizen who just wants a joint once in awhile.

Admittedly this is much worse than getting a drink in Salt Lake City, but were pot to become legal for everybody under the condition that this co-op system remain, it would be almost exactly like getting a bourbon in SLC. Think about it. Free from the need for low profile, but given a preferable market position, these c0-ops will go from a dispensary model to a membership-club model.  Lounges will replace waiting rooms, pot smoke will fill the air, and going to a ‘club’ to hang out and smoke with friends will become as common as going to a bar on a Thursday night.  But there will still need for paperwork, for ‘membership’ and showing and ID and maitining a link between who grows how much for whom.

Utah, I hear, is doing away with some of the more ridiculas inpediments to getting a cocktail.  Once weed hits the free market, I think we’ll look back at the co-op era as just as quaint.

The President Flew Over My House Today

There is a small airport nearby, so we do get some occasional loud flyby’s, but nothing like the jet-helicopter sound that erupted trough my living room at about 11am this morning.  Big, green military helicopter with “United States of America” painted on the side – yup, I’ve seen that one before.  As it made a right turn inland toward downtown, I could see that there were two of them – as there always is – Air Force One!  Cool beans. I hear he’s in town to do Leno.

While I’ve got your attention, go read this article in Washington Monthly about the solar energy boom currently going on in Florida. The town city of Gainsbourgh Gainesville has adopted whats called a “feed-in tarff” which pays anyone who produces energy above-production rates under contract.  Results: instant entrepreneurial explosion in rooftop solar production.

This tariff idea is gaining popularity around the globe, particularly in Germany which has seen it’s renewable energy ratio jump to 15% of total domestic production in ten years.  The genius of the German plan was two-fold:  first, it guaranteed a return-on-investment via locked-in energy price based on the cost of production, making credit easy to find. Second, this margin was designed to decrease over time, making it not only cheapest to buy-in at the earliest possible moment – but also encouraging innovation on the part of producers so as to keep profit as high as possible despite the decreasing subsidy.

The article doesn’t mention if the Florida town has adopted both of these aspects of the feed-in tariff plan, but it sure does point to the success of such as plan.  Several other states are considering this idea, as well as a few congressmen.  Check this article out – its a very encouraging sign that several states and congressmen are taking a good look at this idea.

The Obama Code

Normally I don’t pimp, but Open Left diarist tremayne has solved the secret of how Obama controls the markets: it’s his tie!  When he wears a red tie, the markets go up, but when he wears blue ones, the market goes south.  Unfortunately, Obama seems to have had a preferance for blue ties over the course of his first few months in office – hence the bull market.

I guess the only real question for the right is – is terrorist-loving Michelle the one picking out the President’s ties, and thus secretly tanking our economy?

I’m sure Malkin et al. wil be on that one shortly.

(go to Open Left to see the proof)

Forever Wilderness

I’ve been an avid follower of Chris Bowers’ demographic analysis since early last year, and today he does a little followup focusing on the congressional popularity gap. His conclusion:

Unless Republicans can find scarier boogeyman, unless Democrats really screw things up beyond even Bush administration levels, and unless Republicans find a way to start appealing to growing demographic groups, then they aren’t going to find a way back to power. Eventually they will pull it off, as Democrats will not govern forever. However, I think the smart money is that they won’t be able to succeed until 2016, or possibly even later.

One of the wacky things one reads in the comment section of wingnut blogs, as well as a common rejoinder on certain cable news shows, is that if the economy continues to tank and Obama forced to own it, than the GOP will be able to mount a comeback during the next election cycle.  Indeed, this seems to be the Rush strategy – hope Obama fails, so they can say “I told you so.”

But following Chris’ work, I really think this is optimistic on the wingnuts part. As he points out in today’s article, If you project the demographic trends forward to 2012, Obama’s margin would have been 2.5 points larger  – in other words, due to increasing shares of young, non-whites and non-Christians, Republicans have to increase their share just to tread water.

With all this in mind, I’m going to make some predictions.

1) A Democrat will be sworn in as President on Jan 20, 2017, following Obamas 2 terms.

2) The earliest I would even be comfortable predicting a Republican in the White House is 2024.

3) Republicans could get their deficit in the Senate down to 52-48, though I don’t really know how – and they won’t be able to do that until Clinton’s 2nd term (2020).

4) Republicans will never again control the House during my lifetime – or 2050, which ever comes first.

The only caveat to these predictions is if a third party is formed – most likely by disaffected center-right conservatives and independents to rid themselves of the crazy-right.  This third-party scenario is only likely if Obama really does tank the economy even more and we have 5 or more years of true depression.  Obama will not lose the next election (barring sex scandal) no matter what the GOP does, but if things get bad, I could see a viable third party forming in time for 2016.

These are bold predictions, but given the demographic reality and the fact that it is simply not possible to screw up this country worse than our last President did – I don’t see any pro-active way for the GOP to get back.

One other thing that no one is talking about that will permanently affect the fortunes of the Republican Party is that Obama really is changing the tone of Washington.  Maybe not the tone in Washington, but the tone from it.  What was the thing everyone noticed about Obamas not-state-of-the-Union speech?  That he talked to us like adults.  He’s going to do this for 7+ more years.  So will the next Democratic President.  Since we’ve all pretty much realized that the GOP has nothing to talk about, nothing salient or intelligent to say about anything the unrealized (yet) consequence of this is that the GOP will start to diminish as even as minority voice.  You can see it already on the (non-FOX) cable shows – people are less and less willing to take GOP talking points at face value.   The longer that people get used to hearing a President and party address them intelligently, the less people will be willing to put up with canned, 30 year-old talking points. Chris Matthews is already pushing back against the crap, others will follow.

The thing is, as bad as it was for the Democrats during the last administration, they never became a strictly regional party.  Not so the GOP. Especially if Obama enjoys some sucess in turning the economy around, business might actually come around (doubtfull, but not impossible), and the GOP will be religated to a southern-rump.

Slowly but surely, and I know this is hard for children of the age-of-Reagan to comprehend, the voices of Republicans on the TV will recede and our political transformation will be complete.

Now, before you take me to task for making seemingly out-there predictions, just realize that I could be setting myself up for a gig as a professional pundit in the event I’m spectacularly wrong.