Category: Random Thoughts

Before I get going, let me make something perfectly clear. I don’t do drugs. I have never purchased illegal drugs. I have never used them. The closest I’ve ever gotten to smoking a joint is walking through an apartment or dorm hallway late on a Saturday night — which would probably have made me test positive for pot. I rarely use painkillers more potent than Ibuprofen. I’ve never even bought a pack of cigarettes — my friends and I tried when we were 5 but were thwarted by the clerk at the White Hen Pantry (I got in trouble for crossing the street, too). If it weren’t for the fact that I do like booze, I’d be straight edge. 

Even so, I support the decriminalization, legalization, and regulation of marijuana. 

I was very dissapointed to hear the President make light of the millions of people in this country who agree with me, and with well educated people like former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper. 

Now, keep in mind, I am not saying “oh just repeal all the drug laws and let us have all the hard stuff we want!” I am saying that marijuana can and should be legal, subject to variations of laws already on the books pertaining to cigarettes and alcohol: minimum age to purchase; clearly labeled THC content; the Surgeon General’s warning against smoking; limitation on what sorts of fillers or additives can be used; regular inspections of the farms, preparation facilities, and suppliers; licenses (and license applications!) for the retail sellers; subject it to taxes; jailtime for people who circumvent the rules, provide it to kids, drive while high, or cause injury to someone while high.

Here are some of the things I think would happen if this were done, from source to end user:

Farmers would have additional, legal crops they could grow. Not only could they grow pot legally, they could grow industrial hemp. Hemp is an old crop, friendly to the environment, with lots of uses. Hemp can be used to make stuff like rope and fabric and paper. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew it. Both would make great crops for farmers transitioning out of things like tobacco here, or opium in Afghanistan.

It would take production out of our neighborhoods and forests. The ability to grow the stuff in a legit farm takes the profit motive out of turning private homes into illegal farms in our neighborhoods, using lots of electricity and bringing criminal elements into residential communities. Likewise, there is little reason to start a pot farm in a national forest when you have competition from legit farms, you can’t sell to legit suppliers, and the market for illegal supplies has dried up.

It would provide legit jobs for farm hands and workers at processing facilities. We could use some job creation, right?

It would take money out of the underground economy, and put it into the regular economy. Not only would it reduce the number of ways illegal enterprises have to make money, our states and communities would benefit from more tax dollars. Since it seems like just about every community and state has a budget shortfall these days, that seems like a good thing too.

It would keep drugs out of the hands of kids! Instead of being available from that shady guy on the corner, it’s behind the counter at the mini-mart with the cigs, or it’s behind the counter at the liquor store. The nice lady at the White Hen Pantry doesn’t want to lose her job or cost her boss’s pot resale license, so she won’t sell it to the group of kindergartners that wandered in from the apartment complex across the street. 

It will reduce the number of people — of all ages — using harder stuff. Let’s face it, the shady guy on the corner who sells pot would really rather sell you higher margin products that ensure more repeat business through addiction. Stuff that is substantially worse for you than marijuana. 

It will have a positive influence on the War On Drugs. There will be fewer fronts on which to fight. It will save thousands of millions of dollars each and every year. It will help slow the rapid filling of our prisons with largely non-violent offenders (who after prison find themselves unable to get college financial aid, and in some cases unable to get a Real Job that would permanently keep them out of prison). 

It will reduce the influence of criminal organizations both here and in other nations. Legalization chops off their product and their customer base. This will inevitably reduce the flow of money to Mexico’s drug lords, and help their government regain full control of the country. How did America destroy the mob’s influence? It repealed prohibition.

It will bring thousands if not millions of people into compliance with the law. “Just Say No” never worked for anything, and that includes smoking pot. Legalization will change the fact that all those people are breaking the law, and turn them into people who are paying taxes on products.

It is the compassionate thing to do for people who really need it. Nobody disputes that pot is a great pain reliever, nor that it stimulates the appetite and reduces nausea. Some claim that there are legal drugs that do the job just as well, but others dispute that. It is worth noting that the Obama Administration has already decided against prosecuting medical marijuana cases. It’s hard to listen to some of the anecdotal stories of how medical marijuana made someone able to survive, or simply allowed them to die without pain and still think it’s bad.

That’s one person’s opinion. Take it or leave it. 

In Closing: advice for people who don’t like gay marriage; a tale of two depressions; double standards; one in five pre-schoolers is not just overweight, they’re obese!; homelessness is up all over; 10 cars that could have saved Detroit 10 years ago (if Forbes were honest with themselves); Ezra Klein on how we cleverly hide our health care waiting lines; and finally, if you haven’t already spoken out on the “conscience” rules for health care “providers” about to go into effect, do it today. I wrote about it here, and it’s not dead yet.

Some of my favorite news people got their start as sports reporters. This may seem surprising, because I am not at all into sports. However, it’s not the content, but being faithful to the facts.

You can’t spin the outcome of a ballgame. You can’t say the Yankees won when they ended the 9th down 3 runs and expect to have anybody listen to you tomorrow. You can have opinions about bad calls all you like, but there’s no changing the raw facts of the game: x runs were made; pivotal moment in a certain inning; which players scored; batting averages; they would have played better if it weren’t for the wind. 

Some aspects of the financial news should be just as factual as sports news: the Dow went up/down 100 points; the Fed changed the discount rate; National Gift Wrap reported a profit of $X million; the latest labor statistics. There is still plenty of room for opinion, for example why a stock is moving today or speculation about the future.

I have gotten very frustrated with CNBC lately. I was frustrated some weeks before Mr. Santelli decided to stop talking about what was happening on the trading floor and start talking about us “losers” and “Chicago Tea Parties”. Mr. Santelli’s rant is merely a symptom of what has been going on all across the daily programming. 

For the record, just 8 years ago CNBC had the absolute best, most balanced coverage of 9/11 out there. Their people were literally on the ground as close to ground zero as you could reasonably be and live to tell the tale. They managed to stay calm and report facts even as they watched the destruction with the certain knowledge that people they personally knew were dead. 

Viewers used to be able to count on CNBC for useful economic and financial news with an appropriate level of commentary: XYZ stock is down 10% because of rumors they won’t meet sales goals; a certain sector is up because of anticipated economic conditions; bonds are up in a flight to quality. Sure, they had their stock-pickers come talk about their favorite stock picks in what amounted to a barely legal pump and dump. However, anybody sitting down with Mark Haines or Tyler Mathisen needed to be aware that failing to answer questions would not be tolerated.

Lately, however, the morning is dominated by Larry Kudlow and other So-Conservative-It-Hurts types talking about how bad it would be for the country to actually change course and deal with our problems. Oh, we can’t tax the wealthy (even though the country needs the money) because they won’t invest anymore. Oh, we can’t spend money repairing roads and bridges (before they simply fall down) because deficit spending is bad (except when Mr. Bush did it). Oh, we must let the free market take care of our health care mess (despite the fact that hasn’t worked so far) or else! In short, everything the people want the government to do is wrong and — as Jon Stewart so hilariously lampooned — the DJIA proves it.

Nope, the Dow couldn’t possibly be down because Wall Street’s supply of fairy dust has been taken away and we must now look upon economic reality as if it were nothing more complicated than the score of last night’s ball game.

At least everybody’s favorite financial madman, Jim Cramer, has the decency to say “I think X stock is going up/down because of this or that.” It’s more than Larry and his Brady Bunch of Bobble-heads have. 

Listen up, CNBC. If I want political commentary dressed in a thin veneer of news, I will find it online someplace. When I tune in to see financial news, I expect a certain minimum level of actual facts. 

In Closing: Forbes (you guys can just keep looking for the subscription renewal check, it’s not in the mail) keeps on about Barbie; on the business cycle; preach on, WWJD indeed; I know I swore off Alternet, but MahaBarbara wrote this great item on health care; Great Depression Cooking with Clara; and the stupidest item I read all weekend, “Illegal immigrants might get stimulus jobs, experts say.” Never mind the fact that employers are already required to hire people who can legally work in this nation, what this boils down to is “They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify.” E-Verify is nothing more than a huge government database of Social Security numbers. I consider it a huge boondoggle that, if left unchecked, will result in thousands of American citizens unable to work legally because of governmental errors.

On this day when a huge economic stimulus bill has been passed, it is only appropriate to reference what I said in 2004 about the National Debt. Let me add Brad DeLong on how the government spending on infrastructure can actually benefit the economy 3-fold over just passing out money. And John Cole asks a great question: “If Republicans plan to deliver exactly zero votes for Obama’s stimulus bill, then why does the bill still have compromises in it? Screw them. Put the family planning stuff back in, take the tax cuts out. If we know for sure that passing a crappy bill won’t win any more votes then just pass a better bill. They won’t scream any louder. The political cost won’t be any greater. Also, and pay attention because this is the important part, a better bill is more likely to succeed.”

I also talked about education “reform” back in 2004. Interesting, the bill passed today has a lot of money for making sure that physical school buildings are safe and in good condition.  Elsewhere, other people are talking about teaching “green” at school. And on a local note, one Nevada school district wants to expand random drug testing at exactly the same time that the state wants school districts and everybody else to cut their budgets.  Somehow, that doesn’t seem right to me.

In 2005 I laid out some of the lies told about Social Security to manipulate us into thinking running our own private retirement accounts was a good idea.  Anybody look at their IRA or 401k statement lately? Anybody still think this is a good idea?  Anybody?

In 2006 I argued that I was a centrist because, in fact, my ideals were in line with “most Americans.” Today, one of Ezra Klein’s guest bloggers calls out the media on not being very centrist in their choice of interviews. Liberal Media?  Where??

It’s a shame the comic is no longer available online, because in 2007 I wrote yet more about universal health care (as opposed to mandatory health care). Just today, we have “COBRA expansion won’t benefit most low income workers” (hello, recently somebody actually did a study that proved what many of us already knew, COBRA is a sick, expensive joke on the newly unemployed). Oh, and Mahablog has a great BBC documentary on the American health care system.  Rather damning that Auntie Beeb had to do that for us.

In 2008 I rounded up some of the ways that the government has manipulated economic “data”. Now, the phenomenon has a technical name:  Pollyanna Creep. Kinda sounds like the sort of guy who hangs out just outside the Junior High School, doesn’t it.

I also asked why we ask if America is ready for a woman President. Sure, we are. We just aren’t ready for President Hillary Clinton, or worse yet, Vice President Sarah Palin. Gee Sarah, thanks to you and that Ferraro woman for setting women back politically a couple decades each!

In Closing: Google wants to help you figure out if your ISP is throttling your bandwidth; the Abramoff scandal continues to spawn indictments (and public trial records that may yet be used against members of the Bush Administration); and Carrie asks all the hard questions about being the parents of octuplets.  How easily we forget that a) the Bradys were fictional and b) Carol didn’t have to potty train them all at the same time.

It’s Blog for Choice Day. 

Last week I was listening to NPR, and they had some leaders from the So-Called Pro-Life community discussing how they were going to have to change their tactics during the Obama presidency. I will continue to call them the So-Called Pro-Life community until such time as they denouce and expel the internal faction that thinks it is acceptable to enforce their opinion through intimidation, violence, vandalism, and murder.  The first fellow they interviewed was mostly reasonable.  But then the conversation turned to the idea of “If abortion can’t be prevented altogether, then how can it be reduced.”

This gentleman began to talk about policies such as childhood health care initiatives that could “encourage women to keep their babies.” What? Never heard of giving a child up for adoption? I’ll give this guy credit for at least caring about babies that are actually born. He might actually be “Pro-Life” for real.

Let’s get one thing perfectly straight:  The best way, the only way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Sure, I support universal healthcare for children (grown-ups too, but that’s another issue). I support policies that make life easier for families to exist. What do such policies do to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

The policies we need to prevent abortions are age appropriate comprehensive sex education, wide availability of contraceptives, birth defect prevention, rape prevention, and moving the high school schedule so that teenagers don’t have as many unsupervised hours after school. These things will prevent unwanted pregnancies, the leading cause of abortions.

The next fellow was not so agreeable.  He spoke graphically of things like forcing women to see ultrasound images of their “unborn babies” before “killing” them. Well, if guys like this get their way and abortion is outlawed, does he propose charging women who get illegal abortions with “murder”?And if not, why? Why do we never hear the So-Called Pro-Life movement go that far when they discuss the consequences of outlawing abortion?

It becomes more and more clear to me that the Pro-Choice and So-Called Pro-Life movements are speaking across one another. Nobody really wants abortion to be widespread.  The Pro-Choice movement wants to stop abortion before there even is a pregnancy, but understands that sometimes abortion needs to be considered.

Somehow, the So-Called Pro-Life movement doesn’t want to deal with preventing the problem.  They think they can just make women magically want to be  mommies, that they can wish away the reasons a woman might say “I can’t have this baby”. It makes you wonder if maybe the real goal isn’t to punish women for having sex. Come to think of it, mighty curious that neither of the people interviewed by NPR are at risk of becoming pregnant.

In closing:  H-t to Poligazette for this First Amendment Quiz; why the bailout will create inflation (giving the FOMC a good excuse to raise interest rates to a more normal level); somehow China can implement universal health care while becoming capitalists in the midst of a “retail consolidation“; and Myths and Truths about Japan and Fiscal Stimulus.

What a shame that “I beleive that children are our future” has become little more than a cliche. 

This week, the House of Representatives debated and passed a massive expansion of the SCHIP program with bipartisan support, and the Senate is expected to pass it shortly.  That’s the one that helps people who can’t afford health insurance for their kids.

Now, I have said this a bunch of times already, but it’s still true.  Our employer-based system of health insurance is stacked against kids because none of them have full time employment. And it would be a sad world if they needed full time employment.  

From what I have read, this bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.  It doesn’t ensure that no parent has to go with the “hope they don’t get sick or hurt” health plan. However, in the absence of a “MediKids” plan — similar to the Dr Dynasaur program Dr. Chmn. Howard Dean managed to get through while he was Governor of Vermont — it’s a start. 

The next thing the incoming administration wants to do to help kids is to fix our crumbling schools and make sure they have [relatively] up-to-date technology. As a bonus, actual people will be put to work to make those improvements happen.

In Closing: with unemployment where it is, expect to hear more about “work at home” scams (hint, if it were profitable they could afford an office, second hint, jobs shouldn’t cost you money); electricity from coal tempura; population vs job growth, one president at a time; FDIC says “Um,  hey, guys, do you think maybe you could, you know, keep track of how you are spending that money you got from the Feds?” The Virtues of Stop Loss Orders; VW’s cute new roadster due to hit the States in 2011, runs on clean diesel and gets 42 MPG, unless it actually gets 54 MPG and has 180 horsepower!; sometimes a teacher’s job is to guide, and sometimes it’s to get out of the way; putting current interest rates in historical perspective; colleges decide to cut back on their core mission, education; sometimes conservation isn’t as easy as it looks; 20 worst foods in America; and for those of you whose New Years Resolution involved weight loss, take it easy.

Some people want to give President Bush an “attaboy” for increasing the budget for medical clinics in underserved areas. Ok, fine. 

There is a new rule that sounds innocuous, but may result in you or someone you love being unable to get needed medical care. The rule sounds like a good thing on its surface: people who work in medical facilities don’t have to do things that they find morally reprehensible, and they can’t be punished for refusing.

The reality is that under this rule, absolutely anybody who works in a hospital, clinic, doctor’s office, or pharmacy can effectively prevent somebody from getting some kinds of care at all. Furthermore, they don’t even have to tell you about treatment options or other providers who are willing to help you. 

Of course, the first and obvious target is abortion. It’s an emotionally charged issue. This rule doesn’t just say that doctors don’t have to do them and nurses don’t have to assist. It means that receptionists don’t have to schedule you, and the janitorial staff doesn’t have to make sure the room is clean. 

The next obvious target is contraceptives, both traditional and emergency. Even sterilization. Never you mind that the Supreme Court said we could have The Pill all the way back in the 60s, never mind that hormonally based contraceptives have other legitimate medical uses, never mind that there are times when a hysterectomy is a life-saving intervention. Under this rule — assuming you have a doctor who has given you a prescription — you can only get hormonal contraceptives if the pharmacist and the cashier both think it’s acceptable. 

Finally, and more frightening, “its scope could be much wider, including those opposed to assisted suicide, sex-change operations or even vaccinations….”  That’s from the Salt Lake Tribune, not some Ultra-Liberal Blue State Latte Sipping Sushi Eating Volvo Driving rag. When Salt Lake is worried about this stuff, it’s worth worrying about. Can the clinic decide not to see someone who is gay? How about a woman wearing a headscarf?

I’m going to explain this for what I hope is one last time. Try to keep up.

If someone is disciplined or fired for not doing what their job requires, none of us need feel sorry for them. We are not talking about some new breakthrough drug or proceedure with murky ethical implications.  We are talking about medications and medical interventions that have been with us for decades. These people of “conscience” knew what was involved when they took the job. If they don’t like it, they need to find employment elsewhere. To do less is to say their morals aren’t worth inconveniencing themselves, only others. 

If a vegetarian gets a job in a steakhouse, she knows her job involves serving meat. Hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices, and pharmacies exist for the purpose of helping people who need medical assistance. The people who work in these facilites need to provide it.

 

Retro-Posts, The Economy Is Same As It Ever Was edition: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. As a Bonus, Advice for Holiday Programs and New Bloggers. 

In Closing: ending forced marriage is harder than Making A Law; Top 10 New Organisms of the Year; The Real Von Trapps; Lowest Mortgage Rates in 37 years… if you can qualify; Japanese teachers are against the use of English… in English class!; why our system of paying for health care sucks; a Starry Night in Death Valley; How to Tell if Someone is a Bigot; and Jobless Claims hit yet another high (check out the chart comparing it to the S&P 500), but remember that those figures are seasonally adjusted.  Really, a half million people didn’t file for unemployment for the first time. Nope. It’s more like 715,496. Department of Labor puts up new figures there each week (wouldn’t want anybody knowing about old data, would they?), so check it out while you can.

What is with you people?  No, seriously, What Is With You People?  

What bargain can possibly be so important that it is worth trampling a Wal-Mart employee to death?  

Was it the Samsung 50″ Plasma HDTV?  Maybe a Bissel Vaccum for $28? How about the Samsung 10.2 megapixel digital camera for $69? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the $9 DVDs.  It’s even more sad and absurd if it was over the DVDs.

Seriously?  A human being died because of stupid cheap holiday bargains. Was it worth it? Do you actually like traffic and potentially dangerous crowds?  Can none of you figure out Amazon.com?  You know, you can buy gift certificates out of the Coinstar machine at the grocery store — at no charge — and not worry about having to use a credit card, right?  

Shop Smart.

In closing:  a couple items on the Citi bailout (remember, CitiGroup would not exist without Phil Gramm actually working to repeal Depression-era banking reforms); a nice group of items on exactly how much taxpayer money is being spent on bailouts, and what your personal share would be (I can think of better ways to spend it); Lies Conservatives Tell About Liberals; the economy sucks even worse if you are a woman; scientists can now at least predict how fast the ice sheets will melt; and ’tis the season to be charitable. Please remember Child’s Play this season.  They help put toys and games in the hands of children in hospitals.

Picture — as you may have guessed — courtesy of FreeFoto.com.

Many people will be writing about Veterans Day today, also known as Armistice Day on the other side of “the pond”.  Here is the official history according to the United States Army. Beleive it or not, there are some veterans of The Great War celebrating today. There are also veterans of World War 2, some of whom would like to forget but cannot.

I’ve been asked to say a few words particularly in support of our newest Veterans, the ones returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is an organization called Survivor Corps.  They want to help the 1.5 million Americans who have come home, some of whom have obvious physical wounds and some of whom have subtle mental injuries which, left untreated, could have a terrible impact on their lives and families.

Hug a veteran. Pray for a soldier, sailor, or marine.  Pray for peace.

In closing: Well if they can put their 10 Commandments over there, we can put our religious statue here!; the economy oversimplified; what to do with a dead car dealership; somebody else who would like to see the pro-life crowd support those who are actually living; back to work, you lazy woman, no college for you!; Duhpartment of Research finds that kids with severe arthritis don’t exercise much (couldn’t have anything to do with the pain, d’ya think?) and kids tend to eat like their parents (who incidentally buy the groceries);  Supreme Court to decide whether the real life CSI investigators have to defend every lab test in court every time a test is used;  it turns out that TSA checkpoint “family lines” work well; excuse me sir, is that a cheetah in your cargo hold?; thoughts on the election turnout; and things are tough all over in this mini-depression.

I first learned yesterday of a police raid gone wrong.

Busting down the door when the warrant doesn’t specify no-knock? Bad.

Shooting the dogs as they ran away, then leaving them to bleed to death while you interrogate the homeowner? Worse.

Refusing to believe that the homeowner is in fact the Mayor as you force him to kneel on the floor handcuffed in his boxer shorts for hours? Worse still!

But wait! there’s more!

The unopened package containing the drugs giving the cops the “grounds” for the warrant was delivered by the cops! That’s the worst.

There is clearly more to this story, and more keeps dribbling out every day. But as things stand, this stinks.

Yes, one of many reasons we need a Fourth Amendment. You know what we also need? A law that says cops are responsible for the damage they do if it turns out they don’t find what they are looking for. All of a sudden, I think cops will be a lot more careful about busting down doors and shooting dogs.

Cross-posted at TMV.

In closing: Obama is more experienced than 3 of the 4 guys on Mt. Rushmore, and it turns out he’s not afraid to Pledge Allegiance To The Flag; Alternet’s got it wrong, immigrant raids must not stop but they must jail the bosses instead of the workers; and two new sites, War or Car and If You See Something (from the guy who brought you Alien Loves Predator).

Today I became distracted by a lengthy essay by science-fiction author and devout Mormon Orson Scott Card. Today Mr. Card is writing about marriage. I am sometimes amused by the sanctity of marriage crowd, people who get downright vehement about marriage being “between one man and one woman”. The basic arguments for this boil down to this:

1. It’s always been that way.
2. It’s that way for biological reasons, because only one man and one woman can make kids together, and the kids deserve the protections of a stable family unit.

It is worth noting that Mr. Card begins not from this point, but by blasting the courts for what he considers to be overriding the voter consensus. It has apparently never occurred to him that voters can be wrong. Voters once thought keeping slaves was a perfectly good thing. What if there were a referendum to execute any American Idol contestant who performed inadequately; Would the courts be wrong to override that?

But back to the issues and the arguments. The “it’s for the kids” argument appears sound on its face, but we all know that just because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby doesn’t mean that the man is actually required beyond the first day. Don’t get me wrong, I have no envy of single parents, but the “stable family unit” that could be had with a loving partner could also be had with extended family or even a community of like-minded friends.

The argument I truly take issue with is the “it’s always been that way.” I have never liked these self-referential logic deals: we do it that way because that’s the way we do it. And why exactly is that? And this particular one — “marriage is a man and a woman because it’s been that way for thousands of years” — doesn’t even hold up to scrutiny.

How quickly we forget all the cultures mentioned in the Wikipedia article on polygamy.

How quickly we forget that even modern Islam allows multiple wives, a provision that allowed for young widows to be taken into another man’s home in an environment where women were prohibited from work outside the home. Interesting side note, Islam doesn’t allow for adoption either; so much for the “it’s for the kids” argument too.

How quickly we forget that multiple wives and concubines were common among wealthy Japanese and Chinese until as late as the 19th century — within the living memory of some.

Some may criticize and say that it’s always been that way in the Bible. I suggest reading the Bible before saying that.

How quickly we forget Abraham, Father of Many Nations, who had children both with his wife and his servant-woman.

How quickly we forget Jacob, Father of the 12 Tribes of Israel, who was married to a pair of sisters.

How quickly we forget the harems of King David and King Solomon.

Sure. We’ve always done it this way; marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Sure, none of these situations is gay marriage; I am only taking out the old logic, not bringing in the new logic.

In spite of all this I am willing to make a deal with the people who think marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business being involved, because there actually is something to that. The problem is that modern marriage is a synthesis of a relationship and a business contract, with common law and statutory law baggage going back thousands of years. Let’s start calling the religious institution “marriage”, and the government can issue licenses for “civil union.” The various churches can define marriage however they like, but the civil union will have what is now the government definition and protections of marriage. Everyone will be free to choose whether they want one, both, or none of the above. However, not only will the government not be able to say who can and can’t be married, the church will not have any authority whatsoever to say who can and can’t have a civil union.

How does that sound?

It’s almost the end of the month, so I thought I would go ahead and quickly bring you a July Retrospective: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

In closing: how convenient that we can blame another country for our salmonella problem; new moderation policy looks much like the old moderation policy; Julie is right about illegal immigration; how ironic that gas prices are making communities force developers to observe common sense; an interesting view on education; Shark-fu writes about the federal budget so I don’t have to; some new daily reading, Kill This Character, Please; the campaign commercial that backfired due to lousy research; Federal Employees Work for Us; granted ADP job numbers tend to be pessimistic compared to the Department of Labor, but they say we only gained 9,000 jobs in July (and the scary part is that Vegas alone may account for that — I kid, those jobs start in spring); and finally, talk to your kids about Linux, before somebody else does.