New Primate!

Some scientists discovered a new extinct species of ancient monkey in Germany. Of course, some in the MSM have already started masturbating all over this story trying hard to make it about creationism. It's interesting to me that even supposed liberal bastion MSNBC is putting creationism buzzwords like "missing link" into the mouths of scientists.

The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.

Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.



Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.

However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.

I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.

I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.

I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.

I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.

Evamaloutions

I think the real issue is not clearly explained in debates over creationism. In discussion over changes to curriculum it becomes apparent that what is being debated is the position of science in our society and the deference due to science in examination of nature. I don't think that the scriptural interpretive preference of an obnoxiously vocal minority should have any bearing on how we regard the statements of experts on matters of fact. The point is not that fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack our culture through the indoctrinating power of the already failing public school system, but that they intentionally avoid narrowing the issue or focusing on details because this is a discussion they loose as soon as rationality prevails.

In case you were wondering this post was not provoked by anything in particular but is tangentially related to the posts this week regarding stumbling upon websites anthropomorphizing of animals and showing that the efforts by religious fanatics to destroy science is not restricted to right wing Christian maniacs.

Posted from a Palm Treo mobile device.

I Know What You Mean

Here I was innocently looking for pictures of cute hippo babies and there is this story about a hippo that was separated from its mother by the tsunami and it started hanging around with a tortoise. Awww, cross species cuddling right? And, BAM! the author has to throw in some anthropomorphizing religious BS.

Honeycombs are perfect because..

I was reading an interesting article today about honeycomb. It was a story about a child talking to anthropomorphized bees, and 3/4 of the way through it starts talking about the Qua ran, and God's plan. And I wondered why, and why it was catered to children. It was part of an interesting BOOK SERIES in PDF format for your downloading pleasures.

Extinction Delayed

Some good news on the primate conservation front. Scientists have discovered a previously unrecorded group of Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys. This is a bit like the previous story where scientists were able to access a previously inaccessible part of jungle and discovered more Gorillas than previously estimated. It's not like these things weren't there before, we just didn't know about them. Still it means that from our perspective the species is slightly better off even if it is still tetering on the brink of extinction. I guess thats good news.

The Nacirema

So aparently American Indians are buying up the land that once was theirs. This has become possible recently through the generous donations made by the white man at the native's traditional style gaming longhouses. They are also taking the ironic move of uitilizing a treaty that could only have been a cruel legal kick in the face when it was enacted. After using violence to drive the natives off their lands the U.S. then made it possible for the natives to buy the land back. How generous! Well now the American Indian tribes are using that treaty to take the land they buy out of the tax base of the local municipality it used to belong to and into their own sovjerenty. And OH! to hear the white man cry when you disrupt his tax base!

The thing that pisses me off the most about local governments is that they act as if the land within their boarders and the tax money they expect to bring in is theirs instead of the property of the people they are supposed to serve. Exibit A Now that someone is using the machenery of capitalism and the law to their own advantage and exercising their rights, these local governments cry foul, gnash their teeth, and beat their chests untill the blood comes out. These local government "leaders" need to have a lesson in real American freedom but sadly this is the kind of corruption that infects local government like a festering boil.

In the meantime some crazy fuckers have gone and disturbed a previously uncontacted tribe in the Amazon just to prove they exist. Now droves of anthropologists will stream down there looking for them to figure crap out. Nowhere is Heizenburgs uncertainty principle more appropriately glossed over into a philosophical statement than with regard to anthropology. The presence of the anthropologist that examines the culture alters what he is examining tremendously. All this, and social anthropology can barely call itself a science.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Cybernetic Simian Overlords

In some bizarre attempt at mad science, scientists have created something that has the best chance of destroying civilization since the nuclear bomb, cybernetic monkeys.




We all know that the things most likely to destroy life as we know it are robots that have achieved scientience, hyperevolved monkeys, or zombies. Now mad scientists have combined monkeys and robots as if they are goading God on in an arrogant attempt to provoke the apocylapse. The next time congress tries to ban armor piercing ammunition remember, robot monkeys.

Wisconsin finally getting some God damn respect

I hate how the old media always ignores that UW-Madison led the way in stem sell research like it has in biotechnology for over a hundred years. They prefer to mention California for some inexplicable reason. So California gave a grant to its researchers? I think its more noteworthy when a state that doesnt have an economy to rival Germany it means they care more to spend the few dollars they have.

The real issue that raises my ire is hidden on page 5 of the article. These rat bastards have been using foreskin. Skummy doctors are harvesting foreskin for research and mutilating poor defenceless childrens sex organs. They tack on an extra surgery to a healthy pregnancy to raise their profit margins like Best Buy tacks on the extended warrenty. What the hell is with the double standard in this country? We get outraged when some villagers in Egypt or Afganistan perform a cliterodectimy but expect a man in this country to have his sexual organs mutilated in an unnessary operation. No outrage, we fucking expect it as the norm. It makes me sick.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71441/page/1

Tomb Raider

This article is being reprinted and reported alot this weekend. My undergrad degree having been Anthropology it is something that I am conserned with. Aparently the best way for Iraqi archaeologists to make a living now is destroying the history they once studied and preserved. For those of you who dont know much about archaeology and might say, "hey at least these artifacts are being preserved in a collection by someone who values them" misses the point. Usually collectors dont know how to preserve the artifacts they possess and would spend more time and effort making sure their cigars have the right humidity. Also the act of removing these artifacts from their buried location destroys almost any value they could have had. The proveniance of an artifact says more about what it was than what it appears to be, even for articles that have writing on them.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62810/