Please Follow My Pursuit of Questionable Things

Hi!

Thanks for visiting. I have changed locations! Please check out my new site at: http://www.questionablethings.com/ 

Best regards,

Larry Blucher

We're over there now, at www.QuestionableThings.com!

FBI Dumpster Divers Add to Police State Concerns

police state, n
a state or country in which a repressive government maintains control through the police.
-Collins English Dictionary

While American citizens have been asleep at the wheel, our republic has been running off the road of freedom. The past few months have been nothing short of frightening for those concerned about our disappearing civil liberties.
We've seen people get roughed up and arrested for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, of all places! No-knock raids by SWAT teams on non-violent suspects are becoming more common. "Botched" raids with tragic results are becoming more numerous, as well. Especially disturbing is the recent raid in Arizona, in which police gunned down ex-Marine war veteran Jose Guerena.

Combine this with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Kentucky v King ignoring the the Fourth Amendment, and you have a full-fledged assault on our freedom.

Now, to make matters even worse, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has granted itself some more power.

This podcast has been brought to you by Freedom. It's expensive and is difficult to maintain, but it's well worth the cost and it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.

Civic Duty- America Needs You Now!

America is in trouble. Our elected officials are ignoring their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and severing any remaining shreds of credibility they might have. Our civil liberties are disappearing. Our country is broke, but our government is still spending money like there is no tomorrow.

There may be no tomorrow for our republic if it continue on this current downward spiral. That is why it is so important for American citizens to perform their civic duty.

Duty? That’s correct. Freedom comes at a cost. You have a responsibility to maintain your freedom. If you leave it up to your government to protect your rights, you’ll wind up losing those rights.

So, you may wonder how in the world one person can make a difference. Never fear, Larry’s here with a short video explaining how to perform your civic duties.

That is mostly what you can do as an individual. If you do find a politician who you believe will uphold our constitution and help our country, consider helping his or her campaign. Keep in mind, there is strength in numbers, which is why getting involved with an activist group can be quite beneficial. There are many from which to choose. Here is a great link to help point you in the right direction.

Patriot Act Ultimate Verbal Sparring Tournament

Let’s get ready to rumble! It is time to duke it out over the Patriot Act.

It is amazing how many people have so much to say about this controversial law, yet how little actual debate our elected officials allowed before rushing the latest extension through. It is also simply incredible how many of those entrusted with upholding the Constitution sway from one side of the argument to the other like fallen leaves in a political breeze.

But, here is an opportunity for some of the most opinionated to explain whether or not our government should sacrifice the civil liberties of its citizens for additional security from terrorists. We have paired up some of the real heavy hitters for this Patriot Act Ultimate Verbal Sparring Tournament. Some of the flip-floppers will find themselves ironically matched against their own words.

Keep your guard up at all times. There will be no biting or kicking. However, hitting below the belt is encouraged. Let’s get it on!

Patriot Act Verbal Sparring on Prezi

You have the scorecards. You be the judge. After all, as citizens, you are ultimately responsible for protecting the Constitution.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

(Photo credits:

Caricatures courtesy of DonkeyHotey

Thomas Paine courtesy of pingnews.com

John Ashcroft courtesy of Gage Skidmore

Russ Feingold courtesy of Freedom to Marry

Ron Wyden courtesy of Freedom to Marry)

Florida Physicians Silent on Medical Marijuana

Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana are pictured on a T-shirt seen in Central Florida. The caption reads, “Ask your doctor which of these is least harmful to your health.”

That’s a timely question. On March 10, 2011, Rep. Jeff Clemens (D- Forth Worth) proposed a bill to allow medical marijuana in Florida. Given the conflicting information available on the dangers and benefits of marijuana, consulting a physician seems an excellent way to get an informed yet unbiased opinion. However, getting a public response from a physician can be a challenge.

The Florida Medical Association has had two somewhat contradictory policies in recent years regarding medical marijuana. In one, the FMA urged “governmental agencies to expedite unimpeded research into the therapeutic potential of smokeable marijuana.” Another resolution stated the FMA “vigorously opposes any attempt to legalize marijuana as a medicine…until such time as its medical efficacy is proven through long established scientific and medical testing procedure.”

Neither resolution is still on the FMA books. A spokesperson says the organization no longer has any official policy on medical marijuana and will offer no quotes on the subject.

Photo courtesy ezioman

Individual physicians also appear content to remain silent. Several who declined to give their educated opinions for this story claimed, off the record, they were concerned about possible reprisal and intimidation from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The DEA says it has no policy of retribution and practices no intimidation tactics against physicians who speak out publicly. Chris Jakim, DEA Staff Coordinator of Public Affairs, said in a telephone interview, “Absolutely not. No one here is going after individual doctors…we have too many big fish to keep us busy.”

Jakim says the DEA does “conduct criminal investigations against doctors who are breaking the law,” but says, due to lack of staff, they are unable to “debate each and every one with whom we disagree.”

Mary Lynn Mathre counters, “Clearly the DEA intimidates, there is no doubt about that. If a doctor says something openly, they will be looked at.”

With more than thirty-five years nursing experience, Mathre has been deeply involved in the cannabis debate. She's the president of “Patients Out of Time,” a non-profit group educating health care professionals and the public about medical cannabis.”

“There is more and more science available,” she stated in a phone interview. “Doctors know in their hearts it is medicine, but are reluctant to say so. There is the threat of being investigated, so the intimidation is real.”

During her interview, Mathre insisted on using the term “cannabis” rather than “marijuana,” which she considers a slang term with a historically negative and racist origin.

A look into the history of cannabis reveals it was legal in this country for many years. America’s first cannabis law was in 1619, and it actually required farmers in Jamestown to grow hemp to be used for such products as rope, sails, tarpaulins, flags and paper.

Photo courtesy Squeezeomatic

In his book, “Reefer Madness,” author Eric Schlosser wrote, “In the latter half of the nineteenth century marijuana became a popular ingredient in patent medicines and was sold openly at pharmacies…as a cure for migraines, rheumatism, and insomnia.”

According to AllMedicalInfo.com, “the name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s, which deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal, playing upon attitudes towards race. Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the 'deadly marihuana' was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety."

The late Charles Whitebread, who was a law professor at the University of Southern California, studied the legal history of marijuana. He said one of the biggest reasons many states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana between 1915 and 1937 was hostility towards Mexican migrant workers, who sometimes used the drug.

The first federal law against marijuana was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Whitebread says there were three bodies of testimony. Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, speaking for the government, said, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." Next came testimony from spokespeople representing industries that were financially threatened by hemp. Finally, two pieces of medical testimony were introduced.

According to Whitebread, “The first came from a pharmacologist…who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died." The other testimony came from Dr. William Woodward, Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association, who testified, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug, “ to which a Congressman replied, “Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

Photo courtesy SMercury98

Scientists and doctors continued to study the drug. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia reported THC slowed the growth of cancer in laboratory mice. Shortly thereafter, President Gerald Ford banned public cannabis research. Major pharmaceutical companies were given exclusive research rights, but that research is very expensive and there is little incentive for the drug companies.

Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, has studied cannabis since 1967 and is not bashful about answering the question posed at the beginning of this story. Grinspoon says, “While it’s certainly not harmless, it’s much less harmless than alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is remarkably non toxic. In all the years that marijuana has been used, there's not been one single documented death from it. I don't know that you can say the same thing about any other drug.”

The federal government’s studies on marijuana have focused on possible harmful effects of marijuana rather than potential medical benefits, not always getting the expected results. It still classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug with no medicinal value and has ignored requests challenging that classification.

Photo courtesy Melloveschallah

Mathre isn’t buying the government’s argument that it needs more time to study cannabis. She says, “Watch the medical ads on TV for legal drugs. Listen to all the disclaimers about potential dangers. But, they want cannabis to be perfect. Everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves.”

Mathre was one of the featured speakers when Clemens introduced his bill at the state capitol in Tallahassee.

At the podium, she argued, “We don’t need more research. We welcome more research, but the patients need this medicine now.”

Despite increasing support for medical cannabis, the bill is still expected to face a tough uphill battle. Jodi James, Executive Director of Florida Cannabis Action Network, said in a telephone interview that the bill, “simply puts it on the ballot. Considerable amounts of money would have to be raised. But, this resolution is great for starting the debate.”

Given the conflicting messages from advocates and the government, it sure would be beneficial if doctors would get more involved in the debate.

Is America Ready for Libertarian Change?

Ron Paul photo courtesy Gage Skidmore

Rep. Ron Paul (R- Texas) and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson are running for president in 2012, both hoping to represent the Republican Party. Their political beliefs, however, differ in many ways from those of the others seeking the Republican nomination. That was evident in the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month, when both Paul and Johnson expressed their Libertarian viewpoints. 

The question is whether American voters will support those views, which include ending the War on Drugs, bringing the troops home from the Middle East, not extending the Patriot Act, supporting civil liberties and downsizing the government. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times recently presented several reasons why his own party will not support Ron Paul’s views.   

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party will be choosing its own presidential candidate. It has built an impressive war chest for 2012, reporting more than $284-thousand in cash with no debt, and looks in better shape to promote its platform than in any previous election.

The Libertarians have been specific on how they would fix the current problems our country is facing, and those fixes not only conflict with some Republican views, but also clashes head-on with many of the changes promised by President Obama.

Those wishing to follow Libertarian presidential candidates and the latest political news may find the link below helpful. This Google Reader, which bundles together a collection of media outlet web pages, a Google Alert for “Libertarian President 2012,” and an advanced Twitter Search for “Libertarian” gathers a lot of valuable information together and makes it easily accessible.

http://www.google.com/reader/bundle/user%2F01032395600033427656%2Fbundle%2FLibertarian%20Presidential%20Candidates

Bin Laden’s Greatest Damage- Economy or Civil Liberties?

There is no doubt Osama bin Laden accomplished his goal of hurting the United States financially. Just look at the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Using inflation adjusted “constant dollars” the Congressional Research Center provided these estimated war costs:

While falling far short of World War II, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined have exceeded the combined costs of Vietnam and Korea. And those numbers reflect only the amounts appropriated to cover war-related expenses.

Some reports place the overall cost on the War on Terror in excess of $3 trillion dollars. So, yes, the quantitative data tells that story very well. Painfully well.

What is more difficult to gauge is the extent of the damage to our civil liberties. One can’t build a similar graph depicting such controversial issues as the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless search and seizure, eavesdropping and spying on American citizens, interrogation techniques which many consider torture, detaining suspects indefinitely without trial, airport pat-downs, and expansion of Executive Branch powers.

Benjamin Franklin advised, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Furthermore, as John Adams so wisely explained, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” Despite the advice of our founding fathers, a McClatchy-Ipsos poll last year found 51 percent of Americans thought, “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."

George Bush claims his actions in battling terrorism were not a threat to civil liberties. In an interview on C-Span’s Q&A, Bush said, “I worked assiduously to make sure that civil liberties were not undermined.”




Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional expert, differs. He described on his website how a woman was declared a terrorist under the Patriot Act after spanking her children on an airplane.

Turley claims in a USA Today article that “President Obama has continued, and even expanded, many of the controversial Bush programs. His administration moved to quash dozens of public interest lawsuits fighting warrantless surveillance. Both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, officials for torture under the "water-boarding" program — despite clear obligations under treaties for such action. The Obama administration has continued military tribunals and the Caesar-like authority of the president to send some defendants to real courts and some to makeshift tribunals. The administration recently instructed investigators that they can ignore constitutional protections such as Miranda rights to combat terror.”

This is certainly not the America that existed prior to 9/11. As Turley points out, the greatest tragedy is not what bin Laden did to us, “but what we have done to ourselves.” Without a precise means of measuring that damage, the question of whether bin Laden's greatest damage was to our economy or our civil rights may not soon be answered.

Bin Laden is Dead, but Did He Kill Our Economy?

 Courtesy Josh Pesavento

The word was out. Mass murderer Osama bin Laden was dead.

The terrorist who has orchestrated the deadly attacks of 9/11 had been killed by American troops, and America was celebrating the news. Some ventured into the streets party, others took to the Internet to express their pleasure on Twitter and Facebook.

Chris Douglas-Roberts voiced his opinion. The 24-year-old professional basketball player tweeted, “It took 919,967 deaths to kill that one guy.”

That tweet would get him more recognition than any shot he’d made in his three seasons in the National Basketball Association. Just as he might steal the ensuing inbounds pass and take it back right back to the hoop for a slam-dunk, Douglas-Roberts followed with another tweet that read, “It cost us (USA) roughly $1,188,263,000,000 to kill that...guy. But we winning though. Haaaa. (Sarcasm).”

Many readers called foul, and Douglas-Roberts discovered what it is like to express a thought that runs counter to impassioned, maybe even virulent, patriotism. He was verbally mauled by such thoughtful retorts as, “Shut your dumb f*cking mouth” and “if you don’t like America then get the F out bro” and “you ignorant un-American piece of sh*t…we don’t want you in America.”

Congressman Ron Paul can likely relate to Douglas-Roberts. When he stood up during the 2008 Republican primaries and voiced his opposition to America’s foreign policy, he was mocked and derided in much the same manner.

In October of 2001, Dr. Paul introduced bills suggesting the United States utilize Letters of Marque and Reprisal against terrorists as an alternative to launching a war.

Kent Snyder, chairman of the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign, explained in a press release, “Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property.”

The White House and the media ignored his suggestion. His legislation didn’t pass. However, the manner in which bin Laden was ultimately taken down lends credence to Paul’s argument.

Bin Laden wanted to bankrupt America, and did a pretty good job of leading us to the brink of economic collapse. The cost of our War on Terror is mind-boggling. 

A report by the Congressional Research Service released in March said the war on terror has cost $1.28 trillion dollars. A Washington Post article by Linda Bilmes and Joe Stiglitz put the cost in excess of $3 trillion. Ezra Klein suggested, also in The Washington Post, $3 trillion might even be a low estimate because we need to also figure in how the airline industry and its passengers have been affected.

The national debt was $5.8 trillion in 2001. It has skyrocketed to more than $14 trillion.

Maybe Douglas-Roberts can gain some reassurance from the fact that much of what Ron Paul was maligned for saying years ago is now widely gaining acceptance.

Does patriotism sometimes leave us unable to differentiate between criticism of our leaders and criticism of our country? Do you think there is a difference?

Bin Laden Killed!

Justice at long last. Osama bin Laden has been killed by American troops. President Barack Obama made the announcement late Sunday night, nearly ten years after the 9/11 attacks that were orchestrated by bin Laden.

How did you react to the news? I felt an odd sense of relief. Not just relief that an evil man has been exterminated, but it was as if a burden was suddenly lifted.
I have never believed much in closure, but this news did bring a sense of comfort. It even came with its own soundtrack. I was hearing "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" from "The Wizard of Oz." Sing it high! Sing it low! The wicked bin Laden is dead!

Put the Brakes on Red Light Cameras

It ticks me off to witness some moron running a red light, especially when there is no police officer there to ticket them.

photo by katmere

I breathe a sigh of relief when that violation results in no accident and no loss of life. Nevertheless, I oppose the use of red light cameras.

I’m not the only one. Here in Florida, protesters have been busy the past couple of weeks trying to shut down the cameras. Some carried signs at intersections, many spread the word on the Internet.











Maybe they caught the attention of their elected officials, as the House Appropriations Committee voted this week to send a bill advocating the banning of red light cameras, HB 4087, to the full House. Though many trumpeted the victory through their Tweets, this was just one battle in what may be a difficult war to win.

Proponents of the cameras argue that they make us safer and point to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They conveniently ignore other studies that show otherwise. In fact, researchers at the University of South Florida say their studies indicate the cameras actually increase crashes.

It’s also important to follow the money trail. Ask who is supporting this issue and do they benefit financially. Auto insurers support red light cameras. No surprise. Increased citations result in increased premiums.

The fines from violations result in revenue for the municipalities, the states, and the camera companies. More violations means more revenue generated. Shortening the yellow light time can increase violations. That could never happen, right? Wrong. It can and it has. Several cities have been caught in this dangerous act.

If people were serious about decreasing violations, they would increase amber time. Studies show that adding just one second can reduce violations by 60 percent or more.

Then there is the issue of constitutionality. Our country guarantees us basic rights, including due process. That means you are presumed innocent, you have the right to a trial and the right to confront you accuser. With red light cameras you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Good luck with that. Even if someone else is driving your car, you are still guilty. How are you going to confront your accuser? There is no witness, just a photograph.

I just love it when someone argues that if you obey the law, you’ll have no problem. Here all along I have been led to believe that our Constitution is our law.

photo by brewbooks

I would be remiss not to mention how Orwellian the red light cameras are. I bring up the Big Brother connection last because I didn’t want to paint this as a government conspiracy. Still, if the government wins the argument that this is Constitutional, it opens the door wider for more cameras and more invasion of our privacy. It strengthens the government’s argument that to keep us safe it needs to be able to monitor our actions at all times.

Is this yet another government over-reach? It sounds to me like they're using a million-dollar bandage without attending to the wound.

Will Trump Turn Presidential Race into Reality Show?

Donald Trump is joining the list of wealthy celebrities who desire occupancy in the Oval Office. The thought of having the star of the reality show “The Apprentice” running the nation is frightening to some, but let’s face it, this group of aspiring presidential candidates resembles a reality show.

Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore

Let’s scrap the ridiculous current method we use to choose a president, put all the candidates together on a reality show and let them get voted off one by one. The survivor becomes president. We could call it “America’s Got No Presidential Talent.”

This might actually get the American public involved, since they’ve demonstrated much more interest in casting votes for reality shows than in participating in the presidential election process. 

Trump brings instant credibility to this novel approach. His show, “The Apprentice,” has been on the air for eleven seasons. That’s as long as “Happy Days” survived, its demise accelerated by Fonsie’s ill-fated jumping of the shark. 

Donald Trump is the shark in this group of presidential candidates. He has a history of devouring his enemies. When you hear him speak, you get the feeling he would go on a feeding frenzy around his opponents.

Trump has already figured out the political strategy of counting on people's short term memories. In 2008, Bush was his choice for worst president ever. Now he says Obama has replaced Jimmy Carter for that dishonor.

Maybe if we put all the presidential contenders on an island or in a house, surrounded by television cameras, people might realize they don’t have to wait for a president to provide change. They have the power as voters to create change if they can just find a candidate in whom they believe.

Trump and Sarah Palin would likely be the most entertaining of “America’s Got No Presidential Talent,” but they’d have a strong supporting cast including Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.

Okay, the group does have its weak spots. Romney is a bore, but he does make up for it with his good looks, which is important in television. Plus, the name Mitt conjures up a great reality television name from the past- Puck from “The Real World.” Maybe there is a mystique about being named after sporting equipment.

Tim Pawlenty may not be Mr. Excitement, but he does have the cool nickname, T-Paw. Cool nicknames can take you a long way when you have nothing else going for you, just ask Robert Matthew Van Winkle, known to fans of “The Surreal Life” as Vanilla Ice.

Courtesy of DonkeyHotey/Greg Skidmore

Newt (yet another great reality TV name!) would be the Russell Hantz of the show. Hantz was the “Survivor: Samoa” star who earned a reputation for being evil. Even Hantz may never have stooped as low as Gingrich is claimed to have done by discussing divorce with his wife in a hospital room where she was recovering from cancer

Maybe we could catch lightning in a bottle and have a Flavor Flave- Brigitte Nielson type fling between Michelle Bachman and Haley Barbour. Nothing is unbelievable in reality television.

Courtesy of DonkeyHotey/Bruce Tuten

Sarah Palin might be the Schatar “Hottie” Sapphira, of our show. “Flavor of Love” viewers remember Hottie for trying to cook a raw chicken in the microwave. Of course, if Palin did that, she would likely “refudiate” it.

Talk show host Herman Cain can be the Tanisha Thomas (“Bad Girls Club 2” and “Celebrity Fit Club”) of our show- loud and intimidating. Mike Huckabee would be the Tammy Faye Bakker (“The Surreal Life”) of the group, providing his religious inspiration to the others.

Ron Paul would be the guy who is mocked and picked on. His opponents would all claim he had crazy ideas, only to realize after the end of the show that he was the best informed of the bunch, much like in the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate debates.

 Donald Trump fits right in with this group. Why shouldn’t he run for president? Comedian Pat Paulsen did. Six times! He had great campaign slogans like, “I’ve upped my standards. Now up yours,” and, “If elected, I will win!”

The difference is that people didn’t take Paulsen’s presidential aspirations seriously. Trump is being taken seriously. With a persona eerily similar to that of WWE bully Vince McMahon, Trump has managed the unthinkable. He has stolen the media spotlight from Charlie Sheen!

People are obviously more interested in being entertained than in questioning why their president is ignoring the Constitution. They have already turned their attention away from our attack on Libya and are focused on “Dancing With the Stars.” It is all just a big joke. Don’t laugh, America, because the joke is on you.

Tedd Webb Questions America's Support of Patriot Act

Tedd Webb unleashes a red, white and blue assault on America's political leaders in the second part of my two-part interview with the veteran broadcaster.

Tedd, who is heard on 970 WFLA in Tampa, Florida, tells me why he left the sports world for the political arena, claims the Democrats and Republicans are providing very little difference in results, explains why neither party will seriously tackle illegal immigration, and calls for a third and fourth party with credible leaders to step forward.

Tedd echoes many of the viewpoints expressed on this blog in past weeks, charging that President Obama plays for the same team as George W. Bush, warns of the dangers of allowing our leaders to ignore America's system of checks and balances, and questions how a true American can support the unpatriotic Patriot Act.


My thanks to Tedd for taking time to share his views on this edition of Blucher Uncaged!

Tedd Webb Explains Effect of Internet on Radio Industry

Internet is killing the radio star, but Tedd Webb marches on. The veteran broadcaster has survived nearly fifty years in the industry.

From his beginnings as a teenage disc jockey, through his many years as a sportscaster and into his present gig as a news/political talk show host, Webb has seen many changes in radio.

photo courtesy of Tedd Webb

One thing that hasn’t changed is Tedd, who remains an iconic figure in Tampa Bay. He has defied the odds in the nomadic world of radio by working for 970 WFLA since 1983! I had the pleasure of working with and learning quite a bit from Tedd during my three years with WFLA in the early '90s.

Tedd was kind enough to join me for the following podcast to discuss the changes he has seen in the radio industry and how the rise of the Internet has accelerated those changes.

Check back for part two of my interview with Tedd, in which we tackle many of the subjects that have been discussed on this blog. It’s a no punches pulled, no holds barred conversation, and Tedd Webb isn’t one to sit on the fence with his opinions.

Where's the Beef With This War?

I have been floored by the lack of American protests regarding President Obama ordering us into a third war. Other than a few extremely clever videos

and some amusing satirical cartoons that have appeared on the Internet,

most Americans have expressed little outrage. Am I not doing an effective job as a blogger?

Bloggers can, and have, made a difference, as Dan Rather, Trent Lott, George Allen, and Jeff Gannon have all discovered.

Audience size obviously plays a big part. A blogger can increase his or her audience by getting their URL into Facebook and other social network sites, promoting their posts on Twitter, and linking to other blogs. It takes much work.

Maybe I’m spoiled. As a broadcaster, I often had a ready-made audience. When I did play-by-play for the Brockton Rox, an independent baseball team in Massachusetts, I also had the added thrill of getting immediate reactions. From my perch in the broadcast booth at lovely Campanelli Stadium, I could look down upon the crowd and see many people listening to my broadcast on their radios. I would say something on the air and actually watch people respond. They were able to see the game unfolding right before them, but many still wanted to hear what I was saying about it. It was a huge compliment. I was blown away.

Joined in the broadcast booth at Campanelli Stadium by Hall of Famer Ernie Harwell

With this blog, I am still working to obtain an audience and to establish a voice. If it causes one person to question his or her own beliefs, whether or not it changes them, I’ll feel as if I have made a difference. Maybe blogging will open the door to a new or bigger audience. Since I feel the two-party system is failing us and I most closely identify my political beliefs with those of the Libertarian Party, maybe I will wind up focusing on getting their message heard. I am also anxious to experiment with podcasts given my success in radio. The Internet has opened so many possibilities.

For now, my podium is this blog, and if it resonates with someone and they respond by protesting a war, I will likely have the same feeling I did when I stated something to my radio listeners in Brockton and a dozen fans turned in their seats, looked up at the broadcast booth, and gave me a smile and a thumbs up!

George Dubya Obama?

Barack Obama promised us change. Since implementing his health care plan, I’ve struggled to see any change between this administration and the previous one. Obama has increased troops and the financial commitment to Afghanistan, still has troops in Iraq, has continued the expensive “war” on marijuana, extended the unpatriotic Patriot Act and has done nothing about Guantanamo Bay. Now, he has started a war with Libya without Congressional approval.

In medical school, they have the Hippocratic Oath. In a president’s oath of office, he swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We might start referring to the presidential oath as the Hypocritical Oath. Check out this quote:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

That was then-Senator Obama back in 2007, responding in the Boston Globe to a question about under what circumstances a president would have the authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress. How is Libya an actual or imminent threat to us, unless it has something to do with (gasp) oil? Republican Congressman Ron Paul explained on CNN that while it may be a noble gesture, it is unconstitutional.

What is really interesting is that many Democrats have failed to rally behind Obama. Dennis Kucinich, on RT.com, even called it an impeachable offense.

Our poor track record in the Middle East should cause us to beware unintended consequences, but here we go opposing Gaddafi when we really aren’t certain whom we are supporting. Never mind the fact that we can’t afford a third war. What’s another billion or two when you are broke? Our elected officials have an easy time spending our money and don’t seem to have a problem sending our brave young soldiers to die even when we aren’t under attack.

It felt like an appropriate time to wear one of my favorite political t-shirts today, one that shows an elephant behind a donkey mask and a donkey behind an elephant mask and asks, "You Call This a Choice?"

I keep expecting Obama to pull off his mask revealing he is actually George W. Bush. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Where is the change?

Marijuana Re-Legalization Requires Joint Effort

The Liberty Underground Show, which promotes Libertarian views, recently sent an e-mail to every elected official in the Florida State House and State Senate, asking:

 1. Do you support allowing the citizens of Florida to vote on Medical Marijuana?

 2. If not please explain why?

The supplemental information provided many excellent reasons not just for allowing Floridians to vote on medical marijuana, but for the overall re-legalization of pot.

I asked show host Alex Snitker, a 2010 candidate for Florida senator, if going directly after re-legalization of pot would make more sense than targeting only medical marijuana. He replied in an e-mail "completely understand where you are coming from but we have to push the bills that are up there. This one will work if we focus on it. One step at a time." 

There are, however, major problems with that approach. A worker who is legally using medical marijuana can still be fired from their job if they fail a drug test, even if they aren't "high" at work. The DEA can still raid medical marijuana growers as it just did in Montana.

Re-legalization proponents and medical marijuana supporters must work together. Although support is mounting for ending the costly war on pot, the opposition remains formidable. It includes those in the business of arresting, jailing, testing and treating. The tobacco and alcohol industries work hard to keep pot illegal because they perceive it as competition, as does the pharmaceutical industry. Chemical, plastics, timber and fuel companies all oppose the legalization of hemp. The federal government does not allow independent testing of marijuana, the testing it does allow studies possible harmful effects and completely ignores the potential medical benefits. Its anti-pot propaganda, which has often portrayed myths as facts, has been extremely effective. Or has it? 

FBI figures reveal more than 850,000 people were arrested for marijuana violations in 2009, nearly 90% of them were charged with possession only. 
Despite prohibition, studies have shown marijuana use is on the rise with more than 16 million Americans smoking it each month.


So, maybe another question should be posed to our elected officials- How can you "just say no" to re-legalizing marijuana?

Retailers- Greedy or Needy?

When you walk into many retail stores, it is next to impossible to find anyone to offer you assistance. Those employees you do see have that ‘deer in the headlights’ look because they are frantically attempting to do the jobs that once required two or three employees to complete. It is hard to understand why retailers appear understaffed, considering the Labor Department says the unemployment rate dropped again last month. That's refreshing news for our economy, especially after viewing the unemployment growth the past few years on the map below.



We should keep in mind their numbers reflect the amount of people requesting unemployment benefits. The actual percentage of unemployed Americans is much higher than the 8.9% cited by the Labor Department.

Increased hiring was seen in manufacturing, construction, transportation and government agencies. That was certainly related to an increase in spending, as retailers reported increased sales in the wake of the best holiday shopping season since 2006.

While the decreasing unemployment rate is positive, economists suggest retailers that cut their payrolls during the past few years need to begin hiring again in order for our country to continue climbing out of this economic mess. However, as MarketWatch recently reported, retailers appear to be lagging behind other industries in hiring. That is not unusual this time of year because typically when the holiday season ends, business slows. However, retailers reported revenue gains for February.

Why aren't they increasing payroll hours? Is it greed or caution? One valid argument often heard is the government is imposing too many taxes and regulations on businesses. However, retailers need a strong economy to flourish, and that isn’t going to reach maximum potential until they loosen the purse strings on their payrolls. What a great public relations opportunity for a bold major retailer to be the first to step up and proclaim, “we are leading the way in hiring, creating more jobs because it will help the American economy, although it may cut into our profits initially it is the patriotic thing to do.”

In the retail business world, can patriotism trump greed?