Marijuana is, or was at the time, a Mexican term for the smokable bud of the cannabis plant. When the public campaign to criminalize pot was going on, those behind the push sought to associate it with Mexican Immigrants and Jazz Musicians (read: black people), because we all know what blacks and Mexicans really want: to fuck our pure white daughters. An interesting fact to consider: when the sticky-icky was outlawed, most Americans had no idea that cannabis, the wonder plant that had produced necessary fibers since colonial days and served as the parchment on which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written and the fibers from which the first flag was woven, was the same plant as marijuana, the devil weed from south of the border that makes good young men into murderers and innocent young ladies into sex starved jazz fans.

So, those who brought the term into popular American usage were certainly racists, and I think that was the GP's point. However, as George Carlin said, there are no bad words only bad ideas or actions. Words are neutral.

Because there are so many active components in cannabis, not just THC, the trick is to vary the strains you smoke with some degree of regularity to avoid acclimating to a single cannabinoid pattern.

*ahem*

I would think...

Use != abuse. Drug abuse is the use of a drug to the point at which it endangers self or others, or interferes with the tasks of daily life. Since oxycodone is an opiate, and therefore is highly addictive and causes painful withdrawal, it is likely be abused by a high percentage of users. Cannabis is not chemically addictive, although sustained use can be psychologically habit forming. Even so cannabis has no withdrawal effects.

And things would be exactly as they are now, except the army of assholes wouldn't be called lawyers anymore.

Well, I suppose because political discrimination is illegal in France.

If you really want to learn political corruption from the masters, go to Italy and study at the feet of Burlusconi.

The left-right political spectrum is not so useful given the diversity and disparity of modern political systems. Socialism and Fascism are in no conceivable way incompatible. They are not opposites. Indeed the peculiar character of true socialism lends itself startlingly well to fascist ideals.

Fascism is the political ideology that states society is at its strongest, and ergo its best, when all people work together. There is an old Roman metaphor that people are like twigs, scattered on the ground they may be easily trampled, but bound tightly together in a bundle they are strong and may resist outside threats. Fascism tends to marginalize minority opinions, and are known to promote nationalism or racism as fundamental to societal unity. Fascist states also tend to be preoccupied with fear of citizen uprisings, and often employ propaganda and domestic surveillance to ensure a population remains within a docile-supportive range.

Socialism is an economic system whereby the government takes ownership of the means of production. The means are then leased back to the people with the oversight of government to ensure the best use of a society's resources. Socialism may either give the means of control over to a democratic body that takes the opinions of the people into account when planning the economy, or to a body like the Communist Party in Soviet Russia, a fascist group if ever there was one.

Fascism = one party, or as the Germans so eloquently put it: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!

Socialism = the government owns the means of production, all citizens are government workers

Marx said that after capitalism gorged itself into ruination, it would be replaced by socialism. In other words, the people would rise up and regulate the economy to avoid a society in which the creation of a bourgeois class was institutionally inevitable. His description was an oversimplification, with the government outright owning the means of production rather than merely regulating corporate practice, of what is going on in modern day Europe.

Marx said nothing about the structure of the government that would own the means of production, the notion of a uniform Communist Party was an addition made by Lenin and, to a greater extent, Stalin. It is from Stalin that we get the concept of "political correctness," which is Joe's day meant the most rigorous and logical interpretation or application of the writings of Marx and other Communist dogma.

Anyway, poli-sci lecture over, I just want to attempt to clarify the essential truth you have hit upon with more precise language.

Fanaticism may dress in many different suits, but it always smells like bullshit.

How can you question the president in such a time of crisis? What, do you want the terrorists to win you fascist, hippie-hating, racist, ultra right-wing, America hater? Why do you hate America so much? What has America ever done to you? /sarcasm

Seriously though, this kind of reality distortion usually only shows up around the CEO's of certain fruit companies. Has it occurred to you that hoping for Obama's failure will effect you at least as adversely as it will effect the President? More specifically, do you want the economic collapse to continue, or maybe its that you want a breakdown of security that leads to more terrorist attacks, or perhaps you wish further destabilization in Pakistan so Al Qaeda can finally get their hands on some nukes, or do you just wish America's prestige in the global community would continue to erode? How is it exactly that you wish Barack Obama would fail?

Te use of your email account is a bit strange, but perhaps someone has taken out a credit card in your name? Have you attempted to contact the credit card company from which these payments have been made?

Cunning linguistics? Isn't that sort of thing illegal under Sha'ria law?

This should either read:

"You'll look sloppy to the people who do."

-or-

"You'll look like a(n) [insert derogative] to the people who do."

This should read as follows: "Remember that you're penning/typing your message not for yourself, but for others to read; you should at least be respectful of the people reading and proof your own work. It could also be two sentences, divided at the semicolon; this is possible because it has two complete clauses.

Finally, you made a typo in your latest post. I have corrected it in bold.

I am reminded of something Caesar Augustus said in a letter to (I think it was) Cicero. I cannot remember the exact quote (either the Latin I read it in or the direct translation) but it was to this effect: Those who emphasis perfect grammar over accessibility have lost sight of the purpose of communication. Everyone makes mistakes. You should still try to be right, but know that you are not perfect either, so try to be understanding when others make mistakes.

Oh, and I always mix up affect and effect. Anyone know if I used it correctly? ;-)

...um?

Perhaps that explains the 50% with reasonable views on Phelps' smoking habits.

Home and Business would have an option at install to run either in desktop or laptop mode the only difference being that laptop mode deactivates compositing and other effects and activates battery saving technologies.

I am so relieved to see that Microsoft is repeating some of their Vista mistakes with 7. As a Linux user and supporter, I was beginning to worry that MS was learning from the past and would undo the damage of Vista.

I can tell you how I would do it if I were MS. Ther would be 3 versions of Windows:

1. Windows 7: Home - The full version of Windows with Media Center and an Installed Game Browser, this SKU would be capable of everything needed for day to day computing, entertainment and gaming

2. Windows 7: Business - the same as Home, with the game browser and media center replaced with the full version of Office, which would be included in the price

3. Windows 7: Server - W7 stripped down to a CLI with all desktop software and bloat removed in favor of administrative applications (whatever constitutes such on Windows)

Does that sound good to anyone else?