There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief…

But now the Libertarian, who is increasingly viewed by many Republicans as to what Nader is to the Democrats, has reversed his position on marijuana and the War on Drugs. I’m glad that he can finally admit to his failures and move on from there. Whereas some politicians hide behind statements or subtly make changes to fit the political arena, I think Barr made a wise decision by admitting outright that he was wrong and his policy was a complete failure.

…when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.

Good job, Barr. Although I don’t support you, I do greatly respect you and your (new) views.

Her speech was meant to unify the badly bruised and seemingly divided Democratic party. Some supporters immediately backed Obama, others did so reluctantly. But a few others decided that instead of not voting at all, they would back John McCain. The same McCain that promotes policies counter to those of Clinton (and Obama, since they nearly have the same policies sans healthcare). The same McCain who, at least in this Senate, has one of the most conservative voting records. To me that makes absolute zero sense. That tells me that those ardent Clinton supporters were not really supporting her for her policies. It’s fine that they won’t vote for Obama but when you go a complete 180 and support someone who is the complete opposite, that is just ludicrous.

The Co-Chairs of University of Iowa Students for Hillary also released a memo today indicating that they would vote for McCain. They advocated the rest of the group’s members to do the same:

We do not agree with him [McCain] on everything, and this is why we urge you to strongly support Democrats up for re-election to congress. He served our country, he is right on immigration, right on global warming, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality.

I guess since they agree on these three issues, that makes him a good alternative to Hillary. Interesting deduction, people.

Indeed, if we increased the tax on gasoline to the level that many experts consider optimal, we could raise enough revenue to eliminate the corporate income tax. And the price at the pump would still be far lower in the United States than in much of Europe.

Don’t laugh. I’m serious.

Then again, think about it. With higher gas prices will come the need to innovate and create sustainable energy sources. Once these are developed, our interest in the Middle East is all but dwindled. Why do we need to be friendly with some of these hostile nations if they have no leverage? The only need for us to deal with them would be to protect Israel’s livelihood. Even Venezuela fits into this scheme.

There are many other reasons to love high gas prices.

President Bush has created his own mess and thus has become such a polarizing figure that you either hate him or love him. So much of what is going on in this country is attributable to his administration’s flawed policies and his insistence that they are above the law and the constitution. It’s understandable that some would see it as a gross misrepresentation of their values and beliefs. And to say that the faculty lacks discipline to practice what they preach (tolerance, open-mindedness) is somewhat distorted considering that the President has had a blatant disregard for the growing opposition and weariness to the war while impinging on our civil liberties.

It must be disheartening to those students who will not get to see some of their professor’s in attendance but they must not confuse what they see as a lack of open-mindedness or intolerance with what is essentially a remonstration.

The best commentary I have read thus far comes from Will Bunch of Philadelphia Daily News. Some lines that stood out:

But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate. When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders…but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.

We are Americans.

Exactly. It’s like when a husband and wife fight, they each tell their close friends about the fight in an attempt to win them over for support. But really, the friends don’t want to get involved as it isn’t their place. Oh, and to the man who stopped golfing to honor the mothers of those brave soldiers who died in the war:

To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve.

The whole spiel is worth a read.

People with more than $10 million to invest other than their home and retirement savings have a more pessimistic view than those with less than $2.5 million.

It also shows how these so-called wealthy individuals have managed to spend more money than they are able to actually pay for, a problem most prevalent with the average American. And with the rising costs of food, health insurance, mortgages, education, and other necessities, there will undoubtedly be a greater burden on every American rich or not. The annual savings rate is already at historic lows meaning we have no other place to bail ourselves out from this hole.

As much as I don’t like government intervention with certain policies, I feel this is a pressing matter that needs to be addressed. There are two options to choose from: we can either start passing legislation that increases fuel economy or we can increase the taxes that we pay on gas. Either way, some action is needed to curb our growing hunger for oil so we can fund public transportation projects or invest in alternative energies.

Graphical Representation of Worldwide Fuel Economy

Thomas Friedman writes:

This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

Paul Krugman provides us with a quick lesson in economics:

The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

Lovely. So two of the three potential presidents are supporting a plan that does little to help us, if not hurt us. What I don’t understand is what their economic advisers are actually advising them with. I understand that politicians want quick fixes that seem to help out average Americans while overlooking the long-term effects but when economists and like-minded individuals unanimously agree that its a terrible policy, why keep pushing it?