My Blog

Liberty that we don't have

Forgive me for my ensuing libertarian activist speech, but I want to expose the government for the lying entity it is, needlessly constraining its citizens with legislation that is based on nothing while at the same time tricking the majority into believing that it was what they wanted all along.

For nearly 100 years now our American people (especially children) are lied to about something. Sure we don't need this something, and yes this something provides little tangible improvement to society, but in spite of its undeniable innocuousness, it is continually villified by a large percentage of society, including actively by the government.

Each year over 100,000 Americans die as a result of alcohol consumption, sometimes directly (alcohol poisoning kills over 1,300 people a year) and more commonly indirectly (drunk driving fatalities consistently top 100,000 per annum). Alcohol is also a leading cause of some potentially fatal illnesses that are less directly attributed to its consumption, but through which its consumption is proven to contribute, ie liver damage, kidney failure, and certain cancers. To make matters worse, Alcohol is physically addictive. Its consumption in excess begets future consumption in excess. In spite of these facts, any American over 21 years of age can purchase and consume alcohol legally.

Possibly a greater contributor to American mortality is tobacco. Most directly associated with lung cancer, scientists speculate that this substance kills 400,000 Americans annually, and nearly 5,000,000 people worldwide. It is a rare person who doesn't have at least one close relative that they can name that probably died before they had to as a result of the abuse of this drug. Like alcohol, the nicotine found in tobacco products is physically addictive. The body becomes more physically dependant on this substance with each passing cigarette until a person is addicted, often for life. For this product, one need only be 18 years of age to purchase at will.

Alcohol and Tobacco... deadly. 'nuff said.

When it comes to our green friend, who by now needs no formal introduction, I have done a fair amount of research into its effects and have come across some interesting information.

In 2001, a group in Wisconsin petitioned to challenge the merits of marijuana legislation. The state government denied the petition, sending corroborative research that explained their decision, citing 10 effects of marijuana use. What follows is a cut and paste from that document

"The mental and behavioral effects of marijuana can vary widely among individuals, but common responses, described by Wills (1998) and others (Adams and Martin 1996; Hollister 1986a, 1988a; Institute of Medicine 1982) are listed below:

(1) Dizziness, nausea, tachycardia, facial flushing, dry mouth and tremor can occur initially

(2) Merriment, happiness and even exhilaration at high doses

(3) Disinhibition, relaxation, increased sociability, and talkativeness

(4) Enhanced sensory perception, giving rise to increased appreciation of music, art and touch

(5) Heightened imagination leading to a subjective sense of increased creativity

(6) Time distortions

(7) Illusions, delusions and hallucinations are rare except at high doses

(8) Impaired judgement, reduced co-ordination and ataxia, which can impede driving ability or lead to an increase in risk-taking behavior

(9) Emotional lability, incongruity of affect, dysphoria, disorganized thinking, inability to converse logically, agitation, paranoia, confusion, restlessness, anxiety, drowsiness and panic attacks may occur, especially in inexperienced users or in those who have taken a large dose

(10) Increased appetite and short-term memory impairment are common"

Nowhere in this document (including more than just the quoted passage above) is there any purported link between marijuana and brain damage, violent behavior, or overdose related deaths.

Another study offers a similarly benign report:

"The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes."

Another logical deterrent from marijuana legalization might be proof of its carcinogenic effects (though this clearly isn't meritorious enough by itself as per the widely accepted facts concerning tobacco and cancer).

An article published by Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law, or NORML expresses some concern with the lack of a definitive study on the correlation between marijuana smoke and Upper Aerodigestive Tract (UAT) cancers.

"To date... epidemiologic and/or clinical studies on the use of cannabis and cancer are few and not definitive. However, the public and policy-makers should interpret the ambiguity of these results with caution – neither construing them at this time as an endorsement of cannabis’ safety nor as an indictment of its potential health hazards."

Still, he offers some insight into how it might compare with tobacco in malignance, (here comes a long quote, but I think it's important to paste all of it):

"Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including greater concentrations of certain aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene, prompting fears that chronic marijuana inhalation may be a risk factor for tobacco-use related cancers. However, marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro. By contrast, nicotine promotes the development of cancer cells and their blood supply. In addition, cannabinoids stimulate other biological activities and responses that may mitigate the carcinogenic effects of smoke, such as down-regulating the inflammatory arm of the immune system that is responsible for producing potentially carcinogenic free radicals (unstable atoms that are believed to accelerate the progression of cancer).

Cannabis smoke – unlike tobacco smoke – has not been definitively linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers. Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted.

Cannabis consumers who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation but who are concerned about the potential harms of noxious smoke can dramatically cut down on their intake of carcinogenic compounds by engaging in vaporization rather than smoking. Cannabis vaporization limits respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius). Because vaporization can deliver doses of cannabinoids while reducing the users intake of carcinogenic smoke, it is considered to be a preferred and likely safer method of cannabis administration than smoking marijuana cigarettes or inhaling from a water pipe. According to the findings of a recent clinical trial, use of the Volcano vaporizing device delivered set doses of THC to subjects in a reproducible manner while suppressing the intake of respiratory toxins."

The above indicates that at worst the harm caused by cannabis smoke is of trivial difference to tobacco smoke and, at best, certain precautions may be able to eliminate such risks almost entirely. There is some concession that it is worse to smoke both than just one or the other, but it is entirely conceivable that cannabis smoke alone entails significantly less risk than tobacco smoke.

So why is marijuana illegal?

Part 2 will expose some of the reasoning behind its initial prohibition and some of the dishonesty/hypocrisy on which its continued criminalization is based.

Stay tuned

I can't walk on water

OK, this one is strictly to vent. I was playing live poker tonight and the cards mocked me- just flat mocked the shit out of me. It was a 20 dollar buy in game and I lost 74 dollars exactly. Now, I'm sure the casual observer has a hard time believing that someone could lose that much money at that kind of stakes and still be a good player, but I assure you, I am.

Suffice it to say that if I play the way I did tonight and the cards fall neutrally, I would win probably 30 bucks on average. I am better than my opponents in this game. For those of you who play poker, my first buy in was lost when I played TT for all my money against QhJh, KcJc, and 55 preflop. The flop came Q high with two hearts and I didn't even have the Th so I was drawing to one out. Irrelevantly, the QJ hit his flush on the river. In any case, using the poker odds calculator on twodimes.net, I determined (as I was pretty well aware) that my EV on the hand was the size of the pot times 0.31. I invested 22 dollars and stood to win about 90, so it was a profitable play, but I got the worst of it. I bled away my second buy in, eventually losing holding AJ against 43s. The third one saw me pick up KK early. I cold called a preflop raise, and the flop came QJ8 with 2 hearts. When someone bet 2 bucks, I raised to 5, and he promptly moved over the top all in. I called figuring he either had AQ or a draw, but to my surprise he actually had QJ, the turn was another J and I didn't catch my miracle K on the river, so sunk again. By the time I bought in for the fourth time I had so much fewer chips than my opponents that I just had to wait for a spot to double up and it just never came.

I didn't get discouraged though. I told myself "You are a great player. The best players in the world have lost more money in a single day than you could ever begin to stomach. After all you've won over 3000 this year playing and you have to lose some to win. That's how the game goes."

With my newfound resolve I decided to try my hand at an online Sit n Go tourney. I figured I'd do a 20 dollar buy in. That way if I came in first out of the ten players, I'd win 100 dollars and I'd be up for the night, in spite of the horrible start.

So there I am, playing my game, running over people and exactly where I want to be, in first place with only three left, in the money. After the field was cut from ten to three, I was guaranteed to win at least 40 dollars, 60 if I came in second and 100 if I came in first. I had the chip lead, and the player in third place was hanging on for dear life. Then, boom, internet gone. By the time I had called all of the friends I knew who A. play online poker, and B. were still up at 2:30 AM (it probably doesn't come as much of a surprise that the two actually coincide fairly well) I was already eliminated in third place. Twenty dollars down the drain, and raped of my chance for sixty more. I had to settle for 40 when 60 was assured and 100 was likely.

This was especially frustrating because Comcast has been to my apartment twice in the last 10 days, including THIS MORNING, to fix my internet and obviously it still sucks... balls.

I just don't deserve this. The Universe owes me at least 40 dollars right now, probably more. I wonder who I should take that up with.

Questions

Why isn't my life exciting?

Why is gas so expensive?

Why don't I have more money?

Why don't I like what I do?

Why isn't Lavar Arrington playing?

Why do people drive under the speed limit?

Why can't I win at poker everytime?

Why aren't attractive women calling me all the time?

Why does work suck?

Anybody know?

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!

I could go on and on for pages and pages and pages about that game and the significance it had to all Redskins fans, so I won't bother trying to do my feelings full justice right now, but I have to atone for my earlier commentary.

Right or wrong, Joe Gibbs led us to victory with the help of Mark Brunell to Santana Moss x2 and I don't know that I've ever experienced such pure ecstasy as I did during the second TD throw. Do yourself a favor, find and watch the video highlights. This was a big one, a special one, the kind you remember forever, and the kind that provide you the reminder of why you watch this game.

I could have cried myself to sleep into my pillow, tears of joy.

Redskins Monday Night

This is from Tuesday, but Friendster was being a little bitch the other times I tried to post it, and it's still relevant.

I don't have enough time right now to stand on my soap box for as long as I'd like to, but this absolutely can't wait. The extent of Joe Gibbs's loyalty to Mark Brunell last year was absolutely, irrefutably, and almost comically detrimental to this team. At the season's conclusion even the most ignorant of football minds could, through intuitive reasoning, pinpoint the main cause for our failures as an offense through our 16 week display of ineptitude. There is nothing in this world that is more obvious than just how DONE Mark Brunell is as an NFL QB. If we are pinning our hopes on Brunell for this season, we might as well resign ourselves to no more than 7 wins, at an absolute maximum. We have NO UPSIDE on offense with Brunell under center, NONE.

Not once did the offense, under Brunell score 20 points in a game last year, and it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN! Gibbs is plainly, flatly, and sorely mistaken in seeing ANYTHING redeemable about a Brunell led team. This is especially baffling considering his career record, credentials, and hall of fame status.

I GUARANTEE that we will lose next Monday night if Brunell starts (and now we know he is going to). Whatever the Vegas line is, double it, and we will lose by at least that much, and that is ALSO a GUARANTEE. If we are going to sit Ramsey at this point we might as well start Jason Campbell and forget this season altogether.

There was only one way to play this season: Give Ramsey an honest shot and when playoffs were no longer possible, think about switching to Campbell. Brunell should NEVER have been part of the equation.

It's so ironic that Brunell was shown about 8400 times too much loyalty last year than he deserved and Ramsey is shown NO LOYALTY WHATSOEVER. This is a horrible mistake and I'm going to watch every game that Brunell starts this year with a flippin bag over my head. Come on, shoot me down Gibbs loyalists!! I will be there to laugh in your face when Brunell goes 5-19 for 37 yards and 3 INTs in the first half next week. This is not football; this is a bastardized game of "let's see if we can win without even playing offense." I would rather punt on every first down than see Mark Brunell under center. Or at least we could let Clinton Portis play QB and just run the option every play like Navy.

This is a sad and infuriating day to be a Redskins fan.

Well, it's 2:05 AM Central, time for another flippin' blog entry

I will do the best I can not to let the tone of this blog entry be negatively affected by the fact that friendster jerked me around for about 20 minutes not letting me access the damn update blog page. Every time I would click "update blog" the damn thing kept redirecting me to the same damned page I was already looking at. Frustrating.

In any case, I had occasion tonight to ponder the meaning of the word transcendental. If one is not capable of transcending one's own environment, one's own craft, one's own artform, then what, exactly, is the purpose of one's life? I believe that the bulk of the emotional and psychological tribulations each individual must go through in his or her life comes from the lack of a sense of purpose, the lack of the sense of being relevant, relative to their surroundings, and the magnitude of their ambition. A lot of people in this world are looking at their lives today and saying to themselves "Just what in the hell have I accomplished that has been worth a damn?" At a young age, everyone, and I mean quite literally, EVERYONE, is told that their lives will go as far as they can conceive, and that they can accomplish anything that they wish to accomplish if they want it badly enough.

At what point does one acknowledge that his or her path has departed from the direction of greatness and into the direction of the mundane? People are, by nature, "community" oriented entities. Our lives are defined, to a large extent, by those people who share our time and space. Perhaps, some people achieve their greatness by finding a soul mate, someone that they can share their life with. Is this ever the end of the story though? I have often asked myself whether it is even truly possible for two people to love each other equally.

The vast majority of relationships unfold one of two different ways: 1. One person loses interest, but not the other... Either way, it's over. 2. Both lose interest simultaneously (less common, but possible). A select few stand the test of time, somehow, but why? I know that a brand of relationship exists where one individual truly loves another, and the other, perhaps out of boredom, perhaps out of poor self-esteem, perhaps out of lack of ambition, perhaps out of old age, perhaps out of comfort... whatever, makes a conscious or semiconsious concession, large or small, and knows that he or she will never derive the same fulfillment that his or her mate derives from him or her, but decides to stick it out anyway. If you don't believe that that describes 90% of the marriages that exist in the world today, you are more idealistic than I.

Again, in some cases, the concession is certainly a small one. There are definitely varying degrees, but I wonder if there even exists a case where neither party makes any concession at all. One person feels like they've landed the big fish and one feels like they are "settling." Honestly, those who happen to be reading, let me know if this is too depressing, I have a good mind to have some sunshine blown up my ass.

The 19th Century philosopher Schopenhaur postulated that the will is a bottomless pit of sorts. One can not satisfy its inextinguishable hunger for more, more money, more fame, more love, more prestige, more friends, more anything. A figurehead in pessimist philosophy, Schopenhauer's opinions seem to corroborate my above hypotheses. Perhaps one loves another because they know that they will never truly be loved the same way in return. They know that on some level, they do not have the tangible hold on their mate that their mate has on them, therefore, their will is constantly striving to make their mate feel for them as they feel for their mate. They know that their mates will is not done striving, even as theirs would not be were the tables turned. One views theirs as a great love, whereas the others will can never be quenched, barring looking elsewhere.

I hope, even as I write this, that I am 100% wrong- not just because I want to find a soul mate who loves me in spite of the fact that I love her, but also because love between two people is perhaps life's greatest metaphor. I can no more get everything I'd ever want out of one woman that I have firmly within my grasp as I can get everything I'd ever want out of life itself.

Indeed I would very much like to achieve something transcendental, something that sets me apart from the masses and brings me recognition for the way that other people's lives were affected by my own. It is true that I am not ready to concede my place on the path to greatness at this time. The only problem is that the path toward greatness is not clearly marked, you have to mark it out for yourself. It isn't easy to know when you are on the path to greatness, but it is usually pretty easy to know when you aren't. I hope that my will gives me the sense to blaze the trail to a worthy destiny and condemn the steps that take me off course, but in the long run, I know I'll probably just end up settling.

Gayness

So I sit down and am ready to start to work on my final project for Intro, when I get my performance practice project back from a buddy who happened to go by my teacher's office. Written on the top of the first page was "Good Grief." On the back next to my grade (a D) were the words "This is a disaster." I'm the coolest person ever.

Mead

Well, I managed to post what I would call a respectable effort on my exam this Tuesday, though I had to pull a near all-nighter to do it. In addition, my teacher helped me with my project due next Tuesday and I find it now to be decidedly less intimidating. As a result, I feel much better about my chances of passing graduate school year 1. Hooray. Now I can probably get a master's degree in trumpet performance! Wait...

Don't think I'm fully out of my funk yet though. I still need all of the positive vibes any of the hypothetical readers of this garbage (Eundo, maybe one or two other bored people) can spare.

Oh, and I don't think I mentioned- our softball team actually posted a victory this week (9-5)... well it was technically our second, but the first one was a forfeit. This time we actually beat a team of adult males with bats, gloves, balls... the whole bit. It was actually quite spectacular. One might note that I ran my pitching record to 1-2, and recorded a looking strikeout when one of their dudes stupidly took a 3-2 pitch right down the pipe. We also had two 3 up, 3 down innings. Been riding an emotional high from that win all week.

Bah

Damn, Intro to Grad Studies has forced itself deeper into my posterior orifice. I have an exam this Tuesday, for which no fewer than 4 hours of study will result in me getting a grade better than a C. The following Tuesday I have an annotated bibliography on performance practice due which will take closer to 6 hours. The following Tuesday is the due date for my final project, 15-20 pages of annotated bibliographical citations pertaining to unaccompanied trumpet literature of the 20th century. That ought to take about 8 to 12 hours of my time, at a minimum. All this just so I give myself a *chance* to pass this class, which is a degree requirement (I need a C or better). Needless to say, the next three weeks of my life promise to be flippin' awesome.

I need something good to happen to me, something really good, something that will help me reconcile wasting away in the library for those countless hours in pursuit of the pot of gold at the end of this academic rainbow, not worrying if the pot is actually full of various kinds of animal feces.

Sometimes I wonder who I'm kidding sticking with it. I'm certainly not kidding myself.

Someone give me your blessing, throw some positive karma my way. I'm a nice guy. I don't dick people over. I'm not as judgmental as most. I've been going uphill for so long now. When is the easy part?

Dude

Bo doesn't know steroids. It's simultaneously glorious and pathetic that baseball is so damn good for my soul. I really don't need anything else. All I need is a few beers, enough money to pay rent and buy food, and a TV with baseball on, and I'm perfectly content.