Dutch government collapses over military deployment in Afghanistan

By Stefan Steinberg

The Dutch government collapsed on Saturday when one member of the ruling coalition—the social democratic Dutch Labour Party (PvdA)—refused to support a further extension of the country’s military deployment in Afghanistan.

The Labour Party, which has shared power with the Christian Democrats and the Christian Union, argued in making its decision that the party’s credibility was at stake.

The Labour Party has lost considerable support in recent elections due in large measure to its continued support for Dutch military involvement in Afghanistan. Commenting on his party’s decision to oppose a new mandate, Labour Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos complained that the intervention was placing “a very heavy burden on the Dutch armed forces.”

He continued: “When we extended [the mandate for the Dutch military deployment in Afghanistan] two years ago, we made a promise to the Dutch population that this was the last time. So it wouldn’t have been very credible if we had changed the date again.”

The Netherlands currently has 1,400 troops stationed in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan. Its total troop numbers in Afghanistan are estimated at about 2,000.

Twenty-one Dutch soldiers have been killed since the government first sent troops to back the NATO mission in 2006. Opinion polls have repeatedly made clear that a majority of the population is opposed to the Afghan deployment and favours the immediate withdrawal of Dutch troops. Against this background, the Dutch government had set a deadline for the withdrawal of its troops by August of this year.

In the last few months, the US and Britain have increased their pressure on the Dutch government in The Hague to renew its military commitment in Uruzgan. The increased deployment of European troops is a cornerstone of the surge strategy decided upon by the Obama administration, which has dispatched tens of thousands of additional US troops to Afghanistan.

The US originally sought up to 10,000 additional troops from Europe. In response, NATO pledged to provide around 7,000 troops, but this total includes some troops already in the country, and many European governments have failed to make firm commitments on the full contingents promised.

Public opposition to the military policy of the Dutch government and the involvement of Dutch troops in Afghanistan increased at the start of the year following the release of a report by a Dutch commission of inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war. The Davids Commission rejected the central arguments used to justify the actions of the US and British governments and concluded that the Iraq war was illegal under international law. The report was also critical of the role played in the Iraq war by the Dutch government led by the Christian Democratic prime minister, Peter Balkenende, who heads the now-collapsed coalition.

At the start of this month, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held talks with Maxime Verhagen, the Christian Democratic foreign minister, and then pleaded in a letter to Balkenende for an extension of the Dutch mission.

In response to the NATO secretary general’s request, the Dutch Labour Party proffered an olive branch. Labour MP Martijn van Dam declared that his party would be prepared to support a continued intervention involving the training of Afghan engineers or medical personnel on a limited scale. Since Dutch troops would be necessary to ensure the security of such a mission, van Dam’s proposal was a backhanded way of permitting the Dutch deployment to continue.

However, after news broke last week of the NATO negotiations to extend the Dutch deployment, public anger swelled. Bos claimed not to have known about the talks—a highly dubious assertion that was discounted by the Christian Democrats, who insisted Bos was fully informed, and widely disbelieved by the public.

This was the context in which the Labour Party broke ranks with its coalition partners. At the end of a 16-hour cabinet meeting that lasted into the early hours of Saturday, Balkenende declared the termination of his coalition with the Labour Party.

The Christian Democratic and Christian Union parties are expected to form a caretaker government until a fresh general election takes place, probably in early summer. Under conditions where all of the coalition parties have been discredited, it is believed that the ultra-right anti-immigrant Freedom Party of Geert Wilders could win or finish second in new legislative elections.

The collapse of the Dutch government represents a serious blow to the US administration’s strategy in Afghanistan. While the number of Dutch troops in Afghanistan pales in comparison to the US deployment—set to reach nearly 100,000 by the end of the year—political pundits and foreign policy specialists fear that the Dutch decision could be the preamble to other countries deciding to quit.

The German parliament is due to decide on an extension of the mandate for its own troops in Afghanistan on Friday. In common with the Netherlands, there is massive public opposition to the involvement of German troops in the US-NATO mission.

According to Julian Lindley-French, professor of defense strategy at the Netherlands Defense Academy in Breda: “If the Dutch go, which is the implication of all this, that could open the floodgates for other Europeans to say, ‘The Dutch are going, we can go, too.’ The implications are that the US and the British are going to take on more of the load.”

The collapse of the Dutch government and prospect of a withdrawal of Dutch troops also comes at a point when the US-NATO alliance is confronting increasing resistance in its operation against the Taliban in Helmand province, which neighbours the province of Uruzgan.

The comments by Labour Party leader Wouter Bos following the withdrawal of his party from the coalition government make clear that the social democrats have no differences regarding the use of Dutch troops for military interventions in the pursuit of Dutch interests. Bos represents a section of the ruling elite in the Netherlands which is increasingly concerned over the course of the Afghan campaign, chafes at the use of Dutch troops to pursue American interests in the region, and fears the domestic social and political consequences of continued Dutch involvement in the war.

Popular opposition to the war is linking up with social discontent over the impact of the economic crisis and government austerity moves. Balkenende had announced plans to raise the retirement age and impose sweeping cuts in social programs in order to recoup the huge sums allocated by the government to rescue Dutch banks at the height of the economic crisis.

As in the case of military policy, the social democrats have no fundamental differences with such policies. Since the 1990s, the Labour Party has been regarded as the party of wealth redistribution—from the working class to those at the top of society.

In was during this time that the PvdA, under then-Prime Minister Wim Kok, undertook a drastic program of cuts in welfare state programs, thereby paving the way for the accession to power of the conservatives under Balkenende. Current Labour Party leader Bos is a former top manager of Shell Oil and has close connections to the Dutch business world.

Now, Bos and the leadership of the Labour Party have concluded that the measures necessary to restore the credit worthiness of the Netherlands in the eyes of international finance cannot be carried out by the discredited Balkenende coalition. Instead, the Labour Party will seek to exploit its close links to the trade unions to forge a new coalition pledged to implement the cuts demanded by the banks and Dutch corporate interests.

Medical marijuana may help fibromyalgia pain

By Anne Harding

Lynda, a 48-year-old mother of three who lives in upstate New York, got a diagnosis of fibromyalgia in 2000. While there are prescription medications for fibromyalgia, she's found one unconventional drug -- marijuana -- that really does the trick. "I would use [marijuana] when the burning pains started down my spine or my right arm, and shortly after, I found I could continue with housework and actually get more done," says Lynda.

Fibromyalgia is notoriously difficult to treat and only 35 percent - 40 percent of people with the chronic pain condition get relief from the available medications. Although there are strong opinions surrounding its use, some patients are trying marijuana -- legally or illegally -- and finding it can help fibromyalgia pain.

"My patients are asking me all the time about it," says Stuart Silverman, M.D., a rheumatologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles. "Historically and anecdotally, marijuana has been used as a painkiller."

Why marijuana sometimes helps Our bodies naturally make pain relievers called endorphins, but they also make other substances that can trigger pain relief in the so-called endocannabinoid system. This system seems to play a key role in many processes in the body, including modulating how we feel pain. Marijuana contains cannabinoids very similar to those that occur in the body naturally. Fibromyalgia patients typically experience bodywide pain, but they must often take multiple drugs for other symptoms, which can include difficulty sleeping, restless legs syndrome, depression, and anxiety.

However, marijuana may treat multiple symptoms, and some patients are seeing results. It seems logical -- why shouldn't fibromyalgia sufferers try marijuana for their symptoms, if they live in a state where medical marijuana is legal? But there are two problems with herbal cannabis, Silverman and other critics say: It's a complex natural substance that contains about 60 different compounds with potentially medicinal effects, some of which may interact with one another. The other problem is that the amount of these various compounds may vary by batch, as marijuana is not synthesized but grown.

While Silverman says he has great hopes that synthetic medicines based on individual compounds in cannabis may one day help fibromyalgia patients (after appropriate randomized controlled clinical trials have been done), he argues that the real thing today is just too inconsistent. "We think that there's probably a role for that class of compounds, the cannabinoids in general, and it's just a question of working out how that's going to be put into practice," says Mark Ware, M.D., an assistant professor in family medicine and anesthesia at McGill University, in Montreal, and the executive director of the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Drugs derived from marijuana

Ware recently published a study showing that one such compound, nabilone (Cesamet), helped fibromyalgia patients sleep better. It was more effective than amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant often prescribed to fibromyalgia patients to ease pain and improve sleep. And a study published a couple of years ago found nabilone helped lessen pain and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients. Nabilone is a synthetic analog of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol -- THC for short -- often thought of as the active ingredient of cannabis. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug back in 1985 for treating nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The only other cannabis-based drug now on the market in the U.S. is dronabinol, which is sold as Marinol in the U.S. and is FDA-approved for treating chemo-related nausea and vomiting. It hasn't been tested formally in fibromyalgia patients, although Lynda received a prescription for Marinol in 2006. "The drug makes me more tired and doesn't last long enough in my system, but I've stuck with it since then for two basic reasons -- I do supplement with marijuana, just not as many times per day," she says. "There are times that I don't use all day or week or month."

A third cannabis-based medicine, Sativex, is now in clinical trials in the United States for treating cancer pain. The drug is sprayed under the tongue or into the cheek, and contains THC and cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive compound found in cannabis that eases inflammation and pain and may also reduce the side effects of THC (like anxiety, hunger production, and some of the intoxicating properties), as well as a number of other compounds (other cannabinoids and terpenoids, which are analgesics in their own rights).

But do they help? "It is quite possible that cannabis-based medicines could be helpful for sufferers of fibromyalgia based on available science," says Ethan Russo, M.D., who is senior medical advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals, which makes Sativex, and a study physician for the U.S. clinical trials now underway for cancer treatment. Russo says he's hopeful Sativex will get FDA approval for treating cancer pain in 2013. "While a theoretical basis for Sativex potentially helping benefit fibromyalgia symptoms is quite strong, and we know it has been very helpful with neuropathic pain and sleep disturbance in many other conditions," he adds, "it's ultimate utility in fibromyalgia can only be proven in a meaningful, practical fashion through formal randomized clinical trials."

For now, Ware says, patients with fibromyalgia who aren't being helped by their existing treatment might want to discuss nabilone with their physician. "A lot of doctors just don't know that these prescription cannabinoids exist," he says. However, these drugs have side effects too. "The most typical side effects are what I call the three D's: drowsiness, dizziness, and dry mouth. It's not euphoria as such," he adds. In Canada, federal law allows patients to use medical marijuana with a doctor's support (they can't prescribe marijuana because it's not approved as a drug in Canada) of the patient's application to possess; the drug is delivered directly to the patient, and grown under controlled conditions by the government. "I have patients with a range of pain syndromes who have failed all their other treatments and for whom herbal cannabis has been the only reasonable option that they have that controls their symptoms," Ware says. In such cases, he adds, he will help the patient obtain the card they need to authorize them to possess the drug.

But in the U.S., the legality of medical marijuana is determined state-by-state (it's now legal in 14 states), and rules and regulations vary widely. And while Attorney General Eric Holder said last year that he would no longer go after people who were selling or using medical marijuana legally, many users -- and potential users -- are fearful of the legal risks they may be taking.

"Licensed for use or not, it's still a federal crime, says Dee, a 52-year-old medical assistant with fibromyalgia, who lives in Colorado, which passed a law allowing medical marijuana in 2000. While visiting a wellness center for therapeutic massages, staffers suggested she try marijuana for her symptoms. After getting her doctor's approval, "I tried a little of this and a little of that. I would say that most of the time my pain was not relieved," although she did sleep better and had a better appetite. "I did find one plant that really did help, but it was hard to get, and you only get so much grown per plant for year." So when the time came for Dee to get her state license to use medical marijuana (Colorado gives people 90 days), at a cost of $90 every year, "I let the ball drop." While Dee says she has no problem with medical marijuana, she is concerned about the increase of dispensaries across the state. "There are more places to purchase medical marijuana than banks or Mexican restaurants now," she says.

In New York, the state assembly has approved medical marijuana legislation, and Lynda says she is working to support legalization efforts there. For now, legal or not, she is continuing to use marijuana. "I would suggest to any 'fibromyalgiac' to try marijuana if they are open to it," says Lynda. "I swore when I became a parent I would not touch weed again (ah, youth), but times have changed, and I was desperate to find something for the burning pain so I could function. I'm glad that I made this decision because it works for me."

When was marijuana first illegal?

The first marijuana law found so far was a 1905 El Paso, Texas law. It, and most of the other laws in the southwest that followed, was motivated by racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants. These laws had nothing to do with the actual effects of the marijuana. In fact, cannabis in the form of hemp was a common crop in many of these states, and tinctures of cannabis were included in hundreds of common medicines. The purpose of the laws was to discriminate against Mexicans and other racial minorities. This same purpose is also found in the history of the laws against opiates and cocaine. The first state law was a 1913 California law that received little notice. It was promoted by the pharmaceutical industry that saw marijuana as a competitor. That was followed by a 1914 Utah level that was simply a Mormon religious prohibition enacted into law. By 1930, about thirty states had passed laws against marijuana for one reason or another. In the southwest and south, it was primarily racial prejudice against Mexicans and other racial minorities. In the northern states it was primarily the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana -- exactly the opposite of the modern marijuana gateway myth.

As far as the people involved, two people get primary credit. One is Harry Anslinger, who actively promoted Reefer Madness because he knew the marijuana laws were unenforceable. Therefore, he reasoned that the only possible method was to scare people so bad that they would never touch it. His plan worked for a while.

The other is Dr. James C. Munch of Temple University. There were only two doctors who testified for the congressional hearings. One was the representative of the American Medical Association. He said that there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug. The committee basically told him to shut up and leave.

The other was Dr. James C. Munch. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected some extract of cannabis directly into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of them had died. When they asked him what he concluded from that, he said he didn't know. However, he was the only doctor in the US who agreed that marijuana should be illegal, so his testimony was accepted, and he later became the US Official Expert on Marihuana. While serving in that capacity, he also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana would make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood and, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat.

Anslinger served as director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930-1962. Dr. Munch served as US Official Expert on Marihuana from 1938-1962.

References:

Short History of the Marijuana Laws - http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge -- the Legal History of American Marihuana Prohibition - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm

Complete transcripts of the congressional hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and related papers -- http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

Marijuana use by seniors goes up as boomers age

Pot-smoking among 55- to 59-year-olds has more than tripled since 2002
By Matt Sedensky

In her 88 years, Florence Siegel has learned how to relax: A glass of red wine. A crisp copy of The New York Times, if she can wrest it from her husband. Some classical music, preferably Bach. And every night like clockwork, she lifts a pipe to her lips and smokes marijuana.

Long a fixture among young people, use of the country's most popular illicit drug is now growing among the AARP set, as the massive generation of baby boomers who came of age in the 1960s and '70s grows older.

The number of people aged 50 and older reporting marijuana use in the prior year went up from 1.9 percent to 2.9 percent from 2002 to 2008, according to surveys from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The rise was most dramatic among 55- to 59-year-olds, whose reported marijuana use more than tripled from 1.6 percent in 2002 to 5.1 percent.

Observers expect further increases as 78 million boomers born between 1945 and 1964 age. For many boomers, the drug never held the stigma it did for previous generations, and they tried it decades ago.

Some have used it ever since, while others are revisiting the habit in retirement, either for recreation or as a way to cope with the aches and pains of aging.

Siegel walks with a cane and has arthritis in her back and legs. She finds marijuana has helped her sleep better than pills ever did. And she can't figure out why everyone her age isn't sharing a joint, too.

"They're missing a lot of fun and a lot of relief," she said.

Politically, advocates for legalizing marijuana say the number of older users could represent an important shift in their decades-long push to change the laws.

"For the longest time, our political opponents were older Americans who were not familiar with marijuana and had lived through the 'Reefer Madness' mentality and they considered marijuana a very dangerous drug," said Keith Stroup, the founder and lawyer of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group.

"Now, whether they resume the habit of smoking or whether they simply understand that it's no big deal and that it shouldn't be a crime, in large numbers they're on our side of the issue."

Each night, 66-year-old Stroup says he sits down to the evening news, pours himself a glass of wine and rolls a joint. He's used the drug since he was a freshman at Georgetown, but many older adults are revisiting marijuana after years away.

"The kids are grown, they're out of school, you've got time on your hands and frankly it's a time when you can really enjoy marijuana," Stroup said. "Food tastes better, music sounds better, sex is more enjoyable."

The drug is credited with relieving many problems of aging: aches and pains, glaucoma, macular degeneration, and so on. Patients in 14 states enjoy medical marijuana laws, but those elsewhere buy or grow the drug illegally to ease their conditions.

Among them is Perry Parks, 67, of Rockingham, N.C., a retired Army pilot who suffered crippling pain from degenerative disc disease and arthritis. He had tried all sorts of drugs, from Vioxx to epidural steroids, but found little success. About two years ago he turned to marijuana, which he first had tried in college, and was amazed how well it worked for the pain.

"I realized I could get by without the narcotics," Parks said, referring to prescription painkillers. "I am essentially pain free."

But there's also the risk that health problems already faced by older people can be exacerbated by regular marijuana use.

Older users could be at risk for falls if they become dizzy, smoking it increases the risk of heart disease and it can cause congnitive impairment, said Dr. William Dale, chief of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

He said he'd caution against using it even if a patient cites benefits.

"There are other better ways to achieve the same effects," he said.

Pete Delany, director of applied studies at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said boomers' drug use defied stereotypes, but is important to address.

"When you think about people who are 50 and older you don't generally think of them as using illicit drugs -- the occasional Hunter Thompson or the kind of hippie dippie guy that gets a lot of press maybe," he said. "As a nation, it's important to us to say, 'It's not just young people using drugs it's older people using drugs.'"

In conversations, older marijuana users often say they smoke in less social settings than when they were younger, frequently preferring to enjoy the drug privately. They say the quality (and price) of the drug has increased substantially since their youth and they aren't as paranoid about using it.

Dennis Day, a 61-year-old attorney in Columbus, Ohio, said when he used to get high, he wore dark glasses to disguise his red eyes, feared talking to people on the street and worried about encountering police. With age, he says, any drawbacks to the drug have disappeared.

"My eyes no longer turn red, I no longer get the munchies," Day said. "The primary drawbacks to me now are legal."

Siegel bucks the trend as someone who was well into her 50s before she tried pot for the first time. She can muster only one frustration with the drug.

"I never learned how to roll a joint," she said. "It's just a big nuisance. It's much easier to fill a pipe."

the rethug informant

Officials: Pilot leaves angry note online

If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?" The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I'm not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was "no taxation without representation". I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a "crackpot", traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political "representatives" (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the "terrible health care problem". It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You've got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly "holds accountable" its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law "requires" a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not "duress" than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code' readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful "exemptions" that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the "best", high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the "big boys" were doing (except that we weren't steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two "interpretations" for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their "freedom"… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of "paying my dues"), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I'm sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be "healthier" eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn't quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears' contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).

SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.

Note:

"another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
"taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
"individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it's not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can't believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change', and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their "freedom". Oh, and don't forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn't bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren't going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn't need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to "shore up" their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special' facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I'm thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I'll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I've never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn't give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn't notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I'd never enter another accountant's office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl's unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn't have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual". Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn't that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I'm hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn't limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at "big brother" while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn't so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

02/18/2010

Studies Show Marijuana Has 'Therapeutic Value'

Studies Show Marijuana Has 'Therapeutic Value'; Research Reported to California Legislature

ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2010) — Researchers from the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) have found "reasonable evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment" for some specific, pain-related medical conditions. Their findings, presented February 17 to the California legislature and public, are included in a report available on the CMCR web site.

"We focused on illnesses where current medical treatment does not provide adequate relief or coverage of symptoms," explained CMCR director, Igor Grant, MD, Executive Vice-Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the UCSD School of Medicine. "These findings provide a strong, science-based context in which policy makers and the public can begin discussing the place of cannabis in medical care."

Researchers have completed five scientific clinical trials, with more in progress. These studies showed that cannabis can be helpful in easing pain in selected syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system and possibly for painful muscle spasms due to multiple sclerosis.

"These scientists created an unparalleled program of systematic research, focused on science-based answers rather than political or social beliefs," said Senator John Vasconcellos, original author of The Medical Marijuana Research Act of 1999 (SB847) which led to the creation of the CMCR.

Study results have been published in high-impact medical journals, garnering national and international attention which prompted leading experts to come together and foster scientific dialog on the possible uses of cannabis as a therapeutic agent. More study will be necessary to figure out the mechanisms of action and the full therapeutic potential of cannabinoid compounds, according to the UC researchers.

Dear Sarah: Say It Is So, Run for President

by Leonard Pitts Jr.

Dear Sarah Palin:

I hear you're pondering a run for the White House in 2012. Last week, you told Fox news it would be "absurd'' to rule it out.

I'm writing to ask that you rule it in. I very badly want you to run for -- and win -- the Republican nomination for the presidency.

I know you're waiting for the punch line. Maybe you figure I think you'd be a weak candidate who would pave the way for President Obama's easy re-election.

That's not it. No, I want you to run because I believe a Palin candidacy would force upon this country a desperately needed moment of truth. It would require us to finally decide what kind of America we want to be.

Mrs. Palin, you are an avatar of the shameless hypocrisy and cognitive disconnection that have driven our politics for the last decade, a process of stupidification creeping like kudzu over our national life.

As Exhibit A, consider your recent speech at a so-called ``tea party'' event, wherein you dismissed the president as a ``charismatic guy with a teleprompter.'' Bad enough you imply that teleprompter use is the mark of an insubstantial man, even though you and every other major politician uses them. But what made the comment truly jaw-dropping is that even as you spoke, you had penned on your left palm, clearly visible, a series of crib notes.

Mrs. Palin, if Obama is an idiot for reading a prepared speech off a teleprompter, what are you for reading notes you've inked on your hand like a school kid who failed to study for the big test?

In the Fox interview, you scored Obama for supposedly expecting Americans to ``sit down and shut up'' and accept his policies. But when asked when the president has ever said that, you couldn't answer. Obama, you sputtered, has just been condescending with his ``general persona.''

I found that a telling moment. See, ultimately what you represent is not conservatism. Heck, I suspect that somewhere, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are spinning like helicopter rotors at the very idea.

No, you represent the latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism that periodically rises in the American character. There is, historically and persistently, a belief in us that y'all just can't trust nobody who acts too smart or talks too good -- in other words, somebody whose ``general persona'' indicates they may have once cracked a book or had a thought. Americans tend to believe common sense the exclusive province of humble folks without sheepskins on the wall or big words in their vocabularies.

I don't mock those people. They are my parents, my family elders, members of my childhood church. I honor their native good sense, what mom called ``mother wit.'' But if it is insulting to condescend to them, it is equally insulting to mythologize them.

More to the point, something is wrong when we celebrate mental mediocrity like yours under the misapprehension that competence or, God forbid, intelligence, makes a person one of those ``elites'' -- that's a curse word now -- lacking authenticity, compassion and common sense.

So no, this is not a clash of ideologies, but a clash between intelligence and its opposite. And I am tired of being asked to pretend stupid is a virtue. That's why I'd welcome the moment of truth your campaign would bring. It would force us to decide once and for all whether we are permanently committed to the path of ignorance, of birthers, truthers and tea party incoherence you represent, or whether we will at last turn back from the cliff toward which we race.

If the latter, wonderful, God bless America. If the former, well, some of us can finally quit hoping the nation will return to its senses and plan accordingly. Either way, we need to know, and your candidacy would tell us. If you love this country, Mrs. Palin, you can do it no greater service.

Run, Sarah, run.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

The Beginning of the End of Marijuana Prohibition

By Ethan Nadelmann


There's been steady progress on medical marijuana -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's new guidelines directing federal drug agents not to arrest legitimate patients and suppliers in medical marijuana states. Then there's the recent victories in Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Washington D.C., -- not to mention the medical marijuana bills making progress in numerous other states around the country. Last month's ABC News/Washington Post poll reported a record 81 percent support for medical marijuana. If ballot initiatives could be held in all 50 states, voters would approve it in all but a small handful.


What's even more remarkable is the recent jump in support for taxing and regulating marijuana. I was pleasantly stunned by the Gallup poll late last year finding that support for making marijuana legal jumped from 36% in 2005 to 44% in 2009. Fifty-four percent of Democrats, 53% of people living in the West, and roughly half of Independents and 18-49 year-olds now support making marijuana legal. In the past year, legislative proposals to tax and regulate marijuana have prompted hearings in California, Washington, and New Hampshire -- and California voters will have their say this November at the ballot box.


What does all this mean?


Despite such progress, I don't expect bold leadership from the Obama administration, mostly because presidents rarely provide any sort of leadership on hot-button issues involving cultural conflict, personal behavior and morality. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that Obama expresses concern that 750,000 people are arrested each year for doing exactly the same thing he did as a young man -- possessing a small amount of marijuana.


Still, though, Obama has already made a difference in two critical ways. First, his candid discussion of his own experiences using marijuana set a new standard for honesty. Second, the Department of Justice's new guidelines on medical marijuana opened up significant political and legal space for states to get more deeply involved in regulating the otherwise illicit product. This move took the dialogue around medical marijuana to a new level of seriousness and sophistication, and effectively invited an emerging public conversation about making marijuana legally available for non-medical use.


Neither the administration nor Congress is ready for a serious dialogue on ending marijuana prohibition, though. Congress is even stymied when it comes to medical marijuana -- many elected officials still insist they can't spend their political capital on it. With support for medical marijuana at 81 percent, one has to wonder -- just how popular does something have to be before elected officials are willing to stand up to the vested interests behind the war on drugs?


Since the public is so far ahead of national policymakers, I think the best we can hope for is that the federal government allows change to continue bubbling up from the state and local levels. That's the nature of movements for individual freedom and social justice -- the people lead, elected officials follow grudgingly.


It's only a matter of time before marijuana is taxed, controlled, and regulated in the United States. The tragedy is that in the meantime tens of billions of dollars will be wasted, and millions of people will be harmed by our marijuana laws. It's up to us -- as conscientious members of society who care about science, compassion, health, and human rights -- to make sure that the time comes as soon as possible.

Ellyn Maybe at Valley Contemporary Poets

Watch live streaming video from radiofreeexile at livestream.com

Sarah Palin's Weak Tea

how to make a baby

Watch live streaming video from radiofreeexile at livestream.com

"Everything's Amazing, Nobody's Happy"

Watch live streaming video from radiofreeexile at livestream.com

Obama's Secret To Success

Watch live streaming video from radiofreeexile at livestream.com

Hawaii Aims To Decriminalize, Add Dispensaries

The Hawaii State Senate met in January to vote on a bill to allow same-sex unions. During this meeting, another bill was introduced.



State Senator J. Kalani English (District 6, representing Hana, East and Upcountry Maui, Moloka‘i, Lana‘i, Kaho‘olawe) presented a plan in January to allow medical marijuana dispensaries in Hawaii (co-sponsored with Senator Espero) and decriminalize small quantities of marijuana—a maximum of an ounce per adult. Kalani added the stipulation to a bill that would allow same-sex unions.



In order for these bills to pass, they must have a two-thirds in favor vote. “We have seventeen out of twenty-five signatures already,” claimed Senator English. ”It’s the economic climate that is allowing this to happen,” stated Senator English.



According to statistics cited in the bill, the State of Hawaii spends 4.1 million dollars enforcing marijuana possession laws and an additional 2.1 million dollars are spent by courts to process the cases which are largely dismissed. For a state that has a 1.2 billion dollar deficit, 6.2 million dollars is a substantial amount of currency. The decriminalization of marijuana would help to relieve both the strained police department and court system. With the planned 4% tax revenue from sales at dispensaries, the bills sound much more appealing to a cash-starved state.



“That’s why we are introducing these bills together,” Senator English said. “We have to strike while we can.”



Currently, marijuana patients in Hawaii who cannot grow their own cannabis are forced to purchase from street sources. “We already have the medical marijuana law,” Senator English said. “We are just lacking the dispensaries.”



Under current terms of the bill, the number of dispensaries permitted will be at each individual county’s discretion. Maui and the Big Island will be the most likely candidates for future dispensaries in accordance with their more liberal stance on cannabis.



If the two bills come to fruition, Hawaii could see the bills go into effect almost immediately—as early as June—according to Senator English.



When asked if legalization—which has the potential to generate even more revenue—is the next move, Senator English answered, “Baby steps.” The biggest opponents include the Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors and law enforcement.



“When I explained the bill to the Chief of Police, he was at first taken aback,” said Senator English. “But, as I explained to him that we are decriminalizing—where we would be treating it more like parking tickets and not legalizing—he started to turn around a little bit.”



If decriminalized, misdemeanor marijuana possession will be cited as a civil violation (i.e. same as a speeding ticket) and the violator will be fined a maximum of $100 for an ounce or less.



“With marijuana set to a lower priority, the police will be able to concentrate their efforts on bigger threats to the Islands—like ice (a.k.a. crystal methamphetamine),” said Senator English.

valentine's day

South Carolina requires ’subversives’ to register

Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now register with South Carolina's Secretary of State and declare their intentions -- or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.


The state's "Subversive Activities Registration Act," passed last year and now officially on the books, states that "every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State."


There's even a $5 filing fee.


By "subversive organization," the law means "every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States [or] of this State."


The law also gives subversive organizations "subject to foreign control" 30 days to register with the state after setting up shop in South Carolina.


While the intention of the law is apparently aimed at Islamic terrorists, it's unclear in the law's wording whether it can be applied to right-wing militias, some of whom have reputedly called for the overthrow of the US government. The law states that "fraternal" and "patriotic" groups are exempt from the law, but only if they don't "contemplate the overthrow of the government."


While the law is clearly redundant -- there are plenty of statutes at the state and federal level through which terrorists can be prosecuted -- it reflects a not-uncommon pattern in some states of "doubling down" against particular crimes.


For instance, South Carolina is among those states which require drug dealers to declare their illegal income, or face additional criminal penalties on top of the already established penalties for buying, possessing and selling drugs.


The South Carolina blog FitsNews describes the new law as "bureaucracy for terrorists."


"In the long and storied history of utterly retarded legislation in South Carolina, we may have finally found the legal statute that takes the cake for sheer stupidity, which we think you’ll agree is saying something," the unsigned blog posting scathingly commented.