It is uncomfortable to look at evil. We’ve all felt that. We were so afraid of bad feelings that we passed laws to make us feel better. We can blame our politicians for passing feel-good laws, but the people we elected were doing what we told them to do. We made a mistake and we got people killed. It would feel horrible to sit and let this happen again.
Safety-free Zone
Reblogged from Slow Facts
We are responsible for our actions. No one questions my
responsibility if I’m negligent and hit you with my car. Are we also
responsible for how someone feels? Does it injure you if I fly the US
flag? How about if I own a gun or carry that gun in a place you find
uncomfortable? We can pass laws that makes us feel better, but what
should we do when these comfort-laws hurt people? Whose feelings take
priority? It may seem unfair, but let me resort to facts for a minute.
Politicians do anything to win votes. They will pass any law that
sounds good and makes us feel better. Politicians lie to us and say
they’ve made things better even when they made things worse. That lead
to a number of laws we see today.
We’re frightened by the thought of a murderer coming to our church,
so politicians passed laws saying guns aren’t allowed at church. We’re
horrified that a murderer would come to our child’s school. Politicians
passed laws saying law-abiding people can’t bring guns to school. We
don’t want people to get drunk when they are carrying a gun, so
politicians passed laws that disarm law abiding people when they go to a
bar. Those laws let us feel better, but did those laws make us safer?
You know the answer. You’ve seen the answer, and you remember how it
feels.
Isaiah 5:20Woe
unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter!
We
passed a law so we could feel safe when we pray. In theory, our
feel-good law stopped a criminal from bringing a gun into a church or a
synagogue. In practice, murderers are not stopped by plastic signs. In
practice, the law disarmed the flock and the shepherds. We saw the
horrible results last year at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. We
saw the result this year at a synagogue in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. We
got what we asked for, but not what we wanted.
In theory, our feel-good laws will stop a criminal from bringing a
gun into a bar. In practice, our laws disarmed the designated driver. We
also disarmed the designated defender. In practice, the gun-free-zone
at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California disarmed a
half-dozen law enforcement officers who were at the bar when it was it
was attacked. That law certainly didn’t work the way we wanted. Our laws
made things worse rather than making them better. That feels awful. The
solution isn’t to put up bigger plastic signs. The solution is to let
people protect themselves.
Sandy Hook, Connecticut
In theory, we’ve protected our schools with a school resource officer
and a plastic sign that says no-guns-allowed. That fails too often.
Murderers go to our school to kill our children. Our defense has to be
where ever our children are. It feels uncomfortable for us to think of
someone attacking our children, but ignoring the problem feels
worse. The good news is that lots of teachers want to protect “their
kids.” I know because I’ve met them. I’ve listened to them.
“Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.” Edward Abbey
It is uncomfortable to look at evil. We’ve all felt that. We were so
afraid of bad feelings that we passed laws to make us feel better. We
can blame our politicians for passing feel-good laws, but the people we
elected were doing what we told them to do. We made a mistake and we got
people killed. It would feel horrible to sit and let this happen again.
Fortunately, we have the power to fix it. Here is a link
to call your elected representatives. Tell them how you feel about
disarming the victims in gun-free-zones. You’ll feel better after you
call.
So, the facts show that unless you are unlucky enough to be at “ground zero” it is highly probable that you can and would survive a nuclear attack if you had proper knowledge and took proper precautions beforehand. It is important to realize that YOU are your own first-responder.
At least one European country takes the risk of a nuclear war even more seriously: Switzerland may have fewer people than Sweden, but it has built about four times as many nuclear shelters —easily enough for the country’s entire population and then some.
As for US, we have bunkers too, they just aren’t for you and me. There are a number of very well to do companies that have a waiting list stretching around the block because they cannot build bunkers and nuclear fallout shelter for those in US that can afford it fast and big enough(google it) It isn’t a marginal fringe industry.
An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States, ( or, for that matter between any two or more members of the “nuclear club”), would be the worst catastrophe in history,a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated, for varied reasons. These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths, believed by millions of Americans.
Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, I will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts.
Myth: Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone. (This is the demoralizing message of On the Beach and many similar pseudo scientific books and articles.)
° Facts: When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater.
An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated, for varied reasons. These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths, believed by millions of Americans.
I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking aboutdetails of survival skills. Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills.Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, I will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts.
° Myth: Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone. (This is the demoralizing message of On the Beach and many similar pseudo-scientific books and articles.)
° Facts:When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater.
Many thousands of tons of earth from the crater of a large explosion are pulverized into trillions of particles. These particles are contaminated by radioactive atoms produced by the nuclear explosion.Thousands of tons of the particles are carried up into a mushroom-shaped cloud,miles above the earth. These radioactive particles then fall out of the mushroom cloud, or out of the dispersing cloud of particles blown by the winds thus becoming fallout.
Each contaminated particle continuously gives off invisible radiation, much like a tiny X-ray machine while in the mushroom cloud, while descending, and after having fallen to earth. The descending radioactive particles are carried by the winds like the sand and dust particles of a miles-thick sandstorm cloud except that they usually are blown at lower speeds and in many areas the particles are so far apart that no cloud is seen.The largest, heaviest fallout particles reach the ground first, in locations close to the explosion. Many smaller particles are carried by the winds for tens to thousands of miles before falling to earth. At any one place where fallout from a single explosion is being deposited on the ground in concentrations high enough to require the use of shelters, deposition will be completed within a few hours.
The smallest fallout particles those tiny enough to be inhaled into a person’s lungs are invisible to the naked eye. These tiny particles would fall so slowly from the four-mile or greater heights to which they would be injected by currently deployed Soviet warheads that most would remain airborne for weeks to years before reaching the ground. By that time their extremely wide dispersal and radioactive decay would make them much less dangerous. Only where such tiny particles are promptly brought to earth by rain- outs or snow-outs in scattered “hot spots,” and later dried and blown about by the winds, would these invisible particles constitute along-term and relatively minor post-attack danger.
The air in properly designed fallout shelters, even those without air filters, is free of radioactive particles and safe to breathe except in a few’ rare environments.
At a typical location where a given amount of fallout from an explosion is deposited later than 1 hour after the explosion, the highest dose rate and the total dose received at that location are less than at a location where the same amount of fallout is deposited 1 hour after the explosion. The longer fallout particles have been airborne before reaching the ground, the less dangerous is their radiation.
Within two weeks after an attack the occupants of most shelters could safely stop using them, or could work outside the shelters for an increasing number of hours each day. Exceptions would be in areas of extremely heavy fallout such as might occur downwind from important targets attacked with many weapons, especially missile sites and very large cities.
Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything;
there is no escaping its deadly effects.
Facts: Some gamma radiation from fallout will penetrate the shielding materials of even an excellent shelter and reach its occupants. However, the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. The design features of such a shelter include the use of a sufficient thickness of earth or other heavy shielding material. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. The following illustration shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number (but not in their ability to penetrate) by layers of packed earth. Each of the layers shown is one halving-thickness of packed earth- about 3.6 inches. A halving- thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.
The actual paths of gamma rays passing through shielding materials are much more complicated, due to scattering, etc.,but when averaged out, the effectiveness of a halving-thickness of any material is approximately as shown.The denser a substance, the better it serves for shielding material. Thus, a halving-thickness of concrete is only about 2.4 inches.
Myth: A heavy nuclear attack would set practically everything on fire, causing “firestorms” in cities that would exhaust the oxygen in the air. All shelter occupants would be killed by the intense heat.
Facts: On a clear day, thermal pulses (heat radiation that travels at the speed of light) from an air burst can set fire to easily ignitable materials (such as window curtains,upholstery, dry newspaper, and dry grass) over about as large an area as is damaged by the blast. It can cause second-degree skin burns to exposed people who are as far as ten miles from a one-megaton (1 MT) explosion. (A 1-MTnuclear explosion is one that produces the same amount of energy as does one million tons of TNT.) If the weather is very clear and dry, the area of fire danger could be considerably larger. On a cloudy or smoggy day, however,particles in the air would absorb and scatter much of the heat radiation, and the area endangered by heat radiation from the fireball would be less than the area of severe blast damage.
Myth: In the worst-hit parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where all buildings were demolished, everyone was killed by blast,radiation, or fire.
Facts: In Nagasaki,some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero(the point directly below the explosion). This was true even though these long,large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed. (People far inside long, large, open shelters are better protected than are those inside small, open shelters.)
Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000times as powerful as the A-bomb that destroyed most of Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and destructive.
Facts: A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if exploded under comparable conditions,produces equally serious blast damage to wood-frame houses over an area up to about 130 times as large, not 1000 times as large.
Myth: A Russian nuclear attack on the United States would completely destroy all American cities.
Facts: As long as Soviet leaders are rational they will continue to give first priority to knocking out our weapons and other military assets that can damage Russia and kill Russians. To explode enough nuclear weapons of any size to completely destroy American cities would be an irrational waste of warheads. The Soviets can make much better use of most of the warheads that would be required to completely destroy American cities; the majority of those warheads probably already are targeted to knock out our retaliatory missiles by being surface burst or near-surface burst on their hardened silos, located far from most cities and densely populated areas.
Unfortunately, many militarily significant targets – including naval vessels in port and port facilities, bombers and fighters on the ground,air base and airport facilities that can be used by bombers, Army installations, and key defense factories – are in or close to American cities.In the event of an all-out Soviet attack, most of these ‘”soft”targets would be destroyed by air bursts. Air bursting a given weapon subjects about twice as large an area to blast effects severe enough to destroy”soft” targets as does surface bursting the same weapon. Fortunately for Americans living outside blast and fire areas, air bursts produce only very tiny particles. Most of these extremely small radioactive particles remain airborne for so long that their radioactive decay and wide dispersal before reaching the ground make them much less life- endangering than the promptly deposited larger fallout particles from surface and near-surface bursts.However, if you are a survival minded American you should prepare to survive heavy fallout wherever you are. Unpredictable winds may bring fallout from unexpected directions. Or your area may be in a “hot spot” of life-endangering fallout caused by a rain-out or snow-out of both small and tiny particles from distant explosions. Or the enemy may use surface or near-surface bursts in your part of the country to crater long runways or otherwise disrupt U.S. retaliatory actions by producing heavy local fallout.
Today few if any of Russia’s largest intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are armed with a 20-megaton warhead. A huge Russian ICBM, theSS-18, typically carries 10 warheads each having a yield of 500 kilotons, each programmed to hit a separate target.
Myth: So much food and water will be poisoned by fallout that people will starve and die even in fallout areas where there is enough food and water.
Facts: If the fallout particles do not become mixed with the parts of food that are eaten, no harm is done. Food and water in dust-tight containers are not contaminated by fallout radiation. Peeling fruitsand vegetables removes essentially all fallout, as does removing the uppermost several inches of stored grain onto which fallout particles have fallen. Water from many sources — such as deep wells and covered reservoirs, tanks, and containers — would not be contaminated. Even water containing dissolved radioactive elements and compounds can be made safe for drinking by simply filtering it through earth, as described later in this blog series.
Myth: Most of the unborn children and grandchildren of people who have been exposed to radiation from nuclear explosions will be genetically damaged will be malformed, delayed victims of nuclear war.
Facts: The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to unexposed parents.
This is not to say that there would be no genetic damage, nor that some fetuses subjected to large radiation doses would not be damaged. But the overwhelming evidence does show that the exaggerated fears of radiation damage to future generations are not supported by scientific findings.
So, the facts show that unless you are unlucky enough to be at “ground zero” it is highly probable that you can and would survive a nuclear attack if you had proper knowledge and took proper precautions beforehand. It is important to realize that YOU are your own first-responder.
In the next few days I will be blogging the information you need, (assuming that we don’t experience Armageddon in the meantime). On the off-chance that you don’t wish to wait, I can recommend downloading the FEMA NuclearExplosion Information Sheet
Each morning upon rising, and each evening before sleeping, give thanks for the life within you and for all life, for the good things the Creator has given you and for the opportunity to grow a little more each day. Consider your thoughts and actions of the past day and seek for the courage and strength to be a better person. Seek for the things that will benefit others (everyone).
Iron Eyes Cody
I have a friend whose heritage is Lakota. This blog post is in honor of Two Medicine Woman.
1. Each morning upon rising, and each evening before sleeping, give thanks for the life within you and for all life, for the good things the Creator has given you and for the opportunity to grow a little more each day. Consider your thoughts and actions of the past day and seek for the courage and strength to be a better person. Seek for the things that will benefit others (everyone).
2. Respect. Respect means “To feel or show honor or esteem for someone or something; to consider the well being of, or to treat someone or something with deference or courtesy”. Showing respect is a basic law of life.
a. Treat every person from the tiniest child to the oldest elder with respect at all times.
b. Special respect should be given to Elders, Parents, Teachers, and Community Leaders.
c. No person should be made to feel “put down” by you; avoid hurting other hearts as you would avoid a deadly poison.
d. Touch nothing that belongs to someone else (especially Sacred Objects) without permission, or an understanding between you.
e. Respect the privacy of every person, never intrude on a person’s quiet moment or personal space.
f. Never walk between people that are conversing.
g. Never interrupt people who are conversing.
h. Speak in a soft voice, especially when you are in the presence of Elders, strangers or others to whom special respect is due.
i. Do not speak unless invited to do so at gatherings where Elders are present (except to ask what is expected of you, should you be in doubt).
j. Never speak about others in a negative way, whether they are present or not.
k. Treat the earth and all of her aspects as your mother. Show deep respect for the mineral world, the plant world, and the animal world. Do nothing to pollute our Mother, rise up with wisdom to defend her.
l. Show deep respect for the beliefs and religion of others.
m. Listen with courtesy to what others say, even if you feel that what they are saying is worthless. Listen with your heart.
n. Respect the wisdom of the people in council. Once you give an idea to a council meeting it no longer belongs to you. It belongs to the people. Respect demands that you listen intently to the ideas of others in council and that you do not insist that your idea prevail. Indeed you should freely support the ideas of others if they are true and good, even if those ideas ideas are quite different from the ones you have contributed. The clash of ideas brings forth the Spark of Truth.
3. Once a council has decided something in unity, respect demands that no one speak secretly against what has been decided. If the council has made an error, that error will become apparent to everyone in its own time.
4. Be truthful at all times, and under all conditions.
5. Always treat your guests with honor and consideration. Give of your best food, your best blankets, the best part of your house, and your best service to your guests.
6. The hurt of one is the hurt of all, the honor of one is the honor of all.
7. Receive strangers and outsiders with a loving heart and as members of the human family.
8. All the races and tribes in the world are like the different colored flowers of one meadow. All are beautiful. As children of the Creator they must all be respected.
9. To serve others, to be of some use to family, community, nation, and the world is one of the main purposes for which human beings have been created. Do not fill yourself with your own affairs and forget your most important talks. True happiness comes only to those who dedicate their lives to the service of others.
10. Observe moderation and balance in all things.
11. Know those things that lead to your well-being, and those things that lead to your destruction.
12. Listen to and follow the guidance given to your heart. Expect guidance to come in many forms; in prayer, in dreams, in times of quiet solitude, and in the words and deeds of wise Elders and friends.
Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
(c) 2018 Uriel Press
Today, cannabis continues its slow march toward nationwide decriminalization with voters deciding whether to allow recreational use in Michigan and North Dakota, and for medical purposes in Utah and Missouri.
Reprinted from Science – Matt Simon
Today, cannabis continues its slow march toward nationwide decriminalization with voters deciding whether to allow recreational use in Michigan and North Dakota, and for medical purposes in Utah and Missouri. As states keep chipping away at federal prohibition, more consumers will gain access, sure—but so will more researchers who can more easily study this astonishingly complex and still mysterious plant.
At the top of the list of mysteries is how a galaxy of compounds in the plant combine to produce a galaxy of medical (and, of course, recreational) effects. For example, THC feels different when combined it with cannabidiol, or CBD, another naturally occurring compound in cannabis, but the reasons aren’t fully known. It’s called the entourage effect: THC, like a rock star, only reaches its full potential when it rolls with a crew, consisting of hundreds of other compounds in the plant that scientists know about so far.
But the problem with researching a schedule I drug is that the government doesn’t want you to do it. Yet as more states go legal, cannabis continues to climb out of the scientific dark ages. Because it’s not just about giving people a comfortable high, but about developing cannabis into drugs that could treat a massive range of ills.
First, some cannabis basics. THC and CBD are cannabinoids, which means they bind to receptors in the human body’s endocannabinoid system, specifically the CB1 and CB2 receptors. Researchers only discovered the endocannabinoid system in the early 1990s, but it appears to regulate things like mood and immune function.
You may have noticed that cannabis’ effects can differ wildly from experience to experience. Eat a weed brownie, for instance, and the THC goes straight to your liver, where it’s metabolized into 11-hydroxy-THC. That metabolite “has five times the activity at the CB1 receptor, the psychoactive one, as THC itself,” says Jeff Raber, CEO of the Werc Shop, a cannabis lab in California.
That’s why it’s so easy to overdo it with edibles. When you smoke cannabis, the THC at first skips the liver and goes straight to your bloodstream. It’s about five times less potent that way than if you eat cannabis, meaning that chowing down on 10 milligrams of THC is roughly equal to smoking 50 milligrams of the stuff.
Mode of ingestion, then, is a big consideration in the cannabis experience. But so too are factors beyond your control. “We’re pretty aware that the endocannabinoid system is not a static picture throughout the day,” says Raber. “Why it changes, what causes those changes—those are other levels of complicated questions.” Cannabis might hit you differently during the day than at night, and can also depend on your mood or whether you’ve eaten.
But that’s not all. THC also interacts with other cannabinoids in your system, and it has a complicated relationship with CBD in particular. Anecdotally, cannabis users have reported that CBD can modulate the psychoactive effects of THC—think of it sort of like an antidote to the paranoia and anxiety that comes with being too high. That might be part of the reason edibles can feel so powerful: If you eat a brownie loaded with just THC, you aren’t getting the CBD you would if you smoked regular old flower. (Not that some manufacturers aren’t also adding CBD to their edibles. CBD is so hot right now, but it’s hard to find flower with high CBD. Cultivators have over the decades bred highly intoxicating, THC-rich strains at the expense of CBD.)
With cannabis growing more legitimate as a medicine, researchers are finally putting hard data to these anecdotal reports. They’re beginning to understand how CBD might modulate the often unwelcome effects of THC.
Consider the drug Marinol, a synthetic form of THC available since the 1980s. It’s a good appetite stimulant, but it’s also good at getting patients high and paranoid. “When you just stimulate the CB1 receptor with this pure molecule, it’s very intoxicating and patients don’t tolerate it very well,” says Adie Wilson-Poe, who researches cannabis for pain management at Washington University in St. Louis.
However, give patients a drug like Sativex—which combines THC with CBD—or even pure cannabis flower or extracts, and they tolerate it much better. “We specifically see that CBD protects against the paranoia and anxiety and the racing heart that THC produces,” Wilson-Poe says.
It all comes back to the psychoactive CB1 receptor. THC is an agonist that fits nicely into CB1, activating it. “CBD can’t do that at the CB1, but it does sort of sit in the pocket,” says Wilson-Poe. “It can compete with THC for the spot in the receptor.” Which means that if you take CBD with THC, there may be fewer receptors available for the THC to activate, thus modulating the psychoactive effects, like paranoia.
“But that’s probably not the whole story,” Wilson-Poe says, “because CBD has at least 14 distinct mechanisms of action in the central nervous system. So it does a little bit of something at a whole bunch of places, and we probably can’t attribute the anti-paranoia or anti-anxiety effects just to CB1 occupancy.”
Now let me add yet another complication to our growing list of complications: THC and CBD are far from alone in the cannabis plant when it comes to medicinal properties. Those two might be anti-inflammatory, for instance, “but if you were to vaporize a whole flower, you’d be consuming potentially a couple dozen anti-inflammatory molecules at once,” says Wilson-Poe. “In this sense I think of whole-plant cannabis as like a multivitamin for inflammation.” (Because there are so many important compounds at play, some researchers prefer the term ensemble effect over entourage effect. “Entourage” makes it sound like everything is supporting the rock star that is THC, when the reality might be more nuanced.)
There might also be medical applications when you don’t want the entourage effect at work. One of THC’s more famous treatments, for instance, is for lowering eye pressure to treat glaucoma. “We found that it works, and THC does a nice job,” says Indiana University, Bloomington researcher Alex Straiker, who studies cannabinoids. “But it’s actually blocked by CBD. People often think, oh yeah, CBD and THC work together. But in terms of CB1 receptor signaling, they actually oppose each other, or at least CBD opposes THC.” That’s not to say, though, that CBD isn’t having some sort of beneficial effect on its own when it comes to treating glaucoma.
Plus, there are many other kinds of receptors in the endocannabinoid system that these compounds could be targeting. “It’s messy,” Straiker says.
So while CBD seems to mitigate the unfun effects of THC, it also might get in the way of certain medical benefits that THC has to offer. But because there’s seemingly no end to the complexities of cannabis, CBD might also enhance THC’s anti-cancer properties. Research has found that if you apply THC and CBD to cancer cells in the lab, the combination is more effective than THC alone at both inhibiting the growth of those cells and outright killing them. The future of medical cannabis, then, depends in large part on teasing apart the entourage effect—leveraging it in some cases, and maybe breaking up the entourage (or ensemble) when THC or CBD alone is most beneficial.
“We need to understand which constellations of plant chemistry are best suited for which indications and which kinds of patients, and which form of the CB1 receptor you happen to carry, because there are lots of mutations in that gene,” says Wilson-Poe. “So understanding these mechanisms is absolutely crucial for providing these patients with personalized medicine that alleviates their symptoms without producing the unwanted side effects.”
Hate to do this, but we’ve got one last problem. For decades, cannabis users have claimed that different strains of cannabis produce different effects—maybe it makes them sleepy, maybe it gives them energy. And that’s been true even as CBD was largely bred out of cannabis in North America in favor of THC. “Well, if they’re all high THC, it’s got to be from something else,” says Ethan Russo, director of research and development at the International Cannabis and Cannabinoids Institute, who studies the entourage effect. “And that something else is terpenoids.”
Yes, another member of the entourage. Unlike THC and CBD, you can find terpenoids not just in cannabis, but across the plant kingdom. They’re handy little molecules that plants use to ward off insects, and they’re what give cannabis that characteristic smell (same for terpenoids in lemons and pine needles).
And science knows what some terpenoids found in cannabis do pharmacologically in the brain. For example, linalool is one that has sedating and anti-anxiety properties. “So it might make sense that when you combine its anti-anxiety effect with that of cannabidiol [CBD], then they boost each other,” says Russo.
The entourage effect, the ensemble effect—whatever you want to call it, the phenomenon might get more complicated before it gets clearer. But researchers continue to tease apart the chemistry of cannabis, unlocking its true potential as a medicine. Mystery … almost solved.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Law-abiding, patriotic, God-fearing citizens have been censored from the soap box, hamstrung by those controlling the jury box and disenfranchised at the ballot box.
The real goal is psychological terrorism—that is, engaging in a scorched-earth effort to destroy the target, and in so doing intimidating anyone willing to enter public service, or even just support a public figure that does not parrot the politically correct line.
The charges do not
need to be true, or even credible. People do not recoil because of the charges
themselves (although, as we see, the left spares no effort to dream up the
worst accusations they can think of). People recoil out of fear.
This tactic relies
on the human herding instinct. People naturally shy away from anyone so
vilified, whether the charges are credible or not, simply out of fear of being
smeared with the same brush. They don’t want to be ostracized by the group.
Such excommunication has real consequences on reputations, jobs, relationships, even survival. The real goal is to threaten the rest of us into silence.
Psychological Terrorism Enables Actual Terrorism
The vilification tactic is a form of psychological terrorism. Furthermore, because the fury displayed by those leveling the charges is so relentless and uncompromising, it carries its own threat. Sometimes people act on it and it becomes actual terrorism.
In 2012, homosexual
activist Floyd Corkins attacked the Family Research Council’s office, intending
to murder as many as he could. He admitted he was inspired by the Southern
Poverty Law Center, which had FRC on its “Hate Watch” list. FRC, a mainstream conservative
Christian organization, is still on the list.
Corkins was
convicted of terrorism, and only stopped by a security guard who was injured in
the process. Similarly James Hodgkinson, who attacked GOP congressmen
practicing for a baseball game in 2017, engaged in a real act of domestic
terrorism, fueled by hatred for Republicans. Hodgkinson “liked” SPLC on his
Facebook page.
Antifa, the new name for anarchist left street rioters, has made explicit threats of violence. After chasing Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a local restaurant, an Antifa DC chapter threatened on Twitter, “You are not safe.” And more: “This is a message to Ted Cruz, Bret Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic,and homophobic right-wing scum: You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”
Another Antifa member, a professor at the City University of New York, tweeted, “Reminder that if Trump does end up winning this stupid thing to assassinate Mike Pence *first*.”
AntiFa “protesters” terrorized Fox News personality’s Tucker Carlson’s family with impunity.
In 2010, Laird
Wilcox penned an article titled “The
Practice of Ritual Defamation,” that describes the process. The most
salient points are quoted here:
In ritual
defamation the victim must have violated a particular taboo in some way,
usually by expressing or identifying with a forbidden attitude, opinion or
belief…
The method of attack… is to
assail the character of the victim… Character assassination is its primary
tool…
An important rule in ritual
defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the
truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn
it…
The victim is often somebody
in the public eye – someone who is vulnerable to public opinion…
An attempt, often
successful, is made to involve others in the defamation…
In order for a ritual
defamation to be effective, the victim must be dehumanized to the extent
that he becomes identical with the offending attitude, opinion or belief,
and in a matter… where it appears at its most extreme.
Also to be successful, a
ritual defamation must bring pressure and humiliation on the victim from
every quarter, including family and friends. If the victim has school
children, they may be taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse
publicity.
Any explanation the victim
may offer, including the claim of being misunderstood, is considered
irrelevant. To claim truth as a defense for a politically incorrect value,
opinion or belief is interpreted as defiance and only compounds the
problem…
This defamation
tactic has a long and ignoble history. It was first systematically developed by
a regime whose primary governing method was terrorism.
One hundred years ago, the first Soviet leader, Vladimir Lenin, announced:
We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language that inspires hate, revulsion and scorn toward those who disagree with us.
His goal, adopted
and practiced by the world’s communist parties, was to vilify, isolate, and
destroy anyone who opposed their
political goals, for any reason. In
subsequent years, the Soviets told the world’s Communist parties to magnify
this criticism:
Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic… constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind.
In1965, Frankfurt School Communist Herbert Marcuse argued that, even though America has the First Amendment, the left could never get its agenda adopted because we are an unrepentantly repressive, imperialist, capitalist country. So of course America would never voluntarily adopt the “liberating”tenets of communism. Marcuse argued for what he called “liberating tolerance,” i.e. silencing the left’s critics and allowing leftist ideas only:
Not
‘equal’ but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the
prevailing inequality… Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive
Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as
a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the
liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom
(unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and
strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors.
Marcuse further
described the types of people who needed to have their freedom curtailed:
[It]
would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups
and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism,
discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the
extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.
In other words,
pretty much anyone who disagrees with them. Can you visualize the Internal
Revenue Service making up an “enemies list” of those who opposed Obamacare, for
example? They did. Significantly, Marcuse referred to opponents as the “party
of hate” in opposition to humanity.
The media,particularly, is to blame. It is insufficient to describe the media as “in the tank” for Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Obama,Nancy Pelosi, or whoever. The left media is a leader of the opposition, and has been for decades. It sets the narrative for the day, which is often word-for-word across news outlets; it pushes Democrat talking points and cultural Marxist priorities; it suppresses news adverse to the left and misinforms on the news it does report; it weaponizes language and acts as a self-funded intelligence agency for the left, researching, outing, doxing, and vilifying its enemies.
Anti-slavery activist Frederick Douglass is quoted as saying; “A man’s rights rests in three boxes: the ballot-box, the jury-box and the cartridge-box, and the man who is outside these boxes is in a bad box.” You might add to that a fourth box, “the soap box” or right of free speech.
Law-abiding, patriotic, God-fearing citizens have been censored from the soap box, hamstrung by those controlling the jury box and disenfranchised at the ballot box. Enough is enough. It is, perhaps time to prudently consider the final box before we are boxed out of our heritage and our republic.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.
We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.
Rebloged with permission
Many people, the opinions of whom I greatly respect, have written on the state of politics and society in the US in such a way as to suggest the possibility of the US moving into a period of similar to what was seen in the former republic of Yugoslavia from the mid 1980’s through to the late 1990’s, referred to by many as Balkanization. I’m certainly in agreement with these bloggers and writers, Matt Bracken being just one example.
The political, sociological, ethnic and racial trajectory in the US is eerily similar to that of the former Yugoslavia in many ways. In the coming years, this could even expand into the sphere of religion, though for now there doesn’t seem to be such widespread religious friction as much as there is racial/ethnic and political.
The similarities begin where Yugoslavia’s end did: With the economy. It’s always the economy. Yugoslavia was totally socialist in their economic model. For you on the left, yes, it was indeed “real” socialism, complete with the never-ending litany of financial Band-Aid’s designed mainly to keep the rigged carnival game going for as long as possible for whomever was sitting at the top getting rich. The US economy may not appear to be socialist in the same way, for whatever reason many Americans maintain the idea of some bastardization of capitalism corrupted by, well, socialists.
Both Yugoslavia and the US endlessly investigated and studied how best to fix the economic woes, and some decent ideas, even some great ideas, were formulated… And then were largely ignored, either due to a lack of will to implement them or a lack of ability. Probably it was lack of political will, since in both country’s cases, the ideas that would have worked best included laundry lists of major money cuts and reductions of federal power. The politicians in power are generally never going to go for a plan like that. They’d rather drive the train straight off the cliff themselves before letting someone else drive it to safety.
The idea so far is that the economic system in the US is simply not sustainable. The Band-Aid of borrowing more money from the US public, China, Japan, etc. and periodically raising the debt ceiling to allow it is not going to work forever, and it doesn’t require one to have any advanced understanding of economics to grasp this. You don’t need to be an expert economist to realize that $20 trillion in debt and hundreds of trillions more in unfunded liabilities is virtually insurmountable at this point. The fact that the US dollar is the currency of the world is not going to shield us from the inevitable forever. The economic problems that Yugoslavia faced in the early 1980’s, and that the US now faces, are like a lit match being held over a barrel of gasoline.
And that leads me to discuss that gasoline.
Yugoslavia had an extremely diverse country racially, ethnically and religiously. The geographic location and the early economic prosperity (or the illusion of it) attracted a lot of people from all sorts of backgrounds. After a while, the government began to show heavy favor toward certain ethnicities at the expense of others. Rigorous controls were put on employment and educational systems, favoring one ethnic group over the other with claims that there was history of abuse that needed to be atoned for. Criminal behavior by members of certain ethnic or racial groups were largely ignored by the media and law enforcement apparatus, while even the most benign actions of other groups were seized upon and used for narrative building.
Does any of this sound familiar? In the US we have a long list of “protected” groups who are favored with advantages in employment, educational and entitlement systems. Race alone is often used by the media and government, often one and the same, to build a narrative of victimization.
In Yugoslavia circa 1980’s, and in the US today, you’d see a very socially diverse people from numerous ethnic, racial, economic and religious backgrounds. When these diverse groups mingle and mix, everyone has to accept that different cultures will have friction arise when the “negative” aspects of a particular culture become unacceptable to another. In times such as those, it’s necessary for the opposing cultures to have the freedom and ability to separate for a peaceful outcome. Problems arise, always, when incompatible cultures are forced to mix in society with no avenue for voluntary separation, and these problems are heavily exacerbated when government and media get involved to force one culture to accept and integrate what they feel are the “negative” aspects of the opposing culture. An obvious and perhaps overly-simplistic example is when white, Christian American citizens are forced to accept and live alongside immigrants who wish to practice Sharia law and alter their own lives and habits in order to accommodate some of these sensitivities. A very basic example, yes, but I think it makes the point.
We are meant to swallow the lie that says “diversity is our strength” without consideration for merit, performance, ability, intelligence or actual results.
This is not meant to be an indictment on any specific culture or ethnicity, but more of a history lesson, a social observation and a dire prediction.
The history lesson is the continued failure of all socialist based economic models, whether we want to consider them “real” socialism or not. The sort of hard socialism seen in 1980’s Yugoslavia and the crony-capitalist soft socialist version seen in the US today are both examples of that failure system. As I stated earlier, it does not take any level of economic expertise to understand that our current system is insolvent and that we have passed the point of no return on a future crash of our financial system. Now that less than half of the people in the US are net-taxpayers and over half of the people in the US are receiving some sort of government assistance simply to survive, we have become a welfare state, with only decreasing numbers of producers with increasing numbers of consumers. Mathematically, it is not sustainable. Historically, it is disastrous.
The social observation is that such a mass of diverse peoples must have a voluntary pressure outlet in order to maintain peace. We must accept reality that not all cultures are able to be forced together with peaceful results. Forced proximity, with advantages, disadvantages and blame doled out to certain peoples, with a lack of opportunity to separate peacefully will always result in strife and eventual violence.
The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.
We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.
My advice? Stay out of Sarajevo.
The Gray Man is a Southern born and raised Christian American, Army combat veteran and former intelligence collector. He has worked in many foreign locations, including Afghanistan, South Korea and Germany. He has deployed with or worked alongside US Army special operations units and Cav LRS units. He is currently working as an ER nurse living in the rural Deep South, preparing for whatever man and nature can dish out.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
The standard trope of leftist identity politics is the weaponization of victimhood. Thus, if you belong to a class of people recognized as historically oppressed—such as women, people of color, or homosexuals–then you are assumed to have a claim on people who do not belong to such a class—especially white Christian men.
Republished with permission from Intellectual Takeout
The Creepy Normalization of Bulverism
At some point you’ve probably heard an opinion of yours about morality, religion, or politics summarily dismissed with a reaction like: “You only say that because you’re a _____!” or “That’s just an excuse for _______.”
Frustrating, isn’t it? If you’ve supplied reasons for your position, they don’t tackle those reasons. They just assume you’re wrong and purport to explain, usually in terms unflattering to you, why you make your error.
What many might not realize, however, is that this action is a fallacy known as Bulverism. The name was coined by C.S. Lewis in an essay included in his widely read collection God in the Dock. In essence, Bulverism is a toxic hybrid of two better-known fallacies: petitio principii (begging the question) and ad hominem (impugning one’s opponent’s character without addressing his argument).
For reasons that should alarm critical thinkers, Bulverism has become so common – especially in politics – as to approach the status of a rhetorical norm. I shall explain that shortly, but first a caveat.
Not every criticism that sounds like Bulverism is a fallacy. For instance, if somebody denies a basic principle of logic, such as that of non-contradiction, it’s usually pointless to address her argument because she’s already abandoned an indispensable “first principle” of argument. It makes sense in that case to seek an explanation for her position other than the one she gives, if she bothers giving one. Or if somebody denies a well-established fact, e.g. that the shape of the Earth is roughly spherical, it’s often useless to address his argument and probably more useful to seek to understand his psychology.
But Bulverizing people about their positions on controversial matters has become all too common these days. You know the sort of thing I mean:
“Conservatives only want to rein in ‘entitlements’ because they hate the poor and the sick!”
“Liberals only talk about women’s ‘reproductive health’ because they think killing a baby in the womb is like breaking an egg to make an omelet!”
“You only believe in God because you can’t face life without an imaginary Big Daddy to turn to!”
“You only disbelieve in God because you want to get away with doing whatever you like!”
In essence, what’s always been an occasional rhetorical trope now seems to dominate public discourse.
That, I submit, is ultimately because Bulverism has become philosophically respectable. The permission real thinkers have given themselves to Bulverize has trickled down to the masses.
This trend seems to have started with Karl Marx. He defined religion and morality in general, and especially political positions other than his own, as “mystifications,” or rationalizations of the self-interest of whatever the economically dominant “ruling class” happens to be.
A few generations later, Sigmund Freud purported to explain nearly all human behavior as expressions or distortions of two “drives”: the sex drive and the death drive.
More recently, this kind of thinking is represented in the thought of Jacques Lacan, whose work is widely studied in humanities departments. The Frankfurt School that arose toward the end of Freud’s life produced a powerful tool, “critical theory,” that proposed to examine all human phenomena in terms of power relations. Its default tendency was to ask: “Who has the power here, and how do they benefit?”
In the late 20th century, such thinkers as Jacques Derrida (and, more broadly, those called “post-modernists”) extended that tendency of critical theory to consideration of the very structure of language itself.
Today we confront the phenomenon of “cultural Marxism.” Often defined too broadly, it simply means the extension of Marx’s critique of false consciousness from economics alone to race, gender, and even sexual orientation.
Cultural Marxism finds its characteristic expression in leftist “identity politics.” (There’s a sense in which all politics is identity politics, but I made the necessary distinction here.) The standard trope of leftist identity politics is the weaponization of victimhood. Thus, if you belong to a class of people recognized as historically oppressed—such as women, people of color, or homosexuals–then you are assumed to have a claim on people who do not belong to such a class—especially white Christian men. The motives of the “oppressed” are assumed to be good; the motives of the non-oppressed are assumed to be bad. People of even moderately conservative views are thus seen as fair game to be Bulverized. And they are, regularly. Thus: “You only say that because you’re (white) (Christian) (a man) (cis)!”
The only solution to widespread Bulverism is widespread rejection of the sort of philosophizing that makes it respectable. We might have to wait a long time for that. In the meantime, I heartily recommend a read of Lewis’ essay.
Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor
This page and its links contain opinion.
As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without
independent verification. Think for yourself.
Fair Use is relied upon for all content.
For educational purposes only.
No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
(c) 2018 Uriel Press
In a press conference where he stated the fake pipe bombs were “not hoaxes”, he described them as containing “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction.”
Wow! That sounds scary, doesn’t it?
Except in reality, almost anything can qualify as something that quote “becomes combustible when subjected to heat or friction.” This includes, by the way, a box of Cheerios, a loaf of bread, a tub of margarine, frozen corn…
FBI director Christopher Wray is lying to America about the fake pipe bombs. Yes, they were hoax devices. Christopher Wray may be just as dishonest as former FBI director James Comey. Suddenly Wray is trying to convince the world that the hoax pipe bomb props which were mailed to Democrats are really, somehow, IED’s (improvised explosive devices). In truth, real mail bombs don’t contain timers for the simple reason that such devices are intended to be detonated by the physical act of the recipient opening the package, not based on a specific time (since nobody knows exactly when someone will receive a package sent through the U.S. Postal Service).
Not only did these hoax pipe bombs contain mock timers crudely taped to PVC pipe; the timers had no alarm function, meaning they couldn’t even “theoretically” be used to detonate anything. They were a hoax, props, in other words, not functioning explosive devices. But director Christopher Wray is claiming they are (some how) real “IED’s.”
The FBI director also lies about “energetic material” and tries to give us techno-jargon to confuse the public. The really huge red flag in all this is how FBI director Christopher Wray resorted to techno-jargon to try and make nonexplosive materials sound like explosives. In a press conference where he stated the fake pipe bombs were “not hoaxes”, he described them as containing “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction.”
Wow! That sounds scary, doesn’t it?
Except in reality, almost anything can qualify as something that “becomes combustible when subjected to heat or friction.” This includes, by the way, a box of Cheerios, a loaf of bread, a tub of margarine, frozen corn, old newspapers, a pair of smelly socks, a bicycle tire and even a piece of glass. All these items burn if you cook them at a high enough temperature, which is essentially what director Wray is saying.
But none of these things are explosives. If you receive a fake pipe bomb filled with Cheerios, the Cheerios would not suddenly transform it into a real pipe bomb. According to Wray, stuffing Cheerios into a PVC pipe turns the device into an IED. The phrase “energetic material” applies to literally everything that has mass, since all mass has energy, as physics is long since taught us. Christopher Wray might as well have said, “the PVC pipes were filled with stuff, and stuff might burn if you cook it.” That’s essentially what he said. Every scientist in the world should be calling out Ray for his misleading claim.
Sayok was not charged under “weapons of mass destruction” because the bombs weren’t explosive devices. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, if the mailed IED devices were “functionally explosive” they would fall under the category “weapons of mass destruction [defined by US code] and the indictment would include 18 US code 2332 a. The absence of this charge infers the devices were not functionally explosive.
In other words, Sayok wasn’t charged with sending explosive devices for the simple reason that fake pipe bombs did not contain explosives. They contained “energetic material” according to FBI director Wray, a definition that applies to anything since all matter is energy according to Einstein’s theory E equals MC squared.
The question becomes was Sayok set up and selected precisely because he was an unstable person with a criminal history that would make this hoax convincing to the public? Inquiring minds want to know.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Let us consider who are the real inspire winners of violence and where the real threat to stability in life rests.
Something about the mad bomber doesn’t pass the smell test.
At a time where merely wearing a and and MAGA at can get you fired, or merely harangued out of your favorite restaurant, we are asked to believe that Cesar Altieri Sayoc was allowed to drive around safely in a van abundantly and meticulously adorned with pro Trump stickers and a few depicting his personal animus toward the usual anti-Trump suspects, all of their colors vibrant, un-faded in the semi tropical Florida sun.
The van was never overturned or torched wherever he parked or drove it. No tires were ever slashed, no windows were ever smashed in with a baseball bat. It was never even keyed. And there it was in pristine condition, undamaged and ready for its close-up before a media avid to blame president Trump for Sayoc’s actions.
Why would an ardent or, as the media says, “unhinged” Trump supporter, watching, as the rest of us have, the so-called “blue wave” distract before it reaches sure, amidst a roaring economy and widespread outrage over the treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the oncoming illegal alien invasion, do something so idiotic, something that could only slow the Trump train, and help Democrats blame “both sides” and trumps allegedly “toxic rhetoric”?
Why would the allegedly “MAGA Bomber”, follow mainly liberals on Twitter and have a van covered in brand-new Pro president Donald Trump stickers? It’s as if he isn’t a supporter and wants it pinned on the president.
Sayok – the allegedly mad bomber – had Trump stickers all over his vehicle. But on Twitter, he only follows 32 people – many of whom are left-wingers like Lina Dunham, Barack Obama and Jimmy Kimmel. What gives?
It doesn’t make sense, but maybe Sayok is a few fries short of a happy meal and logic doesn’t apply.
Logic most certainly will not apply to the Trump critics were already blaming Sayok’s actions on the resident of the White House. One celebrity has thought of blowing up the president. One celebrity has displayed a replica severed head of the president, a third stated he would like to punch the president in the face, and, as another notes ” it is been a long time since an actor assassinated a president.” Toxic atmosphere and toxic rhetoric indeed.
Let us consider who are the real inspire winners of violence and where the real threat to stability in life rests. And while were at it, let us answer the curious questions surrounding Cesar Altieri Sayok.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
