Legalizing marijuana …

When I was young and working in a rock band in the 1960s, my parents always thought everybody in that band, including me, smoked pot. 

They were wrong. I never smoked pot in the 1960s, nor did I do any other drugs back then; I didn’t even drink alcohol before or during a job.  The reason was simple: performing was a job. We got paid for performing. The group’s belief was you couldn’t be high and perform your best; that might work for the Rolling Stones, but we weren’t the Stones by a long shot.    

In fact, the one and only time one of our guitarists – who had been with us almost from the beginning – showed up high was the last time he worked with us. We fired him the next day.

Sure, we were performing songs about peace, love and dope, at times. That was the music. And I’m certain a lot of the crowds we played for were toking up big time and enjoying our music and light show. But a job was a job and we thought ourselves to be professionals.

I didn’t even try pot until I was away at college.  I remember the first time quite well.  A bunch of us were in a room and someone pulled out a baggie and rolling papers. A joint was made and passed.  I tried it and didn’t feel any difference.  There was another joint, then another, and I finally said this is stupid and a waste of their pot and I tried to get up to leave.

That’s when I felt it.  And to be completely honest, I liked it.  Really, really liked it.

Pot was cheap and pretty weak back then. People would come by the place on campus where we lived and sell us a pound of it for as little as $160 – which made an ounce only $10. But as I said, it wasn’t very potent; smoking a joint with a couple of friends would give you about the same buzz as a couple of beers.  It was so cheap there were often ounce parties.

Just about everybody smoked pot back then.  It was cheaper than booze and didn’t leave you with a hangover. But it did give you the munchies, which led to weight gain.

And it was everywhere, despite being illegal. When I hear people in my generation now say they never even tried it once I know they are probably lying. Maybe they never did more than take a puff but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts they at least did that.  I’m sure there are some among my generational peers who really didn’t ever try it, but they’d be hard to find. 

Aside from the weight gain, there was another side effect of pot – it made you stupid, albeit temporarily, but stupid nonetheless. That fact didn’t stop some folks from claiming that pot made them smarter.  Classmates who made smoking pot a regular part of their daily life – before class, after class, and between classes – usually ended up dropping out.

You can forget those BS stories from people who claimed pot gave them valuable insights. Nobody I ever knew then found Jesus, saw God, or solved important life questions while stoned.

For us boomers, that’s what we remember about pot. Maybe that’s why so many boomers can’t understand why there’s such a big deal about legalizing marijuana. We were all in favor of legalization back then. In a way it already was.  In reality, unless you were caught with a lot of pot, or had the misfortune to be caught by some gung-ho county cop, or were a complete jerk, if you were found to have a joint on you most cops at the time would let you skate.

We never saw pot as that much of a menace. The people we bought from were ordinary folks, not pushers trying to get you to move on to harder stuff, or mobsters bent on literally killing off their competitors. In one memorable instance, someone left a bag with $10,000 cash in it for the local Jerry Lewis Telethon with a card saying it was from the marijuana dealers of Gainesville.   

It’s a lot different now. The pot we remember isn’t the same anymore.

Years ago, after years of no pot at all, some friends had us over and after dinner – and after that curious verbal dance to find out if you ever smoked pot – they brought out a joint.  It was the most potent stuff I’d ever experienced; after two hits I was wasted. And uncomfortably wasted at that. I actually felt sick. I could hear my heartbeat in my ears and I felt clammy. It was awful. 

It scared the crap out of me. 

Does that mean I’ll never try pot again? No, to be absolutely truthful I can’t say that. But I can tell you that science and technology have advanced the potency of pot exponentially and the price has apparently risen accordingly. I haven’t bought any in decades but people I know who have tell me that an ounce of “decent stuff” is up to $400-$500 or more.

Prices like that have also tempted a number of states to legalize recreational use of marijuana while slapping huge taxes on it at the same time. All of a sudden, pot’s gone from a public health issue to a way to boost state budget coffers.   

Still, marijuana remains a controlled substance under Federal law.  Under Obama and the Democrats there was no effort to enforce that law and rein in states like Colorado and others that are clearly defying existing Federal law.

That leaves me in an awkward position.

On one hand I believe pot for recreational use should be legalized and treated much the same as alcohol – regulated for quality, weight, potency and additives, and also restricted to licensed distributors and adults. On the other hand, I have a great deal of trouble with allowing individual states to determine which Federal laws they will or will not enforce; that’s a terrible precedent. 

Pot, like alcohol, is a drug no matter how you look at it. Yes, it has some medical applications, which the media like to promote, but the real widespread use of pot will always be for recreation. And like alcohol, pot can dramatically diminish your ability to perform complex tasks such as driving a car or operating certain machinery.  That’s not in question.  But there’s no way to measure for now. 

Some states are now trying to determine the metrics to define when someone using pot meets or exceeds a new legal standard for “under the influence.”  There are established blood tests for alcohol but none for pot so far. Bloodshot eyes, laughing at stupid stuff and Doritos dust all over you aren’t enough to put you in the slammer; there needs to be a standard.  

There’s also the issue of workplace drug testing, whether that’s for a private sector job, a government position, or to maintain your job as a professional or student athlete.  I’m not sure how that works if you’re a pot user and a resident of a place where pot use is legal.

Should marijuana be legalized?  I suppose it should under the right circumstances, and with the right controls in place. And only if it’s legalized by Federal law that covers the entire country.  If it was legalized for recreational use nationwide I’d buy some, if for no other reason than to see what it’s like now. But I’d be really careful with it.

As should most everybody else in my generation.

It’s not the same pot we remember.  

The Second Civil War …

That’s what’s shaping up, folks. 

The first one was fought over slavery and states’ rights. Everyone remembers the slavery part, but few on the left remember the states’ rights part. 

When some states opted to secede, rather than give in to Federal authority on a variety of issues including slavery, a real war started. The South lost, mostly because it lacked the industrial might and population of the North. A clear message was also sent that states couldn’t decide which Federal law, regulation or ruling to obey, nor could any state law supersede those.  

States’ rights came up again in the battle to desegregate parts of the South in the 1950s and 60s.  Some states in the South claimed the Federal government had no authority to overturn state laws that segregated blacks from whites. Defending those states’ position were a large number of prominent Democrats in Congress, many who also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ultimately, the Federal government sent troops to enforce desegregation, and it took Democrat Presidents – with the overwhelming support of Republicans in Congress and scant support from their Democrat counterparts – to buck their own party and pass the Civil Rights Act. 

It’s still surprising to me that so many people see Democrats as the champions of civil rights. Perhaps their American History classes never covered the shameful role of so many Democrats during the fight for civil rights.  Those classes apparently now focus more on America’s disgraceful treatment of Native Americans, our internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, our role in subverting democratically elected governments during the Cold War, our legacy of slavery, and the role of women and minorities in the American Revolution.

On social issues there’s probably more coverage about the power of the modern Federal government – especially the courts – to do “the right thing.” Even when states disagree. 

States really can’t pass and enforce laws – no matter how popular in their particular state – with the goal of thwarting Federal authority. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) has always been held to mean that when state laws or even state constitutions conflict with Federal law or Federal court decisions, Federal law prevails. 

That’s the basis of Federalism. 

The Supremacy Clause is also a back door activists like to use especially to kill state laws and regulations they don’t like.  Instead, they often go for Federal court decisions to win the day.  They know if a state law outlawing same-sex marriage is overturned by U.S. Supreme Court then all fundamentally similar state laws are invalid. If the Supreme Court rules that women have the right to an abortion then abortion cannot be made illegal by any state law. If they can persuade a majority on the Supreme Court that a state voter ID law is discriminatory, then they can stop other states from enforcing a similar law, even if those laws were approved by a public referendum.   

That’s how the left and liberals deploy the Supremacy Clause. 

Except when they don’t want to. 

Which brings us to today. 

There are long-standing Federal laws against illegal immigration.    

Those laws can only be changed by an act of the U.S. Congress.  Those laws have not been changed by Congress, so those laws are still in effect. And because of the same Supremacy Clause the left so loves for other matters, those laws are still applicable to every state and every locality therein. 

You might think it’s a settled matter – after all doesn’t the Supremacy Clause make it clear that Federal law supersedes any state law or local law to the contrary? 

However, all of a sudden politicians in several left-leaning states are enthusiasts of states’ rights; the same people who wave around the Supremacy Clause when it suits them.

The California Senate has approved a bill (SB54) preventing their state and local law enforcement agencies and other public institutions from cooperating with Federal agents attempting to execute lawful orders to find, detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Major cities across the country, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, and hundreds of others, are passing similar laws and asserting that as sanctuary cities they will no longer assist Federal agents in catching and deporting illegal immigrants – even those with repeated felony convictions.  Recently, an Oregon judge hearing the case of an illegal immigrant facing deportation by ICE helped that immigrant to escape through a side door to avoid Federal agents. 

They claim it’s a states’ rights issue. They also claim it’s a civil rights issue.  Because they don’t feel the current Federal laws are moral and just, they don’t have to abide by Federal law on immigration, nor do they have to assist Federal agents trying to enforce Federal law. 

California politicians – and the mayors of the sanctuary cities – are openly defying the Federal government to do anything about their flaunting of Federal immigration laws.

There’s even a nascent movement in California to secede from the United States.

Let’s hope California succeeds with that. I for one would not miss California one bit.  I believe a lot of people in the rest of this country would be happy to see them go. We could close up all our military bases there saving billions and allow the new Socialist Republic of Mexifornia to defend itself.  Plus, we wouldn’t have to listen to Nancy Pelosi ever again. 

Still, if the overall nullification logic – if not the precise circumstances – seems eerily familiar, it’s because it echoes the sentiments of slave holders in the South leading up to the Civil War: the Federal government has no legal authority to overturn state and local laws in conflict with Federal laws. In this case it’s not slavery, but illegal immigration. But the logic is the same. 

Ah, so much for the Supremacy Clause.  Apparently, it only applies when you want it to apply, and when it suits your purpose.      

Under Obama, nothing happened. However, under Trump a lot could.  

He’s certainly no Abraham Lincoln or JFK, but as President he has the same authority to use Federal troops if necessary to enforce Federal law. 

Make no mistake: there are Federal laws concerning illegal immigration; laws some states and hundreds of so-called sanctuary cities are openly defying.  The Federal government has the ultimate authority on immigration according to the Constitution, and the President has an obligation under his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States – something Obama ignored. 

Right now the left is cheering the defiance of Federal law on illegal immigration. They particularly like the resistance to any of Trump’s immigration orders.  Once again they are cherry-picking Federal courts to halt Trump’s orders, setting up a final battle in the U.S. Supreme Court.   

When that case does get to the Supreme Court, it will probably hold that, as President, Trump has the legal authority to issue restrictions on immigration. It will also probably hold that Federal immigration laws supersede state and local laws that conflict.

Then what? 

If I were the current sanctuary states and cities, I wouldn’t push back too hard.

Trump’s not Obama. 

Finding yourself through DNA testing ...

In this day and age a lot of folks seem to be searching for some clues from their past that might help explain who they are today. There are widely advertised DNA searches people can buy to see where their ancestors were from.

Watch TV any night and you’ll see the woman who didn’t know who she really was, apparently, and through her DNA found that she was actually part Native American. Which, I suppose we are to infer, is why she’s surrounded herself with Native American pottery. It was just a natural thing to happen, I guess, because somewhere in her family tree is a Native American.  

I wonder when Elizabeth Warren will get tested.  

Then there’s the guy whose wife thought she married an Italian. DNA testing proved some of his ancestors were Eastern European.  I don’t know if this news put him off pasta and cannoli for a while, or made his wife reconsider their marriage, but to me he still seems a bit confused and unsure how he should act now.    

There’s also the guy who always thought he was of German extraction but learned through DNA testing his ancestors were actually Scottish. Now he wears a kilt instead of lederhosen and, I’m just guessing again, is trying to develop a taste for haggis. 

Good luck with that.

Some people obviously take this DNA/ancestor testing seriously. I’m not sure what they’re hoping to find. Maybe a link to somewhere exotic, but not too, too exotic – like someplace they’d rather not even visit much less claim ancestors from.  Like survivors of the Donner party.

I suppose this trend is an outgrowth of the “Roots” phenomenon and connecting – however tangentially – to your distant past. It may also be because people want to find some more interesting identity for themselves other than simply being an American.

For some reason now, “identity” has become important culturally and politically. 

It shouldn’t be surprising someone has made a business out of this. We have people who are clearly Caucasian yet claim to be African-American, or claim to be “part” Native American. It’s often to gain prestige or a minority preference.  Or just to be “special.”

What better way to find something interesting about yourself, what indeed makes you unique and not just another hunk of protoplasm  like the average Joe or Jane next door, than to send your spit to a company that will tell you all about your distant past. 

It’s even available for animals.  A former client sent his rescue dog’s spit to some outfit to find out what kind of dog it was. Turned out his dog was just a dog; the results were inconclusive.  I don’t know what he was expecting. I don’t think it mattered much to the dog.       

I remember a similar fad years ago when people connected with their “past lives.” Curiously, almost everybody in their past life was somebody important and interesting. Nobody ever seemed to “remember” a past life where they were a peasant, a common whore, a horse thief, or the village idiot. What a surprise.   

Years ago my mother sent me a big packet of stuff about our family history. She had all this from when she applied to and was accepted into the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). She wanted me to apply to be accepted into the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).

I found some of the background interesting – we are apparently descended from a Dutchman named Jacobus who fought in the American Revolution. But we’re also descended from a whole lot of other people, as most people are, in the intervening couple of centuries.  Weirdly, when I showed this information to a client of mine, it appeared that we might be distantly related, too. 

Then again, isn’t everybody? Go back far enough, maybe to the Olduvai Gorge, and you’ll find some link that makes us all somehow related.

Does it matter? To me, not so much.

As best as I can determine – and I haven’t looked that hard – my heritage is Dutch, English, Scottish, Irish, German and most likely whoever else my forbears found attractive, available, or too drunk or lazy to say no. There may be other nationalities in that mix but I don’t know.    

The thing is, I don’t care.  I have zero interest in having my DNA tested to find out where my ancestors were from. It just doesn’t matter to me. 

My distant ancestors have been dead a long, long time. I didn’t know any of them personally. As far as I’m concerned, they didn’t have much of an influence on who I’ve been so far. My grandparents, parents and aunts and uncles – and my parents’ closest friends – left their imprint on me much more than someone related to me who lived and died a century or so ago.

Where my long-dead ancestors originally came from is even less relevant to me.  I’m sure it was somewhat important to them.  But then again they left there to come here, so I guess it wasn’t important enough for them to stay put.   

Now, I’m not dismissing that you can get traits passed down from previous generations. However, I don’t think an affinity for balalaika music or bagpipes are among these.  

If you decide to get your DNA tested to find where your ancestors came from, the important thing is not to read too much into what you might find.

Simply because your family tree has a Native American, or for that matter an Eastern European or someone from Scotland, in its distant past doesn’t mean much. If you are a rational human being it shouldn't have a big effect on your everyday life. Or provide excuses. 

Cultural traits don’t usually survive past a few generations unless your ancestors just kept reproducing with people from their same culture, which, this being America after all, is highly unlikely. At some point in time someone probably strayed outside their ancestral and cultural herd and made a genetic deposit somewhere else. 

That’s how most of us got where we are today, genetically.  That’s actually a good thing overall. Cultures and ethnic groups that are very insular and typically marry within their group – such as the Amish and certain groups of ultra-Orthodox Jews – tend to have higher concentrations of genetically-related disorders. Heinz-57 mutts usually do better and are healthier than overly inbred purebreds That applies to humans as well as animals. Just look at the British royal family,      

Fortunately for the rest of us we are the product of generation after generation of diversifying the gene pool. And if you go back far enough, we’re all related in one way or another. 

Who any of us are – and the traits, allergies and whatever we inherited – is more a matter of the luck of the draw than anything else. 

If you decide to do the DNA tests to determine your ancestry, more power to you.  Have fun. 

For me, I’m okay with just being who I am now. An ordinary American.     

Yet still missing the point …

It’s been months since Trump was inaugurated and the left – and Democrats in particular – still don’t understand how or why he was elected.

For the umpteenth time here’s the answer:  how – he got more electoral votes than Hillary; why – voters were tired of the same old crap from the same old politicians.  

Let’s deal with the how factor first.

Democrats, the left, and the media – I know that’s redundant; I could have just said the left – are obsessed with blaming the Russians in some way for Trump’s victory. 

Certainly, the Russians hacked us during the election cycle, but that’s not a big surprise.  They do this to us on a daily basis throughout the year. And much as we do to them every day as well; the last election cycle wasn’t anything special.  Of course the Russians tried to interfere in our elections.  Again, as much as we try to all the time in Russian elections. 

Did the Russians affect the outcome? No.  Do our efforts ever affect the outcome of their elections? Once again, no.  

Did Trump campaign officials collude with the Russians to help Trump? No. Nobody in the intelligence community (the left is suddenly and paradoxically so fond of) can find a single instance of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Were there contacts between Trump’s people and the Russians? Sure, but there were also contacts between Hillary’s people and the Russians at the same time – something the left conveniently ignores.     

Did the e-mail release by WikiLeaks hurt Hillary? Probably, because those e-mails ultimately confirmed what a lot in the public already believed about her and the Democrats. These reinforced what public opinion polls already showed – that Hillary was seen as untrustworthy and dishonest. Also confirmed was that Democrat Party officials thought the voting public was dumb, easily conned, and easily manipulated. Finally, these revealed dirty laundry that the Democrat Party feared Sanders more than Trump and actively conspired against Sanders. 

The left blames the Russians for these leaks. In truth any twelve year old anywhere could have hacked the Democrat Party servers. John Podesta’s password was “password.” Duh.

The intelligence community believes Russians had some part in getting the e-mails and turning these over to WikiLeaks – something WikiLeaks denies. The intelligence community, whatever that is, is not willing to say there’s a direct link between the Russian government and the e-mail leaks. However, they do think some Russians of some sort were involved. That’s a far cry from supporting the claim that Vladimir Putin ordered the hacking to help Trump beat Hillary.     

In the end, it’s much ado about nothing. It might be something if the info in the e-mails was fabricated but so far nobody has denied the veracity of any of the released e-mails. 

Then there’s James Comey and the FBI.  Another red herring.  Nothing he said, often seemingly reversing positions, made any difference in the election. It was a wash.

So, to get to the heart of how Trump won, after all the other bogus variables are removed, is pretty simple.  Trump supporters were more motivated to vote and did. Potential Hillary voters, without Obama on the ticket, weren’t as motivated and didn’t show up to vote. Trump campaigned hard in long-time blue states such as Wisconsin while Hillary took these for granted and didn’t. Trump won many of the states she ignored, much to the surprise of just about everyone.

Everyone, that is, except for Trump supporters in those states.

So let’s deal with the why factor. 

Trump campaigned on bringing real change to Washington; Hillary campaigned on being the first woman President and maintaining the status quo.  Hillary wedded herself to Obama’s agenda. 

The left, and Obama of course, have never understood how many Americans feel about the Obama agenda. Few wanted to say anything against Obama when he was President for fear of being called a racist, a bigot, or worse.

He was, after all, our first black President. That gave him a lot of Teflon.    

But the reality on the ground was that many felt Obama only represented the views of urban liberals on the two coasts and in the big cities. People in the rest of the country felt their needs largely ignored by the Obama Administration and Democrats in general. 

There also seemed to be a bias against people of faith who actually worked for a living, paid their bills, and took responsibility for their own lives. The rules appeared to be twisting in favor of otherwise able-bodied people who chose not to work, depended on government to maintain them comfortably in their chosen lifestyle, and those – such as illegal aliens – who were allowed to break our laws with impunity.  Aggravating this were Obama Administration actions that seemed to trample on people’s basic rights to worship as they pleased, conduct everyday business on their own terms, and protect their other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Perhaps most unnerving to many folks was the unrelenting attack on law enforcement. Cops were automatically presumed guilty until proven otherwise. The media played up any shooting of a black or Hispanic by cops, yet appeared to downplay whenever a cop was shot by a black or Hispanic.  Eric Holder of Obama’s Justice Department was quick to blame cops, and to transform righteous shootings by cops, and others acting in self-defense, into Federal civil rights cases. The full power of the Feds was brought down on police departments time and again for little reason. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t add the pissed-off factor.  I still maintain this is one of the biggest reasons Trump beat Hillary.

You can only insult people so many times before they fight back. The Democrats and Obama constantly gave the impression they believed anyone who didn’t agree with them was stupid.  On the wrong side of history. A racist. A bigot. A xenophobe. Whatever. 

When ObamaCare was presented, it was actually based on the premise that most people weren’t smart enough to know what they needed.  So Democrats and government bureaucrats decided what should be in a “good” healthcare insurance plan.  One of the so-called architects of the plan – Jonathan Gruber – went so far as to publicly state that the ObamaCare designers counted on the stupidity of the American public.  Ouch. 

Obama openly and knowingly  lied about ObamaCare. He claimed if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor, and if you liked your existing plan you could keep your plan – both entirely false – because under the plan’s rules and regulations many were no longer allowed. And because insurance companies now had to provide a wider array of built-in services to everyone – including those with pre-existing conditions and ridiculous stuff like prostate exams for women and maternity benefits for men – premium and deductible costs soared and participating doctor networks contracted. 

Meanwhile, as ObamaCare mandated that employers with more than a set number of full-time employees had to provide coverage to all their employees, employers made more employees part time and cut their hours which also reduced their wages in the process.

For sure there were beneficiaries from ObamaCare. Such as people who suddenly had subsidized healthcare who never had it before. In some extreme cases a few people paid as little as 72 cents a month for their plan after all the subsidies; at the same time their neighbor with a real full-time job might see their own insurance costs double and their deductibles quadruple for a plan offering far less coverage than before ObamaCare.

That’s not made up. In my own company my per-employee healthcare cost doubled just in the time ObamaCare was in effect. And we had an excellent and affordable plan with reasonable deductibles through Aetna before that; unfortunately, that plan was no longer available within ACA guidelines and with about the same deductibles without major cost hikes.  

The net result is that for the first time in our over 30-year history, employees now have to contribute toward their health insurance. 

In my wife’s former company, when she turned 65 she was booted off her employer’s plan and pushed into Medicare. She had the option to stay in the plan if she was willing to pay more than $1,000 a month in premiums. So she went into Medicare, but because our household income for the previous two years exceeded what was allowed, she had to pay a premium penalty and was not allowed to use some of the services without additional cost.    

Ah, but what about the promise that ObamaCare would help small businesses that provided insurance for their employees with tax credits?  As one of the few small businesses – according to our insurance broker – that still paid 100% of the premiums for their employees did I qualify for the credit?  No, because I paid my employees too much. In fact, our broker only had one small business client that qualified – a landscaping service that paid minimum wage.    

And the left still wonders why so many small business owners – and employees of small businesses feel harmed by Obama and Democrats.  When the media and Democrats tout how many people who never had insurance before now do – albeit at incredibly subsidized rates – that’s little solace to those who took it up the butt financially to provide insurance to people getting essentially free coverage. 

Let’s also not forget the folks who lost their jobs to outsourcing, and those likely to be hurt from the TPP which Hillary and Obama called the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Or those who saw their previously good-paying jobs taken by illegal immigrants willing to work for peanuts, while Obama and the Democrats encouraged even more illegals to come here. 

Yes, people were pissed. And Trump was their way to give Washington the finger.       

And that’s yet another powerful reason why Trump won. 

To sum it up: it wasn't because of the Russians; it wasn't because of the FBI; Trump won because he worked harder to win his Electoral College votes and people who voted for him did so because they didn't want more of the same from Washington.        

Any questions?