Jim Power's Blog: Jim Power, page 2

Legalize marijuana

In a recent poll, the American people rated numerous substances in terms of their health dangers. Marijuana was relatively low and far below tobacco and alcohol.

In one month, Colorado hauled in over two million dollars on taxed recreational marijuana. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Think of the reduced costs of no longer having police busting people for marijuana possession. Marijuana removes police from much more important duties, creates tremendous amounts of administrative costs, burdens the court system, increases incarceration costs, and ruins lives of people who should simply be left alone by the state.

Is marijuana a harmless drug? No. Marijuana has a lot of negative effects, and there's an old saying that goes: "The only people who say marijuana is not addictive are those who don't smoke it."

I'm addicted to Coca Cola and potato chips, and heart disease, caused in large measure by foods like this, is the number one killer of Americans. In reality, Coca Cola and potato chips are more dangerous than marijuana. So why not ban Coca Cola and potato chips? Because people wouldn't stand for it. They would be up in arms, screaming at the top of their lungs against the government for its Nanny State overreach.

So why do the American people put up with the government telling them they can't smoke pot? Really, why is it the government's business if someone wants to smoke a joint, listen to the Grateful Dead, and eat the fridge? The answer is that it isn't any of their business, just as it is not the government's business to tell people they can't drink liquor, consume potato chips and Coca Cola, gamble, watch television, own firearms, walk their dogs, brush their teeth, or pick their noses. It's none of their business. Get out of people's lives. Stop micro managing everything people do. Stop being an overbearing nanny who watches society like some kind of obsessive cult leader.

Of course marijuana should be legal, just as the gateway drug - liquor - is legal, but the same rules should apply to marijuana as to liquor. That includes not being high while driving, not smoking dope at work, not smoking in public places, etc. Marijuana becomes the new beer.

Having said that, I believe marijuana is a terrible drug. It's a monster. It's not as bad as liquor, not even close, but it's not Santa's little helper either. It's just that what you put in your body is your choice, not the choice of a few people who believe they are demigods because they were voted into office by an apathetic populace, half of whom did not even cast a ballot.

Top 10 modern songs

10.)Echoes, Pink Floyd
9.) The Message, Grandmaster Flash
8.) Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana
7.) Thriller, Michael Jackson
6.) Child in Time, Deep Purple
5.) White Rabbit, Jefferson Airplane
4.) War Pigs, Black Sabbath
3.) The End, The Doors
2.) Stairway to Heaven, Led Zeppelin
1.) State of Independence, Donna Summer

How to improve baseball.

Baseball is a grand game, America's past-time, and a wonderful exhibition of chess played on a field large enough for spectators to enjoy even in colossal stadiums. Baseball has the best tradition in sports, is ingrained in the psyche of people from New York to Cuba to Japan, and baseball is continuing to grow across the world, culminating in a true World Series. In comparison, think how often the Super Bowl "world champions" hail from the United States.

But could baseball be made better? You bet it could.

The biggest problem with baseball is that cowardice has been built into the game. This is shocking considering that men are hurling a round rock toward batters sixty feet away at speeds approaching, and sometimes even surpassing, 100 miles per hour. Baseball allows for collisions at home plate, where careers have been shattered, even in a relaxed All-Star Game when Charlie Hustle could not dial back his Ty Cobb enthusiasm.

So what is the cowardice I talk about? It's not the anemic bench-clearing brawls that in hockey would hardly draw a penalty. These "brawls" are usually little more than dances with staring contests and nine times out of ten the participants emerge without a single punch being thrown. To call these soirees "brawls" is insulting to tavern parking lots all over the nation.

No, the cowardice in baseball is the intentional walk. It's vile, it's disgusting, and it's un-American. Can you imagine Joe Frazier entering the ring and being told he cannot throw a left hook? Or Mike Tyson being prohibited from throwing combinations?

That happens in baseball all the time. Mighty Casey comes to bat and the opposing team walks him. Casey's team is therefore prevented from throwing its left hook or its lethal combination. Of course some will argue that it is strategy and baseball is a team game. Bull. It's not strategy, it's yellow fever. Team game? Baseball is the most individual team game ever invented. In football, basketball, hockey, soccer, etc., each individual does not have to, one at a time, have the spotlight shone on him in such an individual way, as is the case with batters.

Mind you, kickers in football, free throw shooters in basketball, and players taking penalty shots in hockey and soccer, are also individually highlighted the same as baseball hitters. But - and this is the grand slam of buts - in those cases none of them is being told they have to kick with their wrong foot or shoot while wearing a blindfold. And they are certainly not prevented from participating entirely, as the intentional walk is designed to do. This is no small matter. Can you imagine cricket matches where opposing teams could prevent the best batsman from playing? It's inconceivable and a slap across the face of fair play.

Here's how you improve baseball. If a batter is walked, the team whose batter was walked makes a decision. They can either allow the batter to take first base for free, or they can defer, such as when Casey is at bat, allowing the last out on their team to come off the bench and take the base in his place. This way the walked batter gets to first, but Casey still bats with a fresh count. Now that's the American spirit!

Should women shave their armpits?

When I was a teenager, I once met two German women on a beach in Nova Scotia. They were both beautiful, one blond, one brunette, and very friendly. They spread their blankets beside us and lied down, both of them putting their hands behind their heads. It was at this point I noticed that they had large shocks of hair in their armpits.

I was flabbergasted, not because they were ugly in any way, but simply because our culture has a weird fascination with the hairless female body, at least from the scalp down. We cherish long, full hair on a woman's head, but it's unfathomable that a woman can allow a hair to grow on her legs or, I daresay, in her armpits.

A woman with hairy legs and hairy armpits is not half as odd as our cultural taboo against female hair. Hair is natural and it grows. Eating, drinking and sleeping are natural but no one tries to curtail these activities. Other cultures, as evidenced by the Germans, do not have an obsession with hair removal.

I think women with hairy legs and hairy armpits are every bit as beautiful as those women who shave obsessively, as if hair was a disease to be conquered, lest she be considered an ogre.

This obsession was probably developed by a business. People who make razors, and those involved in the multi-billion dollar beauty industry, told women hair is ugly and women bought the lie and their vast amount of products. Women also invest billions in the make-up industry. Maybe they should just be themselves and see their natural beauty. I'd like that.

Rand Paul

In the upcoming presidential race, one person stands out. That is Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky.

Rand Paul actually stands up for the United States Constitution. This man is so far above the rest who seek the high office that it's stunning.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cpac...

Are there other inhabited planets?

The universe is so vast that the human brain cannot comprehend it. The numbers are so mind boggling that it serves no useful purpose to even cite them. But are there people, or at least intelligent beings, on other planets out there?

One would assume that there are billions, and possibly even trillions, of others planets with life on them, some of which may parallel Earth to a high degree, if not exactly.

However, as a committed atheist, I do not accept the existence of God because there is no proof for the existence of God. All people are actually atheists, including the most committed Christians, as they do not believe in Zeus, the sun god, or Crom and Ishtar of the barbarian tribes. They are atheists in terms of all gods, except one.

Using the logic of modern atheism, though, I cannot state that there are life forms on other planets, though it's almost certainly the case. There may be other civilizations out there, just as there may be gods or a God, but until it's proven to me, I will remain skeptical. The religious will, of course, question my atheism, noting that simply because I do not have proof does not mean something is not so. To that I respond simply that I have a strong and unshakable faith in my belief that there is no God, but my faith is not so strong when it comes to questioning the existence of other life forms on planets beyond our own.

Has Elvis left the building?

Many times I have heard the joke: "Elvis has left the building." I never laughed and never will. What most amazes me, however, is that this is supposed to be funny.

Elvis Presley was a musical icon who produced a tremendous amount of work, including songs, recordings, interviews. He was an incredible talent and represented the transitional figure of a white man performing like a black man. He was beloved, he entertained millions, he lived and left his mark. Today he is still adored.

Some people make fun of him with the joke: "Elvis has left the building." These people, like many others who piggyback their talentless lives onto those who truly accomplished something, are nondescript entities who produced nothing of value. Where are their songs? Where are their movies? Where are their millions of fans? Where are their properties that have become shrines? They don't exist.

Elvis Presley was an historical epoch in American history, much like Muhammad Ali. He brought joy and light into millions and millions of lives. He is not a joke, a harlequin to be laughed at, a fool to be tossed around for people's amusement. Have some respect.

I was always taught that you should respect the dead. I agree with that to a large extent, though I feel no respect for the Heinrich Himmlers of the world. But even people I disliked in life I will not belittle in death.

Want to know the real truth? The people who use this joke, the people who try to get a laugh at the expense of an American legend, well, they never entered the building in the first place.

Ban "going forward."

I am a fierce advocate of free speech, and the thought of banning words or speech irks me to the highest degree, but if I would ever make an exception, it would be for the term often used by politicians and athletes, which is the dreadful "going forward."

The great writer George Orwell detested the popular double negative: "He is not unlike his brother," or "She is not unfriendly to the prince's advances." Get rid of the 'not.' He is like his brother, she is friendly to the prince's advances.

But this pales in comparison to going forward. The baseball players hits 100 home runs in the regular season and then gets caught with a pharmacy of performing enhancing drugs in his system. He states: "I will take the lessons I've learned and apply them going forward."

Why in Pete's sake do you need the going forward? You don't. It's a redundancy, and an extremely irritating one at that. "I will take the lessons I've learned and apply them." He can't apply them going backward, unless he has a time machine. The mere act of applying them means from that point on.

Politicians use this term all the time. It's like a virus which has afflicted huge swaths of these people. "We'll work on the economy going forward."

I'm continuing to write this blog going forward.

Should the U.S. provide financial assistance to the Ukraine?

There is a lot of bluster in Washington about punishing Vladimir Putin for Russia's incursion into the Crimea. Absolutely no one, including the war-weary American people, want a full-scale war with Russia, especially as the Chinese would align with the Russians. That would not be World War Three, it would be World War Last.

One idea bandied about is financial aid to the Ukrainians. When I hear that idea trumpeted, my reaction is: "Are you nuts?"

The United States has a national debt of 17.5 trillion dollars. Maybe I should say that a little louder: "THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT IS 17.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!" And it's growing by hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

Think about this. Imagine a one-dollar bill on the sidewalk. Nice find, right? Now imagine one hundred dollars. Great find! Multiply that by ten and you have one thousand. Getting even better. Now imagine one thousand dollars times ten. Imagine ten thousand times ten. Imagine one hundred thousand times ten. You now have a million. One thousand million is a billion. One thousand billion is a trillion. The U.S. national debt is $17.5 trillion.

This is equivalent to a family that is utterly and hopelessly bankrupt discussing whether they should give some strangers across town a birthday present of $1,000. It's insanity.

American roads are crumbling, millions are living in devastating poverty, millions more have little or insufficient health care, children are going to school hungry everyday, inner cities are breeding grounds for drugs and violence because the destitute have lost hope. Prisons are releasing dangerous criminals simply because of overcrowding, cities are insolvent, pension plans are evaporating.

And somebody wants to borrow more money from America's children, they want to add more to the $17.5 trillion debt, so they can give it to total strangers living in the Ukraine? This is like the Twilight Zone.

Hello! You don't have any money to give! Stop burdening your children with out of control spending. Get therapy. Cut up your credit cards. Stop spending more than you take in, and let the Ukrainians run their own country.

Economic growth is a disaster

Every politician at the local, state/provincial, and federal level advocates for economic growth. It is a mantra, a prayer to the religion of mass consumerism.

Economic growth is a disaster and it is killing us, and killing our planet.

The population gain sustained in the United States between 1900-1999, if continued at the same rate, would put the American population at over one billion by the year 2100. That's close to China and India.

With such staggering populations, urban areas expand farther and farther out into the countryside, green space and farm land is decimated, pollution increases, demands on water skyrockets. Garbage grows exponentially. Privacy and silence are wiped out.

Think about conservation. What sense does it make for a household to switch to a smaller car and more efficient light bulbs, if there are two new households added to a neighborhood? All gains in efficiency are overwhelmed by increased demand and consumption.

We have to transform from growth to sustainability. Populations have to decrease, particularly in countries such as Canada and the United States, as we are vastly overpopulated and using a massively disproportionate percentage of the world's resources.

We need a steady recession and a controlled burn. Without it, there will most certainly be unimaginable starvation, a war more deadly than any in human history, and the utter destruction of our planet.

The world's population should not exceed two hundred million people.