HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Crunchy Frog » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Crunchy Frog

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Member since: Sun Oct 26, 2003, 04:06 AM
Number of posts: 20,682

About Me

Living under a Soviet puppet regime.

Journal Archives

Lewis Black on The Trump Inauguration.

Jon Stewart - Twitter War with Donald Trump

Good for a laugh today.


Edelweiss. A good song for today.

Captain Von Trapp says goodbye to country as Nazis take over.

We'll get to watch while the vultures pick the bones clean.

Posted by Crunchy Frog | Sun Jan 8, 2017, 02:11 AM (0 replies)

We're in uncharted territory, and there's no historical precedent for any of it.

I'm not sure there are any historical precedents for any of this. That is, a stable, long term democracy, that has maintained, more or less, democratic, constitutional rule for over 200 years, falling into fascism during a long term period of, for the most part, peace and prosperity. Maybe Rome's transformation from a republic into an empire.

We've maintained, even if imperfectly, democratic and constitutional government through a civil war, through two global wars, through a decades long Cold War, through assassinations and major social upheavals. We've pulled ourselves back from the brink during the McCarthy era, and after all of that, we're now walking right into fascism, peacefully and voluntarily.

I believe that we've been heading in this direction for the past few decades, with the groundwork being done by some very clever and extremely wealthy people who have funded think tanks and created a massive propaganda infrastucture, and gradually transformed what had been a conservative party, into a radical RW fascist one, and propagandized millions of people into followers; and they have done this mostly under the radar of people who should have been paying attention. And as I said, what they have achieved is historically unprecedented.

Where we go from here is anybody's guess. Maybe we slip into a totalitarian dystopia that lasts for decades. Maybe there will be a civil war, and the country will break apart. Maybe we'll end up having WWIII, and there will be nothing left but the cockroaches. Or maybe we'll be able to pull ourselves out of it before it becomes irreversible.

The fact that the "leader" is an overgrown infant, and the fascist party is tripping over their shoelaces in their overreaching power grabs, before he even gets inaugurated, is the one thing that gives me any hope that this country might manage to pull itself out. If we had gotten a more "reasonable" and sane looking R president, they would have been able to maintain the facade of normalcy until it was too late. So maybe Trump getting in is really a blessing in disguise.

I honestly wish I was reading about this in a history book, rather than living through it.

I apologize for posting my late night mental meanderings, but hope that it makes at least a little bit of sense to anyone other than myself.
Posted by Crunchy Frog | Fri Jan 6, 2017, 01:34 AM (1 replies)

No, he pounds it, and he has other Dems out pounding it, and pounding the 'pukes.

And it's not about persuading the 'pukes, it's about embarrassing them, and getting the public on his side. It's about making it, and the 'pukes obstruction, part of the national dialogue.

This has political value in and of itself, as a large part of politics is simply public perception. The 'pukes seem to "get" that, and act on it, and have used it to effectively advance their agenda, even when they were out of power.

This is something that Obama could have done. He is certainly not lacking in the ability to speak eloquently and persuasively. The Dems seem to have simply not figured out the importance of public perception when it comes to pushing your agenda, and have let the 'pukes largely monopolize the public discourse.

They had better get this figured out, because for the next 2-4 years (at least), their voices are going to be the only thing they really have to fight with.

So, yes. Lots and lots of news conferences and speeches, utilizing his gifts for speaking persuasively. It might not change the outcome, but it would change public perception, and show that the Dems are willing to fight for what's right.
Posted by Crunchy Frog | Tue Jan 3, 2017, 02:07 AM (1 replies)

Do you really think that Bill didn't try to appeal to and get Reagan voters

or that Obama didn't do the same with BushII voters? Or that the 'pukes don't do the same with trying to get traditionally Democratic voters?

It's not about "sympathy", it's about the reality of how the game of politics is played. As a party, we should be going after the political figures, and not the voters. I know that it "feels good" to demonize voters, but doing so is suicide as a political party.

Not defending those views at all, but they don't exist in a vacuum.

People who live under perpetual occupation, while facing continual harassment and dispossession, seldom have any love for their occupiers. Populations that live under a state of perpetual conflict, frequently harbor some pretty unsavory views towards one another.

I wonder what a similar poll would have revealed about the attitudes of black South Africans during Apartheid, or Native Americans towards white Americans during the 1800s. I'd be curious to see a poll of the attitudes of Israeli Jews towards Palestinians, or Arabs as a whole. I'd be curious to see the same poll of just the settler population.

I would seriously question whether it's religiously motivated bigotry, or simply a natural outcome of long term occupation, dispossession, and conflict.

I'm not expecting a reasonable answer on this one.

It's not right, it's not fair, and I absolutely hate it, but currently it's the rules of the game.

The only issue of interest to me in the election outcome, is, does she or doesn't she get sworn in as President of the United States. The current rules of the game say that winning a larger number of popular votes is irrelevant, and only the number of Electoral College votes matters, as far as winning the presidency goes.

Can you comprehend the fact that for some of us, the only really important issue here is that Trump is going to be taking the Oath and moving into the Oval Office, and then sacking and pillaging this country four the next 4 years. It's totally wrong, and I would change it if I could, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary's nearly 3 million more votes than Trump's makes absolutely no difference as far as outcome goes.

The fact that she won a hell of a lot of votes in Californial and NYC doesn't alter the fact that she didn't win enough votes in critical swing states that she needed to take in order to get sufficient EC votes to take the presidency. I won't say that "she didn't connect with voters", but I will say that she didn't connect with enough voters in the critical swing states that she needed in order to win the presidency.

We are not saying that the majority of voters should be discounted. It's the fucked up electoral system in this country that says that, and most of us hate it, and would love to see it changed. It would take a constitutional ammendment to change it, though, and that isn't going to happen any time in the forseeable future.

It seems to me like the thing that's really eating you is that not all of us have the kind of emotional investment in Hillary Clinton that you do. That not all of us are ready to give her a pat on the back and a 2nd place medal. That some of us are more invested in the country and what Trump is about to do to it, than we are in Hillary as a person.

Do you honestly believe that the campaign was perfect, and that there was nothing within their control that they could have done differently that maybe would have produced a different practical outcome? If you do, that's fine, it's your opinion, but not all of us share it. Some of us believe that there is value in evaluating things that our side did wrong in an election that failed in the only metric that has any practical meaning. Some of us want to think about how we can do better next time, so that we not only "win", but actually end up with the presidency, and hopefully some down ticket offices as well.

It actually boggles my mind that some people don't understand where this side is coming from. It's not about disrespecting the candidate. It's about wanting to get our candidate into the Oval Office.

Kratom Drug Ban May Cripple Promising Painkiller Research (Scientific American)

Compounds from the Southeast Asian tree offer hope for a safer opioid alternative, but research could slow to a crawl as the DEA steps in

When Majumdar and his team started studying the compounds in the laboratory, they realized all three molecules were binding to the mu-opioid receptor—one of three known kinds of opioid receptors in the brain—in an unconventional way. Think of this receptor as the ignition to a “hybrid car,” Varadi explains, and the opioids that bind to it as keys. A typical opioid such as morphine turns on the “electric engine,” and that leads to a desired effect like pain relief. But it also starts up the “gas engine,” causing negative side effects. The mitragynine molecules from kratom seem to activate mostly the “good” systems, leaving behind the unwanted effects yet keeping pain relief.

Although the kratom compounds have yet to be clinically studied in humans, Andrew Kruegel, a pharmacologist at Columbia who was not involved in Varadi’s study, says the results hold promise for better designer painkillers. “Those compounds alone may already be superior to codeine and oxycodone. At a minimum, if you can get rid of respiratory [problems] then you can save thousands of lives,” Kruegel says. “But we can tweak their properties to make them even better than the natural starting point.” Or they would do so if the research were able to legally continue, he adds.

Scientists can obtain a license to study Schedule I drugs but they are hard to acquire and significantly slow down research, says Chris McCurdy, a kratom researcher at the University of Mississippi. “I don’t oppose it being regulated, I just oppose Schedule I,” he says. “That’s where the frustration comes in, realizing you have to shut everything down because we don’t have a Schedule I license.”
At the moment, neither do several other kratom researchers, including Majumdar. “We’ll have to destroy all our samples in the lab,” Kruegel says. The DEA’s emergency scheduling of kratom will expire after two years if the agency does not move to make the scheduling permanent. But for that to happen, Kruegel thinks scientists will likely need to show further proof that kratom is medically useful. “That we’ll have any progress in the next two years is very unlikely,” he says.

Much more at link.


This policy kind makes a mockery of all the recent handrwinging about the "opioid epidemic"

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »