More Election Silliness

As if Dennis proclaiming that Tuesday's elections are going to be the cornerstone of the next civil war weren't enough, we have others out in the crazy-o-sphere with equally strident rhetoric. Here's a sample:

- Anti-Boxer Comments on WND columnist Patrice Lewis' personal blog:

Barbara Boxer makes my blood boil. We finally have a real chance of dumping her, so I hope a majority of the voters here in CA wise up and kick her out of her fatcatbird seat. She is not only a crook, she's a New York carpetbagger who represents a state she cares nothing for and knows little about.

Interesting; according to her website Boxer moved to California in 1965. Apparently 45 years still isn't long enough to be considered a Californian. By that logic, I suppose Whitman must be at least one-third as big a carpetbagger. I wonder if that means they're voting Brown for Governor.

Boxer even being close at this stage is a horrible wonder to me. Oh Califonia, how far down do you have to go to hit bottom? This is your time to shine. You can lead us as we try to dig out of this mess or you can go begging to the rest of America to bail you out.

Not quite sure how voting for a long-serving Congresswoman constitutes begging America to bail out California, but ok, sure.

- Then there's Prop 19, which would legalize marijuana in California (though not federally). Showing a rare ability to join forces in the face of anything too potentially positive, we have the combined evangelical bozos of the Christian Post and the Haredi wackos at Vos Iz Neias.

First up, the CP:

Legalized Marijuana 'Unnecessary,' Christians Say

Medical marijuana is “unnecessary” and legalizing it will worsen drug problems, lead to increased adolescent usage, and increase family problems, says Christian Medical Association CEO David Stevens and religious freedom legal defense group Pacific Justice Institute.

Wow, I like how it starts off fooling you that it's going to be talking about legalization and then it does a complete 180 and starts harping on something that's been standard case law for 10 years. Way to stay current!

Stevens says legalized marijuana will mean increased usage among adolescents. Adolescents using marijuana, he says, suffer a number of side effects such as decreased focus, isolation and even psychological dysfunction.

Right, which is the reason we outlaw all other substances teenagers can use to screw themselves up, like alcohol, prescription drugs and glue. Of course.

“We know adolescents who use marijuana regularly experience higher rates of depression,” noted Stevens. He also says marijuana is a “gateway” drug, meaning it may lead to use of other more potent drugs.

Riiight, except it's... not. I say this as someone who has smoked pot around seven times in as many years and not felt attracted towards any other drugs. And as someone with close family members who have been regular smokers for decades. They may have dabbled with other substances a little in the 80s, but these days their only drugs are pot and a beer or glass of wine once or twice a week. No crack, no heroin, no oxy. Try again.

Stevens stresses that “medical marijuana is useless” because there are several prescriptions, such as Marinol, that have similar chemical compounds and produce the same results.

Except, again, Stevens is wrong. Marinol does not work for many patients, such as cancer sufferers. Pot does. There are any number of reasons for this, not the least of which may have to do with the fact that inhalation gets THC to the bloodstream faster than ingestion, but the bottom line is that it doesn't work. (Add to that the fact that Marinol is not being created at a high enough rate to be a valid alternative.) Maybe if Stevens was an oncologist or a pharmacologist rather than just a GP who's spent most of his career as an administrator he would know these things, or at least be smart enough to ask about them before using his credentials as an excuse to spout off nonsense.

Is Vos Iz Neas any better? Of course not, you fool. (Though I did enjoy the typo in their URL.)

If you want to get high, get stoned, act like a tower of poverty and sin. Maybe you think thats your priviledge. I would certainly allow a cancer patient access to Marijuana, but to let the general population toke it up because they dont know how to read or socialize in general makes little sense.

Wait, people get high because they don't know how to read or socialize? What happened to the stereotype of rich, pampered college kids being major stoners? The only thing potheads do besides reading and socializing is listen to Phish and Marley. Well, and eat cookies.

Yes legalize mary jane and than next year legalize other types of drugs; Slowly but surely legalize all drugs. Get people drugged up so they don't know what is going on and than vote for the lefty. Legalizing Mary Jane will lead to more car accidents, and victims Even if it takes the drugs out of the trade how long do you think before they create some new drug which everybody needs to try. Soros made billions destroying others. He wants to destroy america by legalizing drugs. People seem to forget

mary jane stays in your system for days. Another thing we have outlaw smoking in most places since it is bad for your health and now you want to legalize marijuana which is worst for your lungs. CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT; JUST DID PEOPLE DON'T THINK WHEN THE YETZOR HORA IS INVOLVE

What an argument. I'm just speechless. Also, did you notice this guy's spelling? I bet he smokes...

- In local issues, one of the people running for SF Board of Ed is a libertarian Erotic Service Provider named Starchild. Need I say more? I hope not, because I'm kind of speechless.

- Speaking of the Board of Ed, SF's Prop D lets any immigrant residents of the city, including illegal aliens, vote for the school board. Abbot Yid didn't care for it, but I think it's got the benefit of being consistent: if you're going to let illegals live in the city and not be prosecuted, and if you're going to let them send their kids to public school, I'm not quite sure why the straw that breaks the camel's back should be voting for the School Board.

Local crazyman Dr. Terrence Faulker, J.D., however, seriously objects:

What Prop D backers call "immigrant voting" does not mean just legal immigrants. Prop D also proposes that illegal aliens and even those in the process of being deported from the United States be allowed to vote for SF's Board of Education... It is an interesting question whether legal aliens might be allowed to vote for our boards of education on a national basis, but that should be regulated by future international treaties. Such future treaties, if approved by the President and a two-thirds vote of the US Senate, should also provide for similar voting rights for American citizens who are legal residents of foreign countries.

Ah yes, because if you're being deported, clearly the most pressing thing on your mind will be voting for Starchild and not say, getting a lawyer or figuring out what country your kids are going to finish third grade in.

- Dr. T chimed in elsewhere, too. Prop I would let us have elections on Saturday as well as Tuesday. You know, so people will actually come vote. Interestingly enough, it has a stipulation that it would only hold Saturday elections if it received enough donated money from individuals and organizations to fund it.

Yet Dr. T remains unimpressed. But, since he apparently didn't have time to write a coherent counter-argument, he decided to just toss out any ideas that popped into his head. Observe:

In the June 2010 Primary Election some 59% of SF voters cast absentee ballots.

Many elections in Oregon are now conducted by mail.

An extra day of precinct voting would be a big economic waste.

Holding elections on Saturday causes problems for a number of major religious minorities...

Really? A number of major religious minorities? Which ones would those be? I can think of Jews (Orthodox, specifically) and Seventh-Day Adventists. If there are any others, I'd love to hear about it. Incidentally, wouldn't those folks just stick to the regular Tuesday voting or use the absentee ballot we already have? I mean, if you're going to appeal to religious sensitivity, you might at least want to show you've actually done your homework and aren't just using any random excuse you can think of. It's just lazy.

- Last, of course, we have the always level-headed voice of reason, Chuck Norris:

"I think our country, if we don't wind up getting a conservative majority mainly in the House, I really perceive some disastrous things in the next two years in our country. We may not have an America in two years," he told Fox News in a recent interview.

Tell you what, Chuck, I'll be sure to send you an apology note the moment we turn into Mexi-Soviet-stan.