From Politico: The first meeting of the RNC’s rules committee is next week. Nothing to see here…
From Scientific American: Interesting new theories on the development of human monogamy.
From Quartz: Marijuana legalization is forging strange new alliances.
From the New York Times: The cultural significance of Minecraft.
From mentalfloss: What ever happened to RC Cola?
From Newsweek: How Jerry Brown saved California.
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
“If people are really serious about rule changes they could have made them in the last three-and-a-half years,” said Ron Kaufman, an RNC member from Massachusetts who also sits on the Rules panel. “If people try to start change rules now, it’s going to be interpreted as anti-this person or anti-that person. I’m not sure that’s such a good thing.”
What he said. There’s going to be too much of an appearance of changing the rules mid-game. You have nothing but bad choices here, and your best bet is to take the one that does the least long term damage. Just like it would have been better for the Rockets to not make the playoffs this season (they are going to lose a draft pick for the privilege of getting totally creamed by Golden State), the GOP would be better off losing this Presidential race.
I heard a news blurb on the radio yesterday evening about some GOP members of Congress thinking about skipping the convention!! I’m very glad that it’s not happening in Houston!
I’m beginning to think that Bernie is secretly Illuminati…
We’ve had many posts and comments about southern bigotry – well deserved at that. Here’s a hopeful look at the seeds of change that may be emerging in some southern cities. As Lifer posted earlier, change will happen in the urban areas and spread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/us/southern-cities-move-past-states-on-liberal-social-issues.html?emc=edit_au_20160415&nl=afternoonupdate&nlid=41048410
Even as someone who grew up while Minecraft was at the hieght of its popularity (I suppose it still is) I don’t understand the appeal. It seems incredibly slow and limited to me. Then again I am the kind of 21 year old who spends his excess time reading political blogs and who pretty much only plays Paradox Interactive games so maybe I’m too boring to be imaginative enough to enjoy it.
As another link it looks like the US state department is starting to get fed up with Netanyahu’s foreign policy. The far-right coalition he’s had to cobble together to stay in power has left the government somewhat removed from reality, and threatens to leave Israel increasingly isolated.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-accuses-israel-of-using-excessive-force-against-palestinians/
Maybe Bernie is “dumb like a fox” on Netanyahu. Personally, I find him arrogant and egotistical. He benefits too much personally by refusing to honestly negotiate. I’m with Bernie on this one. Hamas aside, and this is a baaad group, the Palestinians have rights too.
Time for another book recommendation on the Israeli-Palestinian divide – “Exile”, by Richard North Patterson. It’s fiction but well researched background and you’ll not only have a great read, you’ll learn more about the depth of this conflict.
Interesting article on Brown, and credit where credit is due; Guv Moonbeam is solidly grounded in reality. So I wonder what happens to the CA budget if they vote to legalize/regulate/tax the hippie lettuce? Isn’t that on the ballot this year? That could be a great way to get funds to help with the affordable housing problem.
I’m truly shocked this isn’t bipartisan across the board. This should be a major plank for the party of “fiscal responsibility”.
Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. In one fell swoop, you cut out the underworld/criminal aspect of it, you bring in a lot of new tax revenue (taxing weed is kind of like the holy grail of taxes. A tax EVERYBODY is happy to pay. Any weed smoker would happily pay a but more for their weed if you remove the threat of criminal prosecution). And on top of that, you’d save billions and billions in lower incarceration costs.
And after all that, you’d have a significant (but hard to predict) economic benefit by having all those millions of men and women NOT have a criminal record follow then their whole lives.
Its as close to a no brainer as there is in politics. You’d think they would’ve learned from Prohibition.
Right, it is crazy the irrational phobias and or fear of the made up boogie man. Thousand of ways to benefit from this herb, ruined many people’s lives trying to vilify it. You would think that republicans would be all over the freedom aspect of it.
At the risk of offending all the conservatives on this site, they’re too uptight to deal with the whole marijuana thing.
Incoming fire…………..duck…….
Yeah, we can’t even get medical marijuana approved. And, that derivative excludes the property that provides the hallucinogenic affect. People are afraid of their own shadows but they dare not make an effort to learn. It’s a conundrum.
Conservatives? Here?
“Conservatives? Here?”
Hmm. That would be me. Am I the only one left – except for perhaps Tracy?
Mime, it’s okay. As far as I’m concerned, you can smoke all the marijuana you want. 😉
I never have smoked but I am in favor of taking marijuana out of schedule 1 drug classification. There have been too many people imprisoned for recreational pot use. My greater interest is in authorization of medical marijuana for anyone suffering from pain who is unable to get relief from prescriptive painkillers.
It also might be a useful treatment for some children with epilepsy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24854149
It’s very, very difficult to do proper scientific research on schedule 1 drugs. It really ought to be bumped down at least to a 3. I read somewhere that Obama is planning to order a “re-scheduling” some time near the end of his term- so more “executive overreach” for RWNJs to rant over.
Also I think anyone with a terminal illness should have the right to use any drug they want, regardless of its schedule. I’ve heard that hallucinogenic drugs can benefit some people in that state.
Here’s the link:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/14/11420974/lsd-psychedelics-brain-study
Personally, I blame the Puritan attitude for holding back the research.
Ah, Ginsberg foretold of the role of the rules committee actions….To be a little bird in the room …I have no doubt that we will be surprised and not surprised by whatever little plan they concoct.
Would have enjoyed the article on monogamy but didn’t want to subscribe.
LOVED the article on Jerry Brown – who was thought to be “too old” to run for President …. then we got Bernie….who is only a couple of years younger. What an interesting man Brown is. The comment from Romney comparing CA to Greece, is interesting because it displayed not only poor assessment, but an attitude of disdain and impossibility that obviously was inaccurate. I wonder what else Romney got wrong. The article didn’t refer to the statewide sales tax Brown got the people of CA to support and it wasn’t easy. He went straight at the issue – honestly explaining what was at stake, why the sacrifice was needed, and what it would do for CA’s future. What a study in contrasts Brown is. Thanks for the link…I have watched Brown for years and it appears he deserved the attention.
Mime, you don’t subscribe to monogamy? 🙂
Honey, I’m all in on monogamy. We have Right on beat by almost two years….and, like him, I can’t imagine life without my hubby. Lots of good times, hard times, and memories. We have been one of the lucky couples.
Its funny, strict monogamy isn’t really all that sacred for most ppl I know in my peer group. Rather, we place a high value on honesty and being up front, rather then strict, uncompromising monogamy. Frankly, there are lots of ppl who just aren’t cut out for it.
Most ppl TEND to want to be monogamous (most ppl ARENT overjoyed to share their significant other) but it’s not at all weird or bizarre for couples to be “monogamish” or some other type of open relationship.
The only moral value I place on that is being totally open and honest, and not breaking any agreed upon rules. But beyond that, if a couple IS happy in an open relationship, and both partners are open and honest, who is anyone else to judge?
another kind of quirky thing about the dating scene these days is placing a high value on sexual satisfaction. At least as much as the emotional connection. Frankly, how many marriages and lives get destroyed because a partner is unable or unwilling to meet their partners needs, whether that be mismatched sex drives (someone who wants it once a month will never be happy with someone who wants it once a day, no matter how great they get along outside the bedroom) or interest in activities that one partner is uncomfortable with.
Generally, these things are discussed pretty early on and if it seems like compromise is impossible, the relationship prob wouldn’t last very long.
Its interesting how dating mores and etiquette have changed over the years.
What complicates relationships are children. Adult agreements are fine but when there are children on the scene, that adds another layer of responsibility. Here’s to contraception.
Rob, I’ve been thinking about your comment on monogamy for a couple of days and how your generation views relationships. (Forget etiquette which is contrived.)
I can accept that young men and women look at sexual relationships differently today than my generation. There is less stigma to casual sex than there was when I was growing up. (Young sexually active males were “studs” whereas young sexually active women were “sluts” or “promiscuous”.) Sex for sex’ sake is as old as time – in practice, but not in social acceptance – especially for women. What I honestly cannot grasp is sharing someone you care for.
Monogamy has taught me many lessons: patience, sacrifice, dedication, humility and caring – all of which require daily effort. One day you will find “the” lass who will make a monogamous relationship worth the personal commitment, and she won’t be someone you will ever want to share with anyone else.
“In fewer than 10 percent of species is it common for two individuals to mate exclusively” It’s good to be one of the exceptions. Tomorrow we will celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary. I’d do it again in a New York minute.
Congratulations, Rush, to you and your wife. May you both be blessed with many more years together.
Thank you Tutt. We are to that age where everyday together is a blessing and we try to make life as full as possible.
Congratulations! I’m happy for you!
Wow, congrats to you Right On and your wife (mostly your wife, as I recall you acknowledging in an earlier post)…50 years is a milestone few reach these days. I am so happy for both of you and hope your day is filled with love and fun.
Thank you Mime. I married not only my soul mate but my best friend.
Aw, I hope you put that thought on something permanent for her. (NOT a t-shirt or a mug!) It’s oft said that people who’ve been married a long time can finish each other’s thoughts….I find myself telling all my husband’s old, memorable jokes as he can’t get them right anymore….a role I never envisioned but nice to be able to make him smile.
Congraduation! Looking forward to our golden anniversiy this October.
That makes three of us who will have passed this golden threshold. Congrats in advance, Stephen.
Rock on! Only 35 at my end, but on the plus side, my beloved has another 15 years to get me properly housebroken. Hope springs eternal! 🙂
Pardon my cynicism Tracy, but if she hasn’t gotten the job done in 35 years, I’d say it is only gonna get tougher (-; Gotta credit her with tryin’ though!
Rats! My hopes have now been dashed.
I haven’t been married as long and was hoping that I could get my husband under control eventually. Looks like a long, hard road ahead of me. Btw, how many motorcycles does a man need anyways?
Rush, congrats to you and your wife. Hope you have a wonderful celebration!
As for the article on monogamy, you have to purchase or subscribe to read the entire thing. Otherwise, this is all we get:
“Mammals are not big on monogamy. In fewer than 10 percent of species is it common for two individuals to mate exclusively. The primate wing of the group is only slightly more prone to pairing off. Although 15 to 29 percent of primate species favor living together as couples, far fewer commit to monogamy as humans know it—an exclusive sexual partnership between two individuals.”
I subscribe to monogamy, however not to Scientific American. Here’s another link to the info:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/monogamy-stds-sexual-behavior-382025
Thanks, OV. Now we can partake without having to subscribe . . .
That’s the problem journalism is facing today. Everyone wants to partake without subscribing. No sense of commitment.
The internet will do that to you….its breadth and ease of access spoil us. I subscribe to two newspapers online and several reports but there is a limit to how much I have time to read and how much I am willing to spend for an occasional column or story. Mostly, it’s a matter of time.
In primates, testicle size is highly correlated to how monogamous the species is.
Makes intuitive sense, if you’re not worried about other males impregnating your mate, there is no need to produce excess sperm, and thus, small testes. If your mate also breeds with other males, there’s a clear genetic advantage to have as many cars in the race, so to speak.
So in bonobos, who are basically sex obsessed little perverts, the makes have the biggest testes, even in absolute terms (I.e. their testes are bigger then other primates, event though they’re the smallest). Gorillas, on the other end, are highly monogamous (or, at least the females are. They all mate with the same ailverback) have the smallest testes of all primates, despite being the largest animals.
Humans testicle size seems to indicate that humans are MOSTLY monogamous but with a pretty significant dose of scandalous behavior.
Which, again, seems to make sense intuitively.
Thanks, Rob.
I drank Coke as a kid, RC Cola as a young adult, and now I prefer Pepsi.
I guess my taste buds have changed over the years.
I drank soft drinks as a kid, but seldom do so now. When I do, I’m amazed by the sweetness and the carbonation; it’s quite a treat. So much so, in fact, that I purposefully partake of such beverages rarely – to preserve the sense of pleasure. I’ve no doubt that if I drank Cokes every day, I’d lose that.
My favorite beverage these days is sparkling mineral water with fresh-squeezed lemon or lime, and no sugar. Absolutely delicious and refreshing.