Hemp: Yesterday I saw a good documentary in support of industrial hemp. "Hemp" is a perfectly innocent item, whose history as rope product and so forth is suggested by many place names (Hempstead, New York). It also can be used for cloth, paper, food, and build material. Hemp plant is useful for plant rotation policies (growing the same plant in the same soil year after year bleeds it of nutrients). Other nations, including Canada, grow it; I myself have had hemp flavored frozen waffles. And, when alternatives were at risk during WWII, there was even "Hemp For Victory" government films.
So, why is its cultivation illegal in this country? Drug hysteria. Hemp is in the same family as marijuana (both genus cannabis), and while being grown, parts of the plant have trace amounts of THC -- the chemical that makes one high. Actually smoking hemp is liable to get you sick, since it is primarily quite different, but hey there is some connection. The two plants actually also look different (hemp much taller). We have people like a former top official at the CIA praising the item's usefulness, and anti-drug sorts suggest the only reason people are for it is because they are druggies. You know, like Washington and Jefferson, both whom spoke highly of the substance.
The hysteria was so high that the DEA was worried about hemp birdseed from Canada and had to be sued to stop threatening the sale (mind you, the THC no longer is there in the products any more cocaine is in Coca Cola) of hemp products. Since marijuana criminalization is basically inane, you can imagine how one should judge this policy. It is unclear how useful hemp truly is, but it does have wonderful potential with a flexibility akin to petrochemicals in certain respects. And, the government wants to ban the stuff because it has some slight connection to marijuana. Sounds about right.
IRV: For the second time in two election cycles, there was almost a run-off between Democratic mayor hopefuls, this time when it was clearly know the second place winner had no desire to run. The reason was, and this was the case both times (but last time it was Al Sharpton), he knew he had no shot of winning. There just were four candidates (and two oddballs, who might have resulted in a 12mil dollar waste of time given technical legal requirements), which meant that getting forty percent of the vote (the threshold) was somewhat hard to do.
Luckily, two were really losers, and a third was named (seriously) Weiner --- actually, the third seemed a decent sort, but had no shot to win the big prize, basically a newcomer. How about some Instant Runoff Voting? After all, we are due for some electronic voting machines in a couple years, right?
And also: Krugman (from website -- a way to avoid NYT subscription rules -- what are they, the Wall Street Journal?) "Consider this: in the United States, unlike any other advanced country, many people fail to receive basic health care because they can't afford it. Lack of health insurance kills many more Americans each year than Katrina and 9/11 combined."