BLUF found, not in the story but in the first comment as follows:
[STAT] The science is overwhelming, for nearly 40 years now, that physicians should not treat with opiates for more than a few weeks, maybe a month, then refer to an Integrated Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic. This isn’t done for multiple reasons. So people like you end up chronically in pain and then should receive opiates because there are no other options left.
The problem remains political with patients screaming for more narcotics, physicians unconscionably hanging onto patients, government trying to make everyone happy, and science saying that all of you are wrong and are driving the current iatrogenic addiction epidemics. Government and 'politics' have certainly succeeded in making Big Pharma 'happy.' Meanwhile, the necessary components of the urban drug trade flourish. Urban peace depends upon the feeding as well as the mental and physical sedation of the Democratic voter.
#1
In my experience those who speak loudest about the regulation of 'pain killers' have never been forced to select a personal pain management strategy.
[LA Times] With President Trump in the Oval Office, California officials are bracing for the possibility that the new administration will undermine the state’s landmark policies on climate change. But the more immediate threat isn’t coming from Washington; it lies in a lawsuit that has been slowly winding its way through state courts.
The 4-year-old legal challenge pursued by the California Chamber of Commerce and a collection of business interests argues that the cap-and-trade program represents an unconstitutional tax. The system, intended to create a financial incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, requires companies to purchase permits to pollute.
For Gov. Jerry Brown and the environmental community, the lawsuit has been a ticking time bomb that could eliminate a key source of revenue and undermine a program touted as an international model for fighting global warming.
[National Review] Its popularity keeps spreading inexorably across the country.
And so the train keeps rolling on. For years, advocates of the Second Amendment have fought tooth and nail to ensure that no American was left without the right to obtain a carry permit. Now an even more salutary standard has become fashionable: The abolition of the permitting system in its entirety.
In 2015, three states added their names to the growing list of those that have adopted "constitutional carry" -- states, that is, in which Americans do not need to obtain permits before legally carrying guns. Last year, another three joined their ranks. This year, the number joining could be as high as five. And after that? Le déluge.
Over at the Crime Research Prevention Center, John Lott Jr. notes that the number of "constitutional carry" states will reach 16 or 17 by the end of this year. Given that 15 years ago there was only one (two if you count Montana, which I’d classify as a "mostly constitutional carry" state) -- and that 30 years ago most states had extremely restrictive permitting processes to boot -- this is nothing short of remarkable. Elections, as it is said, have consequences.
[FOX] Club For Growth founder Stephen Moore reacted to reporting that since President Trump was elected, the stock market gained $2 trillion in wealth.
"This could be the start of a big bull market rally," Moore said on Risk & Reward, noting the market today crossed 20,000 point threshold.
Elizabeth MacDonald recounted how former President Barack Obama told a crowd in 2016 that Trump would need a "magic wand" to bring lost jobs and manufacturing back to America.
#1
"For years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."
~ Charles Wilson
Charles Erwin Wilson (July 18, 1890 – September 26, 1961) was an American engineer and businessman who served as United States Secretary of Defense from 1953 to 1957 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Known as "Engine Charlie", he previously worked as CEO for General Motors.
[Breitbart] Restaurants are rapidly going out of business in the Bay Area, after San Francisco passed a $15 minimum wage law in 2014 and the State of California followed suit in 2016. Yet the media are struggling to make the connection between high minimum wages and restaurant closures.
The East Bay Times, for example, asked Tuesday: "What’s behind the spate of recent Bay Area restaurant closures?" It barely mentioned new minimum wage laws, brushing them aside as if they were largely insignificant.
It is true, of course, that merely because one thing follows another does not prove that the second was caused by the first. The "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy that is familiar to first-year economics students would apply to this case as well. Yet that does not mean the prior factor should be excluded as a cause. But that is largely what the Times seems to have done, even though the closure of businesses and the loss of restaurant jobs is exactly what critics of the minimum wage hikes predicted.
#1
new minimum wage laws, brushing them aside as if they were largely insignificant
Well, of course wages are insignificant. Businesses just have to take a tiny, little cut in their enormous, obscene profits. The science is settled.
Besides, it could've been the new regulations.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/26/2017 7:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yet the media are struggling to make the connection between high minimum wages and restaurant closures.
Cause they live in an alternate universe in which cause and effect are unknown. Hey, they can't even figure out why newspapers and magazines are going out of business.
#7
As far as I am concerned, food/beverage service is among the toughest businesses out there. So many variables, so many expiration dates, so little profit margin.
#8
...and so many fickle employees. First blue-collar job was dishwasher in high school. Three scheduled to work Sat and Sun; I was the only to show up. Except one time this dumbass showed up in berkinstocks and wool socks. He lasted 15 minutes and a cig, then walked, where I was actually relieved to be working alone.
So picture this very popular Italian restaurant in competitive downtown market if this once a future man (still consider myself a boy at that place in time, this job changed that) with a work ethic did not show.
As I was growing up, antisemitism resided in the far-right. An ideological swamp that offered no protection. Society rejected both the hatred and the breeding ground. But in the last decade, as antisemitism morphs once more, it has found new cover within a different part of the political spectrum.
Today it emerges as offspring through the absurd marriage of the hard-left and Islamic thought. In a perverse twist, it is protected by the very groups that should despise it. The anti-racists, the humanitarians and the academics. They denounce antisemitism whilst simultaneously denying its existence and protecting the very cells that produce it.
#1
As I was growing up, antisemitism resided in the far-right.
That's in the alternate universe in which you placed members of the National Socialist Workers Party as extreme right rather than the true lefty socialist they were.
[NYPOST] The nation’s foremost culture warrior is President Trump.
He wouldn’t, at first blush, seem well-suited to the part. Trump once appeared on the cover of Playboy. He has been married three times. He ran beauty pageants and was a frequent guest on the Howard Stern radio show. His "locker-room talk" captured on the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape didn’t, shall we say, demonstrate a well-honed sense of propriety.
There is no way Trump could be a credible combatant in the culture war as it existed for the last 40 years. But he has reoriented the main lines of battle away from issues related to religion and sexual morality and onto the ground of populism and nationalism. Trump’s culture war is fundamentally the people versus the elite, national illusory sovereignty versus cosmopolitanism and patriotism versus multiculturalism.
It’s the difference, in a nutshell, between fighting over gay rights or immigration, over the breakdown in marriage or Black Lives Matter.
The new war is just as emotionally charged as the old one. It, too, involves fundamental questions about who we are as a people, which are always more fraught than the debate over the appropriate tax rate or whether we should have a defense-budget sequester.
The participants are, by and large, the same as well. The old culture war featured Middle America on one side, and coastal elites, academia and Hollywood on the other. So does the new war. And while Trump has no interest in fighting over gay marriage or engaging in the bathroom wars, his staunch pro-life position is a notable holdover from the old war.
Yet any of his detractors who is warning, out of reflex more than anything else, of an attempt to control women’s bodies or establish a theocracy is badly out of date. Donald Trump ...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States... has many ambitions, but imposing his morality on anyone clearly isn’t one of them.
Instead, he wants to topple a corrupt establishment that he believes has put both its selfish interests and a misbegotten, fuzzy-headed altruism above the well-being of the American people.
This isn’t just a governing program, but a culture crusade that includes a significant regional and class element. It channels the concerns of the Jacksonian America that is Trump’s base and, as Walter Russell Mead writes in an essay in Foreign Affairs, "felt itself to be under siege, with its values under attack and its future under threat."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/26/2017 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Because same sex marriage etc. were just the red rag vile progs used to distract public attention from the real issues?
#1
I wonder why I am bemused by this, but so enraged with BLM. Both loud, demanding special interest groups claiming oppression and agitated by speakers that gained fame through their own choices.
[TheZMan] O’Sullivan’s First Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist and former National Review editor John O’Sullivan. This is especially ironic as O’Sullivan was forced to abandon most of his right wing positions in order to avoid being purged from National Review. Diseases are often named after a famous victim, but this is the first time the victim named his disease before he contracted it.
Red State is a website that was originally started as sort of a “conservative” alternative to the left-wing blogosphere. I put quotes there because Red State’s brand of conservatism has always been the housebroken type of stuff popular on the Bush wing of the GOP. Like a lot of so-called conservatives in the Bush years, Red State was basically just a cheering section for the Republicans. Whatever Team Bush proposed, Red State branded as “Reaganesque” and “principled conservatism”, especially if it meant killing Muslims.
That probably sounds harsh, but I’m just getting started. Serial plagiarist Ben Domenech, pen for hire Joshua Trevino and the portly proselytizer Erick Erickson saw an opportunity to promote themselves, and maybe lever their popularity with conservative voters, into the careers they thought they deserved. The whole point of Red State was to ball-gargle the establishment, hoping to turn their obsequious rumpswabbery into a Jonah Goldberg lifestyle. The three of them are emblematic of what went wrong with conservatism.
Continued on Page 49
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[LA Times] With President Trump in the Oval Office, California officials are bracing for the possibility that the new administration will undermine the state’s landmark policies on climate change. But the more immediate threat isn’t coming from Washington; it lies in a lawsuit that has been slowly winding its way through state courts.
[Breitbart] Restaurants are rapidly going out of business in the Bay Area, after San Francisco passed a $15 minimum wage law in 2014 and the State of California followed suit in 2016. Yet the media are struggling to make the connection between high minimum wages and restaurant closures.
[NYPOST] The nation’s foremost culture warrior is President Trump.
