A month or so ago, I read an article in which medical researchers stated that marijuana has been shown to cause memory loss in even casual users. Jokes abounded with "I can't remember" as the hook, line, or punch. But, all humor aside, my memory is normal. Unless I just have too much to do. Simple forgetfulness when a slew of projects races through one's mind like a constant Indy 500 is considered normal.
But today, medial researchers have announced that marijuana use can stave off Alzheimer's. See the article at cnn.com here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/10/05/pot.alzheimers.reut/index.html
Hmmm. Isn't Alzheimer's the disease that is known for causing memory loss? So how is it that a drug that causes memory loss prevents memory loss? I'm no doctor, but that makes no sense. Am I missing something here? Is this just a case of fighting fire with fire?
I don't think so. I believe this is a clear case of government disinformation. Remember our War on Drugs? Yeah, okay, now I can see some blue in the sky. Quoting Mr. Macky (from South Park), "Drugs are bad. N'kay? Marijuana is bad. N'Kay?" Well, we're not all just cartoons with big heads and little necks. However, I can picture many in our government that way.
I found another article that rather sums up how I also conclude the "medical researchers" information to be in my mind. Read it from NewsTarget.com here: http://www.newstarget.com/019340.html
It's all a matter of what the government says you can and cannot have. Big Brother is watching us. And listening to us. (But I won't address that right now.) And for those that do use marijuana, remember this: Use is one thing; abuse is another. Too much of a good thing can be bad. Maybe that's what the government is protecting us from; too much of a good thing. Maybe if we have what is "just right" for us, as dictated by government and prescribed by a doctor, it is good. Like a chair is "just right," a bowl of porridge is "just right," and a bed is "just right." Go to sleep now, Goldilocks. The bears won't hurt you.
My page for updates on my ideas and writings. Visit my writing website at: Tammy A. Branom's Write Site
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Tribe Casino Axed
The Warm Springs (Native American) Tribe has been pushing to put in a gambling casino (off-reservation) here in the Columbia River Gorge. Many local residents and businesses have opposed it vehemently. Lately, it appeared that even with all the resistance, the tribe was going to get it's way, and the casino was going in no matter what.
Then the government stepped in and told the tribe that they could not put in an off-reservation casino in a designated National Scenic Area without a valid reason why. It seems that our government wants the tribe to do a thorough examination and report explaining why they can't have it on their own property.
Although I am opposed to the casino coming into these small communities (for various reasons), I do have to say this: As in the past, what our government says the native Americans can live and thrive on is all they get. They can not have anything else nor have anything back (landwise). Is the White man (gov't) repressing the Indian? Maybe. But in this case, if you know or knew this area, you would be thankful for the intervention.
Then the government stepped in and told the tribe that they could not put in an off-reservation casino in a designated National Scenic Area without a valid reason why. It seems that our government wants the tribe to do a thorough examination and report explaining why they can't have it on their own property.
Although I am opposed to the casino coming into these small communities (for various reasons), I do have to say this: As in the past, what our government says the native Americans can live and thrive on is all they get. They can not have anything else nor have anything back (landwise). Is the White man (gov't) repressing the Indian? Maybe. But in this case, if you know or knew this area, you would be thankful for the intervention.
Mr. Bill Born Again!

With all the unusual items with images of Christ and the Virgin Mary showing up, I've been on the look-out for holy intervention so I can cash in on the craze. So, while looking for rivershells recently, I spotted a face on a rock.
Unfortunately, it looks like Mr. Bill (he's a puppet character from old SNL shows). Or maybe a ghost. Nonetheless, I thought I would post his mug here for anyone to examine.
Pluto--not a full-fledged planet.
Well, well, well, they've finally decided to drop Pluto's status to "dwarf planet." This seems to be causing a bit of hubbub in society. I don't see a reason to remove it from everything--afterall, it is still a "planet" albeit a dwarf one.
What concerns me about this is the fact that 40,000 astronomers got together to define this once and for all. How do you actually define a planet when we have never been to Pluto, never sent a probe there to examine it, and may never send anything? How can we be so blatantly egotistic as to believe that we know what a planet actually consists of when we are only just now able to peer into the vastness of space to see other "planets" but not know what they are made of? We can't even be absolutely positive of what the planets in our own solar system are made of. Oh, there are the educated scientific guesses that have been handed to us as truth, but is it really the truth? Our own history changes every day. Scientific "facts" change weekly. Nothing is solid because we are still learning.
And why are we worried about Pluto anyway? How much taxpayer money was spent on this planetary definition? Shouldn't scientists and astronomers be more concerned with what affects our own planet? Why worry about definitions? Reasons why seem more important today. Why does Pluto have an eccentric orbit? Can it collide with us in some fluke turn of events? Is Pluto actually in the Kuiper Belt or outside of it? There are definitely other things I would like to know other than what some group "thinks" it should be.
And how much did we pay for that, again?
What concerns me about this is the fact that 40,000 astronomers got together to define this once and for all. How do you actually define a planet when we have never been to Pluto, never sent a probe there to examine it, and may never send anything? How can we be so blatantly egotistic as to believe that we know what a planet actually consists of when we are only just now able to peer into the vastness of space to see other "planets" but not know what they are made of? We can't even be absolutely positive of what the planets in our own solar system are made of. Oh, there are the educated scientific guesses that have been handed to us as truth, but is it really the truth? Our own history changes every day. Scientific "facts" change weekly. Nothing is solid because we are still learning.
And why are we worried about Pluto anyway? How much taxpayer money was spent on this planetary definition? Shouldn't scientists and astronomers be more concerned with what affects our own planet? Why worry about definitions? Reasons why seem more important today. Why does Pluto have an eccentric orbit? Can it collide with us in some fluke turn of events? Is Pluto actually in the Kuiper Belt or outside of it? There are definitely other things I would like to know other than what some group "thinks" it should be.
And how much did we pay for that, again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

