Why We Should Care About Trump's Tweets.

Kellyanne  Conway asked reporters, "Why do you care?" when asked about President-elect Trump's tweets scolding the cast of Hamilton. “In other words, who is to say that he can't do that, make a comment, spend five minutes on a tweet and making a comment and still be the president-elect?” she continued. 

Trump posted several tweets on the subject. 
 Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

5:56 AM - 19 Nov 2016

He also claimed the cast had "harassed" Pence, though the Veep- elect said he wasn't offended. The cast spoke from the stage, saying “we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir.”

Conway's defensiveness on the issue is notable. She accused the reporter of "assigning malice and wrongdoing to him where it doesn't exist," and attempted to deflect the question by saying that Trump's 100-day agenda was more important. More on that exchange can be found here.

So here's my explanation as to why we SHOULD care.

1. Trump thought it was important enough to post on a public forum, and Twitter is currently the only news we are receiving directly from Mr. Trump. Asking about his opinions is not only valid, but essential to our understanding of the man who holds power over our future.

2. Trump didn't tweet about his first 100 days, leading us to wonder why he's more concerned about lashing out at people with a different opinion than laying out his agenda.

3. He demanded an apology for rudeness, which is one of the most hypocritical things he could do. 

4. Trump exaggerated the offense that wasn't even offensive, and there's a name for this: gaslighting. His behaviors frequently fit the patterns of emotional abuse, and this should not be ignored. This is how domestic abusers talk about the women they batter. 

5. It makes us wonder if Trump will complain EVERY time someone uses free speech to an end with which Trump disagrees, or if he may take a harsher tactic once he is in power. This is truly terrifying. 

6. He's twisting the truth again. Hamilton's cast tried to be polite, even calling Pence "sir," but it doesn't fit Trump's petulant narrative of how "very rude" the whole world is to him, so he "rebranded" it as "harassment." His spreading of misinformation and closing out the press mirror famous grabs for power, and now nothing the state-owned media of Russia says can be trusted. Freedom of the Press and Speech are essential to an informed democracy. 

7. We have been warned about Trump's love for revenge, and though he may candy-coat it with victim-blaming, unleashing his Twitter followers is a classic Trump move to make sure the people he disagrees with truly are harassed. He destroys people financially and socially all the time, and it often starts with a tweet. Will he up the ante as President? Who is next?

8. Has Conway seriously never heard of Orwell's 1984? 

Book Review: The Charisma Code by Robin Sol Lieberman

I met Robin Sol Lieberman ten years ago when I discovered the Family of Fire, but her reputation had preceded her. I was not disappointed: even here in this magickal world in the desert with drums and dancing and joyous song created by this tribe of amazing people, Robin is a standout figure, passionate and liberated yet present and caring. Her smile is bright and infectious. Indeed, no word describes Robin better than Charismatic.

As impressed as I am by her ability to distill the essence of that elusive charisma and present it in a clear and engaging manner, I had no idea The Charisma Code was the secret puzzle piece I was seeking. Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth left me inspired to be more mindful, and Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People helped me communicate better, but Robin demonstrates a powerfully synergistic approach to interacting with the world on all levels, finding the path of least resistance to effect the greatest change. Robin is friendly and playful as she coaxes the reader to trust in their inherent uniqueness as their Purpose, to give freely of themselves, and forge deeper connections. It left me feeling confident, inspired, and aware.

The Carisma Code is a book I would highly recommend and even give as a gift to many people. It's packed with life-improving advice with the appeal of Oprah Winfrey, and is not intimidating to the light reader. It sparks discussion and connection, making it perfect for book clubs, and the instant practicality of the wisdom is immediately fulfilling. I don't know anyone who wouldn't benefit from some aspect of this multifaceted gem.

The White House's Response, and My Refute

On July 21, I sent a letter to the White House. This is the second open letter I've written to President Obama on the subject of cannabis legalization. I sent the first in December of last year, and have not yet received a response. This is highly unusual, and I do feel it has received attention. It can be found here.

The second letter has been by far the most popular blog post I've ever written. It can be found here.

On August 5th I received a response from the White House staff, about 2 weeks after I sent my letter, as is the normal response time. Here is their response:

Thank you for writing.  The Obama Administration is committed to developing policies based on science and research, and the Federal Government has been funding and reviewing studies to better understand marijuana’s effects on individuals, public health, and safety. 

This Administration opposes marijuana legalization, and our policy approach focuses on improving public health and safety through prevention, treatment, support for recovery, and innovative criminal justice strategies to break the cycle of drug use and crime.  A considerable body of evidence shows that marijuana use, especially chronic use that begins at a young age, is associated with serious health and social problems.  

Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has tripled since 1990, raising serious public health concerns.

At the same time, we share public concerns about ensuring limited Federal enforcement resources are dedicated to pursuing our highest enforcement priorities, such as preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of marijuana by criminal enterprises and gangs, preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana, and preventing drugged driving and other adverse public health consequences.  We will also closely monitor implementation of marijuana legalization in individual States and prevent the diversion of marijuana to States that have not legalized its use, sale, or distribution.  Outside of its highest enforcement priorities, the Federal Government has traditionally relied on State and local agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.

Like many people, we are also interested in the potential marijuana components may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses.  That is why we support ongoing research into evaluating what components of the marijuana plant may be used as medicine.  To date, though, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

Thank you for making your voice heard.  You can learn more about the President’s approach to drug control atwww.WhiteHouse.gov/ONDCP.

Sincerely,

The White House

***Here's my response to them:


Dear White House mail room staff,

Thank you for the timely response to my letter. It is good to hear that the Administration committed to basing policy on science, but it's disappointing to hear such outdated and inaccurate information used to back up its positions. 

I have written a line-by line refute of your response on my blog, with links to the data, study, or review whenever possible.

Thank you for proving my point: the Administration needs to update it's information and stance on cannabis prohibition. I await your response.

***Here is my refute:

First they claim that a "considerable body of evidence shows that marijuana use, especially chronic use that begins at a young age, is associated with serious health and social problems."

On the subject of chronic use on health, this study tells us it's about as bad as not flossing, but no other health issues were noted. Cannabis is not a cause of mental disorders and has even been shown to improve symptoms in bipolar patients without additional cognitive impairment. Use of cannabis is associated with better outcomes in brain injury patients and lower mortality rates in heart attack victims. It has been shown to slow the spread of cancer and synthetic THC appears to kill leukemia. I have yet to see a recent study that reveals any of the "serious health problems" the Administration referenced, and unlike virtually all other drugs, cannabis overdose is not fatal. Regardless of it's potential benefits, something being unhealthy, addictive, or intoxicating is not grounds for its prohibition, as demonstrated by alcohol and tobacco.

I'd like to point out that legalization has been associated with a decline in teen use, as reported by the CDC, and supported by this study and this study. And this study looked at teenaged twins and found no direct connection between marijuana use and IQ decline. Here's another with similar results. It needs to be noted that alcohol is the gateway drug, not cannabis, as so long has been claimed. Thus we see that harsh prohibition laws do not actually protect teens.

They mention "social issues". This study says work absences decline when cannabis is legalized. It diminishes aggressivenes. The legalization of cannabis is also associated with explosive economic growth, creating jobs in a new billion-dollar industry in Colorado, and amazing tax revenue. Medicare spends less when cannabis is available, too. Ultimately, there is no instance when a black market is preferable to a regulated one. Regulation solves the problems of "preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of marijuana by criminal enterprises and gangs, preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation" that the Administration said they are worried about. They want to "stop the cycle of crime?" They need to stop criminalizing it. 

 The myth that cannabis potency has tripled is based on incomplete information, which is backed up by statements from a July 2004 report from the EMCDDA. Also, the THC content of a plant varies dramatically based on quality of care. There has traditionally been little transparency into government approved growing, until Sen. Elizabeth Warren got involved. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also exposed that the NIDA monopoly on research cannabis production is unwarranted. Controlling the only available research material severely limits sample diversity, and any good scientist knows that skews results. In 2011 I wrote to Harry Reid about labs that reported receiving very low quality test samples from the NIDA, containing a shredded mix of the entire plant rather than cured flowers, and will look again for those references. 

The Administration expressed concern about drugged driving, but as we know from alcohol and allergy medicine, inebriative qualities are not grounds for prohibition of a substance. Additionally, the U.S. National Roadside Survey found that cannabis was not linked to higher crash risks, compared to how even legal levels of alcohol significantly increase danger. Supporting the findings of the USNRS, this review found that risk associated with cannabis was previously overstated.

In conclusion, the stale arguments in favor of prohibition are quickly dismantled when looking at the studies and data published in the last 6 months. There is no legitimate reason for cannabis to be illegal, prohibition does not protect the people from anything, black markets fuel crime and teen use, old government statistics are inaccurate, and the risks and effects don't seem nearly as negative as once claimed.

It's time for the Administration to update their information. Prohibition has failed, and legalization is a wild success in Colorado, etc. Fix the injustice, accept the $28 Billion tax the people actually want to pay, and let's deal with this as a health issue instead of a criminal one.

Letter on DEA to President Obama

Dear Mr. President Obama,

As you are aware, the American people are waiting to hear the DEA's decision on the scheduling of cannabis (marijuana), which was supposed to be released in June. Honestly, I don't trust the DEA to rule in the country's best interest. I'm not a legal scholar, but I know that laws regarding this plant are deliberately complex.

As I understand it, plants are not legally considered medicine, even when the plant has traditionally been used medicinally and components are isolated for modern medicine, as in the case of white willow (asprin) and foxglove (digitalis is used in heart medicine). Since these plants are not considered to have medicinal value, this sets the precedent that cannabis will not be given that status. But neither do we have foxglove eradication program making sure only those with prescriptions get their digitalis (after all, the plant can be poisonous in wrong dosage).  People take herbs at their own risk.

There was even a time when doctors were forbidden from admitting that herbs had any effect medically, because legally they have no medicinal value. I know a nurse practitioner who recently reversed his stance on natural remedies, once he saw the effect of peppermint oil firsthand. The asthmatic discovered he didn't need his inhaler when the oil was applied to his chest, and this flew in the face of everything he learned in medical school.

It's really difficult to trust the FDA and the DEA to not be in the pocket of Big Pharma. From here, it seems policy is more firmly shaped by pharmaceutical profits than good public policy. We see Big Pharma's fingerprints all over the opioid epidemic, and the law makes it so hard to study cannabis that it's suspicious. If cannabis sativa (sativa means "useful" in Latin) is really so dangerous as the propaganda has been telling us for so many decades, then science would confirm this. The reality is, we've been lied to, and science is proving that.

Why put so much legislation in place to keep us in the dark? Who benefits so much from prohibition? Not the American people- it creates black markets, overpopulated prisons, waste of tax revenue, and a divide with law enforcement. Adults are trusted to be responsible with alcohol, which has many known negative attributes. We've seen positive effects everywhere cannabis has been legalized, so it doesn't seem like there is any good reason for it to be illegal.

Prohibition does nothing for the good of the People, but certain special interest groups make money because of it. Doesn't this fit John Locke's definition of Tyranny, against which our Founding Fathers told us to be ever vigilant?

I have a sinking feeling that when the DEA reveals its decision, it's going to preserve the status quo as much as possible, while creating avenues for Big Pharma to cash in. So I'm asking you to please use your influence to right the injustice inherent in prohibition. We're supposed to be free to persue our happiness, and for some of us, cannabis helps us on our way. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Raven Wildchild

An open letter to President Obama on marijuana legalization

Dear Mr. President Obama,

I recently signed a petition regarding the acting DEA chief, which has since gathered over 125,000 signatures as of this writing, and have been eagarly awaiting a response from the White House. I hope your delayed response is due to deep consideration on the matter.

 I have decided to write this letter because I am not entirely satisfied with the scope and wording of the petition- I feel much was left unsaid.
Several congress members have also sent you a letter on the subject, which makes several of the important points the petition didn't address so I won't waste the words repeating theirs.

Mr. President, you have said in the past that young people should be concerned about climate change, jobs, the economy, war and peace, and that marijuana legalization should not be our highest priority. I absolutely agree those are important concerns. But someone needs to point out that the marijuana industry in Colorado has been the most successful economic and jobs booster the country has seen since the recession, and the state has profited to extremes.

 If we should be worried about climate change and the environment as you have stated, we should allow farmers to grow industrial hemp- it's a green source of biofuel, bioplastics, construction materials, paper products, clothing, food, and more. A cheap, drought resistant crop, it would stimulate our economy from farmer to consumer.

 There is no good reason this plant should be illegal. There is nothing negative about marijuana that isn't also true about alcohol or cigarettes, except its legal status, a draconian double standard. The mere fact that it is illegal creates far more problems in the world and costs the country much more money than if it were a taxable commodity. The only ones who benefit from this system are Big Money groups.

 I understand you may be concerned about the stereotypical stigma of being our first African-American president and legalizing marijuana, and the role model you present to your daughters. But the status quo is based on Victorian morality to which most of the country no longer ascribes, propaganda and corruption from Big Money, and a legacy of racism as demonstrated by the very use of the word "marijuana," as opposed to "cannabis" or "hemp."

 I have no doubt you read the recommendation to legalize from the Global Commission on Drug Policy in 2011, signed by many respected world leaders and intellectuals. They agree: it's really in the best interest of the people. But if you're unwilling to effect that, please at least overhaul the DEA so it no longer hinders progress. If the government seriously thinks that medical marijuana involves smoking the "leaves" as the acting DEA chief said, and that's what is being sent out as research grade marijuana, it's no wonder we're getting skewed results from government approved science- it's the wrong part of the plant. Research grade marijuana needs to equal the standard of medical grade marijuana buds available in dispensaries. Period.

Thank you for your time and consideration. This affects millions of Americans in our everyday lives, and we depend on you to do the right thing.

Respectfully yours,

Raven Wildchild

Response to Bill Maher, "Why do they hate us so much?"

The other day, Bill Maher asked a question regarding ISIS that stumped his panel: "Why do they hate us so much?" It's a great question, and I'm sure the Daesh have a laundry list of reasons, but those are only excuses as to why they chose to level their hate at Western society. The real question, whose answer has fueled Middle East unrest for millennia, is, "Why do people hate?" The "they" and "us" labels translate to whatever situation presents itself.

Chances are, there are things or people you hate, dear Reader. Turn on Lewis Black, and he'll have you laughing about all the things he hates. It's "cool" to hate teen pop stars if you're not a fan, and "moral" people often think they should hate wrongdoers, so as to identify oneself as "good." So hate is pretty universal, and for some reason appears easier to identify with than love.

We see it every day: acceptable, "harmless" hatred, even expected- your job, for instance. Hatred is used to influence us and to unite us. And people who hate together reinforce the rationalisation for that hatred, and what starts small escalates. The U.S. has its own history of lynch mobs and witch hunts, and even has its own religious extremists, like the ones who bomb Planned Parenthood clinics.

People turn to hate when times are tough- look at Germany between the first and second World Wars. I think there is a primal part of our brain that responds with hatred because it's easier for the primal brain to create a perceived enemy to fight than to accept the unknown in it's struggle to survive. Part of what makes us human is the ability to rise above primal instinct, so there is always hope, but rising above takes effort and people have to be motivated to do so.

 Presidential hopeful John Kasich wants to create an agency to "spread Judeo-Christian values" in the Middle East, as he believes it will promote peace and inclusiveness. Kaish is completely ignoring a number of historical events if he thinks this will actually work, like the fact that there have been Christian missionaries in the Middle East for centuries with no luck, and like the fact that Christian nations have never in practice been peaceful or inclusive (the Inquisition and the Crusades come to mind- inclusiveness is found in secular countries, like the U.S.) Any messages we try to send to the Middle East will fall upon deaf ears unless they fit into the listeners' preconceived paradigm. That is, a Muslim is going to reject Judeo-Christian messages as fervently as Christian lawmakers have rejected Wiccan prayers to be offered before meetings.

 Really, there are a lot of parallels between Islam and Christianity. Both are Abrahamic religions, broken off from Judaism, both have a messianic figure who dictates the religion's beliefs and values, both have followers who attempt to suppress alternative viewpoints and lifestyles (gay marriage, for example), and both have extremists who are willing to become violent to "defend their beliefs."

Ironically, beliefs themselves do not need defending- truth will go on being true regardless of who believes it or not, the world will go on being round whether or not the Inquisition convicts Galileo. Boys whose mother is insulted ("Your mother is a hamster, and your father smells of elderberries!") are not actually protecting their mother from whatever the other boy said when they start the fist fight. The winner of the fight will not determine whether one's mother was really a hamster or not, and no act of violence will ever prove one's religion to be true or greater than another. The idea is childish, yet we see it regularly, if in less extreme forms. People defending Christmas? From what- the right to celebrate Chanukah or Yule or Kwanzaa? It's awfully disrespectful to insist your holiday be acknowledged to the exclusion of all others. If Jesus really is the reason for the season, listen to his preaching on the Golden Rule- if you want your holiday acknowledged, do the same to others.

But there's the problem. People get so bent out of shape about who's right that they forget to follow what their divine figure taught them about peace and love. Those people have Belief, but they do not have Faith in their God's wisdom and power, which shows it's OK for people to be different, because that's how things are. If God wanted some country blasted off the face of the Earth, the Old Testament tells believers He is perfectly capable of doing so, but chooses peace. His followers are instructed to do the same. But on some level, people want to hate, and I don't understand why.

Would you go back in time to kill Hitler as a baby?

An online poll asking, "Would you go back in time to kill Adolph Hitler as a baby?" has shown that the majority of would indeed do that, given the opportunity. Presidential hopeful gave a resounding "Hell yes!" when asked the question, stating "You've got to step up."

A lot of controversy is going around regarding the Butterfly Effect of such an act, because we have no idea how that would affect the timeline. For one thing, Israel would not exist. Hitler had a huge impact on the modern world, down to American human rights- we strove to be more inclusive in our society to separate ourselves from them. Without him, who knows how history would have played out? Perhaps some other country commits the same atrocities, or another dictator takes Germany down the same path. The risk really isn't worth it.

And what about the morality of the situation? Under the historical circumstances, yes, that child did grow up to be Adolph Hitler, genocidal maniac, but at the time of his birth he was as innocent as any human being. There's another paradox here: by killing the baby Hitler, you erase his crimes, and it's no longer justice, just infanticide. You become the monster, a Herod. And isn't Jeb Bush a pro-lifer? Does he really not see the irony here? He's so proud of his Christianity, but does he forget the 10 Commandments when it matters? Other GOP candidates have suggested that only Christians are fit for the office of President (completely the opposite of the constitution), but one needs to uphold their ideals even under the most dire of circumstances, else those ideals mean nothing. Jeb, don't be a hypocristian.