Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement's Marijuana Eradication Project

On the next Wise Guys, we'll have Office of Drug Control Policy Director, Marv Van Haaften, DNE Director, Ken Carter and Ms. Janet Zwick with the Iowa Department of Health, who will educate us on the negative effects of pot on our society.  We'll
extol the virtues of our drug laws and the state's efforts to clean the scum off the streets.

I don't do drugs. Well, not the illegal kind anyway. I've been known to crack open a Bud Light while barbecuing on the deck, but there's no law against that and I don't abuse it. Come to think of it, if pot were legal, who's to say I wouldn't light up once in a while -- and not abuse it either.

Hence comes NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). This national lobby says there's nothing
fundamentally wrong with occasional and responsible marijuana use by adults and for medicinal purposes -- and they don't believe those particular kinds of uses should be against the law.

I'll ask some tough questions about whether pot is really a "gateway drug" and why statistics seem to focus on the worst of the worst in society, and never really appear to conclude that marijuana use is such a big killer and must be stopped. In fact, out of all the research materials I've read, I can only positively conclude that marijuana is illegal and that it, if abused, might harm you.

Nevertheless, our job is to serve the community and educate you about things that you should know. Pot is illegal and if you grow it, consume it, sell it or use it, state law enforcement official will come after you. Pot is also very dangerous. It stifles learning. If abused, pot can cause a number of health problems. And if you drive while under its influence, you are
dramatically less able to control your vehicle, meaning, you might kill someone. In reality, marijuana use is nothing to take lightly and public education about its use and abuse is needed. That's where begin our discussion Saturday, July 26 at 11 AM on Newsradio 1040 WHO!

Nine-eleven and Iraq: It's Left vs Right

Everywhere we look, there's hostility on the airwaves and in the newspapers and on the net. The left blast the Whitehouse for hastily assembling a case for war against the former Iraqi regime and the right squabash 'dems' for their apparent distrust. In my view, both sides are full of hot air.

I think citizens are, for the most part, very careful to measure the sensational words they hear and read, and are willing to drill down to the literal meaning of these contrasting statements. For instance, one story cited that a majority of Germans think the US staged the September 11 attacks. But when you get to the exact verbage, you learn that a few Germans believe it's "possible" that Americans "could have" been behind the assault on our soil. When you put it that way, you would have to either be naive or have full faith that no one in our country could possibly benefit from such action. The truth is that people everywhere do bad and nasty things. And everything that happens will benefit someone somewhere. So sure, it is conceivable, while improbable.

I do think that the Whitehouse carefully crafted its campaign to bring force to bear in Iraq. I think the left plays on public feelings that war is bad. Both sides exhibiting over-zealous and presumptious behavior. None of the talking heads speak for me, or against me. No one, to date, has hit the nail on the head in reflecting how I, as an American citizen, really feel about all this.

I think trusting the government -- any government -- is afundamentally bad policy for all people. I reserve my faith for God, and I generally only trust good friends. If you're a politician and you want my support and my vote, you'd better prove every day that you're up to the task of making the right choices on my behalf. I will not leave you unchecked and I will hold your feet to the fire if you deceive me.

I think it's a cheap shot to suggest anti-war protestors don't support our troops. I was a soldier. Yes, I was willing to fight and die for America. I still believe in the prinicples of our founding fathers and the rights of people to live free and not to have those liberties our men of war died to protect taken from them. So I support our troops. However, soldiers follow orders given to them, ultimately by the government -- that entity no one should trust. Realizing this truth means you sometimes oppose what soldiers do, but you do so without personally blaming them. Why is it so tough for our outspoken members of society to refelect this dynamic in their rhetoric? Perhaps they truly do not have faith in peoples' reasoning abilities.

Along with many of the values we have lost over the last generation, we have lost the ability and skill to debate. We now argue and accuse. We fight like playground bullies. And we do so in front of the children, which ultimately defines who they become. I hope the silent majority still believe they can make a difference, and will vote with their feet at every corner. I hope the thoughtful of our society keep speaking out and objecting to the sophomoric bickering.

We are one country and many peoples. But we get to define who we are by the words and actions we choose. I hope the hostility and in-fighting will subside very soon.

Proposed legislation to make file sharing a felony

In response to this crazy news story.

This is goofy gubment at work again (see H.R 2517).  This kind of action will have a dramatic chilling effect on technology innovation.

In my humble opinion, file sharing is a fascinating innovation and might otherwise become an important collaboration tool of our hi-tech world. 
I want to be able to share my discoveries and developments with my peers so all can benefit. 
Copyright laws need to fairly serve the public first, and the producers second. 
Studios, networks, artists and their support organizations need to be in step with progress through technology and innovation -- and not suppress it!

But this is
obviously NOT about the artists. It's much more about the money-hungry associations, licensing companies, networks and studios. 
The actual artists, whom 'they' claim to serve, get almost nothing for their
trouble, winding up with a very small chunk of what the consumers pay for the materials. I'd like to see
artists getting more of the pie, even if it means pushing out the big guys, like the RIAA.

And it's too bad that Napster didn't build in a nominal fee to get
those artists paid, as they should.  I want to help artists and encourage them through my payments. 
But alas, Napster didn't want to do that, so we all have to pay for it.  Legislators ought to take note that people like me want to pay, and in fact would spend more on P2P file sharing than would normally spend on CDs. 
But not $1 a song. More like $3/mo or $100/yr.  At a buck a song, I'd have gone broke! 
And what I want is older music, the stuff that doesn't make money any more. 
60s, 70s and 80s music.  And I'd gladly pay for it -- if there was a way to
do so!

Making criminals of good people here is taking the easy way out.  I suggest to RIAA and others, get creative, do your homework and embrace technology, not thwart it.

-- Danny