420blazeit69

Once OMB signs off, the DEA will take public comment on the plan to move marijuana from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids, following a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department. After the public comment period and a review by an administrative judge, the agency would eventually publish the final rule.

A very good development for reducing mass incarceration, but:

1. Listen Fat, this is too little too late to save the 2024 election, if it'll have even gone into effect by then.
2. How fucking incompetent are Democrats that they're taking the clock down to zero on this obvious win that should have been a "first 100 days" item.

https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/food/2024/03/20/salt-lake-city-bakery-is-denied/

Guy wants a liquor license for his bakery. Does $25K in renovations and gets new insurance costing an additional $10K annually, and only after all of that does he bother to see if he can get a liquor license at that location. Turns out he can't, due to an unambiguous law, a measurement you could have taken from Google Earth, and a church (where they fucking mummify people lol) that's been around for 50 years.

The media response to lighting tens of thousands of dollars on fire because you didn't do basic shit involved in running a business? A sympathetic half-puff piece that of course never raises the idea that you could have figured this shit out on a computer in an hour for free, or maybe paid a lawyer a lot less than $35K+ to do the research for you.

The response was surprising to Abuhamdeh, who recalled other Girl Scout troops organizing to help families in Ukraine after Russia invaded in February 2022. According to the Girl Scouts website, a troop in Westlake, Ohio, collected medical supplies and pack first-aid kits to be distributed in Ukraine, and “also exchanged small gifts like friendship bracelets and cookies”.

Got one of those "we want you to buy reddit stock because you reddited really hard!" emails... on an account I haven't used for six years. When I did use it, I used it almost exclusively on a niche subreddit, too.

They're scraping the bottom of the barrel already

This is in the dunk tank to dunk on me for once using reddit

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russias-adaptation-advantage

(No idea how links are showing up now)

I wouldn't put much stock in the assertions of this article -- they seem steeped in anti-Russian brainworms and cite no sources or specifics -- but this is the shit you stay up on if you're a "serious" Foreign Policy Expert. And the take it's running with today is "Russia is actually better at this than Ukraine now."

Today in "imagine the reporting if the countries were flipped"

We've all heard it: "before the Civil War most Americans viewed themselves as citizens of their state first and their country second." It gets uncritically repeated at even high levels of academia (often with respect to the revolutionary era as well). Well, it's bullshit, and regardless of the intention of the speaker it reinforces the lie that Confederates fought the Civil War over states' rights.

This r/AskHistorians post serves as an example (note how the question assumes at any point most Americans viewed themselves primarily as state citizens) and the top comment outlines the evidence that's usually trotted out in support of the myth:

1. Robert E. Lee said he really totally wanted to fight for the Union, but was just too loyal to Virginia!

Wow, you're telling me a guy who viewed himself as a noble gentleman warrior, and who was appealing to people who viewed themselves similarly, said he was fighting for something more justifiable than chattel slavery? The institution that even southern slaveowners privately acknowledged was wrong for generations? This "evidence" (it's amazing how commonly this specific anecdote is raised, it's even the first point our reddit historian brings up!) should be given the same weight as Eichmann's defense of himself in Jerusalem, especially in light of Lee personally owning slaves. It could not more transparently be a self-serving lie.

2. People used to say "the United States are," not "the United States is"!

Another incredibly common defense of this myth that collapses under even the slightest scrutiny. As another commenter on that post points out, the available textual evidence doesn't even support this -- as far as we can tell today, by the 1860s "the United States is" had been the most common phrasing for 30 years. That 30-year period also happens to be the first 30 years where one could say formal American English (at least spelling and definitions) began to be standardized. Noah Webster's first American English dictionary was published in 1828, a decade or two before the first experiments in public education. And of course we must account for a period of "linguistic settling" (a term I just made up), that is, the period between when a need arises for a new phrase and when one possible phrasing becomes dominant/formally recognized (see: Twitter rebranding to X and there still being no dominant/formally recognized way of phrasing how to describe posting to X, to replace "tweeting" or "tweeted"). All told, at best we can draw no conclusion from how people used "United States" in the lead up to the Civil War; at worst the actual evidence points to the consensus trending towards "United States is" decades before the conflict.

3. Communication and transport got so much easier after the Civil War!

This is a slippery one, because while mutual contact is indeed a key part of forming a national identity, focusing on railroads and telegraphs vastly undersells how much contact there was between even the pre-Revolution American Colonies. On the face of it, of course there was substantial mutual contact prior to 1776, because how else would the colonials have conceived and executed a jointly-orchestrated rebellion in the first place? A generation before the Declaration of Independence you had the 1754 Albany Plan of Union, a plan for "a more centralized government" adopted by representatives from seven colonies, followed shortly by the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which cast the colonies as Britain's collective representative in North America, which contributed to a shared series of colony/metropole issues that directly influenced the eventual Revolution, and which was started in no small part due to westward colonial expansion -- a common interest of all colonies in opposition to the Crown, that the new United States would inherit as a collective interest and project after independence. One of the less-upvoted comments (of course) in the r/AskHistorians post helpfully points out that the new states ceded their westward land claims to the new nation, and that the 80 years of indigenous genocide and white settlement were a decidedly national project, enforced by the U.S. Army and managed by the U.S. federal government. I'm supposed to believe the people that spent most of a century united in cutting a bloody path across an entire continent actually viewed themselves as only partially invested in such an expansive national project? Extensive documentation of pre-independence (to say nothing of pre-Civil War) communication and political cooperation can be found in Gerald Horne's The Counter-Revolution of 1776 (re: cooperating to keep down slave rebellions and kill the indigenous, commercial ties binding the entire country to the slave economy, the conscious forming of the white identity out of European castoffs in support of the above) and Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities (more specific detail on what newspapers were published throughout the colonies, how frequently, and when).

There's also the question of who exactly we're talking about when we speak of people forming national or state allegiances. I'd imagine enslaved people generally had low allegiance to either tier of oppressor in the antebellum South. Free black people saw discrimination at local and national levels in both the North and South, as did various groups of immigrants, although in material terms your European immigrants could obtain free real estate from the federal government in federal territories that were sometimes decades from achieving statehood, which was likely reflected in whether they viewed themselves as a national or state citizen first. Certainly plenty of people's response to "do you view yourself first as a national or state citizen?" would have been "dude I'm trying to grill here," or "uh I'm explicitly disenfranchised because I'm a woman/don't meet the wealth requirement/am not pale enough." Indigenous Americans, who were not made into U.S. citizens until well into the 20th century, would be even more dismissive of the question.

In short, of the people this myth even meaningfully applies to, it's complete bullshit by the time of the Civil War. Generously speaking, it's a strained argument even around the revolutionary era, considering the colonies declared independence, fought a war, and then formed a national government as one. My theory is it was originally nurtured by "states' rights" losers, with a sprinkling of constitutional originalists, but draw me the Venn diagram on that one.

By not voting for Trump. "Not voting for one guy is a vote for the other guy" is a great time saver on election day

Forty-one percent of Biden supporters say they believe people who support the Republican party and its ideologies have become “so extreme in what they want that it is acceptable to use violence to stop them from achieving their goals.” Likewise, 38 percent of Trump supporters say it is OK to use violence to stop Democrats from achieving their goals...

A significant share of respondents question if democracy is no longer a viable system of governance; 31 percent of Trump supporters said America should explore alternative forms of government to ensure stability and progress, compared to 24 percent of Biden supporters.