-- Current goals as a gambit commenter: to say at least one intelligent thing for every five dumb things I say.
@okkate I am really saddened how Gambit is playing into the drug panic of mainstream media. The phony causal relationship is just one problem with this article. But the facts it presents doesn't support the fear they are trumpeting. 68 out of 12,000 students in the RSD are said to have been expelled from school for drugs. That means that 99.5% of students aren't in so deep with drugs that they are losing educational opportunities. Even if you presume routine drug use is ten times higher than the number being caught that would still mean that only about 5% are actually routine drug users, which means that 95% are not routine drug users.
The quote by this Tulane professor is paranoid nonsense with no peer-reviewed research to back it up. He says, "The one rule I learned as a parent is that if they tell you they're not doing something, they probably are." Really? So even innocent children should be presumed to be using drugs. Because an innocent child will say "I'm not doing drugs." This man is irresponsibly telling parents that their children are doing drugs even when, in all likelihood they aren't.
What is this guy's expertise in the matter? He's a professor in tropical medicine? What's his expertise on teen drug use? The article doesn't say. Where does he get his data from? The article doesn't say. Instead, Gambit is simply taking his word that kids who say they aren't doing drugs actually are. That's a hell of a catch 22 for innocent teens to get out of.
I can see the parent-child discussion based on this man's advice:
Parent: Son, are you doing drugs?
Son: No, of course not.
Parent: That's it! You are doing drugs, I know because a professor at Tulane said if you deny doing drugs then you really are doing drugs! I read it in the Gambit!
The child, based on the only statistics in the article, in all likelihood, isn't doing drugs, but this man says they are doing drugs if they say they are not. Really Gambit? You call yourself the "alternative press." Alternative to what? Most certainly not an alternative to the mindless scare-mongering of the mainstream press. Shame on you!
From the Spin article:
"While Hope Road legally has the trademark to the phrase in certain circumstances, Cane's retains the right in others, which has led to the Marleys' attempts to register for different uses to be denied. In the lawsuit itself, which SPIN has obtained, they make a strong case, first citing the song, which was recorded by Marley in 1965, released with the Wailers in 1977 on Exodus, and included in the 1984 hits collection Legend.
The plaintiff also points out that the BBC dubbed "One Love" song of the millennium in 2009. Furthermore, Hope Road has used "One Love" as the name of its clothing and merchandise brand, as seen on everything from T-shirts, visors, and scarves, to incense, jewelry, and bumper stickers. In order to really drive the point home, they bring up a properly licensed Universal Studios restaurant dubbed Bob Marley, a Tribute to Freedom."
I thought there were term limits for city council.
"When the conservative faction of Republicans in the House of Representatives "
No. NO. There's no conservative "faction" of Republicans in the House of Representatives. That statement implies an ideologically diverse Republican Party exists made up of, at least conservatives and moderates. That was true twenty years ago. It's not true today. In the very least they are all conservatives.
There is a right wing extremist faction in the House GOP that is called the Tea Party, but I think in terms of any traditional understanding of political science they aren't the conservative wing of the Party, and there are no moderates left in the GOP. To assert that faction is conservative is to create an imaginary world where now furthest right wing extreme is now merely "conservative", actual conservatives are "moderates" and moderate Democrats like Landrieu or Bill Nelson are now liberal. That's a heck of a shift of the Overton Window and I'm not buying it.
Norm Ornstein of the center-right American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann of the center-left Brookings Institute have thoroughly documented the far rightward shift of the House GOP, and to pretend that there's any moderate among them is to confuse the issue.
I am not a fan of hyper local legislating anyway, and that's exactly what these "neighborhood agreements" are in the first place. What would be the reaction if neighborhood associations made local clubs agree not to advertise themselves as "gay bars" in order to get a permit? Would you accept the city's explanation that this would not constitute "a ban on gay bars" I mean there wouldn't be any "planned ordinance" to ban gay bars, right? So, would that explanation suffice?
Now, as a gay man I certainly don't wish to compare gay people to go cups, because we are not, in fact, cups. But not officially banning stuff (no advertising as a gay bar is actually stuff) while allowing "neighborhood" back room (and non-democratic) deals to unofficially ban stuff is still banning stuff.
Team Natalie here. When you say you aren't banning go cups, but all new licenses require some kind of "good neighbor" agreement whereby you are barred from giving out go cups (and appealing to a lone exception is sophistry), then there may not be a de jure ban, there is a de facto ban -- at least if your neighborhood has an "agreement" with its establishments not to have go cups.
I tend to be a dissident type. I can be kind of cynical, but AhContraire is just a troll.
I'd prefer Kermit to the others. But in my dissident-y way might I suggest that we find a New Orleans artist who doesn't have a traditional New Orleans sound? You know break the "New Orleans Saints" touchdown song mold -- break the stereotypes about New Orleans music.
What would a Generationals' Saints song sound like? Got any synthy or electronic type stuff we could go with?
I'm curious about some of this. Doesn't Georges risk the ire of his Baton Rouge customers by cutting the Baton Rouge staff at the same time he's expanding the New Orleans staff? And, how many of these "buy out" reporters may, over time, find themselves working for the "New Orleans Advocate"?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation