Monkeys and Bannanas

Author: Unknown
Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result – all the monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, turn off the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The new comer goes to the stairs and is attacked.

The previous newcomer participates in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Again, replace a third original monkey with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well.

Two of the four monkeys that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys that have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced.

Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs. Why not?

BECAUSE AS FAR AS THEY KNOW THAT’S THE WAY IT’S ALWAYS BEEN AROUND HERE.

And that is how company policy begins…

A Quote from Ronald Reagan

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

OC Weekly Reports on Bill Hunt for OC Sheriff 2010

From

By R. Scott Moxley
Wed., Jan. 27 2010 @ 8:32PM

Bill Hunt, a conservative Republican candidate hoping to lead the Orange County Sheriff's Department, tonight blasted The Orange County Register for allegedly botching his response to a recent call from OC Republican boss Scott Baugh that all GOP candidates should reject endorsements and contributions from public employee unions.

According to Hunt, veteran Register columnist Frank Mickadeit erroneously reported on January 19 that he, Hunt, "stood up" at a GOP central committee meeting and stated he'd "abide by the Baugh mandate," a claim Hunt says was "copied and recirculated as if this assertion was true."


In an e-mail tonight to supporters, Hunt said that Mickadeit's "assertions are completely incorrect and a misinterpretation of the statements I made and the positions I hold."

Mickadeit, who has reduced his work at the Register while he attends Chapman Law School classes, hailed Baugh's anti-union idea as original and courageous (but not necessarily right).

Hunt, who is likely to win support from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS)--the county's largest and most powerful law enforcement lobby, says Baugh's proposal would have a "chilling" effect on free speech rights in elections.


Hunt also noted that he contacted Mickadeit on January 23 for a retraction but didn't get a response.

Mickadeit told me this evening that he's been covering a complicated criminal trial and indeed owes Hunt a returned call. He said he will make a sincere effort to review his notes "to see if I made any mistakes."

"If I was wrong, I will definitely apologize," said Mickadeit. "But I do remember that Scott Baugh asked everyone in the audience who believes in his idea to stand up. Bill Hunt stood up for 10 or 15 minutes and when he spoke he said that he's been saying the same thing for five years. He got a lot of applause for saying that."

In his e-mail, Hunt says his statements solely addressed reckless government spending and not suppressing public unions.

"Scott Baugh doesn't speak for me," Hunt told me in a phone interview tonight. "He's new to reform. What I was telling him that night was: welcome to the party. He's been the hypocrite. He's trying to make the deputies' union the enemy. That's crazy. If he's upset with what AOCDS has earned then he should blame all the Republicans he helped put on the board of supervisors that approved the [early deputy retirement] deals. Now, all of sudden, when an outsider like me could get their endorsement, he pulls this. It's incredible."

Mickadeit said he will address the controversy in an upcoming column.

Along with Anaheim Deputy Police Chief Craig Hunter, Hunt--a former high ranking OCSD deputy--is challenging Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, who was the appointed choice to finish sheriff-turned-convicted-felon Mike Carona's term in office.

--R. Scott Moxley / OC Weekly

My Position on the OC GOP Chairman's "Mandate"

Bill Hunt's "My Position on the OC GOP Chairman's 'Mandate'"

Posted using ShareThis

Bill Hunt for Sheriff

Taxpayer-Subsidized Dope

Think I’m kidding? Think again. Proposition 215 created an exemption for the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Here is the text of what we voted on:

"Proposition 215

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

This initiative measure adds a section to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, ''primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.
SEC. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable."

There are really only two sections which are affirmative. First, Section 1(b)(2)(c) exempts physicians from prosecution or other sanctions for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. The second important section is Section 1(b)(2)(d) which exempts those who possess marijuana for medical purposes of the patient who “possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.” (Emphasis added)

So anyone with any illness which might be relieved by the use of marijuana can grow, purchase, and use marijuana without fear of prosecution. I like the idea that a cancer patient or other sick person might find comfort through the use of any drug but I’m not so sure that ANY ILLNESS as the law notes is a good basis. All teens go through a period of anxiety while going through puberty. Since anxiety is suppressed with marijuana does that mean teens should all smoke a little dope to mellow out? I know a few parents who would gladly give their kids marijuana if it would make a positive difference. The problems, though, are many and using marijuana to cope with life situations is the same as getting drunk to deal with troubles at work. It is the same as using amphetamines to stay awake when your body needs to rest.  Of course we can trivialize marijuana use with graphics like these:

Aside from the obvious abuse of marijuana as a “medical necessity” we need to consider the impact of socialized healthcare, the use of this powerful drug, and who will pay for it all. Will our new and improved government provided medical care cover costs associated with marijuana? Imagine paying a special income tax to specifically cover marijuana for anyone with any illness…

Here is an excellent read on the violence behind legalized marijuan.