HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Fumesucker » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 60 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 29, 2008, 10:11 PM
Number of posts: 44,973

Journal Archives

Q: Do you buy the party unity argument?

A: I don't..

At 0:35

Forget the war on drugs: Alcohol ruins more lives than all other drugs combined


While our current political conversations often involve concerned discussions about marijuana’s imagined dangers or potential benefits (recall that the most recent Republican and Democratic debates both dedicated time to the question of pot legalization), our most problematic relationship actually seems to be with alcohol. America, it seems, has a drinking problem—and studies indicate it is only getting worse. There are real reasons, in addition to the pressing issue of mass incarceration and the failure of the drug war, for us to start thinking seriously about the cost of our increasing reliance on alcohol when we consider the ravages of drug use. Particularly since the toll of alcohol, though often left out of that conversation, actually outpaces those of every other legal and illicit drug combined.

Drinking is on the rise in the U.S. Precipitously. A study released this year from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation finds that heavy drinking among Americans rose 17.2 percent between 2005 and 2012. Not only are Americans drinking more, but in an increasing number of cases, they’re consuming those drinks in rapid succession. The same study found that binge drinking increased 8.9 percent nationally during the same time frame. In 2012, 8.2 percent of Americans were heavy drinkers, meaning they had one drink per day on average over the course of a month. An additional 18.3 percent of Americans that year fit the description of binge drinkers, defined by the CDC as men who have five or more drinks and women who have four or more drinks in a single drinking session.

(. . .)

The price of drinking is astronomical in every way. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control finds that binge drinking among Americans costs the country nearly $250 billion annually in lost productivity in the workplace, alcohol-related crimes and treatment for the health issues that result from excessive alcohol consumption. While the wages of Americans’ boozing have always been pretty high, the study notes that costs have notably increased in recent years. In 2006, the price of binge drinking for the nation was $223.5 billion, the equivalent of $1.90 per drink. By 2010, the figure rose to $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lion’s share of those costs, 77 percent, were related to binge drinking.

Of far greater concern should be the ways in which alcohol destroys lives. The CDC estimates that alcohol was linked to 88,000 annual deaths in America between 2006-2010, while the agency found that 38,329 people died of drug overdoses in 2010. According to the Foundation for a Drug-Free World, alcohol is the cause of death for more American teenagers than all other drugs combined, and is “a factor in the three leading causes of death among 15- to 24-year-olds: accidents, homicides and suicides.” The New York Times reports that, on average, six Americans die of alcohol poisoning each day. Three quarters of those who died were 35 to 64 years old. And 30 percent of Americans report that they’ve had enough struggles with alcohol at some point in their lives that it could be considered a problem.

When Bernie loses the nomination will Hillary ask her donors to pay off his massive campaign debt?


June 25 , 2008

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has asked top contributors to help former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton retire the debt from her failed presidential campaign, an Obama campaign source said.

Obama and Clinton ran a protracted race for the Democratic presidential nomination that left Clinton with a campaign debt of more than $22 million when she bowed out this month.

About $12 million of that amount is money the senator from New York loaned to the campaign herself.

Obama asked members of his National Finance Committee to contribute to Clinton's campaign if they were so inclined, but he did not direct them to do so, the Obama campaign source said Tuesday.

Remember when all us Berniebros were Obama haters before we were Hillary haters?

I went digging around in the DU archives from 2012 and found my own words about the first Obama v Romney debate, the one Obama supposedly "lost" to Rmoney if you listened to the pundits and most of DU at the time.


Obama is a long game player and DU is relentlessly about the short game for the most part.

Obama stood aside and let Romney be Romney and now everybody's talking about the bird.

I think it was Napoleon who said not to interrupt when your enemy is destroying himself.



It wouldn't surprise me if Obama is setting up a kind of political "bank shot"

Makes it look like he clean missed in the first debate but I suspect he's setting Romney up to clean his clock in the second debate.

Of course I don't pay any attention to the media at all so my attitude in this matter is not informed by their horse race coverage.

One big reason for the divisiveness IMO: If you aren't divisive you are talking to yourself

Let's face it, divisive OPs get replies, often lots and lots of replies, those who post divisive OPs get attention, those who don't remain wallflowers.

You can tell the non-divisive but good OPs, they have more recs than replies, sometimes a lot more.


Just like out in real life, the glib talker gets the attention while the person who might actually have something to say that's worth listening to sits in the corner ignored.


How to write an OP in GD that sinks like a stone

1) Avoid snarky and divisive titles

2) Don't broad brush groups

3) Be serious and at least try to see more than one perspective

4) Avoid personal attacks on other DUers

5) Post about something other than the current GD obsession du jour

That's my top five, what are your hints and tips for writing OPs that are guaranteed to drop into total obscurity?

Another site I've been reading since 2002-3 or so is in the can now for Hillary

They haven't had a front page post on the Democratic primary since the debate, it's all about the Republicans or random bullshit.

I stopped bothering to read the threads any more and the place used to be really interesting with all political views from far right to extreme left, now it's establishment Democrats only. All real politics is taking place within the Democratic party these days and they don't want to talk about it.

It made me a bit sad, like losing a long time acquaintance.

The goal of the media until the election is first to milk the candidates for money

Which basically means that some candidates must be kept within remotely plausible striking range of the front runner or else there is no reason for any of them to spend money on ads.

The second goal of the media of course is to make sure that the established system is maintained as nearly as possible to the status quo, that is where their wealth and power flowered and from whence it flows now, radical change is bad because it will upset the power and wealth structure.

Note here that I'm not necessarily talking about some grand conspiracy but rather a lot of different self interests coinciding in similar behavior.

The media has no interest in letting any candidate get too far ahead, no big ad buys in that scenario, no they want a horse race but they want the politician most committed to the status quo to be the eventual winner of that horse race.

The media lost the debate, the American people won it

I think the Patton Oswalt tweet I posted a little while ago sums up the job the media did...

"A Vanderbilt heir is grilling the candidates on socialism."

On the other hand the candidates comported themselves far better than the media did and I think the American people will respond well to hearing some sanity for a change.

Patton Oswalt tweet: A Vanderbilt heir is grilling the candidates on socialism.

I rarely use this smiley but...

Bernie Sanders’ progressive blind spot: The Middle Eastern tragedy he refuses to address


One of the most appealing qualities of Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the presidency is how consistent he is. While Hillary Clinton continually faces questions about her changing positions, Sanders is seen as the good kind of broken record; someone who says what progressives want to hear over and over again, for decades.

But there is one issue about which Sanders used to be much more outspoken, and has in recent years become very quiet: Palestine. Considering the elevated role of the Israel-Palestine issue in progressive circles, and Sanders’ continued success leading up to the primaries, it’s worth revisiting Sanders’ history on the topic and his early approach to foreign policy.

(. . .)

Sander’s basic thinking on Israel-Palestine was on display at a recent event in Chicago; a young Muslim student told him that “progressives have great ideas when it comes to race, class and many other issues, but often not as progressive of ideas when it comes to the Israel-Palestine question. Very simply, could you state your position on Israel-Palestine?”

Sanders responded: “In terms of Israel and Palestine you are looking at one of the more depressing tragedies that has gone on in the world for the last 60 years. And I would not be telling you the truth if I said I have a magical solution. But this is what I do believe. I believe in two simple principles. Number one, Israel has a right to exist in peace and security. The Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own with full political and economic power. That’s the broad view that I hold and I will do everything that I can to make that happen.”
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 60 Next »