Thursday, December 30, 2010
masterwordsmith-unplugged: Is the Sun Setting for Pakatan Rakyat Selangor?
masterwordsmith-unplugged: Is the Sun Setting for Pakatan Rakyat Selangor?: "Complacency is a dangerous feeling of self-satisfaction or contentment that can blind one to imminent danger, trouble, or controversy. It ap..."
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
WikiLeaks And It's Leaking.
Balance in the availability of information must be maintained
ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI
MANY things are private and confidential. Even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as with all journalists, believes in keeping his own sources secret and takes great pains to do so.
He is also secretive about his private life and isn’t comfortable with the bits of information that have come out about him.
In short, the man who has wrecked governments worldwide with classified material leaks, also believes in the importance of secrecy.
In an oxymoron way, he is defending secrecy in order to attack it, as Time wrote recently.
But for Assange, the rule doesn’t apply to government and diplomacy.
All transactions between nations and leaders should be transparent.
The debate has continued over whether the world would become a safer place with these leaks or even whether the strain in relations between countries would benefit from the bits of diplomatic gossip.
Certain things, as we are all aware, are sometimes best not said.
To be more precise, what you do not know does not hurt you and that probably includes what your neighbours say about you behind your back.
Journalists and diplomats have some things in common.
They are required to pick up information, file reports and generally update their bosses on current developments, often political in nature.
Depending on who you talk to, the assessment can sometimes be accurate, wrong or just plain useless.
Certainly, diplomats and newsmen talk to each other a lot.
So, we should not be surprised if Singapore talked about Malaysian politicians including the Prime Minister’s political standing, the Altantuya case, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, sodomy and sexual preferences.
If we all talk about these, why shouldn’t diplomats?
If Singaporean diplomats think our politicians are incompetent, there may be some truth.
Some politicians are truly incompetent.
In fact, some are outright clowns, just look at the antics of some lawmakers in Parliament.
On the other hand, we have also accused Singaporean politicians of being snobbish, cold, selfish and too much of a technocrat.
Even Singaporeans think so, according to reports.
I, too, have said many times that while some Singaporean lawmakers may be academically impressive, they lack “the connect” with the grassroots and would probably not even win an internal party polls at the branch level in Malaysia.
The difference between us and Singaporeans is that we Malaysians are so politically passionate that we contest in everything, including Parent-Teacher Associations.
In Singapore, PAP leaders have to go down on their knees to persuade people to take up politics.
Our diplomats must have told nasty things about Singapore to US officials.
So, what happens when WikiLeaks releases cables of what we said about them?
If we have been saying only nice things about Singapore to the United States, I think something is seriously wrong with our guys. In fact, they should be sacked.
Diplomats, like journalists, should be sniffing for top quality information that would help give us a headstart, whether for defence, trade or political reasons.
A lot of these are obtained at cocktails, social functions and dinners.
My fear is that many of our young diplomats are no longer as skilful as their predecessors, who had social skills.
I am told many shun away from social events and their lack of proficiency in English, resulting in a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, hasn’t helped.
We cannot hope wrong information would not be filed because of language concerns.
I know of foreign correspondents who arrive in Malaysia with impressions founded on the views of taxi drivers, people they meet at Bangsar and certain politicians, lawyers and activists recommended by their fellow journalists.
There is also a certain degree of hypocrisy when it comes to matters pertaining to secrecy.
Newsmakers, including politicians and movie stars, thrive on publicity, but when it involves negative news, they complain about intrusion of privacy.
Suddenly, the journalists that they cultivate turn enemies because that’s not what they bargained for.
Public figures really have no private lives because that’s the cost of high-living.
We have political parties that purportedly uphold transparency, press freedom and the right to information but shut the door to the media during their annual general meetings.
Only official information, which will enhance the image of the party, is released.
That’s simply because these political parties also believe that certain matters have to be private and confidential.
It is the same with other organisations and it would be naive if we think otherwise, citing conscience and principles.
When lives and properties are affected, then we have more reasons to keep the lid.
Whether they are for strategic or tactical reasons, we all keep some secrets in our daily engagements, often on a need-to-know basis.
Often, these are translated into long-term benefits.
But overclassification of documents is not good and the abuse of the Official Secrets Act, to stop access to information, is not acceptable either.
There has to be a balance in the availability of information, especially the principle on the right to know which is fundamentally important in a true democracy.
ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI
MANY things are private and confidential. Even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as with all journalists, believes in keeping his own sources secret and takes great pains to do so.
He is also secretive about his private life and isn’t comfortable with the bits of information that have come out about him.
In short, the man who has wrecked governments worldwide with classified material leaks, also believes in the importance of secrecy.
In an oxymoron way, he is defending secrecy in order to attack it, as Time wrote recently.
But for Assange, the rule doesn’t apply to government and diplomacy.
All transactions between nations and leaders should be transparent.
The debate has continued over whether the world would become a safer place with these leaks or even whether the strain in relations between countries would benefit from the bits of diplomatic gossip.
Certain things, as we are all aware, are sometimes best not said.
To be more precise, what you do not know does not hurt you and that probably includes what your neighbours say about you behind your back.
Journalists and diplomats have some things in common.
They are required to pick up information, file reports and generally update their bosses on current developments, often political in nature.
Depending on who you talk to, the assessment can sometimes be accurate, wrong or just plain useless.
Certainly, diplomats and newsmen talk to each other a lot.
So, we should not be surprised if Singapore talked about Malaysian politicians including the Prime Minister’s political standing, the Altantuya case, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, sodomy and sexual preferences.
If we all talk about these, why shouldn’t diplomats?
If Singaporean diplomats think our politicians are incompetent, there may be some truth.
Some politicians are truly incompetent.
In fact, some are outright clowns, just look at the antics of some lawmakers in Parliament.
On the other hand, we have also accused Singaporean politicians of being snobbish, cold, selfish and too much of a technocrat.
Even Singaporeans think so, according to reports.
I, too, have said many times that while some Singaporean lawmakers may be academically impressive, they lack “the connect” with the grassroots and would probably not even win an internal party polls at the branch level in Malaysia.
The difference between us and Singaporeans is that we Malaysians are so politically passionate that we contest in everything, including Parent-Teacher Associations.
In Singapore, PAP leaders have to go down on their knees to persuade people to take up politics.
Our diplomats must have told nasty things about Singapore to US officials.
So, what happens when WikiLeaks releases cables of what we said about them?
If we have been saying only nice things about Singapore to the United States, I think something is seriously wrong with our guys. In fact, they should be sacked.
Diplomats, like journalists, should be sniffing for top quality information that would help give us a headstart, whether for defence, trade or political reasons.
A lot of these are obtained at cocktails, social functions and dinners.
My fear is that many of our young diplomats are no longer as skilful as their predecessors, who had social skills.
I am told many shun away from social events and their lack of proficiency in English, resulting in a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, hasn’t helped.
We cannot hope wrong information would not be filed because of language concerns.
I know of foreign correspondents who arrive in Malaysia with impressions founded on the views of taxi drivers, people they meet at Bangsar and certain politicians, lawyers and activists recommended by their fellow journalists.
There is also a certain degree of hypocrisy when it comes to matters pertaining to secrecy.
Newsmakers, including politicians and movie stars, thrive on publicity, but when it involves negative news, they complain about intrusion of privacy.
Suddenly, the journalists that they cultivate turn enemies because that’s not what they bargained for.
Public figures really have no private lives because that’s the cost of high-living.
We have political parties that purportedly uphold transparency, press freedom and the right to information but shut the door to the media during their annual general meetings.
Only official information, which will enhance the image of the party, is released.
That’s simply because these political parties also believe that certain matters have to be private and confidential.
It is the same with other organisations and it would be naive if we think otherwise, citing conscience and principles.
When lives and properties are affected, then we have more reasons to keep the lid.
Whether they are for strategic or tactical reasons, we all keep some secrets in our daily engagements, often on a need-to-know basis.
Often, these are translated into long-term benefits.
But overclassification of documents is not good and the abuse of the Official Secrets Act, to stop access to information, is not acceptable either.
There has to be a balance in the availability of information, especially the principle on the right to know which is fundamentally important in a true democracy.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Malaysia Chronicle: Follow Us on Twitter
Malaysia Chronicle: Follow Us on Twitter: "Get short, timely messages from Malaysia Chronicle at http://twitter.com/MsiaChronicle. Twitter is a rich source of instantly updated infor..."
Malaysia Chronicle: VIDEO Malaysians Must see!!! Namewee's 1Malaysia s...
Malaysia Chronicle: VIDEO Malaysians Must see!!! Namewee's 1Malaysia s...: "Watch naughty boy Namewee's Malaysians Must see!!! Namewee's 1Malaysia story 黃明志要見首相! Read: Grasping at straws? 1 Malaysia to be adde..."
Malaysia Chronicle: Caught in political sex trap
Malaysia Chronicle: Caught in political sex trap: "Philip Dorling and Nick McKenzie MALAYSIAN opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy charges are the result of a 'set up job' that the polit..."
Monday, December 6, 2010
Anwar the messiah?
That was one of the things that worried me – to be raised to the position of a semi-god – because then you are no longer a human being. I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses... – Nelson Mandela
The people of Burma are like prisoners in their own country, deprived of all freedom under military rule. – Aung San Suu Kyi
Make no mistake about it: God did not send Anwar Ibrahim to this part of the world to be our saviour. Anwar was not the “son” who would come and deliver us from the clutches of an evil ruler who had deprived the country of all freedom. No.
The Almighty Creator certainly did not have in His grand scheme of things to put on earth a man by the name of Anwar to lead a country called Malaysia to a better future. It is shocking that the wife of the opposition leader could come up with something like a divine mission for her long-suffering husband. Telling Malaysians that God has indeed chosen Anwar to lead his flock to Putrajaya is assuming that the level of political intelligence of the citizens is near zero.
A leader is a combination of strengths and weaknesses. He is first and foremost a human being. He is a bundle of passion, baser instincts, noble feelings, demonic urges – a mixture of saint and devil. It all depends which side of him eventually triumphs: if he can overthrow the devil in him, he can truly become an outstanding leader – even a saintly ruler – in the field of politics. If the Prince of Darkness is the victor, he will surely be a monster who will bring untold misery to his people. Holy or profane, a leader is still a man who harbours weaknesses just like the populace. But how are the common people to know that someone in their midst will one day steer them to the promised land?
Surely Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail did not have a dream in which a Voice told her Anwar is the chosen one. That will be too far-fetched. An inspiration? Unlikely. So how did the leader of a trouble-plagued party come to the amazing conclusion that her other half is God's gift to Malaysians? True, Anwar endured long years of hardship at the hand of a system that many believe is unjust and cruel. A large segment of the population do sympathise with his predicament. Still, his struggle does not make him a celestial figure. It is hard to picture him as the one and only guiding star for the people. It is even harder to imagine a halo around his head.
Malaysians have become a discerning lot. They are unlikely to buy the story that Anwar is a God-send or that what Wan Azizah said was gospel truth. They have a mind of their own and can weigh for themselves the worth of a leader. They acknowledge that Anwar is a powerful politician, but they will not go to the extent of placing him on the same pedestal as Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi. Mandela endured almost 30 years of prison brutality for fighting against apartheid. Suu Kyi spent 15 years under house arrest for standing up to the military rulers. Both were potent symbols of resistance against harsh governments. No one in their country shouted from the pulpit that the “Black Pimpernel” or the “Iron Lady” was chosen by God from a list of mere mortals to lead the struggle. People saw their merits – their humility, their common touch, their frailities, their strengths – and went along with them. One eventually walked to freedom and with him the whole of South Africa. The other was released but still has a long way to liberty.
But Anwar is fighting more for himself to stay afloat than marching at the head of an army of the faithful to the seat of power. His personal troubles cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be turned into a war cry of the people for freedom. The conditions that existed in Mandela's South Africa during his long imprisonment ideally made him the standard-bearer for the overwhelming majority of the oppressed black. In Burma, the ruthless junta had turned Suu Kyi into the favoured champion of the people. There was no hint that God played a crucial role in their long, bitter struggle. They are mere mortals but what make them rise above the common lot are their impeccable moral credentials. Against the moral weapon of Mandela, the edifice of racism crumbled. Against the virtuous Suu Kyi, the generals continue to shake in their uniforms.
Does Wan Azizah want to strike the fear of God in the people so that they will run helter-skelter to Anwar? This is unnecessary. Such tactic only breeds cynicism. It is counter-productive. It will only drive people away. No mere mortal can invoke God and expect Him to come down on his or her side. The Great Maker is above the fray. He gave Man the freedom to act on their own. In them rest the power to make their own choice. The choice for Malaysians is clear-cut: either support Anwar warts and all or drop him for a better messiah. They need not have to wait for divine instruction.
Also read:
Wan Azizah: Anwar is God's gift to Malaysians
The people of Burma are like prisoners in their own country, deprived of all freedom under military rule. – Aung San Suu Kyi
Make no mistake about it: God did not send Anwar Ibrahim to this part of the world to be our saviour. Anwar was not the “son” who would come and deliver us from the clutches of an evil ruler who had deprived the country of all freedom. No.
The Almighty Creator certainly did not have in His grand scheme of things to put on earth a man by the name of Anwar to lead a country called Malaysia to a better future. It is shocking that the wife of the opposition leader could come up with something like a divine mission for her long-suffering husband. Telling Malaysians that God has indeed chosen Anwar to lead his flock to Putrajaya is assuming that the level of political intelligence of the citizens is near zero.
A leader is a combination of strengths and weaknesses. He is first and foremost a human being. He is a bundle of passion, baser instincts, noble feelings, demonic urges – a mixture of saint and devil. It all depends which side of him eventually triumphs: if he can overthrow the devil in him, he can truly become an outstanding leader – even a saintly ruler – in the field of politics. If the Prince of Darkness is the victor, he will surely be a monster who will bring untold misery to his people. Holy or profane, a leader is still a man who harbours weaknesses just like the populace. But how are the common people to know that someone in their midst will one day steer them to the promised land?
Surely Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail did not have a dream in which a Voice told her Anwar is the chosen one. That will be too far-fetched. An inspiration? Unlikely. So how did the leader of a trouble-plagued party come to the amazing conclusion that her other half is God's gift to Malaysians? True, Anwar endured long years of hardship at the hand of a system that many believe is unjust and cruel. A large segment of the population do sympathise with his predicament. Still, his struggle does not make him a celestial figure. It is hard to picture him as the one and only guiding star for the people. It is even harder to imagine a halo around his head.
Malaysians have become a discerning lot. They are unlikely to buy the story that Anwar is a God-send or that what Wan Azizah said was gospel truth. They have a mind of their own and can weigh for themselves the worth of a leader. They acknowledge that Anwar is a powerful politician, but they will not go to the extent of placing him on the same pedestal as Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi. Mandela endured almost 30 years of prison brutality for fighting against apartheid. Suu Kyi spent 15 years under house arrest for standing up to the military rulers. Both were potent symbols of resistance against harsh governments. No one in their country shouted from the pulpit that the “Black Pimpernel” or the “Iron Lady” was chosen by God from a list of mere mortals to lead the struggle. People saw their merits – their humility, their common touch, their frailities, their strengths – and went along with them. One eventually walked to freedom and with him the whole of South Africa. The other was released but still has a long way to liberty.
But Anwar is fighting more for himself to stay afloat than marching at the head of an army of the faithful to the seat of power. His personal troubles cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be turned into a war cry of the people for freedom. The conditions that existed in Mandela's South Africa during his long imprisonment ideally made him the standard-bearer for the overwhelming majority of the oppressed black. In Burma, the ruthless junta had turned Suu Kyi into the favoured champion of the people. There was no hint that God played a crucial role in their long, bitter struggle. They are mere mortals but what make them rise above the common lot are their impeccable moral credentials. Against the moral weapon of Mandela, the edifice of racism crumbled. Against the virtuous Suu Kyi, the generals continue to shake in their uniforms.
Does Wan Azizah want to strike the fear of God in the people so that they will run helter-skelter to Anwar? This is unnecessary. Such tactic only breeds cynicism. It is counter-productive. It will only drive people away. No mere mortal can invoke God and expect Him to come down on his or her side. The Great Maker is above the fray. He gave Man the freedom to act on their own. In them rest the power to make their own choice. The choice for Malaysians is clear-cut: either support Anwar warts and all or drop him for a better messiah. They need not have to wait for divine instruction.
Also read:
Wan Azizah: Anwar is God's gift to Malaysians
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Marijuana
The United States of Amerijuana
By ANDREW FERGUSON / COLORADO SPRINGS Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010
Jeff Riedel for TIME
PrintEmailReprintsFacebookTwitter
MORE
1
digg
I've always been passionate about food," says Jenelise Robinson. "And I've always been passionate about marijuana and the things it can do for the world."
The Denver woman is 35 but looks 20, with heavy loop earrings distending her lobes and an enormous bracelet to match. From her clavicles southward, her body is a riot of tattoos—the usual skulls and anchors as well as a large circle with a squiggle inside it on her right arm. (When a visitor points quizzically to the squiggle, she replies politely, "It's a baby in a brain," though the tone of her voice says, "Like, duh.") We shouldn't be misled by the biker look or the faux-'60s talk of changing the world. Robinson is all business—a consummate tradeswoman. In the past 16 months she has found a way to combine her passions for food and pot and make the combination pay, as founder, owner and head baker of Nancy B's Edible Medicine, one of the most successful start-ups in Colorado's newest "industry": medical marijuana.
(See pictures of Cannabis Culture.)
Robinson's muffins and Rice Krispies squares are getting raves. "I have a very high tolerance," said one food critic in the Denver Chronicle, a medical-marijuana blog, "and a 2-dose lemon bar will put me on my ass." "I loved the buzz, which lasted 8 hours," wrote another. "Very functional and social." The growth of Robinson's business has come with the explosion in the number of Colorado's medical-marijuana dispensaries, or centers. Coloradans who are recommended by a doctor and approved by the state go to the centers to buy their pot, either in traditional bud form or as an "infused product" like Robinson's lemon bars, which are 100% organic and laced with a marijuana concentrate. Her success is reflected in the Mile High Macaroons and Cannabis Cups stacked in the new commissary-style kitchen she's rented in the gentrifying neighborhood of City Park West in Denver.
Even with a decent supply of high-grade pot in her walk-in freezer, Robinson can scarcely keep up with demand. She and her two employees (a third is soon to be hired) work six days a week to refine her menu, revise recipes, taste-test hash oil and manage inventory—and still squeeze in time every day to medicate.
"For my ADD," she says. "And some shoulder pain."
Medicate? The medical-marijuana industry relies heavily on such genteel euphemisms. To medicate is to smoke pot, and no one in the industry calls pot pot anymore; it's medicine now. Dealers are called caregivers, and the people who buy their dope—medicine, medicine—are patients. There's no irony here, no winks or nudges to signal that someone's leg is being pulled. "After work," says a counter clerk, or budtender, at Briargate Wellness Center, an upscale dispensary serving the tony north side of Colorado Springs, "I'll just go home, kick back, take out the bong and medicate."
The euphemisms are an important element in the larger movement to bring marijuana use out from the shadows, as advocates say, so it can take its place innocently on Americans' nearly infinite menu of lifestyle preferences, from yachting to survivalism to macrobiotic cooking. So far, the strategy is working. Colorado and 13 other states, along with the District of Columbia, have legalized medical marijuana in the past 14 years. More than a dozen other states are considering the idea. Overnight, dispensaries have sprung up in hundreds of towns and cities; billboards touting one outlet's pot over its rivals' are plastered all over Los Angeles. In some parts of California—where marijuana is the biggest cash crop, with total sales of $14 billion annually—medical pot has become such an established part of the commercial base that cities are moving toward taxing it.
It's not clear that even political setbacks discourage, much less stop, the mainstreaming of marijuana. Anti-pot forces cheered on Nov. 2 when voters in four states apparently rejected pro-pot ballot initiatives—including California's Prop 19, which would have legalized possession of an ounce (28 g) of pot or less. But by Election Day, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature had already rendered Prop 19 moot. A month earlier, he signed a bill that reduced possession of up to an ounce from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. By Jan. 1, 2011, jaywalkers may have more to fear from California cops than potheads do.
(See cannabis conventions around the country.)
Medical marijuana has helped make all this possible. In a short time, pot has gone from being a prohibited substance to one that is, in many places, widely available if you have an ache or a pain and the patience to fuss with a few forms. This did not take place by accident. In fact, medical marijuana's emergence has many of the attributes of a product rollout. As with any hot commodity, dope is now accorded the same awed regard in some Colorado retail establishments as fine wine, dark chocolate and artisanal cheese. Only now it takes place under the cover of medical care, wellness and pain management. And so what is emerging in many places is a strange, bipolar set of rules: dope is forbidden for everyone but totally O.K. for anyone who is willing to claim a chronic muscle spasm. Does anyone take such farcical distinctions seriously? And can a backlash be far behind?
Legalization via the Clinic Door
George Soros, the jillionaire currency trader and patron of countless liberal organizations, began funding pro-legalization groups in the early 1990s, with instructions that they redirect their energies toward "winnable" issues like medical marijuana. It was a savvy tactic. Even when polls showed strong resistance to making pot legal, large majorities of Americans supported making it available to patients for pain relief. "If we get medical access, we're going to get legalization eventually," activist Richard Cowan said in 1993. "The cat will be out of the bag." Colorado is a good test of whether that seemingly inexorable trajectory will remain plausible or prove a pipe dream.
Along the regulatory spectrum that stretches from distinctly mellow L.A. to schoolmarmish New Mexico, Colorado sits somewhere near the middle. In 2000, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to legalize the possession of marijuana for patients suffering from "debilitating medical conditions": cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis, along with more nebulous symptoms like "severe nausea" and "severe pain." Voters supported Amendment 20, 54% to 46%.
The implementation was based on what is called a caregiver model. Each patient, on the recommendation of a doctor, could designate a friend or neighbor to grow up to six plants for the patient's use, and each of these caregivers could provide for no more than five patients. Both patient and caregiver would register with the state. The idea was to prevent profiteering, and from 2000 to 2007, roughly 2,000 patients signed up. "The system worked pretty well," says Don Quick, state district attorney for two counties in central Colorado. "Nobody really had a problem with it."
But in 2007, a pro-pot group called Sensible Colorado sued the state health department, and a state court ruled the five-patient limit unconstitutional. "That opened the floodgates," says Brian Vicente, the group's executive director. "A caregiver could have 50 patients if they wanted. And if you had 50 patients, why not open a shop?" Over the next two years, more than 1,000 dispensaries sprang up to serve the more than 100,000 Coloradans who had suddenly discovered their need for medicinal marijuana and applied for a patient card. As Jon Stewart noted, what had been considered the healthiest state in the country rapidly became one of the sickest.
And the economics changed overnight. Patients might spend $500 a year growing six plants on their own. By contrast, dispensaries routinely charge $350 to $500 for 1 oz. of pot. With patients limited by law to possession of no more than 2 oz., they could easily drop $5,000 a year on treatment. "A good-size dispensary will have a few hundred regular customers," Quick says. "You can do the math."
One who did the math was Joe DiFabio, who fits the mold of the hardy American entrepreneur—if the hardy American entrepreneur sold pot for a living. Now in his late 20s, DiFabio ran a construction company and worked in sales before a friend suggested he open a dispensary. He is also a patient, for back pain—nearly everyone who works in the industry medicates—and he had become disenchanted with the dispensaries he'd seen: stoned budtenders, sloppy service, subpar medicine. "They just weren't well kept up," he says. "Kind of dirty."
His business plan was to offer an alternative for the well-heeled professionals in northern Colorado Springs. "I wanted to have the very best medicine at the lowest prices in town," he says, in "a safe, discreet, professional environment." Briargate Wellness Center opened earlier this year, and the plan seems to be working. On a recent weekday afternoon, the three cars in Briargate's parking lot were a Jaguar, a Mercedes and a BMW. DiFabio greets customers in a pressed oxford shirt, trim khakis and polished loafers. The place is painted in pale pastels, and back issues of Golf Digest are fanned out on a slate table. The flat-screen TV plays the A&E channel.
By ANDREW FERGUSON / COLORADO SPRINGS Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010
Jeff Riedel for TIME
PrintEmailReprintsFacebookTwitter
MORE
1
digg
I've always been passionate about food," says Jenelise Robinson. "And I've always been passionate about marijuana and the things it can do for the world."
The Denver woman is 35 but looks 20, with heavy loop earrings distending her lobes and an enormous bracelet to match. From her clavicles southward, her body is a riot of tattoos—the usual skulls and anchors as well as a large circle with a squiggle inside it on her right arm. (When a visitor points quizzically to the squiggle, she replies politely, "It's a baby in a brain," though the tone of her voice says, "Like, duh.") We shouldn't be misled by the biker look or the faux-'60s talk of changing the world. Robinson is all business—a consummate tradeswoman. In the past 16 months she has found a way to combine her passions for food and pot and make the combination pay, as founder, owner and head baker of Nancy B's Edible Medicine, one of the most successful start-ups in Colorado's newest "industry": medical marijuana.
(See pictures of Cannabis Culture.)
Robinson's muffins and Rice Krispies squares are getting raves. "I have a very high tolerance," said one food critic in the Denver Chronicle, a medical-marijuana blog, "and a 2-dose lemon bar will put me on my ass." "I loved the buzz, which lasted 8 hours," wrote another. "Very functional and social." The growth of Robinson's business has come with the explosion in the number of Colorado's medical-marijuana dispensaries, or centers. Coloradans who are recommended by a doctor and approved by the state go to the centers to buy their pot, either in traditional bud form or as an "infused product" like Robinson's lemon bars, which are 100% organic and laced with a marijuana concentrate. Her success is reflected in the Mile High Macaroons and Cannabis Cups stacked in the new commissary-style kitchen she's rented in the gentrifying neighborhood of City Park West in Denver.
Even with a decent supply of high-grade pot in her walk-in freezer, Robinson can scarcely keep up with demand. She and her two employees (a third is soon to be hired) work six days a week to refine her menu, revise recipes, taste-test hash oil and manage inventory—and still squeeze in time every day to medicate.
"For my ADD," she says. "And some shoulder pain."
Medicate? The medical-marijuana industry relies heavily on such genteel euphemisms. To medicate is to smoke pot, and no one in the industry calls pot pot anymore; it's medicine now. Dealers are called caregivers, and the people who buy their dope—medicine, medicine—are patients. There's no irony here, no winks or nudges to signal that someone's leg is being pulled. "After work," says a counter clerk, or budtender, at Briargate Wellness Center, an upscale dispensary serving the tony north side of Colorado Springs, "I'll just go home, kick back, take out the bong and medicate."
The euphemisms are an important element in the larger movement to bring marijuana use out from the shadows, as advocates say, so it can take its place innocently on Americans' nearly infinite menu of lifestyle preferences, from yachting to survivalism to macrobiotic cooking. So far, the strategy is working. Colorado and 13 other states, along with the District of Columbia, have legalized medical marijuana in the past 14 years. More than a dozen other states are considering the idea. Overnight, dispensaries have sprung up in hundreds of towns and cities; billboards touting one outlet's pot over its rivals' are plastered all over Los Angeles. In some parts of California—where marijuana is the biggest cash crop, with total sales of $14 billion annually—medical pot has become such an established part of the commercial base that cities are moving toward taxing it.
It's not clear that even political setbacks discourage, much less stop, the mainstreaming of marijuana. Anti-pot forces cheered on Nov. 2 when voters in four states apparently rejected pro-pot ballot initiatives—including California's Prop 19, which would have legalized possession of an ounce (28 g) of pot or less. But by Election Day, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature had already rendered Prop 19 moot. A month earlier, he signed a bill that reduced possession of up to an ounce from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. By Jan. 1, 2011, jaywalkers may have more to fear from California cops than potheads do.
(See cannabis conventions around the country.)
Medical marijuana has helped make all this possible. In a short time, pot has gone from being a prohibited substance to one that is, in many places, widely available if you have an ache or a pain and the patience to fuss with a few forms. This did not take place by accident. In fact, medical marijuana's emergence has many of the attributes of a product rollout. As with any hot commodity, dope is now accorded the same awed regard in some Colorado retail establishments as fine wine, dark chocolate and artisanal cheese. Only now it takes place under the cover of medical care, wellness and pain management. And so what is emerging in many places is a strange, bipolar set of rules: dope is forbidden for everyone but totally O.K. for anyone who is willing to claim a chronic muscle spasm. Does anyone take such farcical distinctions seriously? And can a backlash be far behind?
Legalization via the Clinic Door
George Soros, the jillionaire currency trader and patron of countless liberal organizations, began funding pro-legalization groups in the early 1990s, with instructions that they redirect their energies toward "winnable" issues like medical marijuana. It was a savvy tactic. Even when polls showed strong resistance to making pot legal, large majorities of Americans supported making it available to patients for pain relief. "If we get medical access, we're going to get legalization eventually," activist Richard Cowan said in 1993. "The cat will be out of the bag." Colorado is a good test of whether that seemingly inexorable trajectory will remain plausible or prove a pipe dream.
Along the regulatory spectrum that stretches from distinctly mellow L.A. to schoolmarmish New Mexico, Colorado sits somewhere near the middle. In 2000, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to legalize the possession of marijuana for patients suffering from "debilitating medical conditions": cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis, along with more nebulous symptoms like "severe nausea" and "severe pain." Voters supported Amendment 20, 54% to 46%.
The implementation was based on what is called a caregiver model. Each patient, on the recommendation of a doctor, could designate a friend or neighbor to grow up to six plants for the patient's use, and each of these caregivers could provide for no more than five patients. Both patient and caregiver would register with the state. The idea was to prevent profiteering, and from 2000 to 2007, roughly 2,000 patients signed up. "The system worked pretty well," says Don Quick, state district attorney for two counties in central Colorado. "Nobody really had a problem with it."
But in 2007, a pro-pot group called Sensible Colorado sued the state health department, and a state court ruled the five-patient limit unconstitutional. "That opened the floodgates," says Brian Vicente, the group's executive director. "A caregiver could have 50 patients if they wanted. And if you had 50 patients, why not open a shop?" Over the next two years, more than 1,000 dispensaries sprang up to serve the more than 100,000 Coloradans who had suddenly discovered their need for medicinal marijuana and applied for a patient card. As Jon Stewart noted, what had been considered the healthiest state in the country rapidly became one of the sickest.
And the economics changed overnight. Patients might spend $500 a year growing six plants on their own. By contrast, dispensaries routinely charge $350 to $500 for 1 oz. of pot. With patients limited by law to possession of no more than 2 oz., they could easily drop $5,000 a year on treatment. "A good-size dispensary will have a few hundred regular customers," Quick says. "You can do the math."
One who did the math was Joe DiFabio, who fits the mold of the hardy American entrepreneur—if the hardy American entrepreneur sold pot for a living. Now in his late 20s, DiFabio ran a construction company and worked in sales before a friend suggested he open a dispensary. He is also a patient, for back pain—nearly everyone who works in the industry medicates—and he had become disenchanted with the dispensaries he'd seen: stoned budtenders, sloppy service, subpar medicine. "They just weren't well kept up," he says. "Kind of dirty."
His business plan was to offer an alternative for the well-heeled professionals in northern Colorado Springs. "I wanted to have the very best medicine at the lowest prices in town," he says, in "a safe, discreet, professional environment." Briargate Wellness Center opened earlier this year, and the plan seems to be working. On a recent weekday afternoon, the three cars in Briargate's parking lot were a Jaguar, a Mercedes and a BMW. DiFabio greets customers in a pressed oxford shirt, trim khakis and polished loafers. The place is painted in pale pastels, and back issues of Golf Digest are fanned out on a slate table. The flat-screen TV plays the A&E channel.
Environmental Paradise- Malaysia
Malaysia: A Coal Plant in Paradise
By JENNIFER PINKOWSKI Saturday, Nov. 27, 2010
Peter Andrews / Reuters
PrintEmailReprintsFacebookTwitter
MORE
0
digg
There are worse places to be than in the eco-paradise of Sabah, a state on the northeast tip of Malaysian Borneo. To one side is the Coral Triangle, home to the world's richest ocean diversity; to the other is the Heart of Borneo, a 22-million-hectare rain forest. In the middle is a vast swath of 1,100 palm plantations. Every year hundreds of thousands of tourists visit Sabah to explore its marvels of biodiversity, hiking elephant paths, spotting shy orangutans and scuba diving with hammerhead sharks.
It's hard to imagine a worse place for a brand new 300 MW coal-fired power plant than here. But it will be a real challenge for Sabah to get by otherwise. And there, in a Southern Pacific garden spot, are all the world's eco-tensions writ small.
(See pictures of transforming a coal refinery in South Africa.)
Malaysia has taken clear steps to make environmental health a national priority. In the fall of 2009, Prime Minister Najib Razak pledged at the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen that his country, already a Kyoto Protocol signatory, would reduce its carbon emissions by 40% by 2020. It is one of the few countries in Southeast Asia with renewable energy standards, despite the fact that it has reliable stores of conventional fuels; its oil, gas and energy sectors accounted for 10% of the country's GDP in 2009.
But Malaysia is also a land of pressing energy needs, and Sabah tells that story better than most places. Officials anticipate a 7.7% annual energy demand increase through 2020, which Sabah Electricity, the state power company, has proposed meeting by adding seven new energy facilities to the 17 already in existence. Most are fueled by natural gas, followed by hydropower and diesel. One of those new facilities, promised by Razak just months before his pledge in Copenhagen, is slated for the Sabah palm plantation region. And this one will be fired by coal — Sabah's first such plant.
Twice before in the last three years, the local electricity utility, a subsidiary of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB), which owns 80% of Malaysia's power generation, had lobbied to build a coal-fired plant. Both times the plans were shot down by the federal Department of Environment (DOE) and local opposition.
This latest plant, however, is different. Not only is it slated for federally owned land, it also has the backing of the prime minister. Sabah's environmental groups formed a coalition to fight the plant, but they kept hearing the same thing over and over again: Ini Najib mau. Najib wants this.
Still, what Najib wants is not necessarily what the rest of his government wants, and in August, the DOE once again stepped in, rejecting a detailed environmental impact assessment for the plant. TNB is expected to submit a revised statement early next year and when the company does, environmentalists fear the jig could be up; this time a coal plant may actually get built.
(See "The End of Cheap Coal?")
It doesn't have to be this way, environmentalists say. Some 60% of Malaysia is rain forest, the vast majority of it found in Sabah and its neighbor state, Sarawak. Though renewables currently account for only 1% of the country's energy production, mostly from hydropower, Sabah's abundant sunshine, geothermal sources, extensive network of strong rivers and a long coastline give it the potential to make Malaysia a regional leader in clean energy.
These resources are underdeveloped, however, and until the renewables sector can get itself ginned up, the threat of a coal-fired plant looms. One stopgap for Sabah would be to build the power plants it needs but fuel them with palm oil production waste. Sabah currently produces about 30% of Malaysia's palm oil, which combined with Indonesia's, constitutes 90% of the world's palm oil exports. A palm waste biomass plant could readily meet the 300-MW target Razak promised, according to one recent energy analysis.
Of course, palm plantations — and their waste — do their own serious environmental damage. In Southeast Asia, slash-and-burn land clearing has destroyed vast forest regions to make way for monocrops like palms, a practice that has been strongly implicated in global warming. That hardly makes this region a good place to do more burning. Still, even greens concede that palm burning is a step up from coal, if only because it provides something to do with the 70 million tons of palm production waste the country generates each year, most of which is dumped in mill ponds or illegally burned in open pits.
Despite these problems, Malaysia still heads into the 2010 climate talks in Cancun on Nov. 29 as one of the world's better-intentioned environmental citizens. But it remains to be seen how these good impulses will play out in Sabah's fragile and beautiful ecosystem.
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
By JENNIFER PINKOWSKI Saturday, Nov. 27, 2010
Peter Andrews / Reuters
PrintEmailReprintsFacebookTwitter
MORE
0
digg
There are worse places to be than in the eco-paradise of Sabah, a state on the northeast tip of Malaysian Borneo. To one side is the Coral Triangle, home to the world's richest ocean diversity; to the other is the Heart of Borneo, a 22-million-hectare rain forest. In the middle is a vast swath of 1,100 palm plantations. Every year hundreds of thousands of tourists visit Sabah to explore its marvels of biodiversity, hiking elephant paths, spotting shy orangutans and scuba diving with hammerhead sharks.
It's hard to imagine a worse place for a brand new 300 MW coal-fired power plant than here. But it will be a real challenge for Sabah to get by otherwise. And there, in a Southern Pacific garden spot, are all the world's eco-tensions writ small.
(See pictures of transforming a coal refinery in South Africa.)
Malaysia has taken clear steps to make environmental health a national priority. In the fall of 2009, Prime Minister Najib Razak pledged at the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen that his country, already a Kyoto Protocol signatory, would reduce its carbon emissions by 40% by 2020. It is one of the few countries in Southeast Asia with renewable energy standards, despite the fact that it has reliable stores of conventional fuels; its oil, gas and energy sectors accounted for 10% of the country's GDP in 2009.
But Malaysia is also a land of pressing energy needs, and Sabah tells that story better than most places. Officials anticipate a 7.7% annual energy demand increase through 2020, which Sabah Electricity, the state power company, has proposed meeting by adding seven new energy facilities to the 17 already in existence. Most are fueled by natural gas, followed by hydropower and diesel. One of those new facilities, promised by Razak just months before his pledge in Copenhagen, is slated for the Sabah palm plantation region. And this one will be fired by coal — Sabah's first such plant.
Twice before in the last three years, the local electricity utility, a subsidiary of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB), which owns 80% of Malaysia's power generation, had lobbied to build a coal-fired plant. Both times the plans were shot down by the federal Department of Environment (DOE) and local opposition.
This latest plant, however, is different. Not only is it slated for federally owned land, it also has the backing of the prime minister. Sabah's environmental groups formed a coalition to fight the plant, but they kept hearing the same thing over and over again: Ini Najib mau. Najib wants this.
Still, what Najib wants is not necessarily what the rest of his government wants, and in August, the DOE once again stepped in, rejecting a detailed environmental impact assessment for the plant. TNB is expected to submit a revised statement early next year and when the company does, environmentalists fear the jig could be up; this time a coal plant may actually get built.
(See "The End of Cheap Coal?")
It doesn't have to be this way, environmentalists say. Some 60% of Malaysia is rain forest, the vast majority of it found in Sabah and its neighbor state, Sarawak. Though renewables currently account for only 1% of the country's energy production, mostly from hydropower, Sabah's abundant sunshine, geothermal sources, extensive network of strong rivers and a long coastline give it the potential to make Malaysia a regional leader in clean energy.
These resources are underdeveloped, however, and until the renewables sector can get itself ginned up, the threat of a coal-fired plant looms. One stopgap for Sabah would be to build the power plants it needs but fuel them with palm oil production waste. Sabah currently produces about 30% of Malaysia's palm oil, which combined with Indonesia's, constitutes 90% of the world's palm oil exports. A palm waste biomass plant could readily meet the 300-MW target Razak promised, according to one recent energy analysis.
Of course, palm plantations — and their waste — do their own serious environmental damage. In Southeast Asia, slash-and-burn land clearing has destroyed vast forest regions to make way for monocrops like palms, a practice that has been strongly implicated in global warming. That hardly makes this region a good place to do more burning. Still, even greens concede that palm burning is a step up from coal, if only because it provides something to do with the 70 million tons of palm production waste the country generates each year, most of which is dumped in mill ponds or illegally burned in open pits.
Despite these problems, Malaysia still heads into the 2010 climate talks in Cancun on Nov. 29 as one of the world's better-intentioned environmental citizens. But it remains to be seen how these good impulses will play out in Sabah's fragile and beautiful ecosystem.
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Pengorbanan Isteri tak soleh
(Lawak) Tiga kali je curang...
by Blog Oh Malaysia! on Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 1:35pm
Pada satu malam, ada pasangan yg agak berumur sedang makan malam dengan romantiknya bagi menyambut ulangtahun perkahwinan mereka yg ke 50 tahun.
Suaminya, seorang Tan Sri dan bekas ahli politik mula bercerita tentang nostalgia mereka suami isteri, sekian lama hidup bersama, suka duka, susah dan senang. Si suami memang menyanjung isterinnya, bernama Maria.
"Maria, selama kita kahwin ni, suka duka kita lalui, susah senang kita tempuh, abang amat menyanyang Maria, tapi ada satu perkara yg asyik bermain-main di benak abang ni dan abang selalu bertanya-tanya. Berterus-teranglah dgn abang pada malam ni, pernah tak Maria curang dgn abang selama ni?"
Maria agak terkedu sekejap dan merenung panjang muka suaminya itu, lalu berkata dengan penuh kekesalan, "Ya abang, Maria mengaku pernah curang dgn abang, tapi hanya 3 kali sahaja selama ni"
"3 kali?" Tan Sri tu agak terkejut, tapi tak la marah, dah tua dah dan memang berniat utk memaafkan isterinya,"Bagaimana boleh terjadi 3 kali tu Maria?"
Perlahan jer la isteri dia mula membuka lebaran cerita lama, "Abang ingatkan masa kita mula-mula kawin, terus beli rumah dan selang beberapa tahun, kita susah sangat masa tu hingga rumah kita hampir nak dirampas oleh bank"
"Ya, abang ingat peristiwa tu" jawab si suami. Si isteri menyambung cerita, "Abang pasti ingat yg pada satu petang tu Maria pergi jumpa pegawai bank tu dan esoknya, bank tu tak jadi rampas rumah kita, malah bagi tambahan pinjaman utk abang mulakan perniagaan.."
"Emmmm.. sukar buat abang menerima kenyataan ini, tapi abang maafkan maria kerana apa yg maria buat tu untuk masa depan kita jugak", kata si suami, " Kali ke 2 pulak?"
"Abang ingat tak, abang hampir menemui maut sebab ketumbuhan dalam otak pembedahan?" si isteri menyambung cerita "Ya, abang ingat" jawab si suami. "Kalau macam tu, abang pasti ingat yg Maria ada pergi jumpa doktor pakar tu dan esoknya, dia setuju buat pembedahan utk abang tanpa bayaran apa-apa pun.."
"Oh maria, walau perit hati ini mendengarkan, tapi abang tetap maafkan maria sebab apa yg maria buat tu untuk masa depan kita jugak dan kerana sayangkan abang jugak.. yang kali ke 3 macam mana pulak? ", kata si Tan Sri. Si isteri menundukkan mukanya dan menjawab penuh lemah, "Abang, ingat tak masa abang bertanding merebut kerusi bahagian dan abang perlukan 248 undi lagi...."
Tan Sri pengsan kat situ jugak...
by Blog Oh Malaysia! on Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 1:35pm
Pada satu malam, ada pasangan yg agak berumur sedang makan malam dengan romantiknya bagi menyambut ulangtahun perkahwinan mereka yg ke 50 tahun.
Suaminya, seorang Tan Sri dan bekas ahli politik mula bercerita tentang nostalgia mereka suami isteri, sekian lama hidup bersama, suka duka, susah dan senang. Si suami memang menyanjung isterinnya, bernama Maria.
"Maria, selama kita kahwin ni, suka duka kita lalui, susah senang kita tempuh, abang amat menyanyang Maria, tapi ada satu perkara yg asyik bermain-main di benak abang ni dan abang selalu bertanya-tanya. Berterus-teranglah dgn abang pada malam ni, pernah tak Maria curang dgn abang selama ni?"
Maria agak terkedu sekejap dan merenung panjang muka suaminya itu, lalu berkata dengan penuh kekesalan, "Ya abang, Maria mengaku pernah curang dgn abang, tapi hanya 3 kali sahaja selama ni"
"3 kali?" Tan Sri tu agak terkejut, tapi tak la marah, dah tua dah dan memang berniat utk memaafkan isterinya,"Bagaimana boleh terjadi 3 kali tu Maria?"
Perlahan jer la isteri dia mula membuka lebaran cerita lama, "Abang ingatkan masa kita mula-mula kawin, terus beli rumah dan selang beberapa tahun, kita susah sangat masa tu hingga rumah kita hampir nak dirampas oleh bank"
"Ya, abang ingat peristiwa tu" jawab si suami. Si isteri menyambung cerita, "Abang pasti ingat yg pada satu petang tu Maria pergi jumpa pegawai bank tu dan esoknya, bank tu tak jadi rampas rumah kita, malah bagi tambahan pinjaman utk abang mulakan perniagaan.."
"Emmmm.. sukar buat abang menerima kenyataan ini, tapi abang maafkan maria kerana apa yg maria buat tu untuk masa depan kita jugak", kata si suami, " Kali ke 2 pulak?"
"Abang ingat tak, abang hampir menemui maut sebab ketumbuhan dalam otak pembedahan?" si isteri menyambung cerita "Ya, abang ingat" jawab si suami. "Kalau macam tu, abang pasti ingat yg Maria ada pergi jumpa doktor pakar tu dan esoknya, dia setuju buat pembedahan utk abang tanpa bayaran apa-apa pun.."
"Oh maria, walau perit hati ini mendengarkan, tapi abang tetap maafkan maria sebab apa yg maria buat tu untuk masa depan kita jugak dan kerana sayangkan abang jugak.. yang kali ke 3 macam mana pulak? ", kata si Tan Sri. Si isteri menundukkan mukanya dan menjawab penuh lemah, "Abang, ingat tak masa abang bertanding merebut kerusi bahagian dan abang perlukan 248 undi lagi...."
Tan Sri pengsan kat situ jugak...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
