The outsized support of Democrats and independents brings overall backing of the amendment to 70 percent; with only 24 percent opposed, according to the poll obtained by The Miami Herald.

Florida has unusual laws when it comes to the initiative process. It does not allow citizens to put initiatives on the ballot but it does allow citizens to put constitutional amendments on the ballot. For an amendment to be adopted though it needs to be approved by 3/5th of the voters in that election.

The fact that medical marijuana currently has such overwhelming support in Florida means there is a good chance an amendment could clear this high threshold if it did get put on the ballot. Getting on the ballot in Florida is no easy task. It requires just over 675,000 valid signatures.

Stay safe and use these ice cubes to measure how drunk you are, while lighting up to the beat of the music. They even text a friend for a ride if you drink past a certain level! Talking about innovative!

We’ve come far together, surviving more than one End of the World, the rough economy, more shootings, hardships, and tough times. But we made it and that’s what counts.

2013 New Year’s

New Year’s is always a great celebration because it motivates most people to actively make plans to improve their lives. It’s such a great thing to witness! People come up with goals of all sorts and sizes. Some may be easy to accomplish and others may be difficult. Some choose the same goals they’ve had for a while, but this time they are more focused and determined to be successful.

What are your goals and how will you make them come to life this year!?

In a ritual that would terrify most mothers, Indian villagers have cheered as screaming babies were dropped from a 50-foot temple tower.

For 500 years, worshippers at a Muslim shrine in western India have continued the tradition — a rite considered to bring good health and good luck to the children.

The infants land and bounce on a bed-sheet held taut by men 50 feet below, and are quickly passed through the crowd to their mothers.

Villagers say no babies have been injured during the ritual, which is practiced by Muslims and Hindus in Musti village in the district of Solapur, in the state of Maharashtra. Watch worshippers throw babies from tower.

It also takes place elsewhere in the country, mostly in smaller villages, on special occasions.

Parents who want their infants to participate in the event first take a vow at the Baba Sheikh Umar Saheb Dargah, or temple. Villagers say the ritual is a way of giving thanks.

But critics want the practice banned, with many saying it’s unsafe.

“The state has to interfere,” said Sanal Edamaruku, founder and president of Rationalist International and the Indian Rationalist Association. The group supports secularism and freedom of expression.

cnn.com – May 1, 2008

Bear Break-in

A mother bear and her three cubs broke into a Norwegian cabin this week, reportedly knocking over the wall, drinking more than 100 beers, and eating all the food.

Revenge on Goldilocks?

The cabin was completely destroyed, kitchen appliances, the stove, oven, cupboards and shelves all smashed to pieces. The bears not only had a beer party – they also devoured all the food and honey of course.

“They had a hell of a party in there,” owner Even Borthen Nilsen said. “The entire cabin was destroyed.”

Nilsen’s first thought was that it was broken into, but seeing the wall destroyed when the typical criminals would have went through the door, he thought otherwise – not to mention the paw prints.

Thankfully no one was in the cabin when the bears broke in, but Nilsen is worried that the bear family may be back for another engagement.

And here’s some more funny politics.

It's Simple - kill the Batman

Dark Sith Lord McCain

Obama Package Headline

Protester Cannot Spel

Exhibit A of a “Too Soon” moment: Michael Jackson dies. Within a year, a Jackson5 world tour is being organized. Exhibit B of a “Really?” moment: Megan Fox is given the title of the next Angelina Jolie in her first featured acting role.. for having similar physical attributes, not similar ‘talent’. Exhibit C of a “Too Soon” and “Really?” moment: The bombing of the twin towers. Within a year, a 9/11 movie is made.

But is it too soon to talk about the inevitable replacements of the getting-older era of actors in Hollywood? It’s happening people! The hiring of  younger talent, to pose as, for, or in the place of older talent.  When you start to see less of George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise and Leonardo, you can look forward to seeing more of one of these strapping young men…

Ryan Gosling

Ryan Gosling. Based on talent, not looks necessarily – The next George Clooney. Four years after playing a small part in “Remember The Titans”, he hit the jackpot with the film “The Notebook”. Since then he has been in many other notable projects, and has made interesting role selections that have not only been a perfect match, but show his range. And speaking of Clooney, Gosling will actually co-star alongside him this September in the movie “Ides Of March”.

Zac Efron

Zac Efron. Based on looks and talent – The Brad Pitt/Tom Cruise hybrid. He’s on the right track with his first few big screen debuts, all he’s missing is an action thriller type role, then there’s no stopping this boy wonder. He really delivered on “Me & Orson Welles”, especially playing opposite seasoned actors Claire Danes and Christian McKay, he wasn’t intimidated and his acting was impressively convincing. Efron was also said to be initially approached for a role in the remake of “Footloose”.

James Franco

No one wants to say it out loud but James Franco is filling that void Heath Ledger’s death caused. (Too soon?) I would even go as far as to say he will be the next Johnny Depp. He is also probably the only one out of all these young men who, if he didn’t act tomorrow, would have hundreds of others things to choose from as a career. Franco is known for his many college degrees in higher education and heavy involvement in all sorts of artsy-passion projects. Brilliant and fearless on camera, and off.

Robert Pattinson

This may be a stretch now, but only time will tell. If given a chance and the right challenging roles, I believe Robert Pattinson could be the next Leonardo DiCaprio. Since “Twilight”, he’s been part of some pretty mediocre/type-cast stuff. But I really believe there is more to this pale, shy, crack head act he puts on most of the time. He has a great look, and great potential, but he has to challenge himself with more outside-of-the-box roles.

As a side note: there are a few ‘uniques’ to mention, that won’t necessarily replace any top older actors per say, but do have real talent & are worth keeping an eye on: Michael Cera and Andrew Garfield.

Charle’s Kenny, a writer in Foreign Policy who maintains a weekly column known as The Optimist, recently wrote a brief but well-argued article arguing in favor of America’s downgrade from its role as the world’s sole superpower, to something basically akin to the “great power” status that defines most wealthy developed nations, such as the UK and France. Indeed, he’s not the first to tackle this issue, as there has been relentless over the last several years, expressed by people all political persuasions, concerning the US’s inevitable, if not already occurring, decline on the world stage. Even casual conversations among colleagues, friends, and coworkers seems to confirm this rather ubiquitous perception.

Generally, this argument emerges in a rather despairing and even fearful way. America may become less stable, less wealthy, and less capable of defending itself. Our political system will continue to break down and even worsen this demise, and our society will remain polarized, cynical, and struggling, feeding a vicious cycle for decades to come. But barring these concerns and predictions – which are a whole other discussion – the argument is centered entirely on our status on the international stage, rather than the domestic one.

Indeed, as Kenny argues, it is precisely these concerns that should further motivate us to decouple from our entrenched presence in the world and focus more inwardly on addressing the many issues that ails us. The less time, money, and political energy is expended abroad – often with little return in value – the more we resources we can invest into our crumbling infrastructural, dysfunctional public education system, and weakening economy (among many other things). Among his prescriptions:

“Perhaps Washington could take a baby step or two toward scaling back its global commitments by returning the defense budget to its Reagan-era average, a move that would save about $250 billion a year. Surely what was good enough for a world riven by the Cold War, when the Warsaw Pact had 249 combat divisions and we lived in constant threat of global thermonuclear Armageddon, is also good enough for the United States today — at a time when al Qaeda apparently has fewer than 100 fighters left in Afghanistan. And it really would be a baby step: Even with a $250 billion cut, the United States would still outspend China about four times over.

Defense cuts would allow the United States to tend to a few other priorities, which just might take Americans’ minds off the fact that their country is no longer No. 1. Perhaps the United States could focus on constructing a high-speed rail line or two, or maybe even finish the job on extending health care. After all, of the large economies that enjoyed a AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s last week, the United States ranked at the bottom of the list in terms of life expectancy, and it was the only country without universal health care. Perhaps America could also spend a little more on basic education; the United States was at the tail end of the AAA club when it came to believing basic scientific truths like evolution, and it scored lowest out of all those countries on international tests of students’ math skills.”

Granted, while many conservatives or libertarians among you – who probably also support a tone-down global presence – might still chaff at the idea of America putting all the saved money into other “big government” ventures, the argument is still sound: we’re better off squabbling about how to spend all this public money here and our nations’ future, than we are watching it go to waste on overseas ventures that not only amount to very little for all their worth, but in many cases backfire as far as making new enemies or fraying current alliances. Furthermore, the Pentagon is no less wasteful with it’s money than any other state institution, as a recent article (also from Foreign Policy) reports.

On the hand, many humanitarian-minded folks, myself included, might not feel too keen about reverting back to an isolationist stance either. The US is a rich and powerful country, with ample private and public resources, as well as a dynamic system of innovation and scientific achievement. All this could still do a lot of good in the world, and even an America called away from much of the glob will still maintain all these advantages. I think it stands to reason that the US need not find the choice between a ubiquitous global presence and a desire to address global problems to be mutually exclusively. Today’s globalized and internationally-oriented world provides plenty of capacity for even small but well-oriented nations to do their part.

Canada is a major contributor to UN Peacekeeping operations for example, while the Scandinavian nations are among the most generous donors of international aid. Norway in particular makes for a good case study on the virtues of maintaining this balance: a restrained global presence, as far as toning down diplomatic and military muscle, but ample involvement in aid projects, conflict resolution, scientific funding for cures, and other global public goods. Sure a country of far greater size, wealth, and resources as the US could manage the same, given a proper re-balancing and re-orientation of direction.

Historical precedence also paints a favorable picture. Many of the wealthiest and most successful nations today – many of which outperform the US in many respects – were formerly great powers. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, and Japan actually became more rich, stable, and prosperous following their downgrades after World War II (though the last two certainly present a slightly different scenario, given the benefit of US aid and a relatively benign post-war occupation). Most developed nations with high-standards of living were hardly ever global powers to begin with, but have still managed to reach and maintain prosperity. The US, given the comparative advantage of being able to plan ahead and redistribute greater resources, would stand to gain a lot more than it’s predecessors and peers.

Of course, there are several problems here. One concerns greed: many American business elites benefit from the US tossing it’s weight around the world, opening up markets and promoting US-friendly policies abroad (indeed, the nexus between money, lobbies, and foreign policy is underrated but long-standing). It’d be difficult to imagine influential economic interests conceding to losing the comparative advantage brought to them by their nation’s considerable diplomatic influence.

There is also the issue of psychology. While many Americans of all political stripes seem to want a drawn-down on overseas bases and operations, there seems to be an ambivalence about completely giving up our cherished and unique status as a hegemonic “hyperpower.” There is much glory and pride to be had as a nation that can call the shots and pursue it’s interests around the world when needed. For many Americans, it’s a projection of manifest destiny and a by-product of American exceptionalism. Indeed, I’ve found the case for insularity and isolationism to often be presented in ambiguous terms, suggesting to me that most people have a love-hate relationship with America’s preeminent status in the world.

Furthermore, a lot of people see a global presence as crucial to maintaining national security. Our navy keeps shipping lanes open and stops pirates; our regional bases keep rogue states that are in close proximity in check; and our omnipresent diplomatic and intelligence community keeps constant vigilance on threats across the world as they emerge. A similar argument has also been made about how many of the countries that have prospered since last century – including prior great powers – had in fact done so thanks to the US taking up the mantle of “defender of the free world.” To this day, it’s argued that many wealthy states benefit from America’s stronger military forces keeping the peace, and thus facilitating trade and economic growth. They also save plenty of money they’d otherwise be spending on their own military and national security apparatuses (Japan, where we have one of the strongest presences, is an oft-cited example).

All these credible arguments aside, I still believe the US could feasibility and beneficially, for itself and the world, phase itself out of being a major power. Whether we like it or not, the world is becoming increasingly multi-polar, as much of the rest of the planet begins to catch up on our level of development. Similarly, many other rich and developed states are contending with a sense of decline, mostly due to ageing populations and a general weariness of our increasingly complex world. The US could still be a great leader and admirable example. We could start to work more from within the very international system we largely shaped, rather than despite it. We could set the example for successful and responsible leadership by drawing down our global ambitions, improving our society and economy, and thus strengthening our capacity to help the world through international directives and public-private partnerships.

All this will be easier said than done of course. But in the course of inevitable the change, we gain nothing from stubbornly refusing to face reality. Better to start a dialogue and begin to plan for what’s bound to come, rather than cling to power with futility, ignoring the benefit of historical precedence. It’s for our own good as much as the world’s.

Piers Morgan-Christine O'Donnell Interview

I write this tonight after just having watched the controversial interview between Christine O’Donnell and Piers Morgan. In which, Christine actually ended the interview prematurely due to a non expected question. I can only say that I am baffled.

The interview was scheduled to talk about her new book titled Trouble Maker. At first I thought the interview was going well and that O’Donnell was actually responding to Pier’s slightly provocative and touchy questions with grace and maturity. And this is coming from someone who actually hates her guts. I mean I REALLY don’t like her. Not just because of her rookie mistakes as a politician, but because of her personal stances on certain political and ethical issues. Even I was able to put my personal bias aside and approve of the way that she answered Pier’s tough questions about her past. Questions about the mistakes that led to her political downfall, or “political hiccup” as Piers was kind enough to rephrase. She even admitted to her mistakes, took responsibility for them, and explained that in her book she talks about how this has all taught her valuable lessons and that she is at a different point in her life now and has matured. I respected this, hell I even admired it.

But then the interview went to commercial for the second time and when they returned Piers played a clip of her on MTV in the 90s where she talks about sexuality, lust, and sin. Piers rattled the cage and asked about what her stance was today regarding what she said in the past. She was clearly uncomfortable but answered as politically correct as she could after some poking on Morgan’s part. Then, Piers asked the question that was apparently taboo: he asked for her stance on gay marriage. Well she took offence to this and began saying how this was not relevant to her book, which was what they were there to talk about. But the fact is that she did talk about the subject in her book! She began saying that Piers was just being rude and that she wasn’t here to campaign or to give her stances on issues that are not relevant to laws or politics right now.

ARE YOU JOKING? First off, if you are willing to talk about your eccentric past which ‘dabbled in witchcraft’, answer question about your stance on masturbation and lust, and go so far as to talk about your personal political views, then why is it that you freak out all of a sudden when a legitimate question pertaining to the book and your personal beliefs is asked? Second of all, someone please explain to me how gay marriage is ‘not relevant’ to politics and issues which affect the American public? If you are confident of your beliefs enough to publish them, then why would you have a problem answering a question regarding them during an interview? I feel like she made it into a much bigger deal than it was. If she had answered with a simple ‘I disagree with gay marriage’, then maybe the interview would have gone on cheerio. But instead, she decided to simply end the interview.

Piers has now challenged Christine O’Donnell to a second interview in which to explain herself and her reasons for leaving; promising to be as polite as humanly possible. Will the perplexing O’Donnell agree to a second interview? I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, but God do I hope the answer is yes.