I’ve mentioned my questioning of the national media reporting practices in the past. Well, maybe I was wrong. The following little item appeared last week concerning the state of Oregon and a change in their laws: to wit:

“DRUGS: The Oregon Legislature passed a bill Friday to recriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs, undoing a key part of the state’s first-in the-nation drug decriminalization law amid the deadliest U.S. overdose crisis.”

That’s about it folks, seven lines of information about a 180 degree turnabout in the drug laws of the state of Oregon.

Now I don’t have any items around me to prove my point, but back when Oregon decided to do away with the laws concerning the use of drugs, I know the national media made a very big deal of it. They made a point to let everyone know what Oregon did. They not only condoned the action, but also promoted it as a good thing, as if every state should follow suit.

Now, all of sudden we read a little seven line news release telling us that maybe, just maybe the State of Oregon was wrong to begin with.

Maybe, just maybe, Colorado and many other state will reconsider the liberal changes in their drug laws we’ve seen in recent years.

Maybe, just maybe, if that happens, the Nebraska State Patrol won’t have the business of catching those huge drug loads they keep finding along Interstate 80.

Maybe, just maybe, those liberal national news media outlets will report this change back to a sensible policy on illegal drugs with the same enthusiasm and fanfare it did when Oregon became one of the first in the nation to embrace the idea that the liberal drug policies were a good idea.

Maybe, but probably not.

A O

In a related news item I read over the weekend went something like this: to wit:

“Local jurisdictions in Nebraska would be able to distribute hypodermic needles to drug users to reduce the spread of infectious diseases under a bill approved Thursday, but Gov. Jim Pillen is expected to veto it.”

The above was just a small, very small, part of the news item that announced this action in your Nebraska Legislature. I can’t say the news item went out of its way to promote the idea, except somewhere in the middle of the news release, it made sure that Nebraska was one of the last states in the nation to consider such action.

Without stating it, the news release was saying that the good people in Nebraska should catch up with the rest of the nation by giving “drug addicts” clean needles to use when they want to break the law “again.”

We’ve all read how so often drug addicts pick up infections of many kinds by ‘reusing’ needles. I feel bad that it happens, however, isn’t it about the same as giving an alcoholic free drinks because we’ve all read how, at times, alcoholics will resort to drinking anything that contains alcohol and often those things are not good for them.

It’s too bad those things happen, but maybe, just maybe, it would be better to invest in measures that might end the reason for the needles, or alcohol in the first place.

Seems like those promoting giving free needles out to drug users are taking the “easy” way out and thinking they are doing good.

Maybe, just maybe, those people are wrong.

A O

I did learn something new this weekend when I read the following from The Heritage Foundation:

“The federal government provides enormous subsidies to the wealthiest universities in the country. During fiscal year 2022, Ivy League universities received $1.8 billion for overhead on government funded research grants. That represents 84 percent of the total amount of government subsidy those universities received. For every dollar Ivy League universities receive for research, they charge the government an additional 64 cents, on average. For overhead. This funding is clearly a subsidy, because it is almost entirely fungible and unaccountable. The government can curtail nonsense, save taxpayers money, and reallocate research subsidies more evenly throughout the country by eliminating and capping research overhead funding for the wealthiest universities.”

I don’t know about the general public, but I’ve often felt “good” upon learning about “Grants” to schools. They usually are for research in areas that need to be studied. However, I didn’t really understand the cost.

This bit of information above concerns the Ivy League bunch of school in northeast America and I don’t know if all schools receive the same treatment. However, I would think the schools should (or could) provide their own place to do the research. Tax payers should not be require to pay the wealthiest schools in the nation the additional amount to build up their facilities at the expense of taxpayers.

I know that our tax payer money could just maybe be used for something better, maybe, just maybe we could buy more needles.

That’s supposed to be a joke folks. Maybe we could use the money to pay down the enormous debt the U. S. government has built up.

A O

I was not planning on writing the above for this week, it just sort of came together and I hope you have not given up on my writing. The following was written by Mr. Booker T. Washington many years ago and I came across it just recently. It does, however, sort of tie the three thoughts I had for this week together. I pass it on for you to enjoy.

“A lie doesn’t become truth,

Wrong doesn’t become right

And evil doesn’t become good

Just because it’s accepted by a

majority.”

“Just maybe.”

A O

The Supreme Court decision on the Colorado decision to kick Donald Trump off of their election ballot this year came in just in time to make a comment this week. The Supreme Court voted 9-0 that Trump can remain on the ballot and that decision has sent the Democratic Party into fits. The following quote is from a person I’ve never heard of before but it sounds like it could have come from any one of the liberal people around the country. Consider the following

Item:

“Liberal podcast host Keith Olbermann blasted the decision and called for abolishing the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy,” Olbermann wrote on X. “Its members including (Ketanji Brown) Jackson, (Elena) Kagan, and (Sonia) Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”

The liberal not only let the world know he was unhappy with the decision, but he also brought up one of the liberal’s favorite issues: the Supreme Court. I never heard them complain on the many decisions (like Roe vs Wade) that were made in favor of their liberal views, but now, the Supreme Court should be dissolved.

And so many people wonder why so many other people say they are going to vote for Donald Trump.

Just maybe they don’t understand the liberal’s plans and practices.

Just maybe.

A O