Patch Blogs: 'Inept Politicians'; Medical Pot

A recap of recent and popular blog posts in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam.

Though most folks in the Lower Hudson Valley can fill up their tank without waiting in a two-hour queue, or hollering at a nitwit angling to cut the line, the painful memory remains.

(And in New York City, gas rationing will likely continue until after Thanksgiving.)

But blogger Larry Elkin said Hurricane Sandy and fuel shortages weren't to blame for the winding lines—instead, he points the finger at inept politicians.

"Don't blame Sandy for your ongoing inconvenience; misguided politicians are doing most of the damage now," Elkin pens.

For more of his insight on gasoline scarcity, supply-and-demand and price gouging, click here.

All eyes are on Colorado recently when it comes to marijuana, but one local Patch blogger and doctor is championing the drug's use for multiple sclerosis patients here at home.

Dr. Scott Gotlieb says medical marijuana can reduce pain without the troubling side-effects of opiates. Stil, the doc says pot isn't without consequences: "as helpful as marijuana can be... some side effects include impaired mental functioning, decreased inhibitions, fatigue, dry mouth, hunger, memory problems and increased anxiety/paranoia, [among others]," he writes. 

For readers with young kids, Karen Robert's essay "Travelling with Baby" is a must read. The local mom spells out the nuts and bolts of long trips with a youngster. Take note: shipping some items ahead of time can cut-back on headaches.

And for those sorely missing the rhetoric of election season (a slim minority, I'm sure of it), the contest for Rockland's county executive seat is already enrapturing some bloggers. Jack Moolick says the choice should be a no-brainer.


If you're interested in blogging for Patch and sharing your story, insights, opinions or photos, email kevin@patch.com.

Mike November 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM
No, Issy, the first case was Everson and it WAS in 1947 which is actually over 150 years. And yes, as a citizen, I have the right to question and push back on any ruling of the SC. In fact, it should be encouraged as despite what you seem to assert there have been several times in our nations history where SC Rulings have been in fact "wrong" and subsequently reversed by later courts.
John Gruber November 19, 2012 at 04:07 PM
John Gruber November 19, 2012 at 04:11 PM
just because the Christian aren't killing people it doesn't mean they're not "radical". What about those Christians bombing abortion clinics and others trying to force their views on people through religion such as marriage and child care? Evolution? I'm not sure how you're debating the fact it clearly says that the government should be separated from religion. It's stated pretty clearly
John Gruber November 19, 2012 at 04:22 PM
The Establishment Clause, found in the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." And yes, in TJ's Letter to the Danbury Baptist he clearly uses the term "wall of separation of church and state" so to claim that's not what he meant would be pretty inaccurate since he used the exact words "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State"
Mike November 20, 2012 at 12:24 AM
@john gruber- in ref to your TJ omments, yes these are his words, but what was his intent. Based upon all we know including the notes of TJ taken during deliberations on Constitution and 1st amendment, we never see the words "separation of a church state". His letter clearly affirms exactly what is stated in 1st Amend and the separation clearly is being used as a metaphor. In fact, CJ Rehnquist wrote "The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned." You also only reference the establishment clause but fail to note the free exercise clause. Non-establishment has no purpose by itself. Freedom of religion is the goal. The intent was to ensure the Fed Govt could not establish a national religion. The 1st Amend only puts restrictions on the government, not on individuals. However, the courts since 1947 have reinterpreted it incorrectly and put restrictions on the people.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »