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.

Patriot November 18, 2012 at 09:36 PM
America should outlaw Radical Islam
Patriot November 18, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Just like communism Radical Islam shouldn't be anywhere near congress or Washington
Henry Atterbury November 18, 2012 at 11:05 PM
is this about Islam or "radical Islam" and who makes the call on that one, another wacko who forgets that under the US constitution we have freedom of religion as a right. So maybe he should be concerned about radical Christians or radical Jews or maybe just maybe this nut should practice his faith and stay the heck out of other peoples business. We have law enforcement agencies, they will deal with radicals of whatever persuasion, let them do their jobs and we should respect the rule of law for all Americans.
Patriot November 18, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Look around the world right now Radical Muslims are carrying out attacks in so many countries and a common denominator in almost every conflict. I don't see other faiths fighting against civilians on the name of their religion all across the world and name calling won't change that.
Patriot November 18, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Radical Muslims by the way would like to prevent law enforcement from doing their job and that is just wrong.
Mike November 19, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Which is why Obama's assault on the 1st Amendment through his HHS mandate should be opposed by all Americans.
Issy November 19, 2012 at 01:10 AM
The best why to prevent Radical Muslims gaining any foothold in the US is to strictly enforce 'Separation of Church and State' and not allow radical Christians to enforce their religion on others, including issues such as gay marriages, abortion, access to birth control (including HHS mandate) rtc. Because when you allow one religion in, you are legally obligated to let them all in.
Mike November 19, 2012 at 01:21 AM
Can you please site exactly where the Constitution specifically calls for "separation of a church and state". How about providing us with examples of "radical Christians" forcing their beliefs on others. I would say you have it reversed.
Nummy November 19, 2012 at 01:35 AM
reading all these post make me thank god I'm an atheists
dita von struedel van trappyodel November 19, 2012 at 02:13 AM
The purpose of seperation of church and state is twofold a) to protect from anyone religion from dictating policy and b) to protect religious institutions from the heavy hand of government. Osama Obama has done just great with a) but has completely trampled on b). I urge all religous institutions to reject Government offers of support and money .. it is just fools gold. Obama should be impeached immediately. He is truly a threat not only to religious liberty but all liberty. IMPEACH HIM NOW
Issy November 19, 2012 at 02:16 AM
Mike, what are you talking about? Separation of Church and Sate is the legal interpretation of the First Amendment as originally stated by Jefferson, did you flunk history? As for radical Christians forcing their beliefs, slavery, abortion, gay marriage, anti science, anti-First Amendment, etc etc.take your pick.
BR Cannon November 19, 2012 at 02:30 AM
The US Supreme Court interprets the constitution and Thomas Jefferson was never a member. I guess you only passed revisionist history.
Mike November 19, 2012 at 02:34 AM
As is your standard mo, you can't answer the question can you Issy? You can't answer it b/c it's not stated in the Condtitution nor did TJ ever imply anything contrary to what the 1st Amendment states when he responded to a query on it in 1802 And once again, the secondary part of your standard mo, insults. Insults, Issy only serve to highlight the weakness of your arguments and paucity of your person.
Issy November 19, 2012 at 02:40 AM
BR Cannon, I never said Jefferson was a SC member only that he coined the phrase 'Separation of Church and State, of which its legal standing has been upheld by every Supreme Court . I guess as well as history you failed reading comprehension.
BPIsYourFriendJustFollowFredosLead November 19, 2012 at 03:00 AM
start worrying about the separation between bank and state, and get rid of the Fed.
Issy November 19, 2012 at 03:02 AM
Mike, why would you ask a question that you already know the answer to and is irrelevant to the Supreme Courts rulings? 'Separation of Church and State is established law of the land, period. And as for the insult remark, I have not forgotten the numerous one line posts you made to my past comments. It seems you can dish it out and then cry when you views are remotely question.
Patriot November 19, 2012 at 03:22 AM
Adherents of Radical Islam commit more acts of terror then other groups and are involved in many of the current world conflicts
Mike November 19, 2012 at 03:29 AM
Issy, I asked it to make a point and glad you now confirm that separation of Church and State is no where to be found in Constitution. In fact, not until 1947, did we ever really hear the phrase until the SC lifted it out of context from a letter TJ wrote to a CT Church. As awesome as TJ was, it's the only time words of one citizen became law of land. And as stated if read in context do not alter one iota the 1st Amendment. That court and subsequent courts quite frankly have erred even in their interpreting TJ intent. Btw, the 1st Amend. restricts government, not people. In addition, it does not "separate" religion from state but is intended to provide freedom of religion by the means of non establishment of a state religion. This was the law of the land for over 150 years with the lat 65 seeing SC error after error.
Issy November 19, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Mike, I believe the first references by the SC was 1879 and I am glad you think you know more that 25 individual Supreme Court rulings up holding 'Separation'. Your claim of "separation; not being the law for 150 years is both irrelevant and false. The right to 'bare arms' was only decided last year, not because it was not so, but because the SC can only act upon rulings brought before them..
dita von struedel van trappyodel November 19, 2012 at 04:09 AM
Nummy, I'm sorrry to be the one to tell you this but you are definitely not going to heaven with an attitude like that.
dita von struedel van trappyodel November 19, 2012 at 04:17 AM
Radical Islamists stink worse than i do
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 »