.
Feedback

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.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Port Chester Patch? Find your Local Patch »

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
smellypants 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..
smellypants 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.
smellypants 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
evolution
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.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
PC Lover June 15, 2013 at 09:04 am
Cathy, Westmed should refer to you as "Valued Customer". No person can serve two masters.Read More Every Doctor must ask themself, "Am I serving my patients or am I serving the insurance companies? Because those two are in direct financial conflict with each other. Seven minute maximum "face time" sort of answers that question, doesn't it? Today, medicine is a business...once you accept that fact you will begin to have the proper mind set to better navigate the system as a customer, not as a patient. There are exceptions.
PC Lover June 15, 2013 at 09:06 am
Craig, I may be wrong but I doubt the average doctor at Westmed is making that much money. Do youRead More have a reference for that estimate or just wishful thinking?
PC Lover June 15, 2013 at 09:13 am
Cathy..I agree wholeheartedly. Charging for parking is the epitome of arrogance. As the insuranceRead More companies squeeze Westmed they are trying to pass their overhead onto us, when what they should be doing is dropping the underpaying plans and letting the world know which insurance companies they can no longer accept due to the insurance company's corporate greed. Maybe then the reimbursement will improve. I hope they choke on it.
Craig Noor June 14, 2013 at 05:31 pm
The new picture is decent ... only about 15 percent Byram.
Silvio V. Buccieri June 14, 2013 at 06:29 pm
IF you like roof tops, then this is picture you should keep posted.
FJT June 17, 2013 at 08:43 am
The photo I was referring to was the one that showed the Byram River not the one that's up thereRead More now. The village's own website has some nice photos of Port Chester. Maybe the Patch could ask to borrow one of those, or take their own photo using the same vantage point.
Craig Noor June 13, 2013 at 05:33 pm
ps oh yeah, it's stand by, not standby
Craig Noor June 14, 2013 at 07:40 am
Not surprisingly, the Greenwich patch photo is of a dumpster and the rye patch photo is ofRead More people's,owing crack. Or not pathetic!
Aidan June 14, 2013 at 11:32 am
Keep at it, Katie. It's a small potatoes thing. You'll get it straight, I'm sure. Thanks for theRead More energy.
Sandra Casey June 11, 2013 at 12:37 pm
This photo is still not appropriate. Sorry, but it is more of Byram than of Port Chester. PleaseRead More choose a photo in Port Chester.
Craig Noor June 11, 2013 at 05:36 pm
Yep the left half is Byram ... As I mentioned, if you stood in Byram you could take a picture thatRead More was all Port Chester ...
Bea Conetta June 12, 2013 at 10:07 am
This picture is truly ridiculous, because it is not Port Chester. It is a photo of Byram and aRead More parking lot. As for Patch's new format, I dislike it intensely. Go back to the old format that was more interesting and not so dull. It was good to see the comments of residents and be able to give your own opinion. It wasn't broken, so why change it? I am still waiting to get some help on how to get to my past comments. Can anyone help me with that problem that arose with the new format?
niecey June 10, 2013 at 08:02 am
I agree. It is awful. Go back to old design. I hardly go to the website anymore
Gus garcia June 11, 2013 at 10:26 am
Please! The "OLD "PATCH WAS SO MUCH EASIER TO NAVIGATE!!!!! I USED TO READ IT EVERYDAY! !!Read More NOW I JUST HATE To OPEN it:(
Aidan June 11, 2013 at 03:54 pm
I visit a lot less nowadays.
Gus garcia June 11, 2013 at 10:33 am
This reminds me what " COCA-COLA" DID DECADES AGO! . THEY CAME OUT WITH A DIFFERENT"Read More COKE" NEW! IMPROVED! ETC.ETC. FORMULA. PEOPLE HATED IT THE FIRST DAY IT WENT TO THE SHELVES! LATER ON THEY WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL !!! ..... IF IT AINT BROKEN!....
Aidan June 14, 2013 at 11:53 am
Yeah. It's lousy. Admit it and fix it.
Liz Giegerich (Editor) June 6, 2013 at 03:30 pm
Hi Silvio, Thanks for offering. We have a photo to be used. Just waiting for it to be changed by ourRead More tech team. Thank you.
Liz Giegerich (Editor) June 6, 2013 at 03:18 pm
HI everyone, I do not have the ability to change it myself right now. Patch is aware of the repeatedRead More requests for it to be changed. A new photograph will be put in place as soon as possible. Again, sorry for the delay and for the initial mistake that led to this photo being used. The photo that is supposed to be there is the one used on our facebook page right now.
Lisa Gentes-Hunt (Editor) June 6, 2013 at 03:36 pm
Feel free to send feedback about the site directly to AOL. Here is the link. Thanks!Read More http://feedback.aol.com/product/patch/?tid=446&r=http%3A%2F%2Fportchester.patch.com%2Fgroups%2Fopinion%2Fp%2Fplease-go-back-to-the-old-website-design
Craig Noor June 8, 2013 at 07:45 am
I sent my comment on the new pic to that email too and suggest others do too so it can be replacedRead More with a good picture
Silvio V. Buccieri June 6, 2013 at 12:35 pm
what a great comment, this is Port Chester!! what do you expect from this village when you rideRead More around the and you can see all the TV dishes on the building......... and the landlords get fat...
Linda Turturino June 6, 2013 at 02:08 pm
we as a community need to rally and support the efforts to right all the long past due wrongs thisRead More is a terrible situation and I for one will not rest until it is fixed and I will not take responsibility for wrongs made before my Grand Birth
FJT June 17, 2013 at 09:09 am
Sadly, comments that were posted here by Craig Noor and FJT have been removed -- along with anotherRead More commenter's invitation to share more about the issue at hand. Perhaps our comments were too negative in the eyes of certain people with more power than the average Port Chester property owner.
Liz Giegerich (Editor) June 5, 2013 at 10:36 am
I am so sorry about this. We will have it changed as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Anne Latella June 8, 2013 at 11:26 am
I believe the Port Chester High School is the most beautiful High School in Westchester and all ofRead More the surrounding states. Its architecture is incomparable. It should be representative of the village and its residents. Also you might consider the Veterans Monument on Westchester Ave or Lyons Park with the flowers in bloom. All historical and representative of the beauty of the village. Any one of these sites would make a beautiflul
Anne Latella June 8, 2013 at 11:28 am
Patch Picture & represent the village in a magnificent manner.
Craig Noor June 4, 2013 at 07:16 pm
And while I'm on the subject of ugly this redesign is still hideous. Nice inscrutable icon next toRead More my post - it adds nothing, but meanwhile you have removed the preview of people's comments that used to come up when you clicked on their name. And this light gray type is awful. And it doesn't make the ads more visible if that is what you were thinking
Craig Noor June 4, 2013 at 07:17 pm
Wow, hit a paragraph return and it posts your comment prematurely. Are two-paragraph comments tooRead More much sophistication for your audience, advertisers, or editors?
Anna June 4, 2013 at 09:05 pm
I personally like this image of Main Street...although I would agree it is a sloppy photograph andRead More is not framed well. Why pretend that Port Chester is something that it isn't? It's not Rye. And I don't know why you'd rather have an image of generic sailboats as a backdrop.