Tag Archives: Howard Dean

Howard Dean, Canadian cannabis corporation, and Anheuser-Busch

VtDigger.com reported this past weekend that the former Vermont Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean has formally joined the board of directors of Tilray, a large (Nasdaq traded) Canadian-based international cannabis company that manufactures and markets cannabis flower and extract products. There was no mention of how much compensation corporate board members receive.

Dean actually “went to pot” months ago, in December 2018, when he, along with former RNC Chairman Michael Steele became advisors to Tilray.

As recently as 2003, when running for president, Dean was opposed to legalizing pot; according to VtDigger.com he said: […] decriminalizing drugs would send “a very bad message to young people.” The country already had issues with alcohol and tobacco, “and adding a third drug is not a good idea.” Fast-forward to 2019: Faced with “the combination of deciding medical marijuana might really have some efficacy, backed up by studies that I thought were reasonable, which I didn’t think were reasonable 10 years earlier, backed up by my daughter’s public-defender experience, I flipped.”

As a physician Dean was impressed with the pharmaceutical operation Tilray is running and he was impressed by research that shows CBD is useful as a treatment for seizures associated with two severe forms of epilepsy.tilrayfortune1

But Tilray is big business and part of a fast growing hyper-competitive industry. Therefore they are looking at a wide ranging menu of possible uses for their cannabis products for shareholder profit. It wasn’t mentioned in VtDigger that early this year, not long after the two former national party chairs signed on  that Tilray  announced that it had partnered with Anheuser-Busch in a $100-million venture to study (and possibly market) not only a non-alcoholic CBD beverage but also one containing THC … the psychoactive ingredient.

I wonder if you will need Doctor Dean’s prescription for that drink.

The amazing DNC voter data machine: Who gets the profit?

Some news just washes by like untreated sludge in the stormwater overflow, but here’s some national news with a local angle that fetched up on the shore last week.

Reports are that Democratic National Chairman Tom Perez has organized a new data-exchange operation. Perez is matching the successful GOP voter-data operation on display in the last presidential vote that is believed to have boosted their turnout. The plan is for the Democrats to do as the Republicans did and form a for-profit entity; Perez’s new organization will be gathering all available Democratic data now scattered throughout state party organizations and some non-profits.

The complex operation is coming together  after months of serious internal wrangling. Politico.com reported last December that state party officials were looking to know who exactly would stand to benefit financially from the new for profit data base entity.

Now Howard Dean, with stints as a Vermont governor, a presidential candidate, and as DNC Chairman has agreed to  oversee the new DNC voter-info project. AP reports: The arrangement would allow the national party, state parties, and independent political action groups on the left to share voter data in real time during campaigns. That means, for example, that a field worker for a congressional campaign in Iowa and another for an independent political action committee knocking on doors in Florida could update a master voter file essentially as they work. When a presidential campaign spends big money on consumer data to update voter profiles, the new information would go into the central file as well. And all participating organizations would have access to the latest information.

The new exchange will operate as an independent for-profit enterprise led initially by Democratic strategist Jen O’Malley Dillon, once a top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. [emphasis added]DNCdata

The deal worked out with the DNC chair to calm the waters among the state party officials divvies up the control over the data-exchange between former Hillary people and people seen as progressives — Howard Dean and Ken Martin (leader of the Democratic state party chairs association, a MN liberal inspired by the late Senator Paul Wellstone).

As APNews reports: Martin and Perez would chair a party committee that would license the party’s voter files to O’Malley Dillon’s group, which would establish its own agreements with PACs and other groups. Dean would chair the governing board of the new outfit, and once assembled, that board will hire staff to run the operation.

Some competition and general wrangling for resources between the national organization and state party organizations are nothing new. But a for-profit business model — copied from the GOP — stocked full of licensed DNC voter data available for a price seems designed to invite grifters up to the campaign table for a big-money feast. And as always there is the ever-present potential for hackers gaining access to all that data — all those eggs in one basket could prove an irresistible target.

By splitting up oversight Perez, Dean, and all the professional movers and shakers in the presidential election industrial complex seem to have decided for now to navigate this one with some care. Except there are still questions: 1) who keeps the profits; and 2) why should state and local volunteers provide free labor to stock a data base for sale to favored, deep-pocketed entities/campaigns, when the “profits” are not going to the parties? I’d hate to see the Democrats following the Republican-capitalist model: privatize the profits and socialize the cost and the consequences.

I hope Perez, Dean, et al., at least manage to keep the peace. After all there’s not much riding on this next election but the whole ball of wax. But let’s not lose sight of our principles in the process.

Calling Doctor Dean

The frequency and blatancy of Donald Trump’s lies seem to be increasing under the pressures of the campaign. Sometimes the effect is so bizarre that one is tempted to think that Trump has a little internal Trump, a voice inside his head perhaps, that compels him irresistibly against his, or at least his handlers’ best judgement.

The Nile may be a river in Egypt, but Donald seems to have denial hardwired into every fiber of his being.   Take these Trumpian recollections just around the debate:

.  He didn’t sniff throughout the debate. It was a bad microphone, which he has alternately claimed didn’t carry his voice because it was too short, or was so sensitive that it created the illusion that he was sniffing. Which is it?

.  A truly record breaking audience heard him clearly respond to a Clinton statement that perhaps he never pays federal income tax, “That makes me smart.” The very next day, he vehemently denied making any such statement.

This, in addition to the numerous documented lies he told during the debate, and the body count on his lies in general (roughly 70% of his statements), allow even amateur psychologists to venture a guess that his disaffection for the truth may be pathological.

He lies even about unimportant things, like the sniffing. He lies unstrategically, like a child, to protect his vanity; even when the truth is undeniably evident to all but his most loyal supporters.

Like the Emperor parading in his birthday suit, he has grown accustomed to sycophants indulging him in whatever fantasy flatters him most.

Watching a series of blonde female handlers, like Stepford wives, try to justify his whoppers makes the experience that much more surreal.

I am not a journalist, nor a doctor; I am nevertheless possessed of ordinary powers of observation. As it did to Dr. Howard Dean, it occurred to me, after about the twelfth sniff Sunday night, that Mr. Trump does indeed exhibit the signs of a cokehead.

After all, we have only his word that he never drinks or does drugs; and how good has that word proven to be?

Something is toodling around in that noggin of his, causing him to drift into the imaginary rather too frequently for a Presidential candidate.

If not coke, may I suggest (from an amateur standpoint, of course) that Mr. Trump’s “id” may be a fully formed second personality, wedded to the idea of an alternative reality?

He may well be a loving husband and father and a functional business person in the workaday world.

Much of the time, that second personality may be content to sit in the passenger seat as Trump’s ego struts its stuff; but when overcome by excitement or anxiety or a challenge to his manhood, it takes the wheel like a reckless child, driving the bus straight over the cliff.

Think of all those whacky conspiracy theories he’s flirted with or fully embraced. He has even created a conspiracy myth about general media bias to answer the evidence that lies in decades of his own recorded words.

Is that not worthy of scrutiny for clinical paranoia?

Mr. Trump is a whole different kind of candidate for President who refuses to be held to the standards of the past.  He has absolutely no record of public service and refuses to open his personal records to satisfy basic questions of competency and trustworthiness.  Ordinarily, that would be enough to raise an alarm among middle America, but his skill as a snake-charmer seems to have precluded that native caution.

“Gentlemen’s agreements” and custom must be replaced with definite rules regarding what standards candidates for the highest office in the land must satisfy in a timely manner.

These should certainly include financial records of their taxes and the taxes of any entities with which they are formally associated; and detailed medical records covering at least a decade. The rules should also require a psychological evaluation by an independent practitioner acceptable to both parties.

If the two parties survive to another general election (and I say that with only half a winking smile), it behooves them both to make this happen.