So, it's Sam Alito...

So, it is upon us. Now we must ask ourselves if the judicial reasoning of Sam Alito truly what we want on the US Supreme Court. The extreme right wing is as pleased as can be this morning, but I have a definite sense of dread...

Think Progress is on the case:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

Think progress has more. Click here to see it.

I supported Roberts. I was bewildered by the nomination of Harriet Miers. But, alas, I am simply unwilling to concede control of this country to religious fanatics. That above everything else, sends chills down my spine.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

So, it's Sam Alito...

So, it is upon us. Now we must ask ourselves if the judicial reasoning of Sam Alito truly what we want on the US Supreme Court. The extreme right wing is as pleased as can be this morning, but I have a definite sense of dread...

Think Progress is on the case:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

Think progress has more. Click here to see it.

I supported Roberts. I was bewildered by the nomination of Harriet Miers. But, alas, I am simply unwilling to concede control of this country to religious fanatics. That above everything else, sends chills down my spine.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Oh, Super...

The President checked this one out with the crazies...

Bush spent the weekend at Camp David huddled with Miers, who remains his White House counsel and is therefore in charge of the judicial selection process, along with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who originally advocated Miers as the first choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the three talked, White House officials contacted prominent conservatives to test the reaction to various candidates.

One group consulted was the Concerned Women for America, whose decision to oppose Miers last Wednesday became one of the final blows to help kill the nomination. Janet M. LaRue, the group's chief counsel, said it received a call from the White House on Saturday and liked what it heard.

Concerned Women for America? Let me offer you a glimpse...

We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.

Biblical Principles... Good thing the next pick is going to be A-OK with them.

They have some "Core Issues"...

Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.

Sanctity of Human Life
CWA supports the protection of all life from conception until natural death. This includes the consequences resulting from abortion.

Education
CWA seeks to reform public education by returning authority to parents.

Pornography
CWA endeavors to fight all pornography and obscenity.

Religious Liberty
CWA supports the God-given rights of individuals in the United States and other nations to pray and worship without fear of discrimination or persecution.

National Sovereignty
CWA believes that neither the United Nations nor any other international organization should have authority over the United States in any area, including economics, social policy, military, and land ownership.

Miscellaneous
CWA also deals with a variety of other issues that don't comfortably fit into a category, yet are important to address.

And let's not be unclear on what they view their mission to be. Their mission statement is:

The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.

Your next Supreme Court nominee is brought to you by the Religious Fanatic Wing of the Republican Party. Welcome the American Taliban to the big time. They whined enough that the President has capitulated to them. Let's see what the MAJORITY of the country thinks.

I have no doubt that they are indeed concerned women, but I am simply revolted by the fact that they feel they must spill that concern on me.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Oh, Super...

The President checked this one out with the crazies...

Bush spent the weekend at Camp David huddled with Miers, who remains his White House counsel and is therefore in charge of the judicial selection process, along with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who originally advocated Miers as the first choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the three talked, White House officials contacted prominent conservatives to test the reaction to various candidates.

One group consulted was the Concerned Women for America, whose decision to oppose Miers last Wednesday became one of the final blows to help kill the nomination. Janet M. LaRue, the group's chief counsel, said it received a call from the White House on Saturday and liked what it heard.

Concerned Women for America? Let me offer you a glimpse...

We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.

Biblical Principles... Good thing the next pick is going to be A-OK with them.

They have some "Core Issues"...

Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.

Sanctity of Human Life
CWA supports the protection of all life from conception until natural death. This includes the consequences resulting from abortion.

Education
CWA seeks to reform public education by returning authority to parents.

Pornography
CWA endeavors to fight all pornography and obscenity.

Religious Liberty
CWA supports the God-given rights of individuals in the United States and other nations to pray and worship without fear of discrimination or persecution.

National Sovereignty
CWA believes that neither the United Nations nor any other international organization should have authority over the United States in any area, including economics, social policy, military, and land ownership.

Miscellaneous
CWA also deals with a variety of other issues that don't comfortably fit into a category, yet are important to address.

And let's not be unclear on what they view their mission to be. Their mission statement is:

The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.

Your next Supreme Court nominee is brought to you by the Religious Fanatic Wing of the Republican Party. Welcome the American Taliban to the big time. They whined enough that the President has capitulated to them. Let's see what the MAJORITY of the country thinks.

I have no doubt that they are indeed concerned women, but I am simply revolted by the fact that they feel they must spill that concern on me.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Woo Ha!

Go. Read. Now.

Click here.

What are you waiting for?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Woo Ha!

Go. Read. Now.

Click here.

What are you waiting for?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Exactly!

I'm taking this wholesale from Andrew Sullivan, so Andrew, please don't sue. :-) Seriously though this is exactly right, and everyone should understand this.

A READER NAILS IT: This blog's greatest resource is you. Here's an email that shows why:

Just got through reading a transcript of the Fitz press conference, and a few things stood out.

As bizarre as that baseball analogy was, I think it said a lot about what might happen in the next few days or weeks. Seems to me that when discussing the possibility of a leak-related crime, e.g. violation of either the Intelligence Identities Act or Espionage Act, Fitz focused on how such prosecutions were very difficult because they require proof of a mental state. (Hence the silly analogy about a pitcher throwing at guy's head.) Under both statutes, the disclosure of classified info must be intentional or purposeful, i.e., the perp must have "known" that the information was classified (for the Espionage Act) or that the agent was "covert," among other things (under the Intelligence Act). As Fitz asked, "was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?"

I don't know what Fitz knows. But I think he is one inch from prosecuting the leak itself - at least his public comments leave the impression that he's pissed about it - and the only thing holding him back is that he's afraid he can't prove state of mind. Proving state of mind is really hard in any case -- and it's especially hard when the defendant is an intelligent career political operative with an expensive white collar defense lawyer. I think Fitz can do it, and I think Fitz thinks he can do it, but he seems to be playing it cautious. Why?

Let's just take the Espionage Act. Fitz clearly said that Plame's position was classified, he implied strongly that it related to national security, and as Josh Marshall pointed out in a recent post, the indictment itself states that both Cheney and Libby knew the precise division of the CIA where she worked, which by definition made her covert. So right there - as soon as he tells that to Miller - you have a prima facie violation of the Espionage Act.

Fitz also said, "I don't buy that theory [that one should never use the Espionage statute], but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute ... You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts." He went on to lament the fact that Libby had lied, thus throwing the proverbial sand in his eyes.

What's all this mean? Well, seems like Fitz has a pretty strong case for the Espionage Act, and if Plame met the objective standards in the Intelligence Act, for that one too. And it seems like the fact that Libby lied repeatedly is very strong evidence of a culpable state of mind, belying any claim that he didn't "know" the info was classified or that divulging it was wrong. Add that to the very specific allegation in the indictment that he knew exactly where she worked, and there it is.

So why not charge it? Because Fitz has Libby nailed on the 5 counts from today's indictment. Just nailed. So he's bringing Libby in on those charges, they're going to talk some turkey, and Fitz is going to see if Libby will talk, maybe about VP, maybe about Official A (who's clearly Rove), or maybe about the VP's moles at State and in the CIA. Offer some carrots - maybe no jail - but if Libby refuses, then Fitz brings down the espionage or intelligence act charges. Libby has nowhere to go, and Fitz knows it. In my view, he's going to try to exploit that opening before wrapping this thing up.

That's entirely my view as well, after mulling this over some more for a few hours. From the evidence we now have, it seems crystal clear to me that Libby knew he was out of line when he leaked the Plame name, and perjured himself to protect himself and the real source of the leak, Cheney. He gambled that the reporters wouldn't squeal; and that he could cleverly spin his phone conversations so that the information seemed to come from reporters, not him. The question now is whether he will now turn against his colleagues and master to save his own skin. This story is just beginning. Ultimately, it's about Cheney.

As I said, this is just beginning. I find it simply impossible to believe that VP Cheney was unaware and uninvolved in the actions taken by his chief of staff. As it has been so often pointed out, Libby is Cheney's Cheney. What did the VP know and when did he know it? Libby now has 30 years worth of reasons to let Fitzgerald know.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Exactly!

I'm taking this wholesale from Andrew Sullivan, so Andrew, please don't sue. :-) Seriously though this is exactly right, and everyone should understand this.

A READER NAILS IT: This blog's greatest resource is you. Here's an email that shows why:

Just got through reading a transcript of the Fitz press conference, and a few things stood out.

As bizarre as that baseball analogy was, I think it said a lot about what might happen in the next few days or weeks. Seems to me that when discussing the possibility of a leak-related crime, e.g. violation of either the Intelligence Identities Act or Espionage Act, Fitz focused on how such prosecutions were very difficult because they require proof of a mental state. (Hence the silly analogy about a pitcher throwing at guy's head.) Under both statutes, the disclosure of classified info must be intentional or purposeful, i.e., the perp must have "known" that the information was classified (for the Espionage Act) or that the agent was "covert," among other things (under the Intelligence Act). As Fitz asked, "was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?"

I don't know what Fitz knows. But I think he is one inch from prosecuting the leak itself - at least his public comments leave the impression that he's pissed about it - and the only thing holding him back is that he's afraid he can't prove state of mind. Proving state of mind is really hard in any case -- and it's especially hard when the defendant is an intelligent career political operative with an expensive white collar defense lawyer. I think Fitz can do it, and I think Fitz thinks he can do it, but he seems to be playing it cautious. Why?

Let's just take the Espionage Act. Fitz clearly said that Plame's position was classified, he implied strongly that it related to national security, and as Josh Marshall pointed out in a recent post, the indictment itself states that both Cheney and Libby knew the precise division of the CIA where she worked, which by definition made her covert. So right there - as soon as he tells that to Miller - you have a prima facie violation of the Espionage Act.

Fitz also said, "I don't buy that theory [that one should never use the Espionage statute], but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute ... You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts." He went on to lament the fact that Libby had lied, thus throwing the proverbial sand in his eyes.

What's all this mean? Well, seems like Fitz has a pretty strong case for the Espionage Act, and if Plame met the objective standards in the Intelligence Act, for that one too. And it seems like the fact that Libby lied repeatedly is very strong evidence of a culpable state of mind, belying any claim that he didn't "know" the info was classified or that divulging it was wrong. Add that to the very specific allegation in the indictment that he knew exactly where she worked, and there it is.

So why not charge it? Because Fitz has Libby nailed on the 5 counts from today's indictment. Just nailed. So he's bringing Libby in on those charges, they're going to talk some turkey, and Fitz is going to see if Libby will talk, maybe about VP, maybe about Official A (who's clearly Rove), or maybe about the VP's moles at State and in the CIA. Offer some carrots - maybe no jail - but if Libby refuses, then Fitz brings down the espionage or intelligence act charges. Libby has nowhere to go, and Fitz knows it. In my view, he's going to try to exploit that opening before wrapping this thing up.

That's entirely my view as well, after mulling this over some more for a few hours. From the evidence we now have, it seems crystal clear to me that Libby knew he was out of line when he leaked the Plame name, and perjured himself to protect himself and the real source of the leak, Cheney. He gambled that the reporters wouldn't squeal; and that he could cleverly spin his phone conversations so that the information seemed to come from reporters, not him. The question now is whether he will now turn against his colleagues and master to save his own skin. This story is just beginning. Ultimately, it's about Cheney.

As I said, this is just beginning. I find it simply impossible to believe that VP Cheney was unaware and uninvolved in the actions taken by his chief of staff. As it has been so often pointed out, Libby is Cheney's Cheney. What did the VP know and when did he know it? Libby now has 30 years worth of reasons to let Fitzgerald know.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Just a quick thought on Fitzmas...

This is the beginning and not the end. Mark my words.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Just a quick thought on Fitzmas...

This is the beginning and not the end. Mark my words.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ok, I have to see King Kong...

Check out the trailer here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ok, I have to see King Kong...

Check out the trailer here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

They're Seeing things again...

People are seeing Jesus in the Trees. It's not that I don't believe in miracles, but tree bark? Really? And why is is always the Jesus from western European post-renaissance painters? Just wondering.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

They're Seeing things again...

People are seeing Jesus in the Trees. It's not that I don't believe in miracles, but tree bark? Really? And why is is always the Jesus from western European post-renaissance painters? Just wondering.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

My New Favorite T-Shirt...

Get yours here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

My New Favorite T-Shirt...

Get yours here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I'm not the only one who thinks so...

From the AP:

The influence of evangelical Christians in the Republican Party hurts the organization and divides the country, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth said during a visit to the Bill Clinton School of Public Service on Wednesday.

Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri and an Episcopal priest, met with students during a seminar and held a luncheon talk at the graduate school.

"I think that the Republican Party fairly recently has been taken over by the Christian conservatives, by the Christian right," he said in an interview after his talks. "I don't think that this is a permanent condition but I think this has happened, and that it's divisive for the country."

He also said the evangelical Christian influence would be bad for the party in the long run.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracy Schmitt declined comment.

And so it is...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I'm not the only one who thinks so...

From the AP:

The influence of evangelical Christians in the Republican Party hurts the organization and divides the country, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth said during a visit to the Bill Clinton School of Public Service on Wednesday.

Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri and an Episcopal priest, met with students during a seminar and held a luncheon talk at the graduate school.

"I think that the Republican Party fairly recently has been taken over by the Christian conservatives, by the Christian right," he said in an interview after his talks. "I don't think that this is a permanent condition but I think this has happened, and that it's divisive for the country."

He also said the evangelical Christian influence would be bad for the party in the long run.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracy Schmitt declined comment.

And so it is...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I'm with Ezra Klein...

From the American Prospect's website:

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY RETURNS. Over at The National Review, Kathryn Lopez has written the single weirdest response to Harriet Miers' withdrawal that I've yet seen:

You know what the relief is this morning? A return to the feeling that this president gets the big things right. There was a detour, but I’m confident we’re going to have good news shortly on SCOTUS, because this president tends to get the big things right. That’s the confidence so many of us have always had in him. And we may have been worried about our assessment for a few weeks there, but there's a renewed confidence this morning.

Wasn't the whole Miers fiasco, to The National Review, an example of getting a Big Thing wrong? Didn't Social Security privatization prove a colossal misjudgement that set the stage for the administration's second-term struggles? Or were they, as Lopez suggests, mere hiccups and blips in an otherwise soaring record of righteousness?
While a cult of personality focusing on Bush's mid-40s moral resurrection and his quiet, determined morality has long been necessary to hide his essential lack of commitment to conservative causes, the belief in George W. Bush is beginning to take on a religious subtext: Even when Big Things go wrong, like floods, plagues, and earthquakes, you can take comfort in knowing that they were temporary detours in a benevolent, carefully examined master plan. This isn't political analysis or pop-psychology, it's theology.

Back in reality, what actually happened to Miers is that her nomination was greeted with hostility from the right, bemusement from the left, and was finally slapped back by an angry conservative base and Bill Frist's admission that she wouldn't be confirmed. In politics, that's not called a detour; it's a defeat. That Lopez has instead taken it as more proof of Bush's infallible internal compass is, to be honest, a little scary.

--Ezra Klein

Amen.

I'm with Ezra Klein...

From the American Prospect's website:

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY RETURNS. Over at The National Review, Kathryn Lopez has written the single weirdest response to Harriet Miers' withdrawal that I've yet seen:

You know what the relief is this morning? A return to the feeling that this president gets the big things right. There was a detour, but I’m confident we’re going to have good news shortly on SCOTUS, because this president tends to get the big things right. That’s the confidence so many of us have always had in him. And we may have been worried about our assessment for a few weeks there, but there's a renewed confidence this morning.

Wasn't the whole Miers fiasco, to The National Review, an example of getting a Big Thing wrong? Didn't Social Security privatization prove a colossal misjudgement that set the stage for the administration's second-term struggles? Or were they, as Lopez suggests, mere hiccups and blips in an otherwise soaring record of righteousness?
While a cult of personality focusing on Bush's mid-40s moral resurrection and his quiet, determined morality has long been necessary to hide his essential lack of commitment to conservative causes, the belief in George W. Bush is beginning to take on a religious subtext: Even when Big Things go wrong, like floods, plagues, and earthquakes, you can take comfort in knowing that they were temporary detours in a benevolent, carefully examined master plan. This isn't political analysis or pop-psychology, it's theology.

Back in reality, what actually happened to Miers is that her nomination was greeted with hostility from the right, bemusement from the left, and was finally slapped back by an angry conservative base and Bill Frist's admission that she wouldn't be confirmed. In politics, that's not called a detour; it's a defeat. That Lopez has instead taken it as more proof of Bush's infallible internal compass is, to be honest, a little scary.

--Ezra Klein

Amen.

So True...

Found this... What a succinct truth!



-The Oklahoma Hippy

So True...

Found this... What a succinct truth!



-The Oklahoma Hippy

I guess I had it wrong all along...

Thank goodness the guys at RedState.org were around to set me straight...

My sources are relaying to me information that may be very good news re: the Plame Case.

Although I cannot substantiate this info 100%, I am receiving this from sources very close to the investigation and grand jury:

1. No indictments for Rove, Libby or any member of the administration.

2. Pobable indictments for Vallerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and one as yet unknown high ranking Congressional Democrat.

3. No wrong doing or misuse of intelligence on the part of the administration.

4. Possible criminal conduct in an attempt to smear the White House on the part of Congressional Democrats,  Plame and Wilson.

(Again, take this with a grain of salt but this is what I am hearing from my sources and the D.C. grape vine)

Let me just say, if this was a joke, it was both funny and well executed.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I guess I had it wrong all along...

Thank goodness the guys at RedState.org were around to set me straight...

My sources are relaying to me information that may be very good news re: the Plame Case.

Although I cannot substantiate this info 100%, I am receiving this from sources very close to the investigation and grand jury:

1. No indictments for Rove, Libby or any member of the administration.

2. Pobable indictments for Vallerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and one as yet unknown high ranking Congressional Democrat.

3. No wrong doing or misuse of intelligence on the part of the administration.

4. Possible criminal conduct in an attempt to smear the White House on the part of Congressional Democrats,  Plame and Wilson.

(Again, take this with a grain of salt but this is what I am hearing from my sources and the D.C. grape vine)

Let me just say, if this was a joke, it was both funny and well executed.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Human Flesh Alternative... Yum!

How can this be legal, yet smoking pot is a crime? Anyone? Anyone?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Human Flesh Alternative... Yum!

How can this be legal, yet smoking pot is a crime? Anyone? Anyone?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Marijuana... beyond harmless.

It's not only harmless, but actually seems to have positive effects on the human body, which can't really be said for cigarettes or gin.

First, let's look at this report from Science Daily:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Scientists said Thursday that marijuana appears to promote the development of new brain cells in rats and have anti-anxiety and anti-depressant effects, a finding that could have an impact on the national debate over medical uses of the drug.

Other illegal and legal drugs, including opiates, alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress the formation of new brain cells when used chronically, but marijuana's effect on that process was uncertain.

Now, a team led by Xia Zhang of the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon may have found evidence the drug spurs new brain cells to form in a region of the brain called the hippocampus, and this in turn reduces anxiety and depression.

Marijuana appears "to be the only illicit drug whose capacity to produce increased ... neurons is positively correlated with its (anti-anxiety) and anti-depressant-like effects," Zhang and colleagues wrote in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The paper was posted online Thursday.

But remember, the US Government classifies marijuana as a dangerous substance on the same level with Cocaine and Heroin. Of all the stupid policies that the US government has, and that's a lot of stupidity, the prohibition against Marijuana absolutely the apex of senselessness.

and now we have the following:

Pot not a major cancer risk: report By Amy Norton
Wed Oct 26,12:29 PM ET



Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report.

The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.

Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.

But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.

Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.

Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.

THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.

All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.

If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.

U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.

SOURCE: Harm Reduction Journal, October 18, 2005.

The active chemical in marijuana is a deterent to the cancer causing effects of nicotine.

It's time for us to face facts. Pot isn't a dangerous drug. It's a weed that makes you feel giggly and hungry. It doesn't cause you to be a psycho. (Quite the opposite in fact.)

Do you want to know how to put "drug dealers" out of business? Start by legitimizing it's use. Who's going to buy from a guy on the corner when you can buy it at 7-11?

Regulate it. Tax it. Study it. Stop spending 6 BILLION DOLLARS a year on locking up pot smokers.

Stop paying farmers to grow corn. Let them grow pot. That's another 5 Billion dollars that we don't have to spend on ethanol subsidies.

Legalize Marijuana. Anything else is just stupid, and I've had about all of the stupidity that I can handle in the last 5 years.



LEGALIZE IT!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Marijuana... beyond harmless.

It's not only harmless, but actually seems to have positive effects on the human body, which can't really be said for cigarettes or gin.

First, let's look at this report from Science Daily:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Scientists said Thursday that marijuana appears to promote the development of new brain cells in rats and have anti-anxiety and anti-depressant effects, a finding that could have an impact on the national debate over medical uses of the drug.

Other illegal and legal drugs, including opiates, alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress the formation of new brain cells when used chronically, but marijuana's effect on that process was uncertain.

Now, a team led by Xia Zhang of the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon may have found evidence the drug spurs new brain cells to form in a region of the brain called the hippocampus, and this in turn reduces anxiety and depression.

Marijuana appears "to be the only illicit drug whose capacity to produce increased ... neurons is positively correlated with its (anti-anxiety) and anti-depressant-like effects," Zhang and colleagues wrote in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The paper was posted online Thursday.

But remember, the US Government classifies marijuana as a dangerous substance on the same level with Cocaine and Heroin. Of all the stupid policies that the US government has, and that's a lot of stupidity, the prohibition against Marijuana absolutely the apex of senselessness.

and now we have the following:

Pot not a major cancer risk: report By Amy Norton
Wed Oct 26,12:29 PM ET



Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report.

The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.

Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.

But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.

Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.

Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.

THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.

All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.

If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.

U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.

SOURCE: Harm Reduction Journal, October 18, 2005.

The active chemical in marijuana is a deterent to the cancer causing effects of nicotine.

It's time for us to face facts. Pot isn't a dangerous drug. It's a weed that makes you feel giggly and hungry. It doesn't cause you to be a psycho. (Quite the opposite in fact.)

Do you want to know how to put "drug dealers" out of business? Start by legitimizing it's use. Who's going to buy from a guy on the corner when you can buy it at 7-11?

Regulate it. Tax it. Study it. Stop spending 6 BILLION DOLLARS a year on locking up pot smokers.

Stop paying farmers to grow corn. Let them grow pot. That's another 5 Billion dollars that we don't have to spend on ethanol subsidies.

Legalize Marijuana. Anything else is just stupid, and I've had about all of the stupidity that I can handle in the last 5 years.



LEGALIZE IT!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Merry Fitzmas! Merry Fiztmas to all!

Merry Fitzmas!



I wonder how many indictments I will find under the Fitzmas Tree?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Merry Fitzmas! Merry Fiztmas to all!

Merry Fitzmas!



I wonder how many indictments I will find under the Fitzmas Tree?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I am not a Conspiracy Theorist...

For 2 1/2 years now, people have treated me as if I were insane for believing that the Bush Administration lied us into a war...

Now it's finally beginning to be clear to the rest of the world that this is in fact the case.

The implications of this are too huge and too terrible to be imagined, but it is fact.

If what Raw Story is reporting is indeed the case, then what we are about to witness should make Watergate look like a playground shoving match.

The Big Lie is being uncovered, and it's about time.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I am not a Conspiracy Theorist...

For 2 1/2 years now, people have treated me as if I were insane for believing that the Bush Administration lied us into a war...

Now it's finally beginning to be clear to the rest of the world that this is in fact the case.

The implications of this are too huge and too terrible to be imagined, but it is fact.

If what Raw Story is reporting is indeed the case, then what we are about to witness should make Watergate look like a playground shoving match.

The Big Lie is being uncovered, and it's about time.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Is this what Fitzgerald has?

If this is remotely close to the truth, then I can't quite grasp the scope of what is going to happen next...

From Raw Story:

Those familiar with information provided to Fitzgerald say that shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Wurmser was handpicked by Harold Rhode, a Foreign Affairs Specialist in the Office of Net Assessment, a Pentagon "think tank," and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith to head a top secret Pentagon "cell" whose job was to comb through CIA intelligence documents and find evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its neighbors in the Middle East so a case could be made to launch a preemptive military strike. Wurmser largely invented evidence that Iraq had close ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, sources knowledgeable about his work told RAW STORY.

Although the CIA documents that Wurmser and his staff poured over never showed Iraq as being an immediate threat, Wurmser was dead set on finding and presenting evidence to Vice President Dick Cheney that suggested as much even if the veracity of such intelligence was questionable. Wurmser had met with now discredited Iraqi exiles who were part of the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, the infamous single source of Judith Miller's explosive columns published in the New York Times that said Iraq was acquiring nuclear bomb components, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, sources close the probe said.

With the help of Chalabi, and the White House Iraq Group, Wurmser helped Cheney's office, particularly the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, build a case for war. Wurmser frequently met with Cheney, Libby, Feith and Richard Perle, the former head of the Defense Policy Board, to go over the "evidence" of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein that could then be used by the White House to build public support for the Iraq war. Wurmser routinely butted heads with the CIA over the veracity of the intelligence he was providing to Cheney's office, sources close the investigation said.

Wurmser had long been a proponent of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Indeed, in 1996, Wurmser, his wife Meyrav and Perle, authored a paper for "Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize and roll back" various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a "prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity," according to an investigative report in the January/February 2004 issue of Mother Jones magazine.

They faked the intelligence, and now we know how and why...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Is this what Fitzgerald has?

If this is remotely close to the truth, then I can't quite grasp the scope of what is going to happen next...

From Raw Story:

Those familiar with information provided to Fitzgerald say that shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Wurmser was handpicked by Harold Rhode, a Foreign Affairs Specialist in the Office of Net Assessment, a Pentagon "think tank," and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith to head a top secret Pentagon "cell" whose job was to comb through CIA intelligence documents and find evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its neighbors in the Middle East so a case could be made to launch a preemptive military strike. Wurmser largely invented evidence that Iraq had close ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, sources knowledgeable about his work told RAW STORY.

Although the CIA documents that Wurmser and his staff poured over never showed Iraq as being an immediate threat, Wurmser was dead set on finding and presenting evidence to Vice President Dick Cheney that suggested as much even if the veracity of such intelligence was questionable. Wurmser had met with now discredited Iraqi exiles who were part of the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, the infamous single source of Judith Miller's explosive columns published in the New York Times that said Iraq was acquiring nuclear bomb components, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, sources close the probe said.

With the help of Chalabi, and the White House Iraq Group, Wurmser helped Cheney's office, particularly the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, build a case for war. Wurmser frequently met with Cheney, Libby, Feith and Richard Perle, the former head of the Defense Policy Board, to go over the "evidence" of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein that could then be used by the White House to build public support for the Iraq war. Wurmser routinely butted heads with the CIA over the veracity of the intelligence he was providing to Cheney's office, sources close the investigation said.

Wurmser had long been a proponent of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Indeed, in 1996, Wurmser, his wife Meyrav and Perle, authored a paper for "Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize and roll back" various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a "prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity," according to an investigative report in the January/February 2004 issue of Mother Jones magazine.

They faked the intelligence, and now we know how and why...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

A bit of wisdom...

"You've got to run like an Antelope out of control."

-Phish

A bit of wisdom...

"You've got to run like an Antelope out of control."

-Phish

Cool... Can I cash out?

My blog is worth $24,839.76.
How much is your blog worth?

Cool... Can I cash out?

My blog is worth $24,839.76.
How much is your blog worth?

Just a Reminder...

If you are a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, everyone is out to get you...

That is all. This has been your daily Persecution Affirmation.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Just a Reminder...

If you are a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, everyone is out to get you...

That is all. This has been your daily Persecution Affirmation.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

A review of John Gibson's "The War on Christmas..."

This is a review posted on Amazon by "Tom."

The liberals are atheists who want to destroy christian people, October 21, 2005
Reviewer: Tom - See all my reviews

In my hometown, they canceled the chirstmas play at the public school because some muslim complained to liberal atheists. The kids couldn't even put on a play which in the past raised money for the school. Instead, the liberals would rather tax everyone more.

It is very important to fight these homosexuals and atheists. They will make a society where little 13 year old girls can get aboritions in school without their parents knowing, and where boys will be taught that homosexuality is good. But they will not let them have christmas at school. They have made it illegal to say a prayer before a sports game. These people are evil, worse than the terrorists.

It is time to get good judges, and throw out the ACLU types.

Alrighty then...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

A review of John Gibson's "The War on Christmas..."

This is a review posted on Amazon by "Tom."

The liberals are atheists who want to destroy christian people, October 21, 2005
Reviewer: Tom - See all my reviews

In my hometown, they canceled the chirstmas play at the public school because some muslim complained to liberal atheists. The kids couldn't even put on a play which in the past raised money for the school. Instead, the liberals would rather tax everyone more.

It is very important to fight these homosexuals and atheists. They will make a society where little 13 year old girls can get aboritions in school without their parents knowing, and where boys will be taught that homosexuality is good. But they will not let them have christmas at school. They have made it illegal to say a prayer before a sports game. These people are evil, worse than the terrorists.

It is time to get good judges, and throw out the ACLU types.

Alrighty then...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ann Coulter speaks...

I simply cannot figure out why this woman has any credibility with anyone...

Coulter mainly addressed weaknesses she saw in the Democratic party.

"The Democrats complain about the Republican base being nuts," Coulter said. "The nuts are their entire party."

She warned attendees to not allow Democrats anywhere near foreign policy, "not even to keep them away from domestic policy."

Coulter defended the war in Iraq and chastised Democrats for "demoralizing America."

"The war was a magnificent success," she said. "We're a few years into the rebuilding."

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

That's the difference between me and her I suppose. I am a big fan of the first amendment, even if it means that she is allowed to deposit her drivel into the world.

At least I can fantasize about what would become of her if she were on the island in "Lost."

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Ann Coulter speaks...

I simply cannot figure out why this woman has any credibility with anyone...

Coulter mainly addressed weaknesses she saw in the Democratic party.

"The Democrats complain about the Republican base being nuts," Coulter said. "The nuts are their entire party."

She warned attendees to not allow Democrats anywhere near foreign policy, "not even to keep them away from domestic policy."

Coulter defended the war in Iraq and chastised Democrats for "demoralizing America."

"The war was a magnificent success," she said. "We're a few years into the rebuilding."

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

That's the difference between me and her I suppose. I am a big fan of the first amendment, even if it means that she is allowed to deposit her drivel into the world.

At least I can fantasize about what would become of her if she were on the island in "Lost."

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Showtunes? Such a cliche...

Shepard Smith likes musicals, wink wink.

Cooper isn’t the only well-known TV personality hiding his sexual orientation. Shepard Smith, who hosts a popular program on Fox News and received widespread praise for his work covering Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, also dodges questions about his sexual orientation.

Smith once chatted me up in a New York City gay piano bar, bought me drinks, and invited me back to his place. When I declined, he asked me to dinner the next night, another invitation I politely refused.

We sat at the bar chatting and drinking martinis until 3 a.m., our conversation interrupted only when he paused to belt out the lyrics to whatever showtune was being performed.

Hehehehe. I don't have a problem with Shep being gay. I have a problem with him being tacky.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Showtunes? Such a cliche...

Shepard Smith likes musicals, wink wink.

Cooper isn’t the only well-known TV personality hiding his sexual orientation. Shepard Smith, who hosts a popular program on Fox News and received widespread praise for his work covering Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, also dodges questions about his sexual orientation.

Smith once chatted me up in a New York City gay piano bar, bought me drinks, and invited me back to his place. When I declined, he asked me to dinner the next night, another invitation I politely refused.

We sat at the bar chatting and drinking martinis until 3 a.m., our conversation interrupted only when he paused to belt out the lyrics to whatever showtune was being performed.

Hehehehe. I don't have a problem with Shep being gay. I have a problem with him being tacky.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Sometimes, Life for a Hippy is too Sweet...

You are hereby commanded...



I'm going to have some wine now...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Sometimes, Life for a Hippy is too Sweet...

You are hereby commanded...



I'm going to have some wine now...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Who likes George W. Bush even less than The Hippy?

Steve the Pirate...

Who likes George W. Bush even less than The Hippy?

Steve the Pirate...

Disgusting...

These people claim to be doing the work of Jesus...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Disgusting...

These people claim to be doing the work of Jesus...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Dick! Dick! Dick!

Can life get any sweeter for a Hippy?

Two officials close to Fitzgerald told RAW STORY they have seen documents obtained from the White House Iraq Group which state that Cheney was present at several of the group's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration “twisted” prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be.

DEVELOPING HARD...

Read the glorius sweetness here...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Dick! Dick! Dick!

Can life get any sweeter for a Hippy?

Two officials close to Fitzgerald told RAW STORY they have seen documents obtained from the White House Iraq Group which state that Cheney was present at several of the group's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration “twisted” prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be.

DEVELOPING HARD...

Read the glorius sweetness here...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

So now we know...

From Raw Story:

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS TO REPORT THAT SOURCES BELIEVE SOMEONE HAS FLIPPED IN WHITE HOUSE, AIDING LEAK INVESTIGATION.... DEVELOPING...

I must now go pop a cork on a nice bottle of champagne...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

So now we know...

From Raw Story:

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS TO REPORT THAT SOURCES BELIEVE SOMEONE HAS FLIPPED IN WHITE HOUSE, AIDING LEAK INVESTIGATION.... DEVELOPING...

I must now go pop a cork on a nice bottle of champagne...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

What's Raw Story on to?

Over at RawStory.com, they have the folllowing tease...

PAPER TO BREAK HUGE NEW TWIST IN
LEAK INVESTIGATION... DEVELOPING...

Seriously guys, that's just mean. Well, here's to waiting...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

What's Raw Story on to?

Over at RawStory.com, they have the folllowing tease...

PAPER TO BREAK HUGE NEW TWIST IN
LEAK INVESTIGATION... DEVELOPING...

Seriously guys, that's just mean. Well, here's to waiting...

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Who is John Sheridan?

Who is John Sheridan?

WP: Pat Robertson = Nutjob

From The Washington Post:

What do Hugo Chavez and Harriet Miers have in common?

Pat Robertson: The rhetorical hit man who opined several weeks ago that Chavez, the Venezuelan president, should be assassinated now has thrown down the gauntlet for senators who oppose Miers's nomination for the Supreme Court.

"Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" he said Thursday on "The 700 Club," his voice sarcastic with disbelief. "Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."

It's becoming almost routine, this strident talk. Indeed, Robertson, 75, has a long history of controversial statements, dating at least to his infamous 1991 conspiracist tract, "The New World Order." And he shows no sign of slowing down.
This week, he accused Chavez of sending money to Osama bin Laden, making nice with the jailed terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" and negotiating with Iran for nuclear materials. And after Katrina, Rita and the spate of global earthquakes and floods, he's raised the biblical end-of-the-world scenario. Or could it be, he's also offered, that it is God's wrath against abortion?

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with this man who once equated feminism with witchcraft, who said of the State Department: "You've got to blow that thing up."

That the Republican Party continues to coddle this man and lend him any credibility at all is out and out embarrassing for our country.

WP: Pat Robertson = Nutjob

From The Washington Post:

What do Hugo Chavez and Harriet Miers have in common?

Pat Robertson: The rhetorical hit man who opined several weeks ago that Chavez, the Venezuelan president, should be assassinated now has thrown down the gauntlet for senators who oppose Miers's nomination for the Supreme Court.

"Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" he said Thursday on "The 700 Club," his voice sarcastic with disbelief. "Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."

It's becoming almost routine, this strident talk. Indeed, Robertson, 75, has a long history of controversial statements, dating at least to his infamous 1991 conspiracist tract, "The New World Order." And he shows no sign of slowing down.
This week, he accused Chavez of sending money to Osama bin Laden, making nice with the jailed terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" and negotiating with Iran for nuclear materials. And after Katrina, Rita and the spate of global earthquakes and floods, he's raised the biblical end-of-the-world scenario. Or could it be, he's also offered, that it is God's wrath against abortion?

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with this man who once equated feminism with witchcraft, who said of the State Department: "You've got to blow that thing up."

That the Republican Party continues to coddle this man and lend him any credibility at all is out and out embarrassing for our country.

It's 1:30...

Has Pat Robertson said anything crazy today?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

It's 1:30...

Has Pat Robertson said anything crazy today?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Richard Cohen...

He's now officially on my shit list.

Let me save you the bother.

On the Valerie Plame matter, Dicky C suggests:

Let's stick out head in the sand and pretend that the there is nothing wrong with what happened.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Richard Cohen...

He's now officially on my shit list.

Let me save you the bother.

On the Valerie Plame matter, Dicky C suggests:

Let's stick out head in the sand and pretend that the there is nothing wrong with what happened.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

James Dobson is a Liar...

Lie Lie Lie.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

James Dobson is a Liar...

Lie Lie Lie.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

An Obit for the Republican Majority...

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The Republicans come to their present troubles from different directions: President Bush thought he was making a safe, pragmatic choice in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but this soulless maneuver enraged the party's right wing and set it on a fratricidal binge. Tom DeLay thought he was ramrodding a permanent Republican government, but he managed to get himself indicted and, well before that calamity, had angered House Republicans who concluded that "The Hammer's" leadership style was marching them off a cliff. Looming over all these little problems is the crucible of Iraq.

What's interesting is that most of these wounds are self-inflicted. They draw a picture of a party that, for all its seeming dominance, isn't prepared to be the nation's governing party. The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful. Governing requires making compromises and getting your hands dirty, but the conservative purists disdain those qualities. They swim for that beach with a fiercely misguided determination, and they demand that the other whales accompany them.

The bickering over the Miers nomination epitomizes the right's refusal to assume the role of a majoritarian governing party. The awkward fact for conservatives is that the American public doesn't agree with them on abortion rights. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in late August found 54 percent describing themselves as pro-choice and only 38 percent as pro-life, roughly the same percentages as a decade ago.

That's the political reality that Bush has been trying to finesse with his nominations of John Roberts and Miers. That's why he said in the 2000 primary campaign that he wouldn't impose any litmus test (when other Republicans were demanding one) and would instead focus on a nominee's character and judicial philosophy. The realist in Bush understands that he can't easily force a nominee who is openly antiabortion on a country where a solid majority disagrees.

Read the whole thing. It's an excellent piece of work.

The fact is that the Republicans aren't willing to compromise. The Republican Majority has spent the last 25 years courting Evangelical Christians. For the Republican Party it was about creating a majority to obtain political power, and not about truly sharing the values of this constituency.

The sad part is that the way the Republican Party has manipulated Evangelical Christians for a quarter century. Evangelicals have lived under the false impression that they were the movement. They were not. The goal was to obtain political power. They did that. They did so using a team of people that came out of Nixon's administration and Acolytes that joined them during the Reagan years, people who were not Movement Evangelicals.

Evangelical Christians in this country are suffering from a form of abused wife syndrome. The Republican Party has never taught them to love the Republican Party, but rather to hate the Democratic Party. Once the Democrats were thoroughly demonized, the Republican Party knew they could behave any way they wished, because of their absolute certainty that the Christian base would not defect to the democrats, and that's all they cared about.

Cronyism, Corporatism, a shrinking middle class, a lack of health care... The kicker is that abortion is still legal, and even Pat Buchanan is now saying that he believes that Bush doesn't want Roe overturned.

So, all of you "movement conservatives" need to start realizing that you got played. Say what you want about the Democrats, but you always knew where you stood with the Democratic Party.

It's soul searching time.

An Obit for the Republican Majority...

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The Republicans come to their present troubles from different directions: President Bush thought he was making a safe, pragmatic choice in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but this soulless maneuver enraged the party's right wing and set it on a fratricidal binge. Tom DeLay thought he was ramrodding a permanent Republican government, but he managed to get himself indicted and, well before that calamity, had angered House Republicans who concluded that "The Hammer's" leadership style was marching them off a cliff. Looming over all these little problems is the crucible of Iraq.

What's interesting is that most of these wounds are self-inflicted. They draw a picture of a party that, for all its seeming dominance, isn't prepared to be the nation's governing party. The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful. Governing requires making compromises and getting your hands dirty, but the conservative purists disdain those qualities. They swim for that beach with a fiercely misguided determination, and they demand that the other whales accompany them.

The bickering over the Miers nomination epitomizes the right's refusal to assume the role of a majoritarian governing party. The awkward fact for conservatives is that the American public doesn't agree with them on abortion rights. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in late August found 54 percent describing themselves as pro-choice and only 38 percent as pro-life, roughly the same percentages as a decade ago.

That's the political reality that Bush has been trying to finesse with his nominations of John Roberts and Miers. That's why he said in the 2000 primary campaign that he wouldn't impose any litmus test (when other Republicans were demanding one) and would instead focus on a nominee's character and judicial philosophy. The realist in Bush understands that he can't easily force a nominee who is openly antiabortion on a country where a solid majority disagrees.

Read the whole thing. It's an excellent piece of work.

The fact is that the Republicans aren't willing to compromise. The Republican Majority has spent the last 25 years courting Evangelical Christians. For the Republican Party it was about creating a majority to obtain political power, and not about truly sharing the values of this constituency.

The sad part is that the way the Republican Party has manipulated Evangelical Christians for a quarter century. Evangelicals have lived under the false impression that they were the movement. They were not. The goal was to obtain political power. They did that. They did so using a team of people that came out of Nixon's administration and Acolytes that joined them during the Reagan years, people who were not Movement Evangelicals.

Evangelical Christians in this country are suffering from a form of abused wife syndrome. The Republican Party has never taught them to love the Republican Party, but rather to hate the Democratic Party. Once the Democrats were thoroughly demonized, the Republican Party knew they could behave any way they wished, because of their absolute certainty that the Christian base would not defect to the democrats, and that's all they cared about.

Cronyism, Corporatism, a shrinking middle class, a lack of health care... The kicker is that abortion is still legal, and even Pat Buchanan is now saying that he believes that Bush doesn't want Roe overturned.

So, all of you "movement conservatives" need to start realizing that you got played. Say what you want about the Democrats, but you always knew where you stood with the Democratic Party.

It's soul searching time.

Advice from Dr. James Dobson...

The Hippy: Dr. Dobson, do you have any suggestions on how a man should help his son from going gay?

Dr. Dobson: Why yes Hippy, I do!

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

Based on my work with adult homosexuals, I try to avoid the necessity of a long and sometimes painful therapy by encouraging parents, particularly fathers, to affirm their sons' maleness. Parental education, in this area and all others, can prevent a lifetime of unhappiness and a sense of alienation. When boys begin to relate to their fathers, and begin to understand what is exciting, fun and energizing about their fathers, they will learn to accept their own masculinity. They will find a sense of freedom—of power—by being different from their mothers, outgrowing them as they move into a man's world. If parents encourage their sons in these ways, they will help them develop masculine identities and be well on their way to growing up straight. In 15 years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. I have never met one who said he had a loving, respectful relationship with his father.

Thanks Dr. Dobson!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Advice from Dr. James Dobson...

The Hippy: Dr. Dobson, do you have any suggestions on how a man should help his son from going gay?

Dr. Dobson: Why yes Hippy, I do!

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

Based on my work with adult homosexuals, I try to avoid the necessity of a long and sometimes painful therapy by encouraging parents, particularly fathers, to affirm their sons' maleness. Parental education, in this area and all others, can prevent a lifetime of unhappiness and a sense of alienation. When boys begin to relate to their fathers, and begin to understand what is exciting, fun and energizing about their fathers, they will learn to accept their own masculinity. They will find a sense of freedom—of power—by being different from their mothers, outgrowing them as they move into a man's world. If parents encourage their sons in these ways, they will help them develop masculine identities and be well on their way to growing up straight. In 15 years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. I have never met one who said he had a loving, respectful relationship with his father.

Thanks Dr. Dobson!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Remember the Terror Alert in NYC?

It's now official. I was right about it being bullshit.

It was a hoax.

Has the House finished writing the Articles of Impeachment yet?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Remember the Terror Alert in NYC?

It's now official. I was right about it being bullshit.

It was a hoax.

Has the House finished writing the Articles of Impeachment yet?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I love Irony...

Boston Globe:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Venturing into foreign policy, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday told a largely Republican audience that Islamic terrorists ''want to bring down our government" and ''want to put in place a huge theocracy."

''We're under attack, as you know, militarily," Romney told about 150 people gathered at an exclusive Raleigh country club. ''They're not just intent on blowing up a little bomb here and there at a shopping mall, awful as that would be. They want to bring down our government, bring down our entire economy. They want to put in place a huge theocracy."

So, it's our enemies who want the Theocracy? Sounds like Freudian transference to me.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I love Irony...

Boston Globe:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Venturing into foreign policy, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday told a largely Republican audience that Islamic terrorists ''want to bring down our government" and ''want to put in place a huge theocracy."

''We're under attack, as you know, militarily," Romney told about 150 people gathered at an exclusive Raleigh country club. ''They're not just intent on blowing up a little bomb here and there at a shopping mall, awful as that would be. They want to bring down our government, bring down our entire economy. They want to put in place a huge theocracy."

So, it's our enemies who want the Theocracy? Sounds like Freudian transference to me.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I couldn't agree more...

Here's a bit of good sense from Cenk Uygur:

Where does order come from? Is it created? Does it exist outside of time and space? What is its nature? I do not believe that these are unknowable questions. I think we can.

However, the first step to rationally figuring out the reality of an existent order is to put aside the nonsensical mythologies of yesteryear. The major religions of the world were concocted at a time when we had almost no scientific knowledge. They were our guesses in the dark about what might have created us. With the benefit of hindsight and what little scientific advances we have made, they now appear to be comically bad guesses.

They were adopted because they provided some degree of hope in an otherwise cold and unforgiving world. They were sustained because the human child is particularly susceptible to being programmed at an early age.

The fact that a great percentage of us happen to believe in the specific religion we were born into is a testament to the power of brainwashing. What were the chances that you happen to be born into just the right religion? Could it be instead that you believe what you were born into is the best answer for universal questions because that is what you were brainwashed to believe ever since you were born?

The fact that e=mc2 does not translate into woman must have been created from the rib of man. In fact, it takes a great deal of brainwashing to make that entirely irrational leap of faith.

What I am saying here is that there is a logical reason to have faith. But there can be no faith without reason. Without reason how could we determine what to have faith in? And when you use reason, you cannot justify any of the organized religions. Ironically, it's time to get beyond religion, so that we can focus on God.

Seems right to me. To me, God has to be something beyond a giant man in the sky who will burn me with fire for eternity if I disobey him. That's on par with Zeus hurtling lightning bolts at cringing Greeks.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I couldn't agree more...

Here's a bit of good sense from Cenk Uygur:

Where does order come from? Is it created? Does it exist outside of time and space? What is its nature? I do not believe that these are unknowable questions. I think we can.

However, the first step to rationally figuring out the reality of an existent order is to put aside the nonsensical mythologies of yesteryear. The major religions of the world were concocted at a time when we had almost no scientific knowledge. They were our guesses in the dark about what might have created us. With the benefit of hindsight and what little scientific advances we have made, they now appear to be comically bad guesses.

They were adopted because they provided some degree of hope in an otherwise cold and unforgiving world. They were sustained because the human child is particularly susceptible to being programmed at an early age.

The fact that a great percentage of us happen to believe in the specific religion we were born into is a testament to the power of brainwashing. What were the chances that you happen to be born into just the right religion? Could it be instead that you believe what you were born into is the best answer for universal questions because that is what you were brainwashed to believe ever since you were born?

The fact that e=mc2 does not translate into woman must have been created from the rib of man. In fact, it takes a great deal of brainwashing to make that entirely irrational leap of faith.

What I am saying here is that there is a logical reason to have faith. But there can be no faith without reason. Without reason how could we determine what to have faith in? And when you use reason, you cannot justify any of the organized religions. Ironically, it's time to get beyond religion, so that we can focus on God.

Seems right to me. To me, God has to be something beyond a giant man in the sky who will burn me with fire for eternity if I disobey him. That's on par with Zeus hurtling lightning bolts at cringing Greeks.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

David Frum Reporting...

Heheheh... Let them chalk this one up to the liberal media!

One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?"

Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."

It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs.

But she's against abortion right? That's all that they care about, right?

This is just getting embarrassing.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

David Frum Reporting...

Heheheh... Let them chalk this one up to the liberal media!

One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?"

Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."

It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs.

But she's against abortion right? That's all that they care about, right?

This is just getting embarrassing.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Howard Kurtz has the blues...

I can't say that I disagree with him:

I can't tell you how frustrated I've been feeling at all the horror stories about the bumbling government efforts to aid the victims of Katrina.

It's enough to make you shout, as Casey Stengel did at the 1962 Mets, "Can't anybody here play this game?" (I was also yelling that at the 2005 Yankees last night.)

The bureaucratic bungling here is simply beyond belief. Since the average DMV is a mess, you wonder how federal and state agencies can deal with a massive crisis. And according to recent newspaper accounts, they can't.

More than 7,000 firms have applied to the Small Business Administration for help-- only 20 have gotten loans.

FEMA was giving out those $2,000 checks for household assistance, and suddenly it wasn't.

The government sent 91,000 tons of ice cubes to cool food, medicine and sweltering storm victims at a cost of $100 million, says the NYT. And most of it was never delivered, as truck drivers kept being redirected. What a meltdown.

As of Oct. 1, more than 100,000 people were still living in makeshift housing, and another $400 in hotels costing up to $100 a night.

Lobbyists for big industries are helping write the clean-up legislation.

Oh, and did I mention there's no federal contract to pick up the dead bodies ?

Then I got to thinking: Why do government agencies have so many hoops to jump through? Usually, it's to prevent cheating. And shockingly, there's been no shortage of fraud as well.

Another NYT piece reported on a Louisiana woman who used her aunt's New Orleans address and brother's name to file a claim. Red Cross contract workers accused of cashing in on benefits for fictitious hurricane victims. Two Florida residents who asked for help for nonexistent Louisiana houses. How pathetic can you get?

I thought it was crazy when I read about (New Orleans Mayor) Ray Nagin saying he'd have to lay off 3,000 city workers. Just what a sinking economy doesn't need. Couldn't the feds just give the city a grant or loan, so those folks could keep their jobs for a few more months? But where do you draw the line? The people who worked in restaurants and dry cleaners and drugstores also lost their jobs, and in some cases their houses. There's no way to guarantee those jobs. And why should victims of Katrina and Rita get more aid than those who suffered in previous hurricanes? One answer is that previous storms didn't cause a major city's destruction, but it's awfully hard to draw such distinctions.

Whatever the government chooses to do, though, it's going to have to do a better job. This is as depressing, in its own way, as the initial botched response to Katrina.

Read the rest of his Media Notes column here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Howard Kurtz has the blues...

I can't say that I disagree with him:

I can't tell you how frustrated I've been feeling at all the horror stories about the bumbling government efforts to aid the victims of Katrina.

It's enough to make you shout, as Casey Stengel did at the 1962 Mets, "Can't anybody here play this game?" (I was also yelling that at the 2005 Yankees last night.)

The bureaucratic bungling here is simply beyond belief. Since the average DMV is a mess, you wonder how federal and state agencies can deal with a massive crisis. And according to recent newspaper accounts, they can't.

More than 7,000 firms have applied to the Small Business Administration for help-- only 20 have gotten loans.

FEMA was giving out those $2,000 checks for household assistance, and suddenly it wasn't.

The government sent 91,000 tons of ice cubes to cool food, medicine and sweltering storm victims at a cost of $100 million, says the NYT. And most of it was never delivered, as truck drivers kept being redirected. What a meltdown.

As of Oct. 1, more than 100,000 people were still living in makeshift housing, and another $400 in hotels costing up to $100 a night.

Lobbyists for big industries are helping write the clean-up legislation.

Oh, and did I mention there's no federal contract to pick up the dead bodies ?

Then I got to thinking: Why do government agencies have so many hoops to jump through? Usually, it's to prevent cheating. And shockingly, there's been no shortage of fraud as well.

Another NYT piece reported on a Louisiana woman who used her aunt's New Orleans address and brother's name to file a claim. Red Cross contract workers accused of cashing in on benefits for fictitious hurricane victims. Two Florida residents who asked for help for nonexistent Louisiana houses. How pathetic can you get?

I thought it was crazy when I read about (New Orleans Mayor) Ray Nagin saying he'd have to lay off 3,000 city workers. Just what a sinking economy doesn't need. Couldn't the feds just give the city a grant or loan, so those folks could keep their jobs for a few more months? But where do you draw the line? The people who worked in restaurants and dry cleaners and drugstores also lost their jobs, and in some cases their houses. There's no way to guarantee those jobs. And why should victims of Katrina and Rita get more aid than those who suffered in previous hurricanes? One answer is that previous storms didn't cause a major city's destruction, but it's awfully hard to draw such distinctions.

Whatever the government chooses to do, though, it's going to have to do a better job. This is as depressing, in its own way, as the initial botched response to Katrina.

Read the rest of his Media Notes column here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy