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