« Why I Like Sherrod Brown | Main | Iraq for Sale »
October 15, 2006
The Church of the Holy Smokes
The increasing restrictions on smoking in public and private buildings, along with the constant punitive measures taken by state (especially Ohio) governments in taxing smokers above and beyond any other patron of (legal) vice, inspired the idea of making smoking part of a religious rite in order to protect it as a First Amendment freedom.
Thus was born "The Church of the Holy Smokes" and its attendant ballad to the melody of that famous 60s dirge, "House of the Rising Sun." If L. Ron can have a religion, why not smokers?
MIDI for your sing-along pleasure
There are some laws across the land
To take away our smokes
It’s inspired the rise of many a new faith
Our worship is no joke
My mother was a smoker
She came a long, long way
My father was a Marlboro man
Puffed three packs a day
Now we come to where the flavor is
We’d rather fight than quit
Yeah, we’d walk a mile for a Camel, now
Our vices we admit
------ organ solo ------
Oh mother tell your children
Not to take those first few tokes
‘Else they’ll spend their lives in ministry
In the Church of the Holy Smokes
Well, we love those Tiparillos, too
And clove vanilla sticks
We’ll stand outside in freezing rain
To get our nickie fix
The bars, the jails and now our cars
Our desperate prayers provoke
We kneel to Phillip Morris’s shrine
In the Church of the Holy Smokes
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
Video of computer programmer testifying to the ability to write software code to rig electronic voting machines.
Sheesh. Let's go back to paper!
Posted by: loretta | October 15, 2006 05:28 PM
There's going to be the possibility of corruption in any system used. You would hope that there would be security in place to prevent a programmer from being able to get to the machines in order to rig them. If they can't do that then I recommend that everyone take their money out of banks right now because that can't be safe either.
Posted by: Barbara | October 15, 2006 06:06 PM
Heh. I like the song.
Just because I quit doesn't mean I want to ban the stuff!
Posted by: vero | October 15, 2006 06:36 PM
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469
A new poll is probably not sitting well with the White House.
Posted by: loretta | October 15, 2006 11:16 PM
Sorry guys. I'm an ex-smoker, my husband is a smoker, and my mother-in-law is dying from smoking. I have no sympathy.
Posted by: Lex | October 15, 2006 11:48 PM
Statement Regarding al Qaeda Threats
October 5, 2006
by Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken
Astonishingly, five years post 9/11 the public is made aware about an urgent July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then, National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. This information comes from Bob Woodward’s newly released book, “State of Denial”.
Despite this Administration’s rhetoric that they had “no warnings” leading up to 9/11, it has become abundantly clear, that key Administration officials were made aware of the vast array of Al Qaeda threats and warnings that existed in years prior, and more importantly, in the weeks leading up to September 11, 2001.
When we add the July 10, 2001 meeting to the plethora of other clear warnings that our government had, a very concise view of the al Qaeda threat emerges. Those other warnings include, but are not limited to:
* Warnings from leaders of other nations and foreign intelligence apparatus’ of terrorist threats
* June 30, 2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing (SEIB) entitled “bin Laden Threats Are Real”
* The threat of President Bush’s assassination at the G-8 Summit by al Qaeda in July of 2001 – using aircraft to dive bomb the summit building
* July 2001 Phoenix memo, which told of potential terrorists taking flight lessons
* 52 FAA warnings – five of which mentioned al Qaeda’s training for hijacking
* August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled “bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”
* National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) entitled “Islamist Extremists Learn to Fly”
* Intelligence agency heads describing themselves with their “hair on fire” to characterize the imminent nature of the threats they were intercepting from Al Qaeda and their sense of urgency in relating them to the Bush Administration
* The arrest of Zacharias Moussaoui in August of 2001
* FBI Agent Harry Samit’s 70 unsuccessful attempts to get a FISA Warrant to examine Moussaoui’s belongings
Aside from scheduling a National Security Council meeting on September 4, 2001, two months after the July 10 “connect the dots” briefing from CIA director, George Tenet, the abundance of post 9/11 reports and commissions found no evidence of any action taken by appropriate officials. The 9/11 Commission itself concluded that in spite of an unprecedented attack threat in the months before 9/11, US “domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts. The public was not warned.”
While certain members of the 9/11 Commission recalled a January 28, 2004 closed session meeting with former CIA Director, George Tenet, where this urgent July 10, 2001 meeting was discussed, this meeting was not referenced in the Commission’s final report.
In the transcript testimony, the former CIA Director described the non-routine meeting that he and Cofer Black called for with then National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice as one of the “starkest warnings” ever given by the CIA to the White House on Al Qaeda.
To our continued dismay, both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission have consistently failed to give a complete and honest accounting to the American public with regard to their actions and inactions leading up to the devastation of September 11, 2001.
The inexcusable result of this less than truthful accounting has resulted in America making important national security decisions and passing legislation using the 9/11 Commission’s conclusions and recommendations. Chillingly, these decisions appear to be based upon an unclear combination of partial truths mixed with distortions and omissions of important facts.
Incredibly, five years post 9/11 we have come full circle. In spite of all the clear warnings that our government received, why did those in power fail to invoke any defensive measures to protect our nation from the attacks of September 11, 2001?
We demand the immediate declassification and release of these latest documents and transcripts. The American public has the right to know what their government did or did not do to protect us from terrorist actions.
Finally, instead of reorganizing an entire intelligence community because they “weren’t sharing information”, and rather than telling us that “9/11 was a failure of imagination”, what we needed was for the 9/11 Commission to state the truth and hold those responsible to account. The most effective change for America would be to have a National Security Council that understands that it is their job to translate vital information into action.
http://www.petitiononline.com/july10/
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2006 07:28 AM
Mornin' all!
Plea bargain in Duncan case?
Jury selection canceled, fueling speculation that deal reached
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=7671
Posted by: Tranquillity | October 16, 2006 09:28 AM
"While certain members of the 9/11 Commission recalled a January 28, 2004 closed session meeting with former CIA Director, George Tenet, where this urgent July 10, 2001 meeting was discussed, this meeting was not referenced in the Commission’s final report."
The selective memory of a few will continue to cause the house of cards to fall.
Posted by: Tranquillity | October 16, 2006 09:44 AM
Just give Duncan a blindfold and a cigarette. Why waste any more time?
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 09:59 AM
Yep. The sooner, the better.
My only concern was having Shasta relive that.
Surely, there is a way around that.
Posted by: Tranquillity | October 16, 2006 10:33 AM
With any luck, Duncan will plea bargain life w/o parole and he'll be assigned to the general population. Why should the state pay for it?
Posted by: Deege | October 16, 2006 10:42 AM
Obviously, the GOP saw my recent endorsement for Sherrod Brown and have effectively dumped Mike DeWine:
Just goes to show ya....heh
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 12:37 PM
Blue?
Posted by: vero | October 16, 2006 01:00 PM
This is cool.
Posted by: Tranquillity | October 16, 2006 01:39 PM
Just give Duncan a blindfold and a cigarette. Why waste any more time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My sentiments exactly. Unfortunately it's not that easy. I'm hoping for Life w/o possibility of parole, like Deege said.
He probably won't last long in the General Population.
Plenty of opportunity for tatooes on that forehead.
Posted by: Nadine | October 16, 2006 02:07 PM
Like Lex, I'm also an ex-smoker whose spouse still smokes. My Father-in-Law to be died of lung cancer 27 years ago before I really got to know him. After I was married, Hubby's Grandfather died of cancer.
I'm glad smoking isn't allowed in public buildings and restaurants.
Posted by: Nadine | October 16, 2006 02:18 PM
Great song parody, by the way.
You always crack me up, Loretta!
Posted by: Nadine | October 16, 2006 02:20 PM
"Joseph E. Duncan pleaded guilty to 3 counts of kidnapping and 3 counts of murder on Monday morning. A judge immediately sentenced him to three terms of life in prison without parole on the kidnapping charges. Sentencing on the murder charges were delayed pending the outcome of Duncan's federal trial."
http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5542791
Posted by: Tranquillity | October 16, 2006 02:32 PM
Loretta,
The post appears to focus on tobacco smoking, and your position on the subject isn't clear. Are you for, against, neutral, undecided?
FWIW, Church of the Holy Smokes promotes partaking specifically of cannabis, not tobacco.
Posted by: syndic | October 16, 2006 03:31 PM
I didn't even know there WAS a Church of the Holy Smokes, but holy smoke, there is!
http://www.churchoftheholysmoke.net/
I just made it up. Seems like someone already thought of it. Drat!
I was just fooling around.
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 03:47 PM
This template is really boring. I'm in the middle of doing a new design for the blog, and I switched it out. Boooring.
Back to the honeycombs, I think, for now.
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 03:48 PM
There is a sort of religious church which utilizes tobacco. Most indian tribes are allowed to raise and smoke tobacco untaxed. A neighbor lady receives a Fedex shipment of cigarettes every week from an indian reservation in Oklahoma. She then takes these cigarettes to filling stations and bars in the local area. I think it's a scam to sell untaxed cigarettes. I'm waiting for ATF and the Texas Tax officials to make a raid pretty soon. I think they are probably following her to get all the others involved in one big bust.
Posted by: Vet4Bush | October 16, 2006 04:31 PM
Wonder why the Duncan DA changed his mind? He had already turned down the plea offer from Duncan's PD after Shasta's father asked him to plead the case so Shasta didn't have to testify. I am happy she won't have to see that POS ever again. Bless her.
Posted by: CountryGal | October 16, 2006 05:20 PM
Nebbermind--I see the new plea doesn't take the DP off the table.
Posted by: CountryGal | October 16, 2006 05:25 PM
A good little rundown of White House events:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/16/BL2006101600504.html
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 05:50 PM
"The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence -- based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command -- or of self-delusion. (snip)"
Technology=Diebold
Posted by: CountryGal | October 16, 2006 06:13 PM
"For five years, the 41s have bit their collective tongues as, they complain, the 43s ignored their counsel. But as the war in Iraq has worsened and public support for the current administration has tanked, loyalists of the elder Bush have found it impossible to suppress their disillusionment - particularly their belief that many of 43's policies are a stick in the eye of his father.
"'Forty-three has now repudiated everything 41 stands for, and still he won't say a word,' a key member of the elder Bush alumni said. 'Personally, I think he's dying inside.' . . .
"'Everyone knew how Rumsfeld acts,' another key 41 assistant said. 'Everyone knew 43 didn't have an attention span. Everyone knew Condi (Rice) wouldn't be able to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld. We told them all of this, and we were told we don't know what we're doing.'"
~~~~
In State of Denial, Barbara Bush talks to David L. Boren (centrist former Democratic Senator from Oklahoma) before the Iraq war and says to him:
BB: "You always told me the Truth...Will you tell me the truth now?"
"Are we right to be worried about this Iraq thing?"
DB: "Yes. I'm very worried."
BB: "Do you think it's a mistake?"
DB: "Yes, ma'am. I think it's a huge mistsake if we go in right now, this way."
BB: "Well, his father is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it. He's up at night worried."
DB: "Why doesn't he talk to him?"
BB: "He doesn't think he should unless he's asked." It was the father-son distance, she said, and he didn't think he should volunteer.
DB: "Well, I understand the feeling of a father but he's a former president of the United States and an expert in this area."
Posted by: CountryGal | October 16, 2006 06:31 PM
You have to admit that Dubya is doing rather poorly if he can make even Poppy look good.
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 06:46 PM
I think Baker's intrusion into this Iraq matter is 41's attempt to pull 43's strings and get 41 to pull out of Iraq. 41 is not having any of it and would rather see a civil war in which we support one side to conquer the other. My bet is that 41 and Rumsfeld will support the Shiites over the Sunnis. Once they are overwelmingly defeated, there will be peace. This, of course, will take some major kickass moves, Dresden like B-52 raids and Mylai wipeouts to convey to the Sunnis that their defeat is inevitible. The Sunnis and Shiites will have to be separated and maybe a federation can result once one side is soundly defeated.
Posted by: Vet4Bush | October 16, 2006 06:59 PM
I got my 41 and 43's mixed up.
Posted by: Vet4Bush | October 16, 2006 07:01 PM
"I think Baker's intrusion into this Iraq matter is 41's attempt to pull 43's strings and get 41 to pull out of Iraq. 41 is not having any of it."
I'll have to agree with you on that on Cpt.
Another comment from the 60 Minutes interview:
"Late last year he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war. And said, 'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.' Barney is his dog," Woodward says. "My work on this leads to lots of people who spend hours, days with the president."
Posted by: Tranquillity | October 16, 2006 07:55 PM
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/
This is why we are in Iraq and not:
Pakistan
Afghanistan
North Korea
and why the next step is Iran.
It's all about the Ohhhhhl, baby.
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 09:58 PM
Kenneth Blackwell can't win fairly, so he's going to try and cheat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17tues1.html
This would be hilarious if I didn't already believe Blackwell helped rig the 2004 election in Ohio.
Posted by: loretta | October 16, 2006 11:09 PM
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003255073
Posted by: loretta | October 17, 2006 09:55 AM
That's one heck of a lot of oil, Loretta.
I saw the article last night.
I'm not sure I want to fly our flag anymore.
Posted by: Nadine | October 17, 2006 03:22 PM
Our press has failed us.
Posted by: CountryGal | October 17, 2006 07:32 PM
This is a very disturbing development and I hope it's overturned by the Supreme Court:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism
Posted by: loretta | October 18, 2006 07:44 AM
Hastert on this horrible POS legislation:
""The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to
destroy innocent Americans' lives. While House Republicans work to
deal with these dangers like establishing Terrorist Tribunals that will prosecute enemies of America, Democrat Leader Pelosi and 159 of her
colleagues voted in favor of NEW rights for terrorists."
Yeah, that's it. We're pampering people when we stand up for their constitutional rights, or the rights expressed in the Geneva Convention.
That's pampering.
WTH, are we the KGB now?
Jeebus KeyRist.
Is everyone in a COMA??!!
Posted by: loretta | October 18, 2006 10:26 AM
Some of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many would say that Bush himself is a terrorist, and I don't think I'd disagree with that.
Posted by: Nadine | October 18, 2006 03:11 PM
I thought the strangest thing he said was about "our intelligence" who think the prisoners currently awaiting trials (after 3, 4, 5 years) are the ones who murdered 3,000 people on 9/11.
Now, why wouldn't he say, "Who I THINK murdered 3,000 people" instead of what the intelligence thinks.
And intelligence? The same one that said Iraq had WMDs and that there was nothing suspicious about guys on watch lists taking flight lessons...
that intelligence?
Posted by: loretta | October 18, 2006 04:08 PM
If you look at this "secret tribunal" and military trials w/o habeus corpus issue from the prism of believing that 9/11 was an inside job, it makes perfect sense.
If they tried these guys in open court, with the usual evidentiary requirements, we'd find out they had bupkis like they did in Moussaoui's trial, that they'd expose themselves for being all sorts of levels of involved, and what a Pandora's box that would be.
If you don't think there's a link between 9/11 and the reason this bill passed, you need to go back to sleep.
nighty night.
Posted by: loretta | October 18, 2006 04:13 PM
CNN Breaking: Potential NFL Stadium dirty bomb threat.
Must be an election coming up.
Posted by: CountryGal | October 18, 2006 04:14 PM
Loretta, they hate us for our freedom--so he's just taking that freedom away so they won't hate us so much.
Posted by: CountryGal | October 18, 2006 04:15 PM
7 stadiums:
Oakland
Seattle
Cleveland
Houston
Atlanta
New York
Miami
They hate us for our football now.
Posted by: CountryGal | October 18, 2006 04:17 PM
I think that football envy thing is worth exploring for sure.
The funny thing is, this is another "false flag" operation already practiced in drills across the country. If you ever read about False Flag operations, football stadiums are big on the list of "targets."
It's just another hoax.
Posted by: loretta | October 18, 2006 05:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg
I watched this Olbermann spot twice today. Masochist, I guess.
Posted by: loretta | October 18, 2006 05:34 PM
Garrison Keillor weighs in:
Posted by: CountryGal | October 18, 2006 11:24 PM
Olbermann chimes in:
We can hope that the courts strike this mess down. Soon.
Posted by: loretta | October 19, 2006 12:24 AM