Right now I'm in Aspen. My husband likes to cycle up Castle Creek Road. He rides up and I come up later in my car and bring the family members who can't cycle that far and we all have lunch at the Pine Creek Cookhouse.

Or -- we used to.

Last year I discovered almost all the cyclists were riding up double file, taking up the whole lane. That's a twisty road with lots of blind curves. It's not safe to pass double-filing cyclists in general on that road.

So anyone driving has to slow down to the five miles an hour that the average cyclist can manage on that hill, honk three or four times or maybe even more before you get the attention of a cyclist, and face verbal abuse by asking people to please pull over.

Instead of a 30 or 45 minute drive from town to the Pine Creek, it can take an hour and a half, if the roads are especially thick with double filers.

I can't do it any more. It's way too nerve-wracking an experience, especially when so many of the bikers nowadays cop such a hugely aggro attitude.

The Pine Creek is going to have to do without my business this summer.

If they notice a drop in their non-cycling business, the owners might consider having a chat with some of the cyclists who frequent that road.

We're clearly not getting the science-based government he promised. He's invoking the "drug war exception" like all politicians do.

So maybe Obama deserves to have lots of people saying things about him that are not true, people who deliberately ignore all the debunking evidence that can be put forward.

But short of confining them in motel rooms and making them watch newsreels about the Hoover Dam, Glass-Steagall, the TVA and the Manhattan Project, is it possible to liberate President Obama and the Democratic leadership from the cult of neoliberalism?

Probably not.

I'm learning that separation of church and state is a kind of tricky thing, because the government is more than capable of creating what amount to secular religions.

Religions that even seduce scientists, like for example the War on Weed.

Religions that remain immune to any kind of debunking that one can throw at them.

Does anyone cares that Gil Kerlikowske is talking bullshit?

Nobody cares that everything Gil Kerlikowske is saying about marijuana right now has been debunked many times over by science.

The man is regarded as a hero for his relentless spreading of previously debunked bullshit.

If those are the rules we all live by now, then Taitz should not be criticized at all.

Obama is dishing it out. He ought to be able to take it too.

I have to take the bullshit Obama's Drug Czar is dishing out about me.

So Obama has to take the bullshit Taitz is dishing out about him.

Those are the rules we all live by these days.

I think the poor woman is getting treated unfairly here.

Sure -- she's propagating complete nonsense. The Birther business is complete, absolute, unadulterated baloney.

BUT -- the ONDCP right now is propagating complete baloney about marijuana, and the debunking of THEIR nonsense doesn't even rate coverage in Salon, let alone the rest of the media.

Cancer Prevention publishes the results of a large population study that concluded marijuana users face a "substantially reduced" risk of getting head and neck cancers, showing that the anti-tumor action of THC in vitro does indeed scale up to a substantial reduction in certain cancers in people who smoke marijuana.

But that's considered a fantasy that is unpublishable in the mainstream media.

Taitz is just as connected to the real world as Obama's Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske.

If Kerlikowske can get away with propagating complete bullshit about marijuana and still be treated politely by Democrats all over the country, then I see now reason whatsoever to slime this poor woman.

What has she done that's so different from what the ONDCP does every single day?

Do you think the ONDCP has ever in its history retracted a statement about marijuana that was subsequently proven wrong by science?

Not once have they ever retracted a single wrong thing.

So that's the standard we're all operating under these days.

Those are the rules.

Taitz is obeying the same rules that the Drug Czar obeys, and so she doesn't deserve to be hated by anyone who doesn't also hate Gil Kerlikowske.

What else are they going to do but get lost in nonsense?

They've lost all their bearings and I know why.

They failed to win the War on Drugs and they have not one fecking idea what to do now.

I never got around to reading "No Country for Old men" but I just gave the audio book a long listen on a road trip.

The moral of that story seems to be: marijuana is the Antichrist, and the failure to win the War on Drugs is evidence of the End of Days.

If that's what they believe, then no wonder they're chasing down this idiot idea with the same doggedness as Chigurh chased after Moss.

How many cases of head and neck cancer have been prevented by marijuana over the last 20 years?

If we want to talk about race, let's talk about how many young black men have been locked up for possessing an anti-carcinogen.

I can't write any more because I feel like vomiting.

Bye.

has to be the silencing of the science supporting the anti-carcinogenic properties of THC.

I mean come on -- we're talking cancer here.

When Cancer Prevention Research reports that marijuana use, even long-term, is associated with a “significantly reduced risk” of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, that's a story.

We all know why that story isn't being reported.

If you support that story not being reported, then you're part of the corporate media problem and you need to stop pretending like you're offering any kind of solution.