I know Bat Cave, NC very well. It's truly sad that it's beauty is tarnished by a sexist, self-righteous shithead such as you.

PS- based on my knowlege of the women of the area, I doubt you'd have the balls to make such statements except in the safe anonymity of the internet. Otherwise you'd be struggling to digest them...

1. In a perverted way, there actually is a case to be made that pot can be a "gateway" drug. Since all the public data from the war on drugs tells young folks that pot will turn them into either vegetables or crazed killers, when a teenager actually tries some and sees it just makes them feel good and that they feel fine the next day...some kids may think the same about coke, meth, Oxycontin, etc. New research on addictions clearly shows that some drugs are more or less addictive than others. Crack, meth, and herioin are the worst, pot is the LOWEST- less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. By saying that pot is just as dangerous, it misleads the public in a dangerous direction.

2. Smoking ANYTHING is not healthy- the byproducts of combustion are carcinogenic, and carbon monoxide decreases one's oxygen carrying capacity for weeks. Check out vaporizers as a healthier alternative. At about 250 farenheit, THC boils off the surface of the herb. No carbon monoxide, no carcinogens, no throat irritation (and no nasty smell on you clothes :-)

the phrase would be:

"there are lies, damned lies, and anything printed on the WaPo editorial pages"

Thanks for ruining a halfway decent morning, Glenn...:-)

I’m a Ph.D. of many years, published a lot in the biobehavioral/medical psychology areas. I was trained, and believe, than a Ph.D. means that you should have the skills to critically review a content area, be able to abstract its salient point and controversies, and be able to design and execute studies that clarify these controversies. Granted, I’m thinking in terms of both biological and behavioral research- fields such as English literature don’t have testable hypotheses (at least as I understand them…)

The reason I say this is that I was struck by the contrast between Joel’s extremely thorough and persuasive posts here and WinSmith’s similarly polished and well reasoned posts I have seen on NON-Israel related topics, versus Winsmith’s posts here and on other posts involving the “I” word. Joel and “non-I Winsmith” review a range of facts and show how they lead to reasonable conclusions. “ I-Winsmith”, on the other hand, looks just like many bright students I have worked with to improve their critical thinking skills. Their work, when deconstructed, shows that they are starting with a premise, then “mining the data” to look for support, while simultaneously ignoring or devaluing contradictory data. This type of pseudo-logic is not limited to students- ever heard of the Cold Fusion controversy? It’s a type of self-delusion practiced by very smart people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

Winsmith, please believe me when I say this isn’t a personal attack. I am suggesting you apply some critical thinking here. As far as I can tell, the alternative hypotheses can be summarized as follows:

1) You are right, everybody else is wrong and/or conspiring together against you; or

2) Perhaps you are emotionally over-invested in this topic and have lost some objectivity, and are working your considerable intelligence and language skills overtime defending your position, rather than considering that MAYBE you’re, well, in error here?

Here’s a hint. The highest-level, “executive” functions of the human brain involve self-monitoring- being able to recognize that one’s behavior isn’t working, and shifting to something else. In other words, a big part of being "smart" is knowing that you can be wrong! Be good to your frontal lobes and they will be good to you…

Peace Out

OK, Winsmith, I'll take a shot. As my old football coach used to say:

“Gentlemen, I’m going to explain this so simply, even YOU can understand it”

Glenn has never said that Israel is the ONLY reason we are involved in the ME, that Israel was behind the invasion of Iraq, etc., etc. What he has said- which is true- is that the US involvement in the I-P conflict has been, and is accurately seen by the rest of the ME, as very one-sided. This is in ADDITION to our long-standing policy of meddling in the ME (remember overthrowing the democratic government of Iran to install the Shah? Shades of trying to manipulate the Gaza elections…)

Because of these actions, the US is seen in the ME as meddling to support our own interests, supporting brutal dictatorships against their own people, while self-righteously holding ourselves up as THE bastion of democracy and human rights. A rational policy in the ME would be actions that lead to us being seen as fair, such as admitting there are 2 sides to the conflict. Whether Obama will take us there remains to be seen…

On a personal note, I have seen your posts in other discussions on Salon and have been struck by your reasoning and critical analysis. It is unfortunate that the “I” word seems to bring out a rigid, non-critical side of you.

Peace Out

Terkoy:

• “Bush sent tons of money to Africa for AIDS relief

but never gets credit for it.”

Agreed. Proving that you and preznit idjut have something in common. Like the proverbial blind squirrel, both of you find the nut once in a (LONG) while…is there a blue moon tonite?