politically and they adjourned Congress early so the incumbents can go back home and fight for their political lives. That's what I'm thinkin'.

I'm not sure most people know this but in the early 1970's a presidential commission was formed (hand-picked by Richard Nixon and loaded with drug warriors) to review the research and offer up recommendations to the President. They did so and came to a different conclusion than Nixon wanted and in usual Nixon fashion, ordered the conclusions buried and the drug remained a Schedule I (where it had been placed temporarily until the studies were done).

Here are excerpts from a great Alternet article on the subject:

After reviewing all the evidence, these drug warriors were forced to come to a different conclusion than they had at first expected. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about legalization. When Nixon heard such talk, he quickly denounced the Commission -- months before it issued its report.

As a result of Nixon's public rebuke, Shafer met with the President. The Commission was upset, and the purpose of the meeting was to reassure them. But Nixon didn't budge. Instead, he warned Shafer to get control of his commission and avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders" who are "soft on marijuana." He warned Shafer that the Commission would "look bad as hell" if it came out with recommendations different from the direction of Congress and the President.

<skip>

Nixon reacted strongly to the report. In a recorded conversation on March 21, the day before the Commission released its report, Nixon said, "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Nixon and his advisors went on to plan a speech about why he opposed marijuana legalization, and proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" during the 1972 presidential election year. Nixon wanted a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them."

http://www.alternet.org/story/12666/once-secret_%22nixon_tapes%22_show_why_the_u.s._outlawed_pot

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Elizabeth-Warren-D-and-Sen-Scott-Brown-R-MA-Debate/10737434283-1/

I just sat on a jury that decided 3-3 to Leave It. It's in the "Men's" Group. You decide:

At Tue Sep 18, 2012, 11:12 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Awesome PSA about male breast cancer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11143831

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is bullshit. This video is using sexualizing girls to promote breast cancer awareness. An illness that results in women have breast cut off, dying. For this to be in the men's forum to play with is highly offensive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 18, 2012, 11:18 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: More attempts at censorship from the hand wringer crowd.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree, why not call it what it is (soft core porn) instead of a PSA. I thought DU was better than this.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: There are 2,563,590,265,365,072 ways to present awareness for breast cancer. This isn't one of them. Sexist bullshit!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Lounge Material

ON EDIT: THE VIDEO HAS TO DO WITH MEN'S BREAST CANCER. (Happy now?)

Obama is up by 7 (8?) points in VA -- is this having any pull down-ballot for Wayne Powell?

This is one of two races I'll be watching closely from CA on election day. The other being the Massachusetts Senate race.

Thanks in advance,
LTH

I offer you this quote:

"Justice delayed is justice denied."

Just as a reminder, Prop. 37 is on the November ballot and it requires labeling on GMO (genetically-modified organisms), a.k.a., "Frankenfood."

Dow, Monsanto, big agri-business and others are pouring MILLIONS $ into fighting labeling. I don't know about you but I can't ever remember a time when Dow, Monsanto and big agri-business had the consumers' best interest in mind.

Just a few of the things I've learned while researching the issue:
-GMO's are subject to intellectual property laws which means they could conceivably have corporate control over the food supply. (Remember which Supreme Court we have.)
- Because GMO technology is considered intellectual property, independent researchers cannot obtain GM plants to study so there has been no outside research. The promises that GMO's are "perfectly safe" come from the same people who are making this stuff.
- Several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. (Scientific American)


Anyway, we still need people to get involved, whether it's to donate money, sign up as an endorser or as a volunteer for the campaign, there are plenty of opportunities available. We need as many people on the ground as possible to counter the Big Boy money. Here's the website:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/

for my Butternut Squash Pie (single crust). I'm entering it into the fair this year and, although it tastes wonderful, as is it's kind of blah looking. As I posses not a single decorative gene, I'm looking for suggestions to make it look more appealing. If it's a topping it should be sparse and light. And I'll need ideas as to how to be decorative with it.

Any help would be much appreciated.

LTH