Fear starts in the brain, the thalamus directs signals; the amygdala produces emotion; the hippocampus brings up memories of fear. The prefrontal cortex determines the danger of the situation; and the hypothalamus activates "fight or flight"
Eyes widen, pupils dilate, eyebrows raise. Mouth opens, lips pull back. This helps you see further and take in more air. Other humans are able to recognize the look of fear, alerting them to danger. Fear is recognized in the brain faster than any other emotion.
The heart beats faster to deliver blood and oxygen to outer limbs, aiding in "fight or flight".
Because the amygdala is in hyper-drive, more memories are created in a moment of fear than in one of relaxation. Because there are more memories created when one is scared, it seems like that moment was longer than it actually was.
Small moments of fear are not harmful to your health, some people (like me) enjoy getting scared. It's an adrenaline rush.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Lunatic Drug Warriors
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2008.
Twenty years ago a DEA chief judge concluded that doctors should be allowed to prescribe pot -- and the government is still ignoring his ruling...
click on title to read the rest of this article
By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2008.
Twenty years ago a DEA chief judge concluded that doctors should be allowed to prescribe pot -- and the government is still ignoring his ruling...
click on title to read the rest of this article
Stoned Age
Stoners Before the Stone Age: Getting High Is as Old as Dirt
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph (UK). Posted October 20, 2008.
click on title to read article
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph (UK). Posted October 20, 2008.
click on title to read article
Don't Tread On Me
The War on Pot Is a War on Young People
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2008.
click on title to read article
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2008.
click on title to read article
Prop 5
Former Warden of San Quentin Prison Supports Dramatic Justice Reform Initiative in CA
Posted by Jan Frel, AlterNet at 4:36 PM on October 24, 2008.
click on title to read article
Posted by Jan Frel, AlterNet at 4:36 PM on October 24, 2008.
click on title to read article
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind--For Real
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/10/23/technology-selectively-erases-memories/3185.html
Scientists in China have created a technology that can erase certain targeted memories in lab mice. They do this by over-expressing a protein critical to brain cell communication just as the memory is recalled.
Interesting stuff. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. Government gets hold of this new technology and starts using it as a weapon, or a means to commit illegal activity.
Scientists in China have created a technology that can erase certain targeted memories in lab mice. They do this by over-expressing a protein critical to brain cell communication just as the memory is recalled.
Interesting stuff. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. Government gets hold of this new technology and starts using it as a weapon, or a means to commit illegal activity.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
He Really Can't Help It
Wow. Watch Cindy flinch in the background.
Click on title above to watch John McCain make a terrible slip of the tongue.
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=88fad82995542
Free Dr. Pepper
Dr. Pepper promised to give every American a free soda if Guns n Roses actually released their 17-year-in-the-making album Chinese Democracy by the end of 2008. The album is set to be released on Nov. 23rd. You can register to get a coupon for your free soda at www.drpepper.com
Discrimination Pure and Simple
Just click on the title above to check out this video from PerezHilton.com
This almost brought tears to my eyes. Very moving speech from Harvey Milk.
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=d8d9fa7233202
This almost brought tears to my eyes. Very moving speech from Harvey Milk.
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=d8d9fa7233202
Blahism: Undercover Operations
“Undercover work is ethical when it is carried out by persons of upright character in accountable organizations” (Pollock, 2004, p. 210). I am an extreme optimist, maybe even naïve, when it comes to trusting people. I like to believe that people are generally good, especially people that are officers of the law. I am not, however, so naïve that I believe there is not some unethical behavior going on in law enforcement. From a utilitarian view point, undercover work is justifiable if the organizations, and the officers, are conducting their investigation with the very noble intentions of bringing down a dangerous criminal. An officer must have a strong personality, with goodwill, in order to deal with the feelings that accompany lying and betrayal. They must believe they are doing the right thing, and maintain their integrity.
I think the test that Cohen (1991) proposes is a good guideline for ethical undercover operations:
1. The end must be justified as a good- for instance, conviction of a serious criminal rather than general intelligence gathering.
2. The means must be a plausible way to achieve the end- for example, choosing a target with no reasonable suspicion is not a plausible way to reduce any type of crime.
3. There must be no better alternative means to achieve the same end: no less-intrusive means or methods of collecting evidence exist.
4. The means must not undermine some other equal or greater end; that is, if the method results in loss of trust or faith in the legal system, it fails the test (Pollock, 2004, pp. 209, 211).
Bringing up the concerns of seemingly innocent Americans inadvertently targeted by undercover police officers, Pollock raises the question “are we comfortable in a society where the person who offers you drugs or sex or a cheap way to hook into cable turns out to be an undercover police officer”? If this were to happen to me, I would look at it as the officer is doing their job, and if I am stupid enough to engage in the illegal activities then I deserve to be punished.
Blahism: Exclusionary Rule
Dear Congress:
I am writing this letter to convince you that the exclusionary rule needs to be repealed. The personal rights of the Fourth Amendment can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment ensures “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized”. Obviously this amendment was designed for regular, law-abiding citizens, and not for the protection of criminals. The problem with the way it was written is that there is no clear language describing what action should be taken in the event that an illegal search and/or seizure has taken place. The courts need to be proactive in reprimanding unacceptable behavior from law enforcement, instead of enforcing a rule that potentially lets criminals run free more than it prevents illegal searches and seizures. The constitution provides citizens the right to not be subjected to illegal searches, that law enforcement must have a warranted probable cause. Punishing law enforcement by letting a criminal go because of compromised evidence is also punishing the community, while protecting the criminal. There is something wrong with this system.
If an officer acts on suspicion and searches a home without a warrant, and if that officer finds the murder weapon of a high-profile homicide; then that evidence should be admissible in court. Of course, the officer should also face an internal investigation and punishment as necessary for illegally searching someone’s home; but, that punishment should be separate from the punishment of the criminal. Just because the officer did not have a warrant does not make the evidence any less incriminating, or the criminal any less guilty. Police should be granted some sort of exception for illegal searches that turn up evidence. The offending officers should receive a suspension, without pay, to discourage continued illegal practices. If an illegal search produces no substantial evidence, then the offending officers should be fired. If a suspect is guilty, if there is evidence to be found, the police need to play by the book and get a warrant with specific details of what is to be searched and seized.
In Weeks v. U.S. (232 U.S. 383), the defendant was victim of illegal search and seizure; agreeably, the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. With the evidence, as was proved during the trial, however, the defendant was found guilty. The defendant broke the law, but so did the police; so both should be punished. Instead, the court decided that, as punishment to the officers, the illegally obtained evidence should not have been allowed as evidence in the trial. Thus, in 1914, the exclusionary rule was born. Maybe the police should have returned all the confiscated items to the defendant, but also have a legal search and seizure warrant waiting to reclaim the evidence. Instead, in 1961, “the exclusionary rule was extended to apply to state and local police” in Mapp v. Ohio (Neubauer, 2001, p. 65). There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal.
The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally. This is not justice. Justice should be reasonable, as it was in Maryland v. Wilson (No. 95-1268). When state trooper David Hughes pulled over a speeding vehicle, he ordered the nervous-looking passenger out of the car. When the passenger exited the vehicle “a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the ground” (1997). The defendant tried to have evidence against him dismissed by claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated with illegal seizure. The Supreme Court upheld the rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, wherein it states “that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well” (1997). The defendant in Weeks vs. U.S. was getting arrested anyway, they would have got a search warrant, and they should have got a search warrant. They could have waited, or maybe the court could have been reasonable and allowed the evidence anyway. The officers and marshal who conducted the illegal search and seizure should also have been punished, but not by freeing the criminal.
Instead of enforcing the exclusionary rule, the courts should allow law enforcement agencies to deal with renegade officers through Internal Affairs. Citizens who are victim of illegal search and seizure have their right to file a civil suit against the offending officers, or against the law enforcement agency. If the persons who file suit “are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic”, well, then that is the way it is (FindLaw, 2008). I would like to believe that a jury of peers would be more sympathetic to an innocent victim whose rights were trampled by law enforcement, than to a repeat offender who is trying to take advantage of the system; and also be able to differentiate between the two.
The exclusionary rule protects criminals, and punishes law enforcement while also punishing the citizens of the United States. It is possible to repeal the rule and still uphold the Constitution, protecting the rights of the people, and ensuring proper justice against law-breaking police officers and law enforcement officials. I appreciate Congress taking notice of this very important matter; and I look forward to the future abolishment of the exclusionary rule.
Sincerely,
Senator Jaimie Nutt (Tee Hee)
Non Partisan, California
References
FindLaw (2008). Enforcing the fourth amendment: The exclusionary rule. U.S.
Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Web site on October 20, 2008
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html
Mapp v Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.htm
Maryland v. Wilson (1997). U.S. Supreme Court No. 95-1268. Retrieved from Web site
On October, 20, 2008 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1268.html
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Weeks v. U.S. (1914). 232 U.S. 383. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/232/383.html
I am writing this letter to convince you that the exclusionary rule needs to be repealed. The personal rights of the Fourth Amendment can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment ensures “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized”. Obviously this amendment was designed for regular, law-abiding citizens, and not for the protection of criminals. The problem with the way it was written is that there is no clear language describing what action should be taken in the event that an illegal search and/or seizure has taken place. The courts need to be proactive in reprimanding unacceptable behavior from law enforcement, instead of enforcing a rule that potentially lets criminals run free more than it prevents illegal searches and seizures. The constitution provides citizens the right to not be subjected to illegal searches, that law enforcement must have a warranted probable cause. Punishing law enforcement by letting a criminal go because of compromised evidence is also punishing the community, while protecting the criminal. There is something wrong with this system.
If an officer acts on suspicion and searches a home without a warrant, and if that officer finds the murder weapon of a high-profile homicide; then that evidence should be admissible in court. Of course, the officer should also face an internal investigation and punishment as necessary for illegally searching someone’s home; but, that punishment should be separate from the punishment of the criminal. Just because the officer did not have a warrant does not make the evidence any less incriminating, or the criminal any less guilty. Police should be granted some sort of exception for illegal searches that turn up evidence. The offending officers should receive a suspension, without pay, to discourage continued illegal practices. If an illegal search produces no substantial evidence, then the offending officers should be fired. If a suspect is guilty, if there is evidence to be found, the police need to play by the book and get a warrant with specific details of what is to be searched and seized.
In Weeks v. U.S. (232 U.S. 383), the defendant was victim of illegal search and seizure; agreeably, the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. With the evidence, as was proved during the trial, however, the defendant was found guilty. The defendant broke the law, but so did the police; so both should be punished. Instead, the court decided that, as punishment to the officers, the illegally obtained evidence should not have been allowed as evidence in the trial. Thus, in 1914, the exclusionary rule was born. Maybe the police should have returned all the confiscated items to the defendant, but also have a legal search and seizure warrant waiting to reclaim the evidence. Instead, in 1961, “the exclusionary rule was extended to apply to state and local police” in Mapp v. Ohio (Neubauer, 2001, p. 65). There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal.
The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally. This is not justice. Justice should be reasonable, as it was in Maryland v. Wilson (No. 95-1268). When state trooper David Hughes pulled over a speeding vehicle, he ordered the nervous-looking passenger out of the car. When the passenger exited the vehicle “a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the ground” (1997). The defendant tried to have evidence against him dismissed by claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated with illegal seizure. The Supreme Court upheld the rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, wherein it states “that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well” (1997). The defendant in Weeks vs. U.S. was getting arrested anyway, they would have got a search warrant, and they should have got a search warrant. They could have waited, or maybe the court could have been reasonable and allowed the evidence anyway. The officers and marshal who conducted the illegal search and seizure should also have been punished, but not by freeing the criminal.
Instead of enforcing the exclusionary rule, the courts should allow law enforcement agencies to deal with renegade officers through Internal Affairs. Citizens who are victim of illegal search and seizure have their right to file a civil suit against the offending officers, or against the law enforcement agency. If the persons who file suit “are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic”, well, then that is the way it is (FindLaw, 2008). I would like to believe that a jury of peers would be more sympathetic to an innocent victim whose rights were trampled by law enforcement, than to a repeat offender who is trying to take advantage of the system; and also be able to differentiate between the two.
The exclusionary rule protects criminals, and punishes law enforcement while also punishing the citizens of the United States. It is possible to repeal the rule and still uphold the Constitution, protecting the rights of the people, and ensuring proper justice against law-breaking police officers and law enforcement officials. I appreciate Congress taking notice of this very important matter; and I look forward to the future abolishment of the exclusionary rule.
Sincerely,
Senator Jaimie Nutt (Tee Hee)
Non Partisan, California
References
FindLaw (2008). Enforcing the fourth amendment: The exclusionary rule. U.S.
Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Web site on October 20, 2008
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html
Mapp v Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.htm
Maryland v. Wilson (1997). U.S. Supreme Court No. 95-1268. Retrieved from Web site
On October, 20, 2008 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1268.html
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Weeks v. U.S. (1914). 232 U.S. 383. Retrieved from Web site on October, 20, 2008
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/232/383.html
Sunday, October 19, 2008
New-Kew-Lar
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=be9814b476943
click on title above or copy and paste link to watch a funny Sarah Palin Re-mix.
click on title above or copy and paste link to watch a funny Sarah Palin Re-mix.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Message To Sarah Palin
Click on the title above to watch a video on PerezHilton.com about what the young women of America have to say to Sarah Palin.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Finally!
Caylee's mom named in murder indictment
* Story Highlights
* NEW: Mother arrested in traffic stop after swapping cars on highway
* Casey Anthony faces seven-count indictment that includes capital murder charge
* Grand jury heard from police, dog handler, FBI agent, missing child's grandfather
* Caylee Anthony reported missing in July, about a month after last known sighting
From Natisha Lance
Nancy Grace Producer
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- The mother of missing Florida toddler Caylee Anthony was arrested Tuesday in a traffic stop, shortly after a grand jury indicted her on seven counts, including capital murder, for the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter.
Casey Anthony was taken to jail after officers observed her switch cars on a highway and pulled her over, an Orange County Sheriff's Department spokesman said.
Earlier Tuesday, Anthony's lawyer said his client would turn herself in if the grand jury returned an indictment against her.
"She's not running from this," attorney Jose Baez said as his 22-year-old client wiped tears from her eyes during an impromptu media briefing before the charges against her were announced. "She's doing her best to stand strong, to stand up to the powers that are working against her. And they threw the kitchen sink at her a long time ago."
After the indictment, undercover officers followed Anthony as she traveled in her mother's SUV. The officers saw the SUV stop under a highway overpass, at which point Anthony got into another vehicle and drove off. Officers made the traffic stop after she entered the second vehicle, the spokesman said.
Prosecutors are asking Anthony be held without bond.
Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.
Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for Orange County, Florida, said the first count is a capital charge -- which could carry a penalty of life in prison or death.
The 19 grand jurors -- 10 women and nine men -- deliberated for about half an hour after hearing from police, a cadaver dog handler, an FBI agent and the missing child's grandfather.
Authorities were quick to remind the public that, despite the indictment, Caylee's whereabouts remain a mystery.
"Despite the charges against Ms. Anthony we have not achieved our objective," he said. "We have not found little Caylee Anthony."
Before her arrest, Anthony's lawyer continued to maintain her innocence.
"She has been living a nightmare," the attorney added. "She has a missing child. She's also a child."
Earlier in the day, Casey Anthony's father -- Caylee's grandfather -- testified before the grand jury. The panel was convened to look into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the child's disappearance.
George Anthony was prepared to do the "unthinkable" -- testify against his own daughter, lawyer Mark Nejame told a clutch of reporters gathered on the courthouse steps Tuesday morning.
Struggling with his emotions, George Anthony clutched a "find Caylee" binder in his folded arms.
"This is going to be very hard for me to do. The focus has always been on my granddaughter and always will be. I love my daughter, I love my wife, I love my son," Anthony said.
He asked for the public to keep his family, especially Caylee, in their prayers. "If someone could take a moment out at 11 o'clock this morning and 11 o'clock tonight and just pray for her. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I can say."
Anthony and his lawyer left the courthouse about an hour later without commenting.
Caylee Anthony disappeared in mid-June, but Casey Anthony waited about a month before telling her family the child was gone. Cindy Anthony -- Caylee's grandmother -- called the Orange County sheriff July 15 after her daughter wouldn't tell her where Caylee was.
Casey's brother, Lee Anthony, also pleaded with his sister to tell him where Caylee was. According to police documents, she replied that she hadn't seen Caylee in "31 days."
Investigators say that since that first 911 call, evidence has mounted that leads police to believe that Caylee is dead. They first labeled Casey Anthony a person of interest, and later, a suspect.
The story of Anthony and her missing daughter garnered national headlines, provided nightly fodder for cable TV crime shows and brought a stampede of reporters to stake out the home of Anthony's parents. See a timeline of key events »
Tempers have flared and fists have flown outside the house tucked away in a subdivision in Orlando, Florida. One protester had George Anthony arrested, alleging that he had pushed her.
Police and prosecutors have said little, instead letting hundreds of pages of documents and investigative reports do the talking for them.
Casey Anthony behaved like a carefree party girl, going to nightclubs, entering "hot-body" contests and incessantly sending text messages to her friends while her daughter was missing, according to cell phone and text transcripts and investigative reports released by police.
Copies of her phone and text records obtained by police and released to the public show she hardly ever mentioned her missing daughter during the time just before and after the child was reported missing. The young mother referred to Caylee as "the little snot head" in May, about a month before the child disappeared.
Anthony gave conflicting statements during the investigation and provided police with information that later was disproved. For example, she said she had dropped the child off with a baby sitter. Yet when police checked out her story, they learned that the address that Anthony supplied belonged to an apartment that had been vacant for weeks. The woman Anthony named as the baby sitter said she did not know Anthony.
As Anthony was arrested on child neglect charges, bonded out of jail, was rearrested on bad check and theft charges and bonded out again, investigators disclosed some of the forensic evidence they uncovered.
Cadaver dogs picked up the scent of death in the trunk of a car Anthony drove and in her parents' backyard. A neighbor told police Anthony had asked to borrow a shovel.
Authorities said that in the car Anthony drove, they found traces of chloroform, which can cause loss of consciousness. And they said that on her computer, they found Internet searches of missing children and chloroform Web sites.
Investigators said air quality tests conducted by the FBI found evidence of human decomposition in the trunk of Anthony's car. Law enforcement sources also suggested that a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car was probably Caylee's.
* Story Highlights
* NEW: Mother arrested in traffic stop after swapping cars on highway
* Casey Anthony faces seven-count indictment that includes capital murder charge
* Grand jury heard from police, dog handler, FBI agent, missing child's grandfather
* Caylee Anthony reported missing in July, about a month after last known sighting
From Natisha Lance
Nancy Grace Producer
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- The mother of missing Florida toddler Caylee Anthony was arrested Tuesday in a traffic stop, shortly after a grand jury indicted her on seven counts, including capital murder, for the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter.
Casey Anthony was taken to jail after officers observed her switch cars on a highway and pulled her over, an Orange County Sheriff's Department spokesman said.
Earlier Tuesday, Anthony's lawyer said his client would turn herself in if the grand jury returned an indictment against her.
"She's not running from this," attorney Jose Baez said as his 22-year-old client wiped tears from her eyes during an impromptu media briefing before the charges against her were announced. "She's doing her best to stand strong, to stand up to the powers that are working against her. And they threw the kitchen sink at her a long time ago."
After the indictment, undercover officers followed Anthony as she traveled in her mother's SUV. The officers saw the SUV stop under a highway overpass, at which point Anthony got into another vehicle and drove off. Officers made the traffic stop after she entered the second vehicle, the spokesman said.
Prosecutors are asking Anthony be held without bond.
Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.
Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for Orange County, Florida, said the first count is a capital charge -- which could carry a penalty of life in prison or death.
The 19 grand jurors -- 10 women and nine men -- deliberated for about half an hour after hearing from police, a cadaver dog handler, an FBI agent and the missing child's grandfather.
Authorities were quick to remind the public that, despite the indictment, Caylee's whereabouts remain a mystery.
"Despite the charges against Ms. Anthony we have not achieved our objective," he said. "We have not found little Caylee Anthony."
Before her arrest, Anthony's lawyer continued to maintain her innocence.
"She has been living a nightmare," the attorney added. "She has a missing child. She's also a child."
Earlier in the day, Casey Anthony's father -- Caylee's grandfather -- testified before the grand jury. The panel was convened to look into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the child's disappearance.
George Anthony was prepared to do the "unthinkable" -- testify against his own daughter, lawyer Mark Nejame told a clutch of reporters gathered on the courthouse steps Tuesday morning.
Struggling with his emotions, George Anthony clutched a "find Caylee" binder in his folded arms.
"This is going to be very hard for me to do. The focus has always been on my granddaughter and always will be. I love my daughter, I love my wife, I love my son," Anthony said.
He asked for the public to keep his family, especially Caylee, in their prayers. "If someone could take a moment out at 11 o'clock this morning and 11 o'clock tonight and just pray for her. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I can say."
Anthony and his lawyer left the courthouse about an hour later without commenting.
Caylee Anthony disappeared in mid-June, but Casey Anthony waited about a month before telling her family the child was gone. Cindy Anthony -- Caylee's grandmother -- called the Orange County sheriff July 15 after her daughter wouldn't tell her where Caylee was.
Casey's brother, Lee Anthony, also pleaded with his sister to tell him where Caylee was. According to police documents, she replied that she hadn't seen Caylee in "31 days."
Investigators say that since that first 911 call, evidence has mounted that leads police to believe that Caylee is dead. They first labeled Casey Anthony a person of interest, and later, a suspect.
The story of Anthony and her missing daughter garnered national headlines, provided nightly fodder for cable TV crime shows and brought a stampede of reporters to stake out the home of Anthony's parents. See a timeline of key events »
Tempers have flared and fists have flown outside the house tucked away in a subdivision in Orlando, Florida. One protester had George Anthony arrested, alleging that he had pushed her.
Police and prosecutors have said little, instead letting hundreds of pages of documents and investigative reports do the talking for them.
Casey Anthony behaved like a carefree party girl, going to nightclubs, entering "hot-body" contests and incessantly sending text messages to her friends while her daughter was missing, according to cell phone and text transcripts and investigative reports released by police.
Copies of her phone and text records obtained by police and released to the public show she hardly ever mentioned her missing daughter during the time just before and after the child was reported missing. The young mother referred to Caylee as "the little snot head" in May, about a month before the child disappeared.
Anthony gave conflicting statements during the investigation and provided police with information that later was disproved. For example, she said she had dropped the child off with a baby sitter. Yet when police checked out her story, they learned that the address that Anthony supplied belonged to an apartment that had been vacant for weeks. The woman Anthony named as the baby sitter said she did not know Anthony.
As Anthony was arrested on child neglect charges, bonded out of jail, was rearrested on bad check and theft charges and bonded out again, investigators disclosed some of the forensic evidence they uncovered.
Cadaver dogs picked up the scent of death in the trunk of a car Anthony drove and in her parents' backyard. A neighbor told police Anthony had asked to borrow a shovel.
Authorities said that in the car Anthony drove, they found traces of chloroform, which can cause loss of consciousness. And they said that on her computer, they found Internet searches of missing children and chloroform Web sites.
Investigators said air quality tests conducted by the FBI found evidence of human decomposition in the trunk of Anthony's car. Law enforcement sources also suggested that a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car was probably Caylee's.
FDA Approves New Neural Therapy for Depression
Yikes!
The FDA approved a new therapy for treatment resistant depression, the NeuroStar TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) Therapy system. The TMS therapy stimulates brain cells by delivering magnetic impulses.
"Patients treated with NeuroStar TMS Therapy do not require anesthesia or sedation and remain awake and alert. It is a 40-minute outpatient procedure that is prescribed by a psychiatrist and performed in a psychiatrist’s office. The treatment is typically administered daily for 4-6 weeks" (Nauert).
I'm all for getting treatment for depression, but this is very scary.
The FDA approved a new therapy for treatment resistant depression, the NeuroStar TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) Therapy system. The TMS therapy stimulates brain cells by delivering magnetic impulses.
"Patients treated with NeuroStar TMS Therapy do not require anesthesia or sedation and remain awake and alert. It is a 40-minute outpatient procedure that is prescribed by a psychiatrist and performed in a psychiatrist’s office. The treatment is typically administered daily for 4-6 weeks" (Nauert).
I'm all for getting treatment for depression, but this is very scary.
Man Responsible for Obama Smear Campaign is Racist
Andy Martin, an "internet journalist" was interviewed on October 5 on the Fox News show Hannity's America. Martin, who is thought to be responsible for the "Obama-is-a-muslim smear campaign" (TSG), said on the show that Barack Obama is "in training for radical overthrow of the government". Martin did not offer to back up his claim, and Sean Hannity did not even ask for any facts. Nor did Hannity mention Andy Martin's history of antisemitism. Back in 1986 Martin, a then congressional candidate, circulated a letter claiming "Jew babies are fed with subsidized American taxpayer money," and "schooled in blood sucking and money grubbing"; he was also determined to "exterminate Jew Power in America".
Way to research your "journalists", Fox News.
Check out the 1986 letter written by Martin, link enclosed.
Way to research your "journalists", Fox News.
Check out the 1986 letter written by Martin, link enclosed.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sorry Dude, That's Not Legal Cake
A 51-year-old woman from Connecticut is accused of serving a marijuana-laced ginger cake to her real estate agent. See, Lady, this is why pot's still illegal because people like you and the drive-thru guy do stupid shit.
Sorry Dude, That's Not Legal Tender
Some guy in Florida tried to pay for his food at a McDonald's drive-thru; and the cashier called 911. "oh my God, this guy has pot! It's an emergency!" Seriously though, what an idiot.
Think Before You Drink, But Not After
Moderate alcohol consumption may be beneficial to your cardiovascular system, but it will lower the volume of your brain according to a new study. Brain volume normally declines with age, but drinking alcohol can exacerbate the process. The study shows that women, more so than men, are susceptible to the effects on brain volume of drinking.
Link enclosed
Link enclosed
Blahism: Deontological vs. Teleological Ethical Systems
We often make decisions between right and wrong, questioning acts and situations on whether or not they coincide with our individual conscience. What is not usually considered is why we make decisions. It is easy for one to say they did something because it was the “right” thing to do; but what makes them feel it was “right”? Many factors are responsible for how we judge morality; religion, nature, virtue, ego, and other ideals are relative to what we feel is right or wrong. These factors are classified into ethical systems that are either deontological or teleological.
Deontological Ethical Systems
Deontological ethical systems base what is right on the means to the end. Even if there is a negative outcome to a deed, it is still considered good if the person who does the deed has done so with good intentions. According to deontological ethical systems, the means justifies the end. Deontologicalism’s most formidable example is ethical formalism: “What is good is that which conforms to the Categorical Imperative” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49).
Kant (1946:76) says the imperative is “the imperative of morality” (Pollock, 2004, p. 30). Say, for instance, I am walking down the street eating a cheeseburger. I look over and see a homeless woman sitting on the sidewalk looking hungry. I give my cheeseburger to the woman and she is happy. If I gave her the cheeseburger because she looked hungry, then my actions are moral. My actions would not be moral if I gave her the cheeseburger because it was gross. Many would view the action of giving a homeless woman a cheeseburger a moral act; but under ethical formalism, the act is only moral if done with good intentions.
Religion is the driving force behind the actions of people all over the world; people who put their deity’s demands over all other morals. Ethics of religion are based on the idea of “what is good is that which conforms to God’s will” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). The Ten Commandments are religious imperatives of two major world religions; Judaism, and Christianity. Under the ethics of religion, as long as the believer is doing God’s will, then their actions are considered moral. To illustrate the differences of viewpoint I would like to point out the jihad going on in the Middle East. Jews and Muslims will always be at war because both sides are doing what they think is morally right to honor their God.
Relating to the ethics of religion, but without the deities is natural law. “What is good is that which is natural” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). Natural law respects the social contract, the unwritten rules of nature and the universe. To defend one’s natural rights, like the right to be alive, is naturally moral; it is survival. It is also natural to embrace such qualities as generosity, caring, and kindness. Humans often rely on instincts of natural law to distinguish right from wrong; we do what “feels” right. Branching off the natural law is the ethics of care where “what is good is that which meets the needs of those concerned” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). This form of ethics relates directly to women and their very own set of morals. It is in a woman’s nature to be nurturing; and women care in a way that men generally do not. It would be natural, and moral, to care for those who cannot care for themselves; and that stems from a mother’s instinct to care for her children.
Teleological Ethical Systems
The end justifies the means in teleological ethical systems. From this viewpoint, a deed is considered a good deed if the outcome is good. Take a look at taxes; the act of paying taxes does not bring happiness, but (we hope) our tax money goes to the government to make society better. Paying taxes is not enjoyable, but the outcome is beneficial; so paying taxes is morally good as determined by means of teleological ethics.
A perfect example of a teleological ethical system is utilitarianism, defined as “What is good is that which results in the greatest utility for the greatest number” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). Some sacrifices are considered moral if the end result brings a larger benefit. If there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and George Bush really was valiantly saving the U.S. from imminent future attacks, then his actions could be considered utilitarian.
Another commonly used form of ethics, in my opinion, is egoism; and it “is clearly [a] teleological” ethical system (Pollock, 2004, p. 35). “What is good is that which benefits me” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). On some level, every decision we make, and everything we do, we make and do for our own best interests. Whether it is on a deeply subconscious level, or an outright selfish level, the base of both extremes is ego. Egoism can be related to the natural law of survival and defense. But, it is also relevant to throwing someone in front of a train to save yourself; yeah, you survived, but it was not a very moral thing to do.
Ethics of virtue view morality as “what is good is that which conforms to the Golden Mean” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). The principle of the golden mean “states that virtue is always the median between two extremes of character” (Pollock, 2004, p. 40). A person with good virtues does good things because that is the way they are; they do not have to think about doing good deeds, it is habit. The moral fiber of a person is what makes them a “good” person; therefore the actions they take are considered moral under the ethics of virtue. On the other side of the scale, a pathological liar operates under the ethics of virtue; they lie without thinking about it, it is a habit. The virtues of a pathological liar, however, are not universally regarded as moral.
My Ethics
I genuinely care about people, and my actions are often based on the ethics of care. I am a good person, virtuous, and generous by nature. I am an individual, with my own agenda that sometimes has to come before others. I have faith in God, and I strive to live my life in a way that pleases Him. There are many sides to me, and many reasons why I do what I do in different situations. My ethics stem from the deontological system of a naturally caring formalism fueled by the teleological system of religious virtues and egoism. Ha!
Deontological Ethical Systems
Deontological ethical systems base what is right on the means to the end. Even if there is a negative outcome to a deed, it is still considered good if the person who does the deed has done so with good intentions. According to deontological ethical systems, the means justifies the end. Deontologicalism’s most formidable example is ethical formalism: “What is good is that which conforms to the Categorical Imperative” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49).
Kant (1946:76) says the imperative is “the imperative of morality” (Pollock, 2004, p. 30). Say, for instance, I am walking down the street eating a cheeseburger. I look over and see a homeless woman sitting on the sidewalk looking hungry. I give my cheeseburger to the woman and she is happy. If I gave her the cheeseburger because she looked hungry, then my actions are moral. My actions would not be moral if I gave her the cheeseburger because it was gross. Many would view the action of giving a homeless woman a cheeseburger a moral act; but under ethical formalism, the act is only moral if done with good intentions.
Religion is the driving force behind the actions of people all over the world; people who put their deity’s demands over all other morals. Ethics of religion are based on the idea of “what is good is that which conforms to God’s will” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). The Ten Commandments are religious imperatives of two major world religions; Judaism, and Christianity. Under the ethics of religion, as long as the believer is doing God’s will, then their actions are considered moral. To illustrate the differences of viewpoint I would like to point out the jihad going on in the Middle East. Jews and Muslims will always be at war because both sides are doing what they think is morally right to honor their God.
Relating to the ethics of religion, but without the deities is natural law. “What is good is that which is natural” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). Natural law respects the social contract, the unwritten rules of nature and the universe. To defend one’s natural rights, like the right to be alive, is naturally moral; it is survival. It is also natural to embrace such qualities as generosity, caring, and kindness. Humans often rely on instincts of natural law to distinguish right from wrong; we do what “feels” right. Branching off the natural law is the ethics of care where “what is good is that which meets the needs of those concerned” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). This form of ethics relates directly to women and their very own set of morals. It is in a woman’s nature to be nurturing; and women care in a way that men generally do not. It would be natural, and moral, to care for those who cannot care for themselves; and that stems from a mother’s instinct to care for her children.
Teleological Ethical Systems
The end justifies the means in teleological ethical systems. From this viewpoint, a deed is considered a good deed if the outcome is good. Take a look at taxes; the act of paying taxes does not bring happiness, but (we hope) our tax money goes to the government to make society better. Paying taxes is not enjoyable, but the outcome is beneficial; so paying taxes is morally good as determined by means of teleological ethics.
A perfect example of a teleological ethical system is utilitarianism, defined as “What is good is that which results in the greatest utility for the greatest number” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). Some sacrifices are considered moral if the end result brings a larger benefit. If there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and George Bush really was valiantly saving the U.S. from imminent future attacks, then his actions could be considered utilitarian.
Another commonly used form of ethics, in my opinion, is egoism; and it “is clearly [a] teleological” ethical system (Pollock, 2004, p. 35). “What is good is that which benefits me” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). On some level, every decision we make, and everything we do, we make and do for our own best interests. Whether it is on a deeply subconscious level, or an outright selfish level, the base of both extremes is ego. Egoism can be related to the natural law of survival and defense. But, it is also relevant to throwing someone in front of a train to save yourself; yeah, you survived, but it was not a very moral thing to do.
Ethics of virtue view morality as “what is good is that which conforms to the Golden Mean” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). The principle of the golden mean “states that virtue is always the median between two extremes of character” (Pollock, 2004, p. 40). A person with good virtues does good things because that is the way they are; they do not have to think about doing good deeds, it is habit. The moral fiber of a person is what makes them a “good” person; therefore the actions they take are considered moral under the ethics of virtue. On the other side of the scale, a pathological liar operates under the ethics of virtue; they lie without thinking about it, it is a habit. The virtues of a pathological liar, however, are not universally regarded as moral.
My Ethics
I genuinely care about people, and my actions are often based on the ethics of care. I am a good person, virtuous, and generous by nature. I am an individual, with my own agenda that sometimes has to come before others. I have faith in God, and I strive to live my life in a way that pleases Him. There are many sides to me, and many reasons why I do what I do in different situations. My ethics stem from the deontological system of a naturally caring formalism fueled by the teleological system of religious virtues and egoism. Ha!
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Use # 17 for Testicles:
Testicles may be stem-cell source
WASHINGTON – Cells taken from men's testicles seem as versatile as the stem cells derived from embryos, researchers reported yesterday in what may be yet another new approach in a burgeoning scientific field.
The new type of stem cells could be useful for growing personalized replacement tissues, according to a study in today's issue of the journal Nature. But because of their source, their highest promise would apply to only half the world's population: men.
Embryonic stem cells can give rise to virtually any tissue in the body, and scientists believe they may offer treatments for such diseases as Parkinson's and diabetes and for spinal cord injuries.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Cells taken from men's testicles seem as versatile as the stem cells derived from embryos, researchers reported yesterday in what may be yet another new approach in a burgeoning scientific field.
The new type of stem cells could be useful for growing personalized replacement tissues, according to a study in today's issue of the journal Nature. But because of their source, their highest promise would apply to only half the world's population: men.
Embryonic stem cells can give rise to virtually any tissue in the body, and scientists believe they may offer treatments for such diseases as Parkinson's and diabetes and for spinal cord injuries.
Associated Press
Not Cool At All
Thousands Missing From Voter Rolls
Purges apparently due to mistakes, seem to be illegal
By Ian Urbina
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
October 9, 2008
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law intended to overhaul the way elections are run.
Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party's supporters disproportionately.
The screening and trimming of voter registration lists in the six states – Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina – could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: People who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.
Some states allow such voters to cast provisional ballots. But they are often not counted because they require added verification.
Although much attention this year has been focused on the millions of new voters being added to the rolls by the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama, there has been far less notice given to the number of voters being dropped from those same rolls.
States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and remove the names of voters who should no longer be listed; but for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, records show.
The six states seem to be in violation of federal law in two ways. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote.
Some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters.
In addition to the six swing states, three more states appear to be violating federal law. Alabama and Georgia seem to be improperly using Social Security information to screen registration applications from new voters. And Louisiana appears to have removed thousands of voters after the federal deadline for taking such action.
Under federal law, election officials are supposed to use the Social Security database to check a registration application only as a last resort, if no record of the applicant is found on state databases, like those for driver's licenses or identification cards.
The requirement exists because using the federal database is less reliable than the state lists, and is more likely to incorrectly flag applications as invalid. Many state officials seem to be using the Social Security lists first.
In three states – Colorado, Louisiana and Michigan – the number of people purged from the election rolls since Aug. 1 far exceeds the number who may have died or relocated during that period.
Purges apparently due to mistakes, seem to be illegal
By Ian Urbina
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
October 9, 2008
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law intended to overhaul the way elections are run.
Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party's supporters disproportionately.
The screening and trimming of voter registration lists in the six states – Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina – could also result in problems at the polls on Election Day: People who have been removed from the rolls are likely to show up only to be challenged by political party officials or election workers, resulting in confusion, long lines and heated tempers.
Some states allow such voters to cast provisional ballots. But they are often not counted because they require added verification.
Although much attention this year has been focused on the millions of new voters being added to the rolls by the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama, there has been far less notice given to the number of voters being dropped from those same rolls.
States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and remove the names of voters who should no longer be listed; but for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, records show.
The six states seem to be in violation of federal law in two ways. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote.
Some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters.
In addition to the six swing states, three more states appear to be violating federal law. Alabama and Georgia seem to be improperly using Social Security information to screen registration applications from new voters. And Louisiana appears to have removed thousands of voters after the federal deadline for taking such action.
Under federal law, election officials are supposed to use the Social Security database to check a registration application only as a last resort, if no record of the applicant is found on state databases, like those for driver's licenses or identification cards.
The requirement exists because using the federal database is less reliable than the state lists, and is more likely to incorrectly flag applications as invalid. Many state officials seem to be using the Social Security lists first.
In three states – Colorado, Louisiana and Michigan – the number of people purged from the election rolls since Aug. 1 far exceeds the number who may have died or relocated during that period.
GOP Losing Ground in San Diego County
The San Diego Union Tribune reported today that the county might very well be on its way to becoming blue after 20 years of being red. The jump in registered Democrats is most likely due to the growing number of young people becoming interested in voting in the Presidential election this year, and on Proposition 8 which would ban gay marriage.
Hope For People Suffering From the Aids Virus
'There could be an Aids vaccine in four years,' says Nobel Prize winner
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:54 PM on 06th October 2008
A French scientist awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the Aids virus has predicted there would be a 'therapeutic vaccine' for the disease within four years.
Luc Montagnier and his team discovered HIV at the French Pasteur Institute in Paris 25 years ago, and have been awarded the prestigious prize along with other scientists who worked on discovering the root of the virus.
Montagnier, 76, said a treatment could be possible in the future with a 'therapeutic' rather than preventive vaccine for which results might be published in three or four years if financial backing is forthcoming.
'I think it will be possible with a therapeutic vaccine rather than preventative vaccinations. We would give it to people who are already infected.
A therapeutic vaccine prevents disease from flourishing after it has taken hold.
The Nobel Assembly of Sweden's Karolinska Institute praised their work, saying: 'The discovery was one prerequisite for the current understanding of the biology of the disease and its antiretroviral treatment.'
The other half of the Nobel prize was awarded for the German scientist's research that 'went against current dogma' by setting forth that oncogenic human papilloma virus (HPV) caused cervical cancer, the second most common cancer among women.
'His discovery has led to characterization of the natural history of HPV infection, an understanding of mechanisms of HPV-induced carcinogenesis and the development of prophylactic vaccines against HPV acquisition,' the Assembly said.
Medicine is traditionally the first of the Nobel prizes awarded each year.
The prizes for achievement in science, literature and peace were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel.
The economics prize is a later addition, established by the Swedish Riksbank in 1968.
The Nobel laureate for physics will be announced tomorrow, followed by the chemistry Nobel on Wednesday, literature on Thursday and the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in Oslo.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:54 PM on 06th October 2008
A French scientist awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the Aids virus has predicted there would be a 'therapeutic vaccine' for the disease within four years.
Luc Montagnier and his team discovered HIV at the French Pasteur Institute in Paris 25 years ago, and have been awarded the prestigious prize along with other scientists who worked on discovering the root of the virus.
Montagnier, 76, said a treatment could be possible in the future with a 'therapeutic' rather than preventive vaccine for which results might be published in three or four years if financial backing is forthcoming.
'I think it will be possible with a therapeutic vaccine rather than preventative vaccinations. We would give it to people who are already infected.
A therapeutic vaccine prevents disease from flourishing after it has taken hold.
The Nobel Assembly of Sweden's Karolinska Institute praised their work, saying: 'The discovery was one prerequisite for the current understanding of the biology of the disease and its antiretroviral treatment.'
The other half of the Nobel prize was awarded for the German scientist's research that 'went against current dogma' by setting forth that oncogenic human papilloma virus (HPV) caused cervical cancer, the second most common cancer among women.
'His discovery has led to characterization of the natural history of HPV infection, an understanding of mechanisms of HPV-induced carcinogenesis and the development of prophylactic vaccines against HPV acquisition,' the Assembly said.
Medicine is traditionally the first of the Nobel prizes awarded each year.
The prizes for achievement in science, literature and peace were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel.
The economics prize is a later addition, established by the Swedish Riksbank in 1968.
The Nobel laureate for physics will be announced tomorrow, followed by the chemistry Nobel on Wednesday, literature on Thursday and the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in Oslo.
Tackling the Important Issues
Because it's what really matters. John McCain's campaign plane is apparently better than Barack Obama's.
From CBS News' Dean Reynolds:
(NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
Obama is the big time orator, McCain is the guy who struggles with a teleprompter or even note cards strategically placed nearby. Obama's crowds are larger, more enthusiastic. McCain's events are smaller, but to my eye, better choreographed. And now with the addition of Sarah Palin to some of his events, McCain can boast of crowds that match Obama's in energy.
There is an urgency to the McCain campaign now that I don't think was there before. Due to the fact that he is running second, no doubt, but it may also be because McCain has a finishing kick. Whatever the case, he is sharper on the stump than he was before. (Though I would suspect a candidate running behind would want to schedule two or three appearances per day, instead of the one McCain usually does.)
It is true that McCain enjoys taking questions from the audience in town hall-style settings. That doesn't mean he is the master of that kind of forum, it just means he's good at it. He likes to converse with voters. Obama does it well too, but seldom achieves that intangible bond with the people that all politicians crave -- or fake.
Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences.
Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.
If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.
The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.
The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.
Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he's just said. It's made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.
Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama's that is focused solely on victory doesn't have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters.
But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.
Amazing
A German man has undergone the first double arm transplant.
MUNICH, Germany (AP) — A German farmer who received the world's first complete double arm transplant said Wednesday that incredulity gave way to joy when he woke from surgery to discover he had arms again.
Karl Merk, who lost his arms in a farming accident six years ago, said he at first could not believe that the transplant appeared to have been succesful.
"It was really overwhelming when I saw that I had arms again," said the 54-year-old, who wore a sleeveless black shirt showing clearly where his new arms had been grafted.
"These are my arms, and I'm not giving them away again," he told reporters at the Munich University Clinic where he remains nearly three months after the 15-hour operation.
Merk is recovering well and can perform simple tasks such as opening doors and turning lights on and off. His ultimate goals are to eat and dress himself — and ride a motorcycle.
"All in all, our wildest expectations have pretty much been fulfilled," said Christoph Hoehnke, one of the lead doctors.
A total of 40 surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses and other support staff carried out the 15-hour operation on July 25-26 to graft the donor's arms on to the body of Merk, who lost his own just below the shoulder in a combine harvester accident.
Doctors said there were good indications of nerve growth in the arms but it could take up to two years before he relearns how to use his hands.
Merk appeared at the news conference Wednesday with lower arms bandaged and supported with a series of straps attached to shoulder pads.
Merk said he was looking forward to going home after four to six more weeks of an intensive program of physiotherapy, electric stimulation and psychological counseling.
There is also still a risk that Merk's immune system will react, though doctors said so far there was no sign of them being rejected.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Damn!
There has apparently been a rumor spreading around California that In-N-Out was going to celebrate their 60th anniversary by selling their over priced burgers and fries at a discount.
If any Californians were excited for cheaper burgers and fries for the day, well.......too bad. You have to wait in a long line and pay full price.
But hey, 60 years, that's cool.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/innout.asp
Jeez!
Thank God this guy might possibly be convicted of a felony, then he won't get to vote at all anymore!
"Keep The N*gger Out Of Office"
Cops: Man threatened voter officials over tardy registration card
OCTOBER 8--Angered by a delay in the receipt of his voter registration card, a Louisiana man today threatened to shoot election officials, claiming that he urgently needed to cast a ballot to "keep the nigger out of office," according to police. Wade Williams, 75, was arrested this morning on a felony terrorizing charge after allegedly calling the Registrar of Voters and warning that he would come to the state office and empty his shotgun unless he got his registration card. Using profanity and racial slurs, Williams told a state official "about needing to vote to 'keep the nigger out of office," according to an Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office affidavit, a copy of which you'll find here. Though the document does not name the candidate to which Williams is so violently opposed, it seems likely he was referring to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. After being arrested at his Monroe home, Williams was booked into the Ouachita Correctional Center, where the below mug shot was snapped. En route to the jail, he "continued his 'tirade' about niggers and also stated that he had a shotgun, but had it hidden at his residence," reported Lt. Michael Judd. (2 pages)
"Keep The N*gger Out Of Office"
Cops: Man threatened voter officials over tardy registration card
OCTOBER 8--Angered by a delay in the receipt of his voter registration card, a Louisiana man today threatened to shoot election officials, claiming that he urgently needed to cast a ballot to "keep the nigger out of office," according to police. Wade Williams, 75, was arrested this morning on a felony terrorizing charge after allegedly calling the Registrar of Voters and warning that he would come to the state office and empty his shotgun unless he got his registration card. Using profanity and racial slurs, Williams told a state official "about needing to vote to 'keep the nigger out of office," according to an Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office affidavit, a copy of which you'll find here. Though the document does not name the candidate to which Williams is so violently opposed, it seems likely he was referring to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. After being arrested at his Monroe home, Williams was booked into the Ouachita Correctional Center, where the below mug shot was snapped. En route to the jail, he "continued his 'tirade' about niggers and also stated that he had a shotgun, but had it hidden at his residence," reported Lt. Michael Judd. (2 pages)
I Love the Foo Fighters
From PerezHilton.com:
Foo Fights Don't Think McCain Is A Hero
Filed under: Music Minute
They did it again!!!!!!
The McCain campaign has been using many many songs without permission, most recently playing the Foo Fighters' My Hero at speeches and rallies.
Well, Dave Grohl and his bandmates are none too pleased about it!
Naturally, they want McCain to quit using their song, joining Heart, Van Halen, John Mellencamp and Jackson Browne in a similar battle.
Say the Foos:
"This isn’t the first time the McCain campaign has used a song without making any attempt to get approval or permission from the artist. It’s frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property. The saddest thing about this is that ‘My Hero’ was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential. To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song.”
Them's fightin' words!!!
We'd stop if we were you, McCain!!!
Sex Offender Map
If you are taking your kids trick-or-treating this Halloween, be sure to check out this web site for a map of registered sex offenders in your area.
National Sex Offender Registry: Family Watchdog
http://www.familywatchdog.us/Default.asp
or click on the title of this post to go to web site
Blahism: Health Care is a Right!
Americans should have the right to be healthy! It seems like a no brainer to me. A lot of other countries that are not as wealthy as the U.S. can manage to provide health care to their citizens, so should we.
The "responsibility" for health care has already fallen on American citizens, and it isn't working! So, John McCain, who should be responsible for providing health care? Should the government be responsible for providing health care? That would mean....wait....that we have the right to health care?
The "responsibility" for health care has already fallen on American citizens, and it isn't working! So, John McCain, who should be responsible for providing health care? Should the government be responsible for providing health care? That would mean....wait....that we have the right to health care?
Props to Obama for Keeping a Straight Face
Barack did seem to get more aggressive towards the end of the debate, but he never lost his cool. He seemed more flabbergasted than angry at times, I could see the thought bubble above his head "did he just say that?" I would not have been able to suppress laughter during the times that John McCain was pooping from his mouth; and I am not positive I would have been able to stop myself from punching him in the nose at other times.
McCain, however, made no effort to hide his feelings towards Sen. Obama, often laughing and shaking his head. John was definitely nervous in the beginning, you could hear his voice shaking in the microphone; where Barack spoke like a true, confident leader. As the debate wore on, however, both candidates became considerably more heated, with McCain becoming more and more combative towards Obama. Barack took it like a man, maintaining eye contact and RESPECT towards Sen. McCain.
John McCain is a grumpy old man. His policies are old. His politics are old. His campaign is old.
It's time to get out with the old and in with the new.
John McCain is Old
So he's really old. Did anyone else notice while Barack was talking about health care that John McCain was wondering aimlessly around the stage? I think someone had to direct him back to his chair. I think his town hall style format was a little more than he could handle, he should stick to the podium. All that walking around made his arthritis flare up.
Age, health questions continue for McCain
By Caleb Hellerman
CNN Medical Producer
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
(CNN) -- Meghan McCain was on the talk-show couch, being grilled by the hosts of "The View." Does it bother her to hear jokes about her father's age? Megan, 23, started chuckling, and allowed, "He IS old!" Tension was replaced by laughter. But that was summer. These days, for Republican Sen. John McCain, age is no laughing matter.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and wife Cindy greet supporters Monday in New Mexico.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and wife Cindy greet supporters Monday in New Mexico.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image
Age as political issue has become a reality the McCain campaign does indeed have to face. McCain turned 72 in August, which would make him the oldest man to begin a first term as president -- three years older than Ronald Reagan.
Clips of McCain making supposed age-related gaffes circulate on the Internet. Last month, Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat and a supporter of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, said McCain's age and skin cancer history were fair game as a campaign issue. "We're talking about a reality here that we have to face."
All this skates over the fact that McCain already allowed reporters a peek at eight years worth of health records, dating back to 2000, while Obama has released a one-page summary from his doctor. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said it's a double standard. "The arbiters of this election are not demanding the same level of disclosure about Sen. Obama. He's essentially running on a doctor's note. I had a harder time getting out of high school math class." Video Watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta report on the age and health questions surrounding McCain »
McCain bristles when it is suggested that he might lack youthful vigor. Early in the primaries, he faced a blunt question from a New Hampshire teenager. Was he worried he would get Alzheimer's disease or die in office? "I'm very active," McCain shot back. "People will judge by the vigor and enthusiasm associated with our campaign. I've out-campaigned my opponents, every race I've ever been in." He ended with a joke. "Thanks for the question, you little jerk!"
Fit To Lead
Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates presidential health
Saturday-Sunday 8 p.m. ET
see full schedule »
In an effort to dispel health concerns, this spring McCain's campaign allowed select reporters, including CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a look at more than 1,100 pages of medical records. In a teleconference with reporters, Dr. John Eckstein, McCain's personal physician, declared him to be in excellent health. "I and my colleagues can find no medical reasons or problems that would preclude Sen. McCain from fulfilling all the duties and obligations of the president of the United States."
Since 1993, McCain has had four skin cancers removed. McCain's biggest health scare came in December 2000, when he was found to have a Stage 2 melanoma on his left cheek. The cancer was about as wide as a dime and a little thicker than a nickel. By today's standards, his surgeons took an extremely aggressive approach, removing more than 30 lymph nodes even though a test showed the cancer had not spread. McCain's surgeon, Dr. Michael Hinni, said they simply wanted to err on the side of caution.
Don't Miss
* CNNPolitics.com
McCain's records might be an open book compared to Obama's, but his campaign is a long way from full disclosure. They gave reporters three hours to look through the massive stack of paperwork, and didn't allow pictures or photocopies.
Dr. Wendy Epstein is a dermatologist who signed a petition calling on McCain to release all his records to the public. "Anybody running for the president gives up their right for personal privacy. Their health is my concern." Epstein, who said she's a registered Democrat married to a Republican, said it's not clear whether McCain's most severe melanoma was related to the others, a so-called metastasis. "We need to know: Did this melanoma spread, or didn't it? And that can only be answered by an independent group of dermatopathologists, looking at slides."
Hinni and McCain's dermatologist, Dr. Suzanne Connolly, said it was not a gray area: The cancer was clearly Stage 2. Gupta, one of few reporters to see the pathology report, said the file backs up that assertion. Eight years post-removal, Connolly said the chance of a recurrence is less than 10 percent. Bounds, the McCain spokesman, said it is "unacceptable" that doctors who haven't examined McCain are questioning his own physicians. "This is a highly respected team of doctors he's been working with. They have concluded he is in perfect health." Coming this weekend on CNN: Fit to Lead Video
Health Library
* MayoClinic.com: Health library
Dr. Thomas Perls, a geriatrician who has conducted some of the most extensive research on aging, said advantages ranging from good health care to good genes work in McCain's favor. McCain likes to point to his mother, Roberta, still spry and giving interviews at age 96. Perls agreed that longevity runs strongly in families. "Having a 96-year-old mom who's in pretty good shape definitely bodes well for him, and not only for his ability to get to older years, but to spend a greater period of that time in good health."
Perls' greater concern is mental sharpness. "While we have some data about [McCain's] cholesterol and some other physical exam features, we don't really have good testing of his brain," said Perls. Studies based on census data show that by age 79, one in six Americans is suffering from cognitive decline, and that each year 12 percent of that group progress to full-blown dementia.
advertisement
To be clear, those are simply averages for the population as a whole, and there is no indication that McCain is suffering a cognitive decline. Voters might take heart from other leaders who served well into their golden years. Israel's Golda Meir was 76 by the time she left office. French President Charles de Gaulle was 78, and Nelson Mandela led South Africa until he was 80.
Or McCain might take a page from Ronald Reagan, who was 73 when he ran for re-election in 1984. During a televised debate against Walter Mondale, then 56, Reagan famously began by saying, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I will not hold my opponent's youth and inexperience against him." The audience laughed. Reagan went on to win the election.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Digg Facebook del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon MySpace
| Mixx it | Share
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Great Schlep
Web site "aims to have Jewish grandchildren visit their grandparents in Florida, educate them about Obama, and therefore swing the crucial Florida vote in his favor".
We Got Ohio, Come on Florida!
Click on the title above to read an article in the Washington Post: Poll: Obama Takes 6-Point Lead in Ohio
Are You Prepared, San Diego?
It is that time of year again in Southern California, when the Santa Ana winds are going to blow into town, and exacerbate our already dry conditions. Check out this guide to get prepared for another wildfire; because it is possible it could happen again.
What They Don't Want to Talk About
Jaimie -- Watch the video
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter should know.
Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the economy -- and how to fix it.
Please forward this email to everyone you know.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.S. -- The documentary will be live at noon Eastern at www.KeatingEconomics.com.
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter should know.
Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the economy -- and how to fix it.
Please forward this email to everyone you know.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.S. -- The documentary will be live at noon Eastern at www.KeatingEconomics.com.
Have You Voted for Barack Yet?
Dear Jaimie,
Vote early for Barack You don't have to wait until November 4th to vote for Barack.
Right now supporters like you are stepping up to show their support for Barack and Democrats up and down the ballot by voting early.
In California, you can vote early by mail or in person right now. It's fast, easy, and crucial to our Get Out The Vote effort.
Make sure you're registered to vote. Then find your Early Vote location and hours to make your voice heard today.
We know Californian families can't afford another four or eight years of Bush-McCain policies.
That's why we need all Obama supporters to step up and cast their ballots for change right now during Early Vote.
We have only 30 days until November 4th -- but Election Day is already here in California, and voting early is a great way to show your support for Barack.
Use our online tool to check if you're registered, and find your Early Vote location right now:
http://www.voteforchange.com
We can't do this without you.
Thanks,
Mitchell
Mitchell Schwartz
California State Director
Obama for America
Visit: CA.BarackObama.com | Email: California@BarackObama.com
Vote early for Barack You don't have to wait until November 4th to vote for Barack.
Right now supporters like you are stepping up to show their support for Barack and Democrats up and down the ballot by voting early.
In California, you can vote early by mail or in person right now. It's fast, easy, and crucial to our Get Out The Vote effort.
Make sure you're registered to vote. Then find your Early Vote location and hours to make your voice heard today.
We know Californian families can't afford another four or eight years of Bush-McCain policies.
That's why we need all Obama supporters to step up and cast their ballots for change right now during Early Vote.
We have only 30 days until November 4th -- but Election Day is already here in California, and voting early is a great way to show your support for Barack.
Use our online tool to check if you're registered, and find your Early Vote location right now:
http://www.voteforchange.com
We can't do this without you.
Thanks,
Mitchell
Mitchell Schwartz
California State Director
Obama for America
Visit: CA.BarackObama.com | Email: California@BarackObama.com
Sunday, October 5, 2008
60 Million People You'd Never Talk to..... from The Onion
Report: 60 Million People You'd Never Talk To Voting For Other Guy
September 29, 2008 | Issue 44•40
The Other Guy
Millions will head out to the polls Nov. 4 to vote for the best and worst possible choice for president.
BOSTON—According to an eye-opening report released Tuesday, 60 million people whom you would never talk to, would never be in a position to talk to, and wouldn't even be able to talk to if you tried will be voting for the other candidate in this year's presidential election, and there is nothing you can do about it.
The 110-page document reveals that these strangers share a fundamental vision of our nation's future, a vision that shockingly runs completely counter to your own and is furthermore embodied by the candidate whom you could not in a million years fathom being the leader of the free world. Even more frightening, the report says, is that their votes count just as much as yours.
Enlarge Image Barack and McCain
Just by looking at them, it's clear to you that your guy is the only sane choice.
"While you are 100 percent certain that your preferred candidate's stance on issues such as foreign policy and the economy would appeal to any human being with half a brain, there is, in this very same country, an equally large voting bloc which believes that you and your candidate of choice are absolutely insane," the report's co-author Dr. Mark Grier said during a press conference. "Every single thing you love about your candidate's personality, vice presidential pick, and family, 60 million other registered voters absolutely deplore."
"What you consider to be this country's ruin," Grier added, "these other people actually consider to be this country's savior."
Enlarge Image Voting Chart
The report also confirmed that even if you were able to communicate with these other citizens, your passion and conviction would never be enough to convince them not to vote for their candidate, just as they would never be able to convince you not to vote for your candidate, and just as nobody can convince anybody else that what they believe to be right is wrong, regardless of how clear the evidence to the contrary may be.
The report maintained that, during your purely hypothetical discussion, both of you would come off as smug, narrow-minded, or downright ignorant if you tried to criticize the other candidate's positions on key issues such as abortion and gay rights. The ensuing argument would only further cement both of your feelings of disgust toward the other candidate.
And yet incredibly, sources said, neither one of you would technically be wrong.
Because—and this is reportedly the most maddening part—even though these people's unwavering support for their candidate completely dumbfounds you, you cannot even get angry at them, since they are not voting for him because they are idiots or because they want to spite you, but rather because they actually believe that he is the better choice to run our nation.
The study, which comes as a result of 20 years of research conducted in America's cities, suburbs, and rural towns, indicates that residents living in places you "wouldn't be caught dead in" have never even once considered voting for your candidate at any point during the campaign, and never will, and this is just the way it is always going to be.
The report confirms that this frustrates you.
"The mere fact that you and these 60 million strangers actually live in the same country and salute the same flag seems to defy all reality, yet it's completely true," University of Pennsylvania sociology professor Dr. Marie Stratton said. "And what's even more incredible, there is no indication that you will ever talk to these people about your differences, because you prefer conversing with those who validate your opinions and give you a sense of self-satisfaction."
According to the report, based on the social and cultural trends in the nation, over the next 20 years the number of people with whom you would never speak is only expected to increase. By the 2032 election, there will be an astonishing 150 million people you will never meet who will hate you and your candidate with the same fervent passion with which you will hate them and their candidate.
"I'm voting for [the other guy] all the way," Ohio resident Ethan Washburn said in a statement Monday. "I think that when it comes to foreign and domestic issues, he is best suited for the job. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."
"I'm voting for [the candidate opposite of Washburn] all the way," Florida resident Tom Redman said in a statement Monday. "I think that when it comes to foreign and domestic issues, he is best suited for the job. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."
Remarkably, the one thing you do have in common with these 60 million other people is that you both know several assholes who are actually planning to vote for a third-party candidate, if you can believe that shit.
September 29, 2008 | Issue 44•40
The Other Guy
Millions will head out to the polls Nov. 4 to vote for the best and worst possible choice for president.
BOSTON—According to an eye-opening report released Tuesday, 60 million people whom you would never talk to, would never be in a position to talk to, and wouldn't even be able to talk to if you tried will be voting for the other candidate in this year's presidential election, and there is nothing you can do about it.
The 110-page document reveals that these strangers share a fundamental vision of our nation's future, a vision that shockingly runs completely counter to your own and is furthermore embodied by the candidate whom you could not in a million years fathom being the leader of the free world. Even more frightening, the report says, is that their votes count just as much as yours.
Enlarge Image Barack and McCain
Just by looking at them, it's clear to you that your guy is the only sane choice.
"While you are 100 percent certain that your preferred candidate's stance on issues such as foreign policy and the economy would appeal to any human being with half a brain, there is, in this very same country, an equally large voting bloc which believes that you and your candidate of choice are absolutely insane," the report's co-author Dr. Mark Grier said during a press conference. "Every single thing you love about your candidate's personality, vice presidential pick, and family, 60 million other registered voters absolutely deplore."
"What you consider to be this country's ruin," Grier added, "these other people actually consider to be this country's savior."
Enlarge Image Voting Chart
The report also confirmed that even if you were able to communicate with these other citizens, your passion and conviction would never be enough to convince them not to vote for their candidate, just as they would never be able to convince you not to vote for your candidate, and just as nobody can convince anybody else that what they believe to be right is wrong, regardless of how clear the evidence to the contrary may be.
The report maintained that, during your purely hypothetical discussion, both of you would come off as smug, narrow-minded, or downright ignorant if you tried to criticize the other candidate's positions on key issues such as abortion and gay rights. The ensuing argument would only further cement both of your feelings of disgust toward the other candidate.
And yet incredibly, sources said, neither one of you would technically be wrong.
Because—and this is reportedly the most maddening part—even though these people's unwavering support for their candidate completely dumbfounds you, you cannot even get angry at them, since they are not voting for him because they are idiots or because they want to spite you, but rather because they actually believe that he is the better choice to run our nation.
The study, which comes as a result of 20 years of research conducted in America's cities, suburbs, and rural towns, indicates that residents living in places you "wouldn't be caught dead in" have never even once considered voting for your candidate at any point during the campaign, and never will, and this is just the way it is always going to be.
The report confirms that this frustrates you.
"The mere fact that you and these 60 million strangers actually live in the same country and salute the same flag seems to defy all reality, yet it's completely true," University of Pennsylvania sociology professor Dr. Marie Stratton said. "And what's even more incredible, there is no indication that you will ever talk to these people about your differences, because you prefer conversing with those who validate your opinions and give you a sense of self-satisfaction."
According to the report, based on the social and cultural trends in the nation, over the next 20 years the number of people with whom you would never speak is only expected to increase. By the 2032 election, there will be an astonishing 150 million people you will never meet who will hate you and your candidate with the same fervent passion with which you will hate them and their candidate.
"I'm voting for [the other guy] all the way," Ohio resident Ethan Washburn said in a statement Monday. "I think that when it comes to foreign and domestic issues, he is best suited for the job. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."
"I'm voting for [the candidate opposite of Washburn] all the way," Florida resident Tom Redman said in a statement Monday. "I think that when it comes to foreign and domestic issues, he is best suited for the job. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."
Remarkably, the one thing you do have in common with these 60 million other people is that you both know several assholes who are actually planning to vote for a third-party candidate, if you can believe that shit.
Blahism: Legal Moralism
Pollock explains that “the law should interfere as little as possible in natural liberties and should step in only when the liberty in question injures or impinges on the interests of another (2004, p. 106). This theory is difficult to maintain in terms of legal moralism; which has its good points and its bad points depending on who you are. Legal moralism is a good thing because it “acts as a moral agent where there is no agreement” (Pollock, 2004, p. 108) between members of society regarding an issue such as pornography, certain sexual preferences including prostitution, gambling, and drinking laws. Sometimes, society needs the law to step in and decide on important issues. This can be sticky because the law also needs to maintain separation of church and state. Some people feel that the government does not represent their point of view, so it is difficult to “reinforce society’s definition of moral behavior” (Pollock, 2004, p. 108).
I support a limited legal moralism because some things are just wrong, and the majority of society agrees about certain things that are right and wrong. Not everything that seems wrong, however, should be illegal. As a Christian I am not “for” gay marriage; but, as an American I am not “against” it, either. Regardless if I agree with the morals of gay marriage, it is not right for the government to say two people who love each other cannot be married. If legal moralism is “society’s definitions of moral behavior”, then it should not be a religious definition of moral behavior, which seems to be where the biggest controversies lie. Child pornography is something I think that society can agree is very wrong. This should not even be an issue. Society recognizes that children are different than adults, in such that they have different laws and status offenses that are only illegal for children and not adults. It should go without question that if a child cannot responsibly drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or even buy pornography, then they should not be exposed to, or be an object of pornography.
Legal moralism, like the criminal justice system is something that is not perfect, but that works. As long as society continues to change, legal moralism will change. The criminal justice system should constantly be reevaluated because there are some laws that are outdated or no longer apply to modern situations.
Reference:
Pollock, J.M. (2004). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth
I support a limited legal moralism because some things are just wrong, and the majority of society agrees about certain things that are right and wrong. Not everything that seems wrong, however, should be illegal. As a Christian I am not “for” gay marriage; but, as an American I am not “against” it, either. Regardless if I agree with the morals of gay marriage, it is not right for the government to say two people who love each other cannot be married. If legal moralism is “society’s definitions of moral behavior”, then it should not be a religious definition of moral behavior, which seems to be where the biggest controversies lie. Child pornography is something I think that society can agree is very wrong. This should not even be an issue. Society recognizes that children are different than adults, in such that they have different laws and status offenses that are only illegal for children and not adults. It should go without question that if a child cannot responsibly drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or even buy pornography, then they should not be exposed to, or be an object of pornography.
Legal moralism, like the criminal justice system is something that is not perfect, but that works. As long as society continues to change, legal moralism will change. The criminal justice system should constantly be reevaluated because there are some laws that are outdated or no longer apply to modern situations.
Reference:
Pollock, J.M. (2004). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth
Saturday, October 4, 2008
OJ Guilty!
OJ Simpson was found guilty of armed robbery, and faces life in prison. He was convicted by a jury of all white people, I wander if this will spark a controversy. Anyway he had it coming; I think he began to feel that he was above the law, untouchable. He was wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7652206.stm
see Sarah Palin pictures
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7652206.stm
see Sarah Palin pictures
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Governator
Arnold Schwarzenegger is asking for $7 billion from the federal government to cover the California budget. The Governor says that the money is needed right away to avoid the lay-off of state employees, and the suspension of funds to schools. I'm sure the prisons are still getting paid, though; they seem to take precedence over schools in California. Who needs an education when we have such nice prisons?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calif3-2008oct03,0,5726760.story?track=rss
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calif3-2008oct03,0,5726760.story?track=rss
I knew Jimmy Smits was a Bad Idea!
Hahaha! What a dork!
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0577068/
Jimmy Smits stabbed a guy, with a real knife, on the set of Dexter.
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0577068/
Jimmy Smits stabbed a guy, with a real knife, on the set of Dexter.
$150 billion Sweetened Deal
John Stewart is freakin' hilarious!
Senate passes bailout deal with an extra $150 billion to sweeten the deal.
House to vote on bailout today.
Senate passes bailout deal with an extra $150 billion to sweeten the deal.
House to vote on bailout today.
My Thoughts on the Debate
Sarah Palin's behavior during the debate was disgusting. She tried to "cute" her way through, winking at the audience, while avoiding answering important questions. She became very catty early on, speaking to Joe Biden in a condescending tone. She exhibited her selfishness and disrespect to Gwen Ilfill, Joe Biden, and the American people by refusing to answer key questions; instead she chose to talk about herself and her accomplishments. She continued to avoid questions by changing the subject to issues she wanted to talk about.
I felt like she was talking to us like we were a bunch of kindergartners who don't know the difference between lies and the truth. The facts that she didn't get completely wrong, were complete fabrications of reality. Sarah Palin, and the party that supports her live in a fantasy world where George Bush was elected fairly as President, and whose policies and administration have been a huge success. So successful that they want to continue with the same policies for the next four years.
The people that support McCain/Palin are the people in this country who have buried their heads in the sand, people that enjoy being lied to.
Joe Biden did a great job in the debate staying focused on the issues, and answering the questions that were actually asked. It is clear to me who won the debate, and it wasn't the candidate who charmed America with winks and folksy-isms.
I felt like she was talking to us like we were a bunch of kindergartners who don't know the difference between lies and the truth. The facts that she didn't get completely wrong, were complete fabrications of reality. Sarah Palin, and the party that supports her live in a fantasy world where George Bush was elected fairly as President, and whose policies and administration have been a huge success. So successful that they want to continue with the same policies for the next four years.
The people that support McCain/Palin are the people in this country who have buried their heads in the sand, people that enjoy being lied to.
Joe Biden did a great job in the debate staying focused on the issues, and answering the questions that were actually asked. It is clear to me who won the debate, and it wasn't the candidate who charmed America with winks and folksy-isms.
What They Won't Say
Jaimie --
If you saw tonight's debate, you saw Governor Sarah Palin give a spirited defense of the same disastrous policies that have failed us for the past eight years.
She couldn't identify a single area where she or John McCain would change George W. Bush's economic or foreign policy positions.
If you want something different, Barack and I need your help.
Make a donation of $5 or more right now to bring about the change we need.
The change we need is fixing this broken economy from the bottom up -- not tax breaks for the wealthy and huge corporations that ship U.S. jobs overseas. We need to focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban and restoring America's standing in the world -- not an unending commitment in Iraq.
Let's be clear: Governor Palin and Senator McCain are offering nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies at home and abroad, trying to disguise them in the rhetoric of change.
Americans need real solutions and real change.
We're in this together and there's a lot to do before Election Day. Please make a donation of $5 or more right now to support this campaign for change:
https://donate.barackobama.com/changeweneed
This is the most important presidential election you'll be part of in your life.
Thank you for all that you're doing.
Now let's get to work and change this country,
Joe
Donate
Paid for by Obama for America
If you saw tonight's debate, you saw Governor Sarah Palin give a spirited defense of the same disastrous policies that have failed us for the past eight years.
She couldn't identify a single area where she or John McCain would change George W. Bush's economic or foreign policy positions.
If you want something different, Barack and I need your help.
Make a donation of $5 or more right now to bring about the change we need.
The change we need is fixing this broken economy from the bottom up -- not tax breaks for the wealthy and huge corporations that ship U.S. jobs overseas. We need to focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban and restoring America's standing in the world -- not an unending commitment in Iraq.
Let's be clear: Governor Palin and Senator McCain are offering nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies at home and abroad, trying to disguise them in the rhetoric of change.
Americans need real solutions and real change.
We're in this together and there's a lot to do before Election Day. Please make a donation of $5 or more right now to support this campaign for change:
https://donate.barackobama.com/changeweneed
This is the most important presidential election you'll be part of in your life.
Thank you for all that you're doing.
Now let's get to work and change this country,
Joe
Donate
Paid for by Obama for America
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Video: McCain $1Trillion Mortgage Bailout
John McCain has suggested using $1Trillion in tax money to buy up bad mortgages, bypassing Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SesiK5CpcII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SesiK5CpcII
VP Debate
Don't forget to watch the Vice Presidential Debate tonight between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Palin I'm sure will dig her grave tonight, but hopefully Biden will be able to control his temper.
6pm PT
6pm PT
The Terminator
 | ||||||
| Marijuana Policy Project Alert: Calif. | October 1, 2008 | |||||
 | ||||||
| Last night, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) vetoed A.B. 2279. The legislation — authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) — would have prevented medical marijuana patients from being fired or denied employment for testing positive for marijuana, as long as they were not impaired on the job. Contrary to the rhetoric of its opponents, A.B. 2279 included provisions that exempted safety-sensitive positions and didn't put employers in a position of violating federal law. At a time when the state faces a $15 billion budget deficit, it's outrageous that Gov. Schwarzenegger thinks sending thousands of state-legal medical marijuana patients into unemployment is a good plan for California. Please call the governor's office today and let him know that you are disappointed that he vetoed this important legislation. Dial (916) 445-2841, and follow the instructions on the automated menu. Thank you for supporting MPP and California's medical marijuana patients. Sincerely, F. Aaron Smith  |
| |||||
| We are required by federal law to tell you that any donations you make to MPP may be used for political purposes, such as supporting or opposing candidates for federal office. | ||||||
Alcohol and Tobacco More Harmful than Pot
LONDON (AFP) - Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, according to a report by a research charity Thursday, which called for a "serious rethink" of drug policy.
The Beckley Foundation, a charity which numbers senior experts and other academics among its advisors, said banning cannabis has no impact on supply and turns users into criminals.
"Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco," says the report by the Foundation's Global Cannabis Commission.
The government is pressing for cannabis to be re-classified in law as a Class B drug compared with its current, less serious, Class C classification.
Authorities are concerned notably by the growing prevalence of the potent "skunk" form of the drug. Around 80 percent of cannabis seizures are of this strain, said to be linked to mental health problems, official figures show.
The Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, claimed only two deaths worldwide have been attributed to cannabis, while alcohol and tobacco use together kill an estimated 150,000 people in Britain alone.
"Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment," it said.
"It is only through a regulated market that we can better protect young people from the ever more potent forms of dope," it added.
The decision to reclassify cannabis upwards into the more punitive Class B category -- which includes amphetamines -- is a U-turn for the Labour government.
Cannabis was downgraded from Class B when Tony Blair was prime minister, but Gordon Brown announced a review of its status soon after taking over in June last year.
An earlier review of the cannabis classification, at the time of the last 2005 general election, resulted in it remaining Class C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)