Regeneration Can Be Achieved After Chronic Spinal Cord Injury

There's a long way to go, but...:

ScienceDaily (Oct. 31, 2009) — Scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine report that regeneration of central nervous system axons can be achieved in rats even when treatment delayed is more than a year after the original spinal cord injury.

"The good news is that when axons have been cut due to spinal cord injury, they can be coaxed to regenerate if a combination of treatments is applied," said lead author Mark Tuszynski, MD, PhD, professor of neurosciences and director of the Center for Neural Repair at UC San Diego, and neurologist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Health System. "The chronically injured axon is not dead."

While there are more than 10,000 new spinal cord injuries annually in the United States, nearly 250,000 patients are living in the chronic stages of injury. Yet nearly all previous spinal cord injury studies have attempted to stimulate regeneration when treatment is begun almost immediately after injury -- because, in part, scientists considered it very difficult to achieve regeneration at such long time points after injury. None had shown successful regeneration in the late, chronic stages.

Three things:

1. Someone has, through intelligence, education and personal dedication, learned something of great importance and has, quite possibly, taken a significant step on the pat that will end up with an ability to cure paralysis. This underscores the critical importance of education in our lives, especially science education. (And let's not over-state this, this is a step. But there are many other, very difficult problems to over-come.)

2. All the prayers through-out all of history have done less than this one man toward the goal of making the paralyzed walk.

3. The money was NIH and VA money with a bit from a charitible trust. For-Profit corporations don't do this kind of medical research. In fact, for the most part for-profit corporations don't do any basic medical research and very little applied-research unless it's, basically, copying or extending medicines and/or devices to beat, create (from government basic research) or extend patents. Without the government, medical research would come to a screeching halt.

So the next time you hear some person whining about how the government sucks and your tax dollars do nothing, etc. Just remember, those people are, by-and-large, full of crap. Not only can you see it from this particular episode, but if you look at our life-style and society versus those of Europe and Japan, our first-world competitors... We're pretty pathetic across the board.

Don't Make Me Get My Main

This guy is brilliant and the one who wrote and performed "Big Blue Dress."

Bangles Manic Monday

Now, this, is a girl band... At least one with talent.

Girlicious - Stupid S***: Full Version, Edited

Selling sex, because it's definately not talent-based...

Lady Gaga - Just Dance

Not seeing the fascination... Seems more hype than actual talent...

Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 7 Clip - Splashback

If it pisses off Bill Donohue, it must be good...

Rule of law for thee...

But not for me:

Torture charged in L.A.-area mortgage rescue case

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - As Los Angeles housing advocates launched a campaign warning of mortgage rescue scams, a couple hit by foreclosure are charged with torturing two loan-modification agents they suspected of fraud, authorities said on Monday.

The couple, Daniel Weston and Mary Ann Parmelee, and three other people are accused of luring their two victims to an office where the men were tied up, held for hours and beaten, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney said.

Police were called after one of the victims managed to escape, said the spokeswoman, Shiara Davila-Morales. The incident occurred on Wednesday in the town of Glendale, just north of Los Angeles.

Weston, Parmelee and the three other defendants each were charged with two counts of torture, two counts of false imprisonment by violence and two counts of second-degree robbery, according to a criminal complaint filed against them.

Weston, 52, and Parmelee, 51, both arrested last week and jailed on $1 million bond, shared a house in the suburb of La Canada-Flintridge that is in foreclosure, authorities said.

So, you're blue collar and being ripped-off by some mortgage scammer and you beat up the scammers. Not a smart thing to do and now you're looking at a potential sentence of life in jail.

OTOH, you invade a country, kill hundreds of thousands for no purpose but hate, round-up and torture hundreds and hundreds of people, of which at least one-hundred have died... And cricket's chirping... Even if you should be hung by the neck until dead...

If they could get away with it...

...so would Christinista Texas:

A Saudi court on Saturday sentenced a female journalist to 60 lashes after she had been charged with involvement in a TV show in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex.

Rozanna al-Yami, 22, is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment, but there were conflicting accounts about how the court issued its verdict.

Al-Yami, who worked as a coordinator for the program but has denied working on the sex-show episode, told The Associated Press it was her understanding that the judge at the court in the western city of Jiddah dropped the charges against her. They included involvement in the preparation of the show and advertising the segment on the Internet.

But she said he still handed down the lashing sentence "as a deterrence."

"I am too frustrated and upset to appeal the sentence," said al-Yami.

Al-Yami refused to provide contact details for her lawyer to ask about the legal proceedings, including the basis in Islamic law for the punishment and whether the charges were really dropped.

Sulaiman al-Jumeii, the lawyer for the man who appeared in the TV show, said such "physical punishment is not an indication of innocence or a drop of charges."

"If the judge had dropped the charges, then why did he give her the 60 lashes?" he added.

Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told the AP he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it.

In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, the man, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.

Al-Jumeii maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded.

On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law.

"It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job," he said.

The case has scandalized this ultraconservative country where such public talk about sex is taboo and the sexes are strictly segregated.

The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC's two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline.

Three other men who appeared on the show, "Bold Red Line," were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each.

But at least there are some sane people in the judiciary:

FORT WORTH, Texas - A federal appeals court has overturned a Texas statute outlawing sex toy sales, leaving Alabama as the state with the strictest ban on such devices.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by up to two years in jail, violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.

BTW, it was the Christianista-Republicans that gave Texas that law... And it should point out, the right to privacy is huge and encompassing and goes far beyond abortion. It's, literally, virtually every aspect of your life which, without said right, could be regulated by the State.

zSHARE video - Defying.Gravity.S01E13. ch131.cm.flv

zSHARE video - Defying.Gravity.S01E13. ch131.cm.flv

Wake up, America

He's working the irony...

Grayson v. Broun on the Constitution

lol!

Trickle-down economics...

Well, it's not money... That's for sure...:

WASHINGTON – The level of poverty in America is even worse than first believed.

A revised formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations show that approximately 47.4 million Americans last year lived in poverty, 7 million more than the government's official figure.

The disparity occurs because of differing formulas the Census Bureau and the National Academy of Science use for calculating the poverty rate. The NAS formula shows the poverty rate to be at 15.8 percent, or nearly 1 in 6 Americans, according to calculations released this week. That's higher than the 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million, figure made available recently under the original government formula.

That measure, created in 1955, does not factor in rising medical care, transportation, child care or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government aid when calculating income. As a result, official figures released last month by Census may have overlooked millions of poor people, many of them 65 and older.

But, hey, they're just lazy... Right? It couldn't be they played by the rules and found out the rules were a lie, now could it? That they were red-lined out of loans. They were given inferior schools. They were written off as "poor white trash" that were "never gonna amount to a hill of beans." Their unions busted and their jobs sent over-seas so CEO's (who have gone from 12x average employee compensation to 400x average employee compensation) could "trickle it down" to their new pool-boys and gardeners.

It couldn't be that Horatio Alger stories are just that, stories. Stories of hope that only rarely come true. It couldn't be the "American Dream" is, in fact, a lie spawned to keep those being economically and socially oppressed, to wear their chains gladly...

While the average American lives one paycheck away from poverty on a daily basis. Just like they do in other third-world economies.

Sullivan is blabbing on about God is Good...

...this past week. He doesn't call-out anyone after getting his butt kicked on his naive and simplistic fallacies on the problem of evil. But he's been linking and quoting others.

Sometimes I wonder if he even knows what is in the bible:

Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David sought the face of the LORD. And the LORD said,"There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death." (2 Sam. 21:1)

So, there's a famine. Three years of poor harvests and things are looking bad. So David called for the Gibeonites and wanted to know what he could do to expiate for what Saul did.

2So the king called the Gibeonites. Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had sought to slay them in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.

3And David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And how shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?" (2 Sam. 21:2-3)

Ok... How can we make this better... Not so bad... But, becareful of what you ask. Because the Gibeonites replied that it was not a matter of money for reparations. They wanted blood -- seven of Saul's sons so they may hang them to lift the famine and get reparations. David agreed.

4The Gibeonites said to him, "It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel." And he said, "What do you say that I shall do for you?"

5They said to the king, "The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel,

6let seven of his sons be given to us, so that we may hang them up before the LORD at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD." And the king said, "I will give them." (2 Sam. 21:4-6)

So, David, anointed by God, picked two of Saul's sons and five of his grandsons and they were hanged on the mountain before God, at the beginning of the barley harvest.

7But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul's son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.

8The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adri-el the son of Barzillai the Meholathite;

9and he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the LORD, and the seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest. (2 Sam. 21:7-9)

And yet we hear all this "God is Good" talk from Sullivan, Christians, etc. Good. Good. Good. Yet here we are, starving people to death via famine then accepting human sacrifices to lift it because of "blood guilt"... That just doesn't cut it for me... Not as good. Mendacious and evil, perhaps. But not good.

Oh, my.

This quack just got his FDA letter:

TO: ebenjamin@drweil.com
www.drweil.com


FROM: The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission


RE: Unapproved/Uncleared/Unauthorized Products Related to the H1N1 Flu Virus; and

Notice of Potential Illegal Marketing of Products to Prevent, Treat or Cure the H1N1 Virus


DATE: October 15, 2009


WARNING LETTER


This is to advise you that the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") reviewed your website at the Internet address www.drweil.com on October 13, 2009. The FDA has determined that your website offers a
product for sale that is intended to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat or cure the H1N1 Flu Virus in people. This product has not been approved, cleared, or otherwise authorized by FDA for use in the diagnosis, mitigation, prevention, treatment, or cure of the H1N1 Flu Virus.



This product is your Immune Support Formula. The marketing of this product violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDC Act). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 351, 352. We request that you immediately cease marketing unapproved, uncleared, or unauthorized products for the diagnosis, mitigation, prevention, treatment, or cure of the H1N1 Flu Virus.


In addition, FTC staff reminds you that the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., requires that claims that a dietary supplement can prevent, treat, or cure human infection with the H1N1 virus, must be supported by well-controlled human clinical studies at the time the claims are made. More generally, it is against the law to make or exaggerate health claims, whether directly or indirectly, through the use of a product name, website name, metatags, or other means, without rigorous scientific evidence sufficient to substantiate the claims. Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action in the form of a Federal District Court injunction or Administrative Order. An order also may require that you pay back money to consumers.


Some examples of the claims on your website include:



On a webpage entitled, "The Swine Flu - H1N1 ," with the subtitle "Swine Flu and You":


"[D]uring the flu season, I suggest taking a daily antioxidant, multivitamin-mineral supplement, as well as astragalus, a well-known immune-boosting herb that can help ward off colds and flu. You might also consider. .. the Weil Immune Support Formula[,] which contains both astragalus and immune-supportive polypore mushrooms ...."


On a product webpage describing the Immune Support Formula:


"The Immune Support Formula contains astragalus. . . . Astragalus ... is used traditionally to ward off colds and flu and has been well studied for its antiviral and immunity-enhancing properties."


"Th[e] synergistic combination of immune modulators [found in the Immune Support Formula] is especially useful for those who tend to get every bug that goes around during the winter."


On the same webpage, under "Supplement Facts," describing the Astragalus supplement (which is one element of the Immune Support Formula):



"Astragalus ... is ... used traditionally to ward off colds and flu, and has demonstrated both antiviral and immune-boosting effects in scientific investigation."


On the website's home page, DrWeil.com:


"Worried About Flu? Dr. Weil's Immune Support Formula can help maintain a strong defense against the flu. It contains astragalus, a traditional herb that boosts immunity. Buy it now in one click, and start protecting your immune system against flu this season."


On the Dr. Weil Vitamins - Daily Vitamin Packs webpage:


"[L]earn more about Dr. Weil's Immune Support Formula, which contains astragalus - an herb Dr. Weil recommends to help ward off colds and flu."


The Secretary of Health and Human Services, under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d, has determined that a public health emergency exists nationwide involving the H1N1 Flu Virus that affects or has the significant potential to affect national
security. Following this determination and in response to requests from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FDA issued letters authorizing the emergency use of certain unapproved and uncleared products or unapproved or uncleared uses of approved or cleared products, provided certain criteria are met, under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3. The marketing and sale of unapproved or uncleared H1N1 Flu Virus-related products that are not authorized by and used in accordance with the conditions of an Emergency Use Authorization, is a potentially significant threat to the public health. Therefore, FDA is taking urgent measures to protect consumers from products that, without approval or authorization by FDA, claim to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat or cure H1N1 Flu Virus in people.


You should take immediate action to ensure that your firm is .not marketing, and does not market in the future, products intended to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat or cure the H1N1 Flu Virus that have not been approved, cleared, or authorized by the FDA. The above is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of violations. It is your responsibility to ensure that the products you market are in compliance with the FFDC Act and FDA's implementing regulations. We advise you to review your websites, product labels, and other labeling and promotional materials to ensure that the claims you make for your products do not adulterate or misbrand the products in violation of the FFDC Act. 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 351, 352. Within 48 hours, please send an email to FDAFLUTASKFORCECFSAN@fda.hhs.gov, describing the actions that you have taken or plan to take to address your firm's violations. If your firm fails to take corrective action immediately, FDA may take enforcement action, such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice. Firms that fail to take corrective action may also be referred to FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws.


FDA is advising consumers not to purchase or use H1N1 Flu Virus-related products offered for sale that have not been approved, cleared, or authorized by FDA. Your firm will be added to a published list on FDA's website of firms and websites that have received warning letters from FDA concerning marketing unapproved, uncleared and unauthorized H1N1 Flu Virus-related products in violation of the FFDC Act. This list can be found at www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/h1n1flu. Once the violative claims and/or products have been removed from your website, and these corrective actions have been confirmed by the FDA, the published list will be' updated to indicate that your firm has taken appropriate corrective action.


If you are not located in the United States, please note that unapproved, uncleared, or unauthorized products intended to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure the H1N1 Flu Virus offered for importation into the United States are subject to detention and refusal of admission. We will advise the appropriate regulatory or law enforcement officials in the country from which you operate that FDA considers your product listed above to be an unapproved, uncleared, or unauthorized product that cannot be legally sold to consumers in the United States.


Please direct any inquiries to FDA at FDAFLUTASKFORCECFSAN@fda.hhs.gov or by contacting Kathleen Lewis at 301-436-2148.


It is also your responsibility to ensure that the products you market are in compliance with the FTC Act. FTC staff strongly urge you to review all claims for your products and ensure that those claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The FTC also asks that you notify it via electronic mail at flu@ftc.gov within 48 hours of the specific actions you have taken to address the agency's concerns. If you have any questions regarding compliance with the FTC Act, please contact Karen Jagielski at 202-326-2509.


Very truly yours,

/S/
Mary K. Engle
Associate Director
Division of Advertising Practices
Federal Trade Commission



/S/
Roberta F. Wagner
Director
Office of Compliance
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration

No doubt he'll play the persecuted "independent of big pharma/medicine" card. When really he's a modern day snake-oil salesman whose goal is to make money off his quack cures and preventatives.

FDA Swine Flu Fraudulent Product Advisory Widget

H1N1 Fraudulent Products

H1N1 Fraudulent Products

Fraudulent H1N1 Products Widget

Place this Fraudulent H1N1 Products Widget on your Web site, portal home page, or in your blog to allow you and your visitors to search for Fraudulent H1N1 Products.

A widget is an application that displays the featured content directly on your web page. You can embed content in your Web site or blog to increase overall awareness about this important topic. Once you’ve added the widget, there’s no technical maintenance. FDA.gov will update the content automatically.

To add it to your site, click on "Share." A new screen will display the html code for the widget. Simply cut and paste the html code into your Web page.

For more information on H1N1 Flu visit the FDA H1N1 Flu Page and www.Flu.gov.

(Sorry for the crappy formatting, but I'm not sure what to remove or not remove from my cut-and-paste job to preserve the widget...)

Lying about Spinning...

I hate liars. Especially when they lie about life-and-death issues to force their idiotic world-views on others:

Spinning an Abortion Study [Michael J. New]

This week the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) released a report entitled “Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress.” The media have been hard at work spinning its findings. Both the Associated Press and USA Today have reported the finding that abortion rates in countries with protective abortion laws are similar to abortion rates in countries with permissive laws — hinting strongly that protective legislation does little to protect unborn children. The BBC was even more blunt, running an article with the headline “Bans ‘do not cut abortion rate.’”

Fair enough summary of that part of what the media has reported. Of course, that's the only part that's fair.

However, the media’s analysis is faulty. Most of the countries where abortion is prohibited are in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. These countries have low per capita income and a higher incidence of social pathologies that may increase the perceived need for abortion. This nuance is not picked up in any of the media coverage of the AGI report.

The data shows that there are, world-wide, approximately 29 abortions per 1000 women, half of which are legal and half of which are not. The approximate abortion rate in Africa is 29 per 1000. All of which are illegal and result in far more fatalities. But that's not the here or there of this paragraph.

Rather what I noted is the dog-whistle appeal to racism by the author who makes is bigoted argument by subtly holding out how they're "inferior" to "us" they are... And while I'm supposing Dr. Wells thinks he's subtle in his racism, this old "white culture superiority" crap is hundreds of years old and plain as day. Especially to those of us who grew up in families where that subtle racism has been practiced by some of our family members.

Anyway, here's how he finally spins his argument by adopting a persecution complex then lying about what things mean:

Interestingly, AGI has also released research that demonstrates the effectiveness of pro-life laws. This summer it released a literature review showing that 20 of 24 studies found that public funding of abortion increased abortion rates. Other AGI research has demonstrated that parental-involvement laws and well-designed informed-consent laws also reduce the incidence of abortion. Unfortunately, research like that typically receives scant attention from the mainstream media.

Not really. Interestingly, abortion has dropped world-wide at about the same rate for legal and illegal countries. So it's not that they measured the "effectiveness" of anti-abortion statutes. They were not effective in preventing abortion, despite said claims by the author; but only effective at criminalizing it and pushing into dangerous, sometimes fatal, avenues.

Rather, as this study showed, they actually measured the larger change in abortion rates. Or as they say, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Of course, this was an ebb tide, but that's just technical trivia with the over-all point being his conclusions are false because the change that was actually measured was the changes in attitude towards abortion and not any obviously circumventable restrictions in availability.

For example, the world-wide rate dropped over the past decade from 35 abortions to 29 abortions, per 1000. The African rate dropped from 33 to 29. During this period ten countries liberalized abortion, two imposed restrictions while Africa did not change where it was illegal to have an abortion anywhere on the continent before and remains so now.

Yet, despite the liberalization, the rate dropped. And, in fact, it dropped everywhere: Europe, the United States, Oceania, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean. So, no victory there for the anti-abortion crowd, your restrictions failed and ultimately only served to kill women.

And we know that because, as the study has clearly shown, draconian anti-abortion laws merely push abortion from safe and legal to unsafe and illegal. They do not, however, stop abortions. Rather women will just do what the Irish women used to do... Go to England or Switzerland if they had the money for a safe, legal abortion or a back-alley and risk their lives if they didn't.

Gay Pride Parade in Washington

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Queer and Loathing in D.C.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Funny how Fox'll cover "tea-baggers" but heaven forbid they notice something like this which clearly doesn't fit their propaganda.

Dog Risks Life To Save another Dog!

Creationists tell us that morality,altruism and empathy are the unique properties of humans that prove the existence of a divine hand in our origin. What a bunch of self-centered , self-important boobs...

H/T to PZ Myers.

마비노기(Mabinogi) 그림자가 드리운 도시 하드

Serious Mabi-Pwnage!

I will not apologize!

I love this guy and his new, not-an-apology speech:

Maddam Speaker I have words for both Democrats and Republicans tonight. Let's start with the Democrats. We as a party have spent the last six months-- the greatest minds of our party dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote for health care reform. I want to remind us all... Olympia Snowe was not elected president last year. Olympia Snowe has no veto power in the Senate. Olympia Snowe represents a state with one half of one percent of America's population.

What America wants is health care reform. America doesn't care if it gets fifty one votes in the Senate or sixty votes in the Senate, or eighty three votes in the Senate-- in fact America doesn't even care about that. It doesn't care about that at all.

What America cares about is this. There are over one million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bill. America cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that there are forty four thousand seven hundred eighty Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care. That's a hundred and twenty two every day. America sure cares a lot about that.

America cares about the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot. America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot.

But America does not care about procedures, processes, personalities-- America doesn't care about that at all. So we have to remember that as Democrats. We have to remember that's what's at stake here is life and death, enormous amounts of money and people are counting upon us to move ahead. America understands what's good for America.

America cares about health care. America cares about jobs. America cares about education, about energy independence. America does not care about process or politicians, or personalities or anything like that.

And I have a few words for my Republican friends as well. I guess I do have some Republican friends. Let me say this. Last week I held up this report here and I pointed out that in America there's forty four thousand seven hundred eighty nine Americans who die every year according to this Harvard report-- published in a peer reviewed journal-- because they have no health insurance.

That's an extra forty four thousand seven hundred eighty nine Americans who die, whose lives could be saved-- and their response was to ask me for an apology... to ask me for an apology. That's right... to ask me for an apology. Well, I'm telling you this-- I will not apologize. I will not apologize.

I will not apologize for a simple reason. America doesn't care about your feelings. I violated no rules by calling this report to America's attention. I think a lot of people didn't know about it before hand.

But America does care about health care in America and if you're against it, then get out of the way. Just get out of the way. You can lead. You can follow-- or you can get out of the way. And I'm telling you now to get out of the way.

America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of health care reform and one party that's against it and they know why.

They understand if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population.

They understand that if Barack obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry.

In fact they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.

But that's what America wants. America wants solutions to its problems and that begins with health care. And that's what I'm speaking for tonight.

He's a guy I think I could really like as President. Much more than our do-nothing wonder we have now...

Fuck You, George Bush!

And in a big fuck you to George Bush and the neocons:

OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

Obama wins the Nobel for, basically, not being an asshole... He really hasn't accomplished anything... But Bush was such a complete choad that Obama's Presidency is seen as wildly successful by everyone but the mouth breathers...

Kid Shreds on Accordion

I did not know this was possible.... And I have to wonder if it's real...

A Nobel Down Under...

MOLECULAR biologist Elizabeth Blackburn has become the first Australian woman to win a Nobel prize.

Professor Blackburn - whose pioneering work on telomeres, the protective caps on the ends of chromosomes, has opened up new lines of inquiry into growth, ageing and disease - is the 2009 Nobel laureate for physiology or medicine.

"Yes, I've won," said Professor Blackburn, 60, when The Australian contacted her in San Francisco just before the official announcement. "I can't talk now. I've got to speak to somebody in Sweden."

She is only the ninth woman to be awarded the physiology or medicine prize since its inception in 1909, and only the 36th female laureate in any category since 1901, when the first Nobel prizes were awarded in chemistry, physics, medicine and peace.

The Tasmanian-born professor's multi-disciplinary work on telomeres, stress-related disease and meditation has given tantalising evidence of the connection between mind and body.

She will share the 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.6 million) Nobel award with Carol Greider and Jack W. Szostak, the Nobel assembly at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm announced last night.

What she discovered:

A telomere is a region of repetitive DNA at the ends of chromosomes, which protects the end of the chromosome from destruction. Its name is derived from the Greek nouns telos (τἐλος) "end" and merοs (μέρος, root: μερεσ-) "part".

A Russian theorist Alexei Olovnikov was the first to recognize (1971) the problem of how chromosomes could replicate right to the tip, as such was impossible with replication in a 3’ to 5’ direction. To solve this and to accommodate Leonard Hayflick’s idea of limited somatic cell division, Olovnikov suggested that DNA sequences would be lost in every replicative phase until they reached a critical level, at which point cell division would stop.

He was wrong, but science didn't throw up its collective hands and say "God did it, mow send me your moneies!" Instead bright people kept searching for the answer. Continuing:

During cell division, the enzymes that duplicate the chromosome and its DNA cannot continue their duplication all the way to the end of the chromosome. If cells divided without telomeres, they would lose the ends of their chromosomes, and the necessary information they contain. (In 1972, James Watson named this phenomenon the "end replication problem".) The telomeres are disposable buffers blocking the ends of the chromosomes and are consumed during cell division and replenished by an enzyme, the telomerase reverse transcriptase.

Elizabeth Blackburn compared telomeres to the tips on the ends of shoelaces that keep them from fraying.

In 1975-1977, Blackburn, working as a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University with Joseph Gall, discovered the unusual nature of telomeres, with their simple repeated DNA sequences composing chromosome ends. Their work was published in 1978. The telomere shortening mechanism normally limits cells to a fixed number of divisions, and animal studies suggest that this is responsible for aging on the cellular level and sets a limit on lifespans. Telomeres protect a cell's chromosomes from fusing with each other or rearranging—abnormalities which can lead to cancer—and so cells are normally destroyed when their telomeres are consumed. Most cancers are the result of "immortal" cells which have ways of evading this programmed destruction.

This worked its way into science fiction. I know Heinlein even incorporated this concept into his 1980's Lazarus Long focused work. There may have been others.

Birth of a Climate Crock

Pass it around.

Back to the Pink Ghetto

If women like this are the face of female, American conservatism... Conservatism is beyond hope of recovery in America:

A Conservative Women’s Movement

Over the weekend at the Defending the American Dream Summit, I discussed how much I hate the blog Feministing with several other female bloggers (Tabitha Hale, EM Zanotti, Katie Favazza and Melissa Clothier). I was not alone in my opinions.

Over the years, all of us have combated feminism and the accompanying liberal agenda. EM Zanotti remarked that all of our fights have lacked cohesion. She was absolutely right. There are untold number of conservative women pushing back through their blogs or in their communities. For whatever reason, we’ve remained unorganized and chaotic, operating in our own blogging silos.

This prompted some thinking and research. Over the weekend, I spent a few hours researching the conservative women’s movement. There’s not much out there in terms of organized, cohesive efforts.

And that's a bad thing? Because I've seen what you and your fellow travellers stand for... Even though you do not actually express it... And I have daughters and would flee the country if your regressive, sharia-law-esque belief system was implemented.

There are numerous reasons why a counter-movement has not emerged against feminism. It strikes at the essence of what it means to be a conservative. Conservatives strongly believe in the individual and equality of all mankind (yes, I purposely chose to use non-gender neutral language). Theoretically, conservative philosophy views everyone having equal rights. This is why identity politics rarely gain traction on the right. Also, Evangelical conservatives also look at political views through the lens of their faith. This causes the wide-range in views towards feminism and gay issues.

How about -- because it's stupid and self-defeating for women as a group? And, you're lying about what conservatives believe. I know, I come from a "typical," oh heck, moderate-to-conservative family. I've 'been there' and 'done that' with "conservatives."

Because women on the right don’t separate the issues of being a woman and being a conservative, we’ve only organized in response to specifc legislative issues (abortion and ERA). Occasionally, some efforts have been made to harness the power of conservative women. Phyllis Schafly probably had the most successful run in the 70s and 80s in defeating the ERA. Later in the early 90s, the Independent Women’s Forum was created in response to Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearings.

Independent Women's Forum? These are assholes running anti-health care reform adds that are pure lies. Nothing but absolute fear-mongering by abusing statistics.

Until Sarah Palin entered the picture last year, conservative women were disjointed. We were involved politically, but didn’t single out women’s issues as a major platform.

No. You submarine women's issues. Like how you helped torpedo the ERA...

If Betty Friedan gave a voice to the problem with no name, Sarah Palin forced the political and social movement with no cohesion to the forefront of American politics. Regardless of how you feel about Palin, she was the lightening rod that spurred women to organize on the right. We’re now seeing that.

In order to be an effective political force, all levels of political engagement need to be organized. From the bloggers to the grassroots organizations to the policy groups. The most frustrating point is that the tools are in place. We don’t have to recruit the activists or fund policy groups. They all exist. The problem is that no one talks to each other.

First, putting Betty Frieden in the same article with Sarah Palin is beyond the pale. Second, the problem you have is that no self-respecting, sane woman can really buy-off on your platform of: men first, women second. Because, in the end, that's where it goes. Women being subservient and second-class to men.

Bloggers only talk to each other in a limited capacity. There are simply too many out there. Some of these bloggers are members of other organizations, such as Smart Girl Politics, Team Sarah or Susan B. Anthony List. The old guard institutions, such as Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America, are not as engaged with younger generations as they were with the Christian Coalition days in the 80s and 90s. Also, where do Feminists for Life and individuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Tammy Bruce fit?

Feminists for Life? Are we kidding! They're not feminists. They are wolves in sheep's clothing who, occasionally, spout off some stuff about equality, etc. But have as radical a program as is possible including no abortions even if the woman will die and that doctors should be jailed for performing abortions. That's not feminism. That's radical, nut-case anti-choicism with a candy shell.

There are easy and effective ways that we can communicate and put forth a more united front to feminists. I’m sick of these one-on-one skirmishes. If we’re going to take back our country and the concept of what it is to be a women, we have to work together.

To get barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? To give up a hundred years of progress and become, once again, second class citizens without even a modicum of control over your self or your property? Because that's what I see... The willing putting on of chains and second-class citizenship for the vast majority of women while the elites and privileged function under different rules.

Ahhh.... The Onion...

New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens 'It's Gay To Smoke'

Some where out there I'm thinking... There's a wing-nut missing the humor and irony...

Andrew Sullivan -- Contemptible Crybaby...

He is such a cry-baby in his childish demands for "respect" where none has been earned and inability to accept criticism of his arguments and positions:

And so the contempt deepens. I am glad to post these responses but have no desire at this point to converse with people whose utter disrespect for the religious life and contempt for people of faith is fathomless.

Somewhat over a week ago his childish ideas on theodicy were challenged and he started crying and crying and crying about how "mean" all them athiests were for laughing at his poorly-formed ideas about the "problem of evil." After getting his clocked cleaned for better part of a week, he packed up his marbles and went home, as it were.

Today he takes a new shot across the bows as he publishes the ignorant ramblings of one of his Christian readers who has no more answer than anyone. Even though he's good at dropping names and appealing to authority. This letter gets a number of responses, including these two well-written and respectful letters addressing the lies, sloppy logic and falsehoods of the letter Sullivan CHOSE to publish, the first:

Your reader asks, what does Darwinism have to say about evil? The answer, of course, is that current evolutionary theory has nothing to say about evil - it is a scientific theory, not a system of morals. It just happens to be a correct scientific theory that seems to have ramifications for theories of human behaviour. If theology is merely "a set of concepts and terms, a language, that we use to make sense of our situation", it is an incomplete and inaccurate set of concepts, if it does not take evolution into account, because the fact of our evolution is part of our situation.

Your reader also seems to be under the impression that it is only religious thought that gives us some way of making sense of our situation, of giving guidelines for how to behave, or how to stop evil behaviour. There is a centuries-long history of secular Western philosophers - Hume, Kant, Rawls, and Singer are just the tip of the iceberg - who argue for systems of ethics and sets of morals, without invoking God. Or take the work of Marc Hauser, who is systematically investigating our moral instincts from an evolutionary perspective, and who seems to find that human moral behaviour is mostly the same, cross-culturally, regardless of religion. Or take the work of Philip Zimbardo, who has used insights from psychological experiments to analyse the human capability for terrible behaviour such as that which caused Abu Ghraib, and who gives very firm and concrete suggestions for preventing further such evils.

And second:

There's quite a bit in this one reader's comments that perfectly exemplifies what so frequently causes me to lose respect for the religious point of view. Here we've got simple ignorance, sloppy logic, and also a shirking of personal and societal responsibility.

In a sadly common display of ignorance of basic evolutionary theory, the reader wrote: "do they really expect us to believe... evolution... ends in Hiroshima...?" No respected scientist would claim natural selection itself provides a moral framework, and evolution is not a teleological process pushing organisms toward some absolute pinnacle of either fitness or morality. Evolution explains how we got to be what we are, not who we ought to be, so let's dispense with pondering what the "Darwinist" description of evil is (unless we are also to ponder why the "plate tectonics-ists" haven't yet given their definition for the morality of continent arrangements).

It is so fitting that this reader also puts the word "truth" in quotation marks, and dismisses the actual concept of truth (what is accurate, as opposed to what feels good to believe) as "misguided." There's a tremendously disturbing abdication of personal responsibility in that, particularly in not thinking through the social consequences. When your "truth" about what's right and wrong--whatever your particular non-evidence-based beliefs hold that to be, based on what you need to be real rather than what is--is pushed into policy by your fellow believers (for example when pastors openly instruct their congregations how to vote, when Mormons are commanded to donate to ballot initiative campaigns, or when mobilized church activism helps determines the outcome of major party primaries), that policy has real effects on our all our lives, not just those who also like the same fairy tale you do. And furthermore, when you teach this "truth" to your kids, you're shaping more young minds not to recognize the difference between truth and "truth," while usually not giving them any say in the matter, raising another generation of "truth"-pushers.

There seems to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion on whether it is wise or just to believe (and teach) a comfortable, descriptive "truth," regardless of any actual truth in objective reality, just so that you have a framework that readily "explains" evil. Many in this theodicy debate have seemed to suggest that it's right or perhaps even noble simply to propagate beliefs based on their mood-altering effects and not bother with the detail of whether or not they could possibly be valid (in that old, pesky sense of "historical accuracy"). To me, even beyond the concrete policy consequences, this is obviously the height of intellectual vapidity; frankly, I find it impossible to imagine a defense that doesn't collapse into solipsistic ennui (e.g., what I feel is the only reality I can be sure of, so my feelings trump external evidence). It's crushingly cynical (and of course anti-humanist) to suggest that humanity isn't equipped to deal with something as complicated as the real truth and must be coddled with sugar-coated fairy tales so that suffering makes sense in some grand scheme. It's also crushingly unwise to endorse the notion that it's better to say something and be wrong than to say nothing (in other words, better to be certain than right).

You want a secular account of evil? Here it is. Evil does exist, like most other phenomena granted a label by human culture. It is what we've semantically converged on: a universally-understood though fuzzily-bounded descriptor of that which goes against our current moral framework. This framework contains some fairly absolute elements dictated by wiring in the brain that was selected for to maintain strong, cohesive communities (e.g., sharing is good, the golden rule), and some fairly relative elements developed through cultural evolution over time. Too relativistic for you? Consider this: isn't it better to arrive at an account of morality through social consensus (in evolving popular opinion informed by expert ethicists as well as the changing realities around us), rather than through religious fiat based on interpretation of just those parts of millennia-old writings that happen to still remain relevant in modern times?

The religious accounts of good and evil, your reader would be wise to recall, have frequently demanded the persecution of outsiders and gays and had nothing proscriptive to say about the systemic enslavement of women (or anybody else). Throughout history, it's been conservative, and usually more religious, forces that have clung to older notions of morality, while progressive, doubting voices have updated it, resulting in the First World formulation broadly agreed on today that prizes equality, compassion and individual liberty. I dare any critics of "moral relativism" to explain how their own absolute values weren't improved via moral drift from the pro-slavery, genocide-neutral, anti-women's rights precedents of the past. Where will it go from here? Nearly impossible to say, though with global society so interconnected now, there's less inter-society selective pressure/freedom to drive drastic changes. But even abandoning that comfort of absolutism that enables us to imagine a distant future with morality totally like our own, I believe the humanist take on morality is enormously positive, wherein we as a society take responsibility to craft and maintain a consensus of good and evil that can feel right to each of us, is logically consistent, and allows us to make the best of our reality, rather than squabble over which antique scroll serves as an authoritative template for right actions.

But if you're still looking for something that "redeems" evil by telling us that suffering isn't really so bad because there's some Grand Intentional Reason why it exists (though one which we can never know, and to which we can't appeal for any measurable guidance), then I guess the secular account can't really help you. But it seems to me the real vacuum is in your unwillingness to grant humanity its personal responsibility, not in the secularists failing to provide you with a poetic enough ghost story.

If it weren't for his readers, he wouldn't be worth reading. He's a wanna-be intellectual who is simply out-classed. His "popularity" is much along the lines of "got there first" than "got there better."

Haka (Ka Mate)

Ka mate! Ka mate! Ka ora! Ka ora! (It is Death! It is Death! It is Life! It is Life! )
Ka mate! Ka mate! Ka ora! Ka ora! (It is Death! It is Death! It is Life! It is Life!)
Tenei te tangata puhuru huru (This is the hairy man)
Nana nei i tiki mai (Who fetched the Sun)
Whakawhiti te ra (And caused it to shine again for me)
A upa … ne! ka upa … ne! (Up the ladder! Up the ladder!)
A upane kaupane whiti te ra! (Up to the top… the Sun shines!!)
Hii…

The arrogance of clergy

Pat's newest...

This is news?

This is the headline Yahoo! chooses me to see when I first load my browser:

Paris makes a garish fashion gaffe

Paris Hilton's bright blue leggings and sequined top are more roller rink than runway.

We've tortured to death over 100 people in Cheney's nightmare. Many of them, according to FOIA requests apparently innocent of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And it's never once hit the front page. But we get stupid stuff like this...

Or, if that's too 'dark' or otherwise doesn't grab Yahoo's fancy, what about global warming? It's happening faster than even the most aggressive of the models. Unless you're really, really old with one foot in the grave, severe global warming is going to happen in our lives. That's certainly more important that Paris Hilton and what she wears.

How about health-care reform? Why are we 37th in the world and can't see, as an almost unanimity of a population, that we should emulated the best instead of the worst?

How about we talk about how Iran and how, with one sit-down luncheon, we just accomplished more with the Iranians than Bush did in eight years of bullying and sabre-rattling?

I know stupidity and ignorance are considered virtues by a large swath of Americans. But at least try Yahoo! Hell, skip the "big social issues" if you must and just talk about significant news-worthy events that happen around the world. We have the tsunami in Samoa, we have the new European Union treaty, we still have the mess in Honduras... There's plenty of stuff out there more important that a socialite who's claim-to-fame is being famous rather than accomplished at anything!

You go girl!

Keep preaching 'the stoopid,' Rush:

I think it's time for the McCain crowd to acknowledge they are losers and pack it in. They've done enough damage to the Republican Party. Move aside and let a brighter, more principled, and more competent generation of people clean up the mess they helped create.

We need the Republicans to further marginalize themselves so we can get rid of the Bluedogs without letting the cockroaches back in power... And Rush's scorched earth rhetoric is just the kind of self-inflicting-gun-shot-wound agitprop the right-wing needs to pursue to further the Republican marginalization...

It's about time...

When I was in the military, we had gays serving. When they came out of the closet, they were discharged. Never did their being "gay" ever effect their mission performance and virtually everyone of them was, until he was discharged, an excellent solider. Far more, I might add, than the average heterosexual soldier, half of whom were pot-heads and delinquents.

So I'm happy to see this bit of news:

WASHINGTON — In an unusual show of support for allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, an article in an official military journal argues forcefully for repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which requires homosexuals in the services to keep their sexual orientation secret.

The article, which appears in Joint Force Quarterly and was reviewed before publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”

I'm sure there will be the odd Christianista religious-zealot who has a problem. But, hell, they have problems with everyone and they, far more than gays, cause problems with unit cohesion.

Grayson says Republicans want you to die (full length)

The C-SPAN feed...