Dancing With the Pols: Bailemos(Hillary Gets Down in PR).

I think that after this election cycle ABC should start a new show called,"Dancing with the Pols". It will be a place were losing politicians and B list advisers will have a chance to strut their stuff and finally win something. Well so here it is program Director of ABC Broadcasting; my Monday Memorial Day Moment of Zen, Hillary dancing her problems away in Puerto Rico.

It seems she learned from PA and Ohio in that people apparently like their leaders to chugalug down the sauce. It TOTALLY shows you are not elitist. And judging by the damn near 40oz in her hand, Size does matter. That Bottle says, "If you don't give a damn, I don't give a f@$%".

But the Dancing, come on. Hillary, the poet fat joe said it best,"We don't dance, we just pull up our pants(suit) and lean back; lean back". You should have heeded that advice.





Why are you closing your eyes? That is dangerous while dancing. Maybe you internally cringed at the sheer ridiculousity of these shenanigans as I did. Or maybe you were just feeling the song.


Whatever it is, please don't do it again. It's as bad as Karl Rove's rap career.

Wright Isn't Wrong

The campaign that won’t die has the controversy that wont die, “The Sermons of Reverend Wright”. Unless you have been living under a rock, you have heard at least one of the sound bytes from Barack Obama’s former Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The clip of Rev. Wright in a traditional African Dress at the pulpit delivering a “controversial” sermon after 9/11 has been played ad nasuem.

Jeremiah Wright, who had maintained a very low profile for the past month had a coming out this week. First was the generally calm Bill Moyers interview. The PBS interview proved nothing in the way of controversy, they prefer substantive discourse to shouting(which is why they currently need your donations). Then came the NAACP speech, and the Smackdown Q and A at the National Press Club. Wow.

MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE SMACKDOWN

These two performances(and they were performances) caused enough “damage” that Barack Obama was had a Press Conference on his Pastor yesterday. There could have been an emergency, “Iraq”, or “Global Food Crisis” Press Conference, but alas, the media knows that the most important thing to talk about is Jeremiah Wright (he totally kills 30,000 people a day like starvation right?).

Obama was forced to do what he had to do, divorce himself completely from Wright. I’m sure on a personal level he was upset that his former Pastor had chosen to make such a public spectacle when he did. On Wright’s part, it was stupid because it allowed the media to frame him, and forced Obama to publicly divorce his entire campaign from Wright.

Whatever his motivation Wright could have picked a better time to come out so hard. It is the media’s job to butcher reality into 10 second snippets.

Therfore Let’s just, and I know this will be difficult for some of you, slide to the universe where Wright is Right. That’s a little place I call complex reality (home).

Rev Wright: “The US Government is responsible for AIDS”.

Well it’s not like the US government has done anything bad to black people. Oh yeah that’s right, Slavery! And Jim Crow! And a Prison Industrial Complex built on the excessive Incarceration of Minorities for Minor Drug Offenses!

Is the “US Government” responsible for Aids. Well, what do you mean by “US Government”? My mailman is a part of the US Government. I don’t think he gave black people Aids.

But the US Public Health Service did intentionally infect African American men with Syphilis under the scientific premise of, “let’s see what the fuck happens” and "Fuck em' they're black. Over a 40 year period between 1932 and 1972, 399 black men in Tuskegee Alabama were given Syphilis without medicine(by 1947 Penicillin was the standard medical treatment). By the end of the “experiment” only 74 were still alive, 40 wives were infected and 17 children developed congenital syphilis.

With this happening as recent as 1972, is it not at least understandable why older African-Americans are skeptical that AIDS and HIV ravaged the African American community un-proportionally worse than any other racial group because of the behavior of their community alone?

To this day we still give more funding to provenly ineffective methods like faith based abstinence. Pray to whoever the fuck you want that you don't get AIDS, but prayers don’t prevent HIV, Condoms do.

All these facts together shed some light on why not Just Wright, but a large percentage of African Americans (and a couple Whiteys) share this view.

Rev Wright: “The US government is engaging in Terrorism, and this terrorism caused 9/11”.

Well, we did fund a little rag-tag group of Rebels fighting the Soviets back in the 1980’s. That movie with Julia Roberts, Charlie Wilson’s war I think covered it. Oh yeah, we trained and funded rebels in Afghanistan and equipped them with all the necessary tools for guerilla warfare. Then when they won we just completely abandoned them. Who was that one guy our CIA trained, oh yeah, Osama Bin Laden.

One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Whether they are right wing Para-military groups in Nicaragua, or Tribal warriors in the South Pacific our CIA aids violence for political purposes. That is supporting terrorism. And as Ralph Wiggum so eloquently pointed out in “The Simpsons Movie”, that brings blowback.

Rev. Wright: “God Bless America, No No No, God DAMN AMERICA”.

This is by far the most “offensive” statement that Rev. Wright made. Of course no one listened to the broader text of the sermon, but lets examine those comments.

Damn comes from the word Condemn, as in God damns or God condemns things. The Christian God follows some fairly simple rules, the 10 commandments, and Jesus’ golden one, “love thy neighbor”. The entireity of the media has fueled this outrage, “God does and will always Bless America, he certainly would not Damn it”.

How is it then that in the wealthiest nation in the world, over 40 million don’t have healthcare? How is then that in the fattest nation in the world, millions go hungry? How is it in the Freeest nation in the world, we have higher Incarceration rates than almost anywhere? How in the most righteous nation in the world, can we allow for institutionalized torture(it goes much deeper than water boarding) in the war on terror?

The truth is we can’t be. I love the people in this country. But our country has some deep flaws. And I do not for one think that if you applied a biblical god’s standards to this country, that god would not “bless us”. That God would Condemn Us, that God would Damn us.

Pope, Nazi and Confederate?

Ok, this was brought to my attention today.

Notice anything wrong with this picture. Besides the missing thumb.

Wow, ok this is going to take some research. Could it be that the Nazi's and Confederates are working together. And Indiana Jones is busy fighting Aliens and Soviets? Shit.

Well it looks like it could be the Mississippi State Flag. But really, of the 50 flags, their picture was taken in front the only one with the Confederate Flag still in it.
(You can see how crappy your state flag is here)

In Mississippi, there was a 2000 state referendum on whether to take the Confederate Flag off of their State Flag. It was voted down by a 2 to 1 margin.

Top 5 Evil Hillary Laughs

I know, I know, all I do is talk shit on Hillary. But after seeing her laugh in response to a question about the Columbia Trade Deal today, I gotta do it.

NUMBER 5

NUMBER 4

NUMBER 3

NUMBER 2

NUMBER 1

Rise of the Machines

Ooookay. First it was the terrifying robo dog that could chase me down thru any terrain.

All that thing needs is a gun on its back or even more terrifying something like this.


And now we have met the face of our overlords.

Notice how fucking creepy it is when it comes to the camera. Oh and take a good look at that angry face. That's what its gonna look like right when it becomes self aware.

I would like to take this oppritunity to welcome our Cybernetic Rulers and say on the record may the rule with a mighty processor.

You're Wrong

NOFX has a great acoustic song called "You're Wrong." Among the things they sing "You're Wrong" for are thinking pride is about nationality, thinking there will be a judgment day and agreeing with Ann Coulter because she's a (well, I can't say that here).

So, in the spirit of NOFX, I present a list of "You're Wrongs."

You're wrong if you think we're fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Saddam's links to Sept. 11 and Osama bin Laden. Sprinkled in between those were "fighting for freedom" and "spreading democracy." Every single rationale we've been told for this war has been, at best, intellectually defunct and at worst outright lies.

Of course, the mainstream media were too scared to do their job then, but they learned their lesson, right?

Nope.

They echo the continued misconception that we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. First of all, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al-Qaeda that is supposed to be responsible for Sept. 11. The one in Iraq is actually known as "Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn." That one is hard to pronounce, let alone explain.

So, what is the size and scope of this group? Well, in 2006, the U.S. State Department estimated they made up less than 1 percent of the insurgency. But they are said to be growing, and, just like the folks in Guantanamo, "the worst of the worst."

In July of 2007, both the National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports stated the Al-Qaeda in Iraq were responsible for 15 percent of the violence. Trouble is, the independent Congressional Research Service said it was more like 2 percent and that false reporting of this group has gone up since the surge.

Oh, and there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we went in and invaded (Saddam hated anyone who didn't worship him).

You're wrong if you support corn ethanol.

This is the favorite of politicians and big business alike. Rule No. 1 in politics: Everything is done out of self-interest. Be extremely skeptical of anything anyone in power ever says, especially if they use a feel-good marketing approach to convince you.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite frankly, corn ethanol sucks. It sucks resources, tax dollars and most of all, makes no sense. David Pimintel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, concluded that the production of corn ethanol uses 30 percent more energy than it creates.

The idea that we are moving to energy independence with ethanol is just wrong. BP uses corn in almost all its new green-washing campaigns. It serves as a method for oil companies to continue their stranglehold on us while the same time they get subsidized by our government to "fix the problems" they create (such as global warming).

Oh, and run-off from corn creates all new types of environmental problems. It is massively inefficient, and, furthermore, a subsidized ruse.

Corn ethanol is so big because big agribusiness is built on corn. That is why our Coca-Cola tastes terrible compared to Canada and Mexico's. They use sugar; we use high-fructose corn syrup.

Hemp is at least five times better than corn, and I'm sure there are things five times better than hemp. I just know corn's definitely not it.

You're wrong if you're trying to convince people there is or is not a God.

NOFX opens up the live version of their song "You're Wrong" with "If you believe there is a God, you're wrong." But the Bible says that if you don't believe in God you're wrong. Could it be that both are wrong?

The pious feel self-righteous for "saving people" by converting them to their deity.

The atheists feel self-righteous for "freeing people" from religious manipulation.

And they both won't shut up about it.

I think that those who condemn others for having different beliefs are ignorant at best. I believe that this kind of "holier-than-thou" thinking has directly contributed to the historical subjugation of women, the suppression of progressive intellectual thought and countless wars. That is my main problem with religion in a nutshell: Religion is used as a tool for the wicked to manipulate our very structure of thought.

Yet, when I see atheists such as Christopher Hitchens spew arguments about how stupid and misguided the religious are, it almost always comes across with the same supremacist tone that James Dobson has. Many of the new prominent atheists suffer from the same superiority complex of those they rail against.

I have met many rational atheists. I have met many rational religious people. What they all have in common is that they are looking for answers to complex questions. The kind that has more than a "yes" or "no" answer.

So, whatever you believe, believe it. Just quit trying to tell me how much better that makes you. If Christopher Hitchens looks at his life, this Earth and this universe in all its complexity and beauty and decides to himself, "Nope, nothing special" - fine. But he and Pat Robertson can keep it to themselves. They're both wrong.

This Dude is Dope

Strollin thru youtube I came across this dude.


Super Dope.

I could jam to that for hours.

I Don't Want to Beat a Dead Horse, But this 3 AM Shit, C'mon

Okay. The first 3 AM ad by Clinton was arguably effective in scaring people in Ohio and Texas. But since it has been the long running joke of the campaign.

So they release a new ad today,

same theme only this time, it's a money crisis. Except they used the exact same footage as the last ad(except for the fist clutching a dollar shot and the last girl in bed(because that girl in the original ad is a volunteer for Obama now)).

Okay, it's no secret that the Clinton Campaign is strapped for cash. But recycling what has become the joke of your campaign. What the fuck?

It just gets better though. McCain has a response ad of his own.

And whaaaa? the same fucking footage. How much in royalties to we have to pay these pajama wearing bastards? Would it really cost that much just to FUCKING FILM YOUR OWN SET OF KIDS SLEEPING AND PUT YOUR OWN SHITTY BLUE FILTER OVER IT.

JESUS, two Broke ass campaigns, Antiquated, Oblivious and unitentionally depressingly funny.

The McCain Girls: Holy Shit

When I first saw the McCain Girls Video I was stunned. I didn't know what the fuck to make of it.


Maybe they just made a mall karaoke music video for fun. I thought maybe they just uploaded a video that blew up and went viral beyond their wildest dreams.

Now, after hearing her response video, I don't know what to say.


I think she is fucking serious. This is beyond words. Seriously, I got nothing.
Fuck.

The Iraq War, Where Movies Go To Die

Even Ryan Philippe couldn't save Stoploss this weekend. It's numbers look absolutely abysmal.

Sadder yet, it got blown out of the water by fucking Superhero Movie, the umpteenth superhero parody this year.

Tracy Morgan should have made Fat Bitch 2.

But this is hardly news. It seems every Iraq War film released in the past few years has fallen on deaf ears. It seems this War is a place where good movies go to die.

Are people apathetic, yes. It seems that after 9/11, we as a whole(No one, not even Anti-war folks are watching these movies), prefer escapism in the movies. And on TV. It to me is the main difference between Vietnam and Today. Then, nightly news actually showed what War looked like, people made movies about the War that people went to. Nowadays, thata don' happena so much-a.

I'm just as guilty as the next person. Sure, I could have seen Lions for Lambs, but I wanted to watch Zombies. And Milla Jojovich cuz she's naked in every one of those movies.

Still I'm not giving up hope. Someone will eventually make a powerful film on this war that people will see. Let's just hope it doesn't take untill 2034 for that to happen.

American Idol's Jason Castro is the Antichrist

This thing scares me.

It got famous by covering Jeff Buckley's Hallelughaahahga(I thinks thats hows its spelled)

I'm not sure what it is but it scares the living shit out of me.

I think its the Antichrist.

Worst Graphs Ever

My Poli-Sci teacher today showed us this graph, which he declared is the worst graph ever.


While this graph is mind-numbingly stupid, at least it's visually appealing. He then challenged the class that if anyone could find a worse graph he would give them an A.

I came home and did a google search for "worst graph ever". I found this

and this
Publish Post
I'm getting an A.

I'm Not Racist, But...

If I had a dollar for every time I heard a statement start with the words, "I'm not racist, but ..." I would be a very rich man.

No matter what massively bigoted statement follows, they seem more preoccupied with trying to convince others (and/or themselves) that they are not racist.

The question must be asked: If ignorance remains as it does, and people are more frightened of being perceived as ignorant than of being ignorant, are we making any progress?

Race relations are complex and difficult, yet it seems in the many years since the civil rights movement, image has outweighed substance. People have ceased being real with themselves and others.

Usually the "I'm not racist, but . . . " is followed by some statement like, "black people are loud" or, "Mexicans don't have insurance." These statements are laced with emotions and are derived from our stereotypes. Stereotypes, however, are not the fundamental problem.

We need stereotypes. They are necessary for our brain to process information. At any given second, your senses are being bombarded with all types of datasets, which are simultaneously being processed. To make any sort of sense of this monstrous stream of information, your brain groups things into categories. Racial stereotypes are no different; everyone has internalized racial stereotypes.

Stereotypes do contribute negatively to race relations. If you perceive another group as untrustworthy or dangerous, chances are you will not want to associate with them. Barack Obama's recent speech on race addressed the stereotype problem. He mentioned his white grandmother, "Who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

He went further to try to address the anger and resentment that built through time in both the white and black communities. He went on to ask America to have a real dialogue, one that looks at the root causes of problems rather than choose demagogues. Conservative talk radio of course chooses the demagogue route.

Rush Limbaugh is the perfect case study of the modern angry white male. He rails all day about the ills of our "liberal welfare state," and what he sees as ethnic favoritism toward minorities. The problem, of course, is that Limbaugh is wrong and a liar. According to his housekeeper Wilma Cline, he on enough "hillbilly heroin" to kill a small donkey at the same time he proclaimed that the drug dealers should get the death penalty.

But the reason he is wrong isn't because of his ignorant and uniformed stances, or the fact he gets higher than Amy Winehouse. Limbaugh is wrong because he contradicts his core principles constantly.

According to a column he wrote, Limbaugh believes in working toward a "color-blind society." Essentially, he wants no special treatment for anyone whatsoever. Of course, he doesn't take into account the very unequal playing field that already exists in America. Of course, he perpetuates the vilest of racial stereotypes (just listen to the song, "Barack the Magic Negro," he aired on his radio show).

But Limbaugh isn't racist; he is just working toward a post-racial America, just like Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes.

Limbaugh and his ilk fuel this idea of white oppression, but they didn't invent it. Rush became popular because he voiced the ignorance that was just under the surface. Political correctness, no matter how well intentioned, produced a backlash because the "silent white majority" felt that its freedoms were under assault.

Race relations are complex and difficult. But progress isn't made without open and honest dialogue. We are kidding ourselves if we expect to have discussions on issues such as race without understanding they will be uncomfortable.

Ignorance is uncomfortable, but it is here to stay.

I actually agree with Limbaugh that we should move toward a post-racial society, and that speech should never be censored. In order to accomplish this, however, a balanced open and honest dialogue should begin.

The Daily Show did a segment after Obama's speech where Jon Stewart and his "black correspondent" Larry Willmore had a hilarious and uncomfortable frank race discussion. Stewart asked questions like, "Why do your car stereos have to be so loud?" and Willmore asked, "Why do you ruin music?"

The jokes that are funniest are the ones that show us truths about ourselves.

So rather than worry about being perceived as ignorant, just be ignorant. That does not mean use racial slurs or derogatory comments, it means say what you really feel without trying to qualify it. The more open and honest you are with your feelings, the easier it is to examine why it is you feel that way.

That is how we will learn and move forward as a country. Progress is a slow process, but when the ball starts rolling in the right direction, nothing can stop it.

Hillary's Rainbow Over Texas

We are yet to see whether Hillary's Bosnia lie will be played out by the MSM in the next few days. Regardless, she is running out of money and support real quick. One thing is for sure, the CBS bosnia expose has over 2 mllion views in all of its various forms, and that number is rising.

She of course brought this on herself, but one wonders, will this be her "Rainbow over Texas". If you don't know what that phrase refers to(I didn't untill 10 minutes ago), it refers to a Roy Rogers film where he plays himself as a glam-cowboy singer in texas.

According to Wikipedia, "since that time, "rainbow over Texas" has become a colloquialism for anyone who self-aggrandizes their own life in mythic and fantastical terms. For example, an individual who confabulates their previous experiences or resume out of either ignorance or self-importance is liked to a "rainbow over Texas".

Now that her credibility is coming into question, some are predicataing an avalanche of negative press, "vetting" her claims on everything from NAFTA and Ireland to the SCHIP bill. I am not putting all my faith on the MSM to all of a sudden do its job, but at this point they smell blood, and they are sharks at the end of the day.

Regardless she brought this on herself. She was the one to decide on the scorched earth, kitchen sink, me or no-one approach, exemplified by her recent "sudden" rehashing of the Wright nonsense. What goes around comes around.

Clinton Tax Returns Theories

So according to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, Hillary intends to release her Tax returns just a few days before the PA primary.

"On a conference call with reporters, Howard Wolfson offered a "categorical yes" when asked if the New York Democrat would make public this information with enough time to spare so that voters in the Keystone State could review it."

I have 3 theories on why they would release these returns just 3 days before the (crucial to her) Pennsylvania election.

Theory 1.
In hopes of a weekend news cycle being less intense than say a monday or tuesday morning story(like the Wright controversy) they release the Returns into the mix on a Saturday or Sunday to try and lessen the blow. Any attacks that are made on the Tax returns the Clinton Camp will spin as just last minute Election mud-slinging on the part of Obama.

Theory 2.
They don't plan on actually releasing them. At least not the full ones. Just like they did with her schedules as First Lady, they will release the returns with partial sections Blacked out, especally those in relation to the 5 Million Dollar loan she gave her campaign.

Theory 3.
She plans on releasing them right before the election in a State she is all but certain to win in order to try and substantiate this idea that she has been "vetted". She will essentially use the PA win she almost certainly will gain as a way to essentially release a negative story and swuash it 2 days later in the news cycle.

It could also be a combination of two or all three of these theories.

Clinton News Network is at it again

Ok, now this is just getting ridiculous. Oh and to say choosing this picture isn't deliberate is stupid, they defintiely choose it. He looks like he has Down Syndrome in this photo. Oh and notice what the article is in reference to.

People say that all pictures of HIllary are bad ones. That's just cuz she's ugly
On the inside.


UPDATE
From www.cracked.com

Hillary Attended Superman's Funeral with Lex Luthor

Echo Chamber Zeitgeist

After any debate, primary, caucus or other media-worthy event, modern political campaigns send their best storytellers to a reporter's feeding frenzy. Here these "masters of political spin" attempt to create the most compelling media narrative about their candidate for the subsequent news cycle.

Matt Taibbi, a reporter for Rolling Stone, recently did a segment for "Real Time With Bill Maher" on these political spin rooms. Aside from showing how ridiculous these events are backstage, Taibbi correctly observed that these places are essentially "echo chambers," wherein "common knowledge" is manufactured and then readily accepted as literal truth.

Ultimately, the media is telling a story. William Randolph Hearst was the first of the modern media barons to realize that facts don't sell papers, sensationalism does. Since ultimately the media's goal is to make money, it constantly develops narratives that follow common literary arcs (falls from grace, David vs. Goliath and redemption) that tell stories rather than explain them.

What allows some of the modern media to do this so well are the echo chambers. These chambers legitimize false information through heavy media coverage even if it is acknowledged in the story as inaccurate or wrong. Essentially, they echo lies enough times to make them a part of the collective conscious; they lie so much that they make it truth.

Case and point, Supery-Duper Tuesday II (or whatever they called it). The facts are that Hillary Clinton, after losing 12 consecutive states, was barely able to hold on to Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio. Texas and Ohio, which her campaign once touted as their 20 point-plus lead "firewall" states, made a significant shift toward Obama. In turn, he was able to make all these inroads despite an avalanche of Clinton-orchestrated negative press.

And when the dust settles (the Texas caucus results aren't all in yet, but I got $20 on Obama), Hillary will still be losing by nearly the same amount of delegates that she was before Tuesday.

But this is not the story. The headlines are, "She's Back" and, "She has the wind at her back." Her campaign, which originally said it was about delegates and not momentum, has now attempted to craft its resurrection through a narrative of momentum they originally dismissed.

It hurts my head.

But this echo chamber reality we live in doesn't just apply to presidential campaigns. This how we ended up as bad as we are in Iraq. Karl Rove understood that if you said something untrue enough times, you could make it true. If you need further proof, just turn on Fox News.

Right now. Go ahead.

See, they just lied. Told ya.

This is why, as a country, we believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is why we thought Iraq had something to do with Sept. 11. This is why right now, in Iraq, we think that the majority of whom we are fighting is "al Qaeda" and our "surge" is working.

Through talk radio, 24 cable networks and now the blogosphere, the powers that be have created such a powerful echo chamber that we now live in an Orwellian reality. That is why people believe that war is peace, up is down and Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Zeitgeist is a term that is used to refer to the commonly perceived truths or ethos of a particular group. Echo chambers have manufactured our false zeitgeists.

As the prophet George Carlin once said, "Don't take any shit from the Zeitgeist."

Just Say No

Eli Lilly developed Fluoxetine hydrochloride, better known as Prozac as an antidepressant throughout the 70’s and 80’s. It has been used to treat a broad array of mental health disorders including (but not limited to) clinical depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and Hypochondria.

Thats a fuck-ton of problems to solve for one pill.

Prozac made its US debut in 1987 and quickly became a mega hit. The patent expired in 2001(after making Eli Lilly obscenely rich) and the generic version is still extremely popular today. In 2006 23.1 Million prescriptions were given for generic Prozac making it number 3 on that year’s legal drug top 5 list, which provides a glimpse at the size of the Behemoth Legal drug industry.

Problem with Prozac is that it doesn’t really work. At least not as well as Drug Companies say it does.

The truth is that the pharmaceutical industry isn’t in the business of curing. That would be bad business. They are in the industry of treatment, which keeps people on prescriptions for long periods of time.

You can see this principle illustrated in this flowchart.

They are a business, whose sole goal is to make money, and the way they make money is by having more people buy their Product. So they sell their product and look at numbers the same way that GE does with washing machines. Only problem is that Prozac isn’t a washing machine.

A great book on the subject is “The Truth about Drug Companies: How they Deceive Us and What to Do About It” by Dr. Marcia Angell the former editor of The New England Journal Of Medicine.

There is a good Mother Jones Interview with her here.

She refutes the major lie of pharmaceutical companies, that they are “powerhouses of innovation” and their profits are deserved and than “fairly” reinvested into new Research and Development to help humanity.

Bullshit Ex. Figure 1.1

She shows how these companies actually invest 2.5 times more money in marketing and advertising their products than they do in new research and development. Again, smart moves if you’re in the business of selling washing machines, unethical if you’re selling Prozac.

But it doesn’t stop there, Dr. Angell goes on to show that about 75% of the “new drugs” they market are “me-too” drugs, which are essentially the same(if not worse) than other drugs already on the market

They claim that they are free-market adherents, yet vie for government handout “research grants”. They take drugs developed at Universities, grossly inflate the price to the American Consumer and compensate those researchers and schools with next to nothing. One more time, this kind of business is smart if you’re selling washing machines, but it is downright evil if you are selling Prozac.

What these companies do is use Drug “Representatives”(salesman) to employ every underhanded trick in the book(cakes for your daughters birthdays, golf in Fiji etc.) to get doctors to prescribe their medication.

Would you like to be a rep why just click here. Seriously this site is probably beautiful in how it illustrates how far from reality this whole industry is.

And for more information on Drug Reps check out the story of Shahram Ahari who worked for Eli Lilly for two years selling Prozac and Zyprexa.

Sure they use in-house studies, and fancy color coded charts to convince doctors that their “medicine” is helpful, but so did Cigarette Companies.

Remember, 9 out of 10 doctors smoked Camels.

When asked if they are swayed by Drug Reps, most doctors say very little or not at all. But when asked about how they think their peers are persuaded, they respond that their peers are very influenced by these same reps. This disconnect is intentional and keeps these companies laughing all the way to the bank.

This brings us full circle back to Prozac.

A study published last month showed that Prozac and similar drugs did not have a significant difference in treating depression than a placebo except in the most severe cases.

We continue to feed an industry that goal is to hook us on inferior products, with no regard for consequence. Today, Parents and Doctors alike must concede that there is no magic Pill substitution for Parenting or Therapy, and finally starve this beast.

This is by no means a call for people to flush their pills down the toilet.

In fact, withdrawal is one of the most difficult problems associated with prescriptions drugs.
These chemicals are way too dangerous to play around with, and Doctors are essential in making sure that any change that it is done safely.

Someone once told me that sunny days were nothing; without the rainy ones nothing has substance.

Just about Every great Artist, Politician and Writer has suffered from depression.

For an incomplete list, click here.

That just made you feel better didn't it?

Mental health is a complex, and medication can be helpful. But without a serious examination of the cause of one’s depression, coupled with a constructive healing method like therapy no real progress can be made. Root problems don’t go away when masked by drugs, be they legal or not.

Depression may just be nature’s way of helping us to our natural path, indicating when we need to adjust our lives to better attain fulfillment.

Taming of the Shrew: The Hillary Clinton Story

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter had a great quote on the Clinton’s relationship with power. He stated that they view losing their power the same way “hard-core gun owners” do, “over their cold dead hands”. Hillary’s recent behavior, epitomized in her performance at Tuesday night’s debate only seemed to substantiate that.

Both Hillary and Bill have been career politicians. She sacrificed what looked like a successful career of her own in politics, to support Bill’s endeavors. In making this decision, her intentions have always been to use her position with Bill as a way to further her own career. She kept her name Rodham (at the behest of both of their mothers) so that according to her, they could “separate their personal lives”. Her support helped Bill tremendously as both Arkansas’ Governor and as President, and he owes much of his success to her.

The Clinton’s suffered one of their first (and rare) losses, his re-election bid as Arkansas governor. Incumbent Bill was defeated, and after that she “made a few changes” during their next campaign. After all, it was the 80’s by then, and that whole 70’s feminist name-keeping thing, well, let’s just say she pretty much dropped the Rodham for Mrs. Bill Clinton(even though she brought in more bacon from 78-92).

But this was always phase one of the plan. Phase two has always been the Hillary winning the white house. Her entire carpet-bag Senate career for New York was just a springboard to the White House.

Hillary is one of the most polarizing people in this country, someone who gets daily doses of vitriol from both the Right and Left. She is absolutely correct in saying that she has always been a target of “vicious” political attacks. She is very good at standing up to criticism, and the machine that the Clintons have built fights any republican attack machine valiantly, almost like an episode of “Battle Bots”.

Her entire Presidential campaign was built on the “experience” of being able to withstand, “unfair” attacks. Why then did she use a poorly-written and acted SNL skit as a means to cry victim? Comedy was never her strong point, and I do think people will refer to her, “Should we ask him if he’s comfortable and needs a pillow” line as a Dean moment. In this life and especially in politics, no-one gets a free-ride.

Imagine if Obama had lost over 10 straight contests, rose less money, and started going negative when he was down in the polls. The media would be pouncing on him the same if not harder. If anything, thanks in part to your campaign Obama has wasted his time arguing ridiculous, and thinly veiled racist-attacks about his Christianity and condemnation of Farrakhan. Clinton’s attempt to try and paint Obama as somehow anti-Semitic by complaining he “denounced” when he should have “rejected” Farrakhan, actually managed to backfire live in Obama’s coffin nailing response, “If the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce."

I believe Hillary believes that her sacrifices were going to guarantee her the White House. She felt and was probably told if she was patient and followed the script and she would have what she desired. This is why I almost feel bad for her. Well, almost.

Her performance in the debate last night, coupled with her attacks leveled at Obama in the past few days are utterly inexcusable. The NYT described Hillary’s new strategy as “the Kitchen Sink”. She hasn’t just thrown the sink; she threw the microwave, toaster, blender, oven mitts….anything she could get her hands on.

Her mockery of Obama’s speeches which have inspired new people into the Democratic Party would be funny, if they weren’t outright damaging to her party. She has decided to attempt a last ditch, scorched-earth policy, using John McCain’s same attacks, and surrogates like Bob (Black Exploitation Television) Johnson to paint him as a drugged up-Muslim who wants to make sweet love to our enemies and bomb our allies.

So here it is Hillary, STOP. Do not pass go and do not collect another $200 of special interest money. When you lose next Tuesday (either Texas, Ohio or both), do the right thing and drop out. So you didn’t get the Presidency that you compromised yourself to get. Al Gore didn’t either and life still worked out pretty well for him.

Hillary, the Man in the Yellow Hat called, he wants his Jacket back.

What the fuck is up with Hillary's wardrobe. Everytime she needs to stand out she wears some type of man-ish Yellow suit. Here she was right after super tuesday.

She looks like a fucking banana.

But when she made her shrewish speech mocking obama on sunday, she rocked the most hideous man-jacket I've ever seen.


Yup, the raincoat looking thing.

Jesus Hillary, the man in the yellow hat called


He wants his jacket back.

UPDATE

Oh my god, it just doesn't stop. This is the main photo as of 4:00 PM central on Drudge.


Money says she goes Yellow in the debate.

Fuck The Kids, Fuck The Whales and Save the TV

Yesterday, hoping to find something intellectually stimulating to cure my boredom I, like most good Americans, turned on my TV. I thought to myself, I’ll watch “something educational”, like the Discovery or History Channel, thinking that surely they will have engaging and thought-provoking material.

Not even fucking “Cash Cab”.

I started to question whether or not I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone. On the “Discovery” Channel, there was an hour long documentary on Alien Vampires.

Real Vampires from outer space, not to be confused with the industrial-black metal band.

They have a single, "Nuns are Pregnant".... REALLY heavy stuff. Wore on my soul.

Anywhoo,

On the “History” Channel there was an hour long documentary on Big foot’s cousin, Big Bird (seriously, a supposed giant bird).

The H is for History.

What happened to the once lone beacons of intelligent programming?

I Fucking grew up on the Discovery and History Channels. But their programming has significantly changed, both in subject and content. Let me

first be clear, I love Mythbusters, and a few other programs on these channels that I enjoy.

However, in the past few years I noticed the appearance of two specific and vile types of the programming, Make Believe and Apocalypse-Vision.

Make-Believe programming is where we get Alien Vampires and Big Bird. The formula is simple, strange alien, ghost, monster etc., event.

For this example, we will use MAN-BIRD, Defender of Freedom.

Note:Man-Bird is in no way similair to Birdman a registered trademark of Hanna-Barbera inc.

followed by large bearded “experts”,

who get refuted by other less bearded “experts”,

ending with a Saturday morning “who do you believe?” cliffhanger.

?

To all you network executives, I don’t know if it’s cocaine or what, but how high to you have to be to think that this crap is a good programming for your channel?

Sure, it probably does boost your ratings. I am very aware that at least 1/3 of all people watching “How it’s Made” on the History Channel are stoned. But you are destroying your networks integrity, and only putting out the same ratings-obsessed, vapid commercial drivel that spawned a market for your channels in the first place.

At the end of the day, it’s not even the fact that you do shows on UFO’s or ghosts, it is how bad those shows are. They are flashy, ridiculously packaged and altogether bad journalism/history/whatever you want to call it. Why not do a serious program interviewing members of the National Disclosure Project, a VERY REAL group of NASA scientists, pilots and high ranking military and defense officials that has publicly stated not only have we been visited by Extra Terrestrials, but the US government is covering it up and has been doing so for a long time.

Watch their video here.

By all means do a show on Aliens, but enough with this cartoon shit and bearded vs. non-bearded debates.

More than anything though, your current fascination with the Apocalypse is the worst. Every other week, I am bombarded with commercials that make me want to poop my pants. “Gamma Radiation could microwave the Earth at any time without notice” or “A computer program has predicted the world will end in 2012”. Would you people please stop. Cease. Desist.

Be it Nostradamus, some Mayan Calendar, or Optimus Prime I DO NOT CARE WHEN YOU THINK THE WORLD WILL END.

First this programming is just as mind-numbing and flashy as your UFO crap. Second, If we are all going to die in some inescapable global catastrophe,

A. It is entirely un-productive and unnecessary to freak out over what’s inevitable (death)

B. If it happens, be glad you get to see it.

Finally, your Networks should be held liable for how many nervous breakdowns your endless array of End of the World shows have caused.

So please, coke-addicted network executives, put the discovery back in Discovery Channel. And put the History back in History Channel, Although could you make it a little less White this time?

No.

Well, just thought I’d ask.

fuckers