Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2016, 04:05:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97924 Posts in 2334 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 124
2951  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: July 28, 2013, 10:19:41 PM
The kiss of death for Weiner was having Huma stand by him.  Dems are fleeing in droves.  Can't have this guy drag their 2016 investment into the picture by way of Huma.  Besides it is for NYC mayor only.  And they got their Alternative.   So for the first time I can recall feminists are finally abandoning a Democrat:
2952  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / heart surgery in India for less than 2000. on: July 28, 2013, 08:41:57 PM
Heart Surgery in India for $1,583 Costs $106,385 in U.S.
By Ketaki Gokhale - Jul 28, 2013 2:30 PM ET Facebook Share Tweet LinkedIn Google +1 66 Comments
Devi Shetty is obsessed with making heart surgery affordable for millions of Indians. On his office desk are photographs of two of his heroes: Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi.

Shetty is not a public health official motivated by charity. He’s a heart surgeon turned businessman who has started a chain of 21 medical centers around India. By trimming costs with such measures as buying cheaper scrubs and spurning air-conditioning, he has cut the price of artery-clearing coronary bypass surgery to 95,000 rupees ($1,583), half of what it was 20 years ago, and wants to get the price down to $800 within a decade. The same procedure costs $106,385 at Ohio’s Cleveland Clinic, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“It shows that costs can be substantially contained,” said Srinath Reddy, president of the Geneva-based World Heart Federation, of Shetty’s approach. “It’s possible to deliver very high quality cardiac care at a relatively low cost.”

Medical experts like Reddy are watching closely, eager to see if Shetty’s driven cost-cutting can point the way for hospitals to boost revenue on a wider scale by making life-saving heart operations more accessible to potentially millions of people in India and other developing countries.

“The current price of everything that you see in health care is predominantly opportunistic pricing and the outcome of inefficiency,” Shetty, 60, said in an interview in his office in Bangalore.

Cutting costs is especially vital in India, where more than two-thirds of the population lives on less than $2 a day and 86 percent of health care is paid out of pocket by individuals. A recent study by the Public Health Foundation of India and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine found that in India non-communicable ailments such as heart disease are now more common among the poor than the rich.

One in four people there die of a heart attack and per-capita health spending is less than $60 a year. Yet the country performs only 100,000 to 120,000 heart surgeries each year, well short of the 2 million Shetty estimates are needed. The mortality rate from coronary artery disease among South Asians is two to three times higher than that of Caucasians, according to a study published in 2008 in the journal Vascular Health and Risk Management.

Dietary Patterns
“There has been fast urbanization in India that’s brought with it a change in dietary patterns and lifestyle,” said Usha Shrivastava, head of public health at the National Diabetes, Obesity and Cholesterol Foundation. “It’s leading to this huge jump in cardiovascular disease.”

The average age for a first heart attack in India, Pakistan and other South Asian nations was 53 years, compared with 58.8 years in countries outside the region, according to a study published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The biggest impediment for heart surgery in India is accessibility. Shetty aims to bridge that by building hospitals outside India’s main cities. He said he plans to add 30,000 beds over the next decade to the 6,000 the hospital chain has currently, and has identified 100 towns with populations of 500,000 to 1 million that have no heart hospital.

A 300-bed, pre-fabricated, single-story hospital in the city of Mysore cost $6 million and took six months for construction company Larsen & Toubro Ltd. to build, Shetty said. Only the hospital’s operating theaters and intensive-care units are air-conditioned, to reduce energy costs.

Changing Procedures
One of the ways in which Shetty is able to keep his prices low is by cutting out unnecessary pre-op testing, he said.

Urine samples that were once routine before surgery were eliminated when it was found that only a handful of cases tested positive for harmful bacteria. The chain uses web-based computer software to run logistics, rather than licensing or building expensive new systems for each hospital.

That might cover the cost of linens here:

****When Shetty couldn’t convince a European manufacturer to bring down the price of its disposable surgical gowns and drapes to a level affordable for his hospitals, he convinced a group of young entrepreneurs in Bangalore to make them so he could buy them 60 percent cheaper.

In the future, Shetty sees costs coming down further as more Asian electronics companies enter the market for CT scanners, MRIs and catheterization labs -- bringing down prices. As India trains more diploma holders in specialties such as anesthesiology, gynecology, ophthalmology and radiology, Narayana will be able to hire from a larger, less expensive talent pool.

One positive unforeseen outcome may be that many of the cost-saving approaches could be duplicated in developed economies, especially in the U.S. under health reform.

“Global health-care costs are rising rapidly and as countries move toward universal health coverage, they will have to face the challenge of providing health care at a fairly affordable cost,” said the World Heart Federation’s Reddy, a New Delhi-based cardiologist who is also president of the Public Health Foundation of India. ****

2953  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2nd post in duo on: July 28, 2013, 08:13:51 PM;_ylt=A0oG7kkEwfVR1xkAi8FXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGJjawM0dTllN2E5OHZiZWpoJTI2YiUzRDQlMjZkJTNEMkhKdmdibHBZRUt5YlFGMk1pRlExZVNsVDZUdFEycjJseWtuUkEtLSUyNnMlM0RsOCUyNmklM0RJMlJMalBTTDFhZTlxc1NoOFRITwRjc3JjcHZpZANOVW1QOWtnZXVyQlBKY2RTVWZXNmNSSDFHT1MxbzFIMXdRUUFDdVRPBGZyA2ZwLXR0cy0xMjAEZnIyA3NiLXRvcARncHJpZANWbjJMd1FXRVRpLkVrVUZOLkVSajFBBG5fcnNsdAMxMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMTAEcXVlcnkDZGlhbmUgbGFuZQR0X3N0bXADMTM3NTA2MDM5NDk4MgR2dGVzdGlkA0FDQlkwNQ--?p=diane+lane&fr2=sb-top&fr=fp-tts-120
2954  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: July 28, 2013, 08:13:04 PM
No question she must have gotten an A in her body language class.   Shoulders back, chin up, straight erect spine, one hand at side while other gestures with authority.  But Diane Lane, I hardly think so.
2955  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Interesting post on: July 27, 2013, 12:03:01 PM

Very interesting.   I recall reading theories of why baseballs seemed to travel farther than in the past.  If I recall the focus was on the baseball construction. Not the bat.   I remember seeing  surge in what appeared like balls rocketing off bats into the bleachers and thinking how the heck was that a homerun.  Even announcers were questioning how balls seemed to travel farther with what appeared to be less bat contact than in the past.

Some estimated a change in ball composition led to an extra 20 feet to the distance of balls hit.

Maybe bats are also part of the equation.   As well as steroids.  As well as better training methods.  It seems like everyone swings like Mickey Mantle these days.  The one hand finish to the swing is ubiquitous.  Studies must have shown that letting go with the one hand at the end of the swing is superior.   

I wish they would have done more for pitchers.  I miss the perennial 20 game winners.  Going to be tough for any  more 300 game winners anymore.
2956  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Organized & Disorganized Religion and anti-religion on: July 27, 2013, 11:55:20 AM
The progressives are replacing religion with big government. 

There is not God.  Don't look to God.  Look to government.

Government, not religion, determines right and wrong. 

More mind control.

2957  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: July 27, 2013, 11:23:48 AM

Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer July 17, 2013  PoliticsFederal Reserve SystemBarack ObamaBen BernankeLawrence SummersPresidency of Barack ObamaWall Street

Tell me it's a sick joke: Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, the guy who tops the list of those responsible for sabotaging the world's economy, is lobbying to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. But no, it makes perfect sense, since Summers has long succeeded spectacularly by failing.

Why should his miserable record in the Clinton and Obama administrations hold him back from future disastrous adventures at our expense? With Ben Bernanke set to step down in January, and Obama still in deep denial over the pain and damage his former top economic adviser Summers brought to tens of millions of Americans, this darling of Wall Street has yet another shot to savage the economy.

Summers was one of the key players during the Clinton years in creating the mortgage derivative bubble that ended up costing tens of millions of Americans their homes and life savings. This is the genius who, as Clinton's Treasury secretary, supported the banking lobby's successful effort to make the sale of unregulated bundles of mortgage securities and the phony insurance swaps that backed them perfectly legal and totally unmonitored. Those are the toxic bundles that the Federal Reserve is still unloading from the banks at a cost of trillions of dollars.

But back on July 30, 1998, when he was deputy Treasury secretary, Summers assured the Senate agriculture committee that the "thriving" derivatives market was the driving force of American prosperity and would be fatally hurt by any government regulation of the sort proposed by Brooksley Born, the stunningly prescient chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Summers opined that "the parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies. ... "

Consider the astounding stupidity of that statement and the utter ignorance upon which it was based. One financial CEO after another has testified to not knowing how the derivatives were created and why their worth evaporated. Think of AIG and the other marketers of these products that were saved from disaster only by the injection of government funds not available to foreclosed homeowners whose mortgages were wrapped into those toxic securities.

Most of those dubious financial gimmicks were marketed by the too-big-to-fail banks made legal by another piece of legislation supported by Summers and passed a year later when Clinton tapped him to be Treasury secretary. Summers was an ardent proponent of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented the merger of highflying investment houses with traditional commercial banks entrusted with the government insured deposits of ordinary folks.

The first result of destroying that sensible barrier to too-big-to-fail banks was the creation of Citigroup as the biggest bank in the world. Threatened by its wild derivative trading, it had to be saved from bankruptcy with an infusion by taxpayers of $45 billion in U.S. government aid and a guarantee for $300 billion of its toxic assets.

Summers had condemned Glass-Steagall as an example of "archaic financial restrictions" and called instead for "allowing common ownership of banking, securities and insurance firms." A decade later, while in the Obama administration, Summers worked to prevent a return to the Glass-Steagall prohibition in the Dodd-Frank legislation.

The need to restore that reasonable banking regulation implemented by President Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression was acknowledged by bipartisan legislation introduced last week in the Senate by Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz. "It will take a lot of tools to get rid of too-big-to-fail, but one of them ought to be that if you want to do high-stakes gambling, good on you, but you do not get access to people's checking accounts and savings accounts," Warren told Bloomberg News on Friday in urging the return of Glass-Steagall.

As opposed to Summers, who continued to insist on the wisdom of ending essential financial regulation, McCain, who had voted for the repeal, has seen the error of that decision. "Since core provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed in 1999, shattering the wall dividing commercial banks and investment banks, a culture of dangerous greed and excessive risk-taking has taken root in the banking world," the senator said in a press release Thursday announcing the legislation.

Even Sanford Weill, who headed Citigroup after pushing for the reversal of Glass-Steagall, had the good sense to acknowledge his mistake, saying in a statement a year ago: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to fail." Richard Parsons and John Reed, two other former high-ranking officers of Citigroup, also have called for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

The question then is why Summers, the man who got it all wrong, would imagine that he could be in the running to head the Federal Reserve? Why would he ever fantasize that President Obama might turn to someone who always gets it wrong to right a still struggling economy?

Maybe because he knows Obama better than we do. After all, it was a massive infusion of Wall Street money that helped Obama get elected both times. And Wall Street, which showered Summers with almost $8 million in speaking fees and hedge fund profits during the 2008 campaign while he advised Obama, clearly would approve of this greed enabler as the next Fed chairman.

Robert Scheer is editor of, where this column originally appeared. Email him To find out more about Robert Scheer and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Webpage at

2958  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Palin phenomenon on: July 27, 2013, 10:53:03 AM
We know Noam Chomsky isn't going to go out and vote for Palin if she should ever run.  Surely he thinks Obama is not enough of a radical liberal not the other way around from Palin's perspective.

We are forever reading about the split in the Republican party but we never hear about any in the Democratic side.   The left seems very good at coming together and voting like a large machine/block.

Like a steamroller.
2959  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 26, 2013, 10:47:00 PM

Are Republicans fooling themselves about Obamacare?

By BYRON YORK | JULY 22, 2013 AT 7:40 PM

165Comments   Share on print Share on email 



Topics: Analysis Columnists

Photo - 
When Washington conservatives gather to talk among themselves, and the discussion turns to Obamacare -- it happens pretty frequently -- it's not unusual to hear predictions that the president's health care law will "collapse of its own weight." It's a "train wreck," many say, quoting Democratic Sen. Max Baucus. It's unworkable. It's going to be a big, smoking ruin.

Some predict chaos beginning Oct. 1, when the law requires Obamacare exchanges, the online marketplaces in which people will be able to shop for insurance, to be up and running. And maybe that will happen; the day is a little more than two months off, and the administration seems far behind schedule in the work that needs to be done.

On the other hand, a lot of thoughtful conservatives are looking beyond Oct. 1 to Jan. 1, the day the law (except for the parts the president has unilaterally postponed) is scheduled to go fully into effect. On that day the government will begin subsidizing health insurance for millions of Americans. (A family of four with income as high as $88,000 will be eligible for subsidies.) When people begin receiving that entitlement, the dynamics of the Obamacare debate will change.

Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!

At that point, the Republican mantra of total repeal will become obsolete. The administration will mount a huge public relations campaign to highlight individuals who have received government assistance to help them afford, say, chemotherapy, or dialysis, or some other life-saving treatment. Will Republicans advocate cutting off the funds that help pay for such care?

The answer is no. Facing that reality, the GOP is likely to change its approach, arguing that those people should be helped while the rest of Obamacare is somehow dismantled.

The administration is fully aware of its advantage. Last week officials invited several prominent liberal bloggers to a special White House Obamacare briefing. From the reporting that resulted -- one headline included the declaration "Implementing the Affordable Care Act is going to be a huge success" -- administration officials are quite confident that, whatever problems arise, Obamacare will be solidly in place after the money starts flowing on Jan. 1.

"Neither Democrats nor Republicans liked to emphasize how much the Affordable Care Act debate was about redistribution rather than health care as such, but there's a lot of money here," wrote Slate's Matthew Yglesias, who attended the briefing. "The law is structured to be financially beneficial to a large majority of people, and the infrastructure is in place to make that clear to a critical mass of them."

Truth be told, many Republicans did note that redistribution is at the heart of Obamacare. But the fact is, the redistributing will begin Jan. 1. And whatever else goes wrong with Obamacare, look for the White House to apply whatever fixes it must to make sure the money keeps flowing.

"The last few months have shown us that the administration will do whatever it needs to do -- whether it is in the law or not, within its formal powers or beyond them -- to prop up collapsing elements and avoid political disasters in the near term," said Yuval Levin, a former Bush administration staffer and one of Obamacare's most perceptive critics, in an email exchange. "That often means pure ad hoc governing where they just do whatever they have to in order to avoid allowing the system's worst problems and failings to become apparent in the near term."

None of this is to say Obamacare won't face huge problems. The most obvious is that it will make things worse for more people than it helps. If that disparity is huge -- that is, if on one side there are many millions of people paying more for coverage than they did previously, losing coverage they were satisfied with, and suffering through great uncertainty, while on the other side there are far fewer people receiving direct government subsidies -- if that happens, then the political fight over Obamacare will intensify rather than fade. But even then, the subsidies are unlikely to go away.

Obamacare could face even bigger problems. The most serious is the so-called "death spiral," which could occur if too few young, healthy people sign up for coverage, dramatically raising the cost of covering everyone else.

But collapse of its own weight? The administration's insurance against that is the billions of dollars that will start flowing out of Washington Jan. 1. Once that happens, Republicans will likely stop talking about Obamacare's collapse and will instead start searching for ways to limit the harm done to millions of Americans.

Byron York, the Washington Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at His column appears on Tuesday and Friday on
2960  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Democrat pols body language. on: July 26, 2013, 08:28:45 AM
Ah there it is again.  The lip biting pose.

I notice more and more Democratic pols using the *lip bite" façade when they are trying to emote.   This was made popular when Clinton was pretending he was going through some sort of religious transformation during Lewinsky and his other sex scandals.   I recently notice Bamster using this during his I could have been Travon speech.

I guess they fool some of the people all of the time with this stage manipulation of facial expressions.
2961  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: July 26, 2013, 08:10:18 AM
GM,  I am not sure the FDA is "partisan" but I would agree there likely is corruption there from a money point of view.

There was an article about corrupt research and the FDA in Scientific American a couple of months back.  If I can find it I will try to post.

I notice that in between my favorite talk radio shows, mostly on weekends are these endless so called experts (expert con artists if you ask me) hawking there latest natural treatments for all sorts of ubiquitous ills.

Almost all of it is nonsense.   Even the "science" they base their claims are is junk and often corrupt.   
2962  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, & "discrimination" on: July 25, 2013, 09:23:24 AM
Liberal media love new Jesus book 'Zealot', fail to mention author is Muslim

By John S. Dickerson
Published July 24, 2013


Reza Aslan, author of the new book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” has been interviewed on a host of media outlets in the last week. Riding a publicity wave, the book has surged to #2 on Amazon's list.

Media reports have introduced Aslan as a “religion scholar” but have failed to mention that he is a devout Muslim.

His book is not a historian’s report on Jesus. It is an educated Muslim’s opinion about Jesus -- yet the book is being peddled as objective history on national TV and radio.

“Zealot” is a fast-paced demolition of the core beliefs that Christianity has taught about Jesus for 2,000 years.

Aslan is not a trained historian. Like tens of thousands of us he has been formally educated in theology and New Testament Greek.

He is a bright man with every right to hold his own opinion about Jesus—and to proselytize his opinion.

As a sincere man, Aslan’s Muslim beliefs affect his entire life, including his conclusions about Jesus. But this is not being disclosed. “Zealot” is being presented as objective and scholarly history, not as it actually is—an educated Muslim’s opinions about Jesus and the ancient Near East.

“Zealot” is a fast-paced demolition of the core beliefs that Christianity has taught about Jesus for 2,000 years. Its conclusions are long-held Islamic claims—namely, that Jesus was a zealous prophet type who didn’t claim to be God, that Christians have misunderstood him, and that the Christian Gospels are not the actual words or life of Jesus but “myth.”

These claims are not new or unique. They are hundreds of years old among Muslims. Sadly, readers who have listened to interviews on NPR, "The Daily Show," Huffington Post or MSNBC may pick up the book expecting an unbiased and historic report on Jesus and first century Jewish culture. (I will let my Jewish friends address Aslan’s statement on MSNBC that, “there were certainly a lot of Jewish terrorists in first century Palestine.”)

As a journalist and author who is Christian I cannot imagine penning a so-called objective biography of Muhammad and then concealing my conflict of interest in national media interviews.

In world history there are no religions more violently and anciently opposed than the crusading, fighting, at times blood-shedding rivals of historic Islam and historic Christianity. Even non-violent Muslims and Christians, like Aslan and myself, understand that we hold aggressively oppositional views—particularly about Jesus. National news coverage of “Zealot” has ignored this conflict of interest.

“Zealot” is written with the self-assumed authority of groundbreaking revelation from a historian. In reality, it is a religious person’s opinion about Jesus—from an adherent to the religion that has been in violent opposition to Christ for 1,400 years.

Aslan informs us that we cannot trust the Gospel of Mark--because it was written 40 years after Jesus’ death. He then chides us to trust his new book, written almost 2,000 years later.

I believe in Aslan’s right to hold and propagate any opinion. It’s a right that, ironically, Christians do not have in many Muslim countries.

My concern is that national media coverage be smart and forthright about this conflict of interest, just as it would be if I—a Christian author and pastor—wrote a book about Muhammad.

Pouring praise onto “Zealot” as new information about Jesus, without explaining its author’s devotion to a combatting religion, is blatant bias. This same bias would be unthinkable if the Christian and Muslim roles were reversed.

With its riveting demolition of Jesus, “Zealot” will continue to attract interviews—some from reporters who want to see Jesus deconstructed. Many more interviews will come from reporters who simply don’t understand that Reza Aslan has a horse in this race. He is not an objective observer, but, to use his own word, a zealot, with religious motivation to destroy what Western culture has believed about its central figure for hundreds of years. In many ways, this conflict is larger than Christianity and Islam. It is a conflict of Western and Middle Eastern foundations. These are great and important debates that we should welcome, but let’s be honest about our motivations, positions and conflicts of interest as we dialogue.

Let’s hope reporters in future interviews will, being informed, mention the glaring conflict of interest in this Islamic opinion of Jesus. It is no more objective than my educated views about Muhammad, as a Christian.

“Zealot” is not new work from a historian. It is a sophisticated presentation of views that Muslims have held about Jesus for more than 1,000 years.

John S. Dickerson  is author of the book “The Great Evangelical Recession: 6 Factors that Will Crash the American Church…and How to Prepare”  and senior pastor of Cornerstone  in Prescott, Arizona. Follow him on Facebook  or Twitter @JohnSDickerson.

Read more:
2963  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / It's about time on: July 24, 2013, 09:22:11 AM
I've posted before how I think it wrong that there are countless sales pitches for so called natural products that "might" cure or treat every illness known to man with almost no legal or regulatory challenge.
2964  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / take a guess gay pride parade or UFC? on: July 19, 2013, 08:56:31 AM
trust me.  I wouldn't say it to their faces:
2965  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi and related matters on: July 19, 2013, 08:28:22 AM
survivors forced to sign non disclosure

Obstruction of justice at the highest level.  This sounds like a Hillary trick.

Of course it is in the interests of "national" security.   Not just her political career security.

No outrage.  No response.  Not even a blip in the media's noise meter for the day. 

And people trust the government to control and monitor and manipulate the world's internet?

2966  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom on: July 17, 2013, 04:24:16 PM
From Crafty's post above.

"places a chill over every citizen in not only America but the world. It should also chill all news reporters, pundits, filmmakers, writers, thinkers, philosophers, patent and copyright holders, strategists and communicators in every branch of the arts and sciences."

One can forget about intellectual property being protected except by the very rich and powerful.

Finally, at least a few people are recognizing this.   Way too late for me.   Probably too late for all of us.

I know I am a minority on this board.  But I still think Snowden is a hero.

2967  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Law Enforcement on: July 16, 2013, 09:11:40 PM
End only of one chapter.   There is no legal punishment that fits the crimes of this monster:
2968  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / potential avenue for obesity research and maybe investment on: July 14, 2013, 09:15:01 PM
interesting research angle into the obesity and diabetes conditions.  diabetes @ tends to reverse within a few days after bariatric surgery even before the major weight loss has occurred suggesting the anatomical changes in the proximal gut alter the chemistry via gastrointestinal hormones in a way the change metabolism.  This same chemical alterations may lead to drugs that can induce the same changes without the surgery.  NGM biopharmaceuticals is private but has entered into agreement with Medimmune:

NovoNordiscs victoza used for Type 2 diabetes treatment is known to induce several percent weight loss.  At this time it is FDA approved only for diabetes.  A dose of 3 mg (vs the 0.6 to 1.8 for diabetes) is being researched for FDA approval for use in obesity.  It may cause and ?maintain up to 8% weigh loss.  I am not sure if all its mechanisms are known.  It delays stomach emptying this making feel full faster and less hungry and is also thought to work directly through the brain as well.   I wonder if adding that to the VVUs drug  would add additional benefits.  Some combinations I have read do not add much if any benefit however.

*Of course for us male and female studs on this board we do not need such help.  I am speaking of the millions of couch potatoes who sit at desks all day and commute for hours.*
2969  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, & "discrimination" on: July 14, 2013, 08:40:21 PM
Another twist was a female lawyer on cable today suggesting those who criticize the verdict are really discriminating against women because the jury and judge were all female.


There seems no end to this by who those intent on turning this small town trial into spearheads for any variety of  national political agendas or money making campaigns from marketers, medias, attorneys, race baiters, politicians, book writers, and possibly book deals, or fifteen minutes of fame from jurors.

Everyone has their own opinion and mine is manslaughter would have been the closet to fit the circumstance.  It does bother me a 17 child walks to the store for soda and candy and gets killed on the way home while taking a shortcut.   Zimmerman did start the whole think.   

That said turning this into a the civil rights issue of the century is just beyond my logic.

It remains to be seen how harassed will Zimmerman be and for how long.  On one hand he will suffer pushback forever.  On the other hand this might be a money making opportunity for him.
2970  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: July 13, 2013, 09:11:25 PM
 Doug writes,

"Yes, and they won't see the hypocrisy that the year of the woman needs to follow the year we ended all gender distinctions, eliminating terms like wife, bride and motherhood."

Excellent point.  I hadn't thought of that.   As for Hillary fatigue I sure hope you are right.   No sooner did I post my comments above when I get this weeks Economist with this article in it. 

*****The Economist
World politics

Sexual politics

More than half the electorate

Will the “war on women” rhetoric help Democrats?
 Jul 13th 2013  | WASHINGTON, DC  |From the print edition

The battleground

IT HAS been a busy few weeks for Republican foes of abortion. The House of Representatives has passed a bill banning it after 20 weeks of pregnancy; a similar one is expected to be introduced in the Senate soon. A bill imposing a 20-week limit on the District of Columbia is pending in the Senate, backed by 34 Republicans.

There is action in the states, too. Republican-led legislatures in Texas and North Carolina are considering various restrictions; the one in Wisconsin recently approved some, only to have them suspended by a court. All told, the first half of the

Democrats like to describe these measures as part of a Republican “war on women”. As further evidence, they point to foot-dragging from Republicans in Congress over measures aimed at promoting equal pay for women and preventing domestic violence, along with the outlandish comments about sex made by Republican politicians every now and again. Trent Franks, the congressman who sponsored the 20-week limit in the House, argued against an exemption for victims of rape, claiming that the number of rapes that led to pregnancy was “very low”. A colleague, Michael Burgess, suggested that fetuses are already masturbating by 20 weeks—although only male ones.

Similar comments probably cost Republicans two Senate seats in last year’s election, and seem to have lost the party votes more broadly, argues Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report. Although Barack Obama’s support among men dropped by four percentage points compared with 2008, to 45%, it fell by only one point among women. His lead there, of 11 points, was much bigger than his deficit among men, of seven points. In fact, the “gender gap” favoured the Democrats even more, since women cast 53% of votes. Democratic charges of Republican sexism seem to have boosted turnout among young, single women (a strongly left-leaning group). They have also given married suburban women with misgivings about Mr Obama’s economic stewardship reason to hesitate before voting Republican.

Yet Republicans are unfazed, continuing to push abortion curbs that have little or no chance of becoming law. The Senate, for example, is sure to squelch the House’s 20-week limit on abortions. Even if it did not, Mr Obama would veto it. Legislatures in North Dakota and Arkansas have approved laws banning abortions from six and 12 weeks respectively. The Supreme Court is unlikely to let either law stand.

Jonathan Collegio of American Crossroads, a conservative campaign outfit, argues that this persistence simply reflects the priorities of the party’s supporters: “Christian voters are still a major part of the Republican coalition, often the most intense and likely to vote, and it’s foolish to pretend they don’t exist.”

Republicans scoff at the idea that they are waging war on women. They favour equal pay, they say, but not rules that make it too easy to sue employers. The Democrats’ rhetoric will backfire, they add, if they use it to oppose policies many women support, including certain curbs on abortion. Polls show that most favour keeping abortion legal, but support drops off dramatically the later in a pregnancy it occurs. A narrow majority seems to support a 20-week limit; a large one opposes late-term abortions. Similarly, argues Stu Rothenberg, an election analyst, laws that impose stricter medical standards on abortion clinics mark an attempt by Republicans to placate their base without offending the majority of voters.

Relatively few voters, however, base their votes on abortion or other “social issues”. Just 4% of respondents to the latest Economist/YouGov poll rated abortion as “the most important issue”; 31% chose the economy. Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster, argues that Democrats keep banging on about the war on women purely as a distraction from the disappointing state of the economy. If Republicans were to find a more compelling way to talk about that, she believes, it would render the Democratic attacks moot.*****
2971  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The coming women's infatada on: July 13, 2013, 07:45:35 AM
With Hillary as their point woman we will be barraged with the feminism infatada, like the gay one we have been subjected to over the next couple of yrs.

CNN, and the rest of the liberal media will be waging propaganda campaigns like we have never seen.   It will be NOW style feminism on steroids.  It will use the gay infatada mass media tactics as a template.   "shame", "bullying", "disgrace", "sexist", "civil rights", will all be part of it.  Every single thing a woman does will be celebrated.  Like the woman UFC fighter.   Like the woman nascar racers.  They are the first this the first that.   All to coincide with the sudden need for the first woman president;  guess who.   There was never a peep when Sarah was a VP candidate.   Why?  Because it could not be a Republican.  It has to be a liberal staunch believer in the Democrat party and the socialist elite taking over the world.   For all our own good, of course.
2972  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: July 12, 2013, 07:58:32 AM
In the final paragraph the impression is being made that this is a "global warming" problem.   From what I read the glaciers on the West of Antarctica are shrinking but are getting larger on the East Side.   It is admitted the phenomenon of large ice breaks from glaciers is poorly understood.   
Yet the global warming crowd will seize on this and use it as armament for their cause of the day.
2973  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / This thread would be banned in Washington State on: July 11, 2013, 10:25:20 PM
It's starting.....

****Washington state gets rid of sexist language

 Claudine Zap July 3, 2013   
Achieving gender-neutral language is no small task, says a Washington state lawmaker from Seattle. (Thinkstock …

In Washington state, the word "freshman" is out. And "first-year student" is in. In total, 40,000 words have been changed as part of an effort to rid state statutes of gender-biased language.

The bill, signed into law earlier in the year by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, went into effect this week.

And it was no small task. "This was a much larger effort than I had envisioned. Mankind means man and woman," Democratic state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles of Seattle told Reuters.

"Fisherman" is now a "fisher." "Penmanship" is called "handwriting." And "manhole cover" is, well, still "manhole cover." Some words don’t have an easy replacement.

Others do: "His" is now “his and hers.” "Clergyman" is now "clergy." "Journeyman plumber" is now “journey-level plumber,” according to the Daily Mail.

According to Reuters, Washington is the fourth state to officially remove gender-biased language from the law. Others are Florida, North Carolina and Illinois. Nine other states are considering similar gender-neutral laws.

"Words matter," Liz Watson, a National Women's Law Center senior adviser, told Reuters. "This is important in changing hearts and minds."

France recently officially banned the term "mademoiselle" from official documents. The Gallic term means "miss," and French officials contended it forced women to acknowledge their marital status.

The French also bid adieu to "maiden name," which they dismissed as "archaic." They should know: Paris only recently got rid of a law that banned women from wearing pants.****
2974  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DARPA doing it again on: July 11, 2013, 09:55:17 PM
Bring the boys home.   Send in the terminators:
2975  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / glaciers growing or receding? on: July 11, 2013, 11:11:43 AM
2976  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / first color movie short on: July 09, 2013, 10:28:46 PM
2977  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / George Brett and the Pine Tar incident on: July 09, 2013, 08:53:52 PM
I remember this game well.  No one could believe George Brett going so bananas over being called out.   The homerun was reinstated.  So I guess there was no illegal use of extra pine tar.  But the day before the bat was covered in it?   In any case.  From what I recall, George Brett was never the same hitter again after this.  I don't know if that was coincidence or it affected his hitting skills thereafter:
2978  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: July 09, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
Good article and perspective.   She is far wiser than the guy in the White House.
2979  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyberwar and American Freedom on: July 09, 2013, 08:10:47 PM
Well its kind of hard to feel sorry for the likes of MSFT and Google and the like who hire teams of hackers and investigators to snoop all over the place when it is in their interests.

It is surely the case of the pot calling the kettle black.  I am not for any of it; corporate or governmental.   That said, I lament, there is no stopping it.

2980  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter is correct. on: July 09, 2013, 08:04:35 PM
Most Latinos want border security before legalization of illegals already here.   And why wouldn't they?   Same for Blacks.   Why would anyone in their right mind like having waves upon waves of people dragging down wages and competing with workers already here?  Unless of course they were employers taking advantage of these "undocumented" workers, including those who knowingly hire them as nannies, housekeepers, etc.  Or are Dem politicians who want more voters.  Or are Repub politicians bribed by the business interests who exploit these workers and screw the rest of us over.  

Republicans are too bribed, too stupid, or too timid to take advantage of this opportunity.  Coulter is correct.  No deal.  Secure the border then we figure out the rest later.   The Bushies need to go back to Texas and stay there.   While you're at it take Rove with you.  Rubio get your advice from Cruz, not the imperial DC crowd.  

Check out these poll numbers.  Laraza or whatever they are called don't speak for most Latinos.
2981  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Democrats, I mean smokers get a break on: July 09, 2013, 07:49:33 AM
I find this very hard to believe this is NOT political.   A "glitch".  Give me a break.  Everyone knows there are far more smokers on the lower non-taxpaying socioeconomic side of the voting spectrum.
This appears to be just another Democrat party thing.

******A break for smokers? Glitch may limit penalties

FILE - In this June 11, 2007 file photo, Helen Heinlo smokes outside of a coffee shop in Belmont, Calif. Some smokers trying to get coverage in 2014 under President Barack Obama’s health care law may get a break from tobacco-use penalties that could have made their premiums unaffordable. The Obama administration _ in yet another health care overhaul delay _ has quietly notified insurers that a computer system glitch will limit penalties that the law says the companies may charge smokers. A fix will take at least a year to put in place. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)

Associated Press
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press 31 minutes ago  Barack Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some smokers trying to get coverage next year under President Barack Obama's health care law may get a break from tobacco-use penalties that could have made their premiums unaffordable.

The Obama administration — in yet another health care overhaul delay — has quietly notified insurers that a computer system glitch will limit penalties that the law says the companies may charge smokers. A fix will take at least a year to put in place.

Older smokers are more likely to benefit from the glitch, experts say. But depending on how insurers respond to it, it's also possible that younger smokers could wind up facing higher penalties than they otherwise would have.

Some see an emerging pattern of last-minute switches and delays as the administration scrambles to prepare the Oct. 1 launch of new health insurance markets. People who don't have coverage on the job will be able to shop for private insurance, with tax credits to help pay premiums. Small businesses will have their own insurance markets.

Last week, the White House unexpectedly announced a one-year postponement of a major provision in the law that requires larger employers to offer coverage or face fines. Officials cited the complexity of the requirement as well as a desire to address complaints from employers.

"This was an administration that was telling us everything was under control," health care industry consultant Robert Laszewski said. "Everything was going to be fine. Suddenly this kind of stuff is cropping up every few days."

A June 28 Health and Human Services Department document couched the smokers' glitch in technical language:

"Because of a system limitation ... the system currently cannot process a premium for a 65-year-old smoker that is ... more than three times the premium of a 21-year-old smoker," the industry guidance said.

If an insurer tries to charge more, "the submission of the (insurer) will be rejected by the system," it added.

Starting in 2014, the law requires insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of pre-existing medical problems. But it also allows them to charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premiums — a way for insurers to ward off bad risks.

For an older smoker, the cost of the full penalty could be prohibitive.

Premiums for a standard "silver" insurance plan would be about $9,000 a year for a 64-year-old non-smoker, according to the online Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator. That's before any tax credits, available on a sliding scale based on income.

For a smoker of the same age, the full 50 percent penalty would add more than $4,500 to the cost of the policy, bringing it to nearly $13,600. And tax credits can't be used to offset the penalty.

The underlying reason for the glitch is another provision in the health care law that says insurers can't charge older customers more than three times what they charge the youngest adults in the pool. The government's computer system has been unable to accommodate the two. So younger smokers and older smokers must be charged the same penalty, or the system will kick it out.

That's not what insurers had expected. Before the glitch popped up, experts said the companies would probably charge lower penalties for younger smokers, and higher penalties for older ones.

"Generally a 20-year-old who smokes probably doesn't have much higher health costs than someone who doesn't smoke in any given year," said Larry Levitt, an insurance market expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "A 60-year-old is another story."

The administration is suggesting that insurers limit the penalties across all age groups. The HHS guidance document used the example of a 20 percent penalty.

In that case the premium for a 64-year-old would be about $10,900, a significant cut from the $13,600 if insurers charged the full penalty.

It's unclear what insurance companies will do. A spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the main industry trade group, said insurers were aware of the issue and expected the administration would fix it eventually.

Another workaround for the companies would be to charge the full penalty to both younger and older smokers. In that case, there wouldn't be any savings for older smokers, and younger ones would see a big price shock.

Levitt said he suspects insurers would keep the penalties low to sign up more young people. Laszweski said he thought they would do the opposite.

"It's going to throw cold water on efforts to get younger people to sign up," he said.

Workers covered through job-based health plans would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking cessation programs because employer plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually. *****
2982  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why did Romney lose? on: July 05, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
I don't know.  I think the previous article is full of hot air.

It didn't help Romney has zero charisma.   Indeed I don't recall anyone on this right of center board falling over their own feet getting to the head of the line to cheer for him during the Republican primaries.

I disagree with this statement:     

“A pinched understanding of human motivation led Romney to believe that a significant fraction of the voters had been bought off. They would be unalterably closed to his arguments no matter how cogent they were. That same pinched understanding led him to say things that repeatedly earned him opprobrium. It also led him to choose campaign strategists who reduced the high art of democratic politics—persuasion through reason and rhetoric, the heart of genuine political leadership—to the low crafts of polling and advertising.”

Polling most certainly did help Obama win.  Even Rove admits that the crats were way ahead of the Republicans with daily continuous polling data not static once a quarter stuff.
The Republicans were relying on polls that were flawed.   I recall Axelrod, when asked before the election what about the Rasmussen polls and he blew them off as "flawed".  Unfortunately he *was* right.   

And if this author thinks that it is easy to sell ideals like "freedom" liberty" "Constitution", etc. against cold hard cash in your pocket courtesy of taxpayers than he must reside in fairy land.

Until Republicans can come up with a strategy that is an appealing alternative to the 75% who live from paycheck to paycheck and have someone with charisma to persuade voters they will always fight the uphill battle.  IMHO of course.
2983  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Sergaent" Stubby on: July 04, 2013, 11:54:13 AM
The first official four legged trooper:
2984  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / One traveller's account. on: July 04, 2013, 11:45:40 AM
Someone I know who travels around the World went to Egypt not too long ago.   She loved the pyramids.   She did not go to see the mummies.  She is a Buddhist and does not believe in disturbing the dead.  But above all she complained about people approaching her and the other travelers trying to sell them things and asking for money.   She said it is like that in poor countries but in Egypt her experience was worse.   Usually one can just say no and the beggar or vendor would back off but there they were in her face and very pushy and would not take no for an answer. 

Just anecdotal.   

Anyone on this board been to Egypt?

2985  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: July 04, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
I didn't realize she is that popular.   Her legal logic seems sensible but not being an attorney I am not qualified to critique them.   

On a different take the mass media sexualization of the news is off the charts.  I have to say Fox news is probably one of the biggest peddlers of blonds of any of the news outlets.
2986  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / and another one from Noonan on: July 03, 2013, 09:38:17 PM
It appears Abe spent some months formulating and polishing his speech destined for the Ages.   

And he didn't need a teleprompter let alone a speechwriter.
2987  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Did a google images search on dogbrothers on: July 03, 2013, 08:50:40 PM
This is what came up:
2988  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Intel Matters on: July 03, 2013, 08:46:59 PM
Criticism of Brock from the left:
2989  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments on: July 03, 2013, 08:46:24 PM
The concept of double transparency is interesting.  It is kind of a mea culpa to the inevitable I guess.  A kind of mutually assured destruction for everyone. 

The only way double transparency could work in a fair and equitable world is to have cameras and audio cover every single inch of the planet and allow everyone access to all of it.

2990  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: July 03, 2013, 10:51:08 AM
Until Obama gets out of the way energy sits in a holding pattern on the runway.   Hillary will do whatever gets her the most votes.   So if  most people would like to open the energy tidal wave she will be for it.   If environmentalists win the propaganda war she will side with them.  We already know the Clintons are all poll driven.   Despite what Bill recently claims with his bravery in bombing Kosovo despite what the polls said.  (tail wagged the dog was the reason for that.  not "courage".  just self serving headline diversion).

2991  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: July 03, 2013, 10:44:31 AM
This question is not answered.   Where do we draw the line.   I noted in previous post that we could probably easily replace the entire US workforce including all blue collar and some white collar workers by simply opening up borders to any one willing for a bit less.

The result is wages keep being driven down.   As it stands now 75% of the nation cannot afford even putting a dime away into savings.  While we are all marketed to death by a consumer economy all day long.

This is why I think whoever has good answers (or believable) to this fundamental problem facing most Americans can easily win an election.

Yeah Rubio can try to curry favor with this Drudge reported bill he is going to propose making abortion illegal after 20 months.  Obviously to try to win back some love from conservatives he just squandered.   But to think this is going to win in 2016.   At least some of the talking heads on radio are waking up.   The politicians in DC are another story. 

I like Rubio.   He is not ready for big time national politics.   
2992  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: July 01, 2013, 08:40:30 AM
Yesterday the temperature hit 128 in death valley.  Highest recorded but today with the clarification - highest in *June*.  Over the last several days it was simply the highest recorded.

I've been to DV.  It was merely 110 at the time.  If one likes there is a golf course and a resort hotel in the middle.   Some of the colors of the mountains and bluffs are amazing as the sun shifts.

Other locations have very strong winds.  Sand dunes.   Cracked earth.   Lowest point below sea level.  Neat place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
2993  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / altering history to support a political agenda? on: June 30, 2013, 10:57:09 PM
No, you say.  Think again.
I remember reading in the 1960s about temperatures reaching the 130's.  I remember the record in the Guinness Book was in 1922 in Libya.   I am wondering why we keep hearing 122 in Death Valley is approaching the World record now.    Now I know.  The environmentalist have been able to expunge the 1922 record just recently in 2012.  Just in time for their media blitz to shove the carbon tax in front of our faces:

****What is the hottest air temperature ever recorded on earth?

In: Meteorology and Weather, Atmospheric Sciences, Temperature   

The world's highest recorded air temperature is officially recognized by the World Meteorological Organization as 134°F (57.6°C) recorded at Death Valley, California, USA on 10 July 1913.

 Note that this is in recorded history. Higher temperatures have occurred, of course, at different times during the 4.55 billion years of Earth's history.

Related Information:

 El Azizia, Libya, held this record for decades, after recording a temperature of 136 °F (58°C) on 13 September 1922. It was coincidentally also on 13 September of 2012 that this record was stripped by the WMO after a team of experts determined that there were enough questions surrounding this measurement that this temperature was probably not really recorded.

 The temperature had been suspect in atmospheric science circles for a number of reasons. One being that the time of year is inconsistent with such a high reading. Also, the type and exposure of the measuring instruments cast doubt on the accuracy of the data. However, other temperatures in the same general area approach that maximum, especially in the cloudless southern Sahara, far from the moderating effects of water. Several links are provided below for more information on this process.

Other Earth Temperature Highs:

 The modern, most reliably recorded air temperature at Death Valley was 129°F (54°C) on 7/20/1960, 7/18/1998, 7/20/2005, and 7/7/2007. Still, the hottest in the Western Hemisphere.

 The highest naturally occurring temperature (at Earth's core) is higher than the melting point of iron and is estimated to be approximately 5000°C.

 The highest temperature ever created in a laboratory experiment: Scientists, using the Z machine, have produced plasma at temperatures of more than 2 billion degrees Kelvin (3.6 billion degrees F) at Sandia National Laboratories, located near Albuquerque New Mexico.

 Dasht-e Lut, a desert in southeastern Iran, was identified as having the hottest surface temperature (not air temperature) of 70.7 degrees C (159 degrees F) This was only during the years of study in 2004 and 2005 by MODIS, which is a satellite remote sensor, mounted on NASA satellites Aqua and Terra.

Caveats to the Above:

 Modern measuring methods, instruments, and techniques are more sophisticated and standardized today. Example: The World Meteorological Organization, recommends that air temperatures be measured at a height of 1.25 to 2 meters (4.1010 to 6.5617 feet) above ground level.

 The most likely places on Earth for record high temperatures are in depressions in desert regions, especially in areas below sea level. The Dallol (Danakil) Depression in Africa (Ethiopia), Death Valley in USA, and the area around Lake Eyre in Australia are likely candidates. However, the Gobi Desert's temperatures, while far from any ocean, are mitigated by altitude. The Dallol (Danakil) Depression had a weather station for a short while, only a few years, that was run by a mining company. It wasn't there long enough to measure an extreme maximum to beat the Libyan record, although it did measure very high mean average temperatures while it operated.

 The thing to remember about very hot places, is that data is sparse. This is because very few people with high levels of technology stay in these places for long. The environment of the Danikil Depression is inimical (hostile) to human life.****
2994  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / military is now the NEW place to date on: June 30, 2013, 11:35:23 AM
I guess if I was younger and wanted to meet girls and get laid I could join the military..... new military recruiting ad can go like:

you need dates come and serve.  We have a huge selection of boys and girls gay straight you name it.

****The Pentagon's Surrender to Feminism

Pat Buchanan June 25, 2013  Society
"The Pentagon unveiled plans Tuesday for fully integrating women into front-line and special combat roles, including elite forces such as Army Rangers and Navy SEALs."

So ran the lead on the CNN story. And why are we doing this?

Did the young officers leading troops in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, returning with casualties, say they needed women to enhance the fighting efficiency of their combat units and the survival rate of their soldiers?

Did men from the 101st and 82nd airborne, the Marines, the SEALs and Delta Force petition the Joint Chiefs to put women alongside them in future engagements to make them an even superior force?

No. This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon's salute to feminist ideology.

This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.

But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.

"You don't hit a girl!" was something every American boy had drilled into him from childhood. It was part of our culture, the way we were raised. A Marine friend told me he would have resigned from the Corps rather than fight women with the pugil sticks used for bayonet practice at Parris Island.

Sending women into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive. Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber women in prisons 10 to 1.

For every Bonnie Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.

Is it a coincidence that every massacre discussed in our gun debate — from the Texas Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Ft. Hood, from Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown — was the work of a crazed male?

Nothing matches mortal combat where soldiers fight and kill, and are wounded, maimed and die for cause or country. Domestically, the closest approximations are combat training, ultimate fighting, boxing and that most physical of team sports, the NFL.

Yet no women compete against men in individual or team sports. They are absent from boys' and men's teams in high school and college, be it football, basketball, baseball, hockey or lacrosse.

Even in the non-contact sports of golf, tennis and volleyball, men compete with men, women against women. In the Olympics, to which nations send their best athletes, women and men compete separately in track and field, swimming and gymnastics.

Consider our own history. Would any U.S. admiral say that in any of America's great naval battles — Mobile Bay, Manila Bay, Midway, the Coral Sea — we would done better with some women manning the guns?

In the revolutionary and civil wars, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam, women were not in combat. Was it invidious discrimination of which we should all be ashamed that women were not fighting alongside the men at Gettysburg, in the Argonne, at Normandy or with "Chesty" Puller's Marines in the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir?

Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?

Carry this feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls and women. Is this not an absurdity?

We have had Navy ships become "love boats," with female sailors returning pregnant. At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed and frightened to report it.

An estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory factor here?

Among the primary reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future war, women could be drafted equally with men, and sent in equal numbers into combat.

But what appalled the Reaganites is social progress in the age of Obama. This is another country from the one we grew up in.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at

2995  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / It's the economy stupid. Yes, but more specifically... on: June 29, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
It is this fact, that most Americans have no savings and live paycheck to paycheck that threatens this country, freedom from tyranny and the Republican party more than anything else in my very humble opinion.   Whichever party can address this concern of the vast majority of Americans will win.  So far the crats win because they offer taxpayer money to support people who are struggling.   The Republicans still do not, don't even seem to be thinking correctly in these terms, are split in calculating they have to compromise, or completely not compromise.   Both of these approaches are off base.

When people are living paycheck to paycheck who do you think they are going to vote for?  The party that offers them public assistance or the party that preaches things like "constitution", freedom, lower taxes, jobs, jobs, jobs.   All of the latter miss the mark.   They are all correct but they alone are not the right message.

"They who answer this shall have all the power".   Verse 1 from ccp.  

So far the crats do the job.  Of course at great harm to taxpayers and the country as a whole but for those living from paycheck to paycheck the rest is all back seat stuff.  

"He who answers this will get the independents, more minorities, more races, maybe a few single mothers.   As for gays who knows and who cares."  Verse 2 ccp
2996  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: June 29, 2013, 03:49:05 PM
Maybe Rush is wrong.   Maybe it is not about the money after all .  Perhaps some Republicans are just that stupid?  sad
2997  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Mark Steyn: on: June 29, 2013, 09:25:40 AM
2998  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: June 28, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Could anyone imagine Clinton honoring their political enemy like this?

All they have to do when she runs against Bush is replay this image of him honoring her.   

2999  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: June 28, 2013, 09:19:17 AM
Off of Yahoo political news this AM.  This guy is some sort of pollster or political scientist?  This says nothing.   Does not get to the core problems and as always there is the eternal plug that Republicans can simply not get over "their hatred of Obama".  If Republican politicians are listening to these kinds of consultants than it is obvious why they cannot win.   I could write circles around this guy.  I agree with Rush.  Our leaders cannot be this "stupid".  It has to be about the money.   Like all else in the world.   Republicans politicians are on the hook.   LIke Armstrong said about biking, "you cannot win the Tour" without doping.  One cannot stay in power in Washington without having to play the money game.  Just won't happen.    As for this article it reportedly answers why Americans are divided.  After reading the article I see no answer listed.   Yet this headline Yahoo news.  Again this stuff gets headlines and as always there is the bash against Republicans slipped in there.   I have to wonder if this part of the media propaganda machine from the left?

*****Why Americans Are Divided Between Two Political Parties

National Journal
Charlie Cook 5 hours ago 
After President Obama’s rather comfortable victory over Mitt Romney last November, some Democrats thought the president could defy the laws of political gravity. They are now disappointed. So are Republicans who thought that controversies over Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service, and domestic surveillance would bring Obama’s approval ratings crashing down into the 30s, if not the 20s, as has happened with some second-term presidents. Obama’s approval numbers have been on a very gradual decline and are now at the political equilibrium point where equal numbers of Americans approve and disapprove.

In Gallup polling the week of June 17-23, 46 percent approved and disapproved of Obama’s performance. If you take an average of the most recent polls by ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, CNN, Fox News, Pew Research, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal, all conducted either this month or last, Obama’s approval is a point higher, 47 percent, with a disapproval of, you guessed it, 47 percent. This puts Obama’s job-approval rating at basically the same place as George W. Bush’s at this point in his second term and behind the 55 percent and 58 percent levels where Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were, respectively, at this stage.

The good news for Obama is that the economy is getting better. The bad news is that Washington and much of the news coverage in recent weeks have been focused on just about everything but the economy.

Of course, Republicans not only want to see Obama’s numbers drop but their party’s favorability ratings climb. So far, that hasn’t happened. Gallup polling shows that the percentage of Americans viewing the Republican Party favorably has been declining since the beginning of 2011. Most recently, in a June 1-4 poll, 39 percent rated the party favorably, 53 percent unfavorably, compared with 46 percent who saw the Democratic Party favorably and 48 percent unfavorably (which is certainly nothing for Democrats to cheer about). The other two major national polls asking about party ratings in the past two months indicated that the GOP’s brand damage has continued. The Pew Research Center pegged Democrats with 51/45 favorable/unfavorable ratings, in contrast to Republicans’ 39/53 ratings. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Democrats at 39/37 and Republicans at 32/41. Average the three polls together, and 45 percent gave Democrats a favorable rating and 43 percent unfavorable, compared with 37 percent with favorable views of the Republican Party and 50 percent unfavorable.

Even stipulating for a moment that the Republican brand is badly damaged, we can’t say that this will be the determining factor in the 2014 midterm elections. We know that in recent years the kinds of voters who have boosted Democrats in presidential years have a track record of staying home in midterms. Even some Democrats totally enamored with Obama are unlikely to show up and vote for a congressional candidate whom they don’t know.

Another potentially important issue is the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.” Unquestionably health care, aided by a weak economy, was most responsible for Democrats in 2010 losing their House majority and a half-dozen seats in the Senate. In 2009 and 2010, during the height of the health care debate, some people decided that Obama’s proposal was terrific, many thought it was terrible, while still others were ambivalent. Few minds were changed in either direction during 2011 or 2012.

But what about 2013 and 2014, as more elements become operative? The Kaiser Family Foundation’s health tracking poll asks about current attitudes toward the health care law. At the moment, 35 percent have a favorable impression of the law, 43 percent have an unfavorable impression, and 23 percent remain undecided. Equally important, twice as many Americans, 30 percent, have a “very unfavorable” view, compared with just 15 percent who have a “very favorable” one. Indeed, the people who don’t like the ACA hate it (30 percent very unfavorable, 13 percent somewhat unfavorable), but the people who like it don’t necessarily love it (15 percent very favorable, 20 percent somewhat favorable). In recent months the unfavorable share has been gradually increasing, and the favorable share has been in a slow slide, although nothing earth-shattering. The key is those undecided in the middle, many of whom are cross-pressured on the issue. They may think we needed to do something about the affordability and access of health care, but they aren’t sure whether this law was the right way to do it.

The thing that makes it difficult for Republicans to capitalize on the ACA issue is that many in the party are so blinded by their hate for Obama and Obamacare that only the word “repeal” comes out of their mouths. This is something that is virtually impossible to achieve unless Republicans get at least 60 seats in the Senate, which is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. Smarter Republicans would say that “we need to fix Obamacare,” or that “we need to make changes to the law so it won’t screw up health care.” These sorts of arguments are more likely to resonate with voters outside of the party’s conservative base (keeping in mind that only 35 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives—25 percent are liberal, 40 percent moderate, according to the 2012 exit polls, roughly the same as in other national polls).

So, at the halfway point of 2013, we’re at a place where we still don’t know what the dominant theme will be in the 2014 midterm elections, and that probably won’t change until this fall, at the earliest.****

3000  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: June 26, 2013, 07:50:13 PM

I doubt it will hit 120 in Vegas this week.  Also Tsunamis in NJ?   Come on.  We are being barraged with endless scare tacticts.  No coincidence.   Sooner or later that island will split in the Canary islands and a wave will wipe out the East Coast.  So we should stop fracking?

Yes.  Now he is not up for election he is ramming everything through he can.   Then Hillary is going to "fight for women"  against the "war on women" from the Republicans. 

Women will eat it right up too.

I don't understand why taxpayers just cannot get traction?   I guess there are more of them then us as Marc Levin once put it.
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 124
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!