Greg Schiano Interviews for Michigan Coaching Job

Jim Carty reports on MLive.com that Rutger's head coach Greg Schiano was interviewed for the head coaching job at the University of Michigan. Considering all the hoopla surrounding Les Miles, this is welcoming news. He may not be Les, but at least he ain't Ferentz!

BREAKING NEWS: Michigan Interviews Schiano

Scientists Hope for Pain-Free Cancer Treatment

Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin have uncovered a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

A very preliminary study involving gene therapy for the treatment of cancer has discovered the possibility of pain-free chemotherapy. The revolutionary type of gene therapy (known as RNA interference and developed in 2002) allowed scientists to "silence" certain cancer-promoting genes within a tumor. This made cancer cells up to 10,000 times more sensitive to anti-cancer drugs! In addition, because scientists were able to specifically target cancer-promoting genes, significantly smaller doses of anti-cancer drugs were required for successful treatment.

Scientists believe that the more effective, low-dose cancer treatment will virtually eliminate the painful side effects commonly associated with chemotherapy.

Animal studies are now underway to see if the preliminary lab results can be replicated.

For the full story visit Red Orbit.

Study: THC in Marijuana Cuts Cancer Risk in Half

A recent study at Harvard found that marijuana use is helpful in reducing the growth of cancerous tumors. The reason? THC. The compund responsible for the "high" in marijuana was found to significantly reduce the growth of lung tumors by almost half! The animal studies conducted also found that THC is effective in preventing the spread of cancer.

This is not to say that smoking is harmless - many cigarette and marijuana smokers will attest to the fact that smoke in your lungs can cause many other ailments such as chronic cough, asthma and emphesyma.

That said, this study adds to the list of others which have found that THC is in fact beneficial. Personally, these studies further lend creedence to my belief that marijuana is in fact a miracle drug.

Read the full press release below.

Press Release
Source: American Association for Cancer Research
Date: April 17, 2007

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Δ-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.

In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. "When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays," Preet said.

Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is," she said.

Kids Who Take Sexual Abstinence Classes...

A newly released study has found that kids who take abstinence classes... (you ready for this?)... DON'T ABSTAIN!

And to think that Bush and Company puts in $176 million dollars of tax payers' money ANNUALY toward a program that everyone but the ignorati knows doesn't work.

The study found that those who attended abstinence classes averaged the same number of sexual partners than those kids who did not. In addition, the onset of sexual activity was no different. The abstinence class participants had sex at about the same age than the control group - 14 years and 9 months.

It should be obvious what BushCo will do in response to this new study - intimidate the researchers to shut their mouths, attack the credibility of the researchers, re-word the data in their favor and pump more money into abstinence programs.

For the full report go here.






















Picture credit: David Honig
hypnocrites.blogspot.com

Cute and Unlikely Animal Pairings

Who Really Killed JFK?

.... a man by the name of E. Howard Hunt knows.

Read the condensed answer here.
Read the full length explanation here.

The full length article was written by Erik Hedegaard for Rolling Stone.

Bill O'Reilly is Fucking Insane

Bill O'Reilly (God I can't even spell his name without cringing) once again shows the world why he is an evil, racist, fascist douchebag.

I am not the type of person that believes its right to wish harm on any individual BUT, would I really be so sad if this guy had a massive heart attack and died? Not exactly. I'm sure his own family holds the same sentiment. I mean, can you imagine having to sit at the dinner table with this guy?

In his latest rant, Fucker (as I like to call him), had Geraldo on his show to talk about two girls who were killed by a drunk driver. The man responsible for the crime was an illegal alien, mind you - so you can venture to guess where the 'discussion' went.

Anyway, with as much sensitivity as Fucker is capable of having (i.e. none), he turns the issue into one about illegal immigration because as everyone knows, brown people are responsible for all crime in this country.

Thankfully however, Geraldo (of all people), calls Fucker out on his Xenophobia. Bill O'Reilly flipped out - so much so that I was half expecting him to pull a Wayne Brady and choke a bitch (who unfortunately would have been Geraldo). I tend to believe that Geraldo was at the ready and had calculated the most efficient way to grab the nearest chair and swing had Fucker attacked - although, Evil probably doesn't go down that easy.

Anyway, say a little prayer, make the sign of the cross and hit PLAY to watch the video below which not surprisingly, has been making the rounds.

CNN.com Sucks

Something that has always bothered me about CNN.com is this: notice how many of their stories are in VIDEO ONLY format.

Why do they find it necessary to include video only stories on their web page? I understand most individuals like media content like this, but to make half of your stories video only and not include a written story is very annoying. It's not that I can't easily open up a video and watch the story on my computer, but I'm forced to watch a 30 second commercial before it?! Fuck that.

It's a waste of time and to be honest, I have no idea why I periodically go there. I've been weening myself off biased news sites for some time anyway, but every now and then they suck me back in.

Thank God for Google news and reddit.com. A few months ago I would have also been grateful for Digg.com but it too has gone to shit for a whole other reason. (Fascists assholes!)

Good Reason to Stick to Pot

Too weird not to post. The title of the video says it all.
Crazy girl hardcore dancing in Tokyo.

Operation Bite: War with Iran April 6, 2007

Russian sources report imminent war with Iran on April 6, 2007. I first read about this on governmentdirt.com, but it appears to have originated at the Online Journal. Let's hope this is completely inaccurate.

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn
By Webster G. Tarpley
Mar 26, 2007, 01:02

WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.

“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

Resources:

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

Stars and Planets to Scale

A star over 2 billion miles in diameter should have the effect of making you feel quite insignificant in relation to the universe.

John McCain's MySpace Page Hacked

I just had to put this up. What 70 year old straight man doesn't want to see two passionate females loving each other?


Visit TechCrunch for the full story.

Drugs and Toxicity

This chart is from an article by Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic on the toxicity of drugs. The chart represents the level of toxicity for a few of them. The numbers represent how many more doses you would need to take of a drug to die, in relation to its effective dose. For heroin to be lethal it would only take a dose of about 5 more times its point of effectiveness. Not surprisingly, marijuana takes more than 1,000 doses for it to kill you. Read the article here.

Occult Serial Killings in a Texas Border Community

In April of 1989, a south Texas border community was brought to its feet by the discovery of bizarre, ritualistic and torturous killings which occurred in a small ranch outside of Matamoros, Mexico. One of the 13 mutilated bodies discovered was that of Mark Kilroy, a 21 year old student at the University of Texas at Austin. Kilroy had been tortured mercilessly; his skull split open and his brain removed. Authorities later discovered Mark Kilroy’s brain in a cast-iron cauldron called a Nganga among other remains which included: various animals, spiders, scorpions, a horseshoe, a turtle shell and a human spinal column – all which had been boiled in blood.

The uncovering of remains

The mastermind behind the murders was a Cuban immigrant and drug-smuggler named Adolfo Jesus de Constanzo. Constanzo and company sacrificed their victims and used their body parts in magical incantations and rituals – rituals that were very loosely based on a religion known as Palo Mayombe. (In truth, however, many of the cult members who participated in the slayings practiced a combination of Palo Mayombe, Roman Catholicism and Santeria.) Palo mayombe, according to Wikipedia, originated in central Africa but was spread to Cuba by slaves. In the mid 19th century, Palo Mayombe spread to Haiti and the Dominican Republic and to other Afro-Latino communities in the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia and Puerto Rico. The focus of worship revolves around a consecrated religious receptacle or alters known as Nganga. Just as was found in Adolfo’s site of sacrifice, the Nganga is usually filled with sticks (palos), human remains and other items. As an infant in Cuba, Constanzo’s father convinced a Palo Mayombe practicing priest that his son was a “chosen one” who was “destined for great power”. With the full blessings of his Palo Mayombe-practicing mother, Constanzo began an apprenticeship with a Haitian priest in Miami when he was only 10 years old.

Constanzo’s mother Delia Aurora Gonzalez was often in trouble with the law but always managed to elude prosecution. Delia believed that her religion gave her magical powers to evade punishment for her crimes. She would often move from place to place with her son, often leaving homes despoiled and blood-stained, often littered with remains of animals which had been sacrificed. Obviously, this had a profound effect on Adolfo and he too began to believe that Palo Mayombe provided magical protection from harm. When he was 19 years old, Constanzo pledged his allegiance to Kadiempembe, an African-based deity most often associated with the Christian version of Satan. With the blessing of his mentor, he devoted himself to the worship of evil for profit – specifically using his religion to help his own drug dealings and cursing and/or killing members of rival gangs.

Mark Kilroy wasn’t the first to be sacrificed, but he was the one victim who inadvertently brought about the downfall of this dangerous murdering cult. Unlike the other victims, Mark Kilroy was an American; he was Anglo, came from a well-to-do family and had an uncle in the U.S. Customs Service. Immediately after his disappearance, his family made television appearances and offered a $15,000 reward for anyone with information regarding his disappearance. Adolfo and his gang soon realized that they had picked on the wrong guy. Many of their victims at that time had been rival drug dealers, members of their own cult, or individuals who were simply not missed. Unfortunately for the Kilroy family, Adolfo had killed Mark Kilroy almost immediately upon taking him to the ranch known as Rancho Santa Elena.

Rancho Santa Elena was discovered when farmers around the area reported hearing “strange noises” coming from the site during the middle of the night. In fact, people around the area were afraid of the site because they believed it was evil and heard that “witches” would often congregate there. Fearful, many who knew those details remained quiet for a long time. When the discovery was made, however, all hell broke loose and the media frenzy began.

At the time, I was 9 years old and vividly remember the panic that ensued right after the grizzly discovery. The timing of such a case was extraordinary as Geraldo Rivera (as many of you remember) was in the midst of scaring Americans to death with his reports that Satanists were all over the country sacrificing babies and such. This case at the time only solidified the belief that Satanists were in fact real and sacrificed individuals without remorse – all in the name of Satan. To make matters worse, this was happening in my very own backyard. In order to quantify the panic, you need to understand that I was born and raised in the Rio Grande Valley, located at the southernmost tip of Texas. Predominantly Hispanic, the area to this day is serious about their Catholicism and uber-sensitive to anything involving the supernatural. In addition, the area is considered one of the poorest regions in the United States and not surprisingly, many are also poorly educated. So not only was Geraldo Rivera scaring the shit out of well-informed, educated Americans – he was also doubly scaring those who simply didn’t know any better. This was evident by the rampant rumors that soon started after the revelation that people had, in fact, been sacrificed – and all just a stones throw away from our own homes.

News channels in the area reported that schools across the Rio Grande Valley had begun to receive calls that children were to be kidnapped and sacrificed in retaliation for disturbing a sacred site. In fact, schools really were receiving threats, but many of these were later attributed to sick individuals bent on having a little fun at everyone else’s expense. To make matters worse, Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo and his disciples had not been caught. The gang was on the run and numerous sightings across the region and as far north as Chicago were being reported almost daily. In my particular case, the doors of my school were locked and every single student was corralled into the cafeteria. The only way we were allowed to leave was if our parents personally came to the school and signed us out. Cities along the border instated curfews and many required that all children be accompanied by an adult. News agency’s also reported that children should not be left outside to play unsupervised – even in the middle of the day! This scene was repeated at almost every school and city across the Rio Grande Valley, a large region that runs 100 miles east and west along the Rio Grande River, extending out to the Gulf of Mexico.

Some time during the big brouhaha, a church in Pharr, Texas was burned to the ground by angry locals because it was believed to be a Satanic Church. Rumor had it that this church was responsible for the kidnapping threats and had ties to the Constanzo cult. Although the church had existed within the community for 16 years, its name dealt its fate. The Church of Fire, as it was unfortunately named, was in fact a Bible-based Christian church. Many of its members’ homes were also threatened with the same fate despite this fact. As this case illustrates perfectly, panic trumped all reason.

The communities affected by this bizarre case tried desperately to return to normal to no avail. Those who were capable of committing such a horrendous crime time and time again were still out there. On April 24, 1989, one of the cult members Jorge Montes was arrested in his home and wasted no time in implicating Adolfo as the mastermind behind the murders. Unfortunately, he proved to be no help in locating Adolfo and other cult members. On May 2nd at a hideout in Mexico City, Sara Maria Aldrete, one of the cult members wrote a note on a piece of paper and threw it out the window because she feared for her life. The note read:

"Please call the judicial police and tell them that in this building are those that they are seeking. Tell them that a woman is being held hostage. I beg for this, because what I want most is to talk--or they’re going to kill the girl."

Unfortunately, the note fell into the hands of a passerby who believed it to be a joke and did not report what he had found. On May 6th, police began going door-to-door looking for a missing child from an unrelated case. When the police approached Adolfo’s hideout, he assumed they were there for him and opened fire with a machine gun. Ala-Hitler, Adolfo instructed one of his cronies to kill him and another member – and if he didn’t, things would go bad for him in hell. With that prompt, Adolfo was killed by his own machine gun.

Three remaining members were found alive in the home and were immediately arrested and sentenced between 35-67 years in prison. In a Mexican prison, that’s as good as a death sentence. Additionally, 11 other members were indicted on various charges related to the murders at Ranch Santa Elena. When the remaining members of Constanzo’s crew were interviewed, they explained that the true inspiration for human sacrifice came from the motion picture, The Believers (1987) which Adolfo made them watch 14 times. In the movie, a high-priest uses human sacrifice to gain supernatural powers.

Arrested cult members
The true number of victims will never be known. Police discovered 13 mutilated bodies at the ranch. However, according to crimelibrary.com, Mexico City reported 74 unsolved ritualistic killings between 1987 and 1989 with 14 of them involving infant children. Police suspect that Constanzo’s cult was responsible for 16 of those – all of which involved children or teenagers, but the lack of evidence prevented the authorities from pressing charges.

Things slowly returned to normal in this south Texas region but remnants of that experience remain to this day. The following year, many schools across the region decided to tone down any attempt at celebrating the occult (i.e. Halloween) and banned all costumes which contained an “occult” theme, this included fairies, ghosts, smurfs, witches (good and bad) - even Casper the Ghost was banned! Some schools banned Halloween altogether and many of these districts still enforce the bans to this day.

For more in-depth information about the killings, check out the following links:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/constanzo/8.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_mayombe
http://www.theisticsatanism.com/asp/realcrime.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0061a.html

Maglev: Fastest Train in the World

Magnetic levitation technology has allowed us to view train travel in a whole new way. Maglev trains require no engine and travel using a magnetic field produced by electromagnetic coils. Because maglev trains never touch the track, no friction is created, allowing maglev trains to accelerate and travel at ridiculous speeds. The Shanghai Maglev Train was recorded traveling at a top speed of 313mph. Traveling at those speeds would get you from Paris to Rome in a little over 2 hours.

Check out this video of a maglev toy train which exemplifies this process well.



The video below is 10 minutes long but gives you an idea of how quickly a maglev train can accelerate. This is the Shanghai Maglev - this particular train ride reached a speed of 430km/h (about 269 mph). A look out the window at this speed is mesmerising, if a bit nauseating!



For more info visit: http://www.howstuffworks.com/maglev-train.htm

Screenshots of Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10 with Beryl (A Linux OS)

Forget about Vista! The screenshots and video clip below are of my desktop computer with a Linux desktop environment called Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10 with Beryl Windows Manager installed on a 2002 1.9GHz Gateway Intel Pentium 4 computer with 256MB Memory and an NVIDIA GeForce2 MX graphics card.

Although ease of use hasn't been Linux-based operating systems strong point, things have recently begun to change. With large Linux communities like linuxquestions.org and linux.org, it is becoming easier to find the support needed to make the transition from Windows to Linux. There are some pros and cons to every OS out there, but Linux platforms like Ubuntu (especially their latest Edgy Eft release) can make older computers run like new and have very little (if any) virus threats.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding: Below is a video clip and a few screenshots of my own desktop with Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10. Note that the Edgy Eft download does not provide you with the type of window manipulations you see below - rather that is the product of a windows manager called Beryl:

"Beryl is a combined window manager and composite manager written in C using OpenGL to provide acceleration. It is designed to be highly flexible, extensible, and portable, all the while keeping in mind that the users know how they want their desktops to act better than we do. With Beryl the rather esoteric concept of the computer desktop is brought down to a more human level, allowing for a more native and intuitive understanding of your workspace. To learn more about Beryl and its features visit our Feature Spotlight," (from http://www.beryl-project.org).

I have had this particular setup for about 4 months now, a few months before Vista's release. In fact, Edgy Eft has been available since October, 2006.

Despite the pros, Edgy Eft with Beryl is sometimes unstable, especially on older computers. About once every couple of weeks some weird graphics problem will arise like frozen windows. In addition, I've noticed that some p2p clients like Limewire will not work for me when I have Beryl running. I probably experience this more than most since my computer dates back to 2002. When this happens, however, I simply revert back to the default Gnome Desktop setting that comes with Edgy Eft and everything resumes normal operation - and all without restarting my computer.(As an ex-Windows user, the same computer with an XP OS was crashing almost daily.) Despite the minor disruptions, I am still very impressed with the amazing windows graphics and functionality that I am currently getting. Overall, I am really enjoying my desktop environment, something I haven't done in a long time. Plus, Ubuntu and Beryl are both FREE!

The fact that I can have the type of functionality shown below with the following computer specs is simply amazing!

2002 Gateway Intel Pentium 4
1.9GHz
256MB Memory
GeForce2 MX/AGP/SSE2

For Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10 please visit www.ubuntu.com
For Beryl Windows Manager visit www.beryl-project.org

Linux - Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10 with Beryl
Uploaded by elguercoterco

Illegal Immigration

This is the definition of a vicious cycle. We need to figure this out quick. Hopefully we can come to some resolve, and soon. For the sake and lives of those crossing, and for those of us here in the U.S. who are forced to support them. I understand why they come. They have nothing. I blame that on the caste system in Mexico. The white rich and mestizo poor. The poor are poor because their jobs just don't pay. And those jobs are the same jobs that support our own middle class in the U.S. In Monterrey, for example, Mexico's Rich Industrial Center, public school teachers get paid on average of $200-$300 dollars a month. That's about $6 to $10 dollars a day. Even with a wall, they will continue to find ways to get into this country because their life depends on it. So what to do?

Below is a paragraph from Wikipedia on illegal immigration which illustrates the cycle well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

The United States Government Accountability Office estimates that “between 400,000 and 700,000 unauthorized migrants have entered the United States each year since 1992.” A substantial portion did so by crossing either the United States–Mexico border or the United States-Canada border.[4]

According to the Pew Hispanic Center somewhat more than half of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country illegally rather than overstay their visas, where "Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded or swam across the Rio Grande or American Canal in California or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada." [5]

Stricter enforcement of the border has failed to significantly curb illegal immigration, instead pushing the flow into more remote regions, slightly reducing the rate of apprehensions and increasing the cost to taxpayers of each arrest from $300 in 1992 to $1700 in 2002. [6] Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as San Diego and El Paso, which do have extensive border fencing, diverting illegal immigrants into rural mountainous and desert areas. The border between Arizona and Mexico has become a major entrance area for illegal immigration to the United States, due in part to the increased difficulty of crossing illegally in California.[7] Each year there are several hundred immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. The number of deaths has been steadily increasing since the middle 1990s with exposure (including heat stroke, dehydration, and hypothermia) a leading cause.[8]

The tightening of border enforcement has disrupted the "traditional" circular movement of migrant workers from Mexico by increasing the costs and risks of crossing the border, thereby reducing their rate of return migration to Mexico. The difficulty of the journey has prompted many migrant workers to stay in the United States longer or indefinitely.[9]

Why the Towers Fell: Two Theories

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Vermont Guardian
March 1, 2007
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

(William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.)

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

Marijuana NOT a major Cancer risk, studies find...

I was reading an article today about an organization called Americans for Safe Access (ASA) which has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human services. In a nutshell, this organization represents patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens who advocate the safe use of and access to medical marijuana. ASA's suit claims that the government is using taxpayers money to disseminate false information about the 'dangers' of marijuana, much of which is presented in direct contradiction to scientific findings.

This isn't breaking news by any means. It's widely known that the government has largely failed on its war on drugs and Nancy Regan's 'Just Say No' campaign in the '80's correlated with an increase drug use among adolescent individuals. Despite the obvious failure, our government continues to spend taxpayer money on trying to convince the public that marijuana can and will lead to an awful case of Reefer Madness.

All of this brouhaha got me thinking about a couple of articles I read a couple of years back which went largely unnoticed, (surprisingly). One of the articles spoke about a study of 2,200 people in Los Angeles which found that marijuana users were no more likely than nonusers to develop lung, head or neck cancers. Another article from 2005, also described a study which had found no cancer risk resulting from marijuana use - even in multiple, daily users. In fact, both of these studies found evidence implicating THC as a potentially cancer-PREVENTING chemical. Because I haven't read the actual published articles for these studies (something I plan to do in the near future) I cannot vouch for the reliability and validity or the overall statistical design of these studies. Nonetheless, these PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED articles are reporting a common finding - that marijuana use and cancer don't correlate. Granted, smoke in your lungs is smoke in your lungs - no matter which way you look at it - and can itself cause its own medical problems. For example, respiratory problems and chronic cough are all a result of heavy smoke inhalation regardless of whether you're inhaling cigarette or marijuana smoke - but for our own government to ignore science (i.s. see Global Warming) altogether is unacceptable.

I myself am not only an advocate of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, but I am also of the field who believes marijuana as a whole should be legal and taxed just as nicotine and alcohol are today.

Below I provide both of the articles in question. Please feel free to forward this post on or copy and paste these articles to your friends. It's information well worth being exposed to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marijuana not a major cancer risk, says study
by Amy Norton,
Reuters News Agency
Oct. 26, 2005

Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer- causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report.

The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.

Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.

But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.

Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.

Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.

THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.

All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.

If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.

U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marijuana Cancer Risk Played Down
By Heather Burke, Bloomberg News
Source: Boston Globe
May 24, 2006

New York -- People who smoke marijuana may be at less risk of developing lung cancer than tobacco smokers, according to a study presented yesterday.
The study of 2,200 people in Los Angeles found that even heavy marijuana smokers were no more likely to develop lung, head, or neck cancer than nonusers, in contrast with tobacco users, whose risk increases the more they smoke.

The findings seemed to be a surprise; marijuana smoke has some of the same cancer-causing substances as tobacco smoke, often in higher concentrations, said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, a professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. One possible explanation is that THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, a key ingredient in marijuana not present in tobacco, may inhibit tumor growth, he said.

``You can't give marijuana a completely clean bill of health," said Tashkin, who planned a presentation of the study yesterday before the American Thoracic Society. ``I wouldn't give any smoke substance a clean bill of health. All you can say is we haven't been able to confirm our suspicions that marijuana might be a risk factor for lung and head and neck cancer."

About 1,200 adults under 60 with cancer of the lung, tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, took part in the study, as well as about 1,000 without cancer. The study ran from 1999 to 2003.

Marijuana use was found to have been no greater or less in any of the groups, 44 percent of those with lung cancer, 41 percent with head or neck cancers, and 42 percent of those without cancer, Tashkin said.

Other studies had suggested that marijuana smoking was a risk factor for cancer, Tashkin said. Marijuana smokers inhale more deeply than tobacco smokers, and often hold the smoke in their lungs more than four times longer, depositing more tar, he said.

The results of Tashkin's study corroborated some earlier research, said Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which advocates legalizing marijuana use. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, Tashkin said.

Note: Tobacco is called a bigger threat.

Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Author: Heather Burke, Bloomberg News
Published: May 24, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: letter@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/

Related Articles:

Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21869.shtml

Mary Jane Trumps Joe Camel
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21868.shtml

No Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21866.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. Law Allows Chemical/Biological Testing on You

And people say Chemtrails are a bunch of bullshit...

PUBLIC LAW 105—85—NOV. 18, 1997: USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

The Perpetuating Myth About a 'Pseudo-Science'

Recently while trudging through the vast information on the government's plan to kill us all (I wish I was kidding), I came across this gem. Psychology and psychiatry have been perpetuated by many theorists as the devil incarnate - albeit, for good reason. The sordid history of these two fields is rife with scary stories of experiments that amounted to nothing more than psychological torture, simply put. However, just as medicine has come a long way from prescribing radioactive water for those "under-the-weather" days, so too has the field of mental health. That's not to say that there aren't still some very controversial practices in the world of healing - but any responsible "theorist" should be careful to understand the difference between then and now.

Dr. John Breeding of Austin, TX has an article up on infowars.com (by famed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones)claiming that there is no biological or environmental basis for mental disorders (he specifies a few specifically). His article is an example of someone in the "alarmist" mode. When someone is in this mode, they tend to spew out a smorgasbord of facts, half-truths, lies, and assumptions - and usually in one breath. Although I agree with some of the information he presents in a couple of points, his first point caught my attention. Follow the link for the complete article. For now, I only want to focus on his first claim.

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/psch_schools.htm

"1. No children's behavioral problem routinely seen by a psychiatrist or other physician has been scientifically demonstrated to be of biological or genetic causation. There is no objective test, no confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality—for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, or any of the other childhood diagnoses popular among psychiatrists. These diagnoses are wholly subjective, based on judgments of what is and isn't normal behavior."
_________________________________________________

First and foremost, I'd like to know what behavioral problem he's talking about here. There are a few. Although I haven't read about empirically proven biological genetic markers for ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder)(you might have, though), writing that OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and ADHD aren't the result of biological or genetic causes is simply the result of laziness on his part; I say this because it is quite obvious that Dr. Breeding has failed to read any recent, relevant and peer-reviewed literature on the topic. Although there hasn't been an individual gene identified as the cause of OCD, the interplay among a few genes have been suspect. The article below summarizes a smidgen of the most recent research in this area - I do have the actual journal articles in pdf format if you'd care to read them.

__________________________________________________

"In two papers published simultaneously in the Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers from the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Chicago and the University of Toronto report finding an association between OCD patients and a glutamate transporter gene called SLC1A1.

The gene encodes a protein called EAAC1 that regulates the flow of a substance called glutamate in and out of brain cells. So, variations in the gene might lead to alterations in that flow, perhaps putting a person at increased risk of developing OCD.

The new findings are especially important not only because of the simultaneous discoveries reported in the papers, but also because of previous studies that show a functional link between glutamate and OCD. Brain imaging and spinal fluid studies have shown differences in the glutamate system between OCD patients and healthy volunteers, including in areas of the brain where the EAAC1 protein is most common."
(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uomh-ngf072606.php)
__________________________________________________

This isn't your Freudian psychology we're talking about here folks. It's almost comical (I said almost)...actually no...It's upsetting to hear and read people generalize (wrongly) about a very important field like psychology and claim that it's a pseudo-science. Brain imaging studies, for example, are a far cry from dream interpretation and provide concrete scientific evidence of abnormalities in chemical and physical functioning - but I digress.

Back to OCD. In addition, twin studies have shown that over 70% of identical twins and 50% of fraternal twins will share an OCD disorder further providing evidence of a genetic link and/or environmental link. These numbers are similar for twins who grow apart from each other in different environmental contexts. Numerous studies have also found that abnormalities of the frontal lobes, basal ganglia, and cingulum are common in people with OCD, contradicting Dr. Breeding's belief that there is no confirmatory evidence linking this disorder with any physical abnormality.

ADHD is a different monster altogether but to deny any chemical abnormality associated with it is simply irresponsible. Many researchers have argued over the seemingly exponential growth of ADHD in children and adults. The arguments for the increase can usually be divided into two camps; those who argue that the increase is due to better identification tools and increased awareness of an already existing problem; others argue that the increase is due to the increased coverage of ADHD in the popular press, coupled with the unfortunate simplicity of diagnosing ADHD. I am of the camp that believes ADHD is a real disorder but is overly diagnosed. What many anti-psychological theorists also fail to understand is that ADHD is most often diagnosed by a family physician who has very little training in the correct identification of ADHD. If you've ever been diagnosed by a physician as having ADHD, chances are you were given a 10 question survey and a brief 5-minute background history interview to make that diagnosis. THAT'S UNETHICAL AND WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Psychologists (good ones anyway) do not do this but require a comprehensive assessment which includes: full individual and family developmental history, behavior rating scales and observations by parents, teachers and psychologists (in and out of the classroom and in different contexts), interviews with the child about their experiences in different contexts, academic data from schools, test scores, current placement, screenings for learning disabilities, etc. Some psychologists will also request that the child have neuro and/or physical exams as well. So yes Dr. Breeding, there isn't any one objective test for ADHD and many of these disorders - and he himself should know that. Truthfully, however, I'd be very suspicious of any "test" that labeled me as having ADHD, depression, or schizophrenia in just one shot. Just like in the medical field, you need comprehensive tests to make such a serious, life altering diagnosis.

I am not denying the difficulty in finding the EXACT causes of mental health disorders, but the same can be said for many various forms of cancer, diabetes, HIV, etc - yet we know they exist and are a result of physical, chemical/genetic abnormalities in addition to the environmental context we are exposed to...

To surmise, Dr. Breeding writes that there is no confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality for OCD (FALSE - SEE ABOVE), ADHD (FALSE), ODD, (not sure here), depression (FALSE FALSE FALSE), bipolar disorder (FALSE) and schizophrenia (FALSE). Not to mention that schizophrenia is rarely ever dx in children, yet according to Dr. Breeding, it's a popular dx among psychiatrists. That is simply not true.

In Dr. Breeding's last sentence, he clumps a bunch of very different mental disorders together and generalizes the way in which they are diagnosed. You can't clump completely different mental disorders together and say dx for all of them are wholly subjective or based on what psychologists believe isn't normal behavior. A salient example is depression. According to his logic then, all depressed adolescent girls are simply exhibiting normal behavior, and the only reason they're identified as depressed is because of psychology's warped view of what normal looks like. Wrong! Sorry Doc, but I don't believe (as nor should he) that it is psychology's subjective call in saying that it is beyond normal for an 11 year old girl to be overwhelmed with a sadness she can't explain, cry for no reason, not eat, sleep, and threaten (or tries) to kill herself.

Often, conspiracy theorists who call psychologists pseudo-scientists (I heard this spouted just yesterday, in fact, to a crowd of about a few hundred people at an Alex Jones' talk) also speak about how our government is poisoning us on a regular basis through fluoride in the water, Aspartame, chem-trails, vaccines, flu-shots and a whole host of other "suspect" practices. Much of this is actually based on fact and I do believe we are subjected to dangerous and life-threatening experiments by our government that we're not made privy too. But what bothers me is that the same people who spout this stuff are usually quick to turn around and say mental health disorders don't exist or are used as an excuse to drug children. If we truly are being exposed to weird chemicals in our drinking water, food and air, then it makes sense to find a corollary relationship between that and a rise in mental health disorders, especially in children.

Regardless, it's always YOUR job to find out the facts. Never accept anything at face-value. Unfortunately, Dr. Breeding uses his Ph.D. status as confirmation that he knows what he's talking about. It certainly and inherently brings about some sort of credibility to his statements. But as we've now learned, just because you have the credentials, it doesn't mean you're right. Although I have to say I applaud his non-profit organization for trying to offer non-drug alternatives to young people suffering from mental health disease, it's almost lost in his flawed rant in point 1.

I myself am always willing to dialogue with opposing views because this is the only way we can work together to tease out fact from fiction from pseudo-truths. This guy doesn't help make that process any easier, however.

Windows Vista?

Microsoft's Vista chief Jim Allchin:

"I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft. The company has lost sight of what matters to our customers." (he's leaving at the end of the month)

That said, I think I'll just stick with Linux.

Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

Leave it to Republicans to speak for low-wage workers arguing against an increase in the federal minimum-wage. Instead of wallowing over their party’s loss of power in the U.S. House, (which by the way is the single best thing to happen to this country in 6 years), they should focus more on speaking to those whom their arguments most affect – the low-wage worker.

Raising the minimum wage is not an end-all solution; it is neither a blow to our economy as some would lead you to believe. Some have argued that a minimum wage increase would lead to layoffs and hurt small businesses because owners will not pay low-skilled workers $7.25 an hour. After the federal minimum wage increase in 1996-97, a study by the Economic Policy Institute failed to find “systematic or significant” job loss resulting from the increase. Instead, low-wage workers experienced growth in both employment and earnings opportunities, as was evidenced by lowered unemployment and poverty rates, increased family income and increased average hourly wages. Others argue that increasing the minimum wage will also increase prices for the consumer. This is true, although any price increase on goods will be modest. The same increase, however, will lead to more purchasing power for the low-wage worker who will buy many of the same goods which increase in price. The myth that most minimum wage workers are teenagers is also a misconception. In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, 80% of workers whose wage would increase to $7.25 are adults (20 years and older). When all is said and done, four Nobel-prize winning economists (plus 558 other economists) agree that raising the federal minimum-wage is needed.

It is irresponsible to perpetuate myths which simply are unfounded and unsupported by research. Republicans need to stop with the partisan bias and focus on speaking the truth.

The Greatest Story Ever Denied

The Battle of L.A.

Ever heard of it?

If you're not familiar with what I'm taking about, you're not alone. On Wednesday, February 25, 1942 a barrage of fire rang over Los Angeles County cities such as Culver and Santa Monica. It was approximately 2:25 A.M. when a blackout rolled over Los Angeles County and air-raid sirens awoke about a million people. At 3:36 A.M., Army anti-aircraft batteries began firing nearly 2,000 rounds of 12 pound, high explosive shells into the air at a cigar-shaped object. The barrage lasted for one hour. Many witnesses reported shells hitting it the object directly, but it appeared to sustain no damage. The craft moved slowly like a blimp, taking 30 minutes to move just 20 miles. The object (it was estimated) received 1430 rounds, yet no aircraft was ever shot down. Many believed it was the Japanese, and rightfully so with war raging in Europe and Asia. The military claimed "false alarm" and said there was never any object. (And I always wanted to say this...) THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!?

(Actual pictures of said incident. Looks like something to me! The original print has been analyzed thoroughly and there is a great description of the process here: http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)

The first picture below is the Original LA Times Negative. The photo shows Army searchlights illuminating the object. Photo analysis has proven its authenticity. The searchlights have also been analyzed and it is clear that they are indeed hitting the object. That is, if the object was some type of crazy illusion, the searchlights would have gone right through the object. However, the searchlights are clearly converging on something.



This if from LA Times Microfilm


Negative


I know everything isn't exactly readable, but here are some LA Times articles following the barrage.





There's so much more to the story and I will definitely share it sometime. When it's not 1am. For now, google your hearts away if you want more info OR just sit back and watch the video below. I know it's long but at around 6 minutes, it speaks about the Battle. Remember, not all of it is about the LA incident, but nontheless, a GREAT documentary bringing together some of the very best issues regarding ufos and extraterrestrials.

Pearl Harbor; We knew about this one too!

Quick stats on Pearl Harbor:
- Pearl Harbor attacked Sunday, December 7, 1941
- Two waves of attacks: 7:49 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.
- First wave included 183 Japanese dive- and torpedo-bombers with zero escorts
- Second wave included an additional 168 Japanese planes.
- 18 operational warships sunk, including four battleships, sunk or damaged
- 188 aircraft destroyed
- 2,403 Americans killed (68 of them civilians)
- 1,178 Americans wounded

Many Americans are unaware that evidence regarding Pearl Harbor points to our government being fully aware of the attacks that were to take place on December 7, 1941. Much like the assassination of JFK and 9/11, "conspiracy theorists" (although in this case, the people uncovering the truth were less 'theorists' and more 'realists') have accumulated a wealth of evidence to support such a claim.

During that time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in a bind. An overwhelming 80% of Americans were opposed to entering WWII as an active participant. After Pearl Harbor, things quickly changed and Roosevelt gained wide support from Congress to declare war on Japan. Much like the aftermath of 9/11, however, questions around the attack immediately surfaced.

Why was America attacked? Was it avoidable? Were the Japanese going to attack again? Why didn't our readily available Army and Navy commanders (Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter Short) fumble in their job to protect one of America's most important naval bases? ...and of course, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE?

Roosevelt was all too aware of the questions surrounding the attack and quickly summoned up a special commission to investigate. Big surprise! (Side note: The trend of creating "special commissions" didn't begin here, but has come to be -just what you do- after shit hits the fan or to distract the public from the real issue - see Pearl Harbor, JFK, Watergate, Clinton-Lewinsky, 9/11, steroids and baseball...hell even the Bowl Championship Series gets a special commission in Washington! The sad thing is these commissions wouldn't happen if the average American was smarter than our President and recognized them as what they are - smoke and mirrors. Again, I digress! Back to the topic.) Anyway the chair of this commission was Associate Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts. The interesting thing about this man is that he was the leading advocate of the Committee to Aid America by Aiding the Allies. It's a no-brainer what happened next. The commission absolved any high ranking political and military members, except for two - Admiral Kimmel and General Short! Suffice to say, they were blamed for being unprepared, removed from their positions and demoted. It's amazing the MacGyver-ish things you can do with smoke and mirrors, eh?

Back to the topic at hand. It's widely known now that the U.S. had some vital information regarding an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. However, this information was not passed on to the Naval and Army commanders. The blunder of Pearl Harbor was originally blamed on political mismanagement of critical intelligence information.

This of course doesn't explain why we did nothing to prevent Pearl Harbor, even in the face of intercepted Japanese messages (which were received in Washington as early as Dec 4th indicating failing relations and irreversible action against U.S. interests). The message in question is referred to the EAST WIND RAIN message, which Roosevelt and his cronies denied ever receiving. Chief Warrant Officer Ralph T. Briggs who was working at the Cheltenham, Maryland intercept station in late 1941 however, testified that he received the message, and Navy memoirs indicated that the message had even been received prior to him getting it. This testimony was backed up by a man named Captain Laurence Safford.

Whether or not our govt. knew exactly where Japan was going to attack remains unclear. But what is clear is that: there was no real urgency to alert the commanders at Pearl Harbor, our government did in fact know of an impending attack, our govt. knew who would attack us, and they very well knew where we'd be attacked (EAST! WIND! RAIN!). So Roosevelt and his buddies sat and waited for the attack and quickly used it as an excuse to go to war with Japan.

God, does history repeat itself or what?!

I'll write a little more about this later, but alas, it's time for me to leave work. :) For more info, GOOGLE it!