Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Actually, the area around the University and the downtown area is just a little island in the sea of rednecks that is called Central Texas. I'm sure otcbargains has plenty of company in his world of hate.
Wow Austin is the intellectual capital of Texas so he must really feel insecure.
It's true. bbotcs seems to think that African-American, Hispanic-Americans, New York Jews and fancy pants people who went to college aren't real Americans. Only illiterates who have nothing better to do than sit around and listen to Glenn Beck all day are real Americans.
I read a post by the founder of this thread, otcbargains (who lives in Austin), once in which he said he drove by the Univ of Texas and he was disgusted looking at all the pretentious, smug little college students walking around. Disgusted at people going to school -- imagine. Of course closing public schools is one of his major causes because he wants everyone to be as ignorant as he is.
His America seems to celebrate their ignorance and thinks educated people are the enemy
I'm an American,and so are the other 57 million people who voted for Barack Hussein Obama,and he certainly doesn't talk for us.
So you consider yourself mainstream? And you can talk for America?
ksuave: Who is "we"? There is YOUR problem. U are out of touch with mainstream Americans. Hurry back to the Salon and read some more propaganda. U and Alex make us laugh.
@ Alex -- You can't argue with logic like that. It certainly hasn't been corrupted by a liberal education.
@ bbotcs -- When you say "we don't want them" who exactly is "we"?
Alex G: They do have bedbugs. Ever wonder why they had disappeared for a generation and now they are back, along with TB, etc. Because we don't want them here has NOTHING to do with race. That is why people who think as U do will lose the battle.
Then we export the rest of the stinkin' Latinos. They have bedbugs.
jeeze, i can't imagine why the tea-tards get labeled as racist
I guess you're soon going to have to chose between your hatred of Muslims and your boy-crush on Justin Bieber. Poor bbotcs, the world is so complicated.
Ground 0 mosque I heard a news report the other days to the effect that an Arab sheik is working on having the proposed victory center, err, I mean "mosque", moved to another location. Think I heard the report on Fox News Network, which is fair and balanced. They report, I decide.
What ever happened to the "ground zero mosque"?
By Justin Elliott
To be sure, Google News is a blunt instrument for measuring volume of press coverage. But the timeline nevertheless conveys a lot about the strange, still somewhat inexplicable burst of coverage surrounding what became known as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
The story began inorganically, with misleading framing pushed into the mainstream by a right-wing blog and the New York Post. It evolved into the national political obsession of the summer and, finally, into a midterm election issue. And then, just like that, it disappeared.
The course of the media coverage had little to do with the facts on the ground at 49-51 Park Place in lower Manhattan, the proposed site of the mosque. To review what happened:
News of the proposed Islamic community center first broke in a front-page New York Times piece in December 2009, but it garnered very little attention. The attention it did receive -- including from the likes of Fox News -- was positive. Then in May, when the project was facing some local bureaucratic hurdles, anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller stepped up her coverage of what she called the "Monster Mosque" of "Death and Destruction." The New York Post adopted Geller's perspective on the project: that it was something to fear and defeat. (See Salon's detailed timeline on the origins of the story here.)
The first peak in the coverage came when a wave of national Republican figures weighed in. Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty each took shots at the project and its organizers. Sarah Palin took to Twitter to call on "peaceful Muslims" to "pls refudiate."
Meanwhile, the proposed community center had gotten all the necessary regulatory approvals -- though there were (and still are) serious questions about whether the organizers could raise the money needed to make the project a reality.
Again, very little about the project itself shaped the media coverage. There were distortions that are, at this point, well known: a mosque was only a small part of the proposed center; it was not at ground zero, but a few city blocks away; the organizers had been operating a progressive mosque in a nearby neighborhood for many years; there were no links to terrorism; lead organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had in fact worked with both the Bush and Obama administrations promoting the United States in the Muslim world.
The second peak in coverage came in mid-August when President Obama weighed in at a press conference, citing religious freedom. Those comments gave political reporters an excuse to keep writing about the story for weeks.
But then, after a last gasp in October in the run-up to the election (including a few memorable anti-mosque campaign ads), the story all but disappeared. What changed? Well, on the ground, exactly nothing. The organizers had not changed their plans. Fundraising continued.
There can be no single explanation for why a news story of this magnitude disappears. But, given the timeline here, it seems likely that the electoral calendar played a role. National Republicans who used Park51 as a bludgeon against Democrats suddenly were less interested in talking about the project after the election. In addition, there was suddenly action in Congress again after Nov. 2. And political analysts turned their focus to what Washington would look like with a Republican House majority in 2011.
The media, too, decided that a proposed Islamic community center in Manhattan was not deserving of daily, granular coverage. Looking back now, it's pretty good evidence of a manufactured story when coverage spikes and then vanishes, even as nothing has fundamentally changed.
In 2011, the "ground zero mosque" story will probably live on -- but primarily on Fox News and Pamela Geller's blog. It's unlikely that anyone else will pay much attention ever again.
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott
http://www.salon.com/news/ground_zero_mosque/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/31/park_51_a_look_back
White guy does Obama impression !!!!
http://www.stevebridges.com/obamavideos-promo-jan2010-lg.html
Let's take care of the Earth ...
because it's where they keep all the money ... .
My wish for 2011 ...
That in 2011, Bobwins is finally invited to give the
Keynote Address at the Annual Rock-Lickers
Convention in Spokane, Washington ... !!!!!!
This is the only major honor that has eluded Bob
and his team of ... "crack investors" ... .
Funny column and an excellent example of how members of the republic party lie through their teeth as a matter of policy:
Hey, has anyone noticed that “A Christmas Carol” is a dangerous leftist tract? I mean, consider the scene, early in the book, where Ebenezer Scrooge rightly refuses to contribute to a poverty relief fund. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” he declares. Oh, wait. That wasn’t Scrooge. That was Newt Gingrich — last week. What Scrooge actually says is, “Are there no prisons?” But it’s pretty much the same thing. Anyway, instead of praising Scrooge for his principled stand against the welfare state, Charles Dickens makes him out to be some kind of bad guy. How leftist is that? As you can see, the fundamental issues of public policy haven’t changed since Victorian times. Still, some things are different. In particular, the production of humbug — which was still a somewhat amateurish craft when Dickens wrote — has now become a systematic, even industrial, process.
Let me walk you through a case in point, one that I've been following lately. If you listen to the recent speeches of Republican presidential hopefuls, you'll find several of them talking at length about the harm done by unionized government workers, who have, they say, multiplied under the Obama administration.
A recent example was an op-ed article by the outgoing Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who declared that “thanks to President Obama,” government is the only booming sector in our economy: “Since January 2008” — silly me, I thought Mr. Obama wasn’t inaugurated until 2009 — “the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs, while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.” Horrors! Except that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, government employment has fallen, not risen, since January 2008.
And since January 2009, when Mr. Obama actually did take office, government employment has fallen by more than 300,000 as hard-pressed state and local governments have been forced to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters and other workers.
So how did the notion of a surge in government payrolls under Mr. Obama take hold? It turns out that last spring there was, in fact, a bulge in government employment. And both politicians and researchers at humbug factories — I mean, conservative think tanks — quickly seized on this bulge as evidence of an exploding public sector. Over the summer, articles and speeches began to appear highlighting the rise in government employment and issuing dire warnings about what it portended for America’s future.
But anyone paying attention knew why public employment had risen — and it had nothing to do with Big Government. It was, instead, the fact that the federal government had to hire a lot of temporary workers to carry out the 2010 Census — workers who have almost all left the payroll now that the Census is done.
Is it really possible that the authors of those articles and speeches about soaring public employment didn’t know what was going on? Well, I guess we should never assume malice when ignorance remains a possibility. There has not, however, been any visible effort to retract those erroneous claims. And this isn’t the only case of a claimed huge expansion in government that turns out to be nothing of the kind. Have you heard the one about how there’s been an explosion in the number of federal regulators?
Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute looked into the numbers behind that claim, and it turns out that almost all of those additional “regulators” work for the Department of Homeland Security, protecting us against terrorists. Still, why does it matter what some politicians and think tanks say? The answer is that there’s a well-developed right-wing media infrastructure in place to catapult the propaganda, as former President George W. Bush put it, to rapidly disseminate bogus analysis to a wide audience where it becomes part of what “everyone knows.” (There’s nothing comparable on the left, which has fallen far behind in the humbug race.) And it’s a very effective process. When discussing the alleged huge expansion of government under Mr. Obama, I’ve repeatedly found that people just won’t believe me when I try to point out that it never happened. They assume that I’m lying, or somehow cherry-picking the data. After all, they’ve heard over and over again about that surge in government spending and employment, and they don’t realize that everything they’ve heard was a special delivery from the Humbug Express. So in this holiday season, let’s remember the wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge. Not the bit about denying food and medical care to those who need them: America’s failure to take care of its own less-fortunate citizens is a national disgrace. But Scrooge was right about the prevalence of humbug. And we’d be much better off as a nation if more people had the courage to say “Bah!”
Link - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/opinion/24krugman…
DICKS, The Govt is taking YOU OVER!!!
BBC: 200 countries in 4 minutes ...
http://www.wimp.com/countriesyears/
Well it seems someone already took the Know Nothing Party before so they settled on the Tea Party and most have no clue what that was about as history is not their strong suit.
What's particularly frightening about them is that they are proud of their ignorance, they see it as a badge of purity. They're almost like the Khmer Rouge in that way. Death to intellectuals. The positive side of this is that they are incapable of seeing how doomed their movement is, how quickly it is going to be usurped (if it hasn't been already), but that isn't to say that they're not going to cause the country some harm before they go down in flames.
Post more often, Fan, and invite some of your friends here too.
Teaparty people are some of the most ignorant Americans I have ever seen. Almost none are capable of critical thinking
Getting married and having children ...
matures most people ... not all, but most.
I'm wondering how many children we have
among us: me, you, and you ... ???
Koz has 2 ... , a boy and a girl.
bbotcs has ... ???
ksuave has ... ???
Fox News' Shep Smith Wallops GOPers For 9/11 Responders Bill: 'It's Disgusting'
Joining in on Jon Stewart's outrage over the failure of the 9/11 first responders bill today was Fox News' Shep Smith, who asked: "How do they sleep at night?"
Stewart devoted his whole show last night to gravely attacking Senate Republicans for voting against the bill, which would provide health care to the first responders on September 11.
Shep was equally incensed: "Who's going to hold these people's feet to the fire? We're able to put a 52-story building so far down there at Ground Zero, we're able to pay for tax cuts for billionaires who don't need them and it's not going to stimulate the economy. But we can't give health care to Ground Zero first responders who ran right into the fire?"
"It's disgusting," he continued. "It's a national disgrace, it's a shame and everybody who voted against it should have to stand up and account for himself or herself.
"
Chris Wallace agreed: "It's a national shame."
We teapartyers just deafeated $1B in earmarks both Democrats and slimeball Republicans tried to put in the appropriates bill. Score on big one for the Tea Party!
One Big Azz Mistake America
otc & rogue & swanny, pay the $95 ... !!!
It only costs $95 to be member of iHub for
one year; share your wealth with iHub and
Len Tinman ... Len get a percentage cut as
... "protection money" ... .
God bless Tiny Tim, bbotcs, and ksuave
even though Tiny Tim is dead ... well, on
2nd thought, give half of Tiny Tim's blessing
to bbotcs and half to ksuave and, as Ronald
Reagan used to say, give the 3rd half to ...
... swanny ... .
Fredo was NOT smart ... !!!
Fredo is an argument against judgment for
what we do in this life, because he was weak
mentally and physically and spiritually and
genetically. In short, he was a poster-boy
for what the Kith-licks call ... ORIGINAL
SIN ... . Baptism did NOTHING to remove the
defects of Fredo.
I report; you decide. Film at 11:00 ...
Fox News Won't Admit That Republicans Voted Against 9/11 Rescue Workers
Leslie Savan
December 13, 2010
On Fox & Friends this morning, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. launched into a passionate attack on “Congress” and “the US Senate” for killing health benefits for 9/11 rescue workers. “Last week, Congress told them they could drop dead,” Johnson said, to the mournful chords of September Song. “Shame, embarrassment, outrage, anger—all the proper reactions to the conduct of our senators who…have turned their back on American heroes.” Worse, they’ve been betrayed by the same “politicians who couldn’t take enough pictures with them.” Right on, Peter.
But in his three-and-a-half-minute rant, Johnson didn’t once mention who in Congress could be such heartless hypocrites. The 57-to-42 vote was three short needed to break a filibuster, as every Republican voted against even bringing the bill to a vote, and every Democrat but one voted in favor (Harry Reid had to switch his vote for arcane procedural reasons). “People like me on TV are sometimes practiced at outrage,” Johnson said (in a rare bit that described Fox’s basic technique), “but the injustice of this makes words hard to come by.”
Especially the word “Republican.” For anyone working at the Roger Ailes–led media arm of the GOP and Tea Party, speaking that word in such a negative context would be like shouting “Voldemort” in the halls of the Ministry of Magic. Better to let viewers assume that both parties are equally guilty—or even that Republicans, whom Fox has so thoroughly associated with American heroes, are innocent. And for that, the proper reaction to Fox News’s conduct is shame, embarrassment, outrage, anger
Thought for the Day ...
The ugly usually know that they are ugly, but the
ignorant seldom know that they are ignorant.
The troublesome record of spin by conservative television station Fox News has long been a cause for concern to many Americans, who frequently allege that the nation's most viewed "news" network has the effect of dumbing down voters.
Turns out, they were right.
A University of Maryland study (PDF) published earlier this month found that people in the survey who had the most exposure to Fox News were more likely to believe falsehoods and rumors about national and world affairs when compared to those who paid attention to other news outlets.
In a summary carried by Alternet, the following falsehoods were most relayed by Fox News viewers:
91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs;
72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit;
72 percent believed the economy is getting worse;
60 percent believed climate change is not occurring;
49 percent believed income taxes have gone up;
63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts;
56 percent believed Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout;
38 percent believed that most Republicans opposed TARP;
63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear).
The poll's findings seem to sync with those of an NBC News survey (PDF) taken during the height of America's health care reform debate, where Fox News viewers were found to be most likely to have believed wildly inaccurate interpretations of the legislation.
While Fox News and parent company News Corporation have long been criticized cheerleading Republican causes and conservative-allied business interests, it has been under more intense criticism of late over high profile donations to Republicans, deceptive video editing on multiple programs and even on-air GOP fundraisers.
Though the station claims to run "news" programming during the daytime, liberal watchdog group MediaMatters recently revealed a leaked email that shows one of the network's top editors ordering anchors to use terminology favored by conservatives.
In a follow-up, the media blog released a second leaked email showing the same editor, Fox News Washington, DC managing editor Bill Sammon, directing staff to cast doubt upon climate data, even when it was not in question. The revelation was hailed by former Vice President Al Gore, a champion of climate change activism, who argued it proves the spin coming from Fox News is straight from the top.
And it doesn't help that one of their most-watched opinion hosts, conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck, is prone to making up outrageous falsehoods to scare viewers.
The network has big plans to expand it's brand into the future: According to anchor Chris Wallace, the 2012 Republican presidential primary elections will be "a production of Fox News," not unlike the Fox network's American Idol.
Virtually all the leading GOP candidates are paid contributors for the network, and over 30 Fox News personalities have endorsed Republicans in the past.
The Obama administration, similarly, has called Fox News "a wing of the Republican party."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/study-confirms-spin-fox-news-voters-stupid/
Ksuave and bbotcs, in 9 days ...
it will be Christmas ... . Feel the Spirit ... !!!
Let's show good will to Libs and Neo-Con's
... it's time for the Lion and the Zebra to
share some grass or ... a leg of lamb ...
ooooopsssss ... scratch that story line ... .
As Jesus would say: "Huevos and cajones
and gonads to the ramparts ... !!!!!"
"Then we export the rest of the stinkin' Latinos. They have bedbugs."
How dare some libtard call you a racist.
ksuave: "the right are lying ideologue extremists"--exactly why I ignore cannot anything U say seriously. Roguedolphin taught me not to argue with guys like U. The right-left dialogue gets tiresome. It is we teapartyers who are burdened with getting this country back on the RIGHT track. Job 1: take away the citizenship of anchor children. Then we export the rest of the stinkin' Latinos. They have bedbugs.
Actually Dowd is not so party-line as you assume, Koz. She's not really all that ideological and she's hardly a loyal progressive. She's more of a cat than a Democrat. She has ripped both of the Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerry and President Obama to shreds when it suits her amusement, and usually more effectively than Republicans or right-wingers are able to do because she has been trained as a journalist and isn't just some self-published blogger. She relies on facts and an intelligent reading of them (as well as a great sense of humor) to go after her targets, whereas those on the right will twist statistics and quotes, make facts up, rely on name-calling, etc., etc., to counter an argument. As an example, look at otcbb's attempt to diminish both Stewart and Dowd and dismiss their well thought-out presentations by simply saying their names and then going hahaha. The link to the Stewart piece I put here is a brilliant expose -- unarguable thanks to the wonder of videotape -- of the hypocrisy of the GOPers everytime they piously point to 9/11 as proof of their own moral high ground, and otccbb, unable to counter a single fact presented by Stewart thinks he has won his argument by simply dismissing anything Stewart might say. He doesn't need to substance to (in his mind) win an argument, he needs only express his own bias against that person to march around in imaginary triumph.
If Dowd and Stewart, both humorists and satirists, end up criticizing the right-wing more often than they do the Democrats, it's because the right, being the lying ideologue extremists that they are, make for a broader and easier target.
BTW, as far as Times columnists go, I think Gail Collins is the funniest and most scathing. Dowd is past her peak though still comes up with some zingers.
Jon Stewart is intelligent and insightful.
Maureen Dowd is a good writer but she is
much less intelligent and insightful. She
also is locked into a set of opinions, and
this causes her analysis to be very bias.
The Koz nose ((<<<<<: }
ksuave, there are 2 types of stem cell
research: (1) embryonic and (2) adult.
The Pro-Life community is against (1)
but not (2). With (1), an embryo is
killed as part of the research. With (2)
the stem cells exist by themselves and
no embryo is involved; you have 1000's
of Adult Stem Cells as part of your body
at this very moment. So far, 99.9999%
of the cures have come from (2) ... .
Jon Stewart? Another clown. Ha, ha, ha.
ksuave: Maureen Dowd? Ha, ha, ha. I listen to Rush and to Michael Savage. The babblings of Maureen Dowd are for losers and suckers. Col. Laken in an American hero who will land a big job.
Jon Stewart on Republican hypocrisy re 9/11 (must watch):
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/stewart-blames-republicans-lameasfk-congress/
Usurper in Chief?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: December 14, 2010
He can’t handle the truth.
At least not while he’s facing the brig.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin of the Army had a motley crew of frustrated Birthers at his court-martial here on Tuesday. The decorated Pentagon doctor from Colorado became the movement’s hero when he went on YouTube in March to brazenly urge President Obama to show “honesty and integrity” by releasing his “original signed birth certificate, if you have one.” He vowed to disobey what he called “illegal orders” to deploy to Afghanistan because he did not regard Obama as a legitimate commander in chief.
Originally, Colonel Lakin and his frenzied supporters had wanted to reveal the Ultimate Truth, what they consider the biggest hoax ever perpetrated — that a foreigner, a “Usurper in Chief,” had seized control of the Oval Office.
But then the military judge, Col. Denise Lind, denied a request for President Obama to testify and for his birth certificate to be entered into evidence.
So now the Birthers consider the court-martial part of the dastardly conspiracy. “This whole trial looks like a sham,” said Orly Taitz, a tall blonde California dentist, lawyer and leader in the Birther movement. “I was raised in the Soviet Union. This was worse than what I’ve seen in the Soviet Union.”
If Lakin ever envisioned his court-martial as the slingshot that could bring down a presidency and prove that the Birthers are heroes rather than loonies, he had given up that dream by the time he entered a guilty plea and backed up a not guilty plea with a technicality.
The balding, gray colonel may not have truly changed his beliefs. But he looked small and shaken as he admitted to disobeying orders from his boss, Gordon Roberts, a Medal of Honor recipient. He murmured “Yes, ma’am” over and over in a low voice as the precise Judge Lind pressed him on whether he understood that “the dictates of conscience do not justify disobeying a lawful order.”
Sobered by the prospect of a dishonorable dismissal, losing his pension and serving hard time, as well as facing a panel of military superiors in dress uniforms, Colonel Lakin said the winter had been “a confusing time, a very emotional time for me.” His shoulders slumped, he offered excuses about how he had gotten conflicting advice from lawyers — his defense was underwritten by Birthers.
“I understand that it was my decision, and I made the wrong choice,” he told the judge.
His civilian lawyer, Neal Puckett, said Lakin is innocent of the charge of “missing a movement.” Simply because he missed U.S. Airways Flight 1123 on April 12, which was supposed to be the start of his journey to Fort Campbell, Ky., to join his unit, the lawyer argued, does not mean he couldn’t have gotten another flight or driven.
This was an attempt to get him off on a technicality because Lakin had stated back then that he had no intention of joining the unit at all.
In the voir dire, Puckett asked some colonels who were prospective panelists if they considered the Birther movement to be racist.
While disappointed there wasn’t a more full-throated trial of Obama’s provenance — unlike Lakin, the president is considered by Birthers to be guilty until he proves himself innocent — the Birthers, who had come from all over the country to the trial, stood by their man.
Literally, in the case of Kate Vandemoer, a 55-year-old blogger and hydrologist from North Dakota, who rose with Lakin when he offered his plea.
“I feel very close to him,” said Vandemoer. “This is a very serious national security matter.”
Some argued that whether Obama was born in Hawaii is not really the point; the point is, he’s not “a natural-born citizen.” “You must be born in the U.S. with two parents who are U.S. citizens,” they explained. Obama, they argued, has “a dual allegiance” that makes Americans “sitting ducks.”
“His father was a British Subject,” said a pamphlet passed out by Vandemoer. “He believes he is a Citizen of the world.”
Eldon Bell, a 76-year-old retired Air Force officer and doctor from Rapid City, S.D., said he “drove three days through a damn blizzard just to get here.” Comparing the president to Hitler, another “usurper,” he said “if he is not legitimate, our soldiers serving under him can be tried and hanged like the Nazis at Nuremberg.”
James Haven, a black preacher from New York, dismissed Obama as “the long-legged Mack Daddy, the president of all pimps.”
With the last three presidents, there has been an attempt to go beyond criticism to delegitimization, to paint them as not just wrong, but charlatans who have no right to the job. With Obama, the craziness is infused with biases about race and religion.
But, in the end, the court-martial offers one big truth: President Obama doesn’t have to show Terry Lakin anything. The colonel should have followed orders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/opinion/15dowd.html?_r=1&hp
But would Jesus approve?
In medical breakthrough, HIV-positive man cured by stem cell transplant
An HIV-positive man who received a stem cell transplant for leukemia has been cured of HIV infection, doctors announced recently.
While the case was first reported at the 2008 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston, doctors have now published an updated report in the journal Blood, which affirms extensive testing.
"It is reasonable to conclude that cure of HIV infection has been achieved in this patient," the doctors wrote.
In 2007, Timothy Ray Brown suffered a relapse of leukemia that required a stem cell tranplant. Brown, also known as "Berlin patient," was given stem cells from a donor that lacked the CCR5 receptor, "a condition that is present in less than 1 percent of Caucasians in northern and western Europe," according to London-based AidsMap.
"The man received bone marrow from a donor who had natural resistance to HIV infection; this was due to a genetic profile which led to the CCR5 co-receptor being absent from his cells," they explained. "The most common variety of HIV uses CCR5 as its ‘docking station’, attaching to it in order to enter and infect CD4 cells, and people with this mutation are almost completely protected against infection."
The case appears to prove that stem cell driven treatments could be incredibly valuable in a variety of applications, including HIV therapies.
Although antiretroviral drugs have made HIV infection treatable, this is the first time a person has been reportedly cured.
koz: Take 2 aspirin. It will go away.
God bless Tiny Tim and otc and rogue
and ksuave and bbotcs and Bobwins and that
Wiki-Leaks guy and even swanny ... ((<:}
I agree with ksuave and Ike ... ((<:}
I'll bet half the budget of every fed agency is
wasted in one way or a tuther ... (a little
Texas talk fer ya) ... .
Increasing the size of the Federal government is part of the plan to morph from a democratic republic to a totalitarian socialist state. Didn't everyone in the USSR work for the government? This is what we are moving to. Stealth communism. By the way, Al Gore, working under Clinton, did a good job of downsizing the Federal Government. Along came 9/11, and Bush reveresed the trend when he created the Dept. of Homeland Security.
We are in big trouble, and most Americans are too lazy, ignorant, stupid, or all three to see what is happening.
God bless Glenn Beck.
Starting with the military!
What Ike Got Right
By JAMES LEDBETTER
Published: December 13, 2010
LAST week the National Archives released a trove of drafts and notes that shed new light on President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address, in which he warned America about the “military-industrial complex.”
The release comes just in time for the speech’s 50th anniversary next month. And so while scholars and historians use these documents to scrutinize the evolution of the speech’s famous phrase, it’s worth asking a broader question: does America still have a military-industrial complex, and should we be as worried about it as Eisenhower was?
By one measure, the answer to the first question is yes. Over the past 50 years there have been very few years in which the United States has spent less on the military than it did the year before.
This has remained true whether the country is actively fighting a war, whether it has an obvious and well-armed enemy or whether Democrats or Republicans run the White House and Congress. Despite regular expectations that the United States will enjoy a peace dividend, we continue to spend more on the military than the countries with the next 15 largest military budgets combined.
Such perpetual growth seems to confirm Eisenhower’s concern about the size and influence of the military. It used to be, he said, that armies should grow and shrink as needed; in the Biblical metaphor of the speech, he observed that “American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.”
But World War II and the early cold war changed that dynamic, creating what Eisenhower called “a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.” It is not a stretch to believe that this armaments industry — which profits not only from domestic sales but also from tens of billions of dollars in annual exports — manipulates public policy to perpetuate itself.
But Eisenhower was concerned about more than just the military’s size; he also worried about its relationship to the American economy and society, and that the economy risked becoming a subsidiary of the military. His alarm was understandable: at the time the military represented over half of all government spending and more than 10 percent of America’s gross domestic product.
Today those figures are not quite as troubling. While military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has been going up as a result of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall trend since 1961 is substantially down, thanks to the tremendous growth in America’s nonmilitary economy and the shift in government spending to nonmilitary expenditures.
Yet spending numbers do not tell the whole story. Eisenhower warned that the influence of the military-industrial complex was “economic, political, even spiritual” and that it was “felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.” He exhorted Americans to break away from our reliance on military might as a guarantor of liberty and “use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”
On this score, Eisenhower may well have seen today’s America as losing the battle against the darker aspects of the military-industrial complex. He was no pacifist, but he was a lifelong opponent of what he called a “garrison state,” in which policy and rights are defined by the shadowy needs of an all-powerful military elite.
The United States isn’t quite a garrison state today. But Eisenhower would likely have been deeply troubled, in the past decade, by the torture at Abu Ghraib, the use of martial authority to wiretap Americans without warrants and the multiyear detention of suspects at Guantánamo Bay without due process.
Finally, even if the economy can bear the immediate costs of the military, Eisenhower would be shocked at its mounting long-term costs. Most of the Iraq war expenses were paid for by borrowing, and Americans will shoulder those costs, plus interest, for many years to come.
A strong believer in a balanced budget, Eisenhower in his farewell address also told Americans to “avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow.” Too many of today’s so-called fiscal conservatives conveniently overlook the budgetary consequences of military spending.
Eisenhower’s worst fears have not yet come to pass. But his warning against the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” is as urgent today as ever.
James Ledbetter is the author of the forthcoming “Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14ledbetter.html?_r=1&hp
We need to down-size the Fed Gov asap !!!!
When the fed gov makes a mistake (accidental or
deliberate), it usually costs the tax-payers ...
... BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ... !!!
At least at the State level, the mistakes only cost
millions of dollars ... .
Followers
|
3
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
545
|
Created
|
01/04/08
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderators |
[chart]static.infowars.com/2011/01/i/general/vforvictory.png[/chart]
Will we Rise?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |