Fire Hydrant of Freedom

For those from the old DMG board recall the poster that passed away from melanoma?  He had gone to Germany to try experimental immune therapy.  It appears at least for some patients it works if done right.  A patient of mine who had a form of testicular that does not respond to chemo also tried this form of therapy in Germany. He recently didn't make it.  He was only 29.  What he went through was horrendous.  He fought far harder than Lance Armstrong.  He was not lucky like him to have happened to have a cancer that responded to chemo (and didn't cheat and take performance enhancing drugs like him either and later lie about it).

Hopefully this will be a major breakthrough at least for some:   

***Study: Melanoma Cured 100% through Blood Cell Therapy
By Alexander Toldt
11:36, June 22nd 2008    3 votes
Vote this story
   
Study: Melanoma Cured 100% through Blood Cell Therapy

The results of a new study conducted by a researcher team at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, give hope for those suffering from melanoma, one of the rarer types of skin cancer but the one which causes the majority of skin cancer related deaths.

Researchers who took part in the study used a patient's cloned T cells (helper cells) to put an advanced cancer into complete remission. Nine patients took part in the experimental melanoma treatment program.

The researchers were very surprised after they treated a 52-year-old man from Oregon of his Stage 4 melanoma. The research team led by Cassian Yee, M.D., an associate member of the Clinical Research Division at the Center, took CD4+T cells (white blood cells) from the patient’s body and during the next three months it grew approximately 5 billion of the cells in the lab. Then the cells grown in the lab were injected back into the patient.

After just two months, PET and CT scans revealed no sign of tumors anywhere in the patient's body and there were no harmful side effects. Two years later, patient "Number Four" was checked again and he was still disease free.

However, the first three patients, who received a smaller dose, had no response at all. Some other patients who received the same dose didn’t respond as well as patient number 4 did, but did saw some improvement.

Steven Rosenberg, chief surgeon at the National Cancer Institute, described the form of treatment as “the ultimate personalized medicine,” but also added that the fact that it’s a labor intensive treatment doesn’t make very attractive to commercial development.

The results of the study have been published in this week's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and are the latest findings in the field of "adoptive immunotherapy," a theory according to which the human body can be taught to fight off its own cancers.***

Lamenting...

I'm afraid this is an example of which we will see a major trend towards governmental control over so many more areas of our society to a level we have never seen in this country.

I would think that tax rates will go up as does the government dole and millions more on the government dole all voting Democrat for their jobs.  As a doctor I am already indirectly beholden to the government with all its regulation and Medicare setting rates that much of the private payer industry follows.  From what is ahead of us I might as well join a teachers union.  Like I said my sister a teacher siad the reason most teachers are die hard crats is the "union" mentality.  Just go to work and get your paycheck.  And demand everything in the way of "entitlements".  Now though people around the world are entitled to US benefits as well.

I don't want to think what this country will turn into if BO is President along with a Dem House and Senate and resulting further liberalization of the Supreme Court.  There will be no stopping this.

Our country is weaker thanks to them.  Of course corruption in the Republican ranks from Daschle on down allowed this to happen.
The religious right including Rush Limbaugh better start getting behind McCain and stop whining or it will be far worse IMHO.
(Doug I don't disagree with you but look at the alternative)

I don't know how many times it becomes clear that only military force will work.

BO response IMO will be:
Iran is not a real threat to the US.  They are not the Soviet Union. They have no intercontinental missles.  I will be tough with them.  People who are saying I can't protect the US are descending into personal attacks and disappoint me.  I will protect us.  I will send the police and an army of $600/hr liberal lawyers to talk some sense into them and out legaleeze them.  We are a country built on 200 years of laws.  What a joke.  His scripted lines are getting so predictable and obnoxious. 

We are apparently ready to repeat the same mistakes of history.  And the young who are forever idealistic are not old enough to understand this though they think they are smarter.  If I recall the line "youth is wasted on the young" was a line from *ancient* Greece.  Some things never do change.

***Ahmadinejad says West failed in Iran nuclear crisis     
Jun 19 06:54 AM US/Eastern
      President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday the West has failed to break Iran's will in the nuclear standoff, days after world powers presented Tehran with a new offer aimed at ending the crisis.

"In the nuclear issue, the bullying powers have used up all their capabilities but could not break the will of the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state television.

World powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- on Saturday offered Tehran a new package of technological and economic incentives in exchange for suspending uranium enrichment activities.

The West fears the process might be used to make an atomic bomb although Iran insists it only wants to generate nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Ahmadinejad's comments were his first statement on the nuclear crisis since the offer was presented but it was not clear if they represented a reaction to the proposal.

The Iranian government spokesman has already said Tehran will reject any offer demanding it suspends uranium enrichment.

The UN nuclear watchdog has been investigating Iran's nuclear drive for over five years but has never been able to conclude whether the programme is peaceful.

Iran has said it is examining the package but has so far showed no indication that it will change its defiant course in its nuclear drive.

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh ruled out on Wednesday that the country could freeze enrichment, saying: "Iran will never submit to such an illegal act."***

There is a reason patients are not paid a lot of money to participate in pharmaceutical studies.  Ethics experts and institutional review boards composed of religious, business, legal medical and other lay people decide that offering too much money clouds the judgement of people into participate in these studies.  In fact I had conducted some of these myself and it would have been *a lot easier* to offer a lot more money and have more participants then we would need rather than be able to offer a pittence and take forever to find subjects.  Additionally IRB approve the informed consent, advertising, and to suggest that these veterans or anyone else is just thrown into these studies without their complete and explicit consent is bogus publicity.  These are not Nazi experiments.  The patient know full well they are in experimental studies and know full well there are risks.

Again as I said before a one in a million reaction to chantix is hardly some sort of scandal.  I think Obama dumba should have to spend a month taking care of the millions of patients dying of cancer, and emphysema because they couldn't stop smoking - that SOB.
 
***VA testing drugs on war veterans
Experiments raise ethical questions
Audrey Hudson (Contact)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

UPDATE: Obama's office sent a letter Tuesday to James Peake, secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, on the issue. You can read the full text of the letter here.

UPDATE II: Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, issued his own letter to Peake as well. You can read it here.

The government is testing drugs with severe side effects like psychosis and suicidal behavior on hundreds of military veterans, using small cash payments to attract patients into medical experiments that often target distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a Washington Times/ABC News investigation has found.

In one such experiment involving the controversial anti-smoking drug Chantix, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) took three months to alert its patients about severe mental side effects. The warning did not arrive until after one of the veterans taking the drug had suffered a psychotic episode that ended in a near lethal confrontation with police.

ROD LAMKEY JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES Veteran James Elliott arrives at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington for his scheduled substance-abuse class in April. Mr. Elliott, a chain smoker, served 15 months in Iraq as an Army sharpshooter and suffers post-traumatic stress disorder.

ROD LAMKEY JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES Iraq war veteran James Elliott opted for a government clinical trial for a smoking-cessation drug for $30 a month, starting in November. Two weeks later, the FDA informed the VA of serious side effects.

ROD LAMKEY JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES STILL SMOKING: Iraq war veteran James Elliott smokes on his porch in Silver Spring as he talks about his experiences in war and dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Elliott suffered a psychotic episode while taking the anti-smoking drug Chantix.

James Elliott, a decorated Army sharpshooter who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after serving 15 months in Iraq, was confused and psychotic when he was Tasered by police in February as he reached for a concealed handgun when officers responded to a 911 call at his Maryland home.

For photos, video of James Elliott, official FDA documents and more, visit the interactive site for the Disposable Heroes report.

Mr. Elliott, a chain smoker, began taking Chantix last fall as part of a VA experiment that specifically targeted veterans with PTSD, opting to collect $30 a month for enrolling in the clinical trial because he needed cash as he returned to school. He soon began suffering hallucinations and suicidal thoughts, unaware that the new drug he was taking could have caused them.

Just two weeks after Mr. Elliott began taking Chantix in November, the VA learned from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug was linked to a large number of hallucinations, suicide attempts and psychotic behavior. But the VA did not alert Mr. Elliott before his own episode in February.

In failing to do so, Mr. Elliott said, the VA treated him like a "disposable hero."

"You're a lab rat for $30 a month," Mr. Elliott said.***

I have found this to be true at times.  It is certainly one of the hardest things in medicine.  There are different reasons for this.  Sometimes the patients only hear what they want to hear, and that they *were* told.  Sometimes they refuse to give up so the doctor keeps trying things that he/she knows would be a near miracle to work.  Sometimes I just wonder if the doctor just doesn't have the guts (or the heart) to tell the patient.  There are some cultures where it may actually be considered rude to tell a patient h/she is going to die (such as Japanese).  Could there be a financial incentive to push chemo that will have (if no chance) almost no chance to work?  I have no direct knowledge of this but in this world nothing would surprise me frankly.   I wonder what was told to Ed Kennedy?  I would like to think it was all an honorable try at making every possible, remote, theoretical, or otherwise experimental stab at trying to prolong his life but there is something just so self serving from these people at Duke in all this celebration of their supposed leadership in this area of medicine  - I just don't know.

***AP
Most cancer doctors avoid saying it's the end

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer Sun Jun 15, 2:08 PM ET

CHICAGO - One look at Eileen Mulligan lying soberly on the exam table and Dr. John Marshall knew the time for the Big Talk had arrived.
ADVERTISEMENT

He began gently. The chemotherapy is not helping. The cancer is advanced. There are no good options left to try. It would be good to look into hospice care.

"At first I was really shocked. But after, I thought it was a really good way of handling a situation like that," said Mulligan, who now is making a "bucket list" — things to do before she dies. Top priority: getting her busy sons to come for a weekend at her Washington, D.C., home.

Many people do not get such straight talk from doctors, who often think they are doing patients a favor by keeping hope alive.

New research shows they are wrong.

Only one-third of terminally ill cancer patients in a new, federally funded study said their doctors had discussed end-of-life care.

Surprisingly, patients who had these talks were no more likely to become depressed than those who did not, the study found. They were less likely to spend their final days in hospitals, tethered to machines. They avoided costly, futile care. And their loved ones were more at peace after they died.

Convinced of such benefits and that patients have a right to know, the California Assembly just passed a bill to require that health care providers give complete answers to dying patients who ask about their options. The bill now goes to the state Senate.

Some doctors' groups are fighting the bill, saying it interferes with medical practice. But at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Chicago earlier this month, where the federally funded study was presented, the society's president said she was upset at its finding that most doctors were not having honest talks.

"That is distressing if it's true. It says we have a lot of homework to do," said Dr. Nancy Davidson, a cancer specialist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Doctors mistakenly fear that frank conversations will harm patients, said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of the advocacy group Compassionate Choices.

"Boiled down, it's 'Talking about dying will kill you,'" she said. In reality, "people crave these conversations, because without a full and candid discussion of what they're up against and what their options are, they feel abandoned and forlorn, as though they have to face this alone. No one is willing to talk about it."

The new study is the first to look at what happens to patients if they are or are not asked what kind of care they'd like to receive if they were dying, said lead researcher Dr. Alexi Wright of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

It involved 603 people in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Texas. All had failed chemotherapy for advanced cancer and had life expectancies of less than a year. They were interviewed at the start of the study and are being followed until their deaths. Records were used to document their care.

Of the 323 who have died so far, those who had end-of-life talks were three times less likely to spend their final week in intensive care, four times less likely to be on breathing machines, and six times less likely to be resuscitated.

About 7 percent of all patients in the study developed depression. Feeling nervous or worried was no more common among those who had end-of-life talks than those who did not.

That rings true, said Marshall, who is Mulligan's doctor at Georgetown University's Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patients often are relieved, and can plan for a "good death" and make decisions, such as do-not-resuscitate orders.

"It's sad, and it's not good news, but you can see the tension begin to fall" as soon as the patient and the family come to grips with a situation they may have suspected but were afraid to bring up, he said.

From an ethics point of view, "it's easy — patients ought to know," said Dr. Anthony Lee Back of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. "Talking about prognosis is where the rubber meets the road. It's a make-or-break moment — you earn that trust or you blow it," he told doctors at a training session at the cancer conference on how to break bad news.

People react differently, though, said Dr. James Vredenburgh, a brain tumor specialist at Duke University.

"There are patients who want to talk about death and dying when I first meet them, before I ever treat them. There's other people who never will talk about it," he said.

"Most patients know in their heart" that the situation is grim, "but people have an amazing capacity to deny or just keep fighting. For a majority of patients it's a relief to know and to just be able to talk about it," he said.

Sometimes it's doctors who have trouble accepting that the end is near, or think they've failed the patient unless they keep trying to beat the disease, said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society.

"I had seven patients die in one week once," Brawley said. "I actually had some personal regrets in some patients where I did not stop treatment and in retrospect, I think I should have."

James Rogers, 67 of Durham, N.C., wants no such regrets. Diagnosed with advanced lung cancer last October, he had only one question for the doctor who recommended treatment.

"I said 'Can you get rid of it?' She said 'no,'" and he decided to simply enjoy his final days with the help of the hospice staff at Duke.

"I like being told what my health condition is. I don't like beating around the bush," he said. "We all have to die. I've had a very good life. Death is not something that was fearful to me."***

I have mixed feelings about *universal* health care.  Of course the idea of world class health care for everyone that is paid for by x is a wonderful thought.  Who isn't for that?  But we all know it isn't that simple.

As one who pays for health care for myself and an employee I have many different thoughts and conerns from different directions but I don't have the answers.  The only thing I can say is that for any universal coverage to not bankrupt the system there would *have* to be some form of rationing.  Most Americans don't understand this and on an individual basis refuse to except this.  And as a doctor  I don't want to be the one in the middle who is the person who tells the patient they cannot have that MRI on day #1 for a shoulder or back sprain.  Yet the business guys with the HMOs have put us in that spot.  There better be strict guidelines set up in a way so I can refer this to the patient.  "No, you can't have this test because you don't qualify by national guidelines until these steps are followed".

Everyone cannot scour the country like Ed Kennedy shopping for all sorts of experimental care and expect others to pay for it.
BTW I wonder about his care.  Why is it he couldn't get the care in Massachussetts where there is world class health care?  Ever here of Mass General?  What is that guy at Duke and their University trying to sell?  There is to me an *obvious* self promotional aspect to their offering experimental stuff to a famous wealthy guy.  It is a sales decision - no more and no less.

Anyway here is some thoughts on universal care:   


***Senators Clinton’s and Obama’s split over mandating coverage distinguishes them from one another, but does that difference matter?

From the June ACP Internist, copyright © 2008 by the American College of Physicians.

Stacey ButterfieldBy Stacey Butterfield

In the seemingly endless Democratic primary, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expended a lot of effort trying to distinguish themselves from one other. She stands for experience, he stands for change, and so on.

They both stand for health care reform and have acknowledged that they propose very similar plans for covering the uninsured. But their plans do have one difference—mandates for coverage—and there doesn’t seem to be any consensus on whether that is a big, important difference or a small, insignificant one.

Both plans require insurers to offer coverage to everyone, and use federal funds to make the coverage affordable for consumers. However, Mrs. Clinton’s plan will require all Americans to purchase coverage or face as-yet-unspecified penalties. Mr. Obama’s plan requires mandatory insurance only for children; for adults, coverage will be optional.

Proxies explained their candidates’ proposals at the 2008 World Health Care Congress (WHCC) in Washington, D.C., where one of the keynote addresses featured representatives of the three major presidential campaigns. Since my last column focused on Mr. McCain’s proposals, I’ll stick to the discussion between Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Obama’s campaigns.

Democrats’ health plans not much help to undecided votersU.S. Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee, who represented Mr. Obama, said the mandate issue has been overplayed. “I think that’s much ado about a technical subject,” he told the audience of health care leaders in April. “The health care plans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are almost identical. We are for universal coverage.”

He also offered an explanation for Mr. Obama’s policy decision. “An upfront, individual mandate will probably get zero Republican co-sponsors in Congress,” Mr. Cooper said.

That’s not true, argued Chris Jennings, the political strategist who represented Mrs. Clinton at the WHCC. “There already is [bipartisan support],” he said. He noted that mandatory coverage legislation has been proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT), and two Republican governors, Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been the driving forces behind state efforts to mandate insurance.

“The reason why we want everyone to be in the system is to make it work rationally,” Mr. Jennings said. If consumers can wait until they are sick to purchase health insurance, it would raise the premiums of those who buy insurance as well as drawing intense protest from health insurers, he explained.

Obviously, the most likely to opt out under the non-mandatory plan would be the young and healthy whose premiums would typically subsidize the cost of covering the less healthy, more expensive patients. Mr. Obama’s advocates argue that if health insurance is made affordable, almost everyone would choose to buy it, but there’s no way to prove that without enacting a plan.

The Obama plan does have the advantage of being less expensive. Analysts have calculated that his plan would cost taxpayers 50%-80% of what the Clinton plan would. Since either plan would cost the government tens of billions of dollars a year, it’s somewhat difficult for laypeople to really grasp the price difference.

So what is the priority in creating a new health care coverage system? Gaining bipartisan support? Ensuring that everyone is within the system? Limiting cost?

Attendees at the WHCC, who were mostly health care industry executives, seemed to be thoroughly divided about the answers to these questions. After the representatives from the two Democratic campaigns and a spokesperson for Mr. McCain had presented their candidates’ proposals for health reform, the audience voted on their perceptions of feasibility and cost.

The votes were just about even. Mrs. Clinton’s plan got slightly positive ratings, with about 54% of the group finding it feasible and 51% saying it would help with costs. The voters were exactly split on the feasibility of Mr. Obama’s plan and slightly favorable (54%) on cost. The evaluation of Mr. McCain’s plan was slightly negative, with 45% voting yes on feasibility and 46% on cost.

With that mixed evaluation from the health care experts, it’s no wonder that the American voters are still undecided about who they want to lead health care reform.***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism

I don't know exactly where on the narcissism spectrum the Clinton's fall but it is frightening to think how this country keeps getting dragged through their psychopathology. While BO's politics are not at all my cup of tea at least there is nothing to suggest he is sick or nuts like the Clintons obviously are:

***Malignant narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Kernberg's theory. For the instrumental song by Rush, see Malignant Narcissism (song).

Otto Kernberg described malignant narcissism as a syndrome characterized by a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial features, paranoid traits, and ego-syntonic aggression. Other symptoms may include an absence of conscience, a psychological need for power, and a sense of importance (grandiosity). Pollock wrote: "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism."[1]

Kernberg claimed that malignant narcissism should be considered part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, which he saw as ranging from the Cleckley's antisocial character (today's psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end.[2] Kernberg wrote that malignant narcissism can be differentiated from psychopathy because of the malignant narcissists' capacity to internalize "both aggressive and idealized superego precursors, leading to the idealization of the aggressive, sadistic features of the pathological grandiose self of these patients." According to Kernberg, the psychopaths' paranoid stance against external influences makes them unwilling to internalize even the values of the "aggressor," while malignant narcissists "have the capacity to admire powerful people, and can depend on sadistic and powerful but reliable parental images." Malignant narcissists, in contrast to psychopaths, are also said to be capable of developing "some identification with other powerful idealized figures as part of a cohesive 'gang' ... which permits at least some loyalty and good object relations to be internalized." The malignant narcissist's main differences in impulse control from the psycopath is in the area of desired outcomes. While the psychopath displays more anti-social features, the malignant narcissist desires "unlimited power," a trait that is deemed positive in many capitalistic societies. It is possible for the malignant narcissist to move above and beyond their contemporaries, and make a postive contribution to society (although rarely is this the case). The malignant narcissist will attempt to make full use of their capabilities.

Malignant narcissism is related to narcissistic regression in infancy, in which the infant sees themself as the "center of the world." Whereas most infants grow out of this stage, the malignant narcissist is thought to be trapped in this period throughout their lifetime.

Malignant narcissism is highlighted as a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder.[3][4][citation needed]

[edit] See also

    * Antisocial Personality Disorder
    * Narcissism (psychology)
    * Narcissistic Personality Disorder
    * Narcissistic rage
    * Psychopath
    * Schizoid Personality Disroder

[edit] External links

    * Malignant Narcissism vs. Psychopathy http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_narcissist_and_a_sociopath
    * Narcissism and co-morbidity with other disorders http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq82.html
    * Is he/she a narcissist? http://www.ultimate-self.com/villains/

[edit] References

   1. ^ Pollock, G. H. (1978), Process and affect, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 59, 255–276.
   2. ^ Kernberg, O. F. (1994), The Psychotherapeutic Management of Psychopathic, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Transferences.
   3. ^ Gerberth, V., & Turco, R. (1997) Antisocial personality disorder, sexual sadism, malignant narcissism, and serial murder. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 49-60.
   4. ^ ^ Turco, R. (2001) Child serial murder-psychodynamics: closely watched shadows, Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 29(2), 331–338.***

 

America "dodged a bullet" for now.  Of course, it is far from over with the Clintons.  Notice she says she is *suspending* her campaign.

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate...."

Dick Morris explains:

WHAT’S UP HILLARY’S SLEEVE?
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
06.6.2008

Published on FOXNews.com on June 6, 2008.

Why won’t Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it?

The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning. Here’s what they’re up to:

1. The Obama Stumbles Option

As Hillary says, June is “early” in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O’Neill says “a week is a long time in politics.” So is three months.

Rumors abound about incriminating material on Obama, the potential for misstep is amplified now that he adjusts to a new task of taking on McCain, who knows how many other preachers there are in the closet? Hillary’s skilled force of private detectives, who we once called the secret police, are doubtless diving into garbage dumpsters all over America to come up with whatever they can.

Hillary wants to be there to exploit any mistakes. She will be watching and waiting. Suppose Obama flubs a line on the campaign trail or damaging material emerges from the Rezko prosecution? Hillary will indicate her continued availability as an alternative. Remember that superdelegates can change their minds anytime they want to. Now they are leaving Hillary to back Obama, the winner, but they could easily go the other way. By not releasing her pledged delegates, she remains within striking distance of the nomination if an Obama faux pas leads to an exodus of superdelegates from his camp.

2. Hillary for VP

By remaining a force at the convention, Hillary might be in a position to bail out a faltering Obama campaign by going on the ticket. There is no love lost between the two candidates. Hillary knows that Obama will not choose her voluntarily as his running mate. But if Obama falters, he might just need the shot in the arm Hillary would represent. By remaining in the shadows as a potential threat to wrest away the nomination, she might leverage her position to make Obama put her on the ticket.

She wants to be VP in case Obama loses so she can be positioned for 2012 and in case he wins so she can shoot for the stars in 2016. And, she doesn’t want anyone else to have the job so as not to create a potential rival.

3. The I Told You So Option

By remaining viable and keeping her delegates, Hillary stays in play through the convention. Her aides and associates can be counted on to dump on Obama subtly and, often, anonymously, as he moves forward. If Obama loses the election, and did not take her on his ticket, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012, much as Ronald Reagan capitalized on Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976, after Reagan had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, to bolster his credentials in 1980.

4. Paying Off Her Debts

By staying, at least partially, in the game, Hillary can continue to raise money and pay off her debts. And she can hold out a bargaining position to force Obama to do more and more to help her to raise money. Debts to her vendors are one thing. She can always raise funds to pay them off in the future. But the election law makes it illegal for her to pay herself back any sum above $250,000 after the Democratic Convention. Since she has lent her campaign at least $11 million, she wants to get as much of it back as possible before the convention deadline.

Hillary may set her candidacy aside for the moment. But her fortunes will continue to rise and fall inversely with Obama’s. Should he hit a rough patch, Hillary’s numbers are bound to improve, strengthening her bargaining position for funds or for the VP slot or, possibly giving her enough momentum to reopen the contest.

That’s her game.

Jun 6 2008
Copyright © 2008 DickMorris.com | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Login

Doug,
I'm glad you posted your thoughts.  McCain is certainly not ideal to me either.   But appeasing the religious right is simply not going to win an election on a national scale IMO anymore.  Reagan is history.   His second term was not so great.  Remember the stupid Iran - Contra, savings and loan mess that he did absolutely nothing about.  Thanks to him we have the illegal immigrant mess we have to today. the entire face and nature of the country is changing today because of that. And the vast majority of immigrants who come here vote Democrat.  *There were no entitlements* when my grandparents came off the boat.  So people who say the comparison is legit are lying - it ain't.

That all said Reagan was still the only president who I loved in my life time.  But he's over.  So are the 1980's.  The party needs new ideas and leaders.

My thoughts are exactly with Marc's.  BO will be a *disaster* for this country.  He is a flaming liberal who as one blogger noted is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  If the religious right wants to keep promoting ideals while the crats are promising free everything to everyone then the election is over.   We need concrete answers.  The repubs need to compromise.  I see no compromise from the religious right.  And without winning over the Independents or "Reagan Democrats" forget about holding on to the White House.  It is a nightmare to me if the crats get all 3 branches of government (including the Supreme Court).

As you know, if the right stays home they will get the worse of two evils - far worse.  Please keep encouraging your conservative friends the same as you are doing.
 
I would personally have preferred Romney.  But I doubt he had any chance to win a general election.  By the way his universal health care in Massachusetts is I have read a disaster.  Wait till BO and the crats do it on a national scale as Marc suggests.

BO picks Holder who helped get Marc Rich pardoned in Clinton's final days.  The Clintons are down but we all know they will *not* go away.  There people will still be trying to control behind the scenes.  Hillary will probably be made a health care czar which for me as a primary care physician is not something I would want to see.  She will spend every second positioning for her next run.  I really don't wish anything bad on anyone.  But it just seems the only way our country will be rid of them is when they die.  And then we will have Chelsea....

McCain can beat BO.  The Republicans have to wake up and rally behind him.  As usual the religious right holds the center of the Republican party hostage.

BO's first mistake:

***By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
06.4.2008

Published in The New York Post on June 5, 2008.

On his first day as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama made his first clear, serious mistake: He named Eric Holder as one of three people charged with vice-presidential vetting.

As deputy attorney general, Holder was the key person who made the pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Now, Obama will be stuck in the Marc Rich mess.

If ever there was a person who did not deserve a presidential pardon, it’s Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire who renounced his US citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, 51 counts of tax fraud, evading $48 million in taxes, and engaging in illegal trades with Iran in violation of the US embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

Seventeen years later, Rich wanted a pardon, and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss.

It was Holder who had originally recommended Quinn to one of Rich’s advisers, although he claims that he did not know the identity of the client.

And he gave substantive advice to Quinn along the way. According to Quinn’s notes that were produced to Congress, Holder told Quinn to take the pardon application “straight to the White House” because “the timing is good.”

And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.

In 2002, a congressional committee reported that Holder was a “willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing” the Rich pardon.

It is one thing to reach back to Obama’s pastor to raise doubts about his values. But it is quite another to scrutinize the record of his first appointee.

It couldn’t be a bigger mistake.***

"The presidency has to be earned, and Americans have a right to know much more about the gifted man who is the least tested and experienced major party nominee in modern times."


Well based on the company he keeps and the numerous back peddling change of positions (for example dealing with Palastinians) one would have to be, as radio host Mark Levin says, "Helen Keller" not to see that this guy is basically a  far lefty who associates with communists. 

Everyone could not only see and hear the preachers at his church, but we could also see the delight and glee and excitement of it's members at their words.  Of course he sat there for 20 years.  He agreed with it.

This is a huge problem for him.  He cannot convince otherwise at this point.  Unfortunately others especially the young will be taken in by their perception that he is charming.  "We must do this, we must do that, we have to do this, we have to do that..."  That's all I ever hear him say.  Oh really? we must, we have to?  Why because you say?

Tax like mad.  Redistribute wealth to buy himself votes.  Spend like crazy.  Weaken our influence around the world because we are "nice" and want to be liked.  Weaken our military.  Massively expand the reach and scope of government in our lives.  Expand the dependency of people on government.  All the while go around promoting yourself as a uniter not a divider yadda yadda yadda...

I always wondered how music is related to brain function.  How does music connect with our brain neurotransimission?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_re_us/music_s_healing_power;_ylt=AoY2XEdQpE1De9tb3G.cftqs0NUE

*But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself*

And with a Democratic landslide in November it will only get far worse.

This is still the greatest country.  It won't continue to be if BO is President.   Foreigners like him because they know he will negotiate away our leadership position in the world so we can be "liked", and they, not us will be the better.

BO is a fool.  And so are Americans if he wins.  He will exacerbate our weaknesses.  And that is why he is popular overseas.  Plain and simple.  Why else does our enemies love him. 

Maybe it is better if he wins.  Go the Jimmy Carter way again.  Apparantly many people need to be reminded we will screw ourlseves.  If McCain is Bush three than BO is Carter 2!

Interesting read. Charles was Canadian graduted from Harvard Medical School and taught psychiatry at Mass General and made significant contributions to the concept of bipolar disorder.
I thought he is in a wheelchair because of multiple sclerosis but it is the result of a long ago auto accident.  I like him because I usually agree with his views.  He has accomplished a lot especially while disabled.  There is no overt evidence he lets his disability get in his way.  In fact one can almost never tell that he is in a wheelchair when he is on the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

eom

****Jessica Back in Country on Multiple Levels

05/23/2008 5:58 PM, E! Online
Jessica Simpson hopped off her flight from Mexico and jumped right back to work.
The pop star, who returned to Los Angeles yesterday after spending a few days unwinding (from what, we wonder) with her family south of the border, apparently isn't in the mood for more R&R.
She was on the move today, making a quick stop at a Marriott hotel in Sherman Oaks and then holing up in a West Hollywood recording studio.
A source close to the songstress told E! News that Simpson planned to spend six to eight hours at the studio working on material for a "country crossover" album.
Sounds about right for a little lady who's been suspiciously without her Cowboy for awhile.****

My guess.  A group of crooks stole her the "material" got her up to the studio ASAP to record it in secret before someone else can steal it.  I just hope the lyrics are not Katherine's.  And Simpson the dope she appears to be gets the singing credits.  Somehow her and her poppa have an "in" in the "business".  It ain't because he's a genius and obviously not she.

By the way.  With regards to Keyes and Dershowitz I recall a debate between these two some years back.

I haven't actually tried this link but hopefully it works if you have the time and the interest.

I thought Dershowitz won hands down.  He shot Alan's arguments full of holes, and ran circles around him.  I would be the first to say he was superb!

On the other hand I know someone who was a law student at Harvard and I recall asking him what it was like to study with some of the world's great minds.  I specifically asked about Dershowitz.  The response took me by surprise:

"What a pompous jerk".

 ***Did Bush risk American lives and his political life to save Jews?***

Yes, I think that was part of the calculation in invading Iraq.  Obviously it hasn't worked as well as thought, but he certainly is risking American lives right now.   And I think if he had more political backing he would bomb the shit out of Iran's nuclear facilities, but America has turned weak.

******Would McCain?***   

In my mind I believe he would, absolutely.

As for Alan Dershowitz he can't see without his Democrat/liberal colored glasses.  So of course he will back the Democrat - he *always* does.  I have never heard him say a kind word for any Republican.  He could be an editorialist for the NYT.

Is/was Bush terrible for the country?  All I can say is the whole Republican party has been a disgrace the last 5 years - since 911 IMO.  I am a truly disappointed Republican. 

We have used other methods to estimate the ultimate recovery of conventional oil for each country [see box on next two pages], and we calculate that the oil industry will be able to recover only about another 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil. This number, though great, is little more than the 800 billion barrels that have already been extracted.

It is important to realize that spending more money on oil exploration will not change this situation. After the price of crude hit all-time highs in the early 1980s, explorers developed new technology for finding and recovering oil, and they scoured the world for new fields. They found few: the discovery rate continued its decline uninterrupted. There is only so much crude oil in the world, and the industry has found about 90 percent of it.

Predicting when oil production will stop rising is relatively straightforward once one has a good estimate of how much oil there is left to produce. We simply apply a refinement of a technique first published in 1956 by M. King Hubbert. Hubbert observed that in any large region, unrestrained extraction of a finite resource rises along a bellshaped curve that peaks when about half the resource is gone. To demonstrate his theory, Hubbert fitted a bell curve to production statistics and projected that crude oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would rise for 13 more years, then crest in 1969, give or take a year. He was right: production peaked in 1970 and has continued to follow Hubbert curves with only minor deviations. The flow of oil from several other regions, such as the former Soviet Union and the collection of all oil producers outside the Middle East, also follows Hubbert curves quite faithfully.

The global picture is more complicated, because the Middle East members of OPEC deliberately reined back their oil exports in the 1970s, while other nations continued producing at full capacity. Our analysis reveals that a number of the largest producers, including Norway and the U.K., will reach their peaks around the turn of the millennium unless they sharply curtail production. By 2002 or so the world will rely on Middle East nations, particularly five near the Persian Gulf (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), to fill in the gap between dwindling supply and growing demand. But once approximately 900 Gbo have been consumed, production must soon begin to fall. Barring a global recession, it seems most likely that world production of conventional oil will peak during the first decade of the 21st century.

Perhaps surprisingly, that prediction does not shift much even if our estimates are a few hundred billion barrels high or low. Craig Bond Hatfield of the University of Toledo, for example, has conducted his own analysis based on a 1991 estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey of 1,550 Gbo remaining—55 percent higher than our figure. Yet he similarly concludes that the world will hit maximum oil production within the next 15 years. John D. Edwards of the University of Colorado published last August one of the most optimistic recent estimates of oil remaining: 2,036 Gbo. (Edwards concedes that the industry has only a 5 percent chance of attaining that very high goal.) Even so, his calculations suggest that conventional oil will top out in 2020.

Factors other than major economic changes could speed or delay the point at which oil production begins to decline. Three in particular have often led economists and academic geologists to dismiss concerns about future oil production with naive optimism.

First, some argue, huge deposits of oil may lie undetected in far-off corners of the globe. In fact, that is very unlikely. Exploration has pushed the frontiers back so far that only extremely deep water and polar regions remain to be fully tested, and even their prospects are now reasonably well understood. Theoretical advances in geochemistry and geophysics have made it possible to map productive and prospective fields with impressive accuracy. As a result, large tracts can be condemned as barren. Much of the deepwater realm, for example, has been shown to be absolutely nonprospective for geologic reasons.

What about the much touted Caspian Sea deposits? Our models project that oil production from that region will grow until around 2010. We agree with analysts at the USGS World Oil Assessment program and elsewhere who rank the total resources there as roughly equivalent to those of the North Sea that is, perhaps 50 Gbo but certainly not several hundreds of billions as sometimes reported in the media.

A second common rejoinder is that new technologies have steadily increased the fraction of oil that can be recovered from fields in a basin—the so-called recovery factor. In the 1960s oil companies assumed as a rule of thumb that only 30 percent of the oil in a field was typically recoverable; now they bank on an average of 40 or 50 percent. That progress will continue and will extend global reserves for many years to come, the argument runs.

Of course, advanced technologies will buy a bit more time before production starts to fall [see "Oil Production in the 21st Century," by Roger N. Anderson, on page 86]. But most of the apparent improvement in recovery factors is an artifact of reporting. As oil fields grow old, their owners often deploy newer technology to slow their decline. The falloff also allows engineers to gauge the size of the field more accurately and to correct previous underestimation—in particular P90 estimates that by definition were 90 percent likely to be exceeded.

Another reason not to pin too much hope on better recovery is that oil companies routinely count on technological progress when they compute their reserve estimates. In truth, advanced technologies can offer little help in draining the largest basins of oil, those onshore in the Middle East where the oil needs no assistance to gush from the ground.

Last, economists like to point out that the world contains enormous caches of unconventional oil that can substitute for crude oil as soon as the price rises high enough to make them profitable. There is no question that the resources are ample: the Orinoco oil belt in Venezuela has been assessed to contain a staggering 1.2 trillion barrels of the sludge known as heavy oil. Tar sands and shale deposits in Canada and the former Soviet Union may contain the equivalent of more than 300 billion barrels of oil [see "Mining for Oil," by Richard L. George, on page 84]. Theoretically, these unconventional oil reserves could quench the world’s thirst for liquid fuels as conventional oil passes its prime. But the industry will be hard-pressed for the time and money needed to ramp up production of unconventional oil quickly enough

Such substitutes for crude oil might also exact a high environmental price. Tar sands typically emerge from strip mines. Extracting oil from these sands and shales creates air pollution. The Orinoco sludge contains heavy metals and sulfur that must be removed. So governments may restrict these industries from growing as fast as they could. In view of these potential obstacles, our skeptical estimate is that only 700 Gbo will be produced from unconventional reserves over the next 60 years.

Meanwhile global demand for oil is currently rising at more than 2 percent a year. Since 1985, energy use is up about 30 percent in Latin America, 40 percent in Africa and 50 percent in Asia. The Energy Information Administration forecasts that worldwide demand for oil will increase 60 percent (to about 40 Gbo a year) by 2020.

The switch from growth to decline in oil production will thus almost certainly create economic and political tension. Unless alternatives to crude oil quickly prove themselves, the market share of the OPEC states in the Middle East will rise rapidly. Within two years, these nations’ share of the global oil business will pass 30 percent, nearing the level reached during the oil-price shocks of the 1970s. By 2010 their share will quite probably hit 50 percent.

The world could thus see radical increases in oil prices. That alone might be sufficient to curb demand, flattening production for perhaps 10 years. (Demand fell more than 10 percent after the 1979 shock and took 17 years to recover.) But by 2010 or so, many Middle Eastern nations will themselves be past the midpoint. World production will then have to fall.

With sufficient preparation, however, the transition to the post-oil economy need not be traumatic. If advanced methods of producing liquid fuels from natural gas can be made profitable and scaled up quickly, gas could become the next source of transportation fuel [see "Liquid Fuels from Natural Gas," by Safaa A. Fouda, on page 92]. Safer nuclear power, cheaper renewable energy, and oil conservation programs could all help postpone the inevitable decline of conventional oil.

Countries should begin planning and investing now. In November a panel of energy experts appointed by President Bill Clinton strongly urged the administration to increase funding for energy research by $1 billion over the next five years. That is a small step in the right direction, one that must be followed by giant leaps from the private sector.

The world is not running out of oil—at least not yet. What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend.
How Much Oil is Left to Find?

We combined several techniques to conclude that about 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil remain to be produced. First, we extrapolated published production figures for older oil fields that have begun to decline. The Thistle field off the coast of Britain, for example, will yield about 420 million barrels (a). Second, we plotted the amount of oil discovered so far in some regions against the cumulative number of exploratory wells drilled there. Because larger fields tend to be found first-they are simply too large to miss-the curve rises rapidly and then flattens, eventually reaching a theoretical maximum: for Africa, 192 Gbo. But the time and cost of exploration impose a more practical limit of perhaps 165 Gbo (b). Third, we analyzed the distribution of oil-field sizes in the Gulf of Mexico and other provinces. Ranked according to size and then graphed on a logarithmic scale, the fields tend to fall along a parabola that grows predictably over time (c). (Interestingly, galaxies, urban populations and other natural agglomerations also seem to fall along such parabolas.) Finally, we checked our estimates by matching our projections for oil production in large areas, such as the world outside the Persian Gulf region, to the rise and fall of oil discovery in those places decades earlier (d).
-C.J.C. and J.H.L
The Authors

COLIN J. CAMPBELL and JEAN H. LAHERRÈRE have each worked in the oil industry for more than 40 years. After completing his Ph.D. in geology at the University of Oxford, Campbell worked for Texaco as an exploration geologist and then at Amoco as chief geologist for Ecuador. His decade-long study of global oil-production trends has led to two books and numerous papers. Laherrère’s early work on seismic refraction surveys contributed to the discovery of Africa’s largest oil field. At Total, a French oil company, he supervised exploration techniques worldwide. Both Campbell and Laherrère are currently associated with Petroconsultants in Geneva.

**explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran**

BO doesn't say it, but he also thinking Israel in the same sentence.

A nuclear Iran will likely spur a regional arms race:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683868&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

****So why is he meeting with one of Hezbollah's most important imams and agents in America, Imam Hassan Qazwini?****

At *best* its because he thinks some "genius argument" is going to convince our enemies they have been wrong all along.
At *worst* it is because he agrees with the Farrakan/Hymietown anti-Jewish wing of the Black "community" who he obviously adores, and that he also hates Jews.

At this point I am leaning closer to the *worst* hypothesis than I am the *best* hypothesis.  He is just not that dumb.  And he is a superior manipulator.

While listening to the cable news this am, I notice two well know causes of seizures in older folks where conveniently left off the list; what should be included are cancers, primary and metastatic, and either intoxication or withdrawal from alcohol use.
Even sleep deprivation can in certain circumstances trigger one.

I am not sure really.  But I sense BO has run with the "Hymietown" crowd.  That is enough for me to be suspicious yet nothing here is ironclad:


May 10, 2008
Jews can’t vote for Obama and be pro-Israel at the same time

By Ted Belman

ted-4.jpgIn the poll of Jewish voters (conducted April 1-30), it showed Obama getting 61% of the Jewish vote against John McCain (32%). Yet in the same poll Hillary Clinton beat Obama among Jewish voters 62% - 38%. So obviously Jews are lifelong democrats who will vote for Obama, whom they rejected in the primaries, rather than vote for McCain. Thus, for them, party loyalty is preferable to Israel loyalty.

Recently I posted two articles by Yarom Ettinger, former Israeli Ambassador to the US, The Prospects of a Palestinian State and National Interests of the United States and It’s American interests, stupid, both of which clearly demonstrate that keeping Israel strong is to keep America strong. Thus to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America.

Now some would argue that most Jewish Americans are not one issue voters but they must realize that to favour a basket of issues or the Democratic Party above favouring Israel, makes them less pro-Israel and thus less pro-American. This I am sure will get howls of protest from the J-Street Lobby which represents progressive Jewry, who would have you believe that by forcing Israel to capitulate, they are acting in the best interests of Israel and the US. I hope you don’t buy their thinking. These articles fly in the face of such thinking. Consider them carefully it is important.

While most Jews favour Obama in a run off with McCain because he is a Democrat, they ignore how pro-Palestinian and anti-American he is.

Let me list the ways.

      - Obama said “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,”

      - Obama said “If there is an Arab American family [in the US] being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, those are my civil liberties!”

      - Everyone on Obama’s foreign policy team, McPeak, Hamilton, Kurtzer, Brezezinski, are anti- Israel and The Israel Lobby. Their policies are closely aligned with Carter’s and Baker’s.

      - Obama has been in bed with Jew haters and Islamic jihad for years. Farrakhan and his dear friend Reverend Wright, Obama’s spiritual guru, is a vile Jew hater.

      - Obama is the first Presidential candidate endorsed by Hamas. He is the toast of the Islamic world. Obama’s church posted a Hamas manifesto.

      - Obama has been endorsed by William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist) (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama) Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor) Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing) Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American) Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization) Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization) Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin) Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party) Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party) The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist Mosques are preaching for Obama (muslims vote inshallah!)

      - We know from this blog entry by the pro-Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah at The Electronic Intifadah, that Obama has moved to a move pro-Israel position as his national aspirations developed. “The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood,” Abunimah writes. “He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. “As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, ‘Keep up the good work!”

      - Ralph Nader agrees.“(Obama) has run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself….He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran–during the state Senate.”

      - Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe.” (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.). The co-founder of that Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department. Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

      - Ten years ago Obama went to a pro-Palestinian dinner at which Edward Said was the guest speaker and they sat at the same table.

      - Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.

      - Obama very recently and previously referred to the “cycle of violence” in the Middle East. He thereby equates Arab criminal violence with legitimate Israeli self-defence.

      - Obama’s Church reprinted the outrageous claim that Israel planned an “ethnic bomb” to kill blacks and Arabs.

All items listed above cannot be characterized as a smear as they are all true.

How can Jews ignore all this or dismiss it as inconsequential? I don’t get it.

ADDENDUM ( found this article after writing mine.)

A Curious Kind of Friendship; Barack Obama’s dubious record on Israel

MARK HEMINGWAY, NRO

On April 21, Barack Obama found himself at a diner in Scranton, Pa. The Illinois senator hadn’t been available to the press in ten days, so a reporter approached him.

Perhaps Obama was in a bad mood because he foresaw a drubbing — the next day, Pennsylvanian primary voters went for Hillary. Or maybe he just didn’t like the reporter’s question: “Senator, did you hear about Jimmy Carter’s trip? He said he could get Hamas to negotiate.”

Looking down at his breakfast, the senator snapped back, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

The week before, two important things had happened. One, Obama had declined to condemn Carter’s meeting with Hamas, though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had opposed the trip. Two, the Palestinian terrorist group took the unusual step of endorsing him. When asked about the endorsement, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.”

Republican nominee John McCain quickly took note. “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas,” he said.

The day following Wafflegate, Obama told the press it was a “bad idea” for Carter to meet with Hamas, as it gave the group “a legitimacy that was unnecessary.”

It’s understandable that Obama would rather do just about anything than talk about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Questions about Obama’s support for Israel have percolated in Jewish publications and elsewhere for more than a year, and now they threaten to spill over into the mainstream media. In March, speaking to reporters in Texas, Obama defended his record: “Nobody has ever been able to point to statements that I made or positions that I’ve taken that are contrary to the long-term security interests in Israel and in any way diminish the special relationship we have with that country.” Trouble is, this claim is simply not true.

Obama has been battling the perception that he is insufficiently supportive of Israel since last year, when he told the Des Moines Register, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” An Iowa Democrat and member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), David Adelman, called Obama’s comments “deeply troubling.” Obama claimed the remark was taken out of context, but the Politico noted that talk of Obama’s comment was one of many reasons that a “real, if kind of inchoate, skepticism” dominated discussions of Obama at AIPAC’s annual policy conference in March of last year.

Whatever the context of that specific remark, many subsequent revelations have given ample reason for skepticism: Obama has repeatedly claimed to support Israel, but his record doesn’t jibe with his rhetoric. Last year, he announced he would vote against an amendment in the Senate declaring Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — which has long supported Hezbollah terrorists and otherwise abetted the murder of Israelis — a terrorist group. The resolution passed 76–22, with the support of Hillary Clinton, Illinois senator Dick Durbin, and a host of other reliable liberals. Obama missed the vote while campaigning in New Hampshire, but he attacked Clinton on the issue, saying the non-binding amendment might exacerbate tensions with Iran.

What’s more, his life is marked by ties to anti-Israeli causes. A recent report in the Los Angeles Times detailed Obama’s close relationship with Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. In the late 1970s Khalidi worked with WAFA, the official news agency of the Palestinian Liberation Organization; during this period, the PLO and its factions
engaged in acts of terrorism. In 2005 Khalidi gained national attention when he argued that, under international law, Palestinians have a right to violently resist Israeli occupation.

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi co-founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an organization with a history of churning out anti-Israeli propaganda. AAAN’s current projects include “The Arab American Oral History Project.” The group’s website asks, “Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?” “Al Nakba” translates as “the catastrophe,” and 1948 is the year in which Israel became a
state.

Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s failed congressional bid in 2000, while Obama was a state senator representing the liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. In 2003, Obama attended a tribute dinner for Khalidi where, according to the Los Angeles Times, a speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden.

The largess flowed in both directions. From 1999 to 2002 Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a grant-making foundation with assets of $68 million whose nominal goal is “to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the [Chicago] metropolitan area.” According to tax forms and annual reports, in 2001 and 2002 the Woods Fund gave AAAN a total of $75,000 in grants. Bill Ayers, a former (and unrepentant) member of the left-wing terrorist group the Weather Underground, sat on the board with
Obama.

The aforementioned Politico article also noted “[anti-Israeli] sentiment . .. circulating largely on private email lists and in chatter about a posting on the pro-Palestinian blog Electronic Intifada, which claimed (with little evidence) that Obama was once on the Palestinian side.” For some time Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah has been saying that, in private
conversations, Obama expressed unequivocal pro-Palestinian views. Abunimah is an activist in Chicago’s Palestinian community, and is on the board of AAAN, with which he has a long history of involvement. Given Obama’s own involvement with Khalidi and AAAN, Abunimah’s claim to have had such conversations with Obama seems plausible.

There have also been flaps over campaign advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, has recently endorsed and campaigned with Obama. Brzezinski was singled out recently for defending The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book arguing that “the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel].” After a campaign press release described Robert Malley, an adviser to the Clinton administration on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as an Obama adviser, the campaign sought to distance itself from Malley — whom New Republic editor-in-chief Marty Peretz has called “a rabid hater of Israel.”

When it comes to Israel, perhaps the most controversial member of Obama’s campaign is his chief military adviser and national-campaign co-chairman, Gen. Merrill McPeak. In 1976, McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs criticizing Israel for not returning to its 1967 borders and handing the Golan Heights back to Syria. McPeak accused Jewish and evangelical voters of placing their interest in Israel above U.S. interests in a 2003 interview with the
Oregonian. When asked what was holding back world peace, McPeak responded, “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote . . . here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” Obama disavowed McPeak’s stance on Israel, but stands behind the campaign’s relationship with the general.

Then there’s Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. . . . [We need to] wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.” Last year, the bulletin at Wright ’s church reprinted an article by a Hamas official.

Given Obama’s past and current relationships, the Jewish community is taking his rhetoric with hefty portions of sodium chloride. One well-known Jewish Democratic strategist says that with Obama running, McCain could equal or even surpass the 39 percent of the Jewish vote that Ronald Reagan captured against Jimmy Carter in 1980. This could be a major factor in swing states with significant Jewish populations, notably Florida and Pennsylvania. According to Pennsylvania-primary exit polls, Jews went for Hillary, 62 to 38 percent.

There are two ways of looking at all this. Perhaps Obama is privately hostile to Israel. Or perhaps he comes from a Hyde Park milieu so leftist that he saw these relationships as normal political connections. In a sense it doesn’t matter: Regardless of why Obama tolerates terrorist sympathizers, the fact that he has a history of doing so could destroy his candidacy. On the national stage, and particularly in the Democratic party, Jews play a prominent role.

“A normal liberal politician wouldn’t get near this — the political instinct would be, ‘I don’t want to touch this’ — but none of it offended his sensibilities,” the Jewish Democratic strategist said. “He sat there in rooms where Israel was likened to Osama bin Laden. He didn’t walk out.”
Posted by Ted Belman @ 12:07 pm |

I haven't heard or do I care much about it or that Dolly is "humilialted".  I alledge Parton has for years sung and claimed to have written songs she never wrote.  Blue Ridge Mountain Boy it was known in Nashville was said to be written by Kathy Mateo not Parton as she claimed.

Of course she also seems to be singing and claiming songs that are exactly like my wife has written.  She also claims to have 3000 copywritten songs and writes exactly  the way my wife writes.  Ideas pop into her head and she just keeps notes on her all day long later finishing the song.   Wow!  Years ago she said that to wirte lyrics she would have to go off to a cabin in the woods where there was total piece and quiet to be able to concentrate and not be distracted to be able to come up with anything.  Now her story is changed.   It is amazing how all these Country stars claim they have hundreds or even thousands of songs written.  Well where are they?  So why is Shania Twain delaying her album from January to March and now November?
Whatever excuse they will use, and they can make up anything, who will know otherwise, I know the real reason.  Look up a song she claims called shoes.  Why isn't it released here in the US?  They must not have finished the "clean up".

So Dolly, as far as I am concerned you a phoney full of crap mannequin:



Parton "shocked" at Howard Stern radio segment
Wed May 14, 2008 3:51pm EDT
 
08 May 2008
 
By Jonathan Cohen

NEW YORK (Billboard) - Country music star Dolly Parton has hit back against Howard Stern's satellite radio show, which last week manipulated recordings from one of her audio books into seemingly racist and sexually graphic sound bites.

"I have never been so shocked, hurt and humiliated in all my life," Parton said in a statement on Wednesday. "I cannot believe what Howard Stern has done to me. In a blue million years, I would never have such vulgar things come out of my mouth. They have done editing or some sort of trickery to make this horrible, horrible thing. Please accept my apology for them and certainly know I had nothing to do with this."

She concluded: "If there was ever going to be a lawsuit, it's going to be over this. Just wanted you to know that I am completely devastated by this."

"The Howard Stern Show" frequently utilizes audio book recordings in this fashion; altered clips from "Star Trek" actor George Takei became a staple of the program in recent years.

Reuters/Billboard

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
 

I really can't believe I am reading this stuff about chantix.  I can't tell you the miracle this drug has been for some patients.  I am telling you some of these anti-pharma people are total crack pots.  They are making lots of money with their anti-pharma agenda.
The truth is in my practice that people who complain of side effects from this drug are almost without exception people who really didn't want to quit to start with.  They are using any excuse, consciously or unconsciously, to say they "can't" quit.  The people who tell me before starting the drug they *really want* to  quit and want to try the drug or anything else that works, do very well with it.   I am saying without any uncertain terms that this guy sidney wolfe, and his like, are doing far more harm then good.  Now I get people who have smoked for decades who are now reluctant to use chantix because of all the negative publicity from these self important big mouth jerks.
Someone should start investigating these prima donnas like Wolfe, like Nissan, like Topol from the Cleveland Clinic.  I guarantee they are getting rich.

http://body.aol.com/condition-center/smoking-cessation/news/article/_a/drug-recommended-to-help-quit-smoking/20080508123709990001