Wednesday, August 14, 2013

facial recognition software

Today on MSN I read that pay pal is perfecting software so that shoppers don't need a wallet. No Physical ID. Just their smart phone, and their face. At limited (for now) retailers they can check out getting their face scanned. The ease and convenience of this for some is obvious. However, the potential for abuse is daunting to think about. Even if you believe that government and business entities will only use this for good (I DON'T HAVE SUCH FAITH) the risk one is exposed to from genius criminals is unprecedented. If they could manipulate the system to steal your facial records, make their face your face in databases, exc. The results of such malicious behavior is limited only by the mind of those willing to commit such acts. Pay Pal expects this to be the method of payment for many by 2016. Read article here http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-facial-recognition-can-verify-paypal-payment

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abortion, and what?

As released by the AP, "PHILADELPHIA - A jury weighing murder charges against a Philadelphia abortion provider will re-hear several hours of testimony before resuming deliberations. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is charged with killing a patient and four babies allegedly born alive. Prosecutors say the 72-year-old Gosnell routinely killed babies born alive. The jury is set to spend much of Wednesday reviewing the testimony of medical assistant Lynda Williams. One of the infant deaths Gosnell is charged with relates to Williams. She has testified that she cut the child in the back of the neck after it was alive for about 20 minutes. Gosnell is charged with first-degree murder for allegedly conspiring with Williams to kill that baby. Williams has pleaded guilty to third-degree murder. The jury has been deliberating for a week Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/dr-kermit-gosnell-abortion-trial-a-week-in-jury-weighs-pennsylvania-abortion-clinic-deaths#ixzz2Sds9TfIJ Mousie Marc Says, " Hey why haven't the media put this front page and put it on the mainstream news?" Well the following link really sheds the details pretty well. http://www.policymic.com/articles/34339/dr-kermit-gosnell-s-abortion-trial-why-isn-t-the-media-covering-it Lets quote from this article at depth "Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant – seven and a half months – when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal." As was his wont, Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell would try to lighten the mood with a bit joking. Boy A was, he said, "big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop." But Boy A will never have that chance. The good doctor saw to that. Dr. Gosnell was the operator of an abortion mill – this was no clinic – located in West Philadelphia called the "Women's Medical Society" and set up in 1972. He was a product of the local neighborhood, and he had spent almost four decades running his establishment – "giving back" to the community he grew up in. Of course, he had a peculiar form of charity: "Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure." Gosnell's mill was known for its willingness to carry out late-term abortions – the illegal practice (in Pennsylvania) of killing a child after the initial 24 weeks of pregnancy. Indeed, as word spread about the doctor's services, women would come from all around to enjoy the benefit of his service.' Mousie Marc Says, "'Oh ha ha ha. That child could have walked me to the bus stop before I snipped this breathing childs spinal cord and watched it die.' Oh that Dr. Gosnell, he's a real humanitarian, and funny to boot. The article continues, ""There was blood on the floor," witnesses reported. "A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets." Mousie Marc Says, "Oh and here comes the most game changing part of the article. When asked why this practice was allowed to continue for DECADES. The article makes this conclusion." In short, "the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion." Mousie Marc Says, "So back to my original question. Why is this not being covered? This is just the tip of the ice berg of what this guy has done. I've heard so much more. Following through on abortions even when the women changed her mind by quickly sedating her being just one of them. our society wouldn't be protecting it's sacred cow would it?"

Friday, April 19, 2013

Boston, marshal law

I am going to make this blog bit nice, sweet, and to the point. I just watched the alphabet channels clearly display marshal law. Granted, one can point to the fact they were chasing two terrorist suspects who bombed the Boston marathon. For the sake of argument I'm going to give you that one (even though I personally believe there is a lot more behind this story, and the words "false flag" come to mind). Still, the entire city of Boston and surrounding areas for the most part was shut down and militarized. This basicly happened overnight. I have no doubt it will quickly disperse and some form of normalcy will ensue shortly after. However, the fact that our government can militarize a city that large in such a short period of time should give you pause. What else can they do? How quickly? I learned a thing or two today. 1. Our country could potentially be under marshal law in a weeks time if they so desire it to be. 2. Even after 9/11 people will still spew sport team like slogans while not engaging their brains, and thinking about what is really going on. Many people think that the whole story is over. They catch two guys and think, "that's it." How could two guys pull this off? How could two guys just set up multiple bombs around a highly visible marathon guarded by police? What about the reports that there were training exercises that that a bomb went off the day before? Is it true that someone was screaming it's just a drill while the bombs were going off? Good questions.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Nikki Sixx, The Heroin Diaries First, I have never tried heroin. I was offered it once as a teenager and turned it down flat. I come from a family who has many members who have succumbed to various alcohol and drug addictions. I have lost family members to alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and others. I personally chose not to go down this road. I read this book attempting to possibly gain more insight into my loved ones who did use IV drugs. I got a bit of a better idea. More on me later most of you want a book review. The Heroin Diaries on one hand are very telling stories about drug addiction. Telling us about being strung out and vomiting and having diarrhea at the same time should not come across as glamorous to anyone. On the other hand I would have liked to have seen him really spell out his unique situation a little more. Yes, he actually died and was brought back to life twice. Yes, he did have multiple relapses and talks about how he had to deal with his personal emotional demons before he could STAY Straight. But one of the things he mentions (but not in as much detail as I would like to have seen) is how his rock stardom, and subsequent million dollar finances allowed him to do this. Nikki didn't have to physically steal from his family and friends to get his drugs. He burned through a million dollars in drugs (mostly heroin and cocaine) in one year. I would have loved one entry that stated, "If I wasn't an international rock star I would have lived on the street and stolen from everyone around me. I probably would have ended up dead long before my two failed attempts. I had so many people looking after me I didn't have to be responsible at all. They enabled me, and I had the money to do it. If you think this is glamorous, just think, instead of having the ability to spend a million dollars on drugs in one year, you'll burn every friend and family member you ever once loved. They will never trust you until your clean, and you will end up on the streets soaked in your own urine shooting drugs without anyone at your side dying and wishing you were dead." He did do a little of this with his stories concerning Ratt guitarist Robin Crosby. Robin lost his battle with heroin. Robin got AIDS from sharing needles with vagabond street junkies, and died homeless and broke. From being a millionaire with platinum records to dying homeless without shoes on the streets of Los Angelas. Those are the stories I would have love a little more of. Not all together Nikki's fault. He found a way through the heroin death trap. Many do not. My adopted father lost his brother to heroin that way. I got to watch my dad cry like a baby. I give Nikki a lot of credit for putting this in print to begin with. However, because some of the drug stories are in turn associated with the band "Motley Crue" I feel drug use was occasionally glamorized in the "rock Star" persona. I do feel he did a good job of showing the lonely aspect of drugs, the lying, the nights by yourself, the paranoia. All in all he did a good job. Last but not least I want to tell you about those who don't use drugs, alcohol, or have other addictions but are hurt by them. The little girl who's mother had an addiction and kept getting them evicted from every home they ever had. The anger that stems from that is great, and that little girl grew up to be a nurse but had to work to overcome her childhood. The little boy who watched his mother falling asleep drunk in a bowl of cheerios everyday when he came home from school. He saw the needle fall out of his uncles pocket with a spoon, and didn't understand why his brother had all those "cigarette burns" on his arms that were irregularly shaped (you know track marks). That little boy also grew up, became a nurse, and married the the little girl above. They both chose to go on a different path than the examples they saw growing up. But what they didn't quite understand, and that which would take them years to understand is the impact it had on them. One became angry and had to deal with those issues for years because of her childhood. The other learned to ignore everything as if it didn't exist. Imagine being a nurse a year out of school and getting your first heroin addict. Charge nurse tells you, "Typical infected abscess from injecting." You go in and introduce yourself, and you leave the room like, "What, typical what, that guy is just a normal dude." My coworkers looked at me like I was out of my mind. I had completely shut off seeing addiction in any form as a defense mechanism. Drug addicts around the home were normal when I was growing up. My uncles friend was a chiropractor before he lost his license and family to cocaine addiction. Last I heard, he lost his two new children (because his first wife divorced him and took his first child) he had with his new girlfriend (a heroin addict) because the kids came out addicted. Though he (the former chiropractor) is working at a pawn shop for minimum wage, living in a slum, and trying to avoid the dealers he owed money to. How glamorous is that? Unless your a rock star with a million dollars to spend on smack and blow you'll end up dead and it won't be glamorous.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Snapperheads, Broken Angel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NThifyvH-is&feature=share

Monday, July 16, 2012

Mcdonald's and me.

I'm like a McDonald's cheese burger. No matter how many people throw me in the trash, I can come out years later like new. Marc

Friday, May 4, 2012

The country we live in.

I have a few questions. 1. Why are there reports that homeland security has ordered 450 million hollow point rounds? http://www.topix.com/forum/city/terre-haute-in/TSOAOR36CMV61DRUQ 2. Why is homeland security moving their "deadliest Animal disease lab to K- State?" It was on a Island in New York but now it's going to be in the midwest, right in the middle of our country. I would like to know the real reason, not the story their telling all of us. http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/A-government-research-lab-will-study-deadliest-animal-diseases-at-K-State,-raising-safety-concerns 3. Why do people still believe they have our best interest at heart?

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Super Tuesday, or Super depressing

Well looks like Mitt Romney is pulling away ever so slightly in the Republican presidential nomination. My wife keeps pestering me about calling this guy or that guy to get x, y and z done around the house. All I can think about is that The Ron Paul ship looks sunk. Heck I opted not to go to my sons last soccer event (thus making him miss it as well) just so I could go to the washington state caucus since my state opted not to have a primary. We only had a two hour window to be there, and my county is about 70% Ron Paul supporters. We went just to learn that even though Paul was kicking huge booty in my county he still might not get the majority of my county's delegates. See we have an automatic delegates that are assigned by precinct. Ours was a Santorum supporter even though santorum represented less than 10% of the caucus members in my area. Santorum automatically gets one of our areas delegates. Paul killed in our straw poll. Yet it doesn't look like he will get the delegates. Heck even John Stewart likes Paul. Everyone knows Paul has the best chance of beating Obama (even among Romeny and santorum supporters).

I was at a table at my local caucus with 7 other Paul supporters, 4 Romney and one santorum (though the Santorum supporter was an automatic delegate out of 4 total). So here I am amongst Paul supporters all saying they didn't think he would get the nomination (I don't either). Then, the mother statement came from one of them, "We have to support whoever gets the nomination to get Obama out of there." RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT (envision braking suddenly going at 100 plus MPH). I looked at them all and stated, "I can't do that. Not one of these other candidates holds the principals that Dr. Paul does." They really all are Obama light. Romney passed Romney care. Oh ya, that guy is not going to get rid of Obama's healthcare bill. Gingrich and Santorum are front men for the fed pure and simple. Paul is the only one who would cut the size of the federal government. He is the only candidate who can restore constitutional values. The rest of them are like switching from non filtered cigarettes to filtered cigarettes. Your still going to die from cancer. The only difference is that by voting for Romney you get to FEEL better about yourself. Truth, your voting for Obama light.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

interesting article on garden beds and pressure treated wood.

Your Garden?Here’s the information to help you decide
by Ruth Lively


Lumber absorbs CCA compounds in large pressurized tanks. A couple of decades ago, lumber impregnated with chromated copper arsenate (known as CCA) was considered the answer to a gardener’s prayer. It boasted longer life than rot-resistant species like redwood, you could buy it almost anywhere, and manufacturers said the treatment chemicals, though toxic, safely stayed put in the wood. The main plus for gardeners was that the chemicals didn’t harm plants, unlike creosote and pentachloro­phenol, two previously popular wood preservatives.

But then word started seeping out that those CCA chemicals weren’t so perfectly bound up after all, that some of them, in fact, migrated from the wood into the surrounding soil. And that’s when pressure-treated wood moved into the hot seat.


Further Reading
Are Pressure Treated Woods Safe in Garden Beds?
Is Pressure-Treated Lumber Safe to Use for Raised Beds?
Coating Pressure-Treated Wood to Make it Safer
What’s bad about pressure-treated wood?

Random core samples are extracted to monitor quality. In the pressure-treating process, lumber is sealed in a tank, and air is extracted, creating a vacuum. Then a solution containing chromium, copper, and arsenic is added. Because of the vacuum, the chemicals are carried deep into the wood. Chromium is a bactericide, copper a fungicide, and arsenic an insecticide, and all arrest decay of some kind. All three are toxic, but chromium and copper don’t raise many concerns. If we don’t inhale it, chromium is not particularly harmful to us, and copper isn’t very toxic to mammals, although it is to aquatic life and fungi. It’s arsenic that is worrisome.

Arsenic is everywhere. If this gray, metal-like element is combined with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur, it’s considered inorganic arsenic. If carbon is part of the combination, then the arsenic is organic. It’s the inorganic forms that worry people. The arsenate used in wood treatment is inorganic. Compared to organic arsenic, inorganic arsenic is much more likely to accumulate in living tissues, where it interacts with cell enzymes and impairs metabolism. Organic forms of arsenic don’t appear to do this, and are largely excreted before they can do us harm.

We’re exposed to arsenic—mostly organic forms—every day because very small amounts are present in all soil, water, and food. We typically eat 25 to 50 micrograms (a microgram is a millionth of a gram) of mostly organic arsenic a day. Low levels of arsenic are in everything we eat. The biggest source is shellfish.

Inorganic arsenic also may be present in foods due to residues in the soil from the days when arsenic was an approved pesticide. One reason root crops tend to accumulate arsenic is that minute particles of soil stick to the root’s skin, even after a brisk scrubbing. Peeling root vegetables before eating them gets rid of that arsenic. Still, there’s no need to worry about normal levels of arsenic in foods. The amount is so small it’s not harmful.

Soils contain both organic and inorganic arsenic. Background levels of arsenic in soil (amounts due to geological weathering, not to human contamination) typically range from 0.1 to upwards of 10 parts per million (ppm), and up to 40 ppm is considered tolerable, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Above that level, detectable amounts start showing up in children’s urine, because kids ingest dirt.

Water contains background arsenic too, but there might also be arsenic from contamination. The current EPA limit for arsenic in drinking water is 50 parts per billion.
In large doses, inorganic arsenic is strong poison. Ingesting 1 to 3 milligrams per kilo­gram of body weight can be fatal. Lesser amounts can cause nausea and diarrhea, lower production of both red and white blood cells, and give you a pins-and-needles sensation in your arms and legs. Inorganic arsenic is also carcinogenic, increasing the risk of lung, skin, and other cancers.

But as USDA heavy metals expert Rufus Chaney points out, what constitutes an acute toxic dose isn’t really relevant to gardeners. What we want to avoid are chronic toxic doses, which can lead to disease. Chronic exposure means every day for a lifetime. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry (ATSDR) in Atlanta, we can ingest up to 0.3 micrograms of inorganic arsenic per kilogram of body weight per day and not be harmed. The average American woman, who weighs 132 lb. or 60 kg., would have to eat more than 18 micrograms daily all her life to see any ill effects. Before you get alarmed, remember this is inorganic arsenic we’re talking about, not the organic types predominant in our diet. And, an ATSDR spokesperson points out, 0.3 microgram is a low estimate for the maximum tolerable dose.

Testing for arsenic leaching and migration
I sent soil samples from a 3-year-old CCA-framed bed to a lab for testing. I took three samples at various distances from the wood—immediately adjacent, several inches away, and in the middle of the bed. For a control, I sent soil from a bed that’s never been in contact with pressure-treated wood. Only the soil very close to the treated wood shows a higher-than-background level of arsenic.
The data on leaching
So how much arsenic leaches into the soil from CCA lumber? More to the point, how much gets taken up by vegetables? And how much winds up in the mouths of children? There have been a lot of studies looking at the first two issues, but in trying to organize the facts into meaningful information, I discovered definitive answers can be elusive. I can’t tell you whether or not you should use pressure-treated wood. What I can do is explain the results of pertinent studies and give you the information you need to decide for yourself.

CCA-treated wood does have good resistance to leaching, but there is some loss of chemicals. In a study of utility poles of varying ages, wood scientist Paul Cooper of the University of New Brunswick in Canada found uniformly high CCA retention, clearly indicating that large amounts of preservative had not leached out of the wood. There appears to be an initial surge of leaching during the first rainy season, and then the wood settles down to a slow release of small amounts, decreasing slightly over time.

All three CCA elements are more liable to leach at a pH of 3 or below, far too acidic for growing vegetables. At levels of 4 and up, pH has no effect.

Cooper has also studied compost bins made of CCA wood, and found that organic acids formed during the composting process cause more leaching. This not only brings more contaminants into the soil or compost, but also compromises the integrity of the lumber. Neither result is desirable, so Cooper does not consider pressure-treated wood suitable for making compost bins, although he doesn’t object to using it in gardens. Finished compost has a near-neutral pH, so adding compost to CCA-framed beds isn’t a problem.

Once arsenic is in the ground, it doesn’t migrate much. Where there is leaching, arsenic levels drop quickly with distance from the wood, usually reaching background levels within a few inches in raised beds.

Some people have voiced fears that leached arsenic will find its way into groundwater, but Cooper’s utility pole study found no evidence to support such concerns. Groundwater samples taken from close to the poles had very low levels of CCA components. According to Stan Lebow, a wood scientist at the USDA’s Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, “The potential for any CCA chemicals getting into groundwater from garden use is pretty much zero. They just don’t move that far.”

If you use CCA lumber...
The chemicals in pressure-treated lumber are pesticides, so you should handle the wood with the same precautions as befit any potentially hazardous material.

Protect yourself while working with CCA wood. Always wear gloves, eye protection, and most important, a dust mask. Long sleeves are a good idea, too. Wash yourself and your clothes afterward. Finally, clean up every speck of sawdust you can (a shop vac does the best job). Drilling and sawing over a paved surface makes dust retrieval easier. Bag up sawdust and wood scraps and send them to the landfill. Don’t consider these steps optional.

Never, ever, burn CCA-treated wood. Burning sends some of the arsenic up in smoke, which can be inhaled. The ash, too, contains high concentrations of arsenic.

There are things you can do to CCA-treated wood to minimize leaching or migration. Scrubbing the wood with detergent or power washing it will remove surface residue. If possible, let the boards weather for several months after they’ve been cut and drilled before assembling. Studies show the greatest amount of leaching occurs the first rainy season. Always predrill holes for screws, which will prevent cracks in the wood. Cracks are places where preservative can leach. Lining the inside of the bed with heavy-duty plastic before filling it will create a physical barrier to any CCA compounds moving into your soil. Painting exposed wood surfaces with water-repellent finish, paint, or stain will protect your skin if you lean or kneel on the sides. And if you have small children, it will also prevent CCA compounds moving from little hands to little mouths.

Finally, you can take advantage of arsenic’s tendency to not travel far in the soil. To keep the arsenic in place, refrain from mixing soil along the perimeter few inches of the bed with soil farther in. Avoid growing spinach and root crops, particularly carrots and radishes, close to CCA-treated wood. Consider planting a band of compact flowers along the edge of the bed.

The story on arsenic and vegetables
There have been three major studies of vegetables grown in arsenic-enhanced soils, one by E.A. Woolson (United States, 1973), one by C. Grant and A.J. Dobbs (Britain, 1977), and one headed by T.W. Speir (New Zealand, 1992). All measured arsenic’s effect on plant growth and arsenic content of the harvest.

At certain levels of concentration, arsenic interferes with plant growth, but it’s impossible to generalize about amounts. Availability to plants varies from soil to soil, and sensitivity varies from crop to crop. Beans are fairly sensitive, while carrots and tomatoes tolerate arsenic well. Very small additions of arsenic can actually increase yields. Also, there’s no correlation between a crop’s sensitivity to arsenic and the ability to absorb and translocate it to edible plant parts.

Available arsenic—meaning arsenic in a form plants can absorb—is a much more important measure than total arsenic. Typically, background arsenic is either pretty much insoluble or is tied up in a complex relationship with minerals and organic matter. For example, in the Grant and Dobbs study, soil with 24 ppm total arsenic had 7 ppm available arsenic. At 14 ppm total arsenic, available arsenic was undetectable.

Arsenic accumulates in very small amounts in vegetables, but generally in parts we don’t eat. Grant and Dobbs grew green beans, carrots, and tomatoes for their test. Crops grown in soil with 24 ppm total arsenic had the following arsenic levels in the edible parts: green beans, 0.29 ppm; carrots, 0.11 ppm; and tomatoes, 0.14 ppm. These, too, are total arsenic levels, and as Rufus Chaney pointed out, much of it would be organic. Carrots, for example, grown in soil with no added arsenic contained 0.05 ppm arsenic.

Woolson tested green and lima beans, spinach, cabbage, tomatoes, and radishes. Radishes and spinach took up the most arsenic, but even in soil with enough arsenic to reduce growth by 50%, the spinach had only about 1 ppm arsenic and the radishes about 8 ppm. After the experiment, Woolson found available arsenic in the soil had been reduced in “barely significant” amounts, indicating the plants had removed very, very small portions.

In general, plants tend to hold what arsenic they accumulate in their roots, typically in the fibrous roots. Uptake into plant tops and fruits is very small. (As always, there are exceptions. Carrots, radishes, and spinach all tend to store arsenic in their edible portions.)

For example, beets are good arsenic accumulators, but most stays in the tail-like root, not the bulbous part you eat. In Speir’s experiment, beets grown on soil with 66 ppm arsenic contained less than 10 ppm arsenic after being completely dried. To put this in perspective, at fresh weight—the way vegetables are actually eaten—that concentration would be only about 2.5 ppm. And if you remove the skin, you also remove much of that arsenic. An interesting footnote: In the Speir study, crops were grown in soil containing CCA-treated sawdust. Because sawdust has a huge proportion of surface area, it leaches chemicals at a very high rate, so in effect this is a worst-case experiment.

I went to several scientists to get their take on the data in the various reports.

Les Bourquin, a food safety specialist at Michigan State University, says, “Consumers as a whole would like to have zero risk. The classic example is, you’re safer in an airplane than you are in a car. But most people are more comfortable driving a car because that’s where they’re in control. There are some things we do in our lives that put us at much greater risk” than eating foods grown in CCA-framed beds. Bourquin feels that from a food safety standpoint, microbial contamination like E. coli 0157:H7 is of much greater concern. “Compared to microbial risks, arsenic exposure doesn’t seem a big problem.”

Rufus Chaney at the USDA agrees with Bourquin about food safety. “There’s no evidence that food safety is impaired by growing vegetables around CCA-treated wood.” According to Chaney, high levels of inorganic arsenic in soil will kill a plant before there’s enough arsenic in the plant itself for you to consider not eating it. Far more important is the risk of potential transfer of arsenic to skin and mouths, particularly for children, whose small bodies don’t tolerate arsenic as well as ours do. Chaney points out that persistent leaching, however small, means that arsenic is continually coming to the surface of the wood, where it can easily be transferred to us or our children when we touch the wood. “There’s just no way around it,” Chaney says. “For me, this is the overriding reason not to use CCA.”

ACQ, a New Alternative
Public concern over potential hazards of CCA has led the industry to look for safer, less controversial preservatives. A few years ago, one of the producers of CCA came out with a preservative touted as environmentally sound. ACQ®, which stands for alkaline copper quat, is a mix of copper and a quaternary ammonium compound, nicknamed quat. Small amounts of copper and quat do leach, but nothing in ACQ is considered hazardous by the EPA, and no ingredient is a known or suspected carcinogen. The maker, Chemical Specialties, Inc. (CSI), uses only recycled copper in ACQ. The wood is expected to last as long as CCA-treated lumber.

I first heard about ACQ four years ago, but had never found a place to buy it. Why, I wondered, was it so unavailable if it had so much to recommend it? The first version to go on the market contained no water repellent and had to be treated by the buyer to minimize cracks and warping. In late 1997, CSI came out with a version, ACQ Type D, which has a built-in water repellent. The company hopes the new formulation will be more attractive to lumber retailers and consumers. ACQ-treated wood is about 10% more expensive than CCA because it contains more copper.

All photos: Scott Phillips
From Kitchen Gardener 15, pp. 55-59

Sunday, November 27, 2011

RFID, another reason to hate it.

Howdy folks,
Well anyone who knows me and my faith in Jesus Christ knows I'm not a fan of RFID technology. Sure in the right hands it could be useful and beneficial to some, but I FIRMLY believe the risks it carries to our freedom out weighs any benefits it might have. I'm specifically thinking about Rev. 13:6 but this video also shows other issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUz6oe6AlFs

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Beneficial foraging books

The opening paragraphs are designed to assist others avoid some of the pit falls I made in purchasing wild food literature. You can skip this and go directly to the individual book reviews if you choose. Please note that this review is of multiple wild food books. I prefer authors that work with the plants they are writing about, and don't just repeat things they read from another book (yes some wild food authors actually do that). I also prefer books with good descriptions, lots of photos of each plant to make identification easier, and to cover the plant from identification to the plate. That's my bias, here is my review.

I'm just a guy who likes to forage and enjoys the learning and nutritional aspect of wild foods. My main purpose for writing this review of multiple wild food books on one review is to assist others coming to wild foods for the first time (like I was three years ago), and to hopefully help them avoid some of the easily avoided pit falls I made in the literature I chose. At first I wanted books with the most plants in it for my money. It made sense to me at the time but ended up being a grave mistake. Books that devote one picture and a brief explanation to a plethera of plants helped me identify some plants in one stage of growth, but did next to nothing that would have allowed me to use them as food. Example, most books will show you one picture of the adult plant. Many times that's not when you want to harvest it. No one would eat a bannana that was over ripe and pure black and call banana's in general inedible due to that experience. Yet many who have sampled a dandelion have done exactly that. As I've learned from John Kallas, one has to have the right part of the plant (this includes proper identification of the plant), the plant has to be at the right stage of growth, and it has to be prepared properly. If you can't do those three things you shouldn't be sticking the plant in your mouth. Now on to the individual books.

Wild Edible Plants By John Kallas: 6 stars because it deserves more than 5

Instead of having hundreds of plants with one picture and one paragraph of information Kallas gives you less plants in far more detail and unmatched photography. If I could give this book to everyone in the United States I would as it is the best book I have found on the market. His descriptions of the plants are spot on and easy to read, his multiple full color pictures of each plant covered are the best I've seen in wild food literature, and he covers each plant from seedling to the dinner plate in stunning detail. If I could only own one book on wild edible foods this would be the one. No book can give you everything you need as a forager. That being said John does a superb job of plant selection in that most people in north america will be able to find all these plants within a mile of their home. For a guy taking care of two children under 3 years of age this book allowed me to forage while staying close to home. Consider this a must own. John also runs wild food adventures in Portland Oregon which offers wild food instruction in that area.

Nature's Garden By Samuel Thayer: 5.2 stars the second must own, and it too deserves more than 5 stars.

If I could only own two wild food books this would be the second one on my shelf next to John Kallas book. The section on Oaks and acorns are worth the price of the book by it self let alone the numerous other plants in it. Mr. Thayer uses color photographs at various stages of growth just like Kallas does. After you own Kallas book you will be hooked and Nature's Garden is the next logical progression in your journey. Other reviewers have covered Sam's brilliant rebutal to Jon Krakauer's propagandist poison plant fable of how Chris McCandless died. Chris died of starvation not a poisonous plant. Sam actually has this section of the book posted on his website for viewing (go to foragersharvest dot com), and is worth reading even if you don't buy the book. I really benefited from Sam's sections on the different wild lettuces, elderberries, thistles, and many others. On top of that Sam has the most engaging writing style of all the wild food authors I've encountered. Not only are his pictures only second to those of Kallas, his descriptions are spot on, and reading his books are like reading one of your favorite novels.

Foragers Harvest By Samuel Thayer 5 stars

I prefer Thayer's Nature's Garden over this book for my area. That being said I can't really say anything bad about this book. Good descriptions, excellent pictures at various stages of growth, good selection of plants, and done with accuracy. This book was to my knowledge the first of it's kind back when it was released back in the mid 2000's. To my knowledge it was the best book on the market then, and has only been surpassed by his follow up book Nature's Garden and Kallas Wild Edible Plants. Being the first book in this motif it (unjustly I might add) received numerous attacks by a few disgruntled souls on amazons book review section. One must remember Thayer was revolutionary in this field when he released this book, and people had a hard time adjusting. As my friend Stephen T. McCarthy once posted, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Well anyone who has used Sams books should understand the advantage of covering less plants in more detail than covering many plants with little to no detail like the over-hyped gimmick books that litter the wild food market do. I few things I really liked about this book include (but are not limited to): descriptions and photographs on cat tail, wapato, service berry, stinging and wood nettle. The canning section is solid for the beginning forager like I am. This in my opinion still fits the must own catagory.

Euell Gibbons, Stalking the Wild Asparagus 4.5 stars

Line drawings that are OK. Descriptions of the plants are excellent. Recipes are added by the author, plus his enthusiasm and good nature jump out at you through the page. I mostly use this book in conjunction with other books, and I never use it for it's photographs or line drawings. Not that their bad. Just not enough for a total novice in my opinion. Now his descriptions are excellent and should not be ignored.

Nancy J. Turner, "Food Plants Of Coastal First Peoples" and "Food Plants of Interior First Peoples" I'll give it 5 stars for ethnobotany and 4 stars as a foraging book.

If you live in the pacific northwest these books are MUST HAVES. A thorough grouping of the plants used by native americans for food in the pacific northwest. Why I only give it 4 stars is that it is essentially put in a field guide format which is very limiting when trying to use a plant for food. Plus while Turner is the queen of plants and uses in the pacific northwest, you'll only get a tenth of what she knows on any given plant. Kallas and Thayer go into much more detail, have numerous pictures, and lead their readers toward success. With Turner you'll get one good picture in one stage of growth. Through experience I've found that just isn't good enough. She does have more plants in her books than Kallas and Thayer but when you cover them in less detail that is to be expected. To be fair to Nancy I don't get the impression that these were designed specifically for foragers. All this being said I own them and wouldn't give them back if you paid me double what I paid for them.

Linda Runyan, The Essential Wild Food Survival Guide 3.8 stars, a good book.

Well first I do have some issues with this book: I'm not fond of the line drawings or black and white photos, she does edibility tests on wild foods and discovered many of them that way (which I'm not a fan of), and some of her descriptions are lacking in my opinion. All that being said she cans her wild foods, dries them for winter use, and lives off of wild edibles all year long successfully. She shares a lot of this knowledge with the reader in this book, and being a nurse myself I'm also able to relate to her thinking in a lot of ways. Plus her stories of using cat tail fluff as stuffing for a couch only to find out that it was infested with insect eggs was hilarious. She tells you all the mistakes she made so you don't have to repeat them. She will tell you to use two other good field guides along with hers. I would plan on not using hers at all for the pictures. I have issues with her lack of oversight on the pictures. I'm sure some will disagree but when Linda tells you in her video (by the same name) that her chickweed picture isn't very good it does bring to mind credibility questions.

Edible Wild Plants a North American Field Guide, by Elias and Dykemann. 3.5 stars

At one point in my very early stages I thought this book was the bomb. However, I would identify a plant, find it at times accidentally for the most part, and go "now what?" And that is the weakness of the field guide format in wild food literature (Thayer and Kallas do so much more for you). This book is almost the opposite of Linda Runyans in some ways. She doesn't give you good pictures but gives you some good details on what to do with the plant after you find it. This book gives you some good pitures, a brief description, and then says "your on your own kid." In Samuel Thayers "Foragers Harvest" he gives great descriptions between wood nettle and stinging nettle (both are edible when properly prepared). Thayer also happened to point out that this book actually has a picture of wood nettle and call it stinging nettle. I checked up on this, and lo and behold he was right. They have two pictures and one is wood nettle and one is stinging nettle. They are both listed as stinging nettle in the book. This tells me that the authors might not know all the plants as well as they should. Don't get me wrong I still like the book. But it does prove that wild food authors don't always use or know the plants their writing about.

Honorable mention goes to "Abundantly Wild" By Teresa Marrone. It is a wild food cook book. The pictures in the book are not great (though oddly beat many of the photos in supposed field guides) but I have read a few of the recipes and they look promising. I'll write a review about a year from now once I've put the book to the test. Until then I'll let you read the reviews on this book and make up your own mind.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Arrested for feeding the homeless??????

Below is an article I found about police in Florida arresting those who want to feed the homeless. That's right folks. They got arrested for feeding the homeless. Not robbing a bank, not rape, not murder, not assault. No, just feeding homeless people. I'll comment further after you read the article which was found at this site: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-homeless-feedings-arrests-20110601,0,7226362.story

By Susan Jacobson, Orlando Sentinel

1:33 p.m. EDT, June 2, 2011
Members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested Wednesday when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.

Jessica Cross, 24, Benjamin Markeson, 49, and Jonathan "Keith" McHenry, 54, were arrested at 6:10 p.m. on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. McHenry is a co-founder of the international Food Not Bombs movement, which began in the early 1980s.

The group lost a court battle in April, clearing the way for the city to enforce the ordinance. It requires groups to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per year for each park within a 2-mile radius of City Hall.

Arrest papers state that Cross, Markeson and McHenry helped feed 40 people Wednesday night. The ordinance applies to feedings of more than 25 people.

"They intentionally violated the statute," said Lt. Barbara Jones, an Orlando police spokeswoman.

Police waited until everyone was served to make the arrests, said Douglas Coleman, speaking for Orlando Food Not Bombs.

"They basically carted them off to jail for feeding hungry people," said Coleman, who was not present. "For them to regulate a time and place for free speech and to share food, that is unacceptable."

Orlando Food Not Bombs has been feeding the homeless breakfast on Mondays for several years and dinner on Wednesdays for five years.

Police had not enforced the ordinance while the court battle continued. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled that city rules regulating how often large groups of people can be fed in a park do not violate the Constitution.

The penalty for violating Orlando's ordinance is 60 days in jail, a $500 fine or both.

Arrest documents state that Orlando Food Not Bombs received permits and fed more than 25 homeless people at Lake Eola Park on May 18 and 23. Coleman said the group rejected the permits.

On May 25, Orlando Food Not Bombs illegally fed a large group of homeless people, the police report states. The group on its website called for members to show up that day and defy the city ordinance, according to the report.

Officers said they found a press release on Markeson when they arrested him stating that group members planned to defy the ordinance Wednesday.

Bail was set at $250 for each person arrested. Cross and Markeson were released from jail early

Thursday. McHenry wants to stay in jail and let the legal process take its course, Coleman said.

sjacobson@tribune.com or 407-540-5981


So I just have to leave a parting comment. First Susan Jacobson wrote a nice story. I don't know the political views of these groups who fed these people but I do know they shouldn't be arrested for doing it. I read an article in the new american one time concerning a women in what I believe was 1950's Russia. She harvested her last onion. Her husband just died of starvation and her children were soon to follow. The government arrested her for not turning the onion over to the state. Oh you read that right. Granted the people in Orlando might not have been anywhere close to dying at this time, but they very well could be in the future if were arresting people for giving food to their fellow man. Regardless, this article should give everyone pause.

Monday, March 7, 2011

American education or Americoned education

Having young children trying to find a real educational system for my children is of dire importance. This article went a long way to assisting me along my journey.

The below article was found at this link: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/5403-how-the-progressives-changed-the-way-reading-is-taught-in-our-schools


Written by Sam Blumenfeld
Monday, 06 December 2010 12:13


Many parents wonder why American primary schools don’t teach children to read in the proper phonetic manner. The answer is that high literacy is not part of the system’s social or academic agenda. Neither is good cursive handwriting and basic arithmetic. Have you noticed the decline in handwriting? I recently gave a birthday gift to a 13-year-old boy, and got back a thank-you note written in chicken scratches. He had attended the public schools of an affluent suburban community.

Now, of course, if you ask any primary public-school teacher whether or not he or she teaches phonics, they will all say they do. But the kind of phonics they teach is not the intensive, systematic kind that produces a fluent, independent phonetic reader. What they teach are phonetic clues to be used in the context of a Whole Language program that teaches children to read by the sight method.

Ask that same teacher if he or she teaches a sight-vocabulary. If the answer is yes, then you know that they are not teaching phonics in the proper way. In fact, they are teaching the child to look at our alphabetic words as Chinese characters, or little mind-pictures. Once that mode of looking at words becomes automatic, the child becomes dyslexic, that is, unable to see the phonetic structure of our printed words.

Now where did this atrocious methodology come from? It didn’t come from outer space, nor was it the result of accident. It came from an agenda developed back at the turn of the last century by some of the most intelligent men in America.

It started in the 1890s, when the Progressives began working on a new socialist agenda for the public schools that would promote collectivism through a new curriculum programmed to turn children away from individualism.

Who were the Progressives? They were members of the Protestant academic elite who no longer believed in the religion of their fathers. They now put their faith in science, evolution and psychology. Science explained the material world. Evolution explained the origin of living matter, and psychology provided a new scientific way of understanding and controlling human behavior.

But what about the problems of evil and sin? As socialists they rejected the biblical explanation and instead believed that evil was caused by ignorance, poverty, and social injustice. Socialism, they were convinced, would eliminate all three causes of evil.

And so they embarked on a Progressive education crusade that would prove they were right and Bible believers were wrong. Education would eliminate ignorance, which would then eliminate poverty, which in turn would do away with social injustice.

The first step in their crusade was to change the way children were being taught in the primary schools. The emphasis on teaching reading had to be replaced with an emphasis on collectivist socialization. John Dewey, the philosophical leader of the Progressives, explained it all quite openly in an article he authored in 1898 entitled “The Primary School Fetich.” He wrote:

The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to me a perversion.

A perversion, mind you. To get rid of this so-called perversion he advocated using a new way of teaching reading that would turn children into little collectivists. That new method turned out to be the sight or look-say method that teaches children to read English as if it were an ideographic writing system like Chinese. To him the emphasis on learning to read phonetically in the primary grades was a perversion. And because Dewey knew that this view would be considered dangerously radical by parents and traditional teachers, he wrote:

Change must come gradually. To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction. What is needed in the first place, is that there should be a full and frank statement of conviction with regard to the matter from physiologists and psychologists and from those school administrators who are conscious of the evils of the present regime.

In other words, deceiving parents became a necessary part of the plan if the socialists were to succeed in its implementation. And psychologists, of whom Dewey was one, would be used to carry out this elaborate conspiracy of deception. Dewey then wrote:

There are already in existence a considerable number of educational “experiment stations,” which represent the outposts of educational progress. If these schools can be adequately supported for a number of years they will perform a great vicarious service.

Indeed, Dewey himself conducted such an experimental school at the University of Chicago, and the book he wrote about that experiment, The School and Society, became the bible of Progressive Education and the basis of early 20th century school reform.

And so, the major work of reform would not be done just by educators, but by psychologists, who found in education a lucrative source of support for their profession.

The new behavioral psychology was born in the laboratories of Professor Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig. His two American students, G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) and James McKeen Cattell (1860-1944), came back to America anxious to apply scientific psychology to American education. Hall became a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University where he taught the new psychology to his student John Dewey. He later founded Clark University. Cattell introduced mental testing in education as part of the new scientific racism called Eugenics. He later founded the Psychological Corporation.

But it was Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949) who, after studying psychology under William James at Harvard, went on to become the chief implementer of behavioral psychology in American education. At Harvard he had studied the learning behavior of chickens by using the reinforcement technique, which he later decided should be used to teach children.

After his book, Animal Intelligence, was published in 1898, he became a leading light at Teacher’s College, Columbia University. His much celebrated stimulus-response (SR) technique of teaching children, based on animal training, now dominates American education. He wrote in 1928:

Our experiments on learning in the lower animals have probably contributed more to knowledge of education per hour or per unit of intellect spent, than experiments on children…. The best way with children may often be, in the pompous words of an animal trainer, “to arrange everything in connection with the trick so that the animal will be compelled by the laws of his own nature to perform it.”

In short, American children were to be taught in the public schools as if they were little animals. Of course, there is a great difference between humans and animals. Animals can be trained but they can’t be educated. Humans, on the other hand, can be both trained and educated because they are born with brains that are far superior to anything animals are born with. But to Thorndike and his behaviorist colleagues, man’s brain is just a bit more evolved than the brains of the apes. And if you don’t believe that God made man in His own image, that is, with the ability to speak language and use his intellect, then you will believe Thorndike and treat children like animals.



Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of nine books on education including NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, The Whole Language/OBE Fraud, and The Victims of Dick & Jane and Other Essays. Of NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, former U.S. Senator Steve Symms of Idaho said: “Every so often a book is written that can change the thinking of a nation. This book is one of them.” Mr. Blumenfeld’s columns have appeared in such diverse publications as Reason, The New American, The Chalcedon Report, Insight, Education Digest, Vital Speeches, WorldNetDaily, and others

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

SV40. Polio, and cancer.

Wikipedia has been very helpful from time to time. Here is what it says about SV40 virus found in monkeys. Important to know since this virus was mistakenly transmitted to humans through the polio vaccines of the 1950's and 1960's. Here is what Wikipedia reports.

"The virus was first identified in 1960 in cultures of rhesus monkey kidney cells that were being used to produce polio vaccine. It was named for the effect it produced on infected green monkey cells, which developed an unusual number of vacuoles. The complete viral genome was sequenced by Walter Fiers and his team at the University of Ghent (Belgium) in 1978.[2] The virus is dormant and is asymptomatic in Rhesus monkeys. The virus has been found in many macaque populations in the wild, where it rarely causes disease. However, in monkeys that are immunodeficient—due to, for example, infection with Simian immunodeficiency virus—SV40 acts much like the human JC and BK polyomaviruses, producing kidney disease and sometimes a demyelinating disease similar to PML. In other species, particularly hamsters, SV40 causes a variety of tumors, generally sarcomas. In rats, the oncogenic SV40 Large T-antigen was used to establish a brain tumor model for PNETs and medulloblastomas.[3]

The molecular mechanisms by which the virus reproduces and alters cell function were previously unknown, and research into SV40 vastly increased biologists' understanding of gene expression and the regulation of cell growth."

Wikipedia goes on,

"Soon after its discovery, SV40 was identified in the injected form of the polio vaccine produced between 1955 and 1961. This is believed to be due to kidney cells from infected monkeys being used to amplify the vaccine virus during production. Both the Sabin vaccine (oral, live virus) and the Salk vaccine (injectable, killed virus) were affected; the technique used to inactivate the polio virus in the Salk vaccine, by means of formaldehyde, did not reliably kill SV40.

It was difficult to detect small quantities of virus until the advent of PCR; since then, stored samples of vaccine made after 1962 have tested negative for SV40, but no samples prior to 1962 could be found. Thus, although over 10 million people received the potentially contaminated batches of vaccine, there is no way to know whether they were exposed to the virus, and if so, whether it was in a quantity and by a route that would cause infection. It is also unknown how widespread the virus was among humans before the 1950s, though one study found that 12% of a sample of German medical students in 1952 had SV40 antibodies. Although horizontal transmission between people has been proposed, is not clear if this actually happens and if it does, how frequently it occurs.[14]

An analysis presented at the Vaccine Cell Substrate Conference in 2004[15] suggested that vaccines used in the former Soviet bloc countries, China, Japan, and Africa, could have been contaminated up to 1980, meaning that hundreds of millions more could have been exposed to the virus unknowingly."

Having read books on this subject I can tell you that the SV40 virus can pass from generation to generation. Meaning, if the father got it from the vaccine he could give the virus to his children. SV40 virus infected the polio vaccine due to the fact they used to breed the virus in monkey kidneys. Lets turn back to wikipedia.

"Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and most aggressive type of primary brain tumor in humans, involving glial cells and accounting for 52% of all parenchymal brain tumor cases and 20% of all intracranial tumors. Despite being the most prevalent form of primary brain tumor, GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North America. According to the WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system‎, the standard name for this brain tumor is "glioblastoma"; it presents two variants: giant cell glioblastoma and gliosarcoma. Glioblastomas are also an important brain tumor of the canine, and research is ongoing to use this as a model for developing treatments in humans.[1] Treatment can involve chemotherapy, radiation, radiosurgery, corticosteroids, antiangiogenic therapy, and surgery.[2]

Excepting the brainstem gliomas, glioblastoma has the worst prognosis of any CNS malignancy. Despite multimodality treatment consisting of open craniotomy with surgical resection of as much of the tumor as possible, followed by concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy, antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab, gamma knife radiosurgery, and symptomatic care with corticosteroids, median survival is about 14 months.[3]"

So what does this have to do with the polio virus and SV40? Lets keep reading wikipedia.

"GBM is more common in males, although the reason for this is not clear.[4] Most glioblastoma tumors appear to be sporadic, without any genetic predisposition. No links have been found between glioblastoma and smoking,[5] diet,[6] cellular phones,[7] or electromagnetic fields.[8] Recently, evidence for a viral cause has been discovered, possibly SV40[9] or cytomegalovirus.[10] There also appears to be a small link between ionizing radiation and glioblastoma.[11] Some also believe that there may be a link between polyvinyl chloride (which is commonly used in construction) and glioblastoma.[12] A recent link cited in the Lancet medical journal links brain cancer to lead exposure in the work place.[13] There is an association of brain tumor incidence and malaria, suggesting that the anopheles mosquito, the carrier of malaria, might transmit a virus or other agent that could cause glioblastoma.[14]"

Did you catch the middle section there? "Recently, evidence for a viral cause has been discovered, possibly SV40 or cytomegalovirus." Hmmmm. Well, we don't know for sure if the SV40 causes glioblastoma, but it could. What I can tell you is that I know that the sv40 virus does cause cancer. Dr. Eisenstein has covered this in his books, and even the vaccine manufacturers themselves have admitted it (albeit in a back handed way).

Most who will read this know that I am a nurse and have a healthy (albeit not one size fits all) perspective on vaccines. However, this is the first time in my life where a vaccine could have (not saying it did) harmed a loved one of mine. My cousin (who will remain nameless as I don't feel giving that information is appropriate) just got diagnosed with a glioblastoma in his early 40's. A God fearing man, one who loves his family and takes care of them. He has children, and is a jem of a person. Is it too much to ask that we find out if this vaccine had anything to do with this? Am I going to say any of this to my cousin? Probably not. At least not now. But i would love to get some answers. And if this vaccine could have caused this i would love to have a little accountability. Again, not saying the vaccine is responsible (an important point). We don't know enough. But one does question.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Revenge Of The Sith

Yes Revenge of the Sith has its flaws as do all the Star Wars films. First, unlike some I think the acting is subpar in this film, the dialogue is anything but perfect, and at times it seems forced. Why do I give it four stars? Because what it does well makes everything else easily forgiven.

First, the evil Darth Sidius is the best part of this movie. He clearly is the villan that has started the clone war, is manipulating the war from both sides, and (at least for me) perfectly portrays a politician who is hungry for power. Anakin Skywalkers transformation into Vader for some is unbelievable, and I can see why one might have issues with it. However, it is how Darth Sidius manipulates Anakin into believing that he can save his love if he joins the dark side. Further, it is how Sidius manipulates Anakin into believing that he truly is the benevolent one that is probably the most compelling performance of the film.

I found things in this film that can reflect real life which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. First, you have a crooked politician who started the war and is running/leading it from both sides. Second, This same politician (darth sidius) easily manipulates the populace and in the end has them cheering for their own enslavement. Plus I found Darth Sidius very compelling when he stated, "Execute order 66" to have the republic army (who the Jedi were working for) murder the Jedi. He than had Darth Vader kill the Viceroy who were helping Sidius run the droid army on the other side. Just like crule dictators like Stalin or Hitler, Sidius murders those that helped him rise to power. The scene where the lead viceroy of the droid army looks at vader and says, "but Darth Sidius promised us peace" only to have Vader slice him in half with his light saber immediately after makes one think. One has to wonder if Lucus took history as a blue print for this film.

In the end even if you don't like these films you should watch this one. No, the acting is not great, no the dialogue is not fantastic, and the acting is subpar. However, if you understand history this film will make you ask yourself some questions.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Desert Island Play List.










Now if I were stuck on a desert island I would also want my Waylon Jennings Greatest with me, and I would have to add in Blues Traveler four. There is of course a CPE Bach string quartet that I picked up some years back that is so beautiful it almost makes you wonder why his dad is more popular. The Johnny Cash album is riveting and full of love and emotion for God, and it often takes my thoughts to biblical passages. Journey is a fav of mine always, Sam Cookes music just speaks to me. Miles Davis album is just classic, and the aaron copeland pieces are pure entertainment. Plus Copelands fanfare for the common man is whats being played as I kiss this world goodbye. After all it is a desert Island.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Heath-care given to us by the kind IRS.

This is what what a friends dad (Dave Edinger) posted on my facebook page when I put a video from the tides foundation titled, "The real goal of the public plan option-squeezing out private and employer based health insurance." This is what crazy Dave (as his son calls him) wrote.

Dave: NO Marcx - the goal is to remove greed and profit motive from a common resource: human health - we are in it together - like our water supply and our garbage collection - it is far more efficient and wise to remove Wallstreet from my street. Half the crap I buy on todays market it shoddy. I have to take my car back to Les Schwab three times - the ... See Moretires leak - My microwave in our new house is garbage - you can not program it, start it or shut it off - it is way over engineered to SELL you crap you dont need buddy -corporate crap from corporate greed - I have to re-engineer half the JUNK I buy - you gonna let MARKETERS look into the best way to heal a inflammed leg from diabetes? You are going to get a $10,000 amputation my friend - when many home remedies are wonder medicines - keep the greed out of GOOD reasoning - or your $2000 Toyota will quickly sky rocket to over $20,000 and you will beg to get the damn thing - all the on board computers and run away brake switches - you are being SOLD my friend, don't be what we call a LAY DOWN. Marketers are poor engineers and scientists. Come on over, I will cook for you - see if you can run this Preheat, defrost, pizza, bake potato, popcorn, two lighted,option accessorized, vented to nowhere Whirlpool box of crap - that you can not turn on and off simply - see if you want that company doing research on the best way to save your leg from a diabetes outbreak - A CONFEDERACY DUNCES, just may be out to SELL ya some crap. American landfills are brimming with garbage from these ego-maniacs and jesters. Lets get together, line them all up, throw them in the pit Mark. I propose the american full Guarantee a total farce. IF my product is a piece of crap I don't want my money back - that is no bargain - I WANT 5 times my money back for my waste of time, and your obvious attempt to defraud and flood the market with landfill material - things would change quickly Mark - Give me a REAL Guarantee America - money back is an absolute insult - we should have a LANDFILL probabilty code - the chance of this product being in a landfill in one year is 100 ! Or 50 - My new sports jacket I recently bought at JC Penny had the buttons fall off within a week. I sewed them back on. With real thread. A month later I reached across my car to open a door - the pocket ripped clean off - the code for the JC CRAP JACKET is 100 - I GUARANTEE this quality of CRAP will be in our landfills within one year. Therefore the code it should show would be a big 100 - pure crap - my 30 dollar belt - thirty bucks ! lasted 2 months- TWO damn MONTHS -and they offer me another one? Hell no - another product carrying the new AMERICAN NATIONAL LABLE of 100. 100% crap - see how many your mark up this next year MARC. Then tell me those grease balls are going to do my health research and foods ingredient trials -please buddy - shoddy in the country has been around since Lincoln and the Civil War - WE have lost Marc - I no longer wear belts. GUARANTEED !

OK his silly pun Marcx was noted. However, instead of getting sucked into absurd insults I decided to use facts instead.

This is what I replied:

Problem is that this bill benefits wall street. See it's going to be implemented through the IRS. The IRS is nothing more than an instrument to collect payments on the national debt for the private bank known as the Federal Reserve. Not one dime of our tax dollars goes for goods or services. This bill adds thousands (I believe 10,000) IRS agents. ... See MoreThe current system doesn't work I'll give you that. However, the current system is partially broken because of medicare and medicaid (government health care). Any hospital administrator can tell you hospitalized medicare patients are a big money hole. WHo pays the price for this shortage? Private insurance. It will bankrupt many private health care agencies. Plus even Walgreen phamacies are going to stop taking medicaid patients because they lose money. I don't care how benevolent one is, if it costs 3 million to stay in business and the govt charges you 4 million you close your doors. Once private insurance takes it in the shorts all your left with is the govt, and that's when the rationing will start. This will take years to unfold but it will happen. Social Security is a forced govt program and look how well it's doing. It's supposed to go bankrupt in like less than 30 years. Someone has to pay for this new health care. Nothing in this world iis free. I don't want the govt telling me what to do. To me, this is watching the orwellian noose being tightened around our neck with a Marxist cherry on top. I wonder if I can ask Obamas masters for a half slice of slavery. I'll try to find a good article I read on this over a year ago and post it here.

The article was By Jane Orient in the January 2009 edition of The New American. Below is that article in it's entirety. I gave Crazy Dave the link to the below article. I doubt he will even look at it.

If they had been designing a health system from scratch, the change agents assuming power in January would have done things differently. Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy would have given us a Single Payer for medical care, as in Canada and Britain (and Cuba and North Korea) and (according to national healthcare promoters) "the rest of the industrialized world."

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), on the other hand, doesn't feel he needs to go so far back in time, but he'd make similar changes nonetheless. In his Call to Action: Health Reform 2009, he speaks of failed efforts to enact "national health insurance" or "socialized medicine," starting around the turn of the last century, in 1900. It's finally time to just get it done, they say.

The motive behind their efforts, they also say, has to do with about 46 million uninsured Americans. But the politicians' plans are not just about insurance, which is only a method of payment for medical services. The real agenda is to use "coverage for all" as a lever to make fundamental changes in the way patients are treated — and in the economy and society as a whole. This is evident to anyone who listens carefully. Obama, Kennedy, and Baucus are talking about universal health reform, or what Baucus calls "serious and comprehensive reform of the health system in crisis."

This is also evident if one analyzes the "insurance" model they have in mind to follow — Massachusetts' healthcare plan, which boasts of achieving universal coverage, or almost, by forcing most people to buy insurance or face a tax penalty, or, if eligible, to enroll in a government-subsidized plan. "Progressives" like the plan for several reasons. In particular, young and healthy patients would be forced to pay more to subsidize older, sicker patients. (It plays off the Obama "wealth redistribution" idea.) Instead of pricing premiums according to risk, insurers would have to accept all comers, and charge them all the same. This changes the nature of the product from insurance, which is about the accurate pricing of risk, and turns it into a collectivized prepayment system. Welfare, in other words. Premiums become a type of privatized taxation — a neat way of sidestepping protests about tax increases.

What We're Promised

Obama has promised to allow people to keep the insurance plans they have if they like them. Their plans, however, might no longer exist because they might not measure up (likely won't measure up). The plans won't pass muster if they allow a person to benefit from good health and a prudent lifestyle, and not "contribute" enough to the collective pool. But if your plan can no longer be offered, don't worry; a proposed insurance exchange, like the Massachusetts Connector, would match people up with a "high-quality, affordable, comprehensive, nondiscriminatory Health Plan." Insurers may go along with the scheme in exchange for a guaranteed market: 46 million new customers overnight! And individuals would have to buy a product they might otherwise reject as being unnecessary or too expensive. Obama promised to delay forcing the plan on Americans until insurance becomes "affordable" — by the government's definition, not necessarily the customer's — but he may well accept the demands for mandates.

Obama and friends also promise that they will ensure that providers deliver quality care — better care than we have now. The reformers claim that at the present time the United States spends much more than other countries but still has worse health outcomes. They claim to know this because rankings made by the World Health Organization place U.S. medical care below most other developed countries — far below most socialist countries. In the WHO ranking, France has the best medical care, Italy came in 2nd, the United Kingdom was in the 18th spot, Saudi Arabia 26th, and Canada 30th. The United States came in 37th, just above Cuba (in 39th place). The politicians don't state (or don't know) that the WHO rankings are designed to place a much higher value on "equitable" access and less value on satisfying consumers' desires. In fact, if everyone in a country received poorer medical care than people in the United States, but care was "universal," it could rank higher than the United States. (See "Bad Economics & Medicine" in our January 5, 2009 issue for a more detailed explanation of the WHO rankings.)

And finally, we're also promised savings through nationwide investment in an electronic office management system for doctors' offices. A critical feature of reformed healthcare will be interoperable electronic health records. This "modernization" of the system is supposed to save tens of billions of dollars, at some point, after a hefty initial investment. But its main purpose is to monitor and enforce standards for quality, "medical necessity," reduction of "disparities," and proper billing and coding.

Wrong Diagnosis and Prognosis

The new blueprint will fail for the same reason that the system is already failing: it is really the same old blueprint that violates the basic laws of economics. When the apparent price of something, including medical care, goes down, as because of subsidies, demand goes up. If one is not charged for medical care based on one's level of health and one's number and length of visits to a doctor, one will be more inclined to visit the doctor more often. Collective prepayment drives demand even more, as people who are forced to pay for excessive insurance try to get their money's worth. This causes increased waits for medical appointments and spotlights the biggest problem. As in Canada, there are not enough physicians or facilities to meet the burgeoning demand for "free" services. To get into the "system," you need a primary care physician. In Massachusetts, the first available appointment may be a year away, if you can find a doctor in your area who is accepting new patients.

Exacerbating the shortage of doctors is the fact that when the price of something goes down, there is no incentive to increase the supply (lower payments mean fewer people become doctors). If the price doesn't cover costs and allow some profit, supply dries up completely. Under such a scenario, lines form at gas pumps; grocery shelves empty overnight; and doctors become scarce.

Doctors' Medicare fees have been restricted since the 1980s — and most managed-care arrangements are linked to Medicare. There still are some nice cars in the doctors' parking lot. Some specialist fees are still very high. Many physicians made out very well in earlier years. But contrary to the rhetoric from Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and other politicians, many physicians are already struggling to make ends meet. Especially in primary care. This is already reducing the number of people entering the medical field, and the planned new restrictions on medical care will make the situation worse. In the past decade, the number of U.S. medical graduates entering family medicine and internal medicine has fallen by half. And it's not just the money. Time pressures and increased demands for administrative work contribute to burnout: "I felt like I was becoming a guideline-following automaton and a documentation drone," said general internist Christine Sinsky, quoted in a November 27, 2008 article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Incentives work, but letting patient demand set prices is not in the reformers' toolbox. They just want to redistribute the pain. As Baucus admits, his plan would revise Medicare's payment formula so as to redistribute resources from "high-growth, potentially overpaid aspects of health care to underutilized, potentially more valuable services, such as primary care and prevention." This means that "some specialists might take bit of a nick." It's part of a pattern: more healthcare, less sickness care.

And increased demand for "free" services means increased spending — unless rationing is instituted. Some cost data are available. In Massachusetts, the cost of "universal" care was immensely more than anticipated and annual state spending could top $1 billion by the end of this year, but then Massachusetts knew it was not addressing the cost issue. To try to avoid rationing care, one answer has been put forth: the group appointment, like those offered by Harvard Vantage Medical Associates (HVMA). Patients can get in to see a doctor much sooner if they are willing to share their appointment time with about eight other patients. They all sit in the same room for about 90 minutes while a doctor goes from patient to patient examining them. About 80 percent of patients say they are satisfied with the arrangement; some seem to value being in the same room with the doctor for 90 minutes, even if he is not attending to their individual needs during most of that time. The doctors like it too; they get paid for nine individual visits, instead of the four to six they would otherwise be able to wedge into 90 minutes.

A video of a group appointment, posted on the Boston Globe website, is a vision of the new system. Dozens of comments about the video and its accompanying article show the deep divide between those who favor the radical "change" and those who are appalled by it. As one person commented to the Boston Globe, "I think that as a nation we need to move away from rampant individualism toward a system that embraces shared responsibility in a community. You are more likely to follow those pesky lifestyle recommendations if you feel like you'll not only be letting down yourself and your doctor, but also your community."

"It's a third-world standard of care," wrote another disparagingly.

The group appointment is about the health of society, the collective. The patients in the Globe video all look pretty healthy. Examination of fully clothed people sitting up on folding chairs in a noisy room is not likely to reveal any signs of illness that are not flagrant. The main activity is not the doctor listening to hearts and lungs, but patients listening to the doctor's canned speech about smoking, diet, exercise, and taking all the prescribed drugs. This is not sickness care, which the reformers deplore and that doctors go to medical school to learn how to do. It is not about understanding the individual patient and his illness. It is not about making a complex diagnosis. It is not about personalizing and optimizing therapy in accordance with the patient's needs and priorities. The group visit is for standardized patients with a standardized diagnosis. It's about "education," peer group pressure, and compliance with a cookie-cutter protocol handed down by an expert committee.

It's what reformers mean when they aim to change our priorities to wellness and prevention. The sick are a burden; providing them too much attention could come to be seen as antisocial. "Universal care" might move the United States up in the WHO ranking system, which places a very high value on "equity," and a much lower one on individual patient satisfaction. It would stimulate certain areas of the economy: the provision of information technology to monitor wellness, the expansion of wellness clinics, and perhaps the birth of a whole new industry like the already existing one in Canada to manage ever-growing waiting lists for sickness care. But it wouldn't mean taking better care of people with health ailments.

Enduring Myths

In its entirety, the new plan not only flaunts basic economic principles, it defies observable evidence. Each major premise behind the plan's design is based on fallacious statistics or idealistic desires that show little likelihood of being obtainable.

Prevention:: The reformers imply that the sickness-care system will simply wither away when we are all healthy. Baucus enthusiastically quotes Robert Beaglehole, the World Health Organization's director of chronic diseases and health promotion, in claiming that an estimated 80 percent of heart disease, stroke, and type II diabetes, and 40 percent of cancers, could be prevented if Americans stopped smoking, adopted healthy diets, and became more physically active.

However, there has never been a real-life program anywhere that induced a population of previously smoking, sedentary, fat patients to reform and demonstrated such an enormous drop in disease. Leaving aside public-health engineering projects such as sanitation systems, preventive health measures, though valuable, usually do not save more than they cost. The British were long ago promised that once socialized medicine had met all the pent-up demands, and all the prevention programs were in place, costs would go down, and there would be much less sickness. More than 60 years later, people still get sick in the UK and wait years for treatment. The National Health Service never has enough money. And no one learns from the experience.

The uninsured: Then there's the promise that costs will go down if we can just insure everybody and thereby keep people out of expensive emergency rooms. In Massachusetts this hasn't worked because to get in to see the correct doctor to cure their ailments, patients first need to see a primary doctor, and they can't get an appointment. So newly insured patients still go to the emergency room for every medical need, including regular prescriptions.

The constantly repeated assertions about ER abuse, in any event, turned out to be wrong when subjected to scrutiny. An analysis published in the October 22/29, 2008 issue of JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association), which looked at 127 studies, showed that six commonly held beliefs about the uninsured and emergency room use were either unsupported by evidence, or equally true of both insured and uninsured patients. The uninsured were actually under-represented among patients using the ER for primary care — probably because they were concerned about the cost. And the claim that huge cost savings could be achieved merely by keeping more primary clinics open during off-hours — reducing ER visits — isn't true either. ERs do charge more - but the actual marginal cost per patient is likely to be no higher than that of keeping a primary-care clinic open after hours.

The uninsured have become scapegoats. Costs are so high, the argument goes, because "we all" are paying to take care of the selfish freeloaders who don't buy insurance. We pay through taxes (such as for Medicaid) and higher insurance premiums (because providers shift unpaid costs). That's true to an extent. Large amounts of cost-shifting happen when people abandon private insurance for Medicaid (public insurance). But those people who are truly uninsured (no private or public insurance) often do pay taxes (except for a substantial proportion of illegal aliens and those people deemed by the government to be "poor" — who usually shift to public insurance) but arguably not their fair share.

About 40 percent of people in the United States either pay no federal tax at all or they actually get money from the government as an Earned Income Tax Credit. Some of them use medical care (less care than insured people use), and some of them don't pay their bills. There is some cost shifting from people who don't pay for insurance to people who do, just as honest shoppers pay for shoplifters, but not much. The amount: 2.7 percent in 2004, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Of the uninsured with incomes at least twice the poverty level, 8 percent received some pro bono care during a year, and 50 percent received care for which they were charged. Of the latter, 80 percent paid in full, and another 10 percent were paying in installments, according to William Snyder in a November 21, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal. The real problem with these folks, as reformers might view it, is not that they don't pay for what they use (they usually do), but that they don't help to pay for what other people use — except through taxes and the higher prices they are often charged.

Unmentioned by the reformers is the fact that government causes far more cost shifting than do the uninsured because of underpayment to doctors and hospitals by the price-controlled government systems, Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid often only pay cents on the dollar toward the actual cost of care given to patients, forcing many doctors to make this money back by charging more to patients who have private insurance — and to the uninsured who pay their own bills. This fact raises the obvious question of what health institutions would do if there were no private sector to shift costs to.

The Obama/Kennedy/Baucus solution to the "uninsured problem" appears to be this: for the uninsured who can't pay big bills, require them to sign up for Medicaid — or for a subsidized "private" prepayment mechanism — so we all pay for them constantly, and not just when they become sick. For the uninsured who can pay, force them to prepay — for care they might or might not use — through insurance premiums.

Information technology: The reformers' favorite panacea is health information technology. Obama promises to "make sure that every doctor's office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year."

The savings, however, are all hypothetical, long-term savings, and they are mostly destined for the insurance companies and government entities that are paying the bills. Converting a medical office to electronic records is extremely costly and disruptive. The cost in terms of diminished productivity continues for years, and is possibly permanent. Anything that slows patient flow is, of course, an advantage to payers (fewer patients, fewer payments). Arguably, electronic medical records introduce more new errors than they prevent — and errors may be impossible to expunge.

It may seem counterintuitive to say that improved technology will cause more medical errors, but it's true because computer program designs, the programming, or the inputting of data can all cause errors. The December 11 Sentinel Event Alert released by the Joint Commission on Healthcare (operating experience and lessons-learned information from the U.S. Joint Committee on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) includes statements such as: "Technology-related adverse events in health care can involve, but are not limited to, computerized provider order entry (CPOE), automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs), electronic medical records (EMRs), clinical decision support (CDS), bar coding or RFID (radio frequency identification), virus threats to information security, CT (computed axial tomography) scanning technology, and the loss of patient data." Patient privacy, of course, is inevitably sacrificed. The real effect of electronic records is to enable intrusive monitoring of every aspect of the patient-physician interaction.

We have much more experience with computer disasters than successes in medicine. Rollout of the £12 billion flagship centralized Cerner IT system of the British National Health Service was halted because it was "hugely expensive," "desperately behind schedule," and a "shambles from the start." Suppliers were "deserting in droves." Frontline professionals were "voting with their feet." Before investing billions, why not learn from experience — preferably other people's experience.

Medical errors: Medicine would be both cheaper and better, of course, if doctors always did the right thing for their patients, both in the way of treating them and in giving illness-prevention advice. Toward this end, the reformers plan to save money by making doctors follow strict guidelines for care. But "proven" disease-management systems exist only if we accept authoritative opinion in lieu of actual evidence.

In a system that permits research and innovation, opinion changes about every five years concerning best practices to care for patients. By following government guidelines, we can be sure that patients will be given outdated care regimens. Even a simple government direction, such as making sure a certain test is done, and recording the results, can prove problematic. If we measure certain processes, like obtaining recommended tests, we may show an increase in the number of patients getting those, but even such a seemingly innocuous mandate would change the allocation of resources and affect some medical function that is not being tested. On the items that we don't measure, such as the activities from which effort is shifted to meet the new goals, we won't know the effect, because we won't measure it. Perversely, unimportant things are generally much easier to measure than important things.

What Should Be Done?

Reformers claim that whatever the cost of implementing the new plan, it can't be higher than the cost of not doing anything. Baucus warns that "we" will soon be spending $4 trillion on healthcare if we don't do something. The answer to those who say we can't afford to do it? We can't afford not to!

Progressives always have a plan and, when they are told their plan won't work, demand that opponents have a plan that's better and more inclusive than the progressive plan. So this is the plan: as Hippocrates would say, "First, do no harm." Not jumping off a cliff is always a good first step, whether that cliff be real or metaphoric, as in government control of medical care. Recognize that health reformers like Obama, Kennedy, and Baucus are not just making empty promises. They can indeed deliver universal "health coverage." But it will be at the expense of sickness care. We've all heard of the military's excuse that they had to destroy the village in order to save it. The Obama/Kennedy/Baucus ploy is to pretend to save the system in order to wreck it, to put additional money and power into the hands of politicians. (Those politicians who are for the new plan, but who don't see it for the ploy it is, really need to brush up on their research skills or get into another line of work.)

Second, realize that America needs to undo much of what the government has already done - to go back to the free market. A free-market solution is never one, universal solution. It is the sum of millions of individual decisions. Allowed freedom, individual decision makers would unleash creative destruction on much of the current system. To allow a solution that is likely to exceed all expectations, and to reduce costs dramatically, it is only necessary to remove the barriers. Some suggestions, for starters:

• Stop all tax discrimination against individually owned sickness insurance. The present system gives tax breaks to companies that provide insurance to employees, but workers who pay for their own insurance get no such deduction. This causes insurance companies to be unresponsive to providing inexpensive insurance for individuals, and it means insurance is tied to a job instead of being portable between jobs.

• Allow individuals to purchase sickness insurance across state borders, to avoid costly mandates by states. State governments create lists of services that insurance companies must cover, including non-illness-related things such as in vitro fertilization. The Washington Times wrote: "A health policy for a single Pennsylvanian costs roughly $1,500 annually. Cross the Delaware into New Jersey ... and a similar health plan costs about $4,000, thanks to state regulations."

• Expand health savings accounts by removing regulatory barriers so that Americans can pay for medical bills with before-tax money.

• End Medicare price controls. Allow patients and physicians to contract for mutually agreeable fees. Medicare can compute its reimbursement by any mechanism it chooses, but that should not determine the fee. This would also have the effect of drastically reducing physician overhead by removing the costs required primarily to justify Medicare's price-controlled, coded fee.

• Repeal the McCarran-Ferguson exemption that permits insurance companies to engage in behavior prohibited to other industries by antitrust law. (Insurance companies can form giant conglomerates that fix prices and make it impossible for competitors to enter the marketplace.)

Much more could be added. But the one-sentence answer is to put patients back in control of their medical dollars and their medical decisions. In a free-market system, prices would be much lower, and patients would have much broader choices. If they had more money in their own pockets - having given less to their insurer - more people would opt for less expensive, less toxic, possibly more effective treatments that insurers have historically refused to cover. Self-insurance for all but the most catastrophic expenses would be very common. There will always be a role for charity and social safety-net programs, but the neediest will be better served by programs targeted to their needs rather than demolishing the ship and giving everyone no choice but to cling to the wreckage.

Jane Orient, M.D., is an internist in solo practice in Tucson, Arizona. She is also executive director of the Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons