"Mancow" Muller decided he'd get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn't torture. Turns out it was.

Right-Wing Radio Host Gets Waterboarded, and Lasts Six Seconds Before Saying It's Torture

By John Byrne, Raw Story
Posted on May 22, 2009, Printed on May 23, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140205/

Chicago radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided he'd get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn't torture.

It didn't turn out that way. "Mancow," in fact, lasted just six or seven seconds before crying foul. Apparently, the experience went pretty badly -- "Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop," according to NBC Chicago.

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South told his audience before he was waterboarded on air. "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

Mancow was set on a 7-foot long table with his legs elevated and his feet tied.

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

The upshot? "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow told listeners. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"Absolutely. I mean that's drowning," he added later. "It is the feeling of drowning."

"If I knew it was gonna be this bad, I would not have done it," he said.

The 42-year-old radio host is no stranger to controversy. In 2005, he was maligned for saying that then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was "vile," "bloodthirsty," "evil" and "should be kicked out of America."

Hour 3: Rush Compares Obama To Giant Alien Cockroach From Men In Black

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905220026 This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Barack Obama, the giant alien cockroach By Simon Maloy Highlights from Hour 3 Outrageous comments LIMBAUGH: Imagine Obama as the big cockroach and union workers as the little cockroach, and he looks at union workers getting stomped on by CEOs and everywhere else, and of course, the union government, union workers of California getting stomped on. So he's the big cockroach and he's going to make sure these little cockroaches don't get stomped on and don't get avenged, and that's why he's going to nationalize California. [...] LIMBAUGH: There's Obama talking about the Somali pirates -- the black teenagers that were shot on Obama's orders. Well, they were 17 years old and they were Somalis, pirates no doubt. but those five days in April -- "I'm not going to recount the full story of those five days in April but much of it is already known. Some of it will never be known. That's how it should be. Five days in April." I hear a movie coming. I hear a movie. Five Days in April. It'll be out in time for the Oscars next year and Cannes next year. Five Days in April: how the courageous, brave, historic president of the United States personally wiped out three Somali teenagers -- personally did it by giving the orders and thereby saving a cargo ship from the ravages of these three teenagers. Five Days in April. Can't you see it now? Will Smith will be Obama. Will Smith will be the SEAL leader. Will Smith will be the SEAL second in command. Will Smith will be the captain of the Maersk that was being held hostage. Will Smith will not play any of the pirates, but Will Smith will play Obama and the SEAL captain and the SEAL assistant. And of course, you know, every one of these movies has a communications person named Sparks. The communications guy is always named Sparks, and Obama will play the communications guy relaying orders from Obama to Obama to pull the trigger. [...] LIMBAUGH: I was struck. I mean, it was hundreds, and it was not just military people. There were some people who wrote and said, "He's leaving the option open to himself to be able to detain citizens without charge." And I got to thinking -- years ago, getting letters like this, emails like this, I thought, "My gosh, my audience. These people who are writing me these letters, they're kooks." But this -- some of them may be writing these notes, but there are too many of these that people are looking at this guy this way. And I've told you there are people who are scared to death about the economy, their kids' futures, all of this spending, the federal government power grabs.

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Coulter revives campaign falsehood about IL "Born Alive Act"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905210033 In her May 20 column, Ann Coulter asserted that "[a]s an Illinois state senator in 2002-2003, [President] Obama repeatedly blocked and voted against the 'Born Alive Act,' which would have allowed doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions and remained alive, wholly apart from their mothers." However, the suggestion that at the time Illinois law did not already "allow[] doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions" without the "Born Alive Act" is false. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already required doctors to provide medical care for "babies who somehow survived abortions." As Media Matters noted, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment -- the alleged incident that inspired the "Born Alive Act" -- the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law. Obama himself has cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois." Coulter, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News host Sean Hannity, and several other conservative commentators have previously claimed that Obama's votes against this legislation mean that, in Limbaugh's words, Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion." Contact: Ann Coulter tom@anncoulter.org

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

WHY THE UNITED STATES MUST INVESTIGATE THE CRIMES, ABUSES AND FRAUDS OF THE SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISE

from http://factnet.org/?p=500

this is a copy of copy of a speech Graham E. Berry gave to F.E.C.R.I.S. (the umbrella group for European anti-cult organizations) in St. Petersburg, Russia on Friday May 15.

"In brief, and according to U.S. Federal Court Judge Leona Brinkema, "Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler Xenu over 75 million years ago. These dead alien spirits attach themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their hosts." Scientology charges enormous hourly fees, sometimes as much as $1,200 per hour, to use a primitive lie detector called an E meter to remove a Scientologist's Body Thetans. HoweverAs if this were not odious enough, the auditing process is never ending. The Body Thetans on the Scientologist also have their own Body Thetans dwelling upon them. They too have to be removed, at the expense of the individual Sscientologist because Body Thetans, also known as "BTs and Clusters," do not have any money to pay for Scientology processing themselves. Indeed, it is not unusual for Scientologists to spend over a million dollars trying to deal with their own BTs and Clusters and the BTs and Clusters that cling to those BTs. For everyone except Scientologists, Scientology beliefs can easily be found on the internet with search terms such as Xenu, Operating Thetan, OT III, Scientology and upper levels. Indeed, since November 16, 2005, many millions of people have learned about Scientology's secret OT teachings from the "Trapped in the Closet" episode of the South Park television show.

However, the investigation and prosecution being called for is not about whether or not Scientology works to cure all physical, mental and emotional conditions and will work as the universal world government and provider of all medical and mental health services, all of which Scientology claims, practices and is intent upon achieving. The purpose of the investigation called for is not to investigate the truth or falsity of any alleged religious faith of Scientology. For everyone except Scientologists, Scientology beliefs can easily be found on the internet with search terms such as Xenu, Operating Thetan, OT III, Scientology and upper levels. Indeed, since November 16, 2005, many millions of people have learned about Scientology's secret OT teachings from the "Trapped in the Closet" episode of the South Park television show. Instead, the investigation being demanded is about whether the Church of Scientology, directly or indirectly, is engaged in financial fraud and crime, human and civil rights abuses, human trafficking, unlicensed medical practice and other criminal conduct."

read the rest at the link above...fascinating....

WSJ doesn't disclose Galen Institute's reported industry ties in president's health care op-ed

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905200041 On May 20, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Galen Institute president Grace-Marie Turner and American Enterprise Institute scholar Joseph Antos promoting congressional Republicans' health care proposal as "a clear alternative to the health-reform plans being developed by the White House and Democrats in Congress." However, the Journal did not disclose that the Galen Institute reportedly receives funding from the pharmaceutical and medical industries, which obviously have an interest in the outcome of Congress' health care reform deliberations. As Media Matters for America has noted, in biographical information accompanying a May 11 opinion piece (registration required) written by Turner, McClatchy-Tribune Media Services noted that Galen is "funded in part by the pharmaceutical and medical industries." Unlike the Journal, which noted only that Turner is "president of the Galen Institute," McClatchy-Tribune regularly discloses Turner's ties to those industries in biographical notes accompanying her op-eds. Contact: Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal WSJ Editorial Staff: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com WSJ Feedback: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Media falsely attribute entire auto standards cost to Obama

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905200040 In reporting on President Obama's plan for tighter fuel economy and emissions standards, numerous media outlets have falsely asserted or suggested that Obama's proposal alone would increase the cost of the average car by $1,300. In fact, according to the administration, its proposal would add $600 to the price of the average car by 2016, with an additional $700 increase resulting from increased emissions requirements included in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed by President Bush in 2007. In a May 18 conference call, a senior administration official said, "The average cost per vehicle is -- of the national policies is $600 above the CAFE cost. So CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] was estimated in 2016 to have an average vehicle cost of about $700, and this national policy has an incremental cost of $600." The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Bloomberg, among others, noted that the White House said the $1,300 increase is not solely a result of the "new" rules, but rather reflects both the changes made in the 2007 energy law and those announced on May 19 by Obama. For instance, the Post reported: A senior administration official said on Monday that the new standards would add $600 to the price of the average car, on top of the $700 of added costs that would have resulted from more modestly increased targets permitted under the 2007 energy bill. However, the following media figures and outlets falsely claimed or suggested that the entire $1,300 increase would be a result of Obama's proposal: During the May 20 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, environmental reporter Elizabeth Shogren said, "Experts say one limitation to this proposal is that it would drive up the cost of new cars by about $1,300 each, according to the White House." In a May 19 article, Reuters reported: Under the new standards, U.S. passenger vehicles and light trucks must average 35.5 miles per gallon (6.62 litres/100km) by 2016. The current law, approved by the Bush administration, requires a similar gain by 2020. [...] The plan was praised by automakers, environmentalists and an array of politicians, but it will mean higher price tags for consumers. The new program will add about $1,300 to the price of producing a vehicle. Obama said car buyers would recoup the money with the lower fuel costs realized under more efficient mileage standards. Sean Hannity stated during the May 19 edition of his Fox News program that "the president pushed new emissions standards for automobiles, a move that some say -- that estimates say will cost American consumers upwards of $1,300 per automobile." In a May 19 entry on CBS News' Political Hotsheet blog, Steve Chaggaris stated: "President Obama will announce new fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and the first-ever national emissions limits today at the White House. ... The new rules are expected to bump up auto prices an average of $1,300 per vehicle." During the May 19 edition of Fox Business Network's Cavuto, Fox Business analyst Jonathan Hoenig stated, "[I]f the president is so interested in saving everybody money, then why is this plan gonna tack, what is it, $1,300 onto the cost of every new car sold in this country?" During the May 19 edition of his syndicated radio show, CNN host Lou Dobbs stated, "Today the president announced new fuel-efficiency standards -- CAFE standards -- that are estimated to cost carmakers about $1,300 per vehicle. Translation: That will cost the consumer about $1,300 a vehicle." During the May 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, White House correspondent Ed Henry reported that Obama's proposed changes will "have major ramifications for consumers." He added that the proposed "new national fuel-efficiency standard, demand[s] that by 2016 automakers are building vehicles that average 35.5 miles per gallon" and that "White House officials say you'll pay about $1,300 more per car." Later in the broadcast, on-screen text stated, "New rules could cost $1,300 per vehicle," as host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Obama energy adviser Carol Browner. During the May 19 edition of Fox Business, senior Washington correspondent Peter Barnes stated that "the new rules will force the automakers to more quickly develop more efficient gas-burning engines as well as systems, as well as accelerate production of electronic vehicles and gas-electric hybrids. But this will come at a cost, according to the administration, adding an estimated $1,300 per car to manufacture a car by 2016." During the May 19 edition of CNBC's Squawk on the Street, anchor Trish Regan stated, "President Obama's new fuel-efficiency standards, front and center this morning. The standards will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016." The May 19 edition of Fox Business' Money for Breakfast aired on-screen text that read, "New standards expected to add $1,300 to the cost per car." Moreover, during the show, Fox Business contributor Charles Payne stated, "[H]ow much is this gonna cost? You know, the automakers can't afford it, so that means the viewers are gonna have to pay for it. This adds 1,300 bucks now. Wow, that is a lot of money. Literally, it could be billions of dollars to get this done. I thought 2020 was too soon. To move that up to 2016 to me is nuts." The May 19 edition of Fox Business Morning included on-screen text that read, "New rules could add $1300 to the price of a car," and anchor Jenna Lee stated, "[O]fficials saying the new rules will add about $1,300 to the price of a car." From the May 20 edition of NPR's Morning Edition: SHOGREN: Experts say one limitation to this proposal is that it would drive up the cost of new cars by about $1,300 each, according to the White House. Robert Stavins, the director of Harvard University's environmental economics program, says, as a result, people would be more likely to hold onto their old cars. From the May 19 Reuters article: Under the new standards, U.S. passenger vehicles and light trucks must average 35.5 miles per gallon (6.62 litres/100km) by 2016. The current law, approved by the Bush administration, requires a similar gain by 2020. [...] HIGHER PRICE TAGS FOR CONSUMERS The plan was praised by automakers, environmentalists and an array of politicians, but it will mean higher price tags for consumers. The new program will add about $1,300 to the price of producing a vehicle. Obama said car buyers would recoup the money with the lower fuel costs realized under more efficient mileage standards. "This is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car," he said. "Over the life of a vehicle, the typical driver would save about $2,800 by getting better gas mileage." The plan could cut deeply into voracious U.S. gasoline demand, dealing another blow to a refining sector hard hit by recession and bracing for more climate legislation. From the May 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity: HANNITY: Now then the president pushed new emissions standards for automobiles, a move that some say -- that estimates say will cost American consumers upwards of $1,300 per automobile. Now, meanwhile, Congress continues to move forward with their cap-and-trade legislation. From the May 19 edition of Fox Business Network's Cavuto: HOENIG: A lot of factors, you know, play into the price of oil, Neil. And, for my opinion, probably most prominently lately has been the declining dollar, of course -- NEIL CAVUTO (host): Right. TRACY BYRNES (Fox Business correspondent): Right. HOENIG: -- which pushes the price of all commodities higher. But I gotta tell you, I mean, if the president is so interested in saving everybody money, then why is this plan gonna tack, what is it, $1,300 onto the cost of every new car sold in this country? I mean, on a 14, $15,000 car, that's a lot of money. BYRNES: And that's a low ball. HOENIG: And are we addicted to oil? I suppose -- BYRNES: That's a low ball. From the May 19 edition of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show: DOBBS: Today the president announced new fuel-efficiency standards -- CAFE standards -- that are estimated to cost carmakers about $1,300 per vehicle. Translation: That will cost the consumer about $1,300 a vehicle. It's a move that could cost those carmakers an additional 13 to $20 billion every year. From the May 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room: BLITZER: Today he outlined the plan and called it an historic turning point. Let's go to our senior White House correspondent Ed Henry -- he's got the details. Ed, a dramatic day at the White House. HENRY: That's right, Wolf. On the campaign this president talked a lot about change, and today was an example where he actually pulled together some parties that were at loggerheads -- there were lawsuits flying around. He brought them together for some dramatic action that's gonna have major ramifications for consumers. [begin video clip] HENRY: The president brought together congressional leaders, governors, and automakers on a deal that marks the government's most ambitious step to cut greenhouse gas emissions ever. OBAMA: No longer will we accept the notion that our politics are too small, our nation too divided, our people too weary of broken promises and lost opportunities to take up a historic calling. HENRY: A strict new national fuel-efficiency standard, demanding that by 2016 automakers are building vehicles that average 35.5 miles per gallon, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil. OBAMA: That's more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined. HENRY: White House officials say you'll pay about $1,300 more per car, but the president of Toyota notes that's likely to be offset by fuel savings. [end video clip] [...] From the May 19 edition of Fox Business Network's Fox Business: BARNES: Now the new rules will force the automakers to more quickly develop more efficient gas-burning engines as well as systems, as well as accelerate production of electronic vehicles and gas-electric hybrids. But this will come at a cost, according to the administration, adding an estimated $1,300 per car to manufacture a car by 2016. But the administration says that this cost, at least for consumers, will probably be a wash, given that they will be now having to use lower amounts of fuel to drive their cars. From the May 19 edition of CNBC's Squawk on the Street: REGAN: President Obama's new fuel-efficiency standards, front and center this morning. The standards will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. From the May 19 edition of Fox Business Network's Money for Breakfast: [...] PAYNE: You know what? Last year the Ford F-150 still sold a lot more than a Prius and will continue to, so there you go. Also, how much is this gonna cost? You know, the automakers can't afford it, so that means the viewers are gonna have to pay for it. This adds 1,300 bucks now. Wow, that is a lot of money. Literally, it could be billions of dollars to get this done. I thought 2020 was too soon. To move that up to 2016 to me is nuts. From the May 19 edition of Fox Business Morning: LEE: The Obama administration and automakers agreeing to new fuel-efficiency standards. The average fuel economy for cars and trucks will have to be 35.5 million -- million -- miles per gallon by 2016, moving up that target date by about four years. The tab will be picked up at least in part by consumers; officials saying the new rules will add about $1,300 to the price of a car. Contact: NPR NPR NPR 635 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 513-2000 Contact: CNBC CNBC Contact: CNN CNN One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366 Phone: 404-827-1500 Fax: 404-827-1906 Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Chuck Norris' facts on hate crimes bill are missing in action

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905200005 In his May 12 and May 19 columns for Creators Syndicate, actor and political activist Chuck Norris falsely claimed that pedophiles could be protected under the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Norris wrote in both columns that the legislation -- which, among other things, defines as a federal crime certain acts or attempted acts of violence committed "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person" -- "could ... provide elevated protection to pedophiles." In fact, while conservatives have pointed to the bill's inclusion of "sexual orientation" and "disability" to justify their assertion that the bill could protect pedophilia, neither term would do so. As Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) noted during an April 23 House Judiciary Committee hearing, the term "sexual orientation" is already defined by federal statute as applying only to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality," thereby excluding pedophiles, who engage in nonconsensual sexual relationships with children. Pedophilia is also not considered a "disability" under current federal law. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), specifically excludes pedophilia, thereby precluding protection for pedophiles from the hate crimes bill. Both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com have also written that the hate crimes bill would not protect pedophiles. FactCheck.org wrote: "[P]edophiles would get no breaks under this bill." PolitiFact.com wrote that "we've found nothing to support the opponents' claims that pedophiles would be protected by the hate crimes bill" and concluded that the claim is "Pants on Fire" wrong. In addition, Norris wrote in his May 19 column that Saddam Hussein punished "people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics" and later added: "Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture." Norris then cited the hate crimes bill as an example. Norris' syndicated column is also published on the conservative websites Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily, and HumanEvents.com. From Norris' May 19 column, titled "Outlawing Opinion": It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture. Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer. Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture. For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles. If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. From Norris' May 12 column, titled "Of Bakeries, Burglars and Bad Congressional Bills": Our Founding Fathers simply never could have imagined such rampant degradation and utter disarray among younger generations. Proof of that is seen in Ben Franklin's 1787 pamphlet, "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America," which was a guide for Europeans who were considering relocating to America. In it, Ben said, "Hence bad examples (of) youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents." Can you picture a present-day politician saying, "Bad examples of youth are rare in America"? He or she would become the ridicule of pundits and politicians alike. One way we can fight right now for our Founders' America is by going to http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009957.cfm and joining the several hundred thousand Americans who already have voiced their opposition to the passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, because in the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles. Is that how we want our government protecting our children and the Constitution? I've felt honored to be reconnected to the younger generations through the "Chuck Norris Facts" proliferation. I hear from thousands every year, listen to their concerns, and do my best to carry their concerns to appropriate parties to implement change. Contact: Creators Syndicate info@creators.com Creators Syndicate 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone # (310) 337-7003 Fax # (310) 337-7625

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

RNC chairman says that gay marriage is bad for economy

video and article at http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/20/rnc-chairman-says-th.html

Kieth Olbermann responds to RNC chairman Michael Steele's statement that gay marriage harms the economy by creating a new class of beneficiary spouses by pointing out that gay marriage would likely create more than $16 billion in economic activity for weddings, which benefit local stationers, photographers, bakers, hoteliers, etc. etc. etc.

Keith Olbermann's WTF!?!: RNC's Michael Steele & Gay Marriage 

Corpses are rotting more slowly than they used to -- is it because we are germophobic?

from http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/19/corpses-are-rotting.html

UC Berkeley psychology professor and author of The Shangri-La Diet: No Hunger, Eat Anything, Weight-Loss Plan, has been writing about the health benefits of cultured food (see: Probiotics and Resistance to Illness, The Dose-Response Revolution and Fermented Food, How Things Begin (Japan Traditional Foods), Antibiotics Associated with Later Infection, The Good Scots Diet, and many other entries about fermented food).

In a recent post, Roberts says he thinks that the shift in the 1960s from home-made food to processed food, which has resulted in people having less bacteria in their bodies, has caused corpses to rot more slowly than they used to.

A friend of mine, who went to college at MIT around 1980, had a classmate who was the son of an undertaker. His dad had told him that when he (the dad) had entered the business, you had to work fast. Bodies would start to smell quickly. But now — around 1980 — that was no longer necessary. You could wait a lot longer before they smelled bad.

Which I take to mean that around 1980 the average old person, where this classmate came from, had a lot less bacteria in their body than around 1960.

How Fast Do We Rot?

Bush cronies land jobs charging for advice on not getting eaten by the monsters they created

from http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/19/bush-cronies-land-jo.html

From USA Today: "More than one in four members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet have landed jobs with consulting or lobbying firms in which they can help clients navigate the departments they once oversaw." Michael "DHS" Chertoff is now charging for advice on how not to get screwed by the DHS (the former director of the CIA is working for him); Ashcroft is working for companies that his own DoJ brought anti-trust charges against. Nice work if you can get it. Several Bush officials work in areas related to former jobs

North Carolina's Blue Cross Blue Shield Trying to Kill Key Plank of Obama Plan

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/05/by_ceci_connolly_one_week.html

By Ceci Connolly
One week after the nation's health insurance lobby pledged to President Obama to do what it can to constrain rising health costs, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is putting the finishing touches on a public message campaign aimed at killing a key plank in Obama's reform platform.

As part of what it calls an "informational website," the company has hired an outside PR company to make a series of videos sounding the alarm about a government-sponsored health insurance option, known as the public plan. Obama has consistently maintained that a government-run plan, absent high-paid executives and the need for profits, could be a more affordable option for Americans who have trouble purchasing private insurance. The industry argues that creating a public insurance program will undermine the marketplace and eventually lead to a single-payer style system.

In three 30-second videos, the insurer paints a picture of a future system in which patients wait months for appointments and can't choose their own doctors, according to storyboards of the videos obtained by the Washington Post.

One video titled "Waiting" shows a receptionist fielding a request from a patient enrolled in the new program.

"The government plan. Okay hold on...let me see what's available," the woman says into the telephone. On the screen, with the caller on hold, the receptionist rearranges items on her desk, looks at a wide- open calendar and then fibs: "It looks like the first time we can fit you in is in two-and-a-half months."

Another spot in the series, being developed by Capstrat media in Raleigh, shows a woman and child wandering down a darkened hospital doorway "as if they're starting to realize that they've lost their way," according to sketches of the video. "We can do a lot better than a government-run health care system," the narrator concludes.

Blue Cross Blue Shield spokesman Lew Borman said the videos are still in the draft stage. On the question of creating a public option to compete with private insurers, he said: "We believe an unchecked government-run plan would lower payment to doctors and hospitals, forcing them to attempt to charge private insurers more and thus further eliminate private insurers' ability to compete against the government."

On its Web site, Capstrat touts its "agility in turning complex issues into simple, powerful and persuasive stories." Company president Karen Albritton declined to comment.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has 3.7 million members and processed more than $10.7 billion in medical claims last year. Get a first look at the video storyboards here.

Harry and Louise Are Back: Insurers Planning on Double-Crossing Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/harry-and-louise-are-back_b_204941.html

According to new information obtained by the Washington Post:

One week after the nation's health insurance lobby pledged to President Obama to do what it can to constrain rising health costs, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is putting the finishing touches on a public message campaign aimed at killing a key plank in Obama's reform platform.

As part of what it calls an "informational website," the company has hired an outside PR company to make a series of videos sounding the alarm about a government-sponsored health insurance option, known as the public plan. Obama has consistently maintained that a government-run plan, absent high-paid executives and the need for profits, could be a more affordable option for Americans who have trouble purchasing private insurance. The industry argues that creating a public insurance program will undermine the marketplace and eventually lead to a single-payer style system.

Somehow, this isn't surprising. On Friday, the health insurance industry showed how un-serious they were about really controlling costs by backing away from the promise they made to President Obama. And now, the same industry is planning on making videos (which can be turned into ads) to try and kill the public health insurance option, the only real way to control costs.

Check out the storyboards from their proposed ads [pdf]. The message is right out of the Frank Luntz playbook - scaring the public about the dangers of "government-run health care," and lying by omission about the fact that Obama's health care plan wouldn't force anyone to choose a public health care plan if they didn't want one.

Up until now, the disgraced CEO Rick Scott was the only one up on the air against Obama's health care reform plans. Not even Republicans had a coordinated message to attack health care, at least not until Frank Luntz came along. But now, it looks like the message carried by Harry and Louise might be returning, once again payed for by an insurance industry desperately looking for any way to protect their profits in the face of competition and reform.

BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina's Desperate Attempt To Deceive

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200905190001

In an effort to preserve the broken status quo, insurance giant BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina is preparing three television ads based on myths, half truths and downright hypocrisy.  The ads make it clear that the company is more concerned with protecting their stranglehold on American patients than earnestly improving the country's health care system.  The accusations lead one to ask: If BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina is so sure a public health care option would be a disaster, why are they so afraid to compete with it?

rest at http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200905190001

Minority neighborhoods ignored by Zipcar, I-GO

from http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_news/Minority_neighborhoods_ignored_by_Zipcar_IGO,23066

BY MARIAN WANG
March 04, 2009, 10:00 AM

Collion Leon, 33, takes a cab to get groceries. The Englewood resident does not own a car, and he prefers not to lug his purchases around on public transportation.

"It costs 5 to 7 dollars, depending on where you want to get dropped off," he says.

If Leon lived elsewhere — on the North side, or even in Hyde Park — he could make use of the car-sharing programs like I-GO Car Sharing and Zipcar, which tout affordable and environmentally friendly options for people without cars, allowing them to rent them for an hour or two.

However, Leon's neighborhood, Englewood, which is 98 percent black and on the South Side, has no I-GO or Zipcar vehicles available for consumers.

Other South Side neighborhoods face similar problems.

Between I-GO and Zipcar, there are 531 vehicles in 303 locations within Chicago city limits. Seven I-GO cars — three percent of the I-GO fleet — are located in black neighborhoods, and only six percent are located south of Cermak, an analysis by the Daily News shows.

Zipcar has one car located in a black neighborhood, though African Americans make up 36 percent of the city's population, according to the 2000 Census.

Representatives from both I-GO Car Sharing and Zipcar say that their companies choose car locations based on a community's need.

"There's a business model to car sharing, and the business model says, 'Where are the people who don't own cars?' They're the most likely to car share," says Richard Kosmacher, business development manager at I-GO.

However, in neighborhoods like Englewood, where high percentages of households do not have cars, there remains a disparity between need and service.

In Englewood and surrounding neighborhoods, 37 percent of households do not have vehicles available to them, according to data from the 2007 American Community Survey. The area's percentage of households without cars is second highest in the city.

In an area spanning Humboldt Park, North Lawndale, East Garfield Park and West Garfield Park, 48 percent of households are without cars. None of those neighborhoods have car sharing services available.

Both of Chicago's car sharing companies concentrate their business in white and mixed race neighborhoods. I-GO has 145 car locations in Chicago, 89 percent of which are in white and mixed neighborhoods. Zipcar has 148 locations in the city, with 97 percent of them in white and mixed neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are mostly on the North and Northwest sides, with the exception of a few areas on the South side near Illinois Institute of Technology, Hyde Park and the University of Chicago.

Leon's Census area has only three car sharing locations. That's one car for every 8,216 households without a car. In the Census area that includes the Loop, Near North Side, Near West Side and Near South Side, that ratio is much higher. In those areas, an I-GO or Zipcar vehicle is available for every 138 households without a car.

"Are they deciding on the basis of market demand or are they deciding on the basis of race? A lot of times people will cover up their real motivation with things that seem to be business reasons but actually aren't," says Naomi Davis, founder and president of BIG: Blacks in Green, an environmental organization that advocates bringing green practices and lifestyles into the black community.

"The black community is routinely the last to receive any sort of savings innovation and new, quality ideas. There's nothing new about that. I would really be surprised if it were any other way."

Officials at I-Go and Zipcar had different explanations.

"The most dense concentration of our cars is at the densest part of our city, which is along the lakefront," says Kosmacher of I-GO. "But if you look at where we are, we're in Albany Park and moving into Old Irving. We're starting to move out and move west and also to move south."

Zipcar representatives did not comment specifically on the concentrations of their locations, except to say that the company has expanded "to areas that we can."

"They do very in-depth figuring out of where to expand to meet the demand," says Lesley Neadel, a public relations representative for Zipcar. "If we're not there, I'm sure the demand just wasn't there to support expanding into that neighborhood."

Unlike Zipcar, I-GO Car Sharing is a nonprofit organization. I-GO representatives said the organization is currently being considered for funding that would help expand its reach to underserved communities on the south and west sides.

Davis said the car sharing companies' absence is just as well. She said black neighborhoods should find a way to start their own green businesses and keep the dollars circulating within the community.

"If they're not interested in our money and our community for whatever reason, we should start our own. That is a green business that anybody can bring in," she said. "Lots of options are not readily available in the black community. We're accustomed to that, and that's why I advocate self-help, creating your own green options."

Marian Wang is a Chicago-based reporter. She covers environmental issues for the Daily News.

Merrill Lynch Employees Pooping All Over Office Again [Fecal Matters] from Gawker

from http://gawker.com/5258605/merrill-lynch-employees-pooping-all-over-office-again

In January of 2008 a disgruntled Merrill Lynch employee, outraged over his bonus, took a crap on the floor, stomped in it, and proceeded to track it around the office. Now it's apparently happened again.

Clusterstock's John Carney reported this late Friday afternoon:

Nearly one and half years after a Merrill Lynch employee defecated on the floor of a bathroom near a bond trading desk at the bank's headquarters in lower Manhattan, it looks like it may have happened again. Employees say that someone has left "a turd" in the stairwell connecting trading areas on the fifth and seventh floors.

As of this writing nothing is known about who the phantom pooper is, or what his/her motivation was, but we're confident that Merrill security will put some of that bailout money to good use to probe this matter fully and get straight to the bottom of it.

One question though—-Has anyone seen John Thain lurking around the office lately? That guy totally looks like he'd take a dump in the office!

Working in finance really is a shitshow these days, isn't it?

It's Back! The Turd War at Merrill Heats Up Again [Clusterstock]

What Barack Obama Did and Didn't Say at Notre Dame [Controversies] from Gawker

from http://gawker.com/5259000/what-barack-obama-did-and-didnt-say-at-notre-dame

Today, after much protest, controversy and hysterical outrage, Barack Obama delivered the commencement address at Notre Dame. In his speech to the Catholic school's graduates, Obama addressed growing concerns about his "respect for life" head-on.

According to the transcript of the speech, the President was only 241 words into his address, having just made a well-received joke about the elusiveness of honorary degrees, when a heckler screamed, "Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!" The majority of the audience responded by condemning the jackass responsible for the disruption with a loud chorus of boos that eventually morphed into a "yes we can" chant. Obama handled the disturbance deftly, as he always seems to do with an almost disgusting penchant for grace and humility under pressure, moved on with his prepared text, and then returned to the subject of his, in the words of protesting Bishop John D'Arcy, "long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred," about a quarter of the way into his address.

Let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "¼differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago — also with the help of the Catholic Church.

From there Obama went on to discuss the role religion played during his formative years, mentioning how witnessing the good works of church-going people in his neighborhood led him to being "brought to Christ" as a youth, and concluded with some traditional commencement address words of inspiration for the graduates about to face the world, words which were the collective antithesis of this commencement address.

What Obama did not do at Notre Dame, courtly but also somewhat disappointingly, was make any effort to point out the hypocrisy laden in the outrage expressed by the legions of "pro-life" protesters of 2009 who were largely silent when George W. Bush delivered the commencement address at Notre Dame in 2001. At the time Bush, despite having the "pro-life" label woven deeply into his personal political tapestry, had recently assumed the office of the presidency following a stint as the governor of Texas in which he personally signed death warrants for 131 state prisoners, of which almost a third were later found to be represented by ridiculously incompetent defense attorneys, some working under the influence of cocaine and alcohol and sleeping in court during vital stages of their client's trials. Obama could have easily pointed out the towering jackassery inherent within such ideological tunnel vision, perhaps even going so far as to ask his audience to ponder a hypothetical question—-What would Jesus Christ, himself a man whose life was taken by the state through an excruciating execution, think of the decision to have Bush speak to the school's graduates? If you're going to have a man who personally ordered the executions of 131 human beings speak to a school affiliated with a religion supposed rooted in the teachings of Christ, well hell, you might as well just go the extra mile and rename the main administration building after Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who, according to the word of the Bible, ordered Christ's crucifixion.

Obama could have also very easily pointed out the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church's "pro-life" stance by recalling its long, storied, bloodstained personal history. Anyone remember the Crusades? The Inquisitions? Or how about the church's support of Hitler during the reign of Pope Pius XII? Not to be forgotten are innumerable instances of bigotry, sexism and intolerance, and oh yeah, widespread KID-FUCKING, perpetrated, condoned, and covered up by the church, its leadership and its flock.

So yeah, the Catholic Church, what with blood seemingly pouring from its hands, really hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to promoting a "culture of life" and condemning those whose views on the subject differ from their own, but to Obama's credit, like a man who lives his life in accordance with the teachings of true Christianity, much more so than the righteous blowhards who have the Herculean audacity as to take regular shots at his moral compass, he shunned using rhetoric laced in the potential to alienate, and instead chose words that offered everyone a seat at the table, which is probably the exact way Jesus Christ himself would have handled the situation.

All told, if it were us who'd been challenged so furiously by righteous windbags about our "long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred," we probably would have just told them all to go fuck themselves, but we suppose that's why he's the President, and we're not.

Obama's Commencement Address at Notre Dame [New York Times]

How China Censors the Internet - Video

from http://www.labnol.org/internet/how-china-censors-internet-sites/8603/

An employee of Baidu, the Google of China, has leaked a document folder that suggests in detail how authorities in China censor the Internet.

Video - Internet Censorship in China

These internal documents contain information about internet monitoring policies of China, how censors can search web pages for sensitive keywords and the unique point system that is used by government to reward the "more efficient" Internet police staff.

Related: Know if your site is blocked in China?

List of Words Banned in China

Here's a quick list of blacklisted topics and sensitive keyword phrases that are blocked on the Chinese Internet. These include:

• Chinese Communist Party, Ruling government
• Puppet government, One-party system
• Dictatorship, tyranny
• Human rights in China & Freedom of expression
• Gao Zhisheng (Chinese lawyer and activist)
• Falun Gong (Banned cult in China founded by Li Hongzhi)
• Keywords related to Military, Gambling, Brainwashing & Sex
• Kidney harvesting from live people, Organ Sale
• Tiananmen Square Massacre
• Tibet, Taiwan Independence
• Cheating in Examinations, Fake Diploma courses
• How to make bombs, counterfeit money and so on.

In addition to keywords, these documents also include a long list of web addresses that have been deleted from the Chinese web. The full leaked folder with all the keywords and other Baidu documents is available for download here.

Related: How to Access Blocked Sites in China