Tag Archives: health

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom. While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.” Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives. According to Sec. 5. of the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out “lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.” The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications focus on: * smoking cessation; * proper nutrition; * appropriate exercise; * mental health; * behavioral health; * sedentary behavior; * substance-use disorder; and * domestic violence screenings. Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.” Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past: * Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and * Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.” Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!” Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes. Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in: * worksite health promotion; * community services, including community health centers; * preventive medicine; * health coaching; * public health education; * geriatrics; and * rehabilitation medicine. President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers. If you are feeling stressed-out, sad, confused, hungry, thirsty, bored, or tired, do you honestly trust President Obama and his “Advisory Group” to act in your best interests? added by: Omnomynous

Calculus I in 20 Minutes (The Original) by Thinkwell

www.thinkwell.com Want to see the ENTIRE Calculus in 20 Minutes for FREE? Click on this link to see all 20 minutes in the full multimedia environment.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EX_is9LzFSY?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

Read the original:
Calculus I in 20 Minutes (The Original) by Thinkwell

Zac E!’s 30 Best && Worst Beach Bodies

Zac is featured on E!’s 30 Best && Worst Beach Bodies at #13. lmao at the commentary. No copyright infringement intended.

http://www.youtube.com/v/GA1FS_RrvDM?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

See the article here:
Zac E!’s 30 Best && Worst Beach Bodies

TIGER WOODS – DREAM SHOT – BEST EVER

Impossible Shot !!! ignore: Halo 3 (Xbox (Xbox 360; Playstation 3); Crysis (PC); Super Mario Galaxy (Wii); Zelda – Phantom Hourglass (Nintendo DS);); FIFA 08 (Xbox 360; Playstation 3); Bioshock (Xbox 360); 360Assassin’s Creed Motorstorm (Playstation 3); Zelda – Twilight Princess (Gamecube; Wii); Loco Roco (PSP); Viva Pinata (Xbox 360); Wii Sports (Wii); Gears of War (Xbox 36); Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Xbox 360); Sam & Max Episodes 1-6 (PC); Brain Training (Nintendo DS); Final Fantasy XII (Playstation 2); Guitar Hero (Playstation 2); Phoenix Wright (Nintendo DS); God of War (Playstation); Zelda – Minish Cap (Gameboy Advanced); World of WarCraft (PC); Far Cry (PC); Ninja Gaiden (Xbox); Half-Life 2 (PC); Rome Total War (PC); Killzone (Playstation 2); Wario Ware Inc. (Gamecube); Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (Gamecube); Call of Duty (PC); Ratchet & Clanck (Playstation 2); Metroid Prime (Gamecube); WarCraft 3 (PC); Grand Theft Auto III (Playstation 2); Advanced Wars (Gameboy Advanced); Halo (Xbox); Paper Mario (Nintendo 64); Crazy Taxi (Dreamcast); Zelda – Majora’s Mask (Nintendo 64); The Sims (PC); Pokemon Gold/Silver (Gameboy Color); Counter Strike (PC); Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater (Playstation); Soul Calibur (Sega Dreamcast); Silent Hill (Sony Playstation); RollerCoaster Tycoon (PC); Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Nintendo 64); Half-Life (PC); Unreal (PC); Grim Fandago (PC); Metal Gear Solid (Playstation); StarCraft (PC); Age of Empires (PC); Final Fantasy 7 (Playstation …

http://www.youtube.com/v/WdBTLlA2iG0?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

See more here:
TIGER WOODS – DREAM SHOT – BEST EVER

More Washington Post Hijinks? Reporter Cancels Book Party Appearance Hosted by Democrat Operative

It’s probably safe to assume that a lot of reporters in the mainstream media lean to the left side of the ideological spectrum. And it was seen throughout the health care debate over the past year and a half – that somehow we need to raise the rhetoric beyond hyperbole like death panels, etc. One of those reporters was The Washington Post’s health care reporter Ceci Connolly, who last summer appeared on MSNBC and made such a plea . And since then, she made other gestures to show she was in line with the Obama administration on this issue. Well, lo and behold, according to a story by Jeremy Peters posted on the New York Times Media Decoder blog , Connolly canceled an appearance at a party for the book, “Landmark: The Inside Story of America’s New Health Care Law and What it Means for All of Us,” which according to her Web site Connolly is “one of the main authors of the first definitive book on the 2010 health care law.” “[T]he Post found itself in another potentially embarrassing and ethically compromised position on Wednesday after one of its most senior reporters abruptly canceled an appearance at her own book party, which was being sponsored by a public relations firm with strong ties to the Democratic Party,” Peters wrote. That communications firm was Blue Line Strategic Communications, a public relations firm run by Michael Meehan and David DiMartino. Peters reported Meehan, a Democratic communications strategist, has had some very close ties to several Democrat campaigns. “Mr. Meehan was most recently an adviser to Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general who lost to Senator Scott Brown, the insurgent Republican candidate who captured Edward M. Kennedy’s former seat,” Peters wrote. “He was also a senior staff member in the Senate for years, working for some of the most powerful members, including John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Barbara Boxer.” Connolly’s questionable association with Blue Line Strategic Communications comes on the heels of abandoned plans by the Post’s publisher Katharine Weymouth to charge lobbyists and trade groups thousands of dollars for access “to top congressional and administration officials for $25,000 a plate” at a dinner party at her home. According to Peters, the book party went on with Connolly. However it does further beg the question if the Post’s reporting throughout the ObamaCare debate was really “objective.”

Read more from the original source:
More Washington Post Hijinks? Reporter Cancels Book Party Appearance Hosted by Democrat Operative

MSNBC’s Tamron Hall: Carly Fiorina ‘Like Lindsay Lohan Movie, Mean Girls’

During the 11AM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Contessa Brewer discussed open mic comments made by senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina with Huffington Post writer Ryan Grim and remarked that the California Republican has “the ‘Mean Girls’ mentality” and “comes off like that Lindsay Lohan movie ‘Mean Girls.'” Hall was referring to Fiorina making fun of Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer’s hairstyle on air before a television interview on Wednesday. Grim completely agreed with Hall’s assessment: “Oh yeah, absolutely. It makes her look terrible. It doesn’t put her in a very good light.” Though he added: “But it’s not something so extreme that it’s going to annihilate her.” Earlier, Grim actually observed that Fiorina “really did dodge a bullet here.” He explained: “…what she said isn’t going to disqualify her from election. It makes her look a little bit silly, a little bit petty, but it’s not going to be something that destroys her candidacy or her career like you had with somebody like Helen Thomas a week or so ago.” Hall also pointed out Fiorina questioning her Republican colleague, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, holding her first post-primary interview with FNC’s Sean Hannity. Hall noted it was “something that may hurt her at least with a big name over at Fox” and asked Grim if Fiorina had started a “blood fight with Sean Hannity.” Grim responded by arguing that Fiorina had made a “reasonable assessment” but concluded “…to see her make the assessment shows her to be calculating. Everybody calculates. But to have it put in front of your face like that, again, just doesn’t put you in the best of light.” Here is a full transcript of the June 10 segment: 11:10AM EST TAMRON HALL: And back to politics. It has happened again. Another politician caught speaking candidly into an open mic, but not realizing that that mic was on. This time it’s Carly Fiorina, who just won the Republican primary in California’s Senate race. Yesterday morning, fresh off her celebration, Fiorina was miked for an interview with a local station in Sacramento. Here’s what she had to say about her opponent, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. FIORINA: Lauda saw Barbara Boxer briefly on television this morning and said what everyone says, ‘God, what is that hair?’ [Laughs] So yesterday. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Open Mic Blunder; Fiorina Mocks Barbara Boxer’s Hairstyle] HALL: Well, what is she saying today? Ryan Grim is with the Huffington Post. And Ryan, by all accounts Fiorina and her team are trying to dismiss this as not a big deal. So is it? RYAN GRIM: Well, in a big way, Fiorina really did dodge a bullet here. She was, you know, talking completely candidly with the camera on her that was going to get out. And what she said isn’t going to disqualify her from election. It makes her look a little bit silly, a little bit petty, but it’s not going to be something that destroys her candidacy or her career like you had with somebody like Helen Thomas a week or so ago. What this is, is  kind of a warning shot to candidates across the country. Now think about this, any Senate candidate who’s running in 2010, last ran in 2004. That was a year before YouTube came out. So each of these candidates running for re-election needs to think about Fiorina when they’re at fundraisers, that they think are private, when they’re at their town hall meetings, everything that they do in their life is going to be filmed, and it’s only one press of a button away from going up on YouTube and circulating around the country, so- HALL: Ryan, this is a talker, though, for a lot of reasons, I think because here you have a woman kind of dissing another woman’s hairstyle, mocking her hair, when if a guy had said that, she of course would say ‘it’s about my brain, it’s about my accomplishments, how dare you go to the lowest common denominator and talk about me,’ and it made me think about the ‘Mean Girls’ mentality. Here’s this powerful, political voice, and it kind of comes off like that Lindsay Lohan movie ‘Mean Girls’ where this person doesn’t look like I think she should look. GRIM: Oh yeah, absolutely. It makes her look terrible. It doesn’t put her in a very good light. But it’s not something so extreme that it’s going to annihilate her. If a male candidate had said that about Barbara Boxer, you know, it’s unclear exactly, you know, what effect that would have. I’m sure the conversation would be a different one, you’re right. HALL: Well, people would be saying he’s sexist. But I want to play something that may hurt her at least with a big name over at Fox. Let’s play what she said about or alluded to, regarding Sean Hannity. FIORINA: I think it’s bizarre. I mean, she’s never been on Sean Hannity. I think it’s a very bad choice, actually. You know how he is….But why, after saying no to all these people, would you go on Sean Hannity? HALL: She’s talking about Meg Whitman making an appearance on Sean Hannity. So does this put her in a blood fight with Sean Hannity, then? GRIM: Well, we’re all going to be looking forward to the next interview that she does with Sean Hannity, that’s for sure. What this also does is it shows her making political calculations. It’s what every politician does, but they do it behind closed doors and they do it with their advisers. And even though this is politics, there’s something bizarrely unseemly about playing politics in it. You know, she’s saying, look, the politics of the day after the primary going on TV with Sean Hannity, that doesn’t look good. You know, and that probably is a reasonable assessment. But to see her make the assessment shows her to be calculating. Everybody calculates. But to have it put in front of your face like that, again, just doesn’t put you in the best of light. HALL: Alright, Ryan, greatly appreciate you coming on, talking about it. See you later. GRIM: Thanks for having me. HALL: Thank you. 

Originally posted here:
MSNBC’s Tamron Hall: Carly Fiorina ‘Like Lindsay Lohan Movie, Mean Girls’

NBC’s Mitchell Scolds Big Labor for Daring to ‘Embarrass’ White House

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell took up the cause of the White House in admonishing Big Labor for wasting its money on trying to defeat Arkansas Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln in the primary there, as she echoed their concern, on Thursday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, that organized labor essentially aided Republican John Boozman’s chances to win in the general race. Mitchell invited on AFSCME President Gerry McEntee to, in essence, reprimand Big Labor’s decision to support Lincoln’s opponent Bill Halter, when their money could have been better spent on electing Democrats elsewhere, as she scolded: “Why invest so heavily and embarrass the White House here?” The following is a complete transcript of the exchange as it was aired on the June 10 edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports: ANDREA MITCHELL: Blanche Lincoln’s victory was a big setback for organized labor, which opposed her nomination for the Arkansas Senate seat. Labor’s decision to try and defeat a Democratic incumbent senator prompted an anonymous White House official to complain, that it had quote, “Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was only slightly less critical at the briefing yesterday. (Begin clip) ROBERT GIBBS: While the President might not have agreed with the exact characterization, I think that whether or not that money might have been better spent in the fall on closer elections between somebody, between people who cared about an agenda that benefitted working families those that didn’t, that money might come in more, more handy to then. (End clip) MITCHELL: Joining me now, Gerry McEntee, president of the labor group AFSCME, the timeless, ageless Gerry McEntee, 54 years with AFSCME. Amazing. GERALD MCENTEE, AFSCME PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you. MITCHELL: Let’s talk about that $10 million. So after 54 years with AFSCME and all your labor experience, why would organized labor flush $10 million down the toilet? It doesn’t mean to make sense to me. MCENTEE: Well first of all, I think it hast to be understood that the decision of whom to back as senator in individual states is a decision that’s made by organized labor and their members in that particular state. So the State Federation of Labor made the decision- MITCHELL: Was it a stupid decision? MCENTEE: No, I don’t think it’s a stupid decision. I think it’s about time that American labor lays down a line in the sand. I mean, you know, we’re not a captive of the White House, we’re not a captive of the Democratic Party. I mean, we stand, work for workers, and if people – take Blanche Lincoln, for example. I mean she supported NAFTA, CAFTA, jobs from Arkansas going overseas. MITCHELL: Yeah but so does John Boozman and now you’ve basically, not you personally Gerry, but organized labor in Arkansas has strengthened the Republican John Boozman. His record. He comes from the Walmart district. He comes from the whole background of being anti-union. He’s against the Employee Free Choice Act. MCENTEE: She doesn’t does do better than Walmart either. MITCHELL: Well Walmart is king in Arkansas, so Bill Clinton was a big supporter of Walmart’s. And you know, Hillary Clinton was on their board when she was First Lady of Arkansas, so that, that goes deep. But more to the point, the Republican now has a very good shot at defeating Blanche Lincoln. MCENTEE: I think he had that before the primary and the difficulty in the primary. MITCHELL: But could, then why, why spend that kind of money? That money could have been spent as, the White House is pointing out, on candidates across the country? Why invest so heavily and embarrass the White House here? MCENTEE: Well I don’t think it was meant to embarrass the White House. I mean I didn’t see her as a captive of the White House, either, I mean in terms of that election. So I didn’t, didn’t, didn’t see it as a… MITCHELL: Well the broader point though, is that this White House and organized labor are not in synch. And you’re making the point that labor is independent but you know what is the relationship with the White House? There were, they did not hesitate to slam labor yesterday morning. By 6:00am I was here and they were sending out the word. MCENTEE: Well I’m glad to hear you get up that early, though. That’s a good thing. MITCHELL: A lot earlier to be, to be ready and on camera at 6:00am MCENTEE: Yeah a lot early. Be ready, be ready. I don’t, once again, I didn’t see it as a battle between organized labor and the White House. It was a battle between a candidate that had not supported working, working families in, in Arkansas. MITCHELL: But, but Gerry, big picture. What do you think of this White House, this White House political operation and its relationship with labor? MCENTEE: Well, I think probably that it leaves something to be desired. The relationship. I don’t get to the White House very much myself, so I don’t know personally. MITCHELL: Haven’t been invited recently? MCENTEE: I have not been invited recently. MITCHELL: Have you ever been invited to this White House? MCENTEE: I’m just trying to think. Yes. I have. I think it was St Patrick’s Day, that I was there. But no, we had any number of meetings at the White House during the, the health care situation and negotiated out parts of the health care reform with the White House. But we consider it, I mean, it could be better. There isn’t any question about that, but it’s, it’s not bitter. It’s, it’s not anything like that. MITCHELL: So one of the major labor leaders in this country, a big Democrat, is saying that the relationship with the Democratic White House is not quote, “not bitter,” but it could be better. Interesting. MCENTEE: Yeah I think that. I think that’s true. MITCHELL: That’s a fair assessment? MCENTEE: I would say that. MITCHELL: Thank you very much Gerry McEntee. MCENTEE: Well thank you. Have me back soon. Please. MITCHELL: You might come here more often than you get to the White House. MCENTEE: That’s true!

Read more:
NBC’s Mitchell Scolds Big Labor for Daring to ‘Embarrass’ White House

Sting and Soros Hook Up For A Duet Of Pro-drug Stupidity

Editor’s Note : The following was originally posted at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood . Seeing that George Soros and Sting  are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth.  Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims. Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest.  The Drug Policy Alliance  is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.”  Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous:  Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault. The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion.  This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble. Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile.  One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves.  Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all. Tony Papa also appears.  He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime.  While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities .  Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story.  So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim. Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme.  In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated.  Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals.  He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility.  Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment.  Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags.  At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem.  Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty.  Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché. I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.”  I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions.  Unlikely.  If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them. Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance.  It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy.  Please Sting, save us!  Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks.  Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true.  There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it.  The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason .  Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them.  Many celebrities are among them , but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners.  They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting.  No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore. The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities.  Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills. Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal.  But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights.  Let’s invite Michael Jackson , Heath Ledger , Brad Renfro , DJ AM , and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view.  Oh wait, they’re all dead.  So are just a few others . Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security.  The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision. That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell .  And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.

See the original post here:
Sting and Soros Hook Up For A Duet Of Pro-drug Stupidity

Shocking New Report: The CIA Performed Human Experiments on Prisoners Under Bush

Over the last year there have been an increasing number of accounts suggesting that, along with the CIA's “enhanced interrogation” torture program, there was a related program experimenting with and researching the application of the torture. For example, in the seven paragraphs released by a British court summarizing observations by British counterintelligence agents of the treatment of Binyan Mohamed by the CIA, the first two of these paragraphs these paragraphs stated: It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer…. BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed. [emphasis added] The suggestion was that a new strategy was being tested and the results carefully examined. Several detainees have provided similar accounts, expressing their belief that their interrogations were being carefully studied, apparently so that the techniques could be modified based on the results. Such research would violate established laws and ethical rules governing research. Since Nazi doctors who experimented upon prisoners in the concentration camps were put on trial at Nuremberg, the U.S. and other countries have moved toward a high ethical standard for research on people. All but the most innocuous research requires the informed consent of those studied. Further, all research on people is subject to review by independent research ethics committees, known as Institutional Review Boards or IRBs. In the U.S., there was a major push toward more stringent research ethics when the existence of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was publicly revealed in the early 1970s. In that study nearly 400 poor rural African-American men were denied existing treatment for their syphilis, and indeed, were never told they had syphilis by participating doctors. The study by the U.S. Public Health Service was intended to continue until the last of these men died of syphilis. When the study became public the resulting outcry helped cement evolving ethical standards mandating informed consent for any research with even a possibility of causing harm. These rules were codified in what has become known as the Common Rule, which applies to nearly all federally-funded research, including all research by the CIA. Experiments in Torture A new report of which I am a coauthor, Experiments in Torture: Evidence of Human Subject Research and Experimentation in the “Enhanced” Interrogation Program, just released by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) confirms previous suspicions and provides the first strong evidence that the CIA was indeed engaged in illegal and unethical research on detainees in its custody. The report, the result of six months of detailed work, analyzes now-public documents, including the “torture memos” from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and the CIA's Inspector General Report and the accompanying CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) guidelines for monitoring of detainees. The report points to several instances where medical personnel — physicians and psychologists — monitored the detailed administration of torture techniques and the effects upon those being abused. The resultant knowledge was then used both as a legal rationale for the use of the techniques and to refine these abusive techniques, allegedly in order to make them safer. For example, the OMS guidelines contain this note emphasizing how important it is “that every application of the waterboard be thoroughly documented” by medical personnel, and clarifying the nature of this documentation: “how long each application (and the entire procedure) lasted, how much water was applied (realizing that much splashes off), how exactly the water was applied, if a seal was achieved, if the naso- or oropharynx was filled, what sort of volume was expelled, how long was the break between applications, and how the subject looked between each treatment.” This type of documentation was not part of routine medical care as it was not being done in the interests of the person being waterboarded. Rather, the OMS made clear that this was being done “[i]n order to best inform future medical judgments and recommendations” [regarding how to torture people.] The purpose of this systematic monitoring was to modify how these techniques were implemented, that is, to develop generalizable knowledge to be utilized in the future. As Ren

Brushing Teeth Prevents Heart Disease

We would like to share an interesting article by Trixie Webb of Gwabble about Brushing Teeth . A research suggests that people who fail to brush their teeth twice a day are putting themselves at risk of heart disease. It is acknowledge that the inflammation in the body even in the mouth and gums has a significant role in the accumulation of clogged arteries that can lead to a heart disease. However, this is the first time that researchers have looked at if the frequency of teeth brushing has any contributing factor on the risk of developing heart disease. The Scottish study which involves 11,000 adults backs previous research relating gum disease with heart problems. A charity also added that oral hygiene was one factor in good heart health. Over the eight year study that has been conducted, there were 555 cardiovascular events like heart attacks and 170 of which were fatal. Research discovered that those with worst oral hygiene had a 70% increased chance of having the condition as compared with those who brush their teeth twice a day. People with poor oral hygiene were also tested positive in blood samples for proteins which are suggestive of inflammation. According to senior cardiac nurse Judy O’Sullivan who works at British Heart Foundation, if you don’t brush your teeth, your mouth can become infected with bacteria that will cause an inflammation. Good personal hygiene is a basic element of a healthy lifestyle. Brushing Teeth Prevents Heart Disease is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading