Posts

Showing posts from February 4, 2007

Air Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi wants her own jet. Not a small one either. She wants the equivalent of a Boeing 757-200. Apparently, she needs a jet that seats 45 with a crew of 16.

Next time you hear her screeching about anything related to the environment remember this. Her jetting about the country during her tenure will contribute far more to global warming than your entire lifetime carbon output.

Reform comes to Washington? Please. Change in control of Washington means only that the perks are redistributed. Neither party is in position to cry foul as they are just as bad and are only complaining because she was able to wrangle a bigger jet than Hastert and they all want one. (Hastert broke the mold by getting his own jet after 9/11 ostensibly for "security" reasons.)

Bottom line: Members of Congress believe themselves to be better than you and more deserving than you. They don't like you and only pander to you so they can keep the gravy train rolling.

You're not the government

From Boortz via House of Eratosthenes.



Worth your time.
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers


It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.


Wow. Just wow. This would be the single biggest medical breakthrough in decades. Who would take up the production? There's be little to no margin and the cost of getting the drug to market would probably preclude a direct…

Religious freedom and drug use

Drug's Mystical Properties Confirmed
36 Area Adults Took Psilocybin in Study; Many Called Experience Spiritual


I was always skeptical about claims of using drugs in religious services as merely an end run around government drug prohibitions. Reading this article, I'm not sure about that. It appears they've taken people from all different faith backgrounds including those vaguely spiritual but not necessarily involved in organized religion.

If we are to believe the results of this study, how can the government continue to prevent people from taking psilocybin to that end?

I'm going to be called a hypocrite here (again) because I think this should be legal but not something that I would do, nor would I allow my kids to do.

If people want to do this and it's not harming anyone (other than themselves), who am I to stop them?

This should be interesting.

The Myth of Global Warming

Spitting on the troops