Post Breast Cancer Art

| | Comments (0)


breast.cancer.survivorart.jpg

All the News That's Fit to Fake

| | Comments (0)

Library Creates Genius Bookmark To Teach Students How To Spot Fake News

By Collin Gossel


Though he's often wrong about his sources, President Trump is very right about one thing: there's a lot of fake news swirling around the internet these days. In fact, the problem has become so prevalent that many teachers are taking extra steps to ensure their students can tell which news is fake and which is real!

For instance, Reddit user soldier4hire was at his local library when he noticed a unique bookmark.

fakle.news.bookmark-1518496155467.jpg


Stunning Talent

| | Comments (0)

Definitely follow and support this dude @ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdZe3OmKYiIwyrLFEEbNwVw

Well when you put it like that...

| | Comments (0)

fb01.jpg

Trump Gone By Spring?

| | Comments (0)

Killing Off the Bail System

| | Comments (0)

Civil rights groups: Put bail bond industry on Death Row

by Jon Schuppe

A team of civil rights groups said Wednesday they were launching a multi-front crusade against the bail bond industry, which has emerged as their biggest opponent in a movement to end America's reliance on cash bail.

"We want to put an end to the for-profit bail industry in the U.S.," said Udi Ofer, deputy national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The effort relies on what Ofer described as a "public opposition campaign" aimed at turning voters and lawmakers against forces trying to preserve the centuries-old bail system, which reformers say preys on the poor and fuels mass incarceration.

Related: How New Jersey uses an algorithm to eliminate bail

Ofer and members of two similarly minded organizations, Color of Change and JustLeadership USA, outlined their plans in a call with reporters on Wednesday. They said they planned to "expose" the bail bond industry's profiting from the system and its attempts to influence lawmakers, distribute petitions calling on lawmakers to resist such lobbying, hold "community forums" and explore the possibility of filing lawsuits against the industry.

"What we're seeing now is an evolution of the movement," Ofer said in an interview. "It's a product of the fact that the for-profit bail industry has been the primary opposition to bail reform."
Image: A man walks by a bail bonds store on Oct. 20, 2011 in Reading, Pennsylvania.
A man walks by a bail bonds store on Oct. 20, 2011 in Reading, Pennsylvania. Spencer Platt / Getty Images file

Related: Bail 'disrupters' have a plan to free thousands from jails

Through legislation, lawsuits and judicial orders, the reformers have racked up a series of wins across the country, persuading local and state governments to replace bail with alternatives that focus on keeping only the most dangerous people locked up before trial. Many jurisdictions have started using algorithm-based risk assessment tools that help judges determine who should be detained.

Alaska this month enacted a system that forgoes bail. And on Wednesday, New York City's comptroller called for a ban on commercial bail bonds.

Bail bond industry representatives, and individual bondsmen, say they perform an essential public service by helping to make sure defendants show up for court. They've argued that eliminating bail endangers the public, costs taxpayers money and violates constitutional guarantees of bail.

As the reform movement has gained traction, the bail bond industry, backed by big insurance companies, has stepped up to resist it. Facing slow extinction, the industry has backed two federal lawsuits in New Jersey, which last year all but eliminated bail. It has sued the New Mexico Supreme Court over new bail rules. It has defended itself against changes in Maryland. It has stepped into legal fights over bail in several big cities, including Houston, San Francisco and New Orleans. And it is backing candidates who it sees as potential allies.
Image: A man poses with a sign at a a recent bail reform vote in New Orleans.
A man poses with a sign at a a recent bail reform vote in New Orleans. ACLU

"We have friends in the legislature who understand and appreciate our important role in the criminal justice system BUT we have to insure that they get re-elected in order to be there to help us in the future," the Texas Bail PAC says on its website.

Related: Bail reform movement gets powerful ally: California's top judge

Jeff Clayton, executive director of the American Bail Association, which represents bail-bond companies, pointed out that many places that have eliminated bail have also allowed prosecutors to ask that certain defendants -- those deemed the most dangerous or likely to flee -- be detained before trial without a chance at release.

"If you think you're going to reduce mass incarceration you're sorely mistaken, because you're giving the government the power of preventative detention," Clayton said in an interview.

He also argued that there are effective ways to reduce prison populations that have little to do with bail, such as reducing the number of offenses that carry the presumption of arrest.

"They're attacking the wrong problem," Clayton said of the reformers.

Clayton said he saw California, Ohio, Florida, New York and Delaware as the biggest battlegrounds this year.

"I don't feel any more threatened because someone's starting another campaign," he said. "What more can they do to you than what they're doing right now?"

0---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0


Bail 'disrupters' to the rescue 2:08


Fallon mocks Trump via James Taylor

| | Comments (0)

Flake on Free Speech

| | Comments (0)

Feinstein releases Fusion GPS transcripts

Go Diane!!!


Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley didn't hesitate to issue a criminal charge against former British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele, but he refused to release the transcripts of Senate interviews with the company that ordered the Steele dossier. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein just solved that problem by releasing the transcripts herself.

In those transcripts, Grassley's deputy, Patrick Davis, clearly states that the interviews are not classified.

Mr. Davis: This interview is unclassified. So if any question calls for information that you know to be classified, please state that for the record as well as the reason for the classification. Then once you've clarified that to the extent possible, please respond with as much unclassified information as you can. If we need to have a classified session later, that can be arranged.

So no one should have any basis for complaint about Feinstein showing the public the truth behind the claims that Republicans have been making about Fusion and the

Chump Change

| | Comments (0)


thePentagon.jpg

University Students Force Pentagon Audit After Finding $21 Trillion In Unauthorized Spending

STEPHEN D. FOSTER JR

You read that right. $21 TRILLION is unaccounted for, and that would be enough to pay off our national debt entirely and then some.

That's what Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore found after he started digging into public documents to find out if the former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts made a slip of the tongue when she talked about the U.S. Army having $6.5 trillion of unsupported spending in 2015.

This had to be a mistake, he believed, since the Army budget is only $122 billion.

So, Skidmore put together a team, including some graduate students and Fitts, to do the research. And what they found should shock every American into demanding Congress take immediate action to rein in the Department of Defense before they break the bank.

"We know from official government sources that indicate $21 trillion is, in some way, unaccounted for," Skidmore told USA Watchdog. "Furthermore, if we come back to the Constitution, all spending needs to be authorized by Congress. It looks to me, and I think I can conclude with a high degree of certainty, there is money flowing in, as well as out, that is unaccounted for. . . . That's the one thing we know from these documents, that there is $21 trillion in unaccounted funds."

Indeed, the current Pentagon budget authorized by Congress stands at $524 billion. But somehow, the Army spent 13 times that amount in 2015 alone.

And it's clear that the government didn't like Skidmore shining a light on all this wasteful spending since they disabled links to the documents he and his team were combing through.

Luckily, Skidmore's team was able to download and save copies of the documents before the government hid everything from public view. You can view the documents for yourself by clicking here.

Skidmore concedes that there is a black budget, but even that kind of spending is ultimately authorized by Congress, and it certainly would not be in the trillions of dollars. And that's why he is worried.

"If trillions of dollars are flowing in and flowing out, it appears to be outside of our Constitution and outside of the rule of law. If that is the case, that really is troubling because it suggests that there is a layer of things happening that are outside the rule of law. I know, for example, that some activities, just for the sake of protection of the people involved in national security, have to be black budget. There is always stuff like that. Usually, it's authorized spending, and some percentage is this black budget where only a small percentage of people and some in Congress know about it, but this is way outside of that. So, I am worried about it."


You read that right. $21 TRILLION is unaccounted for, and that would be enough to pay off our national debt entirely and then some.

That's what Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore found after he started digging into public documents to find out if the former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts made a slip of the tongue when she talked about the U.S. Army having $6.5 trillion of unsupported spending in 2015.

This had to be a mistake, he believed, since the Army budget is only $122 billion.

So, Skidmore put together a team, including some graduate students and Fitts, to do the research. And what they found should shock every American into demanding Congress take immediate action to rein in the Department of Defense before they break the bank.



"We know from official government sources that indicate $21 trillion is, in some way, unaccounted for," Skidmore told USA Watchdog. "Furthermore, if we come back to the Constitution, all spending needs to be authorized by Congress. It looks to me, and I think I can conclude with a high degree of certainty, there is money flowing in, as well as out, that is unaccounted for. . . . That's the one thing we know from these documents, that there is $21 trillion in unaccounted funds."

Indeed, the current Pentagon budget authorized by Congress stands at $524 billion. But somehow, the Army spent 13 times that amount in 2015 alone.

And it's clear that the government didn't like Skidmore shining a light on all this wasteful spending since they disabled links to the documents he and his team were combing through.

Luckily, Skidmore's team was able to download and save copies of the documents before the government hid everything from public view. You can view the documents for yourself by clicking here.

Skidmore concedes that there is a black budget, but even that kind of spending is ultimately authorized by Congress, and it certainly would not be in the trillions of dollars. And that's why he is worried.

"If trillions of dollars are flowing in and flowing out, it appears to be outside of our Constitution and outside of the rule of law. If that is the case, that really is troubling because it suggests that there is a layer of things happening that are outside the rule of law. I know, for example, that some activities, just for the sake of protection of the people involved in national security, have to be black budget. There is always stuff like that. Usually, it's authorized spending, and some percentage is this black budget where only a small percentage of people and some in Congress know about it, but this is way outside of that. So, I am worried about it."

Now, the Defense Department is not wholly responsible for all of this missing money. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has also spent unauthorized amounts of money over the years, and that should also be investigated.

Skidmore's work has already paid off, however, because it forced the Pentagon to announce that they are conducting the first audit in its history.

This is an issue that should concern every American, and if Republicans are serious about fiscal responsibility, they will launch investigations immediately to find out where this money came from and who is benefiting from it and put a stop to it. Clearly, the Pentagon has some explaining to do.

$21 trillion is enough to cover our entire $19 trillion national debt and close the deficit. The government should only be allowed to spend what Congress approves.

So, the next time Republicans blame our debt on social programs like food stamps and Social Security, remind them that the U.S Army blew $6.5 TRILLION despite having only a $122 billion budget.

There's your wasteful spending right there.

Criminalize It All

| | Comments (0)

A teen sexting case revealed how judges let police invade children's privacy

The over-criminalization of personal behavior and qualified immunity for officers is a dangerous mix


Whether the police have the right to force your teenage son to masturbate in front of them in order to incriminate himself is a legal question few parents would think they'd have to consider.

And yet Trey Sims' legal guardians had to do exactly that. In an effort to prosecute the 17-year-old for sexting his 15-year-old girlfriend, Manassas police detective David Abbott obtained a search warrant authorizing him to take "photographs of [Sims'] genitals," including "a photograph of the suspect's erect penis." According to court documents, in the process of executing the search warrant, Abbott took the teenager to a juvenile detention center, took him to a locker room and, with two uniformed, armed officers looking on, ordered Sims to pull down his pants.

After taking pictures with his cell phone of the teenager's genitals, Abbot then ordered the minor to masturbate so that he could take a picture of his erection. Sims tried but failed to comply with the officer's orders; Abbott later threatened Sims' lawyer that, if police couldn't get a picture of the teenager's erection by forcing the kid to masturbate, he would obtain a photo of the teenager's engorged genitals by subjecting him to "an erection-producing injection" at a hospital.

The facts of this case are outrageous, but sadly, they're not the product of any single bad actor or law. On the contrary, they reflect a criminal justice system that's structurally broken at almost every level. And the only reason that police never obtained the pictures they demanded under court order from Sims was that there was a massive public outcry after news reports emerged about the case in 2014, and the police let the search warrant expire. (Sims, however, continued to face felony charges for sexting his girlfriend, eventually living under probation for a year before the courts dismissed those charges.)


It wasn't until this month - more than three years after Sims was taken to that locker room - that a federal appeals court issued a decision in his favor: By a divided 2-1 vote, the court held that a reasonable police officer should have known it was unlawful to order a teenage boy to masturbate in front of him and other officers.

Notably, though, that meant that one judge felt that police should, indeed, have the right to do force children to masturbate in front of them in order to incriminate themselves.

First and foremost, the fact that Sims' initial conduct was criminalized at all speaks to the staggering breadth of substantive overcriminalization. The activity for which Sims was charged was a consensual, mutual exchange of nude pictures and videos between two teenagers in a lawful relationship (in Virginia, it's legal for a 17-year-old and 15-year-old to have sex).





Fuck the South

| | Comments (0)

rednecks.jpegFuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. Fighting for the right to keep slaves--yeah, those are states we want to keep. And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite?
How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America?
The Authentic America.
Really?

'Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment? Who do you think those wig-wearing, lacy-shirt-sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are, you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh, I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk to us Northeasterners about fucking arrogance? Maybe I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch. All those federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane, you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it; it's a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It's your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the 10 states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? That's right, motherfucker, they're red states. And 8 of the 10 states that receive the least and pay the most? It's too easy. They're blue states. It's not your money, assholes, it's fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: Buy your own fucking stop signs, asshole.

Let's talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate, you marriage-hyping dickwads? Can you guess? It's fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that's right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that's just some aberration? How about this: Nine of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? Ten out of 10 are fucking red-ass, we're-so-fucking-moral states.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's okay because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? 'Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite.

Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leeching, Confederate-flag-waving, holier- than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off.

The above rant is from the website www.fuckthesouth.com. The author is a member of the Northeast Liberal Elite and is fucking done being a scapegoat for the Republican Party.

I 'm Definitely Not Racist

| | Comments (0)

But I am and have been privileged...the hard rows take time...I like that this is a good first step for some

X = "Greed Is Good"

| | Comments (0)

'X' Marks the Spot Where Inequality Took Root: Dig Here

In 2002, I heard an economist characterizing this figure as containing a valuable economic insight. He wasn't sure what the insight was. I have my own answer.

The economist talked of the figure as a sort of treasure map, which would lead us to the insight. "X" marks the spot. Dig here.

The graphic below tells three stories.

First, we see two distinct historic periods since World War II. In the first period, workers shared the gains from productivity. In the later period, a generation of workers gained little, even as productivity continued to rise.

productivity-versus-wages.jpg

Figure 1: The 'X' marks the spot where something happened in the mid-1970's.

The second message is the very abrupt transition from the post-war historic period to the current one. Something happened in the mid-70's to de-couple wages from productivity gains.

The third message is that workers' wages - accounting for inflation and all the lower prices from cheap imported goods - would be double what they are now, if workers still took their share of gains in productivity.

real-family-income.jpg

This graphic shows the same distinct historic periods, and the same sharp break around 1975. Each colored line represents the growth in family income, relative to 1975, for different income percentiles. Pre-1975, families at all levels of income benefited proportionately. Post-1975, The top 5% did well, and we know the top 1% did very well. Gains from productivity were redistributed upward to the top income percentiles.

This de-coupling of wages from productivity has drawn a trillion dollars out of the labor share of GDP.

Economics does not explain what happened in the mid-70s.

It was not the oil shock. Not interest rates. Not the Fed, or monetary policy. Not robots, or the decline of the Soviet Union, or globalization, or the internet.

The sharp break in the mid-70's marks a shift in our country's values. Our moral, social, political and economic values changed in the mid-70's.


Let's go back before World War II to the Great Depression. Speculative unregulated policies ruined the economy. Capitalism was discredited. Powerful and wealthy elites feared the legitimate threat of Communism. The public demanded that government solve our problems.

The Depression and World War II defined that generation's collective identity. Our national heroes were the millions of workers, soldiers, families and communities who sacrificed. We owed a national debt to those who had saved Democracy and restored prosperity. The New Deal policies reflected that national purpose, honoring a social safety net, increasing bargaining power for workers and bringing public interest into balance with corporate power.

In that period, the prevailing social contract said, "We all do better when we all do better." My prosperity depends on your well-being. In that period of history, you were my co-worker, neighbor or customer. Opportunity and fairness drove the upward spiral (with some glaring exceptions). Work had dignity. Workers earned a share of the wealth they created. We built Detroit (for instance) by hard work and productivity.

Our popular media father-figures were Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and others, liberal and conservative, who were devoted to an America of opportunity and fair play.

The sudden change in the mid-70's was not economic. First it was moral, then social, then political, ..... then economic.

In the mid-70's, we traded in our post-World War II social contract for a new one, where "greed is good." In the new moral narrative I can succeed at your expense. I will take a bigger piece of a smaller pie. Our new heroes are billionaires, hedge fund managers, and CEO's.

In this narrative, they deserve more wealth so they can create more jobs, even as they lay off workers, close factories and invest new capital in low-wage countries. Their values and their interests come first in education, retirement security, and certainly in labor law.

We express these same distorted moral, social and political priorities in our trade policies. As bad as these priorities are for our domestic policies, they are worse if they define the way we manage globalization.

The key to the treasure buried in Figure 1 is power relationships. To understand what happened, ask, "Who has the power to take 93% of all new wealth and how did they get that power? The new moral and social values give legitimacy to policies that favor those at the top of our economy.

We give more bargaining power and influence to the wealthy, who already have plenty of both, while reducing bargaining power for workers. In this new narrative, workers and unions destroyed Detroit (for instance) by not lowering our living standards fast enough.

In the new moral view, anyone making "poor choices" is responsible for his or her own ruin. The unfortunate are seen as unworthy moochers and parasites. We disparage teachers, government workers, the long-term unemployed, and immigrants.

In this era, popular media figures are spiteful and divisive.

Our policies have made all workers feel contingent, at risk, and powerless. Millions of part-time workers must please their employer to get hours. Millions more in the gig economy work without benefits and have no job security at all. Recent college graduates carry so much debt that they cannot invest, take risk on a new career, or rock the boat. Millions of undocumented workers are completely powerless in the labor market, and subject to wage theft. They have negative power in the labor market!

We are creating a new American aristocracy, with less opportunity - less social mobility and weaker social cohesion than any other advanced country. We are falling behind in many measures of well-being.

The dysfunctions of our post-1970 moral, social, political and economic system make it incapable of dealing with climate change or inequality, arguably the two greatest challenges of our time. We are failing our children and the next generations.

X marks the spot. In this case, "X" is our choice of national values. We abandoned traditional American values that built a great and prosperous nation. Our power relationships are sour.

We can start rebuilding our social cohesion when we say all work has dignity. Workers earn a share of the wealth we create. We all do better, when we all do better. My prosperity depends on a prosperous community with opportunity and fairness.

Dig there.

Wave Power Generation

| | Comments (0)

Why wave power may be the next big thing in green energy

wavepower.jpg

by Joseph Bennington-Castro

About a mile offshore from Kaneohe Bay on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, a yellow, doughnut-shaped contraption bobs up and down with the motion of the ocean. The hulking device, as wide as a school bus is long, looks a bit like a massive buoy or life raft. In fact, it's a wave energy converter -- one example of a new renewable energy technology that transforms ocean waves into electrical power.

The Lifesaver, as the device is known, is full of gears, cables, and sophisticated electronics. But while other renewable energy devices (like wind turbines and solar panels) are relatively mature technologies, wave energy converters represent a nascent technology. If wind energy has a graduate degree, says Luis Vega, manager of the Hawaii National Marine Renewable Energy Center that's testing the Lifesaver, "wave energy is still in the first grade."

But Vega and other experts see big things for wave energy. If they're right, arrays of wave energy converters moored along coastal regions of the U.S. will be providing power to millions of homes in coming decades.

More

When You Thank About It

| | Comments (0)

FishRSVPRIP_1000-850x807.jpg

Impeaching Is Too Gentle

| | Comments (0)

Marcus MIller

| | Comments (0)

Dick Holmes (high school bud bass player) just turned me onto this fabulous funky music.m and superb bass player...

What can I say but yum?


MGod has moved on

| | Comments (0)

Joe Briggs short salute to his cousin Marvin Briggs

And then there is Marvin's longer salute to his mother "Appreciate Ya"


Burn Cream for Free

| | Comments (0)

Burn victims are making incredible recoveries all thanks to a Tampa native.

Dr.Wayne Miller invented a burn solution after a pipe in his jacuzzi exploded, leaving him with first-degree burns from his face to his waist. Two weeks after he applied his cream to the burns, he had no scars and was completely healed.

Ten years later, his burn solution was approved by the FDA, and the doctor created a non-profit, the BurnSolution foundation, to give the cream out for free to homeless people across the country who are more likely to face ailments such as intense sunburns, burns from cooking on an open fire, bug bites, road rash, infected cuts or wounds, blisters and sores.

The organization relies on donations to help distribute the cream free of charge.

To donate, visit

To contact the BurnSolution Foundation, call (813) 417-3323 or e-mail Burnsolutionfoundation@gmail.com.

pschotictrump.jpg

HPV Is Spread by Having Sex. So Why Don't People Talk About That?

by Maggie Fox

There's a virus that almost everyone gets at some point in their lives.

It can cause cancer, and rates of the cancers it causes are growing among men.

The virus is the human papillomavirus or HPV, and it's the main cause of cervical cancer, anal cancer and, more recently, mouth and throat cancer. It's passed mostly via sex, but doctors aren't talking about that to their patients. Why not?

It's because there is a vaccine to prevent HPV infection. But for it to work best, people have to get it long before they could ever be infected. That means vaccinating 11- and 12-year-olds, and most parents get very squeamish about the thought of sex and kids that age.

"There are some taboo subjects but the fact is that almost every human being is going to get HPV at some point in their life through normal, intimate human activity," said Dr. Lois Ramondetta, chief of gynecologic oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

HPV is the main cause of cervical cancer, once a leading cancer among women. It still causes 11,000 cases of cervical cancer a year in the U.S., but screening via pap smears and, more lately, HPV tests, has cut the rate of new cases and of deaths dramatically.
""There's nothing that men and women can do to prevent oral cancer.""

The CDC estimates that HPV causes 31,500 cases of cancer a year. Most are in women, but more head and neck cancers are caused in men than in women.

Earlier this week, researchers reported that a startling number of men are infected with HPV in the mouth and throat -- 11 percent of all men tested between 2011 and 2014. They are at risk of developing oral cancer.

This cancer mostly starts to show up in middle age, and men understandably want to know why they got it. Oral sex appears to be the cause -- probably dating back to when they were in their late teens or early 20s.

But it turns out there's not much people can do to discover they're infected.

"There is no test to find out a person's 'HPV status'," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. "Also, there is no approved HPV test to find HPV in the mouth or throat."

And there's no way to go back and undo whatever caused the infection that has caused cancer decades later.

"We don't know how it goes from being an infection to causing the cancer," Ramondetta said. "And we don't know why the virus doesn't go away in some people."





So fuck you all.

Comparing Obama and Trump

| | Comments (0)

obamaandpastor.png

Pastor: When White Folks Say Obama Was an "Embarrassment", Here's Your Response

One of the common responses to criticism of Donald Trump by his mostly white voters is something along the lines "we were embarrassed by Obama for 8 years." One pastor is calling out that nonsense.

Progressive pastor John Pavlovitz, a favorite of ours here, has penned an open letter to those white Trump voters, informing them that no, in fact, they weren't embarrassed by the former President :

Were you embarrassed by his lone and enduring twenty-five year marriage to a strong woman he's never ceased to publicly praise, respect, or cherish?

Were you embarrassed by the way he lovingly and sweetly parented and protected his daughters?

Pavolovitz asked these, along with a lot of other relevant questions. Here is the whole post:

I remember the day after the Election, a friend of mine who happens to be white, remarked on social media that he "finally wasn't embarrassed of America and our President."

I sprained my eyes rolling them and they have never fully recovered.

Since then I've heard this sentiment echoed by more white folks than I can count, especially in recent months; supposed relief at once again having a leader who instills pride.

Since I don't have the time to ask each of the individually, I'll ask here:

So, you were embarrassed for the past 8 years, huh?

Really?

What exactly were you embarrassed by?

Were you embarrassed by his lone and enduring twenty-five year marriage to a strong woman he's never ceased to publicly praise, respect, or cherish?

Were you embarrassed by the way he lovingly and sweetly parented and protected his daughters?

Were you embarrassed by his Columbia University degree in Political Science or his graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School?

Maybe you were embarrassed by his white American and Black Kenyan parents, or the diversity he was raised in as normal?

Were you embarrassed by his eloquence, his quick wit, his easy humor, his seeming comfort meeting with both world leaders and street cleaners; by his bright smile or his sense of empathy or his steadiness--perhaps by his lack of personal scandals or verbal gaffes or impulsive tirades?

No. Of course you weren't.

Honestly, I don't believe you were ever embarrassed. That word implies an association that brings ridicule, one that makes you ashamed by association, and if that's something you claim to have experienced over the past eight years by having Barack Obama representing you in the world--I'm going to suggest you rethink your word choice.

You weren't "embarrassed" by Barack Obama.

You were threatened by him.
You were offended by him.
You were challenged by him.
You were enraged by him.

But I don't believe it had anything to do with his resume or his experience or his character or his conduct in office--because you seem fully proud right now to be associated with a three-time married, serial adulterer and confessed predator; a man whose election and business dealings and relationships are riddled with controversy and malfeasance. You're perfectly fine being represented by a bullying, obnoxious, genitalia-grabbing, Tweet-ranting, Prime Minister-shoving charlatan who's managed to offended all our allies in a few short months. And you're okay with him putting on religious faith like a rented, dusty, ill-fitting tuxedo and immediately tossing it in the garbage when he's finished with it.

None of that you're embarrassed of? I wonder how that works.

Actually, I'm afraid I have an idea. I hope I'm wrong.

Listen, you're perfectly within your rights to have disagreed with Barack Obama's policies or to have taken issue with his tactics. No one's claiming he was a flawless politician or a perfect human being. But somehow I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I think the thing President Obama did that really upset you, white friend--was having a complexion that was far darker than you were ever comfortable with. I think the President we have now feels much better.

Because objectively speaking, if what's happening in our country right now doesn't cause you great shame and doesn't induce the continual meeting of your palm to your face--I don't believe embarrassment is ever something you struggle with.

No, if you claimed to be "embarrassed" by Barack Obama but you're not embarrassed by Donald Trump--I'm going to strongly suggest it was largely a pigmentation issue.

And as an American and a Christian committed to diversity and equality and to the liberty at the heart of this nation--that, embarrasses me.

Well said, Pastor. Well said indeed.

Nick Cannon's Take

| | Comments (0)

Go Nick

Reclaim Your Ideals

| | Comments (0)

thumb-thumbs.jpg

Great idea !!!

Categories

Monthly Archives

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.12