February 22, 2007
February 20, 2007
Removing the Pajamas
Jeff Goldstein has been told in
no uncertain terms that PJM doesn't want him anymore.
Why you ask? Well, frankly, because he lost a lot of traffic when his site was down while he was dealing with that crazy left-wing whore who threatened his child and wife.
The screwing began with Dennis the Peasant and it hasn't stopped. Steve lays it out:
I'm only guessing, but the logical assumption is that the principals are going to get paid no matter what, while the investors and member bloggers who don't prosper in spite of joining PJM get the shaft. You know how this works. You saw The Producers, didn't you?
Michelle Malkin improved her traffic somewhat, no thanks to PJM, so she gets no pay cut. Instapundit's traffic stayed flat in spite of the dullest, laziest, most unnecessary and useless blogging in the top half of the ecosystem, so he gets no pay cut. PJM failed to drive traffic to Jeff, and for one reason or another he didn't generate it on his own, so Jeff takes a beating. Meanwhile, I'm sure he's grateful for all those print opportunities they rounded up for him. I know Raj and Rerun were busy, busy, busy every day, knocking on doors and handing out business cards, securing those MSM ins we heard so much about back before respectable folks like Larry Kudlow bailed out.
The investors get milked, the castle in the sky fails to materialize, Raj and Rerun feather their nests, and a top-notch writer has his valuable time wasted. Is that an incorrect assessment? If Pajamas Media were as transparent as the workings of a Cheney energy-policy session, maybe we would know. It's a good guess, though.
Jeff was distracted, because a vicious lunatic whore threatened his family and had to be dealt with, and maybe that hurt his traffic. But would that have mattered, had PJM been anything but a house of cards? Where is the synergy we used to hear about? Obviously, the PJs didn't pull their own weight, and now they care more about money than they do about Jeff taking time off to protect his wife and son.
Shady underhanded crap.
As I've said before. And you know, crap floats. You can keep flushing it all you want, it just pops up somewhere else.
It'll be a real fucking shame if Goldstein quits because PJM drops his paycheck.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
10:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.
February 18, 2007
Calling the Democrats' Bluff
An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
Dear Sir and Madam:
You have said often enough that you don't believe in the war in Iraq and that you want to bring the troops home. Yet all you do is talk and sign non-binding resolutions which only goes to show that you really don't mean what you say about ending the war or that you're just playing political games and in doing so giving aid and comfort to a dedicated enemy.
Now if you're serious about ending the war you have the means and the votes to do just that. Simply cut off the funding for the troops, bring them all home and the American people can transfer the deed to this war and the ramifications of what you do to the Democrat party and you can live with the results.
You say you support the troops, but that has to be a lie. If you supported them and you truly think the war is wrong, you'd bring them home or either dispense with the poisonous rhetoric and get in behind them and help them get the job done.
You can't have it both ways. If you support the troops do something. Your party won a majority in both houses, so you have control so take the responsibility.
Of course, I think you should remember that when the terrorists follow us home from Iraq and start their attacks on American soil it's too late, so you'd better have a plan to deal with it. Do you have a plan?
And if Iran goes into Iraq and makes it a staging ground for Al Qaida to plan and carry out attacks all over the western world you'll need to deal with that. Do you have a plan?
And if Iran decides to go into Kuwait and cut off the oil flow from the Persian
Gulf, you'll need a way to make up for the shortfall. Do you have a plan?
The world would look at us as a country that has not finished a commitment to war since 1945. Do you have a plan for dealing with that?
The purpose of this letter is to call your bluff. I don't believe you have the guts to do anything but talk and talk is cheap. Oh you have no shortage of words but I seriously doubt the amount of backbone you have.
Do you really think that signing a non binding resolution is really fooling anybody into thinking you're anything less than career politicians trying to tip the scales of the O08 Presidential Election?
What you're doing is silly and dangerous. If you really don't like what's going on, chang
Pray for our troops.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
February 16, 2007
H/T Linda SoG
Posted by: caltechgirl at
04:58 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Thanks for posting this. I heart CD!
Posted by: Mrs. Who at February 18, 2007 06:34 PM (9FXen)
2
If only they would listen...
Posted by: Richmond at February 20, 2007 06:14 AM (e8QFP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 15, 2007
head shaking...
And it's not because of the ear pain. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Moonbattery at its
FINEST:
I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called "free" country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.
The whole thing is insane. This paragraph in particular, is a MASTERPIECE:
These military and mercenary terrorist-students are trained in terrorist training camps all under the USA, funded by American taxpayers. In fact, people under the USA are "sacrificing" their healthcare and their children's educations while donating their tax dollars to these terrorist training camps. These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power
hungry US corporate war lords.
The author of this quasi intelligible twaddle is June Scorza Terpstra, Professor of Social Justice at Loyola University in Chicago.
Read the
whole thing. No really, I'll wait.
People like this woman give all academics a bad name.The same free speech and social justice that she worships for the poor, the downtrodden, and the
left, she refuses to extend to the very ones who allow to keep those freedoms. The irony drips. How naive do you really have to be to think that what our troops are doing in the Middle East is all about Greed and Power and Neocon ego-stroking???
I have just one question for this
so-called social justice proponent: Which is better, social justice-wise: To live in the US as it is today, with Freedoms of Speech, Press, Religion, etc; where women are free to wear as many or as few clothes as they like, drive, speak their minds (including YOU, lady), and vote; where you can walk about (in the daylight at least) in most cities without fear of imminent death; etc, etc? Or would you like to live under sharia law as it is practiced in much of the Muslim world? Would you like to wear a burqa or hajib, have NO rights under the law, be vulnerable to rape and murder on a whim, be uneducated, and unable to drive, choose your husband (or not), or go anywhere alone? Do you want to live in fear of terrorism or the secret police who come after you just because they don't like you?
These "war criminals" allow you to keep you job, your lifestyle, your right to vote. In case you forgot, 20 of those fuckers came over here and told us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS 5 years ago that they mean business, and they don't care. If the terrorists out there are willing to sacrifice themselves, their children and old people, and everything they have to end our way of life, then we must be EQUALLY DETERMINED to keep it.
You cannot negotiate with terrorists. You cannot use diplomacy in the face of nuclear weapons. Or even IEDs.
The lesson of Vietnam is NOT that we walked away. The lesson is that walking away leaves chaos in its wake. And we cannot afford to do that this time around.
h/t
Smash
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:01 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.
1
The woman is clearly deranged. Isn't it amazing how in her psychosis, she twists what was said to her to make it sound like they're all over there for that big cash pay out... HOLY CRAP. I have tried to read it twice - yesterday and today. I get sick about half way through and have to stop. It's the most disgusting drivel I've ever seen. That this woman, with this skewed world view, is a professor at a university... would boggle the mind, except that we hear it over and over again.
Posted by: Teresa at February 15, 2007 01:58 PM (gsbs5)
2
Good god. I cannot even fathom how much kool-aid it takes to really believe taht sh*t!
Posted by: Richmond at February 15, 2007 02:00 PM (e8QFP)
Posted by: vw bug at February 15, 2007 03:11 PM (jxQhM)
4
This woman should not ever be allowed near a classroom or a student. Don't they give sanity tests for these people?
Posted by: LindaSoG at February 15, 2007 05:35 PM (GBBmd)
5
Don't they give sanity tests for these people?
Apparently not, considering the wackadoodle who stalked Jeff Goldstein last summer. And let's not forget Ward "Little Eichmanns" Churchill.
Posted by: McGehee at February 16, 2007 07:42 AM (lAOTn)
6
This type of person is more dangerous than the enemy. We can shoot the enemy. But morons like this perfesser are secure in their little first amendment snow forts and are allowed to lob their stupid diatribes at will. I loathe these people and I call them traitors. Traitors.
Posted by: PaleoMedic at February 16, 2007 08:41 AM (xirX/)
7
How can people be so deluded?
Posted by: Mrs. Who at February 16, 2007 05:37 PM (9FXen)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How can you not love it?
The band name is a hockey penalty, the album name from a conversation with Victor Davis Hanson, the singer is a math nerd.
Five for Fighting, Two Lights
And John Ondrasik is on this week's Glenn and Helen Show.
I've been a big fan of 5fF for a long time, the Puppyblender, not so much, but it's a good interview, and interesting enough to listen to the entire thing.
Here's some Five For Fighting for your Thursday listening pleasure:
First, my favorite one, 100 years
And of course, the song that made the band big, Superman
Posted by: caltechgirl at
10:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 2 kb.
1
How could I know you were a 5fF fan? I saw them at the Bumbershoot Festival a couple of years ago -- fantastic!
Posted by: Kj at February 15, 2007 01:45 PM (gHJSu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 13, 2007
Why am I against the new HPV vaccine?
This is why.
This is the SECOND rotavirus vaccine to cause these problems in young children and infants. In 1999, the Rotashield vaccine caused the same problems.
Until we know FOR SURE that the Gardasil vaccine is safe, it is entirely irresponsible to mandate it for every female child.
Furthermore, Rachel makes a good point here:
"We (the collective) do not want the government to pass laws about our right to murder our unborn children, but we're not up in arms about the government forcing us to inject foreign matter into our little girls' bodies?"
Intellectual Disconnect much?
Posted by: caltechgirl at
06:16 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm opposed to making it mandatory, at least without further study of long term effects, but this statement says much: The agency said the 28 reported cases do not exceed the number that might be expectedNot that it would deter the shysters.
Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at February 13, 2007 07:13 PM (YElNr)
2
They're touting it as the be all end all of preventing... what is it? Cervical cancer... or something like that in about 30 years if you're one of the few who gets the virus and then has cancer as a consequence.
Once again we have people pushing something to "help the children". This is argument they apply when they want to persuade anyone that they should stop asking questions and just take the damned medicine.
Unfortunately not too many people will question this lest they be thought to be a bigoted right-wing Christian Nazi. To be one of the "cool" parents, you need to just accept this and let them vaccinate.
ARG!!!
Posted by: Teresa at February 13, 2007 10:19 PM (gsbs5)
3
one thing that scares me is that since I'm only the step-mom, if the egg donor decides to use my step-child as a guinea pig, my opinion won't matter.
and my husband seems to be ignoring the topic. he's still trying to cope with his little girl having to wear a bra.
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at February 14, 2007 05:29 AM (+MvHD)
4
In medical cost vs. benefit modeling (which strongly informs national medical public policy making and far too strongly informs the medical policies of HMOs), the most critical component is a value called "cost per life year gained."
If the cost per life year gained is under $50,000, that is generally considered a decent investment by US medical policy makers. If "cost per life year" gained is over $100,000, that is generally considered a wasteful medical policy because that money could surely be put to much better use elsewhere. Yes, this is cruel and heartless to some degree, but wide scale medical cost allocations do need to be made and, more relevantly, are continually made using these cost plus risk vs. benefit analyses. Think HMOs. Now consider why pap smears, blood tests and urine tests aren't recommended every month for everyone. Testing monthly could definitely save more than a few lives, and there is no measurable associated medical risk. But the cost would be astronomical versus the benefit over the entire US population when comparing these monthly tests to other therapies, procedures and medicines.
Now on to GARDASIL. By the time you pay doctors a small fee to inventory and deliver GARDASIL in three doses, you are talking about paying about $500 for this vaccine. And because even in the best case scenario GARDASIL can confer protection against only 70% of cervical cancer cases, GARDASIL cannot ever obsolete the HPV screening test that today is a major component of most US women's annually recommended pap smears. These tests screen for 36 nasty strains of HPV, while GARDASIL confers protection against just four strains of HPV.
Now let's consider GARDASIL's best case scenario at the moment -- about $500 per vaccine, 100% lifetime protection against all four HPV strains (we currently have no evidence for any protection over five years), and no risk of any medical complications for any subset of the population (Merck's GARADSIL studies were too small and short to make this determination for adults, these studies used potentially dangerous alum injections as their "placebo control" and GARDASIL was hardly even tested on little kids). Now, using these best case scenario assumptions for GARDASIL, let's compare the projected situation of a woman who gets a yearly HPV screening test starting at age 18 to a woman who gets a yearly HPV screening test starting at age 18 plus the three GARDASIL injections at age 11 to 12. Even if you include all of the potential medical cost savings from the projected reduction in genital wart and HPV dysplasia removal procedures and expensive cervical cancer procedures, medicines and therapies plus all of the indirect medical costs associated with all these ailments and net all of these savings against GARDASIL's costs, the best case numbers for these analyses come out to well over $200,000 per life year gained -- no matter how far the hopeful pro-GARDASIL assumptions that underpin these projections are tweaked in GARDASIL's favor.
Several studies have been done, and they have been published in several prestigious medical journals:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.781
http://tinyurl.com/2ovy95
http://tinyurl.com/2tbuma
None of these studies even so much as consider a strategy of GARDASIL plus a regimen of annual HPV screenings starting at age 18 to be worth mentioning (except to note how ridiculously expensive this would be compared to other currently recommended life extending procedures, medicines and therapies) because the cost per life year gained is simply far too high. What these studies instead show is that a regimen of GARDASIL plus delayed (to age 21, 22, 23, 25 or 27) biennial or triennial HPV screening tests may -- depending on what hopeful assumptions about GARDASIL's long term efficacy and risks are used -- hopefully result in a modest cost per life year savings compared to annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18.
If you don't believe me about this, just ask any responsible OB-GYN or medical model expert. Now, why do I think all of this is problematic?
1) Nobody is coming clean (except to the small segment of the US population that understands medical modeling) that the push for widespread mandatory HPV vaccination is based on assuming that we can use the partial protection against cervical cancer that these vaccines hopefully confer for hopefully a long, long time period to back off from recommending annual HPV screening tests starting at age 18 -- in order to save money, not lives.
2) Even in the best case scenario, the net effect is to give billions in tax dollars to Merck so HMOs and PPOs can save billions on HPV screening tests in the future.
3) These studies don't consider any potential costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks. Even the slightest direct or indirect medical costs associated with any potential GARDASIL risks increase the cost per life year gained TREMENDOUSLY and can even easily change the entire analysis to cost per life year lost. Remember that unlike most medicines and therapies, vaccines are administered to a huge number of otherwise healthy people -- and, at least in this case, 99.99% of whom would never contract cervical cancer even without its protection.
4) These studies don't take in account the fact that better and more regular HPV screening tests have reduced the US cervical cancer rate by about 25% a decade over the last three decades and that there is no reason to believe that this trend would not continue in the future, especially if we used a small portion of the money we are planning on spending on GARDASIL to offer annual HPV screening tests for all low income uninsured US women.
5) The studies assume that any constant cervical cancer death rate (rather than the downward trending cervical cancer death rate we have today) that results in a reduced cost per life year gained equates to sound medical public policy.
As I said before, if any of you don't believe me about this, please simply ask your OB-GYN how the $500 cost of GARDASIL can be justified on a cost per life year gained basis if we don't delay the onset of HPV screening tests and back off from annual HPV screening tests to biennial or triennial HPV screening tests.
The recommendations are already in: http://tinyurl.com/33p9q6
The USPSTF strongly recommends ... beginning screening within 3 years of onset of sexual activity or age 21 (whichever comes first) and screening at least every 3 years ...
Posted by: mhatrw at February 15, 2007 12:57 PM (O39pn)
5
Replica Cartier watches
Cartier is one of the most prestigious brands. Cartier watches became the best seller watch in 2008 and they are very welcomed
by celebrities. Cartier replicas, round, square, rectangular, equipped with mechanical, automatic or quartz movements, all
feature the matchless combination of aesthetics and technical progress. Join in Cartier replica watches, you will find it so
amazing.
Posted by: anthony at April 24, 2009 12:13 AM (pbQca)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
44kb generated in CPU 0.0091, elapsed 0.0182 seconds.
26 queries taking 0.0113 seconds, 57 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.