This was originally a comment to my last posted piece, but I think it worthy of heading off this new posting.

It is a response to Ta-Nehisi Coates' article - see link below. 

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article:

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.

What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.

• a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy
• anti-gay bigotry
• anti-Semitism being the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war
• ending our romance with interventionism
• encourages serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level

That's all one should consider. Well, let's consider said points:

"a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy" - so, of course, we are still going with the meme of his "authorizing" the racist bent of the newsletters that bore his name. Never mind that he disavows these ideas with his words and actions. Conversely, Rick Santorum makes up some stupid-ass story about how he wasn't referring to BLACK PEOPLE - eat me with that crap, Rick. What about Newt's assertion that Black people don't wish to work for their money, but have the hand out for food stamps? Never mind that a greater percentage of NON-BLACK PEOPLE are on public assistance; let's not let REALITY get in the way, right?

"anti-gay bigotry" - more nonsense from the newsletters he didn't write - too easy.

"anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war" - what does this even mean? Seriously...has anyone actually read this beyond the empty canard of "anti-Semitism"? First of all, if you take the example of Portugal, you can see that what we call the "War on Drugs" is a COLOSSAL FAILURE, and is in fact the "War on U.S. Citizens". We have troops in Afghanistan guarding poppy fields, from which comes our heroin, which is then shipped to our shores and sold, whereupon the buyers are arrested and their lives UTTERLY RUINED. You tell me if this isn't the perfect business model. For more of my analysis, see my article,http://www.r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunes/the_octopus_revealed.html - it's a bit of fun. Also, seehttp://whatreallyhappened.com/ru/content/afghanistan-troops-guarding-poppy-fields

"to end our romance with interventionism" - and what a romance it has been, right? It's been more like an escort service where you don't get a happy ending, after paying up the wazoo for a pig with lipstick.

"to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level" - oh, sure...no one should be paying attention to THAT.

Wow.

If you truly read this article, and avoid the "jumping together" arguments which actually don't even coalesce to a coherent point, this is the best reason to avoid Mitt "Bain Capital's vulture capitalism's gonna make me rich, baybee!" Romney, Newt "Get In My BED!" Gingrich and "Rick "I said BLAH people! Really!" Santorum, and select Ron Paul as the Republican nominee for the 2012 election.

Please remember, I don't drink the Kool-Aid, but I definitely don't like the taste of what the Three Stooges are serving.

The other "candidates" apparently are not worthy of the scrutiny that has been given to Ron Paul. If our lapdog press did half their bloody job, we would not have to suffer with choosing the lesser of two evils. 

I'm bowling right now - you'd all better hope it doesn't become my new vocation, because I will request to have our presidential candidates effigied on my set of pins.

7-10 split between Mittens and Santorum! Que Lastima!

The only "benefit" to come from an attack on Iran will be an instant devaluation of our currency and our way of life, which should awaken the dormant populace to the danger of allowing a foreign nation to utterly subvert our once great nation.

This has nothing whatsover to do with the empty canard of "anti-semitism"; rather, understand that the United States has absolutely NOTHING TO GAIN from an attack on Iran. In fact, anyone can go back and check the so-called "intelligence" and see that we are seeing the exact same propaganda being dumped, only that the "Q"s have been replaced with "N"s.

See Phiplip Giraldi's piece: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/25/avoiding-a-dumb-war-with-iran/

It's really that sad, folks.

Like I said - I'm at a bowling alley tonight. I'm in the middle of the biggest cross-section of people you could ever find. These people will be the first up-in-arms when some stooge tells them that bowling is no longer a God-given right.

You just wait and see - the revolution could care less to be televised - it's gonna be LIVE.

Let's post some good news - so, to be clear, none of the pharmaceutical companies will be releasing this cure to anyone, because THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT:

Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

New Scientist has received an unprecedented amount of interest in this story from readers. If you would like up-to-date information on any plans for clinical trials of DCA in patients with cancer, or would like to donate towards a fund for such trials, please visit the site set up by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board. We will also follow events closely and will report any progress as it happens.

Update, 16 May 2011: If you've just heard about this story, please read this recent update too.

Article originally published online 17 January 2007:

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.

DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.

Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis's experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).

Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don't get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.

Crucially, though, mitochondria do another job in cells: they activate apoptosis, the process by which abnormal cells self-destruct. When cells switch mitochondria off, they become "immortal", outliving other cells in the tumour and so becoming dominant. Once reawakened by DCA, mitochondria reactivate apoptosis and order the abnormal cells to die.

There was some issue with the formatting which made this impossible to read - hopefully, you checked out the article at the URL posted above.

My Room 8 colleague is diving back into the fray - see STATE SENATOR ERIC ADAMS WILL TRY TO MAKE HISTORY NEXT YEAR; WATCH OUT, SINCE HE PROBABLY WILL. by Rock Hackshaw.

We could use some with principles - break a leg, Rock.