Thursday, October 19, 2017


Goodell announces the NFL has a policy for players to stand at attention during the anthem, but they will not be required to do so

October 19, 2017

On Wednesday NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made a profound announcement. He let the world know that the NFL has a policy that requires players to stand at attention during the playing of the National Anthem. He said the NFL believes in respecting our flag and country and that everyone should stand during the anthem. But in the next breath Goodell said the league would not require its players to stand during the anthem. He praised the players who were taking a knee or otherwise sitting out the anthem for becoming active on social issues.

What a phony, what a hypocrite, what a sorry example of a sports executive! In enforcing the league’s player uniform policies, Goodell has fined players for wearing colored cleats (shoes) to call attention to one good cause or another. He fined 49ers Frank Gore $10,500 for wearing his socks too low. He fined players for putting inscriptions on their eye black. Goodell threatened to fine players who wanted to wear special cleats honoring the 9/11 victims. And the sorry bastard prohibited the Cowboys from attaching a decal on the team helmets in honor of the five Dallas police officers who were assassinated by a Black Lives Matter-inspired thug.

Players fined for wearing colored shoes or wearing their socks too low, but not for disrespecting our flag and country. Players threatened with fines for trying to honor the 9/11 victims. The Cowboys prohibited from honoring five slain Dallas cops. But players will be allowed to break the NFL policy on standing at attention for the anthem. Proclaiming the league’s policy on patriotism is nothing more than a shit load of the NFL’s hypocrisy.

You readers know that I blame Goodell for this whole kneeling and now mass disrespect for our flag and country. Instead of kicking Colin Kaepernick out of the NFL, or at least fining him, Godell prai9sed the son-of-a-bitch for taking a stand against police brutality. Thus Goodell in effect encouraged the other players to also disrespect our flag and country. Had he fined Kaepernick, none of this shit would now be happening because money talks, bullshit walks.

By extolling the virtues of patriotism while not requiring NFL players to follow the NFL policy on standing at attention for the anthem, Goodell has exposed himself as the hypocritical leader of a hypocritical sports league.


First sex doll-only brothel opens in Germany following success of Austrian outlet as bizarre trend spreads across Europe

By Harvey Day

Daily Mail
October 18, 2017

The bizarre sex doll craze sweeping across Europe has reached Germany, with the country's first sex doll-only brothel opening for business.

Evelyn Schwarz, 29, runs the aptly named 'Bordoll' in Dortmund - a fusion of the words 'bordello' and 'doll'.

Originally looking into S&M, Schwarz instead decided to buy 11 silicone 'love dolls' - each of which she gave a unique name.

The five stone sex dolls are imported from Asia and cost her €2,000 (£1,786) each

They all have different heights, hair colours and breast sizes. One sex doll is even made to look exactly like a blue-haired Japanese anime character.

It has been such a success that the dolls are booked around 12 times a day, costing €80 (£71) per hour.

Schwarz said: 'For many it is not a fetish, but more of a curiosity.'

She added: 'Actually I was looking for colleagues with good knowledge of German for the S&M scene, because for these practices communication is very important. But I did not find any.'

The brothel operator said that men of every age and profession from all across Germany have flocked to her brothel.

Schwarz said: 'From those on benefits to judges. Seventy percent of men also come back.'

Bizarrely, Schwarz said that the wives of many brothel visitors are reacting 'with tolerance' to their desires and are often seen 'waiting outside in the car' while their husband is having sex with a doll.

She said: 'They see it as a toy.'

Schwarz has only had one bad experience at her brothel so far, when an overly excited customer broke a doll, 'Anna' - the most popular one in the establishment.

Schwarz said she had to order a new one.

According to reports, sex industry experts estimate that people with a fetish for sex dolls are a growing group, and that they expect more dolls to be made available by brothels.

Austrian psychologist Gerti Senger explained why some men are more interested in sleeping with sex dolls instead of a real woman.

Senger said: 'First, the man can do anything with the doll. Second, every intention is turned off, which can be a factor with a prostitute.'

But Senger, who is a co-chair at the Austrian Society for Sexual Research, said that she was shocked by some dolls being more popular than real prostitutes and called it 'a real autistic tendency'.

It was reported earlier this year that sex doll 'Fanny' became the top-selling superstar of the 'Kontakthof' brothel in the Austrian capital of Vienna, getting more customers than the real prostitutes.

At the Ars Electronica Festival in the city of Linz, an interactive silicone sex doll named 'Samantha' became so popular that it broke down because so many visitors groped its breasts and soiled its body.

In Germany, a new brothel has now opened that caters exclusively to those who are attracted to plastic sex dolls.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I wonder if a sex doll house would be legal in this country? And if not, would we be having a sex doll trafficking problem since these dolls are coming here from Asia.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017


Medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer

By Dorina Lisson
Founder and president of Australian Coalition Against Death Penalty (ACADP)

As for the death penalty, why discriminate? If it is to continue to be applied in America (the only civilised nation in the world that still practices this barbarism) I agree that it should be given to all medical professionals involved in the killing of their patients through medical negligence every year. No ifs not buts !!!

Howie, please do your research - medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer. Same in Australia !!! ... Got that ??? the 3rd leading cause of death !!! How many thousands of people is this !!! But geezz, what does that matter when people are brainwashed to trust those over-paid psychopathic bastards ???

If a patient dies due to medical negligence, all those involved should receive the death penalty. Afterall, a killer, is a killer, is a killer, right ??? !!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dorina is an internationally known human rights activist. Because of our opposing views on the death penalty, we used to lock horns, but have become close friends. Dorina has a rather low opinion of MDs as you can see by what she wrote, tongue in cheek no doubt.


by Bob Walsh

Lawrence Knox, 36, was in court earlier this month in Franklin County, Ohio. Among other things he swore at the time that he was indigent. He had copped a plea to a drug charge and was taken away for processing for a six-year prison sentence. Deputies found he had over $4k in cash on him at that time. They told the judge. The judge was not amused. Neither was his lawyer as Know shorted him as well.

The judge fined Know $20,000. Half of the $4k went to the lawyer to cover his fee, the rest went against the $20,000 (plus court costs).

Telling lies, especially STUPID lies, to a judge is not a good move.


by Bob Walsh

Assuming THE HILL is to be believed the FBI and the Obama administration knew years ago that the Russians had funneled tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation in exchange for Hillary approving the sale of a huge chunk of the U. S. uranium reserve to the Russkies.

One can't but wonder if the constant drum beat of Trump-Russian collusion is a calculated smoke screen aimed at insulating the Hildebeast from charges of bribery, malfeasance in office and felonious mopery.

The clowns who put together the so-called Trump Dossier are supposed to appear before a congressional committee on Wednesday. Allegedly they will refuse to testify and may in fact refuse to show. Perhaps a flat tire on the anti-Trump psychopath band wagon?


The fall of Tom Marino, Trump’s dumped pick for drug czar, explained

By German Lopez

MSN Newa
October 17, 2017

Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA), President Donald Trump’s pick for drug czar, hadn’t gotten a single hearing from the Senate yet. But Trump had already hinted on Monday that he would consider taking Marino out of the running if he thought Marino’s role in a law’s passage was “1 percent negative to doing what we want to do.”

Then, on Tuesday, Trump made it official: He tweeted, “Marino has informed me that he is withdrawing his name from consideration as drug czar. Tom is a fine man and a great Congressman!”

The news came after a bombshell report from the Washington Post and 60 Minutes that looked at Marino’s involvement in a law passed in 2016: the so-called Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act.

The law made it very difficult, if not impossible, for the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to stop suspicious shipments of opioid painkillers by drug distributors, according to an upcoming law review article by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney.

Under federal law, distributors must report and stop suspicious orders of some drugs, including opioids. In the past, the DEA has fined companies for not doing so and, in some cases, frozen shipments, leveraging a section of the Controlled Substances Act that let the agency stop orders that it believed posed an “imminent danger.”

But Marino’s law changed this. It raised the bar to require that shipments pose “a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat” to be stopped. Joe Rannazzisi, former head of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, argued that this has essentially created an impossible standard — a claim backed by Mulrooney’s upcoming law review article.

“There’s no way that we could meet that burden, the determination that those drugs are going to be an immediate threat, because immediate, by definition, means right now,” Rannazzisi told the Post.

The law also requires the DEA to give drug companies a chance to submit “corrective action” plans and take those plans into account before the agency can sanction them. Mulrooney wrote that this is akin to a law that requires police to “allow bank robbers to round up and return inkstained money and agree not to rob any more banks — all before any of those wrongdoers actually admit fault and without any consequence that might deter such behavior in the future.”

This hindered the DEA’s ability to go after irresponsible opioid distributors — even as the drugs they helped spread across the US caused a drug overdose epidemic that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year.

Marino’s law stifled DEA attempts to go after opioid distributors

The House backed Marino’s bill in 2015, but it didn’t become law until 2016. The final version came after Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) worked with the Department of Justice and DEA, which opposed the original bill, to get to language that they could sign on to. After some language tweaks and leadership changes at both the Justice Department and the DEA, the revised bill passed both houses of Congress through “unanimous consent” — not even a formal vote tally — and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

Marino took credit after the final measure’s passage. In a press release, he said the law will ensure “our drug enforcement agencies will have the necessary tools to address the issue of prescription drug abuse across the country.” (Marino’s office did not return my request for comment. His office also did not return requests for comment by the Post or 60 Minutes, and called Capitol Police when reporters from the outlets showed up at his office to ask about the law.)

As Marino and other supporters of the law put it, the measure was necessary to stop the DEA from taking overly punitive actions that made it difficult for patients to get drugs, such as opioids, that they needed.

“We had a situation where it was just out of control because of [Rannazzisi],” Marino told the Post last year, referencing the head of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control at the time. “His only mission was to get big fines. He didn’t want to [do] anything but put another notch in his belt.”

Supporters of the law say the DEA had been so aggressive that it had scared drug companies away from cooperating with the agency. Instead of letting the DEA take immediate action against companies, the new law — through the higher burden of proof and requirement for “corrective action” plans — forces a slower process that gives companies a greater chance to respond. And that might make companies more proactive in reporting and stopping bad shipments, since they’ll know that it won’t necessarily get them into trouble.

Supporters also argue that the law helped settle legal uncertainty that could have blown up the DEA’s efforts. The Controlled Substances Act didn’t define “imminent danger.” D. Linden Barber, a former DEA lawyer who now works for the drug distributor Cardinal Health, argued to Congress that drug companies could take advantage of the previous law’s vagueness to halt the DEA’s mission.

“Indeed, many of my colleagues believe that the [Walgreens] case would have resulted in a narrowing of DEA’s authority if the agency had not settled its dispute,” Barber said, referring to a case in which Walgreens argued in federal appeals court that the law was too vague (but later settled with the federal government, agreeing to an $80 million fine). “As a supporter of DEA’s mission, I urge this committee to take legislative action that clarifies the meaning of ‘imminent danger.’”

Critics, meanwhile, argue that Marino’s law makes it impossible for the DEA to stop irresponsible distributors’ shipments. Mulrooney wrote, “If it had been the intent of Congress to completely eliminate the DEA’s ability to ever impose an immediate suspension on distributors or manufacturers, it would be difficult to conceive of a more effective vehicle for achieving that goal.” (Even before the law, however, the Post reported that outside pressure from drug companies on the Justice Department had already led such orders to drop: from 65 in fiscal year 2011 to eight in fiscal year 2016.)

This could not only stop the DEA from blocking dangerous shipments but also remove a deterrent that may have stopped drug companies from acting irresponsibly before.

There’s also the question of Marino’s motives. According to the Post, Marino has received nearly $100,000 in donations from political action committees tied to the drug industry. And last December, Marino’s chief of staff and “point man” on the law, Bill Tighe, became a lobbyist for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.

Tighe’s career move represents the kind of revolving door from Congress and the DEA to opioid distributors that helped shepherd Marino’s bill into law. In emails obtained by the Post, Barber was credited with writing the measure. He was the former associate chief counsel for the DEA before he became a lawyer at law firm Quarles & Brady, where he represented drug companies, and then an executive at Cardinal Health.

There’s a reason the DEA targeted drug companies in the first place: These companies really were doing some suspicious things. For example, a previous investigation by the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia found that from 2007 to 2012, drug firms poured a total of 780 million painkillers into the state — which had a total population of about 1.8 million. The small town of Kermit, West Virginia, had a population of 392, but a single pharmacy there received nearly 9 million hydrocodone pills over two years from out-of-state drug companies.

Critics of opioid companies argue that these kinds of shipments were obviously suspicious and should have been stopped. They’re a key explanation for why West Virginia now leads the country in drug overdose deaths: The proliferation of opioid painkillers got people addicted to the drugs, in some cases putting them on a path to other opioids like heroin and fentanyl. And critics like Rannazzisi argue that drug companies let this all continue as they pursued higher profits.

“This is an industry that’s out of control,” Rannazzisi told 60 Minutes. “What they wanna do is do what they wanna do, and not worry about what the law is. And if they don’t follow the law in drug supply, people die. That’s just it: People die.”

As drug czar, Marino could have played a major role in addressing the epidemic

As drug czar, Marino would not have overseen the DEA. He would have been in charge of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which tries to coordinate and guide the many federal agencies and programs that are involved in the war on drugs. In this role, he would have served as a top adviser to Trump on drug policy and related issues — particularly the opioid epidemic.

In the past, the office has been highly focused on illegal drugs, like cocaine and heroin; the position of drug czar was created by President Richard Nixon during a past heroin epidemic in the 1970s, and it was made permanent and official through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, during the crack cocaine epidemic. The focus has changed in recent years as the country deals with an opioid epidemic that began with the proliferation of legal painkillers.

Typically, the office sets the tone of the federal drug war. In ONDCP’s first national drug control strategy, President George H.W. Bush and drug czar Bill Bennett drew a clear set of priorities: In the table of contents, the first item for “National Priorities” is “The Criminal Justice System,” not treatment or prevention.

“It was a culture war document,” David Courtwright, a drug policy historian at the University of North Florida, previously told me. “It’s very much a statement about personal responsibility, zero tolerance, directed law enforcement to crack. It was very much a drug war document.” He added, “In terms of actual impact on policy [and] media coverage, it’s a very big deal in the late ’80s.”

The office also advises the White House and Congress on drug policy, particularly in setting priorities for the many federal programs addressing drugs and addiction.

Whether that leads to actual policy changes, though, depends wholly on whether the president and Congress actually accept the drug czar’s advice — since the office itself does not have much direct power in terms of changing policy.

ONDCP “is in an advisory capacity,” Courtwright said. “If you go back and look at the national drug control strategy documents, they make suggestions. They prioritize programs. … But do they actually set policy? I guess they do if the president and Congress say it’s a good plan and do it.”

The history suggests that Congress and the president do tend to follow what the drug czar says on drug policy. Based on Marino’s record, that could have led to a federal government that adopted a softer approach toward opioid companies, despite the harm they caused in the past.

The federal government has a big role to play in tackling the opioid crisis. Congress could dedicate a lot more money to drug addiction treatment and harm reduction strategies, such as making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. The Food and Drug Administration could impose stricter regulations and oversight on opioid painkillers. Public health agencies could help train doctors to adopt better practices in prescribing opioids. (Read much more on these potential moves in Vox’s in-depth explainer.)

Marino could have advised the president on all of this and more.

But before he even got a Senate hearing, Marino was pushed out of the running — all because a law he got passed in 2016 got a new look by the Washington Post and 60 Minutes.


An EMP attack by North Korea could shut down the US power grid and kill '90% of all Americans' within a year, experts warn

By Shivali Best

Daily Mail
October 16, 2017

Experts have issued a warning to US officials about a terrifying nuclear weapon that they fear North Korea could unleash on the country.

The weapon, known as a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bomb, uses high-intensity radio waves emitted from nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere that scrambles electronics, like a sudden power surge.

In their warning, the experts claim that such a blast could indirectly wipe out up to 90 per cent of people in the US within a year.

The chilling warning comes from Dr William Graham and Dr Peter Vincent Pry from the EMP Commission, in a new paper titled 'North Korea Nuclear EMP Attack: An Existential Threat.'

The experts claim that an EMP bomb would be detonated from an altitude of 30 to 400 kilometres (18.6 to 250 miles) above a target, resulting in the loss of electricity to an enormous region.

This could have a range of devastating effects, including knocking out refrigeration for medicines and food, disrupting communication networks, and preventing water processing.

In the paper, the researchers wrote: 'The result could be to shut down the US electric power grid for an indefinite period, leading to the death within a year of up to 90 per cent of all Americans.'

The researchers describe the 'devastating damage' that an EMP attack could inflict against the US.

They wrote: 'With the development of small nuclear arsenals and long-range missiles by new, radical US adversaries, beginning with North Korea, the threat of a nuclear EMP attack against the US becomes one of the few ways that such a country could inflict devastating damage to the United States.

'It is critical, therefore, that the US national leadership address the EMP threat as a critical and existential issue, and give a high priority to assuring the leadership is engaged and the necessary steps are taken to protect the country from EMP.'

According to the experts, North Korea could make an EMP attack against the United States by launching a short-range missile off a freighter or submarine or by lofting a warhead to 30 kilometres burst height by balloon.

Alternatively, they say that an EMP attack might be made by a North Korean satellite.

As well as urging officials to prepare for a possible EMP attack, the researchers also warned that North Korea's weaponry is becoming more of an issue.

The experts wrote: 'The EMP Commission finds that even primitive, low-yield nuclear weapons are such a significant EMP threat that rogue states, like North Korea, or terrorists may well prefer using a nuclear weapon for EMP attack, instead of destroying a city.'

The warning comes just weeks after fears that Kim Jong-un would unleash an EMP bomb over South Korea in an attempt to disrupt the financial infrastructure.

'Current regulations prohibit the transfer of client information overseas, so we are discussing ways to revise those rules so we can set up data back-up centres abroad', a financial official told the Korea Herald, according to The Sun.

According to the paper, South Korea is also on alert for EMP strikes on its nuclear power stations, government ministries and airlines.


The weapon, known as a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bomb, uses high-intensity radio waves emitted from nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere.

When a nuclear bomb explodes, it emits a burst of gamma rays.

These slam into air molecules, knocking off electrons and accelerating the negatively charged particles.

Earth's magnetic field then sends many of these high-speed electrons towards the planet's poles.

The electrons respond to this by letting off their newly acquired energy as a powerful blast of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves.

The radio waves can cover an entire continent and cripple circuits inside modern electronics on a vast scale.

This could have a range of devastating effects, including knocking out refrigeration for medicines, disrupting communication networks, and preventing water processing.