POLL VOTING – CastMD

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN DONATIONS – SILENT BIAS OF THE QUID PRO QUO

IF YOU MISSED THIS POLICY-PUSHING DONATION GROUP LISTING IN USA TODAY NEWS, HERE IS A SECOND CHANCE TO SEE THE MONEY MIXERS.

And the money makes the politics “responsive!”

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTIONS

TIME: JAN 1, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007

TYPES OF BUSINESS DOLLARS PARTY

LAW FIRM-LAWYERS 27.8 MILLION 78 % TO DEMS

SECURITIES-INVST 18 MILLION 56 % TO DEMS

RETIRED 16.5 MILLION 51 % TO DEMS

REALESTATE 11.7 MILLION 50 % TO DEMS

BUSINESS 8.2 MILLION 75 % TO DEMS

BUSINESS SERVICE 6 MILLION 63 % TO DEMS

FINANCE 5.9 MILLION 46 % TO DEMS

MOVIE-TV 4.6 MILLION 82 % TO DEMS

HEALTH PROF 4.4 MILLION 53 % TO DEMS

EDUCATION 4.1 MILLION 75 % TO DEMS

SO, THE DEMS ARE IN THE LEAD SO FAR WITH DONATIONS ACROSS ALL WALKS OF EMPLOYMENT.

It is amazing that the discrepancy of donation dollars regarding the legal industry is so extraordinarily excessive compared to many other business sectors. No wonder tort reform is impossible in many areas of the country. This non-action on tort reform effects all businesses, not just medicine. Now you know. The money follows the “silent bias of the quid pro quo.”

(The data is from the Center for Responsive Politics)

NET NEUTRALITY AT RISK- THE BIG DEAL IN YOUR e-LIFE

Sometimes this medical man must make the leap from meth, cocaine, cheese heroin, disability, west nile, herpes, and death…to a topic that is close to the heart and mind.

In the blogger world and the internet world, many brilliant minds exist in a community open source manner, while many other minds (even some the same) coexist in a competitive free market manner. They so far seem to have been a symbiotic relationship at the least.

But a reminder from www.castMD.com now, as it is important. We as bloggers must pay closer attention to this “Net Neutrality” issue. This is how I understand it. Right now, internet is paid for at all levels. About 26 of them. I pay a company to provide access to the net, that company pays the next, the next pays the next…eventually to a major backbone of internet ability. These access points are not “pipes” as one Senator stated in Congress. Everyone gets paid some money along the way…

What may be happening in the telecom companies, is access restriction! Unlike other countries, especially Korea, China, Japan, access is being looked at like your cable or cellphone.

You want what, when, and how fast?

Right now, the IPhone is with AT&T I believe, after Verizon company turned it down due to strict competitive requirements. So, my contract will not allow me to get an IPhone. I cannot get a different phone with ALL the features, because some aspects of cellphones are turned off…or blocked…so the company can RESELL the access to you – EVEN though your cellphone is set for it.

My examples are real but may not be exact for the internet neutrality issue. BUT, what if my SkyNet said you can have only the internet sites that are not commerce related? What about no .com, or .biz sites? But for 100 dollars per month, I can have the .com sites? Or what if a block on all .edu sites was placed for the colleges and universities, unless a million dollars per month is paid by the college or university? Another example is whether or not your access speed would be limited? So, the telecoms give access to the “slow speeds” of uploads and downloads, yet more money for the “real” speeds.

UTube is extremely bandwidth intensive. In the beginning, without the principle of internet neutrality, the telecom ISPs most likely would have restricted bandwidth speed available to their users for viewing the site. Video traffic would slow to a crawl unless the startup business was ready to pay enormous fees to the “gatekeepers” in order to access “their subscribers.” Obviously, a startup in its infancy would not have been able to pay these fees, or would have had to grow slower or die on the vine. The gatekeepers want to absolute control to all the access to every data pak through the internet network. Everyone is already paying!

The meeting review on the issue might stimulate your awareness.

FTC ON BROADBAND ACCESS

A review of this issue and faqs is at: SAVE THE INTERNET

THE PRICE AND THE ACCESS RESTRICTION ARE GOING UP !

SUBLIMINAL EVIL LURKS IN BLOGOSPERE WWW.CASTMD COMES TO THE IMMEDIATE RESCUE “CAUTION: ENTERING THIS UN-SPUN ZONE”

Bloggers beware.

Bloggers beware

Of pen’s fiery flare.

Bloggers beware

Of hateful glare.

Bloggers beware

Of gifts they bear.

Bloggers beware

Of tempting dare.

Bloggers beware

Of laughter’s stare.

Bloggers beware

Of limited care.

Bloggers beware

Of legal snare.

Bloggers beware

Of snake-eye pair.

Bloggers beware.

gonzales denies constitutional rights of habeas corpus in senate committee

Medicine dominates www.castMD.com, however, this news must be told, from all sides of any isle, current time, any bias, any blog. As watched days ago:

Alberto Gonzales the U.S. Attorney General, seemed to summarize a reversal that the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights to a fair trial to every American. Arlen Specter a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, listened to Gonzales arguing that the Constitution doesn't explicitly endow habeas corpus rights. He commented that when Great Writ can be suspended. Gonzales said."There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away." "Wait a minute," Specter amazing replied to Gonzales. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?" "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Specter quickly retorted: "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

DENYING CITIZENS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS seems to be on the line here!

With his basis in this apparent illogical and confounding premise – that since the U.S. Constitution "only" guarantees that Habeas Corpus cannot be taken away except in times of invasion/uprise – it then follows that everyone does not have an inital right.

From that scary monstrosity of a proposition, does he believe justification of the illegal and unconstitutional Guantanamo "infinite-detention-without-charge" program? War on terror or war on citizen rights?

This is one of the most unique testimonies ever stated, like, "I never had sex with that woman." that a previous President made – one which goes against not only common sensical argument, but one which may become TRULY Anti-American and works to undermine the very foundations of our Constitution and legal system.

Has America seen such Founding Father "stomping" in other areas? How about the right of Eminent Domain expansion…squish the little person or business…big boys don't cry!

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND ADVERTISING FOR ILLNESS

WITH THE RECENT EXPLOSION IN MASS MARKETING AND ADVERTISING FOR PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINES AND ILLNESS, DO YOU THINK IT IS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY CORRECT?

WITH WWW.CASTMD.COM SHOWING THE RECENT EXPLOSION OF ONE EXAMPLE OF ILLNESS MADE PROFIT, MAYBE THE "OLD" DAYS OF PHARMA ADVERTISING SHOULD BE RETURNED. THAT IS – WHEN LIMITED ADS COULD BE RUN.

THUS THE QUESTION: SHOULD WE AS CONSUMERS BE BOMBARDED WITH ILLNESS ADS AND DRUG THERAPIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HELP? IT DOES CREATE HIGHER COSTS FOR THE MEDICINES THAT MANY PATIENTS NEED.

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE LIKE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PROGRAMS WILL CONTINUE TO LIMIT ACCESS AND COSTS WITH SUCH BACK ROOM ADS GOING ON TO RUN UP COSTS AND USAGE.

VOTE IN THE CURRENT READER POLL IF YOU WISH.

acetaminophen recall – not “tylenol”

URGENT

For my readers, the info reviewed is just acetaminophen from a manufacturer of "generic" drug, used by many "brands" of acetaminophen. Some mentioned are generic walgreens, cvs, costo type "brands" of acetaminophen.

Therefore, before buying any acetaminophen, ask the seller, pharmacist, or agent of sale, if this bottle is involved.

The probability of any injury approaches zero, if not zero, as this sounds like compounding machine flecks of metal, not shards.

Again, be informed. Don't worry, and be happy.

pelosi looks in mirror – seeS IMAGERY

DEMOCANS = REPUBLICRATS

THE DREAM CAME DURING THE NIGHT……..THE SOON-TO-BE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LOOKS IN THE MIRROR. THE ROOM IS EXQUISITELY SMOKEY AND INVITING…LAUGHTER ENGAGES HER EAR…THE MIRROR IMAGE IS DISTORTED AND FADED THROUGH THE CIGAR SMOKE LADEN ROOM…AS SHE MOVES CLOSER TO THE MIRROR THE IMAGE IS AT BEST BLURRED…SHE WONDERS…

SHE APPROACHES CLOSER – CUTTING THE AIR AS SWIMMING THROUGH A COASTLINE FOG…THEN, SUDDENLY HER REFLECTION IS CLEARER, AND CLEARER, AS THE SMOKE RISES…AND THERE SHE IS…NOT THE IMAGE OF CLARITY AS ENVISIONED BY THE POPULUS..BUT SPEAKER HASTERT…"WELCOME TO THE INNER CIRCLE, WHAT TYPE OF CIGAR DO YOU SMOKE?"

THE DEMOCANS SUCCEED THE REPUBLICRATS BY POPULAR VOTE…

THE IMAGERY OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS IS

A CONGRESSIONAL CONSTANT ANY YEAR!

selected images from: YAHOO.COM

RUMSFELD AND BUSH AND CHENEY MAY APPEAR IN THE MIRROR OF PELOSI…