Does the stock market perform better under Democrats or Republicans?

"According to Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor's Equity Research, between 1945 and 2007 the S&P 500 rose 10.7 percent annually when Democrats occupied the White House, compared with a 7.6 percent annual increase under Republicans."
http://www.slate.com/id/2192001?nav=wp

and

In an interesting twist on spin, in 2005, the USA Today ran a story titled "Democrats or Republicans? Just the facts" The column answered the question: "Has the stock market been better, on average, when a Republican or Democrat has been in office? Do you have a chart that shows this?" The stats clearly showed that from 1901-2004, stocks rose an average of 13.3% per year under Democratic presidents, and 6.9% under Republican presidents. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm

but

The story was changed, under the SAME BYLINE two years later. While the new headline said "Are Democrats or Republicans better for the stock market?", the actual question now answered was "Do stocks perform better when a Democrat or Republican is elected president?" That's some slick rewording indeed. The new answer: "the stock market has gained, on average, 3.1% during election years that a Democrat was elected and 8.8% in years a Republican was elected." ... but, of course, that's just during the actual election years, with absolutely no mention of the stock market average over the entire tenure of R vs. D administrations, a stat which clearly shows the stock market performs better under Democrats!!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2007-07-12-democrats-republicans_N.htm

So much for a liberal media bias.

Keith calls out Hillary

"we should be able to reconstruct imagery in dreams"

"[We] believe strongly that no one should be subjected to any form of brain-reading process involuntarily, covertly, or without complete informed consent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/06/medicalresearch

How to beat cancer

for more details, please visit:
http://www.mindswell.org/beatcancer.htm

A 'medicine hunter' seeks herbal alternatives in Peru

"People in the U.S. are more cranked up on pharmaceutical drugs than any other culture in the world today," Kilham said. "I want people using safer medicine. And that means plant medicine."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/business/drug.php

Priests Must Stop Being Celibate!

Catholic people are wonderful people. I have many Catholic friends. I mean no disrespect to them. I wish them all a Happy Easter Holiday.

The Catholic Church, however, is literally an abomination. This is not a few bad apples. Hundreds of priests molested thousands of children worldwide. The sheer enormity, the scope of abuse is stunning. This is a systemic problem specific to the Catholic Church, and there's a specific reason for it.

No other religious hierarchy demands celibacy, yet forbids masturbation. They went even further, of course, devising a doctrine which considers all sins on equal footing. For priests, masturbation is a sin, and raping a child is a sin. All sins are bad. They just count 'em up every week, go to confession, get forgiven, and continue on their way. Then they do it again. And again.

Their claim of "confession" as a cornerstone of Faith is hypocrisy shone bare by their response to the NY TIMES reporting (and others) on the vast monstrosity of abuse which has taken place.

The Church response to the magnitude of suffering Catholic Priests have caused around the world? They claim negative media coverage is "prompted by the devil." Not the sheer number of vile acts, mind you, nor the enormous number of Priest perpetrators whom the Church is claiming were prompted by the devil here, it's the media who published those stories! They're the evil ones - for publishing the Church's rap sheet for all to see.

Buddhist Monks who take vows of celibacy do so with the realization that the male human body, as a biological necessity, cannot be forced, by sheer will and prayer, to stop producing (and occasionally discharging) sperm. It's that simple. Monks refrain from having sex, but don't even consider a lifelong prohibition on ejaculation itself! It's inhuman.

Whether you believe in Jesus' 100% Celibacy, or believe he was married to Mary Magdalene, can't we all agree that a condition of the Catholic Priesthood shouldn't be to attempt, by sheer will, to prevent one's body from producing sperm that will eventually need to get out so more can be made? Why should entering the priesthood mean a life of celibacy anyway? What possible good does that requirement do, especially considering the magnitude of suffering it has caused?

For Easter 2010, the Catholic Church should resurrect itself by confessing its sins, apologizing with all required humility for its crimes, and dealing with the Karma of finally doing so.

"True Giuliani"

You can tell how sick a power hungry neocon is
by listening to his supporters.

Rudy has quite a bunch in his corner:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2007/dec/27/primaries.rudy.guiliani

Bunch'a whiteys all hopped up on murderin' muslims.