While interesting, there seems to be an undercurrent of worry that a private corporation was given nuclear material by the government. Those looking to be outraged by the misuse of nuclear material by the government here in Rochester have a much bigger target, the University of Rochester Medical Center, which not only was given nuclear material by the feds but injected it into unknowing patients as part of the Human Radiation and Plutonium experiments.

On January 15, 1994, President Bill Clinton formed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. It was revealed that since the 1940s the Atomic Energy Commission had been sponsoring radiation tests on human subjects. American citizens who had checked into various hospitals were submitted to secret experiments and injected with radioactive materials including plutonium to study the effects it would have on the human body. The University of Rochester Medican Center was one of those hospitals.

These experiments were not just conducted on just terminally ill patients but also on Americans who were healthy and not informed they were being experimented on. Sadly the abuse of hospitals like URMC was just the tip of the iceberg as the project resulted in many other horrific human rights abuses. Scientists administered radioactive iodine to newborns, irradiated the heads of children, fed radioactive material to mentally challenged children, exposed US soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation just to see what would happen and more.

This is a terrible part of history that seems to be largely forgotten. While it is odd that Kodak had a nuke, it appears they didn’t abuse it. The University of Rochester Medical Center did, along with doctors, nurses, scientists and a government that were sworn to protect patients and citizens. That is the nuclear legacy here in Rochester and we should regularly discuss it. 

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts Found

Look at the state of our nation. Our economy is in shambles and few viable solutions have been offered to right the ship. If that alone were the problem I might have hope. The world economy is contracting, the EU is a mess, even China and India are showing signs of slowed growth and Israel may be on the verge of war with Iran, which could have untold economic impact. Why does it matter? If the people we borrow money from and trade with collapse, we won’t see growth or recovery in our country, quite the opposite. Meanwhile if the money we spend and give away dries up, money the world seems addicted to, the recoveries of other nations will be hastened further. See the problem?

It is rare that a president running for reelection doesn’t win. It is also rare that a president, facing even the perception of economic incompetence, wins reelection. More often than not perceptions of the economy drive national elections and even if we see slight decreases in unemployment or slight increases in growth as many are hoping for, it can easily be framed as not enough because, well quite simply, it isn’t. The world is on the brink, the media and the administration is simply trying its best to reframe facts to suggest it isn’t.

A man who understands how important the economy is to elections is Democrat strategist James Carville, famous for the “It’s the economy, stupid” line that is synonymous with Bill Clinton’s rise against George H.W. Bush. The elder Bush was beloved after the Iraq War but lost the support of his base and the American people over the economy. While Carville is, without a doubt, absolutely insane on issues, he is observing the same sense of invincibility I have witnessed in many Democrats here in New York. Carville wrote an op-ed about why his Party needs to be shaken from its complacency. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

Meanwhile I am always surprised by how many of my conservative friends are quick to talk about the biased and inaccurate media, but then so quickly slip into taking on their thinking. Until the final days before the 2010 election, most in the mainstream media predicted Republicans would not win in a wave election. They held on to the very end and even, for days afterward, tried to make it seem as though the outcome wouldn’t matter. Obama’s stalled agenda, leaving him with no accomplishments beyond the stimulus and healthcare, tell a much different tale. They ignored all evidence that countered their way of thinking, stuck to the script and stayed away from talking to actual voters.

There are too many conservatives and Republicans right now walking around in a daze, feeling like all hope is lost for 2012. Some of them have this sense because they fear Mitt Romney. I understand, though having lived life under Obama and the Democrats the last few years, I will take my chances with a man who can at least admit he likes making money. The rest have been bombarded with so many media messages telling them all hope is lost for Republicans that they ignore all of the counter evidence and reasoned thinking that suggests an alternative outcome.

I don’t know who will win but I do believe we are looking at a 50/50 split at the moment. A lot will happen over the next few months and I can say that reelection for Obama is far from guaranteed while hope for Mitt Romney is nowhere near lost. We can win, they can lose, now let’s do it.

Related Posts:

• Why Conservative Will Unite Around Romney & How We Will Win
• Rick Santorum Suspending Presidential Campaign
• Texas Attempting to Become Winner Take All State
• Santorum Says Romney Worst Republican Against Obama, But Would Be His Veep
• Santorum Wins Louisiana

Here is my simple take. If gay marriage is that important to a voter, they likely already have a side . While there has been very little substanative difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue until now (neither have overwhelmingly been in support of the federal government using its power to legalize gay marriage in the states) the perception has always been that if you want gay marriage, vote Democrat.

Let’s be real here. If you think it is the job of the federal government to force gay marriage onto the states, you aren’t voting for Mitt Romney no matter what his personal position is. You also likely aren’t voting for the rest of the Republicans on the ballot. If you believe there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or are ardently a supporter of states rights and want no government intervention, you aren’t voting for Barack Obama and likely aren’t going down the list and checking off Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer either.

There are endless articles being written about how this will influence voters and sway the election. It won’t. Just as the media mindset has been wrong about everything political as of late, from the outcome of the 2010 elections, the Tea Party’s influence, Occupy Wall Streets influence, the Republican primary going to a brokered convention and on and on, they are wrong to believe this announcement will do anything to actually influence the outcome of the election.

Social conservatives and socialist progressives won’t cross Party lines. Sure they may not show up to the polls, but as a sole issue it is unlikely gay marriage would cause enough voters, on either side, to stay home that it would actually sway the election.

Meanwhile young people don’t vote in large numbers (again, despite the widespread media attention on them), African Americans won’t suddenly jump up and embrace Romney because they tend to be more socially conservative according to polling, gays and those pushing for federal action in support of gay marriage were not going to vote for Romney anyway and wouldn’t regardless of Obama’s decusuib, That leaves the rest of the nation, the vast majority of us, who have our thoughts on gay marriage but are not so concerned about it that it would switch our votes.

In two weeks this issue will once again fade into the backdrop. It will likely be brought up four or five more times in the next few months as the media and the Obama campaign try to cram it into the spotlight but each time it will fade once again. The economy, perceptions about the candidate’s character and the general outlook of the nation will all determine the outcome of this election (possibly defense but sadly it will often take a back seat). How do I know this? Because those are almost always the issues presidential elections come down to. Meanwhile I also predict that all of the glee displayed over Obama’s decision will be dwarfed over time by complaints on the left that he isn’t going far enough to appease them.

Related Posts:

• Rick Santorum Sees Pornography Pandemic
• The Cross Conservatives Must Bear
• Why We Should Stop Funding Planned Parenthood
• Worthless People Burn Books, Terry Jones is One of Them
• Thoughts on Federalism & Prop 8

Unfortunately one of the three TV’s playing throughout my gym is always tuned to CNN. There was a short period of time many years ago when it was switched to FOX News but all my liberal neighbors likely threw a fit and made them turn it off. So every morning when I go I am treated to the God-awful morning show. Whenever I see what they are talking about I realize very quickly why CNN is on a steep ratings decline.

Today CNN seemed almost obsessed with the Hot Dog Hooker. I have no idea who this woman is and I have no interest in finding out. I do know that every five minutes the networks was cutting to video of some fat aging woman walking around pulling her shirt down so people could take pictures. All of this while “Hot Dog Hooker” was displayed across the screen. I would turn up the volume on my iPhone, look away and then glance back and see her on screen again minutes later.

I joked on Twitter that if they threw in a a reference to Syria or Lindsay Lohan CNN would race to put Anderson Cooper on the case. I then received this response:

@roaring_repub @CNN Hotdog Hooker…anderson cooper was on it last night. lol

— Tania (R) (@rainat7) May 9, 2012

So yes, it looks like CNN has TEAM coverage of the Hot Dog Hooker. Wonderful. This follows the wall-to-wall Secret Service Hooker-a-thon they had running last week. It isn’t news, just CNN.

Most of these news networks failed to cover the event Obama was at while the Secret Service agents were getting busy on the taxpayers dime. Likely because our appearance at the Summit of the Americas was as big of an embarrassment and sideshow as the hooker stuff. Now as the US goes on droning wars, as our economy continues to fall apart, as corruption spreads in government, as our privacy is invaded, we have Hot Dog Hookers taking up the majority of CNN’s time. Lovely.

News networks, especially cable, seem to be in existence to spread the message of governments, corporations and the military while glorifying the stupidity of a minority of Americans. Reporting? Who needs it when we have Hot Dog Hookers for CNN to play with.

Related Posts:

• Democrats Continue Their War on Women by Attacking Ann Romney
• Another Olbermann Firing & Lesson Nobody Wants to See More Cranky Liberals
• White House Says DeNiro Joke Inappropriate
• Obama Relection Campaign’s Michelle Propaganda Fluff
• Failed RNC Chair Steele Joins MSNBC

The Washington Post has a story this very morning showing that the administration does indeed negotiate with American hating terrorists. The Post outlines a secret program that has seen the release of “high-level” terrorists in exchange for pledges of peace by these insurgent groups. The article also notes the administration has been attempting peace negotiations directly with the Taliban for some time. So yes, we do negotiate with terrorists and apparently we also give them what they want.

From the article:

The freed detainees are often notorious fighters who would not be released under the traditional legal system for military prisoners in Afghanistan. They must promise to give up violence — and U.S. officials warn them that if they are caught attacking American troops, they will be detained once again.

There are no absolute guarantees, however, and officials would not say whether those who have been released under the program have later returned to attack U.S. and Afghan forces once again.

What is the strategy? To negotiate an end to the war in Afghanistan. Essentially asking those who subscribe to a radical Western hating ideology to play nice. How well is that plan working?

The releases have come amid broader efforts to end the decade-long war through negotiation, which is a central feature of the Obama administration’s strategy for leaving Afghanistan. Those efforts, however, have yielded little to no progress in recent years. In part, they have been stymied by the unwillingness of the United States to release five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay — a gesture that insurgent leaders have said they see as a precondition for peace talks.

So the peace talks haven’t even begun but we keep releasing prisoners anyway under the hope that they will. Wonderful strategy. We extend an olive branch (giving up people who will likely turn around and try to kill us) and they ask for more olives. Great plan.

Related Posts:

• FAA Reveals 63 Drone Sites in 20 US States
• United States Agrees to Defend Afghanistan for Decade, Rohrabacher Denied Entry
• Hillary Clinton Says Putin Has No Soul But Romney is Wrong to Distrust Him
• Brett H McGurk Named New Ambassador to Iraq
• Obama Caught With Open Mic, Tells Medvedev