Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Hannah Hilton Revealing Her Sexy Body

Hannah Hilton Revealing Her Sexy Body

Monday, May 15, 2006


As much as I would like to take credit for the following newsletter, I didn’t write it. It’s from Cancer Decisions, the website of Ralph Moss, a long time science writer and consultant about alternative cancer treatments. You can subscribe to his weekly newsletters at
I often find Ralph’s newsletters interesting and thought many of you would enjoy reading this one.

“There are over 70 million gardeners in the United States, and countless more worldwide. For many of us, this is the time of year to finally stop vacillating and decide which seeds and plants are going to go into the ground. I spend my summers in a cool climate and the growing season is rather short. I try to make planting choices with one eye on my plants' anticancer potential. So let's see how a few common garden varieties stack up, especially in the light of recent scientific studies.
Last year, I thinned 50 feet of red raspberries and transplanted the remaining canes into 30 additional feet in a sunny area behind the house. Soon I'll find out how well this no-cost maneuver has worked. If these canes are not productive, I will buy some new plants from the local nursery and may even put in a row of black raspberries, just for a change of pace. I need to have a superabundance of berries because the resident gremlins - my grandchildren, who do most of the picking - extract a tax in fresh berries whenever they go to work. In addition, a young lady of the household appropriates the lioness's share for jams and jellies. (I know, I know – sugar is bad for you, but a little raspberry jam evokes a Proustian remembrance of summer past on a chilly winter morning.)
What else can berries do for you? They are among the most potent and readily available sources of antioxidants on the planet. A few years back, wild blueberries were found to have a super high score on the antioxidant (ORAC) scale. Mainers crowed – you would have thought the Black Bears had won the A-10 football conference.
But no one has a monopoly in the berry sweepstakes. Scientists at Ohio State University have now weighed in with favorable reports of their own on black raspberries, the kind that I generally gather in the sunny edges of woodland clearings. In 2006, these Buckeye State scientists studied the cancer preventing effects of black raspberry extracts on a model of esophageal cancer in mice. Esophageal cancer is difficult to treat, and so any positive news on this front is most welcome. Tumor-bearing animals were fed a diet containing 5 percent black raspberries (more than humans are likely to consume, but good at bringing out effects in a study). After 25 weeks on this regimen, mice that ate black raspberries had approximately half as many tumors as control animals (3.78 vs. 2.23).
No one is quite sure exactly how this tumor-suppressing effect works. Black raspberries are a natural COX-2 inhibitor, and we saw in previous newsletters how Celebrex, a synthetic COX-2 inhibitor, reduced the formation of colon polyps. So perhaps the same mechanism is at work – although I would be dumbfounded if black raspberries also caused cardiovascular disease, the way Celebrex did in the latest studies. Raspberries also reduced certain other markers of cancer formation. The scientists said it had a "novel tumor suppressive role...." (Chen 2006). So how's that for a pleasurable way of helping to prevent a deadly disease?
Another plant that I have in my garden is horseradish (Armoracia rusticana). Its leaves grow absolutely huge. Usually once per summer, my garden helpers, mistaking them for the pesky comfrey that is always ready, willing and able to invade the planting beds, mow the horseradishes down to the ground. The redoubtable plant doesn't seem to mind - the leaves pop right up by the next mowing. Anyway, it is the roots that you want for making horseradish sauce, not the leaves.
Last year, scientists at Michigan State University found that both common horseradish and the extra-pungent Japanese wasabi (Wasabia japonica) contained certain ingredients called monogalactosyl diacylglycerides. These too were found to restrict the growth of cancer cells. Three active ingredients in horseradish and two from wasabi were tested. Compound no. 3 from horseradish inhibited the proliferation of colon cancer cells by as much as 68.4 percent and inhibited lung cancer cells by as much as 71 percent. Compound no. 4 from wasabi inhibited the growth of colon, lung and stomach cancer cells by as much as 44 percent (Weil 2005). These are encouraging results.
You can buy reasonably fresh horseradish from the supermarket's dairy case. (Look for the kind that has nothing but ground root and a little vinegar.) Alternatively you can make a much better horseradish sauce yourself if you have a spade to excavate your two-year roots. You will also need a sturdy vegetable peeler and a blender or food processor. You can then mix the macerated homegrown horseradish with vinegar or with sour cream.

A Surprising Herb

In the herb department, I wouldn't be without feverfew. Many readers know the feverfew plant (Tanacetum parthenium), a member of the Chrysanthemum family, sometimes called bachelor's buttons. This is a cheerful-looking perennial, with a profusion of white pompon-like blooms - like a shower of tiny daisies.
As the name implies, this is a traditional remedy for fevers. It also has a long association with the relief of migraines. (I keep some feverfew pills in the medicine chest in case any of my summer visitors are plagued with that mysterious form of torture.) But feverfew is particularly interesting for its anticancer potential.
You may remember from my earlier newsletters that scientists are now reevaluating all cancer drugs for their effect on malignant stem cells. These are the primitive cells that appear to be fundamentally responsible for the malignant dimensions of cancer. Many conventional cancer drugs are turning out to have a limited ability to kill these cells. That is why feverfew is so interesting.
Scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center have found that an extract of feverfew is effective against a type of human leukemia. Monica L. Guzman, PhD, and Craig T. Jordan, PhD, reported that feverfew extracts kill malignant stem cells like no other single therapy they have tested. The active ingredient is derived from parthenolide, one of a class of sesquiterpene lactones found in the plant. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been sufficiently excited by this work to accept it into the rapid access program, which aims to move experimental drugs from the laboratory to human clinical trials as quickly as possible.
"This research is a very important step in setting the stage for future development of a new therapy for leukemia," said Dr. Jordan. "We have proof that we can kill leukemia stem cells with this type of agent, and that is good news."
What is particularly exciting is that this feverfew extract is the first agent known to destroy myeloid leukemia at the level of the stem cells. Increasingly, cancer research is homing in on these primordial cells as the source of cancer. An increasing number of scientists believe that unless cancer is attacked at this level it can rarely be controlled, much less cured.
A 2006 study from Clemson University in North Carolina showed that parthenolide, considered the primary bioactive compound in golden feverfew, has anti-tumor activity. The scientists studied it against two human breast cancer and one human cervical cancer cell line. "Feverfew...extract inhibited the growth of all three types of cancer cells," they wrote. Of four feverfew components, parthenolide showed the highest inhibitory effect, although the other compounds work in concert with it in inhibiting cancer.
A 2004 phase I clinical trial from Purdue University in Indiana gave patients oral doses of feverfew, with up to 4 milligrams (mg) of parthenolide. The daily oral tablet was "well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicity." However, curiously, it did not provide detectable concentrations in the blood. So its exact mode of action remains a mystery (Currey 2004).
You can buy feverfew capsules in the health food store or over the Internet. For instance, one popular preparation of feverfew leaf sells for around 5¢ per 380 mg capsule. The manufacturer recommends one capsule three times per day, which brings the cost to around 15¢ to 20¢ per day. (This is considerably less expensive than many poorly documented anticancer drugs, such as Avastin, now selling for $100,000 per year.) The extract, Tanacet, used in the above-mentioned phase I clinical trial, is sometimes available over the Internet, as well.
You can also grow feverfew yourself. Johnny's Selected Seeds of Winslow, Maine, one of my favorite providers, offers 500 organically grown feverfew seeds for just $3.20. This cheerful plant is a perennial in temperate climates and will self-seed in colder climates. So a $3.20 investment can provide you with all the feverfew you are ever likely to need. No one can guarantee this herb will have any clinical anticancer effects. But, at the very least, these little charmers will adorn your kitchen table with a bouquet that is, to me, the very essence of summer.”

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

Chen T, Hwang H, Rose ME, Nines RG, Stoner GD. Chemopreventive properties of black raspberries in N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine-induced rat esophageal tumorigenesis: down-regulation of cyclooxygenase-2, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and c-Jun. Cancer Res. 2006;66:2853-2859.
Curry EA 3rd, Murry DJ, Yoder C, et al. Phase I dose escalation trial of feverfew with standardized doses of parthenolide in patients with cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2004;22:299-305.
Weil MJ, Zhang Y, Nair MG. Tumor cell proliferation and cyclooxygenase inhibitory constituents in horseradish (Armoracia rusticana) and Wasabi (Wasabia japonica). J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53:1440-1444.

Help support natural medicine in Colorado. Colorado does not currently regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine. Our state professional association, the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Physicians plans to introduce a bill into the Colorado Legislature. Please put your name on our association's mailing list. You will be kept informed of our legislative activity and we will be easily able to let you know when and to whom to write letters in support of our legislation. To sign up go to

We hope you find the information in these newsletters useful, informative and hopefully entertaining. If you want your name removed simply leave a message at the office (303-337-4884) or go to the website: and unsubscribe, or reply with the message "REMOVE" in the subject line. If on the other hand you want to be added to the mailing list follow the prior instructions but subscribe.
We are posting most of these newsletters in our 'NEWS' section of the website. The website versions contain more complete references and often abstracts of the references quoted and links to the full text of many of the journal articles mentioned. You don't have to be a patient to sign up and we encourage you to get your friends on our mailing list so you don't have to keep forwarding the newsletters that you find interesting.

Friday, May 05, 2006


RICH THOUGHT Click to learn more...,0,4799095.story?track=tothtml
From the Los Angeles Times
A rising tide that lifts only yachts
By Ezra Klein
EZRA KLEIN is a writing fellow for the American Prospect. He also writes a blog at

May 5, 2006

LAST WEEK WAS a good one for economists, as the normally dour practitioners of the dismal science got to use decidedly non-dismal, even exhilarating, words such as "surging" and "momentum" to describe the new quarterly growth numbers.

And they had cause for such enthusiasm. From January through March, the economy shot forward, growing by 4.8% — the largest increase in nearly three years and a stunningly rapid recovery after the previous quarter's Katrina-dampened 1.7%.

Economists, though, aren't the only ones excited. Floundering amid chaos in Iraq and corruption in Congress, Republicans are grasping at the good economic news of the last few years, seeing in it hints of electoral salvation.

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has promised "more happy talk about the economy" as part of his five-point plan for righting the president's poll numbers. And President Bush himself has been bragging that "thanks to tax relief, and spending restraint, and pro-growth economic policies, this economy is strong, businesses are booming and the people in this country are working."

Strangely, though, the public doesn't seem to be listening. Americans are more than twice as likely to give pollsters a negative assessment of the economy as a positive one — 64% disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy. It's strange. The macroeconomic numbers are decidedly robust, but the public remains determinedly glum.

If you dig a bit deeper than the base growth statistics, though, the picture clarifies considerably. Our economy has grown so starkly unequal that the statistician's view now says surprisingly little about the average American's experience. Last quarter may have seen 4.8% growth, but hidden in those numbers was a depressing factoid: Wages had only grown 0.7% — slower than housing, health or gasoline costs.

That's been the story of the last few years, a rising tide that lifts only yachts. It used to be that economic growth ensured wide benefits across society. But the last four years of economic expansion have been historic for the steadily increasing poverty rate — a depressing sign that inequality has so split the poor from the rich that the two hardly inhabit the same economy.

And it's not just the poor who've suffered. Research released last week by Tom Hertz of American University raised the troubling notion that inequality and economic insecurity have advanced so rapidly that the economic expansion of 2003 and 2004 was, in a variety of important ways, no better for the median American than the recession of 1990-91.

Take mobility. You often hear how our society is losing its permeability, how gumption and hard work no longer reliably propel you up the social ladder. What's not been mentioned is that, for everyone but the wealthy, it's become a whole lot easier to slide down.

From 1990 to 1991, 13% of households saw their income decline by $20,000 or more in real terms. In 2003-04, it was 16.6%. And the difference didn't come in steep falls for the rich; rather, the top income quintile saw a reduction in negative income mobility.

As for good ol' upward mobility, the median household was no more likely to move up the economic ladder during the 2003-04 expansion than it was during the 1990-91 recession. Think about that for a second — the average household's income was just as likely to increase during the last severe recession as the latest expansion. For most, the good times now are little better than the bad.

Meanwhile, health costs have increased almost 75% since 2000. And, according to a just-released study by the Commonwealth Fund, lack of insurance has become a decidedly working-class problem, with nearly 70% of the 49 million uninsured hailing from a family with at least one full-time worker.

Add in gasoline that's merrily creeping right past the $3.50-a-gallon mark, and a scorchingly hot housing market, and it's no wonder Gallup's "worry index" — a poll tracking public fears on seven economic issues — has recorded its highest-ever reading, marking us as the most economically anxious public since its inception six years ago.

The economy, despite what some economists and politicians think, isn't an abstraction, it's an experience. And the average American isn't experiencing 4.8% growth; he's experiencing increased income insecurity, wages lagging behind prices and deteriorating health benefits. Strong as the growth might be, a strong economy isn't much good if it's using those biceps to pummel the working class.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
TMS Reprints
Article licensing and reprint options

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help

partners: KTLA Hoy

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Addicted to war

Beer Spas: Yeast of Eden

Monday, May 01, 2006


NHNE News List
Current Members: 1438
Subscribe/unsubscribe/archive info at the bottom of this message.


By Stephan A. Schwartz
Explore / Schwartzreport
April 30, 2006

What could be more natural than wanting a healthy beautiful baby? Has there
ever been a time in history when parents, even in the midst of disasters and
despair, did not wish to be delivered of a healthy child? And who wouldn't
want to have a son or daughter who was as smart as Einstein, as athletic as
Michael Jordan, and as attractive as, well, name the person whose looks you
find most appealing? What could be more natural?

But this deep-seated drive when linked to the onrushing train of genetic
medicine is creating a trend that will shape -- both literally and
figuratively -- the future of our species. You haven't heard of this? It is
not surprising. The linkage and its implications have almost no place at the
table of the public conversation. Here are just a few examples of what I

Quietly in a laboratory in Vancouver, Robert Holt, head of sequencing for
the University of British Columbia's Genome Science Centre, is working to
create the first made to order life form -- what is being called 'synthetic
life' -- a microbe. Dr. Holt is part of a project led by Craig Venter,
former head of Celera Genomics, the private firm that mapped the human
genome in 2000. Dr. Venter makes it clear that he and his team have no
intention of stopping with microbes. Putting aside for the moment the
profound implications of creating a life-form from scratch, I mention this
principally because as Dr. Venter says, 'We're going from reading to writing
the genetic code.'

While Holt and Venter are finding out how to write our genetic code, Drs.
Elizabeth Fisher at the Institute of Neurology and Victor Tybulewicz at the
National Institute for Medical Research in London have perfected a technique
for successfully transplanting human chromosomes into mice. It is a
breakthrough holding the promise of transforming medical research into the
genetic causes of disease. The mice were genetically engineered to carry a
copy of human chromosome 21, a string of about 250 genes. About one in a
thousand people are born with an extra copy of this chromosome, which causes
Down's syndrome. These genetic studies will help scientists also discern
which genes are responsible for a wide range of medical conditions prevalent
among people with Down's syndrome, including impaired brain development,
Alzheimer's disease, heart defects, leukemia, and behavioural abnormalities.

Many have hailed the work but critics question whether such research does
not push the envelope of genetic manipulation too far, blurring the
boundaries that define what it means to be biologically human. And this is
but one in a wide range of research efforts.

During just the past two years, researchers have created pigs with human
blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA, and injected human stem cells to
make paralyzed mice walk.

Quite apart from the implications this research holds for the human species,
this intermingling contains another nightmare scenario that some geneticists
and medical ethicists have begun to take seriously. What if, by adding human
brain cells, a human mind somehow got trapped inside an animal brain? That
the Legend of NIMH came to life.

The 'idea that human neuronal cells might participate in 'higher order'
brain functions in a nonhuman animal, however unlikely that may be, raises
concerns that need to be considered,' a recent National Academies of Science
report warned.

While it is generally considered 'unlikely that grafting human stem cells
into the brains of non-human primates would alter the animals' abilities in
morally relevant ways,' the report committee 'also felt strongly that the
risk of doing so is real and too ethically important to ignore.'

The researchers admit they don't actually know what truly separates humans
from close relatives like the apes, nor how to measure the cognitive changes
that might occur in a non-human primate subjected to genetic alteration, let
alone any other animal species.

Moving directly into the domain of humans, Dr. Keith Chang of the Penn State
University College of Medicine in Hersey, part of a team searching for
cancer genes in zebrafish, discovered that the pigment cells of the fish
resembled those of light-skinned humans. It led the team to search for and
identify the specific zebrafish gene involved. They then identified the
human variant, a gene known as SLC24A5, and this line of research holds the
promise of letting us select a child's skin color. Imagine the unconsidered
consequences of that single genetic control.

More directly addressing disease, the U.S. government has begun a project
that will rival the original Human Genome effort in complexity -- a project
to unlock the genetic abnormalities that contribute to one of humanity's
scourges. The project will spend $100 million over three years on a pilot
phase, which will be called The Cancer Genome Atlas. The goal is new
diagnostic tests, as well as genetic treatment for that complex of diseases
we call cancer.

'This is a revolutionary project,' Anna D. Barker, deputy director of the
National Cancer Institute, said at a news briefing in Washington. 'It's
going to empower all cancer researchers with an entire new set of data to
work with.'

Meanwhile, at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, in the United Kingdom,
scientists led by Professor Doug Turnbull and Mary Herbert, have been given
permission to create human embryos that will have three genetic parents. The
researchers are undertaking the research, they say, because they want to
prevent inherited diseases caused by mutations in the mitochondrial DNA.
Mitochondria are inherited from the mother, and the team plans to replace
defective mitochondria in eggs with working ones from donor eggs. By merging
single-cell embryos with donated eggs they will produce humans with three
parents -- two mothers and a father. About one in 5,000 people carry such
defects. Most produce only mild effects, but some defects can result in
babies born or spontaneously aborted because of fatal brain, liver or kidney

What makes the technique particularly significant is that it takes genetic
engineering in the U.K. to a new level. At present gene therapy which alters
defective DNA can only be done when the changes produced do not pass on to
succeeding generations -- what is known as 'germ-line' genetic engineering.
The Newcastle research could result in children being born who would carry
added genes that would be passed on to all subsequent generations, thus,
breaking that barrier. In the future we may look back on this as the moment
when homo superiorus formally began.

What will be the effect on society when the most privileged segments of the
culture are functionally free of cancer? When they have none of the
hereditary diseases like heart disease, cystic fibrosis, or diabetes, which
have haunted humanity, going back into the undiscovered past? What is the
overall effect of one or more races being disease free, while other cultures
and racial groups are unable to afford such advantages? We not only don't
know the answer to these questions, we're not quite sure which are the
really important questions.

It is worth thinking for a moment about how all this might happen, because I
do not think governments will drive this process.

On an individual level, taken one-by-one, an single family's choice would
seem to be too insignificant to be a factor in the shaping the grander
concerns of history. But it is exactly a single family choice multiplied a
thousand fold that reshapes who, and what we are as humans. And because this
is not understood policies are developed without considering the role of
individual choice. As a result it is the unintended consequences that so
often predominate.

Just a little over 20 years ago, an eyeblink in historical time, the
Communist Chinese sought to address overpopulation through the now
well-known policy of one child per family. At the time the population of
China was closing in on a billion (today it is a little over 1.3 billion
souls). No one in government apparently thought through the unintended
consequences that a cultural predisposition to favor boys who could carry on
a family name, and provide support for aging parents, might create, given a
technology that could specify gender prenatally. The technology, of course,
became widespread almost as soon as the social policy decision was made,
driven by the cultural bias for boys, and individual families acted upon it
as soon as it was available. Now, two decades later, government census
figures show that there are 119 boys born for every 100 girls.

It may seem a small differential yet demographers now calculate that by 2020
about 40 million men will live out their lives as frustrated bachelors,
unable to find a wife.

The other unforeseen consequence is that the cultural predisposition to
treat boys, particularly when they are the family's only child-like little
princes has produced a range of unforeseen psychological effects, many

As the unintended consequences of the one child social policy have become
more and more apparent, the government has scrambled to find a way to
correct what it earlier set in motion. China has made a commitment to
reverse its gender skew by 2010 by launching a scheme of social programs,
including pensions to rural families with no sons, and education efforts
designed to teach peasants that 'girls are as good as boys'. Whether any of
this will work is far from clear, and many think China will be living with
the unintended consequences of its overly simplistic population control
measures for generations. This is not of just abstract interest. The rest of
us also have a horse in this race, because China is coming on to the world
stage as the next great superpower, just as spoiled only-child boys prepare
to become its leaders, not just at the top but throughout the infrastructure
of government and business.

This experience of China's is worthy of the closest examination, because it
gives us some clues about what is likely to happen as genetic medicine
techniques, and treatments come online.

Imagine a world in which parents not only have had all inherited chronic
disease edited out of their child's future, and all forms of genetic
malfunction corrected, but have ordered up the baby's features, skin color,
ultimate height, weight, intelligence, and emotional stability. Every
capability tweaked for the optimal. It sounds like science fiction; indeed,
it has been the stuff of science fiction for more than 50 years, but it is
increasingly science fact.

Now imagine how much greater than China's single child policy will be the
impact of such social engineering at the individual genetic level.

It amounts to marketplace driven eugenics. The term, eugenics, (from the
Greek eugenes or well-born) was coined in 1883 by Charles Darwin's cousin,
Francis Galton, who applied the emerging Darwinian science in the
development of theories concerning heredity and good birth. The idea of
improving the human species became a subject of real debate, and had a
robust scholarly literature until World War II, and the topic's embrace by
the Nazis. Those policies, combined with research scandals involving
institutionalized Blacks in America, made eugenics a taboo word and subject.
Perhaps that explains why the subject walks so lightly across our national
consciousness. Also eugenics is usually conceived as something a government
does, like the Hitlerian fantasy of creating the new Aryan man. The central
idea being that government directed programs are the driving force. But what
actually happens, as events on the ground in China (and a number of other
nations) show, is quite different. The driving force, actually, is
individual choice in the market place.

And can there be any doubt that a mother and father capable of obtaining any
of the advantages genetic medicine will offer will fight to get them for
their child? Would your parents? Would you?

Perhaps you questioned my inclusion earlier of 'emotional stability' on my
list wondering if genetics can really address one's emotional life? Consider
this, then:

At the Free University in Amsterdam and the University of Chicago research
teams have looked at data from 8,000 identical and non-identical twins. One
of their conclusions: genetics has a significant influence on loneliness,
which has been linked to physically defined illnesses like heart disease, as
well as emotional problems, such as anxiety, self-esteem, and sociability.
'The genetic contribution to individual differences in loneliness is
approximately 50%.'

Of course, all this that I am describing will only be taking place in the
high technology cultures in the West and East and, then, only amongst
families that can afford it. So what happens? Over time a growing number of
these children, scions of affluence, will be born and, in the due course of
things, will themselves become parents, passing on all the benefits they
have received. Their numbers, beginning in the thousands, will quickly grow
to hundreds of thousands and, eventually, millions as every family that can
afford to do so avails themselves of what is on offer. It will become an
issue of governmental policy. These individuals will effectively constitute
a subspecies of humans. The usual demographic breakdowns of location and
race will not obtain here. As one of the unintended consequences of U.S.
science being shaped by the Religious Right, The U.S. seems unlikely to
dominate the age of biology as it did the age of electronics. Asians,
Israelis, and Europeans are all represented in the intellectual arena
driving the genetic science. America will not control breakthroughs as it
did, and in many ways still does, in electronic information technologies.
And as Asian millionaires, particularly, come into their own power, just as
the genetic technology to achieve such aims becomes a reality, who can not
believe they will make use of it? Perhaps the novels of William Gibson are
clairvoyant in this respect. What is convincing is that what authoritarian
governments could not quite pull off, market forces seem poised to carry

Slowly, but with gathering speed, and without much public discussion, we are
seeing the creation of a new sub-species of human: homo superiorus. What
that means we should start thinking about.

See original article for references:


Monday, April 10, 2006


Please note: This document is to be used for reference purposes only. The printed manual is the official version.

The Committee is in the process of revising and updating this Manual, which was published in 1992. On any subject, both the Manual and the Committee's advisory memoranda should be consulted. The advisory memoranda are organized by subject in the Highlights of the Ethics Rules.
102d Congress, 2d Session
* * *

1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.

2. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House of Representatives and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.

3. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall receive no compensation nor shall he permit any compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in the Congress.

4. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall not accept gifts (other than personal hospitality of an individual or with a fair market value of $100 or less) * * * in any calendar year aggregating more than * * * $250, * * * directly or indirectly, from any person (other than from a relative) except to the extent permitted by written waiver granted in exceptional circumstances by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 4(e)(1)(E) of rule X.

5. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives, shall accept no honorarium for a speech, writing for publication, or other similar activity.

6. A Member of the House of Representatives shall keep his campaign funds separate from his personal funds. A Member shall convert no campaign funds to personal use in excess of reimbursement for legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures and shall expend no funds from his campaign account not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.

7. A Member of the House of Representatives shall treat as campaign contributions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or other fund raising events.

8. A Member or officer of the House of Representatives shall retain no one under his payroll authority who does not perform official duties commensurate with the compensation received in the offices of the employing authority. In the case of committee employees who work under the direct supervision of a Member other than a chairman, the chairman may require that such Member affirm in writing that the employees have complied with the preceding sentence (subject to clause 6 of rule XI) as evidence of the chairman's compliance with this clause and with clause 6 of rule XI.

9. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall not discharge or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex (including marital or parental status), age, or national origin, but may take into consideration the domicile or political affiliation of such individual.

10. A Member of the House of Representatives who has been convicted by a court of record for the commission of a crime for which a sentence of two or more years' imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation in the business of each committee of which he is a member and should refrain from voting on any question at a meeting of the House, or of the Committee of the Whole House, unless or until judicial or executive proceedings result in reinstatement of the presumption of his innocence or until he is reelected to the House after the date of such conviction.

11. A Member of the House of Representatives shall not authorize or otherwise allow a non-House individual, group, or organization to use the words ``Congress of the United States'', ``House of Representatives'', or ``Official Business'', or any combination of words thereof, on any letterhead or envelope.

12. (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), any employee of the House of Representatives who is required to file a report pursuant to rule XLIV shall refrain from participating personally and substantially as an employee of the House of Representatives in any contact with any agency of the executive or judicial branch of Government with respect to nonlegislative matters affecting any nongovernmental person in which the employee has a significant financial interest.

(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply if an employee first advises his employing authority of his significant financial interest and obtains from his employing authority a written waiver stating that the participation of the employee is necessary. A copy of each such waiver shall be filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
* * *
Resolved by the House of Representatives {the Senate concurring}, That it is the sense of the Congress that the following Code of Ethics should be adhered to by all Government employees, including officeholders:
Any person in Government service should:

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.

4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.

6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.

8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.

9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

(Passed July 11, 1958.)
Table of Contents of the Ethics Manual

* Chapter 1 .General Ethical Standards:
* Chapter 2 .(This Chapter has been replaced with the publication of the Gifts and Travel Booklet in April 2000)
* Chapter 3 .Outside Employment and Income of Members, Officers, Employees, and Spouses:
* Chapter 4 .Financial Disclosure:
* Chapter 5 .Staff Rights and Duties:
* Chapter 6 .Official Allowances and Franking:
* Chapter 7 .Casework Considerations:
* Chapter 8. (This Chapter has been replaced with the publication of Campaign Activity in December of 2001)
* Chapter 9 .Involvement with Official and Unofficial Organizations:
* Appendices


Friday, April 07, 2006


Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance!" The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ they never will. ... It is for us then to do as our heroes have always done and put our faith in the perfect redeeming love of Jesus Christ."
--Tom DeLay

Friday, March 24, 2006

old thought

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.
You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)