Asshole indeed. Why isn't being comfortably rich enough for some people? I doubt it's because they care about the little guy or give a shit about anyone but their own lust for power. I'm sure he'll be running for POTUS 2010 or 12

From Wikipedia: On September 30, 2008, reports emerged that Bloomberg was seeking to amend the law,[6] and on October 2, 2008, he announced plans to request the removal or extension of term limits for current office holders. On October 23, 2008 the New York City Council voted 29-22 in favor of extending the term limit to three consecutive four-year terms, thus allowing both Bloomberg and council members in their second terms to run for office again.[7] During the amendment campaign, Bloomberg's administration requested the support of certain nonprofit groups, which attracted some criticism because these groups have received large donations from the mayor in the past.

Why don't they just vote themselves terms for life?

The guy has been a Republican, Democrat, and now an independent. He'll be whatever he needs to be to get elected.

I hate politicians.

^Farhad2000,

I hate to call conspiracy, but there is a lot of opportunism in the government. These figures are reported by they very group that depends on them the most (our government). I think the article does a good job of detailing how numbers can and are manipulated for personal gain. I can imagine that however bad these figures look (like Graph 1), they would look much worse if collected by independent nonprofit groups.

DEMOCROOKS

$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.

$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.

$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.

$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Government-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.

$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."

$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.

$1,646,000,000,000: ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
They just want it to dwindle away naturally once all the perks religion has on behalf of nonbelievers are banished.
Naturally dwindle away once perks religion has on behalf of non-believers are banished... I don't understand that sentence. What does it mean exactly?
Regardless, the central position of some of these atheists seems to be that religion ISN'T just dwindling away. In fact, they seem quite alarmed by the fact that the opposite is happening. Therefore they are wanting to suppress/oppress religion in order to prime the dwindling pump so to speak.

I don't want to ban religion, I think it's dangerous and I've given examples why, but if you practice a religion because you think it makes you a better person and in doing so don't deny others their chance at a full and happy life, that's fine.
I'll settle for two simple things:
1) Get religion out of school curriculums. I don't care if kids want to pray or don't believe in evolution, so long as the Church hasn't forced the school to provide time for prayer and label evolution as "Just a theory". And if you don't want your kids having sex fine teach them not to have sex, but if we're going to have any kind of sex ed programs they should be comprehensive not abstinence only (which we know doesn't work).
2) Strip religion of it's political power. When a piece of legislation's only basis is Bible verse, it shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot. Faith based governmental programs, they can go too. And lets also get rid of tax exempt status for churches, if they've got the millions to spend on advertising and propaganda campaigns they can do their part to pay for our government.
The above suggestions aren't terrible or drastic. I won't expect to see them ever put into practice, but it'd be nice to see more people advocating them.


1) Religion is and has been out of public school curriculum for quite some time now. As per sex ed, well I havent been in High School for almost 10 years but when I was we were NOT taught abstinence only. It should be noted that I graduated from Sapulpa, OK, THE buckle of the Bible Belt.

2) I am 100% FOR separation of Church and State. I'm pretty sure this is just an over the top statement but, "When a piece of legislation's only basis is Bible verse, it shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot" if you actually believed this is what happens then perhaps our government and system of laws is FAR more muffed up than we realize.

Rid tax exemption from religion? I'm positive now that this is an angry rant rather than a constructive, thought out, criticism. Firstly, take away religious tax exemption and probably more than half of non profit charities bankrupt overnight. My dad was a minister for almost 40 years. I think the largest congregation he ever pastored was somewhere around 400. Most were 50-200. You may not be familiar with pastoral income which is understandable but NO ONE gets into the ministry for the money. That's not to say that the "megachurches" dont bring in a substantial amount of income. They do. And yes, there are churches or pastors who DO take unfair advantages of these exemptions (most notably Benny Hinn and his nutjob squad).
From a business standpoint, a Church is a nonprofit organization. Take for example my dad. The money he received as "salary" came from the offerings of the congregation. My dad being a good steward took a small fraction of it as his pay. The bulk of it went to bills. It costs money to lease a building to hold services. It costs money to power and heat/cool this building. What was left after that went to community outreach programs. Food drives, house care services, holding services for the Nursing Home (at their request) etc etc. If we wanted to attend things such as church camps or youth conventions, that money came out of our pocket or from fundraisers.
In fact most pastors that I know, and I know a whooooooooole lot, have 2 or 3 jobs. Pastoring is a part time job for most BECAUSE of the "pay".

Anyway, it's understandable the frustration, it really is. I am not exempt from this. But feeding off of one's emotions and acting out of anger are no ways to solve problems

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^So YOU have a list of a every single donor to Equality For All?
[edit] ps V - You're welcome.


Look maaaaaaan, "every single donor" to EFA didn't produce this video. It was Marc Shaiman, Will Ferrell, and Adam McKay (who own funnyordie). Jack Black and the others were called by them, and they agreed.

I wasn't "castigating" every lighting technician, grip and sound designer of this video, and either you know it and are just trying to 'win', or you don't and are making a fool of yourself.

Shaiman (who's idea this was, AFTER Nov 4th) has only contributed to this "protest" movement twice. Once in this video, and once to get Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater (the state's biggest nonprofit musical theater company) fired.



So KP - I gave as much as most of these people, who are mostly obscenely wealthy. And I'm fucking skint. Wow, what heroes they are!!!

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

YES! I very much do disagree! If you took 9.9million from this dude with 10 million dollars he's still got 100,000 bucks! If you take 9,900 from a dude with 10,000 bucks, that guy is going to have a much, much harder time then that dude who lost a lot more but had a lot more to lose. You see what I'm saying? Again this is oversimplifying the situation to such a degree that its not worth arguing about, but I'm not comfortable leaving my position unclear on this point.

What person is going to be okay with losing 9.9 million dollars or 99% of their wealth? Why would anyone risk losing 99% of their total wealth when they can protect it by paying a mere 7% on their annual income? My guess is that everyone would donate to police and national defense because no one wants to lose 99% of their money. My point was that even if all the poor people didn't contribute the rich people would pay for it in its entirety because given the choice between 7% of their income or 100% of their wealth, any economically minded person is going to choose the former!

One however, can take it to the extreme to show that your logic breaks down. Imagine an example where one man has $1 trillion and another has $1 dollar. Who benefits most from a police/national defense system? if you take away 99% from each man, does your argument still work? How can changing the dollar amounts possibly change the principle? All that matters is those who have more, have more to lose, and thus benefit most from protection of what they have.

What you're really saying is that the millionaire is a better target, thus he would want to have better defense of his assets. But why couldn't he do this privately? Buy some guns, some dogs, some fences, some security guards. And what neighborhoods are the most crime-ridden? I'll give you a hint, ... no I'll just tell you answer; its poor neighborhoods. So maybe now you have a grasp as to why I thought this was the most outrageous of your claims.

How are the fences and security guards going to help him when China invades, or when 1000 poor people form a mob and storm his house? How much would you have to pay a security guard, in a system of anarchy, to guard $10 million? How will he live a normal life when everyone knows who he is and how much money he has? How can he walk down the street? Is he to remain in his fortress, if so what kind of life is that? This is the point I was making--everyone benefits from a police system and national defense, but the rich people benefit the most precisely because they have the most to fear, and the most to lose.

Maybe what you're referring to are Non-Governmental Organization, and not Non-Profit Organizations? Non-profits are not able to compete with private businesses if their funding/property/assets/operations are taxed. There would be absolutely no point to have a non-profit company if there was no tax incentive to do so. If there were no taxes on any businesses then nonprofits would not exist as they do today... their entire structure is based around being tax exempt. So,... um... yeah! Sorry to break the news to you!

Thats just not true. The majority of todays non-profits were formed in the 19th century (red cross, salvation army, art museums, etc.) when there was no income tax, and taxes were a very small portion of peoples income, and there was little to no regulation in the economy. If you think that people only donate blood, or only appreciate art, or only listen to operas, or only donate clothes, food, or help the homeless because of tax incentives, then you really have a sad view of humanity.

A person strictly interested in their individual choices would by necessity disregard the choices of everyone else! There are not individual rights in strict individualism, because there is no community to guarantee these rights. Its every man for himself.

Thats not what "the right to life" is about. Did you read my definition on my bio? It clearly says this: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." It specifically says you cannot violate the rights of others.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That is complete nonsense. Its such a nonsensical statement that the opposite argument is much more compelling to my ear (though still a wild oversimplification), that poor people who don't have the ability to replace stolen goods, repair damages, file lawsuits or pay for insurance, would be more concerned with funding collective security, as they could be wiped out completely by a single incident.

I am saying that someone with $10 million has more to lose than someone with $10,000. You disagree? If china invades tomorrow and loots the entire country, who loses more? If there are no police who is more likely to be kidnapped for ransom--the millionaire or the pauper? With no legal system, whose house will be the first to be burglarized, the mansion on the hill or the one bedroom apartment in the city?

Do you know why people form nonprofits? Because you don't pay taxes on things related to the organization, but in-turn all the money you generate can only be spent to benefit the nonprofit. The whole point of your column here was you want to make taxes voluntary... so, uh, yeah, I think what you mean instead of 'nonprofit' is 'board', or 'committee'... and those things we already have.

If your argument is true, that people only give to charity for tax breaks, or only form charity organizations for tax shelter, we are a sorry lot indeed, and the community most definitely should not be trusted.

Anyhow, I'm not going to go through and bust your balls on everything that makes no sense in this... strict individualists are by definition anarchists while strict collectivists are communists...

I would argue that anyone who is an anarchist is not an individualist, as there can be no law in anarchy, and without law, there are no individual rights.

I respect that you're trying to find your position towards the individualist side of the spectrum, but as a general statement I think you're system is all over the place, with individuals being selfish but not that selfish and on and on...

That is how the "invisible hand" works. Even though people are acting in their own selfish interest, they end up benefiting the community at large. It is one of the most important principles of the market. Just look at the quote in my bio:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The butcher ends up providing dinner for thousands of people--do you think he does that out of the goodness of his heart? No, he does it for the selfish reason that he gets paid. Same thing with the doctor. Do you think the doctor spends 8 years in medical school and 60 hours a week because he wants everyone to be healthy? No, he does it because he gets paid well. Part of him likely enjoys helping others, but that too is a selfish interest.

Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle). I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

He uses class warfare. A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?


Wiki: Stanley Kurtz of the National Review criticizes black liberation theology, saying, "A scarcely concealed, Marxist-inspired indictment of American capitalism pervades contemporary 'black-liberation theology'...The black intellectual's goal, says Cone, is to "aid in the destruction of America as he knows it." Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. The black-power theologian's goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will "tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil."


And there's this:

"Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service." . . .

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. . .

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky. . .

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." . . .

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation." . . .

It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion."


What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset. Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there. And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.

The 'Obamic equation' is symptomatic of a larger malaise gripping America that will likely culminate in a second civil war, which so far has remained only a cultural war of values. His election or defeat will merely hasten or delay the inevitable.

Should Obama win, I happily vow to be here to remind you all every day, as things worsen with his repetition of past economic and policy blunders, that they didn't have to be this way.

Gina Solomon is a specialist in adult internal medicine, preventive medicine, and occupational and environmental medicine. She is a Senior Scientist in the Health and Environment Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national nonprofit organization with over 550,000 members dedicated to the protection of public health and the environment.

Dr. Solomon is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco where she is an attending physician at the U.C. Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. Her work has included research on asthma, diesel exhaust, breast cancer, pesticides, contaminants in breast milk, and threats to reproductive health and child development.

Dr. Solomon attended medical school at Yale and did her residency and fellowship training at Harvard.

*****

Dr. Susan Kegley is an organic chemist with expertise in pesticide toxicology, pollutant fate and transport; environmental monitoring and analytical chemistry; and experience with pesticide regulation, pesticide data sources and the pesticide toxicology and epidemiology literature.

After 14 years of teaching, research and curriculum development in academia, Dr. Kegley worked as a Senior Scientist for nine years at Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-governmental, non-profit organization that works to promote sustainable alternatives to toxic pesticides.

Dr. Kegley started Pesticide Research Institute in 2006.

*****

Tyrone Hayes is a professor in the Department of Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley. His research focuses on the role of steroid hormones in amphibian development and he conducts both laboratory and field studies in the U.S. and Africa. The two main areas of interest are metamorphosis and sex differentiation.

His work addresses problems on several levels including ecological, organismal, and molecular questions. Studies examine the effects of temperature on developmental rates, interactions between the thyroid hormones and steroids, and hormonal regulation of skin gland development.

REMBAR

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.

Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.

I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.

So are you are saying the original site I quoted cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? You and Doc both make the blanket statement that if the site is biased, then it cannot be trusted. If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.
Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.
I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the National Research Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public and the scientific and engineering communities. The Research Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine through the National Research Council Governing Board. The chairman of the National Research Council is Ralph J. Cicerone.


So are you are saying this site cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given.

In addition, for the record, Qruel, when you are citing evidence in an argument, do not choose headlines written that misrepresent the studies that are being cited. Doc_M's criticism of your citing a biased website rather than the actual studies in question was very legitimate, and appropriate in this particular case. If you want to cite studies, cite studies, don't quote somebody "quoting" from a study. This is a good reason for using primary documents in a scientific debate. For example, the first study, represented as "1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe"...well, I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe), and guess what it reads? It says that high doses of fluoride have been proven to cause health problems (which had already been well-documented), but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.

And for a bit of further reading, check out Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993), which has such little gems as : "More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relation between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and human cancer. With minor exceptions, these studies used the method of geographic or temporal comparisons of fluoridation status and regional cancer rates. There is no consistent observation of increased cancer risk with drinking-water fluoridation; most of the studies show no association. The large number of epidemiological studies combined with their lack of positive findings implies that if any link exists, it must be very weak."

A very simple but interesting exercise might be to ask your local dentist the next time you go for a checkup what he or she thinks of fluoride.

The Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz, a nonprofit education organization, was founded in 1986 by the Monk family along with the late Maria Fisher, an opera singer and lifelong devotee of music. Its mission is to offer the world's most promising young musicians college level training by America's jazz masters and to present public school-based jazz education programs for young people around the world.

Here is the institutes's ensemble performing 'Thestrals' live at Tokyo Jazz. I reccomend checking out MLX's wonderful playlist Nothing But The Blues.