Monday, May 21, 2007


The Nastiest Comment of the 2008 Presidential Campaign (So Far) Award goes to...John McCain. From the political blog of The New York Daily Sun:

Mitt Romney has been trying to make quite a bit of political hay out of the compromise immigration bill--he sees it as one of John McCain's key weaknesses as relates to the Republican base and a great way to differentiate himself as the One True Conservative in the race (at least until Fred Thompson jumps in). Well, today, on a conference call with bloggers, Mr. McCain fired back at the former Massachusetts governor, who has (of course) held varying positions on immigration over the years.

"Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if it changes," Mr. McCain said of Mr. Romney's position on immigration this week. "Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard."

Ouch. Will that acerbic sense of humor of the old Navy fighter pilot help or hurt him in the months ahead? Zingers can work wonders in politics. ("I knew Jack Kennedy...." Then again, Lloyd Bentsen didn't become vice president; Dan Quayle did.) But attacks can sometimes be read as signs of desperation. Is it a coincidence that McCain hit Romney this way on a day when a new poll in Iowa shows Romney leading McCain 30 to 18 percent among like Republican caucus goers, with Rudy Giuliani claiming 17 percent? I think not.

Buckle up. There's plenty of time for this race--and the Democratic contest--to get far more bitter.

WHERE'S PINKERTON? No, Jim and I have no split up as sparring partners. But this week I appear on BHTV with another interlocutor: Peter Bergen, noted al Qaeda and terrorism expert (and an old friend). He's just back from Afghanistan, and we discuss the situation there and the situation in Iraq. And he tells me just how scared we should be of al Qaeda and other Islamic jihadists. Watch it here.

Please send tips, leads, comments, and complaints to

Posted by David Corn at May 21, 2007 03:33 PM


capt said...

Mr. David Corn,

There is plenty of time to start looking presidential too? Although I bet bitterness and nastiness will be the rule.

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
~ H. L. Mencken


capt said...

Pinkerton falsely claimed CNN showed photo "still" juxtaposing Falwell and Hitler

On the May 19 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch, Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton asserted that, during its coverage of Rev. Jerry Falwell's May 15 death, CNN featured "a picture of Falwell and [Adolf] Hitler together" as "kind of their idea of what he [Falwell] ought to be." When host Eric Burns asked Pinkerton what CNN "sa[id] when they ran the picture," Pinkerton responded that "[t]hey didn't," adding, "[A] picture is worth a million words." Pinkerton also said, falsely, that the image was a "still" of "Falwell and Hitler together." In fact, the image to which Pinkerton referred appeared in archived footage of a demonstration in which protesters held placards featuring the faces of Falwell, Hitler, and other prominent political figures -- each emblazoned with the word "GUILTY." CNN aired the video as part of a broad segment on Falwell's supporters and opponents. CNN did not, as Pinkerton suggested, air photographs of Falwell alongside those of Hitler, in an attempt to equate Falwell with the former leader of the Third Reich.


*****end of clip*****

This is the guy we are suppose to take seriously?


capt said...

Dems Set War Bill Without Iraq Timeline

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.


*****end of clip*****

Wow, now that we have THAT out of the way . . .

Now as the occupation persists and our troops and Iraqis die by the thousands the Democrats can accept the whole mess as theirs because the old saying will apply - "you bought it you own it" and you can darn well bet the neocons will hang the funding around the necks of the spineless dumbocrats and most of the voting public will blame the D's for their fecklessness. (as fully expected).


capt said...

He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself: Joseph Pulitzer

Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy" : John Pierpont Morgan

We have got rid of the fetish of the divine right of kings, and that slavery is of divine origin and authority. But the divine right of property has taken its place. The tendency plainly is towards .. "a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich." : Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822-1893), U.S. president.


Thanks ICH Newsletter!

David B. Benson said...

Looks like Bush's War is goind from bad to worse...

capt said...

Citing Bush's dismal approval ratings, Pinkerton claimed he is "hanging in there" and not in "such bad shape"

In his April 17 column, Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton asked: "If [President] Bush is falling apart so dramatically that he is in danger of simply vanishing, how come he's hanging in there in the polls?" Pinkerton noted that "Bush's average approval rating" in April 2007 is 34.6 percent and was 35.6 percent in April 2006. He then added: "Neither number is impressive, but what's clear is that Bush is hanging in there, approval-wise." But in characterizing Bush as "hanging in there," Pinkerton -- exhibiting a tendency on the part of many in the media, repeatedly documented by Media Matters for America, of presenting Bush's low poll numbers in as positive a light as possible -- ignored Bush's polling status relative to that of other recent presidents.

Further, Pinkerton claimed that Bush's approval ratings look better when viewed relative to "the Democrats who now control Congress." Pinkerton wrote: "The president doesn't look so good. But if the Congress doesn't look so good either -- then the president isn't in such bad shape." However, the two Democratic leaders he cited in the column -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) -- both have significantly higher approval ratings than Bush.


capt said...

Surprise Increase in Global Carbon Dioxide Output

Carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated globally at a greater rate than expected in recent years, scientists announced today.

The average growth rate of the emissions increased from 1.1 percent a year in the 1990s to 3 percent increase per year since 2000, according to a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas that serves like a blanket, trapping heat and warming the atmosphere.

"A major driver of the accelerating growth rate in emissions is that, globally, we're burning more carbon per dollar of wealth created," said lead author Mike Raupach from the Marine and Atmospheric Research and the Global Carbon Project in Australia. "In the last few years, the global usage of fossil fuels has actually become less efficient. This adds to pressures from increasing population and wealth."


*****end of clip*****

I guess Exxonmobile has gotten its moneys worth.


Gerald said...

The War Casualties You're Not Hearing

Gerald said...

Keep Out the Vote

Gerald said...

"Fight, rape, war, pillage, burn. Filmic images of death and carnage are pornography for the military man.''

—Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by former sniper Anthony Swofford (Scribner, 2003).

Gerald said...

"My force was standing knee-deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a dead goat, or a chicken, or song-bird, as the people were dead, their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs."

—quoted in A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide (Zed Books, 2000), pp 174-5.

Gerald said...

I'm sharing a couple of quotes that must be music to the ears of Nazi Americans who are continually glorified by endless death and destruction of humanity.

Gerald said...

Praying Each Day: May 22

Gerald said...

Let us continually love humanity by touching the face of Jesus.

Picture Jesus to your own image and likeness and touch His face through our behaviors of love and mercy to all of our brothers and sisters in God.

capt said...

House Dems backing down on Iraq

After weeks of refusing to back down to President Bush on setting a timetable on the Iraq war, House Democratic leaders soon will be in the awkward position of explaining to members why they feel they must.

Party officials said Monday the next war spending bill most likely will fund military operations and not demand a timeline to bring troops home, although it will contain other restrictions on Bush's Iraq policies.

On May 1, Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have paid for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September as Bush requested, but demanded that troops start coming home this fall.

Democrats say they hope to send Bush a new bill by the end of the week he will sign, and troops in combat will get the resources they need without disruption.

"I'm frustrated" with the war, said Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., a member of the Blue Dog coalition, a group of conservative Democrats. "But we realize too we have a responsibility to fund our troops and make sure they have the right equipment."

But Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately — or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.

The details of the Democrats' new bill remained in flux late Monday, as Rep. David Obey was tasked with negotiating with the Senate and White House. Obey, D-Wis., is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Officials said the legislation was expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society. Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said softening such a restriction might not be necessary to get the president's support.

"I think at some juncture, the American people are going to say 'Mr. President, you made your point. Now sign the bill,'" said Hoyer, D-Md.

The bill also was expected to insist that U.S. troops meet certain standards before being sent into battle, out of concern from Democrats that some troops were going to Iraq without proper training. But the measure likely would give the president authority to waive this restriction.

Even if deadlines for troop withdrawals are dropped as expected, Democratic leaders are claiming victory in the high-profile fight with Bush.

For weeks, the president demanded Congress send him a "clean" bill without any restrictions on the war. Last week, a top aide told Democrats the president would accept legislation drafted by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would restrict U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on political and security reforms. That proposal, however, included a presidential waiver that would have allowed Bush to ignore the restriction.

The Democrats' new bill also was expected to include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January.

White House officials have said Bush was amenable to accepting an increase in the minimum wage, although they and key GOP lawmakers favor larger tax cuts to accompany the measure.


capt said...

Today's Democrats - no different than the corrupt GOP

Ethics Deform: Let's get ours first.

Seven Heroes vs. many more culprits. So much for any hope that the Democrat Party will be an improvement over the Republic Party. It was a faint hope to start with; but even faint hopes in our political quagmire are a waste of time.

First, the Heroes: Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Chris Murphy, Zack Space, Baron Hill, Paul Hodes, and Betty Sutton. They pushed forward to pass some ethics rules that would (SLIGHTLY) change the illegal and immoral behavior that permeates the House of Representatives. One aspect would limit how soon a congresscritter could stop pretending that he/she represents the people, and take their money directly as a lobbyist. Another would demand that lobbyists report each and every donation, and ban the "group" bribes they currently use to avoid disclosure.

I take my hat off to this group. Pity it is so small.

As weak and watered down as these proposed ethics rules were, too many DEMOCRATS in office think that they are too strong. Steny "Where's Mine" Hoyer leads his merry little band of greedy, money-grubbing, lobby-ist loving, paid political warriors for K-Street.

One of the arguments these scum-buckets have raised is that it is unfair to increase the time from congress to K-Street from one year to two. Another is that the "people" would not appreciate their ethics reform efforts, so why bother?


One thing is painfully clear. We have replaced one set of corrupt, greedy, small-minded criminal pols with another. Same behavior, different label. If ever there was a time for a new political party, a clean, ethical, unbribable, moral and constitutional protecting party, now is the time. It may be too late.


*****end of clip*****

The problem is that we didn't do ANYTHING except add about 30 names to the D's list. All others were there before and incumbency is the poison pill that spoiled the D's celebration for me.

Still looking for my party hat. Where are all the partisans? None are honest enough to actually admit they were a little premature with their celebrations and the slack they were asking for. Sure the Dem's will save us all and I am just too negative. (tee hee)


capt said...

Congress Must Do Its Duty

Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president "mismanaged" the war, they say. "It's all the president's fault," they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.

More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .

According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don't think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a "continuing threat" to the United States.

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president's handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.


capt said...

Democrats Drop Insistence on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

The major concession to the president on the war spending bill comes as leaders in Congress cannot muster veto-proof majorities.
Washington - Scrambling to send President Bush an emergency war spending bill he will sign, Democratic leaders have decided to drop their insistence on a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

The move - which comes just days after senior Democrats insisted that White House officials should support nonbinding timelines - is a significant concession to the president and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, who steadfastly have rejected any dates for bringing U.S. troops home.

But it reflects the simple mathematics of a closely divided Congress in which Democrats cannot muster veto-proof majorities for any proposal that would compel a pullout.

Democratic lawmakers are under pressure to send the president an emergency spending bill before the Memorial Day break or risk being blamed for withholding critical funding for U.S. troops.

Under the developing Democratic plan, which leaders still are negotiating, Congress would fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year, according to sources familiar with the proposal.

Democrats also are working to include a minimum-wage hike in the funding bill in an effort to push that long-delayed legislative priority into law.

But further discussion of withdrawal timelines that have been central to the Democratic legislative campaign to end the war would have to be delayed until Congress considers other legislation, probably the defense appropriations bill necessary to fund the military for fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. Democrats plan to take up that bill later this summer.

More immediately, Democratic leaders must rally majorities for an emergency spending bill that might be deeply disappointing to the party's most vehement war critics.

Many members of the House's influential Out of Iraq Caucus have said they will not support any legislation that does not attach strict conditions to the continued deployment of U.S. troops.

And as recently as Friday, the top two Democrats in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, insisted on a nonbinding timeline at a meeting with top White House officials.

White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten emphatically rejected any timelines at the meeting, signaling White House support only for a far less restrictive proposal linking economic aid to the performance of the Iraqi government.

That approach, which senior Democrats are looking at incorporating into the bill being finalized this week, has won broad support among GOP lawmakers.

Last week, 52 senators, including 44 Republicans, voted to support a similar proposal sponsored by GOP Sens. John W. Warner of Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine.

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the second-ranking Republican in the House, said Monday that such a proposal might be attractive to GOP members of the House as well.

Meanwhile, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a leading war critic and member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Monday she would be looking for Democratic leaders to explain when timelines will be passed if they are not part of the emergency spending bill.


*****end of clip*****

It does not take "veto proof" majorities to pass a bill. Bush doesn't have the stones to actually do anything he is quite capable at conning and lying and the D's are hereby enabling Bush to con and lie. Shameful.

Worse the $125 billion dollars is just enough to attack Iran.


capt said...

Bush could double force by Christmas

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

The first surge was prominently announced by President Bush in a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, when he ordered five more combat brigades to join 15 brigades already in Iraq.

The buildup was designed to give commanders the 20 combat brigades Pentagon planners said were needed to provide security in Baghdad and western Anbar province.

Since then, the Pentagon has extended combat tours for units in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months and announced the deployment of additional brigades.

Taken together, the steps could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, according the deployment orders examined by Hearst Newspapers.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey said there was no effort by the Army to carry out "a secret surge" beyond the 20 combat brigades ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"There isn't a second surge going on; we've got what we've got," Ey said. "The idea that there are ever going to be more combat brigades in theater in the future than the secretary of defense has authorized is pure speculation."

Ey attributed the increase in troops to "temporary increases that typically occur during the crossover period" as arriving combat brigades move into position to replace departing combat brigades.

He said that only elements of the eight additional combat brigades beyond the 20 already authorized would actually be in Iraq in December.

The U.S. Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., that tracks combat forces heading to and returning from Iraq, declined to discuss unit-by-unit deployments.

"Due to operational security, we cannot confirm or discuss military unit movements or schedules," Navy Lt. Jereal Dorsey said in an e-mail.

The Pentagon has repeatedly extended unit tours in Iraq during the past four years to achieve temporary increases in combat power. For example, three combat brigades were extended up to three months in November 2004 to boost the number of U.S. troops from 138,000 to 150,000 before, during and after the Jan. 30, 2005, Iraqi national elections.

Lawrence Korb, an assistant defense secretary for manpower during the Reagan administration, said the Pentagon deployment schedule enables the Bush administration to achieve quick increases in combat forces in the future by delaying units' scheduled departures from Iraq and overlapping them with arriving replacement forces.

"The administration is giving itself the capability to increase the number of troops in Iraq," Korb said. "It remains to be seen whether they actually choose to do that."

Nash said the capability could reflect an effort by the Bush administration to "get the number of troops into Iraq that we've needed there all along."


*****end of clip*****

Over a hundred billion buys a bunch of surges. If the second surge doesn't do it maybe the D's will give Crusader Bunnypants another hundred billion, then another, then another. Maybe the GOPhers will get a sense of the will of the people and stop the funding? (not bloody likely)


capt said...

$8B of pork: Dems take 60 percent

The House last week approved about $8 billion in earmarks as part of the 2008 defense authorization bill, with the wealth shared by both Democrats and Republicans.

Given their majority, however, Democrats claimed close to 60 percent of the bill’s earmarks.

Because of new House rules, for the first time the earmarks have been disclosed as part of the bill’s report. The current list of earmarks includes the budget account, the project description, the intended recipient and beneficiary as well as the name of the requesting member. This year, the House approved a $504 billion defense authorization bill.

Among the requesters, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has one earmark in the bill, for $10 million for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, as part of the military construction portion of the defense budget.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) had five projects approved as part of the defense authorization bill, totaling almost $20 million. Among Hoyer’s beneficiaries are the Honeywell Corp in La Plata, Md., for the so-called Blossom Point Satellite Facility; the Naval Air Warfare Center Air Craft Division at Patuxent River, Md., for a communications upgrade on the DDG-ship; the Navy’s Special Warfare Center at Indian Head, Md., for high-energy conventional energetics; and Virginia-based Infosystems Technology Inc., which builds the Rubix multi-level security database.


*****end of clip*****

60% of the pork? That is what the majority buys? No end to the war, no saying NO to Bunnypants and his insane war just more pork.


capt said...

Pentagon Making Preparations To Keep Tens Of Thousands Of Troops In Iraq For ‘Decades’

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee this month, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace uttered a "carefully worded" statement revealing that the Pentagon had no plans to fully withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if legislation passes Congress mandating troop redeployment:

PACE: Sir, we have published no orders directing the planning for the overall withdrawal of forces. We do have ongoing replacements of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system is available to either plus-up or draw down, but we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown.

NPR investigated Pace’s statements and found one scenario being considered within the Pentagon would maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq for several decades into the future.

This so-called "lily pad" strategy entails keeping a "series of military installations around Iraq," with tens of thousands of U.S. troops remaining in the country for as long as a few decades:

[W]hat it essentially envisions is a series of military installations around Iraq, maybe five or six of them, a total of maybe 30-40 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq for a long period of time, lasting, maybe a few decades. And the idea is that these bases will be somewhat hermetically sealed, that U.S. military forces won’t be leaving them, they won’t be conducting presence patrols and the patrols they conduct now. Ground convoys won’t be driving into them.

Airplanes will be essentially landing in to deliver supplies and these sort of lily pads will be in various strategic areas in Iraq … And that will enable the U.S. military to maintain a presence in the country, perhaps…for a few decades.


*****end of clip*****

Forget about the fact that the military is suppose to be ready and have planned for all contingencies - the above exposes our military planners as NEVER having taken the power of the purse seriously. This will also make any exit much more costly in lives and dollars. No real worry about getting out of Iraq or Iran with another $124 billion coming down the pike.

"And that will enable the U.S. military to maintain a presence in the country"

Like that is a good thing? Enable seems an odd choice of words.


capt said...

House dust may protect against allergies

TUCSON, May 22 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests early exposure to endotoxins -- substances made by bacteria -- might reduce the risk of allergic eczema or wheezing.

Researchers at the Arizona Respiratory Center said their study suggests such exposure can offer protection when it occurs before the age of three years.

Endotoxin is a part of the cell wall of gram-negative bacteria, a type of bacteria that often causes disease. It is released when the bacteria dies or is damaged.

The new study found the lower the amount of endotoxin in young children's homes, the more likely they would develop wheezing or eczema by age 3. The higher the amount of endotoxin in their homes, the less likely they were to develop either condition.

Researcher Melisa Celaya found certain environmental factors increased the levels of endotoxin in a home. Having a home older than 30 years, substandard home conditions, carpeting, a musty smell and interior wall leaks were all associated with higher levels of endotoxin.

The research was detailed during the weekend in San Francisco during the American Thoracic Society's annual conference.


capt said...

New Thread