Tuesday, December 27, 2005

'West Wing' Star dead of Heart Attack at 58

New York -- In this holiday season, a heart attack killed John Spencer, a star of ”West Wing” who played a politico who survived a heart attack to run for Vice President. At the height of his career, Death came rudely to this self-confessed workaholic whose health took a backseat to the hit TV show.

For what does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own life?

This is the question his death confronts us with. It forces us to evaluate our own priorities. It makes us ask what indeed is the most important thing in our life? The foundation without which there can be no possibility of success or happiness?

Surely this TV and movie star could afford the best health care in the world that money can buy! Surely he can afford annual medical and heart checkups and cardiologists. Surely he was not one of the 46 million Americans without the money to buy any health insurance.

If Spencer had wanted to do an anti-heart-attack program, surely he could have easily afforded it. If he had demanded it as part of his contract on grounds that it’d slash his risk for a fatal heart attack, the producers of this lucrative long-running hit show would surely have said yes to all or part of the fees. After all, it’d be less expensive than losing him just as they are gearing up for his character to possibly become the VP.

Did Spenser have a prior heart attack? Was he overweight? We don’t know. But if he had, for example, a past heart attack and was currently overweight, then the risk of another heart attack -- this time terminal -- would have been quite serious.

So the question is what is it worth to a John Spencer if there is some program, some intervention which has a serious scientific probability of preventing a fatal heart attack? Well, it would be worth every penny he had. Because a tatal heart attack would mean he loses everything he owns and all his future potential earnings as a hot TV actor.

A heart transplant costs up to one million dollars. Heart surgery to clear up clog vessels could cost hundreds of thousands. And they’re hardly a sure thing, bringing with them serious risk of major complications, including death.

John Spenser, if he were smart, would have no hesitation about paying a million dollars for a program which can save his life. That would be his best bargain and investment, ever.

For others of us who are not Hollywood stars, an anti-heart-attack, anti-aging program will be less than a million. But yes, it must be enough to make us take notice. And count the cost. Because if we do, we will be fully committed to the program, and when we play the program as instructed, it will work like a charm.

The Mortalist regime wouldn't let us know. But there is already a program that is based on the only scientifically-proven anti-aging program. It so happens it is also the best way to prevent killer heart attacks.

P.S. If you are overweight, and/or have heart disease, hypertension, high cholesterol, or diabetes, or any condition which could be helped by losing weight, you can get your doctor to write a letter advising you to lose weight and then choose The Elixxir Program. It can be tax-deductible under the new IRS regulations. After all, The Elixxir Program is based on the best-documented permanent lifelong weight-loss program. And we’ll show you how to live la dolce vita on it! What can be a better New Year’s Resolution! Happy New Year!'

More below----

For more info about The Elixxir Program

To order "How to Stop Aging & Start Living: The Elixxir Program"
using your Credit Card or PayPal, just click


"Imagine living to 120…with youthful vigor, free of
disease…Elixxir is living proof… – Life Extension Magazine

"The only anti-aging guru who has actually stayed young." –
Marilyn Much, Investor's Business Daily

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Sharon's Gerontocracy

Stockholm -- Sharon gets a stroke. But the question is why would Israel or any country have Ariel Sharon as its Prime Minister? If you wanted someone for your small business, would you hire this morbidly obese person who's a stroke-waiting-to-happen? Can't Israel, in this time of crisis, do better than to entrust its future to this 77 year-old with no future? And to his outgoing vice-Prime Minister, erh, a 82 year old Simon Peres.

If this is not a gerontocracy, what is?

But let's not forget the gerontocracy in the U.S. Empire. Cheney and Rumsfeld, failures and retreads from the Vietnam War. They are the ones, along with George Bush Senior, who are regents for G.W. Junior. And the real powers behind the throne. China has already gotten rid of its gerontocrats, and is into its third generation of leaders. But here we are in the U.S., and we got nothing better than to recycle the people from the Ford presidency. Yep, they had to cut and run in Vietnam. And they will have to in Iraq cause they're doing a hundred times worse. These losers.

And last but not least, only the Vatican, the world's oldest-running gerontocracy, would appoint someone like Ratzi-nger. You would not think that any sane institution would, after the lingering illness of the last "Pope," would appoint someone who has had a history of life-threatening illness as a Ratzi-nger. But nope, you'd be dead wrong. Because there's nothing a gerontocracy loves than nasty old men.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Bush & Blair are War Criminals, Nobel Prize Winner Pinter Points Out

Stockholm -- You have to be in Stockholm to watch uncensored on TV one of the most powerful lectures ever given by a winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. Harold Pinter, the British playwright suffering from cancer of the esophagus, points out the obvious: Bush & Blair are war criminals.

Now you'd think that this bombshell speech would be guaranteed headline front-page news! Instead, The New York Times ("all the news that's fit to print") tucks away this irrefutable, devastating truth-telling in its Theater section under the title "Playwright Takes a Prize and a Jab at U.S." The BBC did a similarly neat trick. Instead of "Nobel Laureate says Blair War Criminal," and instead of this being the headline, it allows for "Laureate blasts Iraq War 'lies'"

The New York Times and BBC are probably as good as it gets when it comes to hoping for some kind of balanced, objective, honest coverage from the Mortalist U.S. and U.K. media. So if this is how these two venerable Mortalist media cover what could have been an excellent national debate as to why Saddam & Milosevic are war criminals but not Bush & Blair since they have killed, maimed, or tortured tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, as a result of of an invasion contrary to U.N. Security Council's resolutions, and which U.N. Secretary-General Koffi Annan has rightly described as "illegal" and in violation of international law.

And if the above isn't enough, throw into this pot the gulags run by Bush in Guantanamo Bay and other CIA-run torture centers in Eastern Europe. the systematic fuck-you to the Geneva Conventions against torture

But no, you can see there's no accident in the difference in coverage between that Iranian woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize and Pinter.