Yes, the first translation of 50 Voices of Disbelief is finally out! Dlaczego jesteśmy ateistami is available as of today from the book's Polish publisher's website. For what it's worth, in case you're interested, and you happen to be able to read a Polish language book, it's way cheaper there than it is in its original English language edition. You can get it there for a bit less than 14 $!
30 Eylül 2012 Pazar
Dlaczego jesteśmy ateistami
To contact us Click HERE
Yes, the first translation of 50 Voices of Disbelief is finally out! Dlaczego jesteśmy ateistami is available as of today from the book's Polish publisher's website. For what it's worth, in case you're interested, and you happen to be able to read a Polish language book, it's way cheaper there than it is in its original English language edition. You can get it there for a bit less than 14 $!
Yes, the first translation of 50 Voices of Disbelief is finally out! Dlaczego jesteśmy ateistami is available as of today from the book's Polish publisher's website. For what it's worth, in case you're interested, and you happen to be able to read a Polish language book, it's way cheaper there than it is in its original English language edition. You can get it there for a bit less than 14 $!
Anti-choice AgitProp
To contact us Click HERE
I have just penned an editorial for BIOETHICS on the fall-out resulting from the Report on End-of-Life Decision-Making in Canada that I had a hand in producing. The gist of it is that I wondered whether there's much point debating this issue with anti-choice activists (you know, for hire 'anti euthanasia', 'pro-life' agitprop types). I gave two examples, in said editorial, of encounters I had in the aftermath of the release of said Report where I confronted anti-choicers with incontrovertible evidence that their arguments are flawed. They were, in fact, unable to counter the arguments I put forward, yet that did not stop them, within 24 hours, from repeating arguments they knew at that stage to be faulty. So, why pretend that you have a genuine counter-part in a public debate, when arguably the real motives of your opponents are not out in the open to begin with and when their arguments, peppered with heart wrenching abuse stories, serve their propaganda objectives only.
I began, half tongue-in-cheek, about a week ago a competition, encouraging readers of this blog to send me mistake they found in two such newspaper pieces of agitprop. To my delight, people actually took the time to dissect these two pieces. So, trying to be a good sport here, I am reproducing some of the mistakes people have identified in said agitprop. For reference, the Report is here or here. The agitprop articles were published in a National Post blog entry penned by Barbara Kay, as well as in a piece published by Licia Corbella in the Calgary Herald.
Here we go: Both articles (the incriminating 'evidence' was self-reportedly 'googled' by Ms Corbella, it seems) report at great length and to much fanfare incidences of non-voluntary euthanasia in jurisdictions that have decriminalized assisted dying in some form or shape. Both authors take this as evidence that a slippery slope exists, whereby people's lives are being terminated in these jurisdictions variously against their wishes or without having requested this as a result of decriminalization. Ms Corbella bitterly complains that we have missed this evidence that is so very easily available to anyone with access to google (Ms Corbella's favourite research tool, presumably right next to wikipedia and the Anti-Euthanasia Coalition's website). Well, it turns out that we have mentioned non-voluntary euthanasia cases in our Report. Was Ms Corbella too busy copy-pasting her evidence from fellow anti-choice activists websites to actually read the Report we produced? Be that as it may, we also pointed out that non-voluntary euthanasia takes place in societies that have not decriminalized assisted dying, hence the existence of non-voluntary euthanasia in societies that have decriminalized demonstrates nothing at all. This point has been made very eloquently in this article in the Ottawa Citizen. In fact, we provided empirical evidence in our Report that following decriminalization non-voluntary euthanasia has actually decreased in some jurisdictions (not as sexy as Ms Corbella's anecdotes, I know). Ms Corbella was called on her obvious mistake by commentators on the Calgary Herald's on-line site, but has chosen not to reply, which brings me back to my theme: These agitprop type activists are not seriously engaged in debate, and we should not pretend otherwise.
Barbara Kay makes a similarly obvious mistake, uncritically citing Margaret Somerville, a conservative Christian activist employed at McGill University who campaigns traditionally on any topic the Catholic Church has a strong view on (among her favourites are: gay marriage, and end-of-life issues). Kay quickly declares Somerville a bio-ethicist even though Somerville doesn't seem to have any formal degree type education at all in ethics. Be that as it may, Somerville is cited in Ms Kay's commentary, claiming that a survey shows thatCanadians are in favor of improving palliative care rather than decriminalizingassisted dying. Our Report is duly blamed for not having taken this survey into account in our report. Not quite, andhere we have another example of misleading use of empirical evidence. The pollin question was actually published after we completed our empirical surveychapter. More than that, the poll in question is not actually at variance withthe findings of the polls we cite. The poll cited in the newspaper blog wascommissioned by Life Canada (an anti-choice organization). [p 3 of on-line poll] Most of the questions in this poll are, given the nature of its partisan funder,suitably leading. However, on the evidence cited in this report 57%of respondents were in favor of the decriminalization of assisted dying. Surveys commissioned by organisations less in agitprop mode than Life Canada found significantly higher percentages of Canadians in support of a more permissive regime when it comes to assisted dying. We have cited some of those in our Report. Reportedly Life Canada has since dropped the decriminalization question altogether. Ms Somerville, in fact, used one bit of the Life Canada poll that suited her anti-choiceagenda, and happily ignored what the actual evidence shows. She created the misleadingimpression that the survey results demonstrate preferences when they highlightpriorities. The question posed was basically (pretending misleadingly that asociety could have only one or the other) whether respondents were in favor ofimproving palliative care or in favor of decriminalizing assisted dying. [p 4 of on-line poll] I strongly encourage the interested reader to both read the newspaper blog aswell as the actual survey in order to evaluate the evidence for the claims I ammaking in this paragraph. Kay and Somerville's misleading use of the data in Life Canada's poll brings us back to me theme for this entry: What's the point of having a serious debate with activists who are clearly not seriously interested in a genuine exchange of arguments?
Ms Kay also mistakenly claims that access to euthanasia in the Netherlands initially required evidence of a terminal illness. The fact is that terminal illness was never a necessary condition for access to euthanasia in that country, rather the relevant criteria were autonomous choice and individual suffering. Unlike in Ms Kay's reality, the Netherlands actually decriminalized euthanasia in 2002 and not in 1984 as she claims in her National Post piece. The problem with getting her facts right also bedevils Ms Corbella's commentary/article. She excitedly waves her hands about a 1995 report indicating that some 950 people's lives were terminated in the Netherlands without their request. Euthanasia, as already mentioned, was only decriminalized in the Netherlands in 2002. Ms Kay must be equally desperate, why else would she have chosen to also resort to a 1995 piece to comment on the reality of euthanasia in the Netherlands today? I suspect that our two campaigners both used the same journal article, happily ignoring empirical evidence that has since 1995 been published in peer reviewed international medical journals - as referenced and discussed in our Report - simply because it suited their ideological agenda. The author of the 1995 paper has not responded to the more recent evidence as it has accumulated. It is worth mentioning that the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia is higher in somecountries with prohibitive regimes than in the Netherlands and Belgium. There is no evidence that legalization of voluntary euthanasia results in non-voluntary euthanasia. Rather, ifanything, it reduces non-voluntary euthanasia.
What bothers me about agitprop such as that served up by Corbella, Kay and Somerville is that they must know that their arguments are not sustainable. They're not sustainable in the sense that it should be obvious to these authors that they are misleading the public with their intellectual content. It seems pointless then to pretend that there is a serious intellectual debate taking place here. All that can reasonably be achieved is to debunk flawed and misleading arguments when they pop up. Because, trust me, you will see the same arguments popping up again in up-coming anti-euthanasia agitprop, probably within less than 24 hours after I post this blog entry. Such is life on the anti-choice campaign trail.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the impromptu competition. The book price goes to a Canadian entrant, Mr. A. M. He found no less than 18 false or misleading statements across the articles/comments by Kay and Corbella. Well done Sir!
I began, half tongue-in-cheek, about a week ago a competition, encouraging readers of this blog to send me mistake they found in two such newspaper pieces of agitprop. To my delight, people actually took the time to dissect these two pieces. So, trying to be a good sport here, I am reproducing some of the mistakes people have identified in said agitprop. For reference, the Report is here or here. The agitprop articles were published in a National Post blog entry penned by Barbara Kay, as well as in a piece published by Licia Corbella in the Calgary Herald.
Here we go: Both articles (the incriminating 'evidence' was self-reportedly 'googled' by Ms Corbella, it seems) report at great length and to much fanfare incidences of non-voluntary euthanasia in jurisdictions that have decriminalized assisted dying in some form or shape. Both authors take this as evidence that a slippery slope exists, whereby people's lives are being terminated in these jurisdictions variously against their wishes or without having requested this as a result of decriminalization. Ms Corbella bitterly complains that we have missed this evidence that is so very easily available to anyone with access to google (Ms Corbella's favourite research tool, presumably right next to wikipedia and the Anti-Euthanasia Coalition's website). Well, it turns out that we have mentioned non-voluntary euthanasia cases in our Report. Was Ms Corbella too busy copy-pasting her evidence from fellow anti-choice activists websites to actually read the Report we produced? Be that as it may, we also pointed out that non-voluntary euthanasia takes place in societies that have not decriminalized assisted dying, hence the existence of non-voluntary euthanasia in societies that have decriminalized demonstrates nothing at all. This point has been made very eloquently in this article in the Ottawa Citizen. In fact, we provided empirical evidence in our Report that following decriminalization non-voluntary euthanasia has actually decreased in some jurisdictions (not as sexy as Ms Corbella's anecdotes, I know). Ms Corbella was called on her obvious mistake by commentators on the Calgary Herald's on-line site, but has chosen not to reply, which brings me back to my theme: These agitprop type activists are not seriously engaged in debate, and we should not pretend otherwise.
Barbara Kay makes a similarly obvious mistake, uncritically citing Margaret Somerville, a conservative Christian activist employed at McGill University who campaigns traditionally on any topic the Catholic Church has a strong view on (among her favourites are: gay marriage, and end-of-life issues). Kay quickly declares Somerville a bio-ethicist even though Somerville doesn't seem to have any formal degree type education at all in ethics. Be that as it may, Somerville is cited in Ms Kay's commentary, claiming that a survey shows thatCanadians are in favor of improving palliative care rather than decriminalizingassisted dying. Our Report is duly blamed for not having taken this survey into account in our report. Not quite, andhere we have another example of misleading use of empirical evidence. The pollin question was actually published after we completed our empirical surveychapter. More than that, the poll in question is not actually at variance withthe findings of the polls we cite. The poll cited in the newspaper blog wascommissioned by Life Canada (an anti-choice organization). [p 3 of on-line poll] Most of the questions in this poll are, given the nature of its partisan funder,suitably leading. However, on the evidence cited in this report 57%of respondents were in favor of the decriminalization of assisted dying. Surveys commissioned by organisations less in agitprop mode than Life Canada found significantly higher percentages of Canadians in support of a more permissive regime when it comes to assisted dying. We have cited some of those in our Report. Reportedly Life Canada has since dropped the decriminalization question altogether. Ms Somerville, in fact, used one bit of the Life Canada poll that suited her anti-choiceagenda, and happily ignored what the actual evidence shows. She created the misleadingimpression that the survey results demonstrate preferences when they highlightpriorities. The question posed was basically (pretending misleadingly that asociety could have only one or the other) whether respondents were in favor ofimproving palliative care or in favor of decriminalizing assisted dying. [p 4 of on-line poll] I strongly encourage the interested reader to both read the newspaper blog aswell as the actual survey in order to evaluate the evidence for the claims I ammaking in this paragraph. Kay and Somerville's misleading use of the data in Life Canada's poll brings us back to me theme for this entry: What's the point of having a serious debate with activists who are clearly not seriously interested in a genuine exchange of arguments?
Ms Kay also mistakenly claims that access to euthanasia in the Netherlands initially required evidence of a terminal illness. The fact is that terminal illness was never a necessary condition for access to euthanasia in that country, rather the relevant criteria were autonomous choice and individual suffering. Unlike in Ms Kay's reality, the Netherlands actually decriminalized euthanasia in 2002 and not in 1984 as she claims in her National Post piece. The problem with getting her facts right also bedevils Ms Corbella's commentary/article. She excitedly waves her hands about a 1995 report indicating that some 950 people's lives were terminated in the Netherlands without their request. Euthanasia, as already mentioned, was only decriminalized in the Netherlands in 2002. Ms Kay must be equally desperate, why else would she have chosen to also resort to a 1995 piece to comment on the reality of euthanasia in the Netherlands today? I suspect that our two campaigners both used the same journal article, happily ignoring empirical evidence that has since 1995 been published in peer reviewed international medical journals - as referenced and discussed in our Report - simply because it suited their ideological agenda. The author of the 1995 paper has not responded to the more recent evidence as it has accumulated. It is worth mentioning that the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia is higher in somecountries with prohibitive regimes than in the Netherlands and Belgium. There is no evidence that legalization of voluntary euthanasia results in non-voluntary euthanasia. Rather, ifanything, it reduces non-voluntary euthanasia.
What bothers me about agitprop such as that served up by Corbella, Kay and Somerville is that they must know that their arguments are not sustainable. They're not sustainable in the sense that it should be obvious to these authors that they are misleading the public with their intellectual content. It seems pointless then to pretend that there is a serious intellectual debate taking place here. All that can reasonably be achieved is to debunk flawed and misleading arguments when they pop up. Because, trust me, you will see the same arguments popping up again in up-coming anti-euthanasia agitprop, probably within less than 24 hours after I post this blog entry. Such is life on the anti-choice campaign trail.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the impromptu competition. The book price goes to a Canadian entrant, Mr. A. M. He found no less than 18 false or misleading statements across the articles/comments by Kay and Corbella. Well done Sir!
Margaret Somerville engages in anti-choice agitprop - again...
To contact us Click HERE
Margaret Somerville, a tireless campaigner for Catholic values the world all over, and a member of the law faculty at Canada's McGill university, has penned a truly embarrassing attack on the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision-Making Report in the Montreal Gazette. Without hesitation she repeats arguments that I have demonstrated in the blog entry below to be false and clearly deliberately misleading. My good colleague Daniel Weinstock, a Montreal based member of the expert panel, penned this in reply to Somerville's agitprop. Well worth reading and well worth disseminating. Ms Somerville, for far too long has got away with this kind of mischief making.
The German political system's bizarre state of affairs on offended Muslims
To contact us Click HERE
A remarkable article in the German news magazine DER SPIEGEL reports an incident in the German state of North Rhine Westfalia. A bunch of radical rightwingers and a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims ran into each other during a demonstration. The rightwingers clearly intended to provoke the Muslims by showing a Danish cartoon depicting the religious figurehead of Islam in a not particularly favorable pose. As you might recall, when a conservative Danish broadsheet published said cartoon there was a big outcry amongst Muslims (they don't like any depictions of their prophet, neither positive nor negative ones). A lot of people were duly killed by enraged Muslims (including, not unexpectedly, many Muslims). So, when in Germany the rightwing activist group Pro-NRW announced its demonstration and its intention to display the Danish cartoon it knew that its favoured enemy, enraged Muslims, would show up and make complete and militant fools of themselves. and so they did. - Between the two of us, without the help of radical Muslims and anti-Islamophobia leftist counter demonstrators, nobody would have taken notice of the 30 or so pro-NRW demonstrators. But hey, like bulls don't take lightly to red sheets of cloth neither do Muslims or leftists in Germany take kindly to a tiny rightwing group trying to look like they actually have the people on the ground to organise a serious demonstration. Fun was had by all involved: The end result, a whole bunch of seriously injured people, including police officers trying to keep the peace between the two sides.
None of this is terribly newsworthy, of course. Rightwingers (especially rightwing Christians) and fundamentalist Muslims love having goes at each other in Western societies, because the rightwing Christians mistakenly believe they own these places and need to defend them against Muslims wanting to establish Sharia law. It's of course a good idea to defend the secular state against any kind of religiously motivated legislation (lest you want to live in failing states like Iran or pseudo-outfits like the Vatican).
Here's the odd bit. The interior minister of the state where said demonstration took place wants to place restrictions on future demonstrations by the extreme rightwing group. A prohibition on showing the offending Danish cartoon during public demonstrations is in the making. Here is the tortured logic: The Islamic fundamentalists count about 1500 members according to the German security services. There is about 4 million Muslims in Germany that want to have little, if anything, to do with their violence. In order to protect German police officers from their violence it is necessary to prevent the extreme rightwingers from showing the cartoon during their demonstrations.
I have no sympathies for the rightwingers here, but it seems to me as if the German state is caving in to Muslim fundamentalists. German citizens would - in future - be prohibited from doing things that could offend members of a Muslim fundamentalist sect in the country, lest the Muslims would otherwise go on a rampage injuring police officers and other demonstrators. Freedom of speech is subjugated to concerns about security of the security forces (whose job, among many other obligations, ironically, is to uphold German citizens rights to express even harsh criticism of religious ideologies). I can't wait to hear how the German courts will respond to this interior ministerial edict.
Interesting parallel: in Jamaica, a Caribbean island state known for its large number of militantly anti-gay Christian citizens, we see the police routinely prohibiting demonstration by gay civil rights groups. Their logic also is that there are so many enraged Christians out there that they couldn't guarantee the safety of the demonstrators (at least - unlike in Germany - they're not concerned about the security of the security forces). Another example of a democratic society caving in to religiously motivated militancy.
The trouble with religious freedom is that it is all too frequently misunderstood as the unrestricted freedom of the religious to run roughshot over everyone else.
None of this is terribly newsworthy, of course. Rightwingers (especially rightwing Christians) and fundamentalist Muslims love having goes at each other in Western societies, because the rightwing Christians mistakenly believe they own these places and need to defend them against Muslims wanting to establish Sharia law. It's of course a good idea to defend the secular state against any kind of religiously motivated legislation (lest you want to live in failing states like Iran or pseudo-outfits like the Vatican).
Here's the odd bit. The interior minister of the state where said demonstration took place wants to place restrictions on future demonstrations by the extreme rightwing group. A prohibition on showing the offending Danish cartoon during public demonstrations is in the making. Here is the tortured logic: The Islamic fundamentalists count about 1500 members according to the German security services. There is about 4 million Muslims in Germany that want to have little, if anything, to do with their violence. In order to protect German police officers from their violence it is necessary to prevent the extreme rightwingers from showing the cartoon during their demonstrations.
I have no sympathies for the rightwingers here, but it seems to me as if the German state is caving in to Muslim fundamentalists. German citizens would - in future - be prohibited from doing things that could offend members of a Muslim fundamentalist sect in the country, lest the Muslims would otherwise go on a rampage injuring police officers and other demonstrators. Freedom of speech is subjugated to concerns about security of the security forces (whose job, among many other obligations, ironically, is to uphold German citizens rights to express even harsh criticism of religious ideologies). I can't wait to hear how the German courts will respond to this interior ministerial edict.
Interesting parallel: in Jamaica, a Caribbean island state known for its large number of militantly anti-gay Christian citizens, we see the police routinely prohibiting demonstration by gay civil rights groups. Their logic also is that there are so many enraged Christians out there that they couldn't guarantee the safety of the demonstrators (at least - unlike in Germany - they're not concerned about the security of the security forces). Another example of a democratic society caving in to religiously motivated militancy.
The trouble with religious freedom is that it is all too frequently misunderstood as the unrestricted freedom of the religious to run roughshot over everyone else.
Follow-Up on 'Ex-Gay' Story
To contact us Click HERE
Some weeks ago I wrote here about Dr Spitzer, a noted US psychiatrist who penned many years ago a study ostensibly showing that it is possible to change the sexual orientation of homosexual people who wish to do so. His work has since been used by mostly religious fundamentalists for blaming gay people to be what and who they are, and for suggesting myriad bogus conversion schemes (all condemned by professional psychiatric and psychological associations the world all over etc.).
Dr Spitzer noted in an interview that he thinks he misinterpreted what 'ex-gay' homosexuals he interviewed for the purpose of the study told him. There was a big outcry over this. Spitzer claimed that he tried to retract his study but the Archives of Sexual Behavior where he published his work allegedly refused to do so. The Editor of said journal says that that ain't exactly how it happened, but be that as it may, in today's New York Times Spitzer declares in an interview that he has written a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior denouncing his own work and that this letter would be published in said journal. A draft of the letter has been leaked some time ago. It ends with an apology to the gay community for the harm done to the gay community by his study's baseless support of 'reparative therapy' for homosexuality.
It takes courage to admit that one is mistaken.
Dr Spitzer noted in an interview that he thinks he misinterpreted what 'ex-gay' homosexuals he interviewed for the purpose of the study told him. There was a big outcry over this. Spitzer claimed that he tried to retract his study but the Archives of Sexual Behavior where he published his work allegedly refused to do so. The Editor of said journal says that that ain't exactly how it happened, but be that as it may, in today's New York Times Spitzer declares in an interview that he has written a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior denouncing his own work and that this letter would be published in said journal. A draft of the letter has been leaked some time ago. It ends with an apology to the gay community for the harm done to the gay community by his study's baseless support of 'reparative therapy' for homosexuality.
It takes courage to admit that one is mistaken.
29 Eylül 2012 Cumartesi
Virginia’s 11th Congressional District Democrat Congressman Gerry Connolly Refuses to Debate Challengers
To contact us Click HERE
I have been paying so much attention to the race for President that I really had no clue who was running against my Congressman. So I did a quick search and found his Republican challenger:
-------------------- 
--------------------
Colonel Chris Perkins is a retired United States Army officer, former Special Forces (Green Beret), small business owner, and family man who has lived in Northern Virginia since 1991 when not deployed overseas.Concerned about America's deteriorating fiscal situation, and severely disappointed with the lack of leadership in Washington and the poor performance of careerist politicians such as Congressman Gerry Connolly, Chris has once again dedicated himself to honorable public service. - (Read More) www.perkins2012.comIt all sounds good and he sounds like a nice step up from my present Congressman Gerry Connolly. And it seems that Congressman Connolly thinks so to, given that he refuses to debate his challengers (There is also an Independent running).
FAIRFAX, Va. – Mark Gibson, independent candidate for Virginia’s 11th Congressional District, says he’s eager to engage the other candidates and media in a forum on Wednesday, September 12 at 8 p.m. televised by Reston Community Television, RCTV28 on Comcast. But, Gibson said, “I’m disappointed that the incumbent has declined.”Gibson will appear along with Republican candidate Chris Perkins and Green Party candidate Joe Galdo. Moderated by Colin Mills, President of the Reston Citizens Association, and John Lovaas, host of RCTV28’s Reston Impact, journalists from three media outlets serving Reston – The Connection, Fairfax Times, and Patch.com – will pose questions to the candidates.Notably absent is the incumbent, Gerry Connolly. The two-term Democrat declined participation, though he benefited from inclusion of Democrat-dominated Reston in Congressional redistricting following the 2010 Census. - potomaclocal.comThe Congressman is certainly not required to debate. However, his failure to do so does lend credence to complaints that he is a career hack politician. It is that type of politician that we don't need in Congress. Here is a summary from the Washington Examiner from two years ago:
Incumbent Virginia Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly exemplifies the fading political fortunes of the freshman tax-and-spenders who rode President Obama’s coattails into Congress two years ago. The former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and president of the 2008 congressional class, Connolly loyally cast votes for the president’s $814 billion stimulus bill, bank bailouts, cap and trade and Obamacare. - LinkChris Perkins for Congress!
'The Hope and the Change' - Movie Trailer for Dissillusioned 2008 Obama Voters
To contact us Click HERE
'The Hope and the Change' is a documentary profiling a number of independants and Democrats who voted for President Obama in 2008 and are disillusioned over his Presidency, what he promised and what was actually delivered.
It looks like a powerful movie. Interestingly enough, it will be shown on TV during the next couple of weeks.
Keep in mind, this is a President, along with his fellow Democrats, who Hate Your Job, who could have created 9,000 millionaires with the stimulus money, who very well might have gotten Osama despite his team working against him and whose Obamacare legislation did nothing to improve healthcare in America and in the process used such accounting trickery to make the numbers 'work' that if it was done in a publicly traded company probably would have landed people in jail.
I do not think the documentary has anything to do with the issues I pointed out above. It appears to deal on a more basic level, where the President made some simple promises and failed to keep even them.
And while we are at it, don't forget the 'Fast and Furious' gun running to criminals fiasco. I stand by my prediction that people are going to jail for this. However it will probably require a change in leadership for any read investigation to determine who will have to pay for the dead people this program left in its wake.
-------------------- --------------------
It looks like a powerful movie. Interestingly enough, it will be shown on TV during the next couple of weeks.
Keep in mind, this is a President, along with his fellow Democrats, who Hate Your Job, who could have created 9,000 millionaires with the stimulus money, who very well might have gotten Osama despite his team working against him and whose Obamacare legislation did nothing to improve healthcare in America and in the process used such accounting trickery to make the numbers 'work' that if it was done in a publicly traded company probably would have landed people in jail.
I do not think the documentary has anything to do with the issues I pointed out above. It appears to deal on a more basic level, where the President made some simple promises and failed to keep even them.
And while we are at it, don't forget the 'Fast and Furious' gun running to criminals fiasco. I stand by my prediction that people are going to jail for this. However it will probably require a change in leadership for any read investigation to determine who will have to pay for the dead people this program left in its wake.
Obama and Democrats Hate Your Job - Coal Edition
To contact us Click HERE
When the Democrats talk about creating jobs, they only talk about jobs in sectors that traditionally support Democrats. It is really a kind of self-supporting loop.
These jobs:
Now take the other jobs. Those that pay taxes to support the jobs above. Take coal jobs. The coal mining industry is being killed under this Administration. And they are nowhere near done. We have had people knocking on our door multiple times in the last couple of months asking us to sign petitions to encourage the President, Congress, the EPA, etc.. to push to get rid of dirty coal, with the excuse that they are pushing to get this done for the children. Even my children.
Now, we really do have a good and relatively clean country. The air and water are better than ever before. Remember acid rain? How about leaded gasoline and lead paint. I do. Surely there are pollutants associated with coal fired power plants, but now we have gotten to the point apparently that the remaining issues are either relatively trivial or rare that they don't even have a name to scare people with and certainly nothing to point at. So instead we just have to be confronted with the idea that coal is bad because this is something we can all believe. Remember that acid rain.... Well, there are are huge consequences for continuing a 'War on Coal' and coal mining jobs:
Lighting up the night was a huge innovation. It is somewhat sad that many people are now so concerned about their high electric bills that they no longer keep on a front light. Kind of a shame really and we only have the Government and Global warming fanatics to blame. We can hopefully put a stop to this with a change of occupants in the White House.
This President wants to talk about outsourcing to China. He accuses Mitt Romney of outsourcing jobs to China. Well Obama and the Democrats are outsourcing our pollution to China. That is the worse crime. Their actions are literally killing people over there. Not only that, by making electricity more expensive over here, along with everything else, it is just one more reason we are losing jobs in America.
Don't kid yourself. This is by Democrat design. They actually think they are doing you and your family a favor by killing off coal jobs and other jobs like steel production. Lets face it, they are hard nasty jobs. They would never do these jobs. So, you're welcome...
You're Not Going to Get Job Stimulus From Democrats - They Hate Your Job
-------------------- --------------------
These jobs:
- Firefighters
- Policemen (Sometimes)
- Teachers
- More Government workers
Now take the other jobs. Those that pay taxes to support the jobs above. Take coal jobs. The coal mining industry is being killed under this Administration. And they are nowhere near done. We have had people knocking on our door multiple times in the last couple of months asking us to sign petitions to encourage the President, Congress, the EPA, etc.. to push to get rid of dirty coal, with the excuse that they are pushing to get this done for the children. Even my children.
Now, we really do have a good and relatively clean country. The air and water are better than ever before. Remember acid rain? How about leaded gasoline and lead paint. I do. Surely there are pollutants associated with coal fired power plants, but now we have gotten to the point apparently that the remaining issues are either relatively trivial or rare that they don't even have a name to scare people with and certainly nothing to point at. So instead we just have to be confronted with the idea that coal is bad because this is something we can all believe. Remember that acid rain.... Well, there are are huge consequences for continuing a 'War on Coal' and coal mining jobs:
President Obama’s war on coal is real. Don’t believe us? Come to Brilliant, Ohio or Clay, West Virginia and we’ll show you coal mines that were closed as a result of President Obama’s assault on hardworking Americans who work in the coal industry. Coal is a cheap, abundant, and reliable source of power. Almost 90% of Ohio’s power comes from coal and just across the Ohio River in West Virginia, over 95% of its power comes from coal. Needless to say, coal plays a vital role in not only powering the Buckeye and Mountain states, but coal generates nearly half of America’s electricity. So why would President Obama want to destroy such a vital part of America’s economy?
President Obama’s war on coal is nothing new. Even before President Obama took the oath of office, he was pretty clear with his plans for America’s coal industry. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” If there’s one thing we can say about the Obama Administration, when it comes to assaulting the coal industry, its actions match its words. - By Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), The HillIt is senseless to drive what was a productive industry out of business. Worse, it is reckless to destroy energy production not only for households but also for businesses. Some industries, like steal production rely on cheap electricity. Pushing those businesses out of the US will just result in much dirtier production in China not to mention much higher electric bills in the US. Want to pay more for electricity? How do you like the light of those CFL bulbs? Me, I like lighting up my world.
Lighting up the night was a huge innovation. It is somewhat sad that many people are now so concerned about their high electric bills that they no longer keep on a front light. Kind of a shame really and we only have the Government and Global warming fanatics to blame. We can hopefully put a stop to this with a change of occupants in the White House.
This President wants to talk about outsourcing to China. He accuses Mitt Romney of outsourcing jobs to China. Well Obama and the Democrats are outsourcing our pollution to China. That is the worse crime. Their actions are literally killing people over there. Not only that, by making electricity more expensive over here, along with everything else, it is just one more reason we are losing jobs in America.
Don't kid yourself. This is by Democrat design. They actually think they are doing you and your family a favor by killing off coal jobs and other jobs like steel production. Lets face it, they are hard nasty jobs. They would never do these jobs. So, you're welcome...
You're Not Going to Get Job Stimulus From Democrats - They Hate Your Job
US Spending Problem Explained
To contact us Click HERE
I was forwarded this and enjoyed it enough to share. If only President Obama and his follow Democrats could understand and confront this problem. I am not saying that the Republicans are blameless here. However, they are the only ones that both sides will hold to account regarding future spending....
-------------------- --------------------
----------------------------------
This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get.
It puts it into a much better perspective.
US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $16,000,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000
Now let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $160,000
Total budget cuts: $385
OK, now Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say … you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood and your home has sewage all the way up to the ceilings.
What do you think you should do ......
Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?
----------------------------------
WTF!?!?! Up to 35% of Americans Qualify for a Free Obama Phone???
To contact us Click HERE
OK, so there is a program that telephone and cellular phone subscribers pay for that gives away cellular phones to the poor and dare I say 'near-poor'. The money comes from Universal Service Fund fees that are tacked onto most phone bills. The Universal Service Fund is:
So where do I sign up for free alcohol?But seriously, I do not have a land line phone. The cable company is more than willing to give me one for free, but I gave that phone up years ago because the 'Free' phone cost me about $10 a month in taxes. Part of those taxes was to fund this program which is probably being abused all to hell. What's next? Free internet? Apparently this is the direction that we are headed.
Keep this in mind the next time you look at your phone bill. What other programs are you paying for through fees in your phone bill.You might find some surprising things. Take the NY City area. Their phone bills also include a surtax for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. All of this you pay for to subsidize other people.
Yes, some people should get help. But I bet that people will be surprised at just how much help poor people already get as they cry to politicians to put their hands into your pockets yet again... Don't wait for any accountability anytime soon. They only want to audit the rich. There is no interest in auditing what happens to the money when it it given to the poor (in exchange for votes).-------------------- --------------------
The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to advanced telecommunications services; and finally, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the FCC should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest. As of the third quarter of 2012, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.7 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues - WikiOne of the approved uses of this money is to give free cellular phones, and cellular phone service to people who qualify. Who qualifies? Well, according to the Obama Phone website up to 35% of all Americans
If you, or members in your household are, receiving the following benefits you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Those interested in the program must have an income of less than 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. (For example in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C the income level is $22,350 per year for a family of four.)You have got to be kidding me. That is a huge number of people. And in certain areas of the country, I guess people could claim that everyone has an Obama Phone like was done in the video from Cleveland, Ohio earlier this week...Qualifications can vary by state. - The Obama Phone
- Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
- Medicaid
- Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
- Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
- The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
- Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
- Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
- If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
- Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – TANF
So where do I sign up for free alcohol?But seriously, I do not have a land line phone. The cable company is more than willing to give me one for free, but I gave that phone up years ago because the 'Free' phone cost me about $10 a month in taxes. Part of those taxes was to fund this program which is probably being abused all to hell. What's next? Free internet? Apparently this is the direction that we are headed.
Keep this in mind the next time you look at your phone bill. What other programs are you paying for through fees in your phone bill.You might find some surprising things. Take the NY City area. Their phone bills also include a surtax for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. All of this you pay for to subsidize other people.
Yes, some people should get help. But I bet that people will be surprised at just how much help poor people already get as they cry to politicians to put their hands into your pockets yet again... Don't wait for any accountability anytime soon. They only want to audit the rich. There is no interest in auditing what happens to the money when it it given to the poor (in exchange for votes).
28 Eylül 2012 Cuma
Beware of Kuchenmeister
To contact us Click HERE
Happy New Year everyone!
I love Marzipan Xmas Stollen. NO excuses there, they're unhealthy, take you quickly closer to full-blown diabetes, but they're delightful. Imagine how happy I was when I discovered Xmas Stollen from a German manufacturer (baker would be stretching it, considering the quantities they produce) in a local supermarket. Kuchenmeister, according to its own marketing is 'one of the largest cake exporters in the world'.
Well, I know now how they managed to become that largest cake exporter... fraudulent marketing. Simple as that. I would have expected the 'marzipan' Stollen I bought to have the marzipan centre you can see in the image below (carton). Compare that against the dreary reality of Kuchenmeister's actual product.
Let the buyer beware!
I love Marzipan Xmas Stollen. NO excuses there, they're unhealthy, take you quickly closer to full-blown diabetes, but they're delightful. Imagine how happy I was when I discovered Xmas Stollen from a German manufacturer (baker would be stretching it, considering the quantities they produce) in a local supermarket. Kuchenmeister, according to its own marketing is 'one of the largest cake exporters in the world'.
Well, I know now how they managed to become that largest cake exporter... fraudulent marketing. Simple as that. I would have expected the 'marzipan' Stollen I bought to have the marzipan centre you can see in the image below (carton). Compare that against the dreary reality of Kuchenmeister's actual product.
Let the buyer beware!
Odd CMAJ Editorial
To contact us Click HERE
There is a big of an outcry in Canada over an Editorial by the current Interim Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr Rajendra Kale. Kale argues that pregnant women in Canada should not be provided with information about the sex of the fetus to avoid female feticide among Indo-Canadians. Kale proposes that women should only be told 30 weeks after conception to make it more difficult for them to have an abortion based on an arbitrary marker such as the sex of the fetus. Indeed, The Toronto Star newspaper reports that there is some empirical evidence suggesting a not insignificant gender balance in parts of the country: 'Though Canada does not collect statistics based on ethnicity at birth, population statistics show the country, now home to more than a million Indo-Canadians, has a skewed gender ratio. According to the 2006 census figures, nationally there are 932 girls to 1,000 boys under age 15 in the South Asian community, compared to 953 girls to 1,000 boys in the general population. The numbers in the South Asian community in the Toronto area are further skewed with 917 girls to 1,000 boys in the Toronto Central Metropolitan Area. Broken down further, it shows 904 girls to 1,000 boys in Mississauga, and 864 girls to 1,000 boys in Brampton.'
The gender imbalance itself is not really a great deal of concern in the country as a whole, the differential between the South Asian community and the general populations is a mere 20. Not exactly a dramatic figure. That doesn't mean that this differential is not higher in certain parts of eg Toronto, but in the big swing of things this isn't a dramatic situation. Baldev Mutta, a staff member in a Punjabi Community Health Centre notes in the Star that there is a preference among recent immigrants in favour of male off-spring. Women are reportedly threatened with divorce if they don't agree to to abort female fetuses.
It goes without saying that putting women under such pressures is unacceptable. It also seems, for most circumstances, bizarre to me that - recent migrant or not - anyone would have strong preferences for the sex of his or her off-spring. However, there can be at least some ethically unproblematic reasons, too. For instance, a family might have a preference for a 50:50 ratio among their off-spring and so decide to abort a male or female fetus in favour of a future child of the desired sex. Having knowledge of their off-springs sex sooner rather than later arguably is better overall, because the aborted fetus would be less advanced in its development. There could also be good health reasons for wanting to know, for instance in the case of sex linked genetic diseases.
My point is that it is unacceptable to view certain reasons for wanting an abortion acceptable and other reasons sufficiently dodgy that one chooses ('doctor knows best', it goes without saying!) which women will be told of the sex of their off-spring and which women must not be told. It is clear from the statistics quoted by Kale in his Editorial that the overwhelming majority of Indo-Canadians do not actually choose abortions based on the sex of their off-spring. Preventing them -and anyone else -for that matter from knowing the sex of their off-spring is plain offensive. No wonder that a woman from such a cultural background is quoted along these lines in the Toronto Star, “It’s upsetting, to be honest with you,” says Hussain, who worries Kale’s editorial will further push this kind of discrimination. “It’s a stereotype that brown people will abort a child who is not a boy.”
I might be mistaken, but I suspect that Kale's real agenda is anti-choice to begin with. He confuses fetuses and 'girls' as well as fetuses and 'women' in his Editorial as this quote shows quite nicely, 'Postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. Compared with the situation in India and China, the problem of female feticide in Canada is small, circumscribed and manageable. If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?'
Of course, the lives of neither women nor girls are at stake here. The issue is whether or not pregnant women have a right to know the sex of their off-spring. In Canada they do. It's a good thing. Cultural biases need to be confronted where they occur, there mustn't be technical pseudo-solutions to them that infringe on hard-won individual liberties that women can rightly take for granted today in Canada. If the argument really is about the morality of abortion, Kale should have argued that case and should not have chosen to engage in skirmishing activities to do with Indo-Canadians.
The gender imbalance itself is not really a great deal of concern in the country as a whole, the differential between the South Asian community and the general populations is a mere 20. Not exactly a dramatic figure. That doesn't mean that this differential is not higher in certain parts of eg Toronto, but in the big swing of things this isn't a dramatic situation. Baldev Mutta, a staff member in a Punjabi Community Health Centre notes in the Star that there is a preference among recent immigrants in favour of male off-spring. Women are reportedly threatened with divorce if they don't agree to to abort female fetuses.
It goes without saying that putting women under such pressures is unacceptable. It also seems, for most circumstances, bizarre to me that - recent migrant or not - anyone would have strong preferences for the sex of his or her off-spring. However, there can be at least some ethically unproblematic reasons, too. For instance, a family might have a preference for a 50:50 ratio among their off-spring and so decide to abort a male or female fetus in favour of a future child of the desired sex. Having knowledge of their off-springs sex sooner rather than later arguably is better overall, because the aborted fetus would be less advanced in its development. There could also be good health reasons for wanting to know, for instance in the case of sex linked genetic diseases.
My point is that it is unacceptable to view certain reasons for wanting an abortion acceptable and other reasons sufficiently dodgy that one chooses ('doctor knows best', it goes without saying!) which women will be told of the sex of their off-spring and which women must not be told. It is clear from the statistics quoted by Kale in his Editorial that the overwhelming majority of Indo-Canadians do not actually choose abortions based on the sex of their off-spring. Preventing them -and anyone else -for that matter from knowing the sex of their off-spring is plain offensive. No wonder that a woman from such a cultural background is quoted along these lines in the Toronto Star, “It’s upsetting, to be honest with you,” says Hussain, who worries Kale’s editorial will further push this kind of discrimination. “It’s a stereotype that brown people will abort a child who is not a boy.”
I might be mistaken, but I suspect that Kale's real agenda is anti-choice to begin with. He confuses fetuses and 'girls' as well as fetuses and 'women' in his Editorial as this quote shows quite nicely, 'Postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. Compared with the situation in India and China, the problem of female feticide in Canada is small, circumscribed and manageable. If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?'
Of course, the lives of neither women nor girls are at stake here. The issue is whether or not pregnant women have a right to know the sex of their off-spring. In Canada they do. It's a good thing. Cultural biases need to be confronted where they occur, there mustn't be technical pseudo-solutions to them that infringe on hard-won individual liberties that women can rightly take for granted today in Canada. If the argument really is about the morality of abortion, Kale should have argued that case and should not have chosen to engage in skirmishing activities to do with Indo-Canadians.
Ethical considerations in the use of anti-retrovirals for HIV prevention
To contact us Click HERE
Call for Papers
Evidence-based approaches toreducing sexual transmission of HIV has remained a major challenge inresponding to the HIV pandemic. The past 18 months has witnessed a substantial shift in this landscape. Controlled trials have demonstrated thatthe treatment of individuals with HIV infection reduces the risk of viral transmission to uninfected sexualpartners (treatment as prevention). Additional evidence suggests the possibility of providing anti-retroviralmedications to uninfected individuals may reduce the risk of acquiring HIV infection from sexualpartners (PrEP— Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis).
In view of scarce resources, therewill inevitably be a need to prioritize who will get anti-retroviral drugs;those who are sick, those who can transmit HIV, those at risk for acquiringHIV. Research that focuses on the balance between efficiency and equity will beinvolved. Ethical frameworks forguiding decision-making at the clinical level as well as the macro socialpolicy level will be essential.
Among the questions that will need tobe discussed are:
i. What rights claims can uninfected persons makefor access to ARVs for prophylactic purposes when millions across the globe aredying from AIDS because they cannot access ARV treatment? ii. What moral claims can justify the provision ofARV therapy to those who do not yet clinically require treatment as a way ofreducing the risks of HIV transmission? iii. What normative issues are raised in making the determinationthat there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of either PrEPor Treatment for Prevention? iv. How should the social and biologicalvulnerability of women to HIV infection inform discussion about the allocationsof resources for either PrEP or treatment as prevention? v. If there is a risk that PrEP will increase therisk of drug resistance and compromise treatment options for those alreadyinfected, what ethical questions must be confronted? vi. What conceptions of procedural fairness andinclusiveness should shape decision making processes about these allocationdecisions?vii. How should current research findings inform theethics of trial design? viii. Given current evidence what moral issuesinvolving the protection of research subjects should be considered indetermining the extent of ancillary services and care that should be provided inprevention trials?
Thisissue of Developing World Bioethics will be guest editedby RonaldBayer (email: rb8@mail.cumc.columbia.edu) and Quarraisha AbdoolKarim (email: abdoolq2@ukzn.ac.za), Mailman School of Public Health,Columbia University, New York, NY 10032 USA.
Deadline for submissions: 31 July 2012
Call for Papers
Evidence-based approaches toreducing sexual transmission of HIV has remained a major challenge inresponding to the HIV pandemic. The past 18 months has witnessed a substantial shift in this landscape. Controlled trials have demonstrated thatthe treatment of individuals with HIV infection reduces the risk of viral transmission to uninfected sexualpartners (treatment as prevention). Additional evidence suggests the possibility of providing anti-retroviralmedications to uninfected individuals may reduce the risk of acquiring HIV infection from sexualpartners (PrEP— Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis).
In view of scarce resources, therewill inevitably be a need to prioritize who will get anti-retroviral drugs;those who are sick, those who can transmit HIV, those at risk for acquiringHIV. Research that focuses on the balance between efficiency and equity will beinvolved. Ethical frameworks forguiding decision-making at the clinical level as well as the macro socialpolicy level will be essential.
Among the questions that will need tobe discussed are:
i. What rights claims can uninfected persons makefor access to ARVs for prophylactic purposes when millions across the globe aredying from AIDS because they cannot access ARV treatment? ii. What moral claims can justify the provision ofARV therapy to those who do not yet clinically require treatment as a way ofreducing the risks of HIV transmission? iii. What normative issues are raised in making the determinationthat there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of either PrEPor Treatment for Prevention? iv. How should the social and biologicalvulnerability of women to HIV infection inform discussion about the allocationsof resources for either PrEP or treatment as prevention? v. If there is a risk that PrEP will increase therisk of drug resistance and compromise treatment options for those alreadyinfected, what ethical questions must be confronted? vi. What conceptions of procedural fairness andinclusiveness should shape decision making processes about these allocationdecisions?vii. How should current research findings inform theethics of trial design? viii. Given current evidence what moral issuesinvolving the protection of research subjects should be considered indetermining the extent of ancillary services and care that should be provided inprevention trials?
Thisissue of Developing World Bioethics will be guest editedby RonaldBayer (email: rb8@mail.cumc.columbia.edu) and Quarraisha AbdoolKarim (email: abdoolq2@ukzn.ac.za), Mailman School of Public Health,Columbia University, New York, NY 10032 USA.
Deadline for submissions: 31 July 2012
The German political system's bizarre state of affairs on offended Muslims
To contact us Click HERE
A remarkable article in the German news magazine DER SPIEGEL reports an incident in the German state of North Rhine Westfalia. A bunch of radical rightwingers and a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims ran into each other during a demonstration. The rightwingers clearly intended to provoke the Muslims by showing a Danish cartoon depicting the religious figurehead of Islam in a not particularly favorable pose. As you might recall, when a conservative Danish broadsheet published said cartoon there was a big outcry amongst Muslims (they don't like any depictions of their prophet, neither positive nor negative ones). A lot of people were duly killed by enraged Muslims (including, not unexpectedly, many Muslims). So, when in Germany the rightwing activist group Pro-NRW announced its demonstration and its intention to display the Danish cartoon it knew that its favoured enemy, enraged Muslims, would show up and make complete and militant fools of themselves. and so they did. - Between the two of us, without the help of radical Muslims and anti-Islamophobia leftist counter demonstrators, nobody would have taken notice of the 30 or so pro-NRW demonstrators. But hey, like bulls don't take lightly to red sheets of cloth neither do Muslims or leftists in Germany take kindly to a tiny rightwing group trying to look like they actually have the people on the ground to organise a serious demonstration. Fun was had by all involved: The end result, a whole bunch of seriously injured people, including police officers trying to keep the peace between the two sides.
None of this is terribly newsworthy, of course. Rightwingers (especially rightwing Christians) and fundamentalist Muslims love having goes at each other in Western societies, because the rightwing Christians mistakenly believe they own these places and need to defend them against Muslims wanting to establish Sharia law. It's of course a good idea to defend the secular state against any kind of religiously motivated legislation (lest you want to live in failing states like Iran or pseudo-outfits like the Vatican).
Here's the odd bit. The interior minister of the state where said demonstration took place wants to place restrictions on future demonstrations by the extreme rightwing group. A prohibition on showing the offending Danish cartoon during public demonstrations is in the making. Here is the tortured logic: The Islamic fundamentalists count about 1500 members according to the German security services. There is about 4 million Muslims in Germany that want to have little, if anything, to do with their violence. In order to protect German police officers from their violence it is necessary to prevent the extreme rightwingers from showing the cartoon during their demonstrations.
I have no sympathies for the rightwingers here, but it seems to me as if the German state is caving in to Muslim fundamentalists. German citizens would - in future - be prohibited from doing things that could offend members of a Muslim fundamentalist sect in the country, lest the Muslims would otherwise go on a rampage injuring police officers and other demonstrators. Freedom of speech is subjugated to concerns about security of the security forces (whose job, among many other obligations, ironically, is to uphold German citizens rights to express even harsh criticism of religious ideologies). I can't wait to hear how the German courts will respond to this interior ministerial edict.
Interesting parallel: in Jamaica, a Caribbean island state known for its large number of militantly anti-gay Christian citizens, we see the police routinely prohibiting demonstration by gay civil rights groups. Their logic also is that there are so many enraged Christians out there that they couldn't guarantee the safety of the demonstrators (at least - unlike in Germany - they're not concerned about the security of the security forces). Another example of a democratic society caving in to religiously motivated militancy.
The trouble with religious freedom is that it is all too frequently misunderstood as the unrestricted freedom of the religious to run roughshot over everyone else.
None of this is terribly newsworthy, of course. Rightwingers (especially rightwing Christians) and fundamentalist Muslims love having goes at each other in Western societies, because the rightwing Christians mistakenly believe they own these places and need to defend them against Muslims wanting to establish Sharia law. It's of course a good idea to defend the secular state against any kind of religiously motivated legislation (lest you want to live in failing states like Iran or pseudo-outfits like the Vatican).
Here's the odd bit. The interior minister of the state where said demonstration took place wants to place restrictions on future demonstrations by the extreme rightwing group. A prohibition on showing the offending Danish cartoon during public demonstrations is in the making. Here is the tortured logic: The Islamic fundamentalists count about 1500 members according to the German security services. There is about 4 million Muslims in Germany that want to have little, if anything, to do with their violence. In order to protect German police officers from their violence it is necessary to prevent the extreme rightwingers from showing the cartoon during their demonstrations.
I have no sympathies for the rightwingers here, but it seems to me as if the German state is caving in to Muslim fundamentalists. German citizens would - in future - be prohibited from doing things that could offend members of a Muslim fundamentalist sect in the country, lest the Muslims would otherwise go on a rampage injuring police officers and other demonstrators. Freedom of speech is subjugated to concerns about security of the security forces (whose job, among many other obligations, ironically, is to uphold German citizens rights to express even harsh criticism of religious ideologies). I can't wait to hear how the German courts will respond to this interior ministerial edict.
Interesting parallel: in Jamaica, a Caribbean island state known for its large number of militantly anti-gay Christian citizens, we see the police routinely prohibiting demonstration by gay civil rights groups. Their logic also is that there are so many enraged Christians out there that they couldn't guarantee the safety of the demonstrators (at least - unlike in Germany - they're not concerned about the security of the security forces). Another example of a democratic society caving in to religiously motivated militancy.
The trouble with religious freedom is that it is all too frequently misunderstood as the unrestricted freedom of the religious to run roughshot over everyone else.
Follow-Up on 'Ex-Gay' Story
To contact us Click HERE
Some weeks ago I wrote here about Dr Spitzer, a noted US psychiatrist who penned many years ago a study ostensibly showing that it is possible to change the sexual orientation of homosexual people who wish to do so. His work has since been used by mostly religious fundamentalists for blaming gay people to be what and who they are, and for suggesting myriad bogus conversion schemes (all condemned by professional psychiatric and psychological associations the world all over etc.).
Dr Spitzer noted in an interview that he thinks he misinterpreted what 'ex-gay' homosexuals he interviewed for the purpose of the study told him. There was a big outcry over this. Spitzer claimed that he tried to retract his study but the Archives of Sexual Behavior where he published his work allegedly refused to do so. The Editor of said journal says that that ain't exactly how it happened, but be that as it may, in today's New York Times Spitzer declares in an interview that he has written a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior denouncing his own work and that this letter would be published in said journal. A draft of the letter has been leaked some time ago. It ends with an apology to the gay community for the harm done to the gay community by his study's baseless support of 'reparative therapy' for homosexuality.
It takes courage to admit that one is mistaken.
Dr Spitzer noted in an interview that he thinks he misinterpreted what 'ex-gay' homosexuals he interviewed for the purpose of the study told him. There was a big outcry over this. Spitzer claimed that he tried to retract his study but the Archives of Sexual Behavior where he published his work allegedly refused to do so. The Editor of said journal says that that ain't exactly how it happened, but be that as it may, in today's New York Times Spitzer declares in an interview that he has written a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior denouncing his own work and that this letter would be published in said journal. A draft of the letter has been leaked some time ago. It ends with an apology to the gay community for the harm done to the gay community by his study's baseless support of 'reparative therapy' for homosexuality.
It takes courage to admit that one is mistaken.
27 Eylül 2012 Perşembe
Follow-Up on 'Ex-Gay' Story
To contact us Click HERE
Some weeks ago I wrote here about Dr Spitzer, a noted US psychiatrist who penned many years ago a study ostensibly showing that it is possible to change the sexual orientation of homosexual people who wish to do so. His work has since been used by mostly religious fundamentalists for blaming gay people to be what and who they are, and for suggesting myriad bogus conversion schemes (all condemned by professional psychiatric and psychological associations the world all over etc.).
Dr Spitzer noted in an interview that he thinks he misinterpreted what 'ex-gay' homosexuals he interviewed for the purpose of the study told him. There was a big outcry over this. Spitzer claimed that he tried to retract his study but the Archives of Sexual Behavior where he published his work allegedly refused to do so. The Editor of said journal says that that ain't exactly how it happened, but be that as it may, in today's New York Times Spitzer declares in an interview that he has written a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior denouncing his own work and that this letter would be published in said journal. A draft of the letter has been leaked some time ago. It ends with an apology to the gay community for the harm done to the gay community by his study's baseless support of 'reparative therapy' for homosexuality.
It takes courage to admit that one is mistaken.
Dr Spitzer noted in an interview that he thinks he misinterpreted what 'ex-gay' homosexuals he interviewed for the purpose of the study told him. There was a big outcry over this. Spitzer claimed that he tried to retract his study but the Archives of Sexual Behavior where he published his work allegedly refused to do so. The Editor of said journal says that that ain't exactly how it happened, but be that as it may, in today's New York Times Spitzer declares in an interview that he has written a Letter to the Editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior denouncing his own work and that this letter would be published in said journal. A draft of the letter has been leaked some time ago. It ends with an apology to the gay community for the harm done to the gay community by his study's baseless support of 'reparative therapy' for homosexuality.
It takes courage to admit that one is mistaken.
Sick and tired of Calgary Stampede Animal Abuse
To contact us Click HERE
I am sick and tired of the animal abuse that continues to take place during the Calgary Stampede. The third year running horses, forced to participate in Stampede events, got killed in accidents. This time the accident was taped. Suffice it to say that it is truly gruesome, not at all surprising, and that one can only hope that whatever weak animal protection laws Canada has in place are sufficient to bankrupt those responsible for running this idiotic event. One of the horse owners was displayed on TV, crying, describing the shock at the loss of his horses and calling them akin to being family members. He said, 'They're just like humans, they're our family. It's just devastating for our whole family. It's hard to take.' Quick question to you Sir: Would you also subject your other family members to participation in events where deadly accidents are an annual occurrence? If you do, perhaps you might want to seek professional help somewhere, because clearly you are terribly irresponsible with regard to your interactions with your family members.
A word, perhaps, to spectators in Calgary: Give that deadly accidents are an annual occurrence during the Stampede, it stands to reason that you're attracted to blood sports resulting in the gruesome deaths of sentient non-human animals. If you're into that sort of thing, why not attend sporting events where humans volunteer in risk-taking, as opposed to events where animals are being forced into risking their lives for your entertainment needs?
There is no excuse whatsoever for continuing this 'tradition' with its ever increasing death toll!
A word, perhaps, to spectators in Calgary: Give that deadly accidents are an annual occurrence during the Stampede, it stands to reason that you're attracted to blood sports resulting in the gruesome deaths of sentient non-human animals. If you're into that sort of thing, why not attend sporting events where humans volunteer in risk-taking, as opposed to events where animals are being forced into risking their lives for your entertainment needs?
There is no excuse whatsoever for continuing this 'tradition' with its ever increasing death toll!
Truvada and HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis
To contact us Click HERE
So the US FDA has finally approved Truvada as an HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylactic (or PrEp if you fancy acronyms). I am not sure what to make of this, to be honest. The proposition here is to prescribe a chemotherapeutic to perfectly healthy people so they can protect themselves against HIV, at a cost of 13900 US$ per annum. What other protections are available? Use condoms. If you've sex with someone who's HIV positive and you want to have unsafe sex, make sure they're on HAART. If they are, the additional protection daily chemotherapy would offer to perfectly health people is close to non-existent and certainly not worth the cost paid. If you live in a society with high HIV prevalence, the odds are that it's a developing country. Your healthcare system should likely not even consider paying for such a prevention strategy, it's simply not cost effective, considering competing health needs in your society.
The drug was tested mostly on folks in high-risk groups who engage in somewhat unusual high-risk behaviour such as having plenty of unprotected sex with folks they do not know or folks they know to be HIV infected (the press release says nothing about the question of whether the latter group included folks who were known by their risk-taking participants to be on HAART), sex workers, etc. So, if you happen to belong to a group of people who engage in high-risk sexual behavior, you likely are disciplined enough to take daily chemotherapeutic drugs to compensate for your risk-taking. Really? This explains probably a 42% efficacy when compared to the placebo control. Adherence might have been a bit of an issue there... That might also explain why the FDA requires Gilead to keep track of everyone who's (supposedly ) taking Truvada and gets infected anyway. Drug resistance seems a serious concern. Little seems to be known about pregnancy and Truvada, so that's being tested while the drug is being marketed. - Who knows, there might be a market in this high-risk segment of the population, even though it seems unreasonable to me that someone who enjoys such thrills should go on chemotherapy while healthy. Might they might not better wait until they're infected? Equally, in societies where the prevalence of HIV is very high (say, Sub-Saharan Africa), is the proposition to hook large numbers of perfectly health people on these heavy hitting drugs, 'just in case'?
As I said, I'm not sure what to make of this, but I am surprised about the logic of prescribing chemotherapy to healthy individuals as a 'just in case' strategy. Good for the shareholders of Gilead, the maker of Truvada though. You're making money off 'treating' the healthy... To be fair, it is anything but unusual that healthy people are being subjected to treatment in prevention efforts. Just think of flu vaccines, Hep B vaccination and so on and so forth. However, in the case under consideration the proposition is lifelong chemotherapy. That has quite a different ring and quality to it. We should take our time to discuss the pro's and con's of such a prevention strategy carefully, instead of diving headlong into it.
The drug was tested mostly on folks in high-risk groups who engage in somewhat unusual high-risk behaviour such as having plenty of unprotected sex with folks they do not know or folks they know to be HIV infected (the press release says nothing about the question of whether the latter group included folks who were known by their risk-taking participants to be on HAART), sex workers, etc. So, if you happen to belong to a group of people who engage in high-risk sexual behavior, you likely are disciplined enough to take daily chemotherapeutic drugs to compensate for your risk-taking. Really? This explains probably a 42% efficacy when compared to the placebo control. Adherence might have been a bit of an issue there... That might also explain why the FDA requires Gilead to keep track of everyone who's (supposedly ) taking Truvada and gets infected anyway. Drug resistance seems a serious concern. Little seems to be known about pregnancy and Truvada, so that's being tested while the drug is being marketed. - Who knows, there might be a market in this high-risk segment of the population, even though it seems unreasonable to me that someone who enjoys such thrills should go on chemotherapy while healthy. Might they might not better wait until they're infected? Equally, in societies where the prevalence of HIV is very high (say, Sub-Saharan Africa), is the proposition to hook large numbers of perfectly health people on these heavy hitting drugs, 'just in case'?
As I said, I'm not sure what to make of this, but I am surprised about the logic of prescribing chemotherapy to healthy individuals as a 'just in case' strategy. Good for the shareholders of Gilead, the maker of Truvada though. You're making money off 'treating' the healthy... To be fair, it is anything but unusual that healthy people are being subjected to treatment in prevention efforts. Just think of flu vaccines, Hep B vaccination and so on and so forth. However, in the case under consideration the proposition is lifelong chemotherapy. That has quite a different ring and quality to it. We should take our time to discuss the pro's and con's of such a prevention strategy carefully, instead of diving headlong into it.
Against male circumcision on religious or cultural grounds
To contact us Click HERE
There is something surreal about the current debates that are taking place in some European countries about male circumcision. Well, it is not so much male circumcision as such, but the circumcision of very young Jewish and Muslim boys in Germany and the Netherlands. In Germany a court has recently declared circumcision on non-medical grounds illegal – much like female genital mutilation is illegal in the country. The court’s rationale was, essentially, that male circumcision for religious or cultural purposes is akin to assault or battery. If there is no overriding clinical benefit to the child undergoing the surgery, it is not justifiable to proceed with it.
In the Netherlands the Royal Dutch Medical Association has recently come forward arguing that male circumcision should be discouraged. The association notes in a report that a large number of complications resulting from circumcision are known, including ‘infections, bleeding, sepsis, necrosis, fibrosis of the skin, urinary tract infections, meningitis, herpes infections, meatisis, meatal stenosis, necrosis and necrotising complications, all of which have led to the complete amputation of the penis.’ Even deaths have been reported. There is also some evidence that circumcision diminishes pleasure during sexual intercourse and generally has a negative impact on the enjoyment of sex. The results of a large cross-sectional study in Denmark, published in 2011, reveal that ‘circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.’ It appears to be the case that that male circumcision is not a cost neutral, risk-free activity.
On the other side of the equation is what the World Health Organisation describes as ‘compelling evidence’ that circumcision reduces the HIV infection risk of adult males to a significant extent. This has led some to suggest population level circumcision of males in sub-Saharan African countries. A public health argument might plausibly be made for such a policy in areas with high HIV prevalence. However, neither Germany nor the Netherlands are located in sub-Saharan Africa. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS is thankfully quite low in those countries, and there is no reason to suggest that this is going to change any time soon.
Male as well as female genital mutilation are predominantly religiously or culturally motivated practices. Remarkably, the two world religions that tend to be so often at loggerheads, namely Islam and Judaism, both fervently support male mutilation while supporters of female genital mutilation will only be able to find support among Islamic scholars. I am not an expert in world religions and I have little doubt that theological arguments over what Judaism’s and Islam’s holy documents prescribe are likely possible, even among well-intentioned experts. Leaving theological arguments aside, however, there is a strong cultural consensus in Jewish and Muslim communities that male circumcision is something good. Both in Germany and in the Netherlands representatives of the Islamic and Jewish faiths respectively charged those arguing against male circumcision with unfair discrimination. Indeed, one Rabbi reportedly went on the record claiming that the German court’s decision was ‘perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust.’ As has been noted by bioethics scholars quite a few times, we should be very suspicious if the holocaust argument is deployed in support or against something. Quite likely there is no reasonable argument to be had, hence the Nazi argument is wheeled in in order to discredit whatever it is that someone has a bone to pick with.
Of course, it is always possible that the motives of some of those arguing against circumcision are driven by ulterior intentions. You would have reason, for instance, to be suspicious if a Christian intelligent design organization hired an ex-Muslim atheist to campaign against Islam. However, it is surprising that it did not occur to these religious lobbyists that child welfare and fundamentally the child’s right to her bodily integrity are of paramount importance. In liberal Western democracies they rightly trump parental religious beliefs. The only issue that should matter in these debates is the affected children’s welfare. Religion or other cultural convictions, no matter how strongly felt, should not even enter into the equation. We do not permit Jehovah’s witnesses to prevent their off-spring from receiving blood transfusions when this is medically indicated. Why not? Simply put: we apply a child’s best interest standard. Best interest, when considered in a medical context, by necessity refers to health related concerns. It’s a legal standard applied, for instance in Canada. There is no good reason to deviate from this standard to accommodate the religious traditions of Muslims or Jews. It is also worth noting that we usually give parents significant room to make parental decisions on behalf of their children, precisely because we believe that they usually know what is in their children’s best interest. That might even explain why the paternalism-in-medicine doctrine has its roots in the idea of a good parent (well, father) doing what is in his child’s best interest, even if the child disagrees. In the case under consideration, however, it is clear that the motives driving the parents derive their strength from religious or cultural convictions rather than from empirical evidence in support of the need for a surgical intervention in every male child.
Surprisingly, in Germany major political parties from the centre right Christian Democrats to the Liberals as well as the leftish German Labour Party fell over one another promising to introduce legislation aimed at safeguarding purported parental rights to mutilate their children’s genitals for religious reasons. The Greens were expressly more concerned about ‘religious freedom’ than about child welfare. The parliamentarians expressed worries that otherwise Muslim and Jews just could not live any longer in Germany. Strangely the same concern does not seem to apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are forced to adapt their religious practices to German law protecting children against parental abuse. The parliament passed a resolution asking the government to create legislation aimed at permitting male circumcision as long as it occurs without ‘unnecessary pain’. The German foreign minister reportedly thought the parliament’s vote demonstrated that Germany is a cosmopolitan and tolerant society, when arguably it demonstrated that the country’s politicians are readily prepared to subjugate child welfare concerns to concerns about alleged religious freedoms. Interestingly enough, the same parliamentarians had no problems protecting women against female genital mutilation with an argument suggesting that it is ‘sittenwidrig’, ie against German customs or morals. This, of course, is question begging. How is female genital mutilation any more sittenwidrig than male genital mutilation? In a historical sense it is arguably against German customs as there is no such tradition in Germany, but history cannot as such provide normative guidance. Female genital mutilation clearly causes more harmful consequences, but these cuts might possibly also be undertaken without causing unnecessary (sic!) pain, and that seems to be the odd yardstick against which male circumcision is held. One cannot help but wonder, what other bodily parts the German parliamentarians might in the future see fit to be removed lawfully as long as the removal does not cause unnecessary (sic!) pain and as long as some religious ritual or other is attached to it.
Germany as well as other countries would be well advised to reconsider permitting religiously or otherwise culturally motivated irreversible surgical body modifications of children that serve no uncontroversial medically beneficial purpose. If a competent adult or a mature minor wanted to go ahead with circumcision, a case could easily be made to respect such wishes. However, in the case of children the child’s –medically understood - welfare should take precedence over parents’ religious convictions. That is how most societies rightly address this problem with respect to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ prohibition of blood transfusions and that is how we should handle it with regard to genital mutilations of the various kinds that are popular among particular religions. Parenthood should not be confused with unrestricted ownership, neither by parents nor by parliamentarians trying to accommodate religious convictions. It is surprising that using children as mere means to satisfy parental religious or cultural needs should be considered acceptable in the 21st century version of Immanuel Kant’s homeland.
There is something surreal about the current debates that are taking place in some European countries about male circumcision. Well, it is not so much male circumcision as such, but the circumcision of very young Jewish and Muslim boys in Germany and the Netherlands. In Germany a court has recently declared circumcision on non-medical grounds illegal – much like female genital mutilation is illegal in the country. The court’s rationale was, essentially, that male circumcision for religious or cultural purposes is akin to assault or battery. If there is no overriding clinical benefit to the child undergoing the surgery, it is not justifiable to proceed with it.
In the Netherlands the Royal Dutch Medical Association has recently come forward arguing that male circumcision should be discouraged. The association notes in a report that a large number of complications resulting from circumcision are known, including ‘infections, bleeding, sepsis, necrosis, fibrosis of the skin, urinary tract infections, meningitis, herpes infections, meatisis, meatal stenosis, necrosis and necrotising complications, all of which have led to the complete amputation of the penis.’ Even deaths have been reported. There is also some evidence that circumcision diminishes pleasure during sexual intercourse and generally has a negative impact on the enjoyment of sex. The results of a large cross-sectional study in Denmark, published in 2011, reveal that ‘circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.’ It appears to be the case that that male circumcision is not a cost neutral, risk-free activity.
On the other side of the equation is what the World Health Organisation describes as ‘compelling evidence’ that circumcision reduces the HIV infection risk of adult males to a significant extent. This has led some to suggest population level circumcision of males in sub-Saharan African countries. A public health argument might plausibly be made for such a policy in areas with high HIV prevalence. However, neither Germany nor the Netherlands are located in sub-Saharan Africa. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS is thankfully quite low in those countries, and there is no reason to suggest that this is going to change any time soon.
Male as well as female genital mutilation are predominantly religiously or culturally motivated practices. Remarkably, the two world religions that tend to be so often at loggerheads, namely Islam and Judaism, both fervently support male mutilation while supporters of female genital mutilation will only be able to find support among Islamic scholars. I am not an expert in world religions and I have little doubt that theological arguments over what Judaism’s and Islam’s holy documents prescribe are likely possible, even among well-intentioned experts. Leaving theological arguments aside, however, there is a strong cultural consensus in Jewish and Muslim communities that male circumcision is something good. Both in Germany and in the Netherlands representatives of the Islamic and Jewish faiths respectively charged those arguing against male circumcision with unfair discrimination. Indeed, one Rabbi reportedly went on the record claiming that the German court’s decision was ‘perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust.’ As has been noted by bioethics scholars quite a few times, we should be very suspicious if the holocaust argument is deployed in support or against something. Quite likely there is no reasonable argument to be had, hence the Nazi argument is wheeled in in order to discredit whatever it is that someone has a bone to pick with.
Of course, it is always possible that the motives of some of those arguing against circumcision are driven by ulterior intentions. You would have reason, for instance, to be suspicious if a Christian intelligent design organization hired an ex-Muslim atheist to campaign against Islam. However, it is surprising that it did not occur to these religious lobbyists that child welfare and fundamentally the child’s right to her bodily integrity are of paramount importance. In liberal Western democracies they rightly trump parental religious beliefs. The only issue that should matter in these debates is the affected children’s welfare. Religion or other cultural convictions, no matter how strongly felt, should not even enter into the equation. We do not permit Jehovah’s witnesses to prevent their off-spring from receiving blood transfusions when this is medically indicated. Why not? Simply put: we apply a child’s best interest standard. Best interest, when considered in a medical context, by necessity refers to health related concerns. It’s a legal standard applied, for instance in Canada. There is no good reason to deviate from this standard to accommodate the religious traditions of Muslims or Jews. It is also worth noting that we usually give parents significant room to make parental decisions on behalf of their children, precisely because we believe that they usually know what is in their children’s best interest. That might even explain why the paternalism-in-medicine doctrine has its roots in the idea of a good parent (well, father) doing what is in his child’s best interest, even if the child disagrees. In the case under consideration, however, it is clear that the motives driving the parents derive their strength from religious or cultural convictions rather than from empirical evidence in support of the need for a surgical intervention in every male child.
Surprisingly, in Germany major political parties from the centre right Christian Democrats to the Liberals as well as the leftish German Labour Party fell over one another promising to introduce legislation aimed at safeguarding purported parental rights to mutilate their children’s genitals for religious reasons. The Greens were expressly more concerned about ‘religious freedom’ than about child welfare. The parliamentarians expressed worries that otherwise Muslim and Jews just could not live any longer in Germany. Strangely the same concern does not seem to apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are forced to adapt their religious practices to German law protecting children against parental abuse. The parliament passed a resolution asking the government to create legislation aimed at permitting male circumcision as long as it occurs without ‘unnecessary pain’. The German foreign minister reportedly thought the parliament’s vote demonstrated that Germany is a cosmopolitan and tolerant society, when arguably it demonstrated that the country’s politicians are readily prepared to subjugate child welfare concerns to concerns about alleged religious freedoms. Interestingly enough, the same parliamentarians had no problems protecting women against female genital mutilation with an argument suggesting that it is ‘sittenwidrig’, ie against German customs or morals. This, of course, is question begging. How is female genital mutilation any more sittenwidrig than male genital mutilation? In a historical sense it is arguably against German customs as there is no such tradition in Germany, but history cannot as such provide normative guidance. Female genital mutilation clearly causes more harmful consequences, but these cuts might possibly also be undertaken without causing unnecessary (sic!) pain, and that seems to be the odd yardstick against which male circumcision is held. One cannot help but wonder, what other bodily parts the German parliamentarians might in the future see fit to be removed lawfully as long as the removal does not cause unnecessary (sic!) pain and as long as some religious ritual or other is attached to it.
Germany as well as other countries would be well advised to reconsider permitting religiously or otherwise culturally motivated irreversible surgical body modifications of children that serve no uncontroversial medically beneficial purpose. If a competent adult or a mature minor wanted to go ahead with circumcision, a case could easily be made to respect such wishes. However, in the case of children the child’s –medically understood - welfare should take precedence over parents’ religious convictions. That is how most societies rightly address this problem with respect to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ prohibition of blood transfusions and that is how we should handle it with regard to genital mutilations of the various kinds that are popular among particular religions. Parenthood should not be confused with unrestricted ownership, neither by parents nor by parliamentarians trying to accommodate religious convictions. It is surprising that using children as mere means to satisfy parental religious or cultural needs should be considered acceptable in the 21st century version of Immanuel Kant’s homeland.
Bad news for anti-euthanasia campaigners
To contact us Click HERE
One can understand why anti-euthanasia campaigners get ever more desperate in their campaign strategies. After all, they can't be entirely honest with us any longer about their true motives, namely their religious convictions that just are not shared by most of us. So they have resorted to go on and on and on about the dangers of sliding down a slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia, endless warnings about abuses of all kinds, stuff like that. They even publish agitprop papers in scientific outlets. An example as good as any is an article by Ottawa palliative care specialist Jose Pereira in Current Oncology that consist to a large extent of empirically false claims 'supported' by references that do not sustain his claims. As far as stooping low is concerned, anti-euthanasia campaigners do not seem to know what shame is all about, they certainly seem to have none. Remarkably the online outlet that chose to publish Mr Pereira's agitprop piece has so far refused to publish what would be a very long list of corrections to Pereira's error ridden article. The interested public, coming across Pereira's piece in medical databases, is still downloading his stuff without being notified about the long list of errors the article contains, even though the editors of the online publication are very much aware of these mistakes. I do wonder why basic principles of editorial professionalism seem to be of no concern to them. For what it's worth, in my considered view as an experienced editor of a large international bioethics journal, Pereira's piece should have been retracted a long long time ago. I encourage you to read his article as well as the second piece I link to above (by Jocelyn Downie and colleagues - they're showing how error-ridden this article really is).
One of the biggest current claims by anti-choice campaigners is that vulnerable elderly are at grave risk of being abused, should voluntary euthanasia ever come about. The thing is, of course, there is exactly zero evidence that the decriminalisation of assisted dying has resulted in abuse of anyone, including vulnerable elderly. Today the New York Times has a remarkable line on this particular matter. It writes about a medical doctor, 67 year old Dr Wesley, a patient suffering from ALS, a disease that in effect lays waste to our muscles while leaving our mind intact, as the New York Times so aptly describes. The article notes, 'Dr. Wesley is emblematic of those who have taken advantage of the law. They are overwhelmingly white, well educated and financially comfortable. And they are making the choice not because they are in pain but because they want to have the same control over their deaths that they have had over their lives.'None of this is any news to pro-choice campaigners, but this kind of information doesn't suits the anti-choice crowd's scare campaigns, so you will undoubtedly hear more about vulnerable elderly and abuse and horror etc etc. All this in the service of subjugating secular societies' citizens to religious dictates as to how our lives must end.
One of the biggest current claims by anti-choice campaigners is that vulnerable elderly are at grave risk of being abused, should voluntary euthanasia ever come about. The thing is, of course, there is exactly zero evidence that the decriminalisation of assisted dying has resulted in abuse of anyone, including vulnerable elderly. Today the New York Times has a remarkable line on this particular matter. It writes about a medical doctor, 67 year old Dr Wesley, a patient suffering from ALS, a disease that in effect lays waste to our muscles while leaving our mind intact, as the New York Times so aptly describes. The article notes, 'Dr. Wesley is emblematic of those who have taken advantage of the law. They are overwhelmingly white, well educated and financially comfortable. And they are making the choice not because they are in pain but because they want to have the same control over their deaths that they have had over their lives.'None of this is any news to pro-choice campaigners, but this kind of information doesn't suits the anti-choice crowd's scare campaigns, so you will undoubtedly hear more about vulnerable elderly and abuse and horror etc etc. All this in the service of subjugating secular societies' citizens to religious dictates as to how our lives must end.
26 Eylül 2012 Çarşamba
Dogs to Watch for September 24
To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!DODGE CALIBER, Birmingham, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 7, post #8.
CUSTOM TRENT, Palm Beach, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 12, post #6.
MANI STRONG, Tri-State, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 15, post #1.
RED PERSISTENCE, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 3, post #7.
REDROCK MIRROR, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 9, post #2.
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages..
CUSTOM TRENT, Palm Beach, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 12, post #6.
MANI STRONG, Tri-State, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 15, post #1.
RED PERSISTENCE, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 3, post #7.
REDROCK MIRROR, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 9, post #2.
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages..
Results: Dogs to Watch for September 23
To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!
JUST TERRIFIC, Palm Beach, 09/23/2012, Afternoon, race 15 post #7. Result: 3-7-5- .
MAGIC TORPEDO, Tri-State, 09/23/2012, Evening, race 13 post #6. Result: 7-2-6- .
BELLA CUBANARO, Wheeling, 09/23/2012, Afternoon, race 3 post #7. Result: 8-7-5- .
KB'S HASLET, Wheeling, 09/23/2012, Afternoon, race 13 post #4. Result: 7-8-1- .
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages..
JUST TERRIFIC, Palm Beach, 09/23/2012, Afternoon, race 15 post #7. Result: 3-7-5- .
MAGIC TORPEDO, Tri-State, 09/23/2012, Evening, race 13 post #6. Result: 7-2-6- .
BELLA CUBANARO, Wheeling, 09/23/2012, Afternoon, race 3 post #7. Result: 8-7-5- .
KB'S HASLET, Wheeling, 09/23/2012, Afternoon, race 13 post #4. Result: 7-8-1- .
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages..
Dogs to Watch for September 26
To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!
DODGE CALIBER, Birmingham, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 11, post #6.
SLATEX EMERALD, Bluffs Run, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 13, post #2.
WW'S GUCCI, Orange Park, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 9, post #2.
MONKEYS UNCLE, Palm Beach, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 14, post #7.
TWISTING TWISTER, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 8, post #5.
CRAIGIE I AM JAK, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 6, post #1.
SAND CLOUD, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 6, post #6.
BACKWOOD CODY, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 10, post #8.
VENUS ESPINOSA, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 10, post #3.
UMR HYDRO, Tri-State, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 9, post #7.
OUT D BOX, Tucson, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 4, post #6.
RAMS KIZZY KATE, Tucson, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 9, post #1.
AMF EX PRESIDENT, Wheeling, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 7, post #3.
BLACKJACK BEAVER, Wheeling, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 14, post #2.
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages.
DODGE CALIBER, Birmingham, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 11, post #6.
SLATEX EMERALD, Bluffs Run, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 13, post #2.
WW'S GUCCI, Orange Park, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 9, post #2.
MONKEYS UNCLE, Palm Beach, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 14, post #7.
TWISTING TWISTER, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 8, post #5.
CRAIGIE I AM JAK, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 6, post #1.
SAND CLOUD, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 6, post #6.
BACKWOOD CODY, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 10, post #8.
VENUS ESPINOSA, Derby Lane, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 10, post #3.
UMR HYDRO, Tri-State, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 9, post #7.
OUT D BOX, Tucson, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 4, post #6.
RAMS KIZZY KATE, Tucson, 09/26/2012, Evening, race 9, post #1.
AMF EX PRESIDENT, Wheeling, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 7, post #3.
BLACKJACK BEAVER, Wheeling, 09/26/2012, Afternoon, race 14, post #2.
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages.
TIPS for September 27
To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!
Bluffs Run Thu A, Race 07 #3: SB'S PERRY
Daytona Beach Thu A, Race 04 #4: Ww Jimbo's Heart
Dubuque Thu E, Race 01 #1: Majestic Love
Dubuque Thu E, Race 02 #1: Gable Strikeking
Dubuque Thu E, Race 10 #1: Take Em Down
Dubuque Thu E, Race 12 #2: Boc's Sweeney
Orange Park Thu E, Race 08 #8: Tds Farrah
Orange Park Thu E, Race 12 #1: Snj Ginger
Palm Beach Thu A, Race 04 #8: Atascocita Sasha
Palm Beach Thu A, Race 08 #6: Stand Up Chuck
Southland Thu E, Race 15 #4: Mister Arizona
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 01 #4: Flying Inari
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 02 #5: Tmc's Misses O
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 03 #7: Amen Corner
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 04 #8: Flying Annan
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 08 #6: Jack's Shortfuse
TriState Thu E, Race 04 #3: Umr Friendly
TriState Thu E, Race 14 #1: Hurricane Paige
Tucson Thu E, Race 12 #8: Gable Taylor
Bluffs Run Thu A, Race 07 #3: SB'S PERRY
Daytona Beach Thu A, Race 04 #4: Ww Jimbo's Heart
Dubuque Thu E, Race 01 #1: Majestic Love
Dubuque Thu E, Race 02 #1: Gable Strikeking
Dubuque Thu E, Race 10 #1: Take Em Down
Dubuque Thu E, Race 12 #2: Boc's Sweeney
Orange Park Thu E, Race 08 #8: Tds Farrah
Orange Park Thu E, Race 12 #1: Snj Ginger
Palm Beach Thu A, Race 04 #8: Atascocita Sasha
Palm Beach Thu A, Race 08 #6: Stand Up Chuck
Southland Thu E, Race 15 #4: Mister Arizona
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 01 #4: Flying Inari
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 02 #5: Tmc's Misses O
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 03 #7: Amen Corner
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 04 #8: Flying Annan
Derby Lane Thu E, Race 08 #6: Jack's Shortfuse
TriState Thu E, Race 04 #3: Umr Friendly
TriState Thu E, Race 14 #1: Hurricane Paige
Tucson Thu E, Race 12 #8: Gable Taylor
25 Eylül 2012 Salı
TIPS for September 25
To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!
Birmingham Tue E, Race 06 #2: CTW JESSICA
Birmingham Tue E, Race 13 #7: SHARON OSBOURNE
Birmingham Tue E, Race 14 #5: VOGO PAULA
Birmingham Tue E, Race 15 #1: KAHULUI
Bluffs Run Tue A, Race 04 #2: L'S ZAKARACK
Bluffs Run Tue A, Race 08 #8: L'S KOLBYSCOTT
Derby Lane Tue E, Race 02 #7: Betty B Bad
Derby Lane Tue E, Race 07 #1: M's Black Adam
Wheeling Tue A, Race 17 #5: Sweet Az Akira.
Birmingham Tue E, Race 06 #2: CTW JESSICA
Birmingham Tue E, Race 13 #7: SHARON OSBOURNE
Birmingham Tue E, Race 14 #5: VOGO PAULA
Birmingham Tue E, Race 15 #1: KAHULUI
Bluffs Run Tue A, Race 04 #2: L'S ZAKARACK
Bluffs Run Tue A, Race 08 #8: L'S KOLBYSCOTT
Derby Lane Tue E, Race 02 #7: Betty B Bad
Derby Lane Tue E, Race 07 #1: M's Black Adam
Wheeling Tue A, Race 17 #5: Sweet Az Akira.
Results: Dogs to Watch for September 24
To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!
DODGE CALIBER, Birmingham, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 7 post #8. Result: 1-2-7- .
CUSTOM TRENT, Palm Beach, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 12 post #6. Result: 5-3-4- .
MANI STRONG, Tri-State, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 15 post #1. Result: 8-4-7- .
RED PERSISTENCE, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 3 post #7. Result: 3-1-2- .
REDROCK MIRROR, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 9 post #2. Result: 6-1-4- .
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages.
DODGE CALIBER, Birmingham, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 7 post #8. Result: 1-2-7- .
CUSTOM TRENT, Palm Beach, 09/24/2012, Afternoon, race 12 post #6. Result: 5-3-4- .
MANI STRONG, Tri-State, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 15 post #1. Result: 8-4-7- .
RED PERSISTENCE, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 3 post #7. Result: 3-1-2- .
REDROCK MIRROR, Tucson, 09/24/2012, Evening, race 9 post #2. Result: 6-1-4- .
Visit trackinfo.com for complete entries and program pages.
Gulf Greyhounds Kennel of the Week - K-Rod Kennel
To contact us Click HERE
Gulf Greyhound Park’s top kennel in 2012, K-Rod Kennel, was on a quest to earn the Kennel of the Week honors for the fourth consecutive week. After an evenly balanced week amongst the kennels, the battle came down to Tri-State Kennel, trained by Enrique Macias and K-Rod Kennel, trained by Rodney Cooley this week. With a final difference of $196, K-Rod Kennel accomplished its goal with a week consisting of 10 wins, 7 seconds, 8 thirds and 1 fourth place finish out of 60 starts earning $7,010.00 in purse money. Leading the way were top grade AA winners Beggars Tomb on Thursday evening and Ultra Jabber on Saturday night.
Gulf Greyhounds Greyhound of the Week - Atascocita Enok
To contact us Click HERE
Returning to the Greyhound of the Week spotlight after earning the honors in the beginning of August is Atascocita Enok of Libby Racing Kennels. The 73-pound red brindle son of Dodgem by Design – Atascocita Barb continues to win top grade AA races in bunches and has been one of Gulf Greyhound Park’s top performers winning six out of his last ten races including back to back winning efforts to take the weekly accolades.
On Wednesday afternoon September 12, Atascocita Enok from Libby Racing Kennels found his way back to the winner’s circle for the first time in his last four starts in the grade AA fifth race with a very impressive effort. Starting from the outside #8 post, Atascocita Enok broke unexpectedly well and engaged in a speed duel to the first turn with Spry Cozart of K-Rod Kennel, DLT Traitorsplan of Lingle Kennel and JSK Scatback of Sambade Racing, LLC. Despite `scraping paint` with #7 Spry Cozart around the first turn, Atascocita Enok regained his momentum with a ½ length lead over JSK Scatback of Sambade Racing, LLC and headed for the trip down the Gulf Greyhound Park backstretch.
In most cases throughout his career, this would be the time for Atascocita Enok to start picking off rivals one by one in come from behind fashion. With nothing but Marquey and daylight in front of him, Atascocita Enok accelerated away from the grade AA field with ease and opened up the lead to a final winning margin of eight lengths in a time of 30.03 seconds as the 2 to 1 race favorite.
The next trip on the sands of the La Marque, Texas racing oval arrived the following Wednesday on September 19. After rolling to a eight-length romping victory in his previous outing, Atascocita Enok of Libby Racing Kennels made it two wins in a row with a determined drive in the grade AA fifth race. With the `lucky stripes` of the #7 blanket, Atascocita Enok moved into contention with a strong drive heading into the Gulf Greyhound Park backstretch positioning himself perfectly behind race leader Blackjack Katon of K-Rod Kennel. Racing down the middle of the racetrack, Atascocita Enok dug in with each stride and passed by Blackjack Katon reaching the finish line in front by one length in a time of 30.00 seconds.
This latest win string improves Atascocita Enok’s 2012 record to 47/14-9-7-6 and impressive career numbers totaling 81/22-15-12-13 for trainer Cam Hawkins and owner George Ulmer of Atascocita Racing.
 |
| Atascocita Enok |
On Wednesday afternoon September 12, Atascocita Enok from Libby Racing Kennels found his way back to the winner’s circle for the first time in his last four starts in the grade AA fifth race with a very impressive effort. Starting from the outside #8 post, Atascocita Enok broke unexpectedly well and engaged in a speed duel to the first turn with Spry Cozart of K-Rod Kennel, DLT Traitorsplan of Lingle Kennel and JSK Scatback of Sambade Racing, LLC. Despite `scraping paint` with #7 Spry Cozart around the first turn, Atascocita Enok regained his momentum with a ½ length lead over JSK Scatback of Sambade Racing, LLC and headed for the trip down the Gulf Greyhound Park backstretch.
In most cases throughout his career, this would be the time for Atascocita Enok to start picking off rivals one by one in come from behind fashion. With nothing but Marquey and daylight in front of him, Atascocita Enok accelerated away from the grade AA field with ease and opened up the lead to a final winning margin of eight lengths in a time of 30.03 seconds as the 2 to 1 race favorite.
The next trip on the sands of the La Marque, Texas racing oval arrived the following Wednesday on September 19. After rolling to a eight-length romping victory in his previous outing, Atascocita Enok of Libby Racing Kennels made it two wins in a row with a determined drive in the grade AA fifth race. With the `lucky stripes` of the #7 blanket, Atascocita Enok moved into contention with a strong drive heading into the Gulf Greyhound Park backstretch positioning himself perfectly behind race leader Blackjack Katon of K-Rod Kennel. Racing down the middle of the racetrack, Atascocita Enok dug in with each stride and passed by Blackjack Katon reaching the finish line in front by one length in a time of 30.00 seconds.
This latest win string improves Atascocita Enok’s 2012 record to 47/14-9-7-6 and impressive career numbers totaling 81/22-15-12-13 for trainer Cam Hawkins and owner George Ulmer of Atascocita Racing.
23 Eylül 2012 Pazar
Keeping older people mobile shouldn't just involve wider roads and bigger signs
This is a theme in transportation policy: If people are driving off the road or otherwise having crashes, the obvious solution is to make the road more "forgiving," that is make it easier to drive faster and without paying attention. The solution isn't to make people drive slower or be more alert; it's an engineering problem, not a human problem.
Talk about enabling bad behavior. How would the tough-love people feel about fixing the problem of irresponsibility in other areas of our lives by making sure there aren't harsh consequences? I'd love to hear this in a debate among conservatives.
Here's another example, a report on "Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans."
As a baby boomer myself, I hate to think that national researchers think I won't be mobile soon. But I admit that not only am I on the young end of baby boom, but we all get older, and it's probably a good idea to think about all those people that will need to stay connected to the world. We have built a country where driving is almost required to participate, so this report emphasizes bigger, brighter signs, wider roads with fewer curves, and less things to run into on the side of the road - like bus shelters, benches, trees, or buildings.
No mention at all that maybe people shouldn't drive, if they can't use the roads in a safe and responsible manner. How about building communities where driving is but one option to move around? How about making sure that people that can't drive can walk, take transit, or get a ride another way for their daily activities, entertainment, and social interactions?
But I'm going to let the words that came via email this morning, from David Burwell at the Carnegie Endowment, speak to that issue:
Talk about enabling bad behavior. How would the tough-love people feel about fixing the problem of irresponsibility in other areas of our lives by making sure there aren't harsh consequences? I'd love to hear this in a debate among conservatives.
Here's another example, a report on "Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans."
As a baby boomer myself, I hate to think that national researchers think I won't be mobile soon. But I admit that not only am I on the young end of baby boom, but we all get older, and it's probably a good idea to think about all those people that will need to stay connected to the world. We have built a country where driving is almost required to participate, so this report emphasizes bigger, brighter signs, wider roads with fewer curves, and less things to run into on the side of the road - like bus shelters, benches, trees, or buildings.
No mention at all that maybe people shouldn't drive, if they can't use the roads in a safe and responsible manner. How about building communities where driving is but one option to move around? How about making sure that people that can't drive can walk, take transit, or get a ride another way for their daily activities, entertainment, and social interactions?
But I'm going to let the words that came via email this morning, from David Burwell at the Carnegie Endowment, speak to that issue:
Report of the Week: The Transportation Research Information Program (TRIP) the research affiliate of the Highway Users Alliance, has blessed America with a new report documenting innovative strategies for keeping our senior drivers safe on the roads. Noting that while seniors represent only 8% of the driving public but 18% of driver fatalities, the TRIP report, Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans, suggests such innovations as requiring "clearer, brighter and simpler signs with large letters." Great idea--and how about the pedestrians, bicyclists and other road users--maybe we (actually, they, since your reporter is a baby boomer) all should be required to carry bright signs in large letters saying "please don't hit me!" Wider left turn lanes are another helpful idea, along with longer turning and exit lanes--providing more pavement for those pesky walkers and bicyclists to cross. One can page through the entire report for programs to provide baby boomers with options to driving--ride-sharing, mixed use developments that reduce the need to travel, more transit options--nope, not there. But this is a Highway Users Alliance publication after all. If seniors don't want to use the highways they are on their own. http://www.tripnet.org/docs/Older_Drivers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2012.pdf.
Bicycle news stories round-up - Late July 2012
I haven't been blogging much, but I've been writing a lot at work. Instead of something profound (as if my stuff is ever "profound"...), maybe I can just share a few things I run across. I'll also try to write more, but in the meantime...
I'm going to try to post a few interesting stories about bicycling each week or two. Few comments, but mostly links to the articles.
Madison PD expands bike-cop program. New bikes, more cops on bikes. The program as been very popular with both the officers and the public.
The Atlantic Cities examines how bicyclists can sometimes be the bad guys. Although some pedestrians are quick to complain about bicyclists being rude, generally pedestrians and bicyclists are allies.
Walking and Biking Pay Off. The final reports are in, and an article for Federal Highways looks at the four Non-Motorized Pilot Transportation projects - one in Sheboygan.
Have you ever been accused of hating cars? Or heard people say the city is waging a war on cars? NPR examines this claim. And unless you think that this is a new argument, they look at the history of the American relationship with the car, one that has not always been loving.
Bike sharing helps transit systems bridge the "last mile." A good article in Mass Transit magazine explains that bike sharing can enhance a transit system by allowing customers to get from the bus or rail stop to their final destination quickly and easily. Chicago received money to get a bike sharing program off the ground from TIGER III funding by pointing out that the program will complement and improve access to the transit system. But as the Mass Transit article points out, the Federal Transit Administration won't fund the infrastructure for bike sharing, although the Federal Highway Administration will. And both the physical and political environment in a city must be friendly for bike sharing to work.
New York's huge bike share program is still on hold, and people are wondering what is holding it up. Even elected officials say the silence about the delay is disconcerting.
From Boston comes this blog post about why we should pay people to bike to work. What the post really argues is that "parking cash-out" should be more common.
A study from Florida shows that using "sharrows" on roads without bike lanes, but which have on-street parking, decreases the percentage of bicyclists riding in the "door zone," that is the area where they could be hit by a car door if someone opens it into traffic. Unfortunately, the percentage decrease only went from 71 percent to 55 percent, meaning that more than half the bicyclists still are at risk. Maybe they need more bicycle education. Florida isn't known as the safest place to ride or walk, and bicyclists are probably not all that confident that they won't get hit anyway.
Madison installed a HAWK signal - otherwise known as a pedestrian beacon at Blair St on the E. Mifflin bike boulevard. This signal is supposed to help bicyclists and pedestrians cross Blair while not encouraging additional motor vehicle traffic on Mifflin. Some recent research shows that these types of signals are effective in reducing pedestrian crashes.
I'm going to try to post a few interesting stories about bicycling each week or two. Few comments, but mostly links to the articles.
Madison PD expands bike-cop program. New bikes, more cops on bikes. The program as been very popular with both the officers and the public.
The Atlantic Cities examines how bicyclists can sometimes be the bad guys. Although some pedestrians are quick to complain about bicyclists being rude, generally pedestrians and bicyclists are allies.
Walking and Biking Pay Off. The final reports are in, and an article for Federal Highways looks at the four Non-Motorized Pilot Transportation projects - one in Sheboygan.
Have you ever been accused of hating cars? Or heard people say the city is waging a war on cars? NPR examines this claim. And unless you think that this is a new argument, they look at the history of the American relationship with the car, one that has not always been loving.
Bike sharing helps transit systems bridge the "last mile." A good article in Mass Transit magazine explains that bike sharing can enhance a transit system by allowing customers to get from the bus or rail stop to their final destination quickly and easily. Chicago received money to get a bike sharing program off the ground from TIGER III funding by pointing out that the program will complement and improve access to the transit system. But as the Mass Transit article points out, the Federal Transit Administration won't fund the infrastructure for bike sharing, although the Federal Highway Administration will. And both the physical and political environment in a city must be friendly for bike sharing to work.
New York's huge bike share program is still on hold, and people are wondering what is holding it up. Even elected officials say the silence about the delay is disconcerting.
From Boston comes this blog post about why we should pay people to bike to work. What the post really argues is that "parking cash-out" should be more common.
A study from Florida shows that using "sharrows" on roads without bike lanes, but which have on-street parking, decreases the percentage of bicyclists riding in the "door zone," that is the area where they could be hit by a car door if someone opens it into traffic. Unfortunately, the percentage decrease only went from 71 percent to 55 percent, meaning that more than half the bicyclists still are at risk. Maybe they need more bicycle education. Florida isn't known as the safest place to ride or walk, and bicyclists are probably not all that confident that they won't get hit anyway.
Madison installed a HAWK signal - otherwise known as a pedestrian beacon at Blair St on the E. Mifflin bike boulevard. This signal is supposed to help bicyclists and pedestrians cross Blair while not encouraging additional motor vehicle traffic on Mifflin. Some recent research shows that these types of signals are effective in reducing pedestrian crashes.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)