districtnews

ENDANGERED SPECIES

2010-02-19T15:23:00.000-08:00

Species Profiles:
Africa

Antarctica

Asia

Australia

Central America

Europe

Hawaii

Middle East

North America

Oceania

South America

Donate

Find a Creature

Web Site Search

Featured Creature

EEC Home

FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME

2010-02-12T09:58:00.000-08:00

MEMORY AND REALITY

About the FMS Foundation

FMSF Newsletter Archive

-->FMSF Frequently Asked Questions

Hypnosis

Multiple Personality

Legal Interests

Therapy Topics

Retractor Stories/Studies

Focus on Science

Some of our memories are true, some are a mixture of fact and fantasy, and some are false -- whether those memories seem to be continuous or seem to be recalled after a time of being forgotten or not thought about.
Then how can we know if our memories are true? The professional organizations agree: the only way to distinguish between true and false memories is by external corroboration.

(Recovered Memories: Are They Reliable?)
What could cause a person to believe sincerely in something that never happened? We have posted on this site both scientific views, derived from suggestibility and influence studies, and insights provided by retractors -- individuals who once accepted as true certain memories that they now believe to have been false.

(How to Believe the Unbelievable)(Why Believe That for Which There Is No Good Evidence?)
Does it matter if someone has a false belief about the past? Most of the time it doesn't. Sometimes, however, false beliefs cause great harm, not only to the people who hold them, but also to others. This site provides information about how some false beliefs about memory have seriously harmed the believers, their families and other innocent individuals.
What are false memories? Because of the reconstructive nature of memory, some memories may be distorted through influences such as the incorporation of new information. There are also believed-in imaginings that are not based in historical reality; these have been called false memories, pseudo-memories and memory illusions. They can result from the influence of external factors, such as the opinion of an authority figure or information repeated in the culture. An individual with an internal desire to please, to get better or to conform can easily be affected by such influences.
What is the recovered-memory controversy about? The information on this site focuses on the current controversy about the accuracy of adult claims of "repressed" memories of childhood sexual abuse that are often made decades after the alleged events, for which there is no external corroboration. The controversy is not about whether children are abused. Child abuse is a serious social problem that requires our attention. Neither is the controversy about whether people may not remember past abuse. There are many reasons why people may not remember something: childhood amnesia, physical trauma, drugs or the natural decay of stored information. The controversy is about the accuracy of claims of recovered "repressed" memories of abuse. The consequences profoundly affect the law, the way therapy is practiced, families and people's lives.Harrison Pope, Jr., M.D. informally discusses the controversy in an interview entitled, "Recovered Memories:" Recent Events and Review of Evidence.
An article from the Skeptical Inquirer of March 1995 also provides an overview of the problem:
Remembering DangerouslyElizabeth Loftus, Skeptical Inquirer (1995) 19 (2), p. 20.

ECONOMICS – Friedman was wrong

2010-02-12T09:53:00.000-08:00

Who Was Milton Friedman?
By Paul Krugman
1.
The history of economic thought in the twentieth century is a bit like the history of Christianity in the sixteenth century. Until John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in 1936, economics—at least in the English-speaking world—was completely dominated by free-market orthodoxy. Heresies would occasionally pop up, but they were always suppressed. Classical economics, wrote Keynes in 1936, "conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain." And classical economics said that the answer to almost all problems was to let the forces of supply and demand do their job.

But classical economics offered neither explanations nor solutions for the Great Depression. By the middle of the 1930s, the challenges to orthodoxy could no longer be contained. Keynes played the role of Martin Luther, providing the intellectual rigor needed to make heresy respectable. Although Keynes was by no means a leftist—he came to save capitalism, not to bury it—his theory said that free markets could not be counted on to provide full employment, creating a new rationale for large-scale government intervention in the economy.

Keynesianism was a great reformation of economic thought. It was followed, inevitably, by a counter-reformation. A number of economists played important roles in the great revival of classical economics between 1950 and 2000, but none was as influential as Milton Friedman. If Keynes was Luther, Friedman was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. And like the Jesuits, Friedman's followers have acted as a sort of disciplined army of the faithful, spearheading a broad, but incomplete, rollback of Keynesian heresy. By the century's end, classical economics had regained much though by no means all of its former dominion, and Friedman deserves much of the credit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to push the religious analogy too far. Economic theory at least aspires to be science, not theology; it is concerned with earth, not heaven. Keynesian theory initially prevailed because it did a far better job than classical orthodoxy of making sense of the world around us, and Friedman's critique of Keynes became so influential largely because he correctly identified Keynesianism's weak points. And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man.

2.
Milton Friedman played three roles in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There was Friedman the economist's economist, who wrote technical, more or less apolitical analyses of consumer behavior and inflation. There was Friedman the policy entrepreneur, who spent decades campaigning on behalf of the policy known as monetarism—finally seeing the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England adopt his doctrine at the end of the 1970s, only to abandon it as unworkable a few years later. Finally, there was Friedman the ideologue, the great popularizer of free-market doctrine.

Did the same man play all these roles? Yes and no. All three roles were informed by Friedman's faith in the classical verities of free-market economics. Moreover, Friedman's effectiveness as a popularizer and propagandist rested in part on his well-deserved reputation as a profound economic theorist. But there's an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual. While Friedman's theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.

But let's hold off on the questionable material for a moment, and talk about Friedman the economic theorist. For most of the past two centuries, economic thinking has been dominated by the concept of Homo economicus. The hypothetical Economic Man knows what he wants; his preferences can be expressed mathematically in terms of a "utility function." And his choices are driven by rational calculations about how to maximize that function: whether consumers are deciding between corn flakes or shredded wheat, or investors are deciding between stocks and bonds, those decisions are assumed to be based on comparisons of the "marginal utility," or the added benefit the buyer would get from acquiring a small amount of the alternatives available.

It's easy to make fun of this story. Nobody, not even Nobel-winning economists, really makes decisions that way. But most economists—myself included—nonetheless find Economic Man useful, with the understanding that he's an idealized representation of what we really think is going on. People do have preferences, even if those preferences can't really be expressed by a precise utility function; they usually make sensible decisions, even if they don't literally maximize utility. You might ask, why not represent people the way they really are? The answer is that abstraction, strategic simplification, is the only way we can impose some intellectual order on the complexity of economic life. And the assumption of rational behavior has been a particularly fruitful simplification.

The question, however, is how far to push it. Keynes didn't make an all-out assault on Economic Man, but he often resorted to plausible psychological theorizing rather than careful analysis of what a rational decision-maker would do. Business decisions were driven by "animal spirits," consumer decisions by a psychological tendency to spend some but not all of any increase in income, wage settlements by a sense of fairness, and so on.

But was it really a good idea to diminish the role of Economic Man that much? No, said Friedman, who argued in his 1953 essay "The Methodology of Positive Economics" that economic theories should be judged not by their psychological realism but by their ability to predict behavior. And Friedman's two greatest triumphs as an economic theorist came from applying the hypothesis of rational behavior to questions other economists had thought beyond its reach.

In his 1957 book A Theory of the Consumption Function—not exactly a crowd-pleasing title, but an important topic—Friedman argued that the best way to make sense of saving and spending was not, as Keynes had done, to resort to loose psychological theorizing, but rather to think of individuals as making rational plans about how to spend their wealth over their lifetimes. This wasn't necessarily an anti-Keynesian idea—in fact, the great Keynesian economist Franco Modigliani simultaneously and independently made a similar case, with even more care in thinking about rational behavior, in work with Albert Ando. But it did mark a return to classical ways of thinking—and it worked. The details are a bit technical, but Friedman's "permanent income hypothesis" and the Ando-Modigliani "life cycle model" resolved several apparent paradoxes about the relationship between income and spending, and remain the foundations of how economists think about spending and saving to this day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friedman's work on consumption behavior would, in itself, have made his academic reputation. An even bigger triumph, however, came from his application of Economic Man theorizing to inflation. In 1958 the New Zealand–born economist A.W. Phillips pointed out that there was a historical correlation between unemployment and inflation, with high inflation associated with low unemployment and vice versa. For a time, economists treated this correlation as if it were a reliable and stable relationship. This led to serious discussion about which point on the "Phillips curve" the government should choose. For example, should the United States accept a higher inflation rate in order to achieve a lower unemployment rate?

In 1967, however, Friedman gave a presidential address to the American Economic Association in which he argued that the correlation between inflation and unemployment, even though it was visible in the data, did not represent a true trade-off, at least not in the long run. "There is," he said, "always a temporary trade-off between inflation and unemployment; there is no permanent trade-off." In other words, if policymakers were to try to keep unemployment low through a policy of generating higher inflation, they would achieve only temporary success. According to Friedman, unemployment would eventually rise again, even as inflation remained high. The economy would, in other words, suffer the condition Paul Samuelson would later dub "stagflation."

How did Friedman reach this conclusion? (Edmund S. Phelps, who was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics this year, simultaneously and independently arrived at the same result.) As in the case of his work on consumer behavior, Friedman applied the idea of rational behavior. He argued that after a sustained period of inflation, people would build expectations of future inflation into their decisions, nullifying any positive effects of inflation on employment. For example, one reason inflation may lead to higher employment is that hiring more workers becomes profitable when prices rise faster than wages. But once workers understand that the purchasing power of their wages will be eroded by inflation, they will demand higher wage settlements in advance, so that wages keep up with prices. As a result, after inflation has gone on for a while, it will no longer deliver the original boost to employment. In fact, there will be a rise in unemployment if inflation falls short of expectations.

At the time Friedman and Phelps propounded their ideas, the United States had little experience with sustained inflation. So this was truly a prediction rather than an attempt to explain the past. In the 1970s, however, persistent inflation provided a test of the Friedman-Phelps hypothesis. Sure enough, the historical correlation between inflation and unemployment broke down in just the way Friedman and Phelps had predicted: in the 1970s, as the inflation rate rose into double digits, the unemployment rate was as high or higher than in the stable-price years of the 1950s and 1960s. Inflation was eventually brought under control in the 1980s, but only after a painful period of extremely high unemployment, the worst since the Great Depression.

By predicting the phenomenon of stagflation in advance, Friedman and Phelps achieved one of the great triumphs of postwar economics. This triumph, more than anything else, confirmed Milton Friedman's status as a great economist's economist, whatever one may think of his other roles.

One interesting footnote: although Friedman made great strides in macroeconomics by applying the concept of individual rationality, he also knew where to stop. In the 1970s, some economists pushed Friedman's analysis of inflation even further, arguing that there is no usable trade-off between inflation and unemployment even in the short run, because people will anticipate government actions and build that anticipation, as well as past experience, into their price-setting and wage-bargaining. This doctrine, known as "rational expectations," swept through much of academic economics. But Friedman never went there. His reality sense warned that this was taking the idea of Homo economicus too far. And so it proved: Friedman's 1967 address has stood the test of time, while the more extreme views propounded by rational expectations theorists in the Seventies and Eighties have not.

3.
"Everything reminds Milton of the money supply. Well, everything reminds me of sex, but I keep it out of the paper," wrote MIT's Robert Solow in 1966. For decades, Milton Friedman's public image and fame were defined largely by his pronouncements on monetary policy and his creation of the doctrine known as monetarism. It's somewhat surprising to realize, then, that monetarism is now widely regarded as a failure, and that some of the things Friedman said about "money" and monetary policy—unlike what he said about consumption and inflation—appear to have been misleading, and perhaps deliberately so.

To understand what monetarism was all about, the first thing you need to know is that the word "money" doesn't mean quite the same thing in Economese that it does in plain English. When economists talk of the money supply, they don't mean wealth in the usual sense. They mean only those forms of wealth that can be used more or less directly to buy things. Currency—pieces of green paper with pictures of dead presidents on them—is money, and so are bank deposits on which you can write checks. But stocks, bonds, and real estate aren't money, because they have to be converted into cash or bank deposits before they can be used to make purchases.

If the money supply consisted solely of currency, it would be under the direct control of the government—or, more precisely, the Federal Reserve, a monetary agency that, like its counterpart "central banks" in many other countries, is institutionally somewhat separate from the government proper. The fact that the money supply also includes bank deposits makes reality more complicated. The central bank has direct control only over the "monetary base"—the sum of currency in circulation, the currency banks hold in their vaults, and the deposits banks hold at the Federal Reserve—but not the deposits people have made in banks. Under normal circumstances, however, the Federal Reserve's direct control over the monetary base is enough to give it effective control of the overall money supply as well.

Before Keynes, economists considered the money supply a primary tool of economic management. But Keynes argued that under depression conditions, when interest rates are very low, changes in the money supply have little effect on the economy. The logic went like this: when interest rates are 4 or 5 percent, nobody wants to sit on idle cash. But in a situation like that of 1935, when the interest rate on three-month Treasury bills was only 0.14 percent, there is very little incentive to take the risk of putting money to work. The central bank may try to spur the economy by printing large quantities of additional currency; but if the interest rate is already very low the additional cash is likely to languish in bank vaults or under mattresses. Thus Keynes argued that monetary policy, a change in the money supply to manage the economy, would be ineffective. And that's why Keynes and his followers believed that fiscal policy—in particular, an increase in government spending—was necessary to get countries out of the Great Depression.

Why does this matter? Monetary policy is a highly technocratic, mostly apolitical form of government intervention in the economy. If the Fed decides to increase the money supply, all it does is purchase some government bonds from private banks, paying for the bonds by crediting the banks' reserve accounts—in effect, all the Fed has to do is print some more monetary base. By contrast, fiscal policy involves the government much more deeply in the economy, often in a value-laden way: if politicians decide to use public works to promote employment, they need to decide what to build and where. Economists with a free-market bent, then, tend to want to believe that monetary policy is all that's needed; those with a desire to see a more active government tend to believe that fiscal policy is essential.

Economic thinking after the triumph of the Keynesian revolution—as reflected, say, in the early editions of Paul Samuelson's classic textbook[*]—gave priority to fiscal policy, while monetary policy was relegated to the sidelines. As Friedman said in his 1967 address to the American Economic Association:

The wide acceptance of [Keynesian] views in the economics profession meant that for some two decades monetary policy was believed by all but a few reactionary souls to have been rendered obsolete by new economic knowledge. Money did not matter.
Although this may have been an exaggeration, monetary policy was held in relatively low regard through the 1940s and 1950s. Friedman, however, crusaded for the proposition that money did too matter, culminating in the 1963 publication of A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960, with Anna Schwartz.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although A Monetary History is a vast work of extraordinary scholarship, covering a century of monetary developments, its most influential and controversial discussion concerned the Great Depression. Friedman and Schwartz claimed to have refuted Keynes's pessimism about the effectiveness of monetary policy in depression conditions. "The contraction" of the economy, they declared, "is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."

But what did they mean by that? From the beginning, the Friedman-Schwartz position seemed a bit slippery. And over time Friedman's presentation of the story grew cruder, not subtler, and eventually began to seem—there's no other way to say this—intellectually dishonest.

In interpreting the origins of the Depression, the distinction between the monetary base (currency plus bank reserves), which the Fed controls directly, and the money supply (currency plus bank deposits) is crucial. The monetary base went up during the early years of the Great Depression, rising from an average of $6.05 billion in 1929 to an average of $7.02 billion in 1933. But the money supply fell sharply, from $26.6 billion to $19.9 billion. This divergence mainly reflected the fallout from the wave of bank failures in 1930–1931: as the public lost faith in banks, people began holding their wealth in cash rather than bank deposits, and those banks that survived began keeping large quantities of cash on hand rather than lending it out, to avert the danger of a bank run. The result was much less lending, and hence much less spending, than there would have been if the public had continued to deposit cash into banks, and banks had continued to lend deposits out to businesses. And since a collapse of spending was the proximate cause of the Depression, the sudden desire of both individuals and banks to hold more cash undoubtedly made the slump worse.

Friedman and Schwartz claimed that the fall in the money supply turned what might have been an ordinary recession into a catastrophic depression, itself an arguable point. But even if we grant that point for the sake of argument, one has to ask whether the Federal Reserve, which after all did increase the monetary base, can be said to have caused the fall in the overall money supply. At least initially, Friedman and Schwartz didn't say that. What they said instead was that the Fed could have prevented the fall in the money supply, in particular by riding to the rescue of the failing banks during the crisis of 1930–1931. If the Fed had rushed to lend money to banks in trouble, the wave of bank failures might have been prevented, which in turn might have avoided both the public's decision to hold cash rather than bank deposits, and the preference of the surviving banks for stashing deposits in their vaults rather than lending the funds out. And this, in turn, might have staved off the worst of the Depression.

An analogy may be helpful here. Suppose that a flu epidemic breaks out, and later analysis suggests that appropriate action by the Centers for Disease Control could have contained the epidemic. It would be fair to blame government officials for failing to take appropriate action. But it would be quite a stretch to say that the government caused the epidemic, or to use the CDC's failure as a demonstration of the superiority of free markets over big government.

Yet many economists, and even more lay readers, have taken Friedman and Schwartz's account to mean that the Federal Reserve actually caused the Great Depression—that the Depression is in some sense a demonstration of the evils of an excessively interventionist government. And in later years, as I've said, Friedman's assertions grew cruder, as if to feed this misperception. In his 1967 presidential address he declared that "the US monetary authorities followed highly deflationary policies," and that the money supply fell "because the Federal Reserve System forced or permitted a sharp reduction in the monetary base, because it failed to exercise the responsibilities assigned to it"—an odd assertion given that the monetary base, as we've seen, actually rose as the money supply was falling. (Friedman may have been referring to a couple of episodes along the way in which the monetary base fell modestly for brief periods, but even so his statement was highly misleading at best.)

By 1976 Friedman was telling readers of Newsweek that "the elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement," a statement that his readers surely took to mean that the Depression wouldn't have happened if only the government had kept out of the way—when in fact what Friedman and Schwartz claimed was that the government should have been more active, not less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did historical disputes about the role of monetary policy in the 1930s matter so much in the 1960s? Partly because they fed into Friedman's broader anti-government agenda, of which more below. But the more direct application was to Friedman's advocacy of monetarism. According to this doctrine, the Federal Reserve should keep the money supply growing at a steady, low rate, say 3 percent a year—and not deviate from this target, no matter what is happening in the economy. The idea was to put monetary policy on autopilot, removing any discretion on the part of government officials.

Friedman's case for monetarism was part economic, part political. Steady growth in the money supply, he argued, would lead to a reasonably stable economy. He never claimed that following his rule would eliminate all recessions, but he did argue that the wiggles in the economy's growth path would be small enough to be tolerable—hence the assertion that the Great Depression wouldn't have happened if the Fed had been following a monetarist rule. And along with this qualified faith in the stability of the economy under a monetary rule went Friedman's unqualified contempt for the ability of Federal Reserve officials to do better if given discretion. Exhibit A for the Fed's unreliability was the onset of the Great Depression, but Friedman could point to many other examples of policy gone wrong. "A monetary rule," he wrote in 1972, "would insulate monetary policy both from arbitrary power of a small group of men not subject to control by the electorate and from the short-run pressures of partisan politics."

Monetarism was a powerful force in economic debate for about three decades after Friedman first propounded the doctrine in his 1959 book A Program for Monetary Stability. Today, however, it is a shadow of its former self, for two main reasons.

First, when the United States and the United Kingdom tried to put monetarism into practice at the end of the 1970s, both experienced dismal results: in each country steady growth in the money supply failed to prevent severe recessions. The Federal Reserve officially adopted Friedman-type monetary targets in 1979, but effectively abandoned them in 1982 when the unemployment rate went into double digits. This abandonment was made official in 1984, and ever since then the Fed has engaged in precisely the sort of discretionary fine-tuning that Friedman decried. For example, the Fed responded to the 2001 recession by slashing interest rates and allowing the money supply to grow at rates that sometimes exceeded 10 percent per year. Once the Fed was satisfied that the recovery was solid, it reversed course, raising interest rates and allowing growth in the money supply to drop to zero.

Second, since the early 1980s the Federal Reserve and its counterparts in other countries have done a reasonably good job, undermining Friedman's portrayal of central bankers as irredeemable bunglers. Inflation has stayed low, recessions—except in Japan, of which more in a second—have been relatively brief and shallow. And all this happened in spite of fluctuations in the money supply that horrified monetarists, and led them—Friedman included—to predict disasters that failed to materialize. As David Warsh of The Boston Globe pointed out in 1992, "Friedman blunted his lance forecasting inflation in the 1980s, when he was deeply, frequently wrong."

By 2004, the Economic Report of the President, written by the very conservative economists of the Bush administration, could nonetheless make the highly anti-monetarist declaration that "aggressive monetary policy"—not stable, steady-as-you-go, but aggressive—"can reduce the depth of a recession."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, a word about Japan. During the 1990s Japan experienced a sort of minor-key reprise of the Great Depression. The unemployment rate never reached Depression levels, thanks to massive public works spending that had Japan, with less than half America's population, pouring more concrete each year than the United States. But the very low interest rate conditions of the Great Depression reemerged in full. By 1998 the call money rate, the rate on overnight loans between banks, was literally zero.

And under those conditions, monetary policy proved just as ineffective as Keynes had said it was in the 1930s. The Bank of Japan, Japan's equivalent of the Fed, could and did increase the monetary base. But the extra yen were hoarded, not spent. The only consumer durable goods selling well, some Japanese economists told me at the time, were safes. In fact, the Bank of Japan found itself unable even to increase the money supply as much as it wanted. It pushed vast quantities of cash into circulation, but broader measures of the money supply grew very little. An economic recovery finally began a couple of years ago, driven by a revival of business investment to take advantage of new technological opportunities. But monetary policy never was able to get any traction.

In effect, Japan in the Nineties offered a fresh opportunity to test the views of Friedman and Keynes regarding the effectiveness of monetary policy in depression conditions. And the results clearly supported Keynes's pessimism rather than Friedman's optimism.

4.
In 1946 Milton Friedman made his debut as a popularizer of free-market economics with a pamphlet titled "Roofs or Ceilings: The Current Housing Problem" coauthored with George J. Stigler, who would later join him at the University of Chicago. The pamphlet, an attack on the rent controls that were still universal just after World War II, was released under rather odd circumstances: it was a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, an organization which, as Rick Perlstein writes in Before the Storm (2001), his book about the origins of the modern conservative movement, "spread a libertarian gospel so uncompromising it bordered on anarchism." Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, sat on the FEE's board. This first venture in free-market popularization prefigured in two ways the course of Friedman's career as a public intellectual over the next six decades.

First, the pamphlet demonstrated Friedman's special willingness to take free-market ideas to their logical limits. Neither the idea that markets are efficient ways to allocate scarce goods nor the proposition that price controls create shortages and inefficiency was new. But many economists, fearing the backlash against a sudden rise in rents (which Friedman and Stigler predicted would be about 30 percent for the nation as a whole), might have proposed some kind of gradual transition to decontrol. Friedman and Stigler dismissed all such concerns.

In the decades ahead, this single-mindedness would become Friedman's trademark. Again and again, he called for market solutions to problems—education, health care, the illegal drug trade—that almost everyone else thought required extensive government intervention. Some of his ideas have received widespread acceptance, like replacing rigid rules on pollution with a system of pollution permits that companies are free to buy and sell. Some, like school vouchers, are broadly supported by the conservative movement but haven't gotten far politically. And some of his proposals, like eliminating licensing procedures for doctors and abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, are considered outlandish even by most conservatives.

Second, the pamphlet showed just how good Friedman was as a popularizer. It's beautifully and cunningly written. There is no jargon; the points are made with cleverly chosen real-world examples, ranging from San Francisco's rapid recovery from the 1906 earthquake to the plight of a 1946 veteran, newly discharged from the army, searching in vain for a decent place to live. The same style, enhanced by video, would mark Friedman's celebrated 1980 TV series Free to Choose.

The odds are that the great swing back toward laissez-faire policies that took place around the world beginning in the 1970s would have happened even if there had been no Milton Friedman. But his tireless and brilliantly effective campaign on behalf of free markets surely helped accelerate the process, both in the United States and around the world. By any measure—protectionism versus free trade; regulation versus deregulation; wages set by collective bargaining and government minimum wages versus wages set by the market—the world has moved a long way in Friedman's direction. And even more striking than his achievement in terms of actual policy changes has been the transformation of the conventional wisdom: most influential people have been so converted to the Friedman way of thinking that it is simply taken as a given that the change in economic policies he promoted has been a force for good. But has it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider first the macroeconomic performance of the US economy. We have data on the real income—that is, income adjusted for inflation—of American families from 1947 to 2005. During the first half of that fifty-eight-year stretch, from 1947 to 1976, Milton Friedman was a voice crying in the wilderness, his ideas ignored by policymakers. But the economy, for all the inefficiencies he decried, delivered dramatic improvements in the standard of living of most Americans: median real income more than doubled. By contrast, the period since 1976 has been one of increasing acceptance of Friedman's ideas; although there remained plenty of government intervention for him to complain about, there was no question that free-market policies became much more widespread. Yet gains in living standards have been far less robust than they were during the previous period: median real income was only about 23 percent higher in 2005 than in 1976.

Part of the reason the second postwar generation didn't do as well as the first was a slower overall rate of economic growth—a fact that may come as a surprise to those who assume that the trend toward free markets has yielded big economic dividends. But another important reason for the lag in most families' living standards was a spectacular increase in economic inequality: during the first postwar generation income growth was broadly spread across the population, but since the late 1970s median income, the income of the typical family, has risen only about a third as fast as average income, which includes the soaring incomes of a small minority at the top.

This raises an interesting point. Milton Friedman often assured audiences that no special institutions, like minimum wages and unions, were needed to ensure that workers would share in the benefits of economic growth. In 1976 he told Newsweek readers that tales of the evil done by the robber barons were pure myth:

There is probably no other period in history, in this or any other country, in which the ordinary man had as large an increase in his standard of living as in the period between the Civil War and the First World War, when unrestrained individualism was most rugged.
(What about the remarkable thirty-year stretch after World War II, which encompassed much of Friedman's own career?) Yet in the decades that followed that pronouncement, as the minimum wage was allowed to fall behind inflation and unions largely disappeared as an important factor in the private sector, working Americans saw their fortunes lag behind growth in the economy as a whole. Was Friedman too sanguine about the generosity of the invisible hand?

To be fair, there are many factors affecting both economic growth and the distribution of income, so we can't blame Friedmanite policies for all disappointments. Still, given the common assumption that the turn toward free-market policies did great things for the US economy and the living standards of ordinary Americans, it's striking how little support one can find for that proposition in the data.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar questions about the lack of clear evidence that Friedman's ideas actually work in practice can be raised, with even more force, for Latin America. A decade ago it was common to cite the success of the Chilean economy, where Augusto Pinochet's Chicago-educated advisers turned to free-market policies after Pinochet seized power in 1973, as proof that Friedman-inspired policies showed the path to successful economic development. But although other Latin nations, from Mexico to Argentina, have followed Chile's lead in freeing up trade, privatizing industries, and deregulating, Chile's success story has not been replicated.

On the contrary, the perception of most Latin Americans is that "neoliberal" policies have been a failure: the promised takeoff in economic growth never arrived, while income inequality has worsened. I don't mean to blame everything that has gone wrong in Latin America on the Chicago School, or to idealize what went before; but there is a striking contrast between the perception that Friedman was vindicated and the actual results in economies that turned from the interventionist policies of the early postwar decades to laissez-faire.

On a more narrowly focused topic, one of Friedman's key targets was what he considered the uselessness and counterproductive nature of most government regulation. In an obituary for his one-time collaborator George Stigler, Friedman singled out for praise Stigler's critique of electricity regulation, and his argument that regulators usually end up serving the interests of the regulated rather than those of the public. So how has deregulation worked out?

It started well, with the deregulation of trucking and airlines beginning in the late 1970s. In both cases deregulation, while it didn't make everyone happy, led to increased competition, generally lower prices, and higher efficiency. Deregulation of natural gas was also a success.

But the next big wave of deregulation, in the electricity sector, was a different story. Just as Japan's slump in the 1990s showed that Keynesian worries about the effectiveness of monetary policy were no myth, the California electricity crisis of 2000– 2001—in which power companies and energy traders created an artificial shortage to drive up prices—reminded us of the reality that lay behind tales of the robber barons and their depredations. While other states didn't suffer as severely as California, across the nation electricity deregulation led to higher, not lower, prices, with huge windfall profits for power companies.

Those states that, for whatever reason, didn't get on the deregulation bandwagon in the 1990s now consider themselves lucky. And the luckiest of all are those cities that somehow didn't get the memo about the evils of government and the virtues of the private sector, and still have publicly owned power companies. All of this showed that the original rationale for electricity regulation—the observation that without regulation, power companies would have too much monopoly power—remains as valid as ever.

Should we conclude from this that deregulation is always a bad idea? No—it depends on the specifics. To conclude that deregulation is always and everywhere a bad idea would be to engage in the same kind of absolutist thinking that was, arguably, Milton Friedman's greatest flaw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his 1965 review of Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History, the late Yale economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin gently chided the authors for going too far. "Consider the following three propositions," he wrote. "Money does not matter. It does too matter. Money is all that matters. It is all too easy to slip from the second proposition to the third." And he added that "in their zeal and exuberance" Friedman and his followers had too often done just that.

A similar sequence seems to have happened in Milton Friedman's advocacy of laissez-faire. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, there were many people saying that markets can never work. Friedman had the intellectual courage to say that markets can too work, and his showman's flair combined with his ability to marshal evidence made him the best spokesman for the virtues of free markets since Adam Smith. But he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose.

Friedman's laissez-faire absolutism contributed to an intellectual climate in which faith in markets and disdain for government often trumps the evidence. Developing countries rushed to open up their capital markets, despite warnings that this might expose them to financial crises; then, when the crises duly arrived, many observers blamed the countries' governments, not the instability of international capital flows. Electricity deregulation proceeded despite clear warnings that monopoly power might be a problem; in fact, even as the California electricity crisis was happening, most commentators dismissed concerns about price-rigging as wild conspiracy theories. Conservatives continue to insist that the free market is the answer to the health care crisis, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What's odd about Friedman's absolutism on the virtues of markets and the vices of government is that in his work as an economist's economist he was actually a model of restraint. As I pointed out earlier, he made great contributions to economic theory by emphasizing the role of individual rationality—but unlike some of his colleagues, he knew where to stop. Why didn't he exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?

The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy.

In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. But there's a good case for arguing that Friedmanism, in the end, went too far, both as a doctrine and in its practical applications. When Friedman was beginning his career as a public intellectual, the times were ripe for a counterreformation against Keynesianism and all that went with it. But what the world needs now, I'd argue, is a counter-counterreformation.

Notes[*] See Paul A. Samuelson, Economics: The Original 1948 Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1997).

DOWN’S SYNDROME

2010-02-12T09:47:00.000-08:00

DOWN'S SYNDROME

Myths and Truths

Myth: Down syndrome is a rare genetic disorder.
Truth: Down syndrome is the most commonly occurring genetic condition. One in every 733 live births is a child with Down syndrome, representing approximately 5,000 births per year in the United States alone. Today, more than 400,000 people in the United States have Down syndrome.

Myth: People with Down syndrome have a short life span.
Truth: Life expectancy for individuals with Down syndrome has increased dramatically in recent years, with the average life expectancy approaching that of peers without Down syndrome.

Myth: Most children with Down syndrome are born to older parents.
Truth: Most children with Down syndrome are born to women younger than 35 years old simply because younger women have more children. However, the incidence of births of children with Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother.

Myth: People with Down syndrome are severely “retarded.”
Truth: Most people with Down syndrome have IQs that fall in the mild to moderate range of intellectual disability (formerly known as “retardation”). Children with Down syndrome fully participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome.

Myth: Most people with Down syndrome are institutionalized.
Truth: Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, vocational, social, and recreational activities of the community. They are integrated into the regular education system and take part in sports, camping, music, art programs and all the other activities of their communities. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways.

Myth: Parents will not find community support in bringing up their child with Down syndrome.
Truth: In almost every community of the United States there are parent support groups and other community organizations directly involved in providing services to families of individuals with Down syndrome.

Myth: Children with Down syndrome must be placed in segregated special education programs.
Truth: Children with Down syndrome have been included in regular academic classrooms in schools across the country. In some instances they are integrated into specific courses, while in other situations students are fully included in the regular classroom for all subjects. The current trend in education is for full inclusion in the social and educational life of the community. Increasingly, individuals with Down syndrome graduate from high school with regular diplomas, participate in post-secondary academic and college experiences and, in some cases, receive college degrees.

Myth: Adults with Down syndrome are unemployable.
Truth: Businesses are seeking young adults with Down syndrome for a variety of positions. They are being employed in small- and medium-sized offices: by banks, corporations, nursing homes, hotels and restaurants. They work in the music and entertainment industry, in clerical positions, childcare, the sports field and in the computer industry. People with Down syndrome bring to their jobs enthusiasm, reliability and dedication.

Myth: People with Down syndrome are always happy.
Truth: People with Down syndrome have feelings just like everyone else in the population. They experience the full range of emotions. They respond to positive expressions of friendship and they are hurt and upset by inconsiderate behavior.

Myth: Adults with Down syndrome are unable to form close interpersonal relationships leading to marriage.
Truth: People with Down syndrome date, socialize, form ongoing relationships and marry.

Myth: Down syndrome can never be cured.
Truth: Research on Down syndrome is making great strides in identifying the genes on chromosome 21 that cause the characteristics of Down syndrome. Scientists now feel strongly that it will be possible to improve, correct or prevent many of the problems associated with Down syndrome in the future.

DEATH

2010-02-12T09:41:00.000-08:00

Secrets of the centenarians: Life begins at 100

07 September 2009 by Ed Yong

THIS year, the number of pensioners in the UK exceeded the number of minors for the first time in history. That's remarkable in its own right, but the real "population explosion" has been among the oldest of the old - the centenarians. In fact, this is the fastest-growing demographic in much of the developed world. In the UK, their numbers have increased by a factor of 60 since the early 20th century. And their ranks are set to swell even further, thanks to the ageing baby-boomer generation: by 2030 there will be about a million worldwide.

These trends raise social, ethical and economic dilemmas. Are medical advances artificially prolonging life with little regard for the quality of that life? Old age brings an increased risk of chronic disease, disability and dementia, and if growing numbers of elderly people become dependent on state or familial support, society faces skyrocketing costs and commitments. This is the dark cloud outside the silver lining of increasing longevity. Yet researchers who study the oldest old have made a surprising discovery that presents a less bleak vision of the future than many anticipate.

It is becoming clear that people who break through the 90-plus barrier represent a physical elite, markedly different from the elderly who typically die younger than them. Far from gaining a longer burden of disability, their extra years are often healthy ones. They have a remarkable ability to live through, delay or entirely escape a host of diseases that kill off most of their peers. Supercentenarians - people aged 110 or over - are even better examples of ageing gracefully. "As a demographic group, they basically didn't exist in the 1970s or 80s," says Craig Willcox of the Okinawa Centenarian Study in Japan. "They have some sort of genetic booster rocket and they seem to be functioning better for longer periods of time than centenarians." The average supercentenarian had freely gone about their daily life until the age of 105 or so, some five to 10 years longer even than centenarians, who are themselves the physical equivalent of people eight to 10 years their junior. This isn't just good news for the oldest old and for society in general; it also provides clues about how more of us might achieve a long and healthy old age.

One of the most comprehensive studies comes from Denmark. In 1998, Kaare Christensen at the University of Southern Denmark, in Odense, exploited the country's exemplary registries to contact every single one of the 3600 people born in 1905 who was still alive. Assessing their health over the subsequent decade, he found that the proportion of people who managed to remain independent throughout was constantly around one-third of the total: each individual risked becoming more infirm, but the unhealthiest ones passed away at earlier ages, leaving the strongest behind. In 2005, only 166 of the people in Christensen's sample were alive, but one-third of those were still entirely self-sufficient (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 13274). This is good news from both personal and societal perspectives, for it means that exceptional longevity does not necessarily lead to exceptional levels of disability.

Christensen's optimistic findings are echoed in studies all over the world. In the US, almost all of the 700-plus people recruited to the New England Centenarian Study (NECS) since it began in 1994 had lived independently until the age of 90, and 40 per cent of supercentenarians in the study could still look after themselves. In the UK, Carol Brayne at the University of Cambridge studied 958 people aged over 90 and found that only one-quarter of them were living in institutions or nursing homes. Likewise, research in China reveals that before their deaths, centenarians and nonagenarians spend fewer days ill and bedridden than younger elderly groups, though the end comes quickly when it finally comes.

Distinctive minds
Of course, people can live independently without being entirely healthy, and it is true that most centenarians suffer from some sort of ailment. These range from osteoarthritis - which is almost universal and often omitted from studies - to simple loneliness. Neurodegenerative diseases are common too, with around 70 to 85 per cent of centenarians suffering from some form of dementia. But dementia in this group follows a different pattern to the general population. It is more likely to be vascular dementia or rare neurodegenerative conditions such as Pick's disease or Lewy body disease.

Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia, is relatively rare among centenarians yet, intriguingly, autopsies reveal that the brains of the oldest old, who had shown no outward sign of dementia, are sometimes riddled with the lesions associated with Alzheimer's disease. The basis of this resilience to Alzheimer's is largely unknown. The simple fact is that many people who become centenarians seem able to tolerate damage that would significantly harm less robust individuals, and although many suffer from dementia as death draws near, most remain mentally agile well into their nineties.

Not all of the oldest old survive by delaying illness or disability, though - many soldier through it. Jessica Evert of Ohio State University in Columbus examined the medical histories of over 400 centenarians (The Journals of Gerontology Series A, vol 58, p 232). She found that those who achieve extreme longevity tend to fall into three categories. About 40 per cent were "delayers", who avoided chronic diseases until after the age of 80. This "compression of morbidity", where chronic illness and disability are squeezed into ever-shorter periods at the end of life, is a recent trend among ageing populations. Another 40 per cent were "survivors", who suffered from chronic diseases before the age of 80 but lived longer to tell the tale. The final 20 per cent were "escapers", who hit their century with no sign of the most common chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, hypertension and stroke. Intriguingly, one-third of male centenarians were in this category, compared with only 15 per cent of women (see "Two paths to 100").

So what are the secrets of a long and healthy life? Gerontologists point to four key factors: diet, exercise, "psycho-spiritual" and social, so anyone aiming for a century should not underestimate the power of lifestyle - despite the odd centenarian who proudly claims to have smoked 60 cigarettes a day for decades. Thomas Perls, who heads the NECS, believes that up to 70 per cent of longevity is due to non-genetic factors (New Scientist, 3 June 2006, p 35). Nevertheless, many people who live well into old age do tend to have another advantage: an inherited genetic pass.

Take a close relative of a centenarian and you can put good money on their chances of living a long life. Among Americans born in 1900, brothers of centenarians were 17 times as likely to reach a century as their peers, and sisters, eight times. The New England study reveals that the children of centenarians are less than one-third as likely to die of cancer as the general population, and less than one-sixth as likely to die of heart disease.

Further evidence of a genetic link comes from longevity hotspots. Okinawa in Japan is the front runner. At 58 centenarians per 100,000 people (and rising), it has the world's highest proportion in this age group - more than five times the level of some developed countries. Like other hotspots, including Sardinia and Iceland, Okinawa is a relatively isolated island community, which leads to higher levels of inbreeding and a clustering of genetic variants. While such genetic similarity usually has detrimental effects, in these hotspots it seems to have united and maintained genetic variants that predispose people to a long life.

Of course, members of isolated communities or families usually share a particular environment too, but this alone cannot explain clusters of longevity. Gerontologists have found that the influence of environmental factors such as wealth or education on lifespan fades as we age, while that of genes increases. By comparing 10,000 pairs of Scandinavian twins, Christensen found that genes only start exerting a strong influence on our lifespan after the age of 60. Before then, both identical and non-identical twins have largely independent odds of reaching a given age. Beyond 60, however, the odds of one twin reaching a given age are greatly increased if their co-twin has done so, especially if the twins are identical (Human Genetics, vol 119, p 1432).

This makes the "centenarian genome" a key resource for identifying "longevity genes", an invaluable step in understanding the physiological processes underlying long lives. Such genes have been found in abundance in other organisms - including over 70 in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans. Unfortunately, it's a different story in humans. While many candidate genes have been suggested to affect lifespan, very few have been consistently verified in multiple populations.

The centenarian genome is a key resource in identifying longevity genes
Until recently, the only exception was ApoE, and in particular a variant of this gene known as e4, which bestows carriers with a much higher than average risk of developing Alzheimer's and heart disease. Across the world, this unfortunate version of ApoE is about half as common in centenarians as in younger adults. Last year, a second promising candidate emerged - a variant of a gene called FOXO3A. At the University of Hawaii, a team led by Bradley Willcox, Craig's identical twin, found that people who carried two copies of a particular form of the gene were almost three times as likely to make it to 100 than those without the variation, and also tended to start their journey into old age with better health and lower levels of stroke, heart disease and cancer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 37). "There are so many false positives in this field that FOXO3A is very exciting," says Bradley Willcox.

FOXO3A is involved in several signalling pathways that are conserved across animal species. It controls the insulin/IGF-1 pathway, which influences how our bodies process food. It also controls genes that protect cells from highly reactive oxygen radicals - molecules often thought to drive human ageing through the cumulative damage they wreak on DNA. FOXO3A could even protect against cancer by encouraging apoptosis, whereby compromised cells commit suicide. The variant of FOXO3A associated with longevity is much more prevalent in 100-year-olds even than in 95-year-olds, which clearly demonstrates the value of studying the centenarian genome.

So far the search for longevity genes in humans has been extremely difficult, but prospects brighten as genomic technologies become faster and there are more centenarians to study. Only a lucky few win the genetic lottery of longevity, but if we understand what sets them apart, we may be able to make the rest of us more like them by using lifestyle or therapeutic interventions to manipulate physiological pathways. Such medical advances will not only extend our lives, but also help us remain healthy and independent for as long as possible.

Gallery: Six famous centenarians

Two paths to 100
The two sexes fare very differently in the longevity stakes. There are far more female centenarians than male ones, but men who do make it past 100 tend to be more physically robust and mentally sharper.

The reasons behind this are unclear. It may be simply that the female body is better able to tolerate chronic illnesses and disabilities as it ages. However, natural advantage cannot be the whole story as female centenarians are more likely than their male peers to have ridden to 100 on the back of healthy lifestyles.

"For all the major health hazards, women take better care of themselves," says Craig Willcox of Okinawa International University in Japan, who works on the Okinawa Centenarian Study. "They smoke less, drink less alcohol and are less likely to die of violent causes, accidents and suicides. They also go to their physician more."

Men, meanwhile, have the double disadvantage of being both more prone to risky behaviours throughout their lives and more likely to succumb to chronic illnesses as they age. This means that men who do make it to their century must depend more on genetic trump cards to see them through.

Dying of old age
"There is one, and only one, cause of death at older ages. And that is old age." So said Leonard Hayflick, one of the most influential gerontologists of all time. But dying of old age isn't just a case of peacefully losing the will to live - it is an accumulation of diseases and injuries different to those that tend to kill people at younger ages.

For a start, the oldest old have very low rates of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. The trend is particularly apparent for cancer. The odds of developing it increase sharply as people age, but they fall from the age of 84, and plummet from 90 onwards. Only 4 per cent of centenarians die of cancer, compared with 40 per cent of people that die in their fifties and sixties.

Many centenarians even manage to ward off chronic diseases after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. Many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same story applies to people from Japan's longevity hotspot, Okinawa, where around half of the local supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. These people may well have genes that protect them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.

So what does kill off the oldest old? Pneumonia is the biggest culprit, with other respiratory infections, accidents and intestinal problems trailing behind. "Dying of old age involves total systems failure," says Craig Willcox of the Okinawa Centenarian Study in Japan. "Centenarians avoid age-associated diseases, but you see a lot of systemic wear and tear. Almost all of them have had some problems with cataracts, they can't hear very well and have osteoarthritis. Our most recently deceased centenarian in Okinawa caught a cold and died in her sleep."
Ed Yong is a science writer based in London

Climate change

2010-02-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

17:00 16 May 2007 by Michael Le Page

For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.
Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.
With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence, as well as a blog looking at the history of climate science. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
What is happening now?
New: Any cooling disproves global warming
Global warming stopped in 1998

Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Polar bear numbers are increasing

The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

The oceans are cooling

Mars and Pluto are warming too

Does CO2 cause warming?

Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global
warming

Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

Why should I worry?

It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

We can't do anything about climate change

Is the sun to blame?

Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

It's all down to cosmic rays

What happened in the past?

The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

What is going to happen?

Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

Can we trust the science?

Chaotic systems are not predictable

We can't trust computer models of climate

Many leading scientists question climate change

It's all a conspiracy

New: The leaked emails prove it's a conspiracy

They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

CULTS

2010-02-04T10:43:00.000-08:00

HOW CULTS WORK ----

Cults, wonderful on the outside but on the inside are very manipulating. Cult leaders are desperate to trick you into joining. They are after your obedience, your time and your money.

Cults use sophisticated mind control and recruitment techniques that have been refined over time. Beware of thinking that you are immune from cult involvement, the cults have millions of members around the world who once thought they were immune, and still don't know they are in a cult! To spot a cult you need to know how they work and you need to understand the techniques they use. Teaching you these things is what this article is all about.

This article exposes the secret techniques cults will use to try and trick and control you. Cult leaders will not want you to read this, but read it anyway. Once you understand How Cults Work you will be better able to spot and avoid cult recruiters, and protect your family and friends.

First let's eliminate some misconceptions about cults.

Cults are easy to spot, they wear strange clothes and live in communes.
Well some do. But most are everyday people like you and me. They live in houses. They wear the same clothes. They eat the same food. Cult leaders don't want you to know that you are being recruited into a cult and so they order their recruiters to dress, talk and act in a way that will put you at ease. One cult has even invented a phrase to describe this, they call it "being relatable".

Cults are full of the weak, weird and emotionally unstable.
Not true. Many cult members are very intelligent, attractive and skilled. The reality is that all sorts of people are involved in cults. One of the few common denominators is that they were often recruited at a low point in their life — more about that later.

Cults are just a bunch of religious nut cases.
This is a common mistake people make thinking that cults are purely religious groups. The modern definition of a mind control cult refers to all groups that use mind control and the devious recruiting techniques that this article exposes. The belief system of a religion is often warped to become a container for these techniques, but it is the techniques themselves that make it a cult. In a free society people can believe what they want, but most people would agree that it is wrong for any one to try to trick and control people. In the section "Types of Cults" we will examine the various types of cults you may come across.

Christians call all other groups cults.
Basically Christians have said that if a group claims to be Christian and yet teaches something fundamentally different from what the Bible teaches then they are a cult. ie. a Buddhist group that claims to be Buddhist is not a cult, but a Buddhist group that pretends to be Christian is. This definition is not used in this article.

So what is a cult anyway?

The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course!
Religious
Cults that use a belief system as their base are very common. Their belief system could be standard Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other of the world religions, or they may have invented their own belief system. What makes them a cult is the fact that they use mind control, not what they believe.

Commercial
Cults that use commercial gain as their base are called "cults of greed". They will promise you that if you join them and follow their special programme for success then you will become very rich. Often they will hold up their leader as an example and explain that if you do what he or she says then you will be successful too. Commercial cults use mind control to get you working for them for free, and to make you pay for an endless stream of motivational tapes, videos, books and seminars all of which are supposedly designed to help you succeed, but in reality are designed to enhance the cult's mind control environment and keep you believing in their almost impossible dream of success. Of course they never mention that the primary way the leaders make money are by selling these motivation materials to their group! For more information see below under the section, "Pressure Selling".

Self Help & Counselling
Cults that use "self help" or counselling or self improvement as their base often target business people and corporations. By doing their courses and seminars they claim you and your staff will become more successful. Business people locked away in hotel rooms are subjected to quasi-religious indoctrination as they play strange games, join in group activities, and share their innermost thoughts with the group. Once you have completed one course you are told you need to do the more advanced course, which naturally costs more than the last. These cults will sometimes request that you do volunteer work and that you help recruit your friends, family and work mates. These groups specialize in creating powerful emotional experiences which are then used to validate your involvement in the cult. The religious overtones are couched in terms which don't sound religious. They usually come to the surface as you near the end of a seminar. Many people have been bankrupted by involvement with these cults.

Political
Cults that use political ideals as their base are well known throughout history. Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Communist USSR were classic examples of mind control on a very large scale. On smaller scales white and black supremacists, terrorists, and rebel groups commonly use forms of mind control to recruit and dominate their members.

Mind Control is a suite of psychological techniques that cult leaders attempt to control their members with.

Cultwatch does not consider Mind Control to be some magical device which can take away peoples' free will. In other words it does not turn people into some sort of remote control robot. Rather we see Mind Control as a dishonest influence placed covertly on cult members by the cult. So instead of Mind Control being some sort of irresistible force like the aliens in the movies that take over peoples minds, rather it is more like a gun. The cult leader points the Mind Control "gun" at a member and says, "if you leave us then you will lose all of your friends and family", "if you don't conform then you will go to Hell", "if you don't give us money then you will fail in business".

We have broken Mind Control up into a series of techniques that the cults use. Together these techniques make up Mind Control.

A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why?
Because if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the truth from you until they think you are ready to accept it.

For example, imagine if the leader of Heavens Gate cult was open and honest about the group and had said to new recruits, "Join us, wear strange clothes, get castrated and then drink poison!" he would not have had many takers.

A cult will have a slick well-rehearsed Public Relations front which hides what the group is really like. You will hear how they help the poor, or support research, or peace, or the environment. They will tell you how happy you will be in their group (and everyone in the cult will always seem very happy and enthusiastic, mainly because they have been told to act happy and will get in trouble if they don't). But you will not be told what life is really like in the group, nor what they really believe. These things will be introduced to you slowly, one at a time, so you will not notice the gradual change, until eventually you are practicing and believing things which at the start would have caused you to run a mile.

A normal religious organization would not have any trouble with you moving to another similar organization as long as you stayed in that same religion. Because it is the belief system that matters, not membership in an organization. For example if you were a Christian then you could move from one church to another and still be a Christian.

However cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone. No other organization has the truth, all others miss the mark. So it is not the belief system that decides your future, but it the belief system AND your membership with that particular group.
The cult leaders need to make you believe that there is no where else you can go and still be saved, and if you ever leave the "one true church" then you are going to hell. This is a fear based control mechanism designed to keep you in the cult. It also gives the cult leaders tremendous power over you. If you really believe that leaving the group equals leaving God (or means you are leaving your only chance to succeed in life), then you will obey the cult leaders even when you disagree with them instead of risking being kicked out of the group. Exclusivism is used as a threat, it controls your behavior through fear.

Be very suspicious of any group that claims to be better than all the others. A religious group may say that other groups following the same religion are OK, but they are the ones who have a better grasp of the truth and they are superior to the rest. This is often just a subtle version of exclusivism.

This is one of the practices that cults are often very deceptive about. For example, first off they may give you the impression that they think you are a true Christian, Buddhist or Muslim and it's not until later that their true position is revealed.

Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God. The cult leaders will claim to have direct authority from God to control almost all aspects of your life. If the cult is not a religious group then questioning the leaders or program will still be seen as a sign of rebellion and stupidity.

Guilt, Character Assassination and Breaking Sessions. Guilt will be used to control you. Maybe the reason you're not making money is because you're not "with the programme". Maybe the reason you're not able to convert new recruits is because "your heart is prideful and full of sin". It could never be that the programme isn't working, or those new recruits have valid reasons for not joining. It's always your fault, you are always wrong, and so you must try harder! You will also be made to feel very guilty for disobeying any of the cult's written or unwritten rules.

Character Assassination is used to help create the guilt in you. Character Assassination is a type of false reasoning used by people and groups who have no real arguments. The technical name for Character Assassination is "The Ad hominem Fallacy". This is how it works. Imagine if you will a conversation between two men, Ford and Arthur…

"One plus one equals three", says Ford.
"No I don't think so. You see when I have one thing, and I have another thing, then I have two things not three", replies Arthur.
"I see your point, but what you must realize is that one plus one when calculated in relation to this complex number domain, which I just invented, and then squared by the sum of the ninth tangent in the sequence of the Fibonacci series results in three!", stated Ford triumphantly.

Ok, Ford is wrong, but that is not the point. The point is that Ford tried to answer Arthur's reasoning with more reasoning of his own. This is the healthy way people and groups debate subjects. Now lets see what would have happened if Ford had used Character Assassination…

"Arthur I have been a mathematician longer than you. How dare you disagree with me! You are obviously a very smug and prideful person. I think you are disagreeing with me because you are jealous of me, and to be honest with you Arthur your rebellion has really hurt me and a lot of other people too", stated Ford his face intimidatingly close to Arthur's.

You see Ford didn't answer Arthur's argument, instead he attacked his character. If you are not aware of how Character Assassination works then it is a powerful way to exert control over you.

Breaking sessions are when one, two or more cult members and leaders attack the character of another person, sometimes for hours on end. Some cults will not stop these sessions until their victim is crying uncontrollably.

Cults know that if they can control your relationships then they can control you. Whether we like it or not we are all profoundly affected by those around us. When you first go to a cult they will practice "love bombing", where they arrange instant friends for you. It will seem wonderful, how could such a loving group be wrong! But you soon learn that if you ever disagree with them, or ever leave the cult then you will lose all your new "friends". This unspoken threat influences your actions in the cult. Things that normally would have made you complain will pass by silently because you don't want to be ostracized. Like in an unhealthy relationship love is turned on and off to control.

Cults also try to cut you off from your friends and family because they hate others being able to influence you. A mind control cult will seek to manoeuvre your life so as to maximize your contact with cult members and minimize your contact with people outside the group, especially those who oppose your involvement.

Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as "persecution" or "spiritual pornography", another cult calls it "apostate literature" and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true.

Common sense tells us that a person who does not consider all information may make an unbalanced decision. Filtering the information available or trying to discredit it not on the basis of how true it is, but rather on the basis of how it supports the party line, is a common control method used throughout history.

In a mind control cult like in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia you must be careful of what you say and do; "The walls have ears". Everyone is encouraged to watch out for "struggling" brothers and sisters and report what they see to leadership. Often information given in deepest confidence is automatically reported to leadership. Cult leaders will then use this information to convince their members that they have a supernatural link, the trusting member does not suspect the very natural mechanism behind the supernatural revelations they are given.

People in a mind control cult will also hide their true thoughts and feelings, and instead wear a mask which presents them as a perfect cult member. This mask is a defense against being reported to leadership and being punished for not measuring up (cult members never feel like they measure up to the cult's ideals, and yet often believe the other members around them do, when in reality the others feel the same as them). Hence cult members are trained not only to deceive outsiders, but also to deceive their fellow cult members. Rarely can close friendships form in cults, and if they do the cult's leaders may see them as a threat and move those people away from each other. Nothing is allowed that can be more powerful than the cult members' allegiance to the group and it's leaders.

Mind control cults keep their members so busy with meetings and activities that they become too busy and too tired to think about their involvement.

Time control also helps the cult keep their members immersed in the manufactured cult environment.

And time control helps keep cult members away from friends and family.

Together they make Mind Control.

Remember, people are not perfect, but if they employ them constantly you are most likely dealing with a cult.

One of the most common forms of commercial cults is the pressure selling organization. These groups ostensibly make money by selling goods via their sales organization, but in reality they make their money by selling goods and motivational materials to their sales organization. Using mind control they seek to enlarge and maintain their sales force, and hence their profits.

Some names along with the bad reputations of these groups are well known to the general public, so their recruiters need to be very deceptive. They will call and ask to come and meet you to discuss a "business opportunity" or new "eCommerce venture", not once mentioning the organization behind it. In fact if asked they might mention a completely different name. Meeting with them will involve a long intense presentation carefully designed to convince you that you could make a lot of money by following their plan. Only near the end will they briefly mention the real organization behind it.

Here are some key warning signs to watch out for…
Deception. No valid business needs to use deception.
Super hyped meetings, books, tapes, videos, leaflets, products.
Use of Mind control, refer to the earlier "Mind Control" section.
Here are some key questions to ask the recruiter…
Is it XZY group? Ask them if they are, or are involved with any of the well known commercial cults. Often the recruiter will admit to some connection, and in fact the clever recruiter will plainly state their involvement rather than having their deception uncovered later on.
Could I see some properly certified audited accounts which demonstrate this business model working? Like any business they should be able to provide the hard numbers. Not stories of other people making it big, or generalizations about six figure incomes, or more enthusiastic claims that you can make it if you work hard enough. If this is a new business then you want a business plan, profit and loss projections for the next year, two years and five years. If they claim it is a successful established business then demand to see the books. These are not unreasonable demands, no successful business person would ever touch a venture without this basic information. Tell the recruiter that you want to run them past your own accountant, and perhaps your lawyer too. If it's for real then they will be more than happy to comply, otherwise watch them squirm and dodge with all manner of well rehearsed excuses. Of course if they do produce the information then go to your accountant, you're a fool if you don't.

Here are some key warning signs that may indicate a cult is trying to recruit you.

Hyped Meetings
Rather than explain to you what the group believes or what their programme is up front, they will instead insist that you can only understand it if you come to a group meeting. There everyone around you will seem so enthusiastic that you will start to think there is something wrong with you. They create an environment where you will feel uncomfortable and the only way to become comfortable is to join them. This is an application of controlled peer pressure.

Intense Unrelenting Pressure
They call repeatedly. Meet you on campus or outside your work. Trick you into coming for only an hour and then lead you into a long study, meeting or talk. They have to keep the pressure on, otherwise you might snap out of the mind control environment they are trying to immerse you in.

They tell you that they are not a cult.
This is a preemptive strike against the warnings from friends and family members which they know will come. In fact some cults go as far to tell you that Satan will try and dissuade you by sending family members and friends to tell you it is a cult. When this tactic is used then often a warped form of logic occurs in the recruits' mind, the "agents of Satan" do come and tell them that it is a cult. So since the group predicted that would happen, the group therefore must true! Basically if any group tells you that they are not a cult, or that some people call them a cult, then for goodness sake find out why!

Times you are vulnerable.
Experiential rather than logical.
Fake friendship.
End of world pressure.
Pressure to do crazy things.
Secret knowledge.
Single charismatic leader.
People always seeming constantly happy and enthusiastic. Especially if you discover that they have been told to act that way for the potential new recruits.
Instant friends.
If you are told who you can or cannot talk to or associate with.
They hide what they teach.
Say they are the only true group, or the best so why go anywhere else.
Hyped meetings, get you to meetings rather than share with you.
Experiential rather than logical.
Asking for money for the next level.
Some cults travel door to door during times when women are home alone. They, and this is rather sexist, think that women are easier to recruit and once they have the woman then it will be easier to snare the husband or partner.
Saying that they have to make people pay for it because otherwise they will not appreciate it. This is of course a very silly reason, plenty of people are able to appreciate things which they did not pay for.

The Internet should be your first stop if the group you are interested in or involved with has an international scope. Most of the larger cults will be mentioned by counter-cult organizations like Cultwatch, and commonly many ex-members will have posted their cult involvement stories on the net.

Many of the larger cults hate the net since it allows their members access to information they deem subversive or evil. A good place to start is www.CULTWATCH.com, there we have cult information and links to other counter-cult groups. Also go to the search engines and type in keywords associated with the group, like the name of the group, the leaders or founders name, the titles of books they use and any peculiar words that the group uses. If the group is new or too small to have been exposed on the net then read stories of other people who were in mind control cults. The patterns may seem familiar to you. If you are still unsure then email us your story at cultwatch@cultwatch.com, we will let you know of any thoughts we have.

Other ways…
Old publications by the group. Often the older cults have predicted the end of the world or changed their beliefs significantly, hence their older publications become a danger to them. For some of the older cults people have produced books of photo copies of these changes.

www.CULTWATCH.com
cultwatch@cultwatch.com
PO Box 27-406, Mt Roskill
Auckland 1030, New Zealand
Phone +64-9-6222 444
Fax +64-9-622 3300Info Line +64-9-629 5522

CRYOBIOLOGY

2010-02-04T10:41:00.000-08:00

Cryobiology: The Study of Life and Death at Low Temperatures
by Gregory M. Fahy, PhD

Cryobiology -- usually thought of as the study of the effects of subfreezing temperatures on biological systems -- stands at the interface between physics and biology. The physical principles of cryobiology are universal, which provides some coherence to the field, but the biosphere contains many surprises and twists, which adds endless fascination.

The present very abbreviated overview is primarily directed at living systems exposed to temperatures below zero degrees Celsius, but it should be printed out that the cryobiology tent covers all branches of low-temperature biology, including the effects of temperatures above freezing. Technically, cryobiology is actually the study of living systems at any temperature below the standard physiological range. This includes, for example, human hypothermia (both deliberate and accidental) and even natural hibernation, which is a physiological modification of sleep that has allowed the physiological temperature range to be stretched to include temperatures that were previously fatal. Above-freezing temperatures can be just as lethal as sub-freezing temperatures, a fact that has significant ecological and agricultural significance.

Some cryobiological topics involving temperatures below zero Celsius are: plant, insect, and vertebrate natural cold hardiness and sensitivity; freeze-drying; supercooling; cryosurgery; frostbite; and deliberate cryopreservation.

Cold Hardiness and Sensitivity in Nature

One reason natural cryobiology is interesting is that nature has had millions of years to adapt organisms to the stresses of low temperatures. Understanding how nature has reconciled the principles of physics with those of biology is potentially quite illuminating.

There are, for example, trees whose twigs can survive direct immersion in liquid nitrogen after suitable pre-conditioning. It turns out they achieve this by manufacturing proteins and sugars that allow the cytoplasm to turn into a glass at temperatures about 30 to 40 degrees below zero (1); once the plant cells vitrify, they are immune to most low-temperature excursions. Certain lichens are even more dazzling, vitrifying in toto upon cooling and warming, without previous crystallization (2).

Another and even more prominent example is the freezable frog, a vertebrate that, along with certain turtles, snakes, and salamanders, has found a way of exposing all of its internal organs to severe freezing at relatively high temperatures (about -6(C) for weeks at a time with spontaneous recovery upon thawing (3). It turns out that major elements in the success of these creatures are the elaboration of natural cryoprotective agents (especially glucose and glycerol, plus a plethora of less-significant agents) and the ability to control the location of ice, typically depositing most of it external to rather than inside the major organs (4). Certain plants achieve the same control of ice by elaborating a physical barrier between sensitive areas (the apical meristems) and the loci of ice formation, such that water can leave the meristems and deposit on ice in the ice-tolerant area, but ice cannot grow through the barrier to invade and thereby to kill the meristem. The meristem can survive the dehydration, and so it survives the winter.

Perhaps the real champions of natural low-temperature survival (with the possible exception of bacteria and the like) are the insects, some of which can survive freezing to at least the temperature of dry ice (about -79 degrees C) (5). There are tales of insects that slowly digest food over weeks of frozen storage, that "prefer" to remain frozen rather than to thaw, whose brains yield evoked potentials when their eyes are exposed to light at -20 degrees C (6), and that supercool (cool to temperatures below their freezing point without freezing) to the lower limits of temperature compatible with the physics of water.

On the other hand, many insects make proteins that specifically cause them to freeze at the highest possible temperature during cooling. Other insects make "antifreeze" proteins that can prevent ice from growing within the insect even when the insects are below their freezing points and contain ice! Polar fish are the most famous for making "antifreeze" proteins, in part because to these very large fish, living about 1 degree below their freezing points without freezing is a constant way of life (7), but the insects have actually mastered this art to a higher degree. Curiously, less is probably known about the physical mechanisms of survival in insects than in any of the other natural freeze-tolerant species.

Freeze-Drying

Freeze-drying has occasionally been reported to yield viable cells. Meryman reported the survival of freeze-dried bull sperm, but this observation could not be duplicated. The LifeCell Corporation invented a technique by which cells are "vitri-dried": the cells are cooled so rapidly that ice either does not form or forms such small crystals that they do not damage the cells, after which space-quality vacuums are drawn to distill off the water at very low temperatures (8). After the cells are stored at room temperature for a short time, they can be rehydrated and, allegedly, recover life functions. They are not, however, able to divide.

Freeze-drying works best for bacteria and other prokaryotes, and extensive work has gone on to develop freezing media that optimize survival. Freeze-drying as a future technology for storing some cells more conveniently than storage in liquid nitrogen gains some credibility from the existence of anhydrobiotic organisms which, as their name implies, survive practically complete drying in the absence of freezing. The tardigrades are perhaps the most famous creatures in this group, since they are highly complex, with heads, limbs, and internal body parts like those of many insects (9). It turns out that anhydrobiosis is made possible in large part through the elaboration of a sugar, trehalose, which happens to have the right geometry to support membrane structure against collapse by substituting for water at the polar head groups of the lipids (10), and some laboratories have reported that trehalose has cryoprotective effects.

Supercooling

As we have noted, whole-body supercooling allows many insects and fish to survive the winter. Surprisingly, this is also true for some mammals, including bats and a particularly adroit Alaskan ground squirrel that can cool without freezing to about -3 degrees C while it hibernates, despite nominal blood freezing points (determined by freezing samples using an osmometer) above -0.6 degrees C (11).

Supercooling has recently formed the basis of a British company, Pafra, Ltd., which preserves enzymes and even whole cells by cooling them in tiny droplets of water to temperatures several degrees below their freezing point (12). Because the probability of spontaneous freezing is small in such small volumes, and because the droplets are prevented from touching each other by being dispersed in a non-aqueous phase as an emulsion, stable supercooling of great magnitude (e.g., -10 to -20 degrees C) can be attained for months. This allows the advantages of low temperature to be attained without the damage associated with freezing. Supercooling can cause enzyme denaturation, since cooling weakens the hydrophobic interactions that give rise to protein folding and membrane self-assembly, but such denaturation is usually readily reversed spontaneously when the proteins are warmed up.

Supercooling has been tried for mammalian organ preservation, but has not yielded storage times longer than above-zero storage techniques, perhaps in part because of factors such as protein denaturation, which give rise to "chilling injury," an injury associated with low-temperature exposure per se. Supercooling is also the basis of organ vitrification, a topic we will touch on again below.

Cryosurgery

Cryosurgery is considered a branch of cryobiology even though the object of cryosurgery is to kill cells rather than to preserve them. Cryosurgery works by exposing cells in the patient to very rapid cooling to deep subzero temperatures. Rapid cooling, for basic physical reasons, causes water inside cells to freeze, whereas the slow cooling found in nature and usually used for cryopreservation causes intracellular water to leave cells and freeze extracellularly. Intracellular freezing tends to be lethal, and its lethality is enhanced by slow warming, which allows intracellular ice to rearrange itself into a simpler structure, in the process literally grinding up the cellular interior. Cryosurgery essentially involves localized rapid cooling to lethal temperatures followed by relatively slow warming and is used to eliminate unwanted cells such as tumor cells.

A major advantage of cryosurgery is cryoimmunology, i.e., the stimulation of the immune system by the damage-induced liberation or better presentation of target cell antigens to the immune surveillance mechanisms. Dramatic reductions in cancer persistence have been attained through cryosurgery in comparison to conventional surgery alone, and a new company, CryoMedical Sciences, has developed excellent new cryosurgical technology that will be of great value in this respect (13).

Frostbite

A form of slow freezing that can be as lethal as cryosurgery is freezing of extremities as a result of unintended exposure to low temperatures. Here the ice remains extracellular, but because there is no cryoprotective agent available, the extent of freezing exceeds tolerable limits. The injury is mostly mechanical in nature but does not necessarily imply the death of cells in the frozen extremity. This has been shown by a number of interesting experiments. For example, Alaskan investigators found that severely frozen extremities could often be saved by the simple expedient of slicing them open to allow accumulated edema fluid to exit, upon which the blue, unperfused limb may suddenly pink up with the inrush of fresh blood. Freezing damages blood vessels, making them tend to weep fluid to the interstitium; this edema increases tissue pressure, which collapses the blood vessels externally and halts blood flow. Given a release of tissue pressure, sufficient blood may flow back into the limb to prevent the need for amputation (14). Low molecular weight dextran has also been helpful in preventing blood from clogging the damaged vessels in frostbite cases.

Another set of fascinating experiments were the hamster freezing experiments of Audrey Smith in the 50's (summarized in 15). She found that 80% of the water in the skin could be frozen without damage, and that between 50 and 80% of the water in extremities could be converted to ice without frostbite provided the limb was not bent while frozen.

Others have similarly found that rather fantastic freezing stresses, involving core limb temperatures of -10(C or even -30(C (14), can be tolerated amazingly well. Experiences such as these indicating that complex tissues can withstand massive distortion by ice encouraged the belief that even internal organs such as the kidney and liver could be frozen for long periods and retrieved for transplantation.

Cryopreservation

It is certainly true that organized tissues that do not require vascular support for their function can be frozen and thawed with success. In fact, it is hard to think of an organized mammalian tissue that can't be successfully frozen and thawed when proper technique is used, and thousands of different cell lines exist in frozen repositories where they have been deposited by various investigators to make them accessible to others for future needs. The transplantation of formerly-frozen human heart valves, major blood vessels, and knee components has been made into a multi-million dollar industry by CryoLife, Inc. (16), and there are major industries based on frozen human skin, semen, and embryos.

On the other hand, there are also some mammalian cells such as platelets, granulocytes, and oocytes which are very sensitive and hard to freeze adequately. Military applications that require cells that can be frozen, thawed, and transfused without removing any cryoprotective additives also represent a difficult challenge. Furthermore, it is evidently difficult to cryopreserve certain types of plant tissue, and the cryopreservation of small marine organisms often proves problematic in part because of their adverse reaction to cryoprotectants.

There is clearly still plenty of work to do in cryobiology, both from a practical and from a theoretical point of view, but to me at least it seems that the greatest challenge is the cryopreservation of mammalian organs.

It is not true to say, as many often do, that no success has been achieved in this area. Quite the contrary. Several labs have reported freezing dog intestines in liquid nitrogen with recovery after thawing, although massive damage was apparent and success was dependent on major regeneration and self-repair in combination with a tolerance of severe vascular injury (17). Livers have regained partial function after freezing to -60(C (18), dog spleens (19) and ureters (20) have survived deep freezing and transplantation, and lungs have survived major freezing stresses at high subzero temperatures (21). Even hearts and kidneys have been consistently reported to survive partial freezing, but not sufficient freezing for long-term preservation. The problem is a matter of degree: partial success is not a useful substitute for complete success.

Given that nature seems to tell us that ice is best avoided when possible, and given well-documented physical damage to the non-living connective tissues found in organs that ruin capillaries and cell-cell relationships in a way that renders organs useless whether they contain living cells or not, it seems logical to pursue vitrification rather than freezing as a solution to the problem. Vitrification involves an extreme elevation of viscosity on cooling, resulting ultimately in a liquid that has the same lack of internal motions as a crystalline solid, and thus has no capacity for change over time, yet lacks the molecular rearrangements of crystallization that do so much damage (22).

I have been working on this approach since late 1980, and every year that has elapsed since then has brought important new progress toward this goal. In early 1995, after more than 14 years of effort, there are better reasons than ever to continue to hope that this problem can be solved. The result could be not only victory over a long-standing scientific challenge, but also significant improvements in transplantation medicine.

Cryobiology in the Future

In my career as a cryobiologist, I have found it possible to add a new dimension to the physics of cryobiology by finding practical ways to eliminate ice crystals. Additional dimensions will one day be added by changing the physics of ice in a fundamental way. The ability to manipulate both the physical and the biological aspects of living systems during cooling to and warming from cryogenic temperatures ensures that cryobiology will remain a lively field for some time to come. Even after currently-possible manipulations of physics and biology have all been explored, nanotechnology will come into play, allowing someone to enter the field from a wholly new perspective and change the rules of the game in more radical ways than most cryobiologists living today can imagine.

The future of cryobiology seems secure.

References

1. Hirsh, A. Vitrification in plants as a natural form of cryoprotection. Cryobiology 24: 214-228, 1987.
2. Robert Williams, personal communication; Dr. Williams is currently with the Naval Medical Research Institute, Building 29, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889 (USA).
3. Storey, K.B., and Storey, J.M. Natural freeze tolerance in ectothermic vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 54: 619-637, 1992.
4. Lee, R.E., Jr., Costanzo, J.P., Davidson, E.C., and Layne, J.R., Jr. Dynamics of body water during freezing and thawing in a freeze-tolerant frog (Rana sylvatica). J. therm. Biol. 17: 263-266, 1992.
5. Miller, L.K. Physiological studies of arctic animals. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 59A: 327-334, 1978.
6. John Baust, personal communication; Dr. Baust is currently with Cryomedical Sciences, Inc. (see address below)
7. Feeney, R.E., and Burcham, T.S. Antifreeze glycoproteins from polar fish blood. Ann. Rev. Biophys. Chem. 15: 59-78, 1986.
8. Linner, J.G., and Livesley, S.A. Low temperature molecular distillation drying of cryofixed biological samples. in: Low Temperature Biotechnology: Emerging Applications and Engineering Contributions. J.J. McGrath and K.R. Diller, Eds. Amer. Soc. Mech. Engineering, New York, 1988, pp. 147-157.
9. Crowe, J.H., and Cooper, A.F., Jr. Cryptobiosis. Scientific American 225: 30-36, 1971.
10. Crowe, J.H., and Crowe, L.M. Water and carbohydrate interactions with membranes: studies with infrared spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry methods. Methods Enzymol. 127: 696‑703, 1986.
11. Barnes, B.M. Freeze avoidance in a mammal: body temperatures below 0(C in an arctic hibernator. Science 244: 1593-1595, 1989.
12. Pafra, Ltd., Cambridge, England
13. Cryomedical Sciences, Inc., 1300 Piccard Drive, Rockville, MD 20850-4303 ([301]-417-7070).
14. Personal communication to H.T. Meryman from W.J. Mills, Jr., but see also: Franz, D.R., Berberich, J.J., Blake, S., and Mills, W.J., Jr. Evaluation of fasciotomy and vasodilator for treatment of frostbite in the dog. Cryobiology 15: 659-669, 1978.
15. Smith, A.U. Biological Effects of Freezing and Supercooling. Edward Arnold, Ltd. London, 1961.
16. CryoLife, Inc., Marietta, Georgia, USA 30067.
17. Hamilton, R., Holst, H.I., and Lehr, H.B. Successful preservation of canine small intestine by freezing. J. Surg. Res. 14: 313-318, 1973.
18. Zimmermann, G., Tennyson, C., and Drapanas, T. Studies of preservation of liver and pancreas by freezing techniques. Transpl. Proc. 1: 657-659, 1971.
19. Barner, H.B., and Scheck, E.A. Autotransplantation of the frozen-thawed spleen. Arch. Pathol. 82: 267-271, 1966.
20. Barner, H.B., Rivers, R.J., Cady, B., and Watkins, E. Survival of canine ureter after freezing. Surgery 53: 344-347, 1963.
21. Okaniwa, G., Nakada, T., Kawakami, M., Fujimura, S., Arakaki, Y., Chiba, S., Yonechi, M., Kagami, Y., and Suzuki, C. Studies on the preservation of canine lung at subzero temperatures. J. Thoracic Cardiovasc. Surg. 65: 180-186, 1973.
22. Fahy, G.M. Vitrification: A new approach to organ
cryopreservation. Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 224: 305-335, 1986.

CRIMES WITHOUT VICTIMS

2010-02-04T10:37:00.000-08:00

Crimes Without Victims

Crimes Without Victims: An Introductory Analysis Of The Victimless Crime Debate And The Relativity Of Morality And LawWe have laws specifically enacted in order to protect society. However, if and when people engage in behaviors that primarily only harm themselves, is it right for the criminal justice system to intervene? To what extent should one be able to enjoy personal freedoms including the freedom of consensual participation? Euphemistically speaking, are there such things as crimes without victims? Consider this transcript from the latest pool of television advertising spots from the White House Office of Drug Control Policy:“This is Dan. This is the joint that Dan bought. This is the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the cartel that uses the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. And this is the family that was tied up by Dan’s cartel and shot for getting in the way. Drug money supports terrible things. If you buy drugs, you might too” (Garfield 2002:45).This advertisement clearly exploded the notion of private, consensual, adult drug use as a vict

utmx_section("Sign Up")

Below are additional random excerpts from the paper...For example, as the debate concerning the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana continues to gain momentum, proponents of legalization and decriminalization are quick to observe and suggest (with supporting empirical evidence), “marijuana is overall becoming a more acceptable substance in our society” (“Marijuana” 2002:A8). This is just one example that highlights the notion that morality and criminality are relatively volatile and not invincible to the forces of change, and acts that were defined as illegal ten or twenty years ago are not necessarily illegal today nor will acts that are considered illegal today necessarily be considered illegal ten or twenty years from now and vice versa. History has clearly demonstrated that the utilization of criminal law as a means to enforce morality is certainly not unprecedented, to say the least, and often takes a cyclical form. Nonetheless, as new aspects of the various behaviors categorized as crimes without victims continue to arouse considerable public controversy, it is likely that society’s views concerning morality and criminality as it relates to these particular offenses will also continue to deviate relative to today’s normative standards.imless crime, but this line of reasoning is only one-side of a relatively recent, highly contentious and divisive, sociopolitical debate. The articles selected for review for the purposes at present serve to illustrate: (1) the controversy surrounding the debate of victimless crime in general and illicit drug use specifically: (2) the most basic, practically inescapable ideological biases from which the basis of the debate is centered; and, (3) the relativity of law as it relates to social order crimes.Definitional issues and the relative moral dissonance among the debaters, then, surround the primary controversy of this debate. Advocates who believe that victimless crimes ought to be reduced or eliminated argue, firstly, that victimless crime is not only an adequate social construct but also a reality, and, secondly, that the cornerstone of a free democratic society is that it extends freedom to all citizens as long as that freedom does not impinge on the equivalent freedom of others. Criminologists often make reference to the works of renowned labeling theorist, Howard Becker, who combined criminological conflict and symbolic interactionist theories and maintained that moral entrepreneurship, rooted in the Protestant ethic, was the most significant force behind the law. This is to say, Becker believed that it was the people that held the decision-making power that made rules in their interest and redefined what is and what is not deviant or criminal (Brown et al. 2001:531-532).The opposition of this debate asserts that victimless crime is a fallacious concept. That is, in actuality, there exists no criminal action that does not produce some sort of a victim. For Some topics in this essay:Howard Becker, Milton Friedman, Control Policy, Hezbollah” Garfield, Criminal Sanction, Morality Law, brown et, brown et al, et al, victimless crime, Esbensen Geis, “marijuana” 2002a8, illicit drug, debate concerning, Herbert Packer, victimless crimes, joint dan bought, line reasoning, joint dan, dan bought, Stanford University, illicit drug laws, sold joint dan, dealer sold joint, Drug Control,

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

2010-02-04T10:31:00.000-08:00

The Cane and the Tawse in Scottish Schools
by C. Farrell

A READER asks about use of the cane and the tawse in British schools -- in particular, how the balance of usage between these two instruments varied in different parts of the UK until school CP was finally outlawed altogether in 1998. First, let us focus on Scotland.

As far as state schools are concerned, the tawse was pretty well universal in Scotland. ('Tawse' was the official term, but in conversation it was always called 'the belt'.) It was the only instrument permitted under the 1968 Code of Practice agreed between the Scottish teachers' unions and the Scottish Education Department.

Bizarrely, and in my view foolishly, the Code also specified that it be applied only on the hands; and there is no doubt that, in modern times, this was how the tawse was generally inflicted in Scottish schools.

BEATINGS ON THE BOTTOM

But apparently it was not ever thus. Bill Fyfe Hendrie, a Scots head teacher, has written:

"Describing his school days in Montrose, 19th century poet Alexander Smart records that when he and his school fellows were to be punished they were ordered to bend over a long wooden bench, to which they were bound so that there was no escape while the master, Mr Norval, administered what he considered to be the requisite number of strokes of his tawse across their legs and bottoms. At Ayr Grammar School the boys suffered the even greater indignity of being 'horsed', that is hoisted on the shoulders of two of their classmates, so that their bottoms presented an even better target for the tawse.
"Beatings on the bottom were apparently common in Aberdeenshire, for many schools in that county boasted what were known as "cooling stanes". These were large stones just outside the school door to which pupils who had been chastised could rush at play times to sit and take at least part of the stinging sensation out of their wounds. Indeed it is claimed that one irate kirk session complained bitterly to the dominie that his scholars were using one of the large tomb stones in the adjacent grave yard for this unseemly practice.
"One boy went through the rest of his life with the nickname, "Leather Doup", because when he was wee, he persuaded his mother to sew a sheep's skin inside the seat of his trousers, in order to minimise the impact of the dominie's leatherings."
("The Tingle o' the Tawse", Scottish Memories, July 1994)
Not quite all state-school teachers followed the modern-day rules about applying the tawse only to the hand. Mr David Johnstone, headmaster of Plockton High School in Wester Ross, was "severely censured" by Highland Education Committee for his disciplinary methods in 1979. He was "accused of spanking teenage boys on the bare bottom with his belt. The incidents are said to have taken place in his study with the door locked and curtains drawn." ("School belting inquiry begins", Daily Record, Glasgow, 13 March 1979.)

Mr Johnstone had previously been a teacher in Edinburgh, where I have been told that men who were his pupils in the mid-1970's claim they too received the belt on their backsides. Apparently at the time nobody complained!

A couple of years earlier, teacher James McQuade agreed at Dumfries Sheriff Court that he had put pupils across his knee and spanked them in front of the class at Lincluden Primary School, Dumfries. An 11-year-old boy, who admitted that he was "a menace in the classroom", said Mr McQuade had punished him "by pulling his trousers and underpants down, putting him over his knee, and striking him on the buttocks". ("Teacher spanked pupils", The Scotsman, Edinburgh, 17 September 1977.)

'I FELT THE BOY EXPECTED TO BE PUNISHED'

And the headmaster of Dunoon Grammar School, Mr Alexander Thain, was cleared of indecent assault following the bare-backside spanking of a 15-year-old boy who had been playing truant.

Mr Thain told Dunoon Sheriff Court how he went to the parents' house and took the boy to his own home, the school being shut that day. There followed what the boy called 'hypnosis' and the headmaster called 'relaxation therapy'. Mr Thain continued: "The father had told me that he had caned the boy. I said: 'I've nothing here to punish you with and I'll have to use my hand and use it on your bare bottom'."

The boy described to the court how he had removed his own trousers and bent over the settee. "He pulled down my underpants and started to smack me with his hand, five or six times," he said.

Mr Thain explained: "I felt the boy expected to be punished and I felt his parents expected him to be punished. It was meant as a symbolic punishment." ("Head hypnotised me, says boy", The Scotsman, 12 June 1980; "Head acquitted of assaulting boy", The Scotsman, 13 June 1980.)

PUBLIC FLOGGING OF BOYS

These last two bare-bottom spanking cases, whilst not involving the belt, do tend to confirm both that the Code of Practice was sometimes ignored, and that trousers-down punishments were not unknown in state schools in Scotland.

There is certainly evidence of them if we go a little further back in time. One man who in 1946 was a 12-year-old pupil at St Andrew's RC School, Dumfries, wrote:

"The use of the tawse was a daily occurrence for trivial offences. Public floggings in the school hall in front of the assembled school were for 'serious offences', for example, stealing a pair of plimsolls. The boys were brutally beaten on the bare backside by the headmaster whilst two male teachers held the struggling victim across a school desk. Female teachers were excused witnessing the spectacle, so they would not see a bare backside."
(Letter from 'D.D', Dumfries and Galloway Standard, 5 February 1982.)

Price list of Scotland's main tawse supplier in 1966.

Generally, however, the tawse in Scotland was given on the hands, often - contrary to the usual practice with the cane in England - in front of the class. And it was applied remarkably frequently: a 1977 survey by the Educational Institute of Scotland (the teachers' trade union) found that 36% of 12-to-15- year-old boys were belted at least once in 10 school days; 21% of these were strapped three or more times in the same period.

19 OUT OF 20 BOYS STRAPPED

And in 1980 a study by Edinburgh University's Centre for Educational Sociology, conducted among 40,000 school leavers, showed that only 1 in 20 boys went through secondary school without getting the tawse ("Children under shadow of the belt", Daily Record, Glasgow, 26 November 1980.) This suggests a considerably higher level of usage of CP overall than the average in England and Wales.

An array of Scottish tawses.

There is one significant exception to the dominance of the tawse in Scottish education, and that is the independent (private) schools. Here there was no general rule; the Code of Practice did not apply. I understand a few private schools, such as Glasgow Academy, did use the strap on hands, perhaps regarding this as a more Scottish thing to do, but most followed their English counterparts in using the cane on bottoms.

CANE ACROSS THE BACKSIDE

A fictional, but probably reasonably authentic, example of the latter can be seen in the short film "The Dollar Bottom", made by Roger Christian in 1980. Set in an Edinburgh boarding school in 1953, and based on a story by James Kennaway, it is a light-hearted tale about an enterprising boy who sets up an insurance scheme against getting the cane, and quickly makes a fortune.

A real-life private school, Dollar Academy, announced in 1983 that it was giving up using CP altogether, but there is anecdotal evidence that in the mid-1960's it was still using the cane across backsides in quite a big way and - on occasions - with much force and ceremony. This was apparently administered by senior boys in the boarding houses; teachers themselves used the tawse on the hand, said to be a daily occurrence.

Students in Dollar Academy's distinctive uniform. The school used both forms of corporal punishment.

BOY, 17, CANED FOR DRINKING

Fettes College, in Edinburgh, also used the cane. Fettes is often considered "Scotland's Eton", though it is a Victorian and not a mediaeval institution. The following curious item appeared in Scotland's biggest-selling popular daily paper:

"A boy has been caned at one of Scotland's top schools .... for under-age drinking. The caning took place at exclusive Fettes College, Edinburgh, the night before 17-year-old Russell Young was fined five pounds at the district court.
"Two other teenagers from the six-hundred-pounds-a-term school, Ian MacConachie, now 18, and Christopher Cape, now 17, were also fined five pounds at the same court when they admitted drinking beer.
"Both were told by headmaster Mr Anthony Chenevix-Trench, who came to Fettes from Eton, that they would not be allowed to leave the school grounds for a time.
"'They have simply been naughty', said Mr Chenevix-Trench, 'but they should not have been drinking'."
(Daily Record, 25 February 1977).
The news story did not explain why Russell got the cane, while Ian and Christopher apparently didn't but were gated instead. Nor why the Daily Record thought a caning at a "top school" -- of which there must have been, at the least, dozens daily in Scotland alone -- was unusual enough to justify being brought to the attention of its several million readers. Presumably the canings were mentioned during the public court case; normally of course that kind of information remains private.

NO ORDINARY FLOGGER

In his former capacity as headmaster of Eton in the 1960s, Mr Chenevix-Trench ("A quick beating can be the kindest thing to do" -- Liverpool Echo, 6 January 1979) would have been accustomed to caning boy's bottoms -- bare, in that case. We are not told whether the canings he administered at Fettes - such as 17-year-old Russell Young's in February 1977 - were also done trousers-down (or kilts-up?) but it seems highly likely, in view of revelations by journalist Paul Foot, who went to Shrewsbury School when Chenevix-Trench was a housemaster there in the 1950s. Foot wrote on the occasion of the great man's death:

"... Trench was no ordinary flogger. He would offer his culprit an alternative: four strokes with the cane, which hurt; or six with the strap, with trousers down, which didn't. Sensible boys always chose the strap, despite the humiliation, and Trench, quite unable to control his glee, led the way to an upstairs room, which he locked, before hauling down the miscreant's trousers, lying him face down on a couch and lashing out with a belt .....
("London Diary", New Statesman, London, 13 July 1979.)
Foot's claims about Trench have been fully vindicated much more recently, and I hope to return to this topic in a future article about Eton.

SIX OF THE BEST WITH RIDING CROP

But to return to Scotland, and Fettes College. Another account of life there, this time in 1966, has been provided by Richard Gibbon, columnist on the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Sunday Sun. Gibbon, who was 13 at the time, was caught talking after lights out. He writes:

"I was made to wait 12 hours before my punishment and during this time I ate, tried to swot (exams the next day) and duly attended evening chapel service.
"After finishing my Divinity essay...I was summoned to the holy room of house prefects: eight individuals, average age 17, whom I viewed as Gorgons from my lowly height. They explained how badly behaved I had been, warned me I must be made to suffer, and duly frog-marched me to a room referred to as The Big Dormitory.
"Thirty feet away stood two chairs back to back, on which I was to have six of the best.
"Thud! - the first stroke of the riding crop made contact and my assailant slowly returned to the waiting group of would-be thrashers.
"A dozen steps later there was another almighty clout and my chairs lurched violently forward, and so my dose was repeated another four times.
"Several screams later I emerged from my torture stools, pulled my clothes together, wiped away my tears and shook hands with the head of house.
"For three days my rear ached, the thick weals stayed for two weeks, and the scars finally went about six weeks later. For a few days I was a mini-hero. How much did it hurt? When did you start crying? etc. But the whole event was quickly erased from school life.
"By everyone but me, that is. I have never forgotten the beating and I doubt I ever will. It served as an excellent reminder that if I was caught doing something wrong then I had to expect punishment."
("Punishment? You can't whack it", Sunday Sun, 20 August 1978.)
A rather more famous product of Fettes College is the British Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair. It seems he was something of a rebel at school, and around 1970 he too received "six of the best" there, when he was a six-foot 17-year-old. The caning was delivered by his exasperated housemaster, who described the future PM as the most difficult boy he ever had to deal with ("Rebel pupil Blair was given six of the best", Daily Telegraph, London, 28 March 2001).

SIX BLACK MARKS = ONE WHACKING

For our final look at caning in Scotland's private schools, we turn once more to Dumfries.

In 1979 Mr Peter Spencer, former headmaster of what was described as "one of Scotland's oldest-established prep schools", was charged on 12 counts of assault involving 7 boys over five years:

"Five schoolboys told a court yesterday how their headmaster beat them over the buttocks with a shoe, riding crop or cane. And one of them claimed their boarding school was nicknamed Colditz.
"A jury at Dumfries heard the boys - aged between 12 and 14 - tell about life in the 75-pupil school. They described the disciplinary system, under which bad conduct marks could be awarded by teachers at St Ninian's in Moffat, Dumfriesshire.
"Any boy accumulating six had to go to the head's study where punishment was administered by him. They alleged that he hit them over their bottom, in some cases causing red marks, weals and bruising.....
"Roderick Baillie, 12, of Edinburgh, told how he was punished on three occasions, once in 1974 when he was seven, and twice last year. On the first occasion he received four strokes with a shoe on the backside, from the headmaster."
("Colditz head beat us, say pupils", Daily Record, 26 September 1979.)
On the second day of the trial, the school doctor, Dr. Hamish Macleod, took the witness stand. He had been called in January 1979 to examine two boys, Mark Bishop, 13, and Michael Lambert, 11, who "were each given six strokes of the cane on their buttocks".

BRUISED BUTTOCKS

The doctor stated that four days after the caning "the weals were still about a quarter to half an inch in diameter and their buttocks were bruised", and that "days later, the boys were still suffering pain". He added that "the force with which they were struck must have been extremely excessive".

The doctor agreed however that "it was an excellent school academically and also in character training". Michael Lambert himself told the court that "he and Mark Bishop were punished for not owning up to breaking a thermometer" ("Doctor condemns canings", Daily Telegraph, London, 27 September 1979; "Doctor tells of boy's school cane wounds", Daily Record, 27 September 1979).

Headmaster Spencer, giving evidence on the third day of his trial, said he considered a horse crop less severe than the cane. He told the court he used the slipper for less severe punishment, then the horse crop, and then a cane for more serious cases. "I regard the riding crop as being not so thick and much lighter than a cane."

"Spencer, .... a National Service Officer instructor in the RAF, said ... when he took over at St Ninian's in 1973 he never made any secret of the fact that he believed in and administered corporal punishment.
".....He went on to say that in his opinion he had beaten the two boys involved reasonably hard, but certainly not as hard as he could have done. He did not think his use of the cane had been excessive".
("Riding crop less severe than the cane, says former head", Glasgow Herald, 28 September 1979.)
COURT UPHOLDS DISCIPLINE

On the fourth and final day of the case, the Sheriff told the jury that "the crime of assault requires as an essential ingredient some measure of criminal intent". There was no evidence of this, and he instructed them to return a verdict of not guilty.

As he walked "elated" from the court, Mr Spencer said he had not changed his views on CP. "Had I been found guilty I feel that many other teachers in other schools would have felt inhibited. I hope that this will be an encouragement to other teachers trying to uphold discipline and good behaviour" ("Caning head cleared of assault", Glasgow Herald, 29 September 1979.)

A final note on the tawse: In 1982 its monopoly manufacturer in Scotland, Lochgelly saddler John Dick, "whose family firm had been making the tawse in their Fife workshop since Victorian children were learning their three R's and being belted", went out of production.

"It is almost fading away in any case because of the difficulty in obtaining the special leather. It was now being manufactured principally for export: 'There are outstanding orders for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America. There's medium, heavy and extra-heavy ... The two-tail heavy has been the most popular and retails at £5.90.'"
("Rise and fall of the belt", Sunday Standard, Glasgow, 28 February 1982.)

CLONING

2010-02-04T10:26:00.000-08:00

Cloning Fact Sheet

Introduction
The possibility of human cloning, raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created the much-celebrated sheep "Dolly" (Nature 385, 810-13, 1997), aroused worldwide interest and concern because of its scientific and ethical implications. The feat, cited by Science magazine as the breakthrough of 1997, also generated uncertainty over the meaning of "cloning" --an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material.

What is cloning? Are there different types of cloning?
When the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. A basic understanding of the different types of cloning is key to taking an informed stance on current public policy issues and making the best possible personal decisions. The following three types of cloning technologies will be discussed: (1) recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning, (2) reproductive cloning, and (3) therapeutic cloning.

Recombinant DNA Technology or DNA Cloning

The terms "recombinant DNA technology," "DNA cloning," "molecular cloning," and "gene cloning" all refer to the same process: the transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid. The DNA of interest can then be propagated in a foreign host cell. This technology has been around since the 1970s, and it has become a common practice in molecular biology labs today.

Scientists studying a particular gene often use bacterial plasmids to generate multiple copies of the same gene. Plasmids are self-replicating extra-chromosomal circular DNA molecules, distinct from the normal bacterial genome (see image to the right). Plasmids and other types of cloning vectors were used by Human Genome Project researchers to copy genes and other pieces of chromosomes to generate enough identical material for further study.

To "clone a gene," a DNA fragment containing the gene of interest is isolated from chromosomal DNA using restriction enzymes and then united with a plasmid that has been cut with the same restriction enzymes. When the fragment of chromosomal DNA is joined with its cloning vector in the lab, it is called a "recombinant DNA molecule." Following introduction into suitable host cells, the recombinant DNA can then be reproduced along with the host cell DNA. See a diagram depicting this process.

Plasmids can carry up to 20,000 bp of foreign DNA. Besides bacterial plasmids, some other cloning vectors include viruses, bacteria artificial chromosomes (BACs), and yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs). Cosmids are artificially constructed cloning vectors that carry up to 45 kb of foreign DNA and can be packaged in lambda phage particles for infection into E. coli cells. BACs utilize the naturally occurring F-factor plasmid found in E. coli to carry 100- to 300-kb DNA inserts. A YAC is a functional chromosome derived from yeast that can carry up to 1 MB of foreign DNA. Bacteria are most often used as the host cells for recombinant DNA molecules, but yeast and mammalian cells also are used.

Reproductive Cloning

Celebrity Sheep Died at Age 6

Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned from adult DNA, was put down by lethal injection Feb. 14, 2003. Prior to her death, Dolly had been suffering from lung cancer and crippling arthritis. Although most Finn Dorset sheep live to be 11 to 12 years of age, postmortem examination of Dolly seemed to indicate that, other than her cancer and arthritis, she appeared to be quite normal. The unnamed sheep from which Dolly was cloned had died several years prior to her creation. Dolly was a mother to six lambs, bred the old-fashioned way.

Image credit: Roslin Institute Image Library

Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.

Dolly or any other animal created using nuclear transfer technology is not truly an identical clone of the donor animal. Only the clone's chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor. Some of the clone's genetic materials come from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated egg. Mitochondria, which are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell, contain their own short segments of DNA. Acquired mutations in mitochondrial DNA are believed to play an important role in the aging process.

Dolly's success is truly remarkable because it proved that the genetic material from a specialized adult cell, such as an udder cell programmed to express only those genes needed by udder cells, could be reprogrammed to generate an entire new organism. Before this demonstration, scientists believed that once a cell became specialized as a liver, heart, udder, bone, or any other type of cell, the change was permanent and other unneeded genes in the cell would become inactive. Some scientists believe that errors or incompleteness in the reprogramming process cause the high rates of death, deformity, and disability observed among animal clones.

Therapeutic Cloning

Therapeutic cloning, also called "embryo cloning," is the production of human embryos for use in research. The goal of this process is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease. Stem cells are important to biomedical researchers because they can be used to generate virtually any type of specialized cell in the human body. Stem cells are extracted from the egg after it has divided for 5 days. The egg at this stage of development is called a blastocyst. The extraction process destroys the embryo, which raises a variety of ethical concerns. Many researchers hope that one day stem cells can be used to serve as replacement cells to treat heart disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, and other diseases. See more on the potential use of cloning in organ transplants.

In November 2001, scientists from Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT), a biotechnology company in Massachusetts, announced that they had cloned the first human embryos for the purpose of advancing therapeutic research. To do this, they collected eggs from women's ovaries and then removed the genetic material from these eggs with a needle less than 2/10,000th of an inch wide. A skin cell was inserted inside the enucleated egg to serve as a new nucleus. The egg began to divide after it was stimulated with a chemical called ionomycin. The results were limited in success. Although this process was carried out with eight eggs, only three began dividing, and only one was able to divide into six cells before stopping.

How can cloning technologies be used?
Recombinant DNA technology is important for learning about other related technologies, such as gene therapy, genetic engineering of organisms, and sequencing genomes. Gene therapy can be used to treat certain genetic conditions by introducing virus vectors that carry corrected copies of faulty genes into the cells of a host organism. Genes from different organisms that improve taste and nutritional value or provide resistance to particular types of disease can be used to genetically engineer food crops. See Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms for more information. With genome sequencing, fragments of chromosomal DNA must be inserted into different cloning vectors to generate fragments of an appropriate size for sequencing. See a diagram on constructing clones for sequencing.

If the low success rates can be improved (Dolly was only one success out of 276 tries), reproductive cloning can be used to develop efficient ways to reliably reproduce animals with special qualities. For example, drug-producing animals or animals that have been genetically altered to serve as models for studying human disease could be mass produced.

Reproductive cloning also could be used to repopulate endangered animals or animals that are difficult to breed. In 2001, the first clone of an endangered wild animal was born, a wild ox called a gaur. The young gaur died from an infection about 48 hours after its birth. In 2001, scientists in Italy reported the successful cloning of a healthy baby mouflon, an endangered wild sheep. The cloned mouflon is living at a wildlife center in Sardinia. Other endangered species that are potential candidates for cloning include the African bongo antelope, the Sumatran tiger, and the giant panda. Cloning extinct animals presents a much greater challenge to scientists because the egg and the surrogate needed to create the cloned embryo would be of a species different from the clone.

Therapeutic cloning technology may some day be used in humans to produce whole organs from single cells or to produce healthy cells that can replace damaged cells in degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Much work still needs to be done before therapeutic cloning can become a realistic option for the treatment of disorders.

What animals have been cloned?
Scientists have been cloning animals for many years. In 1952, the first animal, a tadpole, was cloned. Before the creation of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal, clones were created from embryonic cells. Since Dolly, researchers have cloned a number of large and small animals including sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats, rabbits, and a gaur. See Cloned Animals below. All these clones were created using nuclear transfer technology.

Hundreds of cloned animals exist today, but the number of different species is limited. Attempts at cloning certain species have been unsuccessful. Some species may be more resistant to somatic cell nuclear transfer than others. The process of stripping the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell is a traumatic one, and improvements in cloning technologies may be needed before many species can be cloned successfully.

Can organs be cloned for use in transplants?
Scientists hope that one day therapeutic cloning can be used to generate tissues and organs for transplants. To do this, DNA would be extracted from the person in need of a transplant and inserted into an enucleated egg. After the egg containing the patient's DNA starts to divide, embryonic stem cells that can be transformed into any type of tissue would be harvested. The stem cells would be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the recipient. In theory, the cloned organ could then be transplanted into the patient without the risk of tissue rejection. If organs could be generated from cloned human embryos, the need for organ donation could be significantly reduced.

Many challenges must be overcome before "cloned organ" transplants become reality. More effective technologies for creating human embryos, harvesting stem cells, and producing organs from stem cells would have to be developed. In 2001, scientists with the biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) reported that they had cloned the first human embryos; however, the only embryo to survive the cloning process stopped developing after dividing into six cells. In February 2002, scientists with the same biotech company reported that they had successfully transplanted kidney-like organs into cows. The team of researchers created a cloned cow embryo by removing the DNA from an egg cell and then injecting the DNA from the skin cell of the donor cow's ear. Since little is known about manipulating embryonic stem cells from cows, the scientists let the cloned embryos develop into fetuses. The scientists then harvested fetal tissue from the clones and transplanted it into the donor cow. In the three months of observation following the transplant, no sign of immune rejection was observed in the transplant recipient.

Another potential application of cloning to organ transplants is the creation of genetically modified pigs from which organs suitable for human transplants could be harvested . The transplant of organs and tissues from animals to humans is called xenotransplantation.

Why pigs? Primates would be a closer match genetically to humans, but they are more difficult to clone and have a much lower rate of reproduction. Of the animal species that have been cloned successfully, pig tissues and organs are more similar to those of humans. To create a "knock-out" pig, scientists must inactivate the genes that cause the human immune system to reject an implanted pig organ. The genes are knocked out in individual cells, which are then used to create clones from which organs can be harvested. In 2002, a British biotechnology company reported that it was the first to produce "double knock-out" pigs that have been genetically engineered to lack both copies of a gene involved in transplant rejection. More research is needed to study the transplantation of organs from "knock-out" pigs to other animals.

What are the risks of cloning?
Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.

In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes.

Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos.

For more details on the risks associated with cloning, see the Cloning Problems links below.

Should humans be cloned?
Physicians from the American Medical Association and scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning. The U.S. Congress has considered the passage of legislation that could ban human cloning. See the Policy and Legislation links below.

Due to the inefficiency of animal cloning (only about 1 or 2 viable offspring for every 100 experiments) and the lack of understanding about reproductive cloning, many scientists and physicians strongly believe that it would be unethical to attempt to clone humans. Not only do most attempts to clone mammals fail, about 30% of clones born alive are affected with "large-offspring syndrome" and other debilitating conditions. Several cloned animals have died prematurely from infections and other complications. The same problems would be expected in human cloning. In addition, scientists do not know how cloning could impact mental development. While factors such as intellect and mood may not be as important for a cow or a mouse, they are crucial for the development of healthy humans. With so many unknowns concerning reproductive cloning, the attempt to clone humans at this time is considered potentially dangerous and ethically irresponsible. See the Cloning Ethics links below for more information about the human cloning debate.

CREATIONISM

2010-01-09T18:34:00.000-08:00

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

www.creationism.org

www.creationism.org ARTICLES

Thought-provoking articles about our ancient history and the importance of our creation in God's own image and fall from grace. Each new false religion of the post-Flood period has sought to detract from our Creator and from our responsibilities in this life; evolution's effect is no different and it (macro-evolution) continues to lack any scientific substance. Pray about this! And study as needed, especially since the media continues to report this issue inaccurately. Please study the plethora of Biblical and scientific knowledge standing squarely against this spiritual deception. [English Introduction] ...for other language Introductions, see Left sidebar.

BOOKS ON-LINE

Over two dozen Creation Science books! Now available to read and study. Some of these quality titles are completely FREE for you to download and copy for any educational purpose.

MP3 Teaching On-line Section

A variety of Creation Science Answers Download for convenience and ease of play. MP3 is a popular audio format - for use at home, in school or the office, or while traveling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation Social Science & Humanities Society Quarterly Journal Archives

Over 300 articles - Research on all facets of Creation theory's impact in the social sciences: history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc. Also many articles on scientific subjects and thought provoking editorials!

Answers To My Evolutionist Friends

I am writing a number of articles under the series title: Answers to my Evolutionist Friends. Help me weed out scientific errors.
One of my best brief evidences for creation is going out by email each month. Each one is very carefully written so you can use it in your evangelistic conversations or to forward to your friends, etc. To get them to you I need your email address! Please email it to me at: heinze@hevanet.com. Thank you! So far people are loving them, but if you don't like them just ask to be taken off the list. (Your email address will be kept confidential.)

Creation Resource Library

Hundreds of Creation Science videos available for FREE check-out. There is so much to learn - and even leading creationist speakers are still learning (often from each other!). Ellen will mail up to 3 videos at a time, requesting a prompt return. See web page section for details. This is an excellent service - and Ellen would love to hear from you and to help you learn more about Creation Science.

STUFF FOR KIDS!!!

Educational and fun learning materials for children of all ages! Children need to learn that they're not an evolutionary "accident" but that God created and loves them. Evolution in practice, historically speaking, always does the most damage to the weakest members of society. Why play fair? Why be honest? Because we were created for a purpose.

DRAGON IMAGES!

Lots of dragon/dinosaur images, included for educational purposes. Just look at these remains of pre-Flood dinosaur life mass buried only thousands of years ago, as verified by C14 dating. FREE to download and copy. 190 JPG images taken at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Their evolutionary texts included between the photos (with the usual "Rocks Dating Fossils" and "Fossils Dating Rocks" - circular reasoning!) along with a creationist interpretation of the fossil record, below all the free images.

SPACE - PLANET & STAR IMAGES

70 marvelous space images from NASA and other space agencies. These free images can be downloaded, copied, printed and re-distributed.

MOUNT ST. HELENS - 7 WONDERS MUSEUM

The 7 Wonders Creation Museum is an Information Center with Display Room and bookstore that demonstates how catastrophes rather than slow and gradual processes are primarily responsible for geological changes around the earth. At this museum, formations produced by Mount St. Helens during the '80's has become a key to better interpret the age of the earth and places like the Grand Canyon.

CREATION GEOLOGY IN RUSSIA - ARCTUR RESEARCH (IN RUSSIAN & ENGLISH)

The Lab is designed for investigations in geology and geochemistry on the base of mathematical modeling of geological processes. Since 1994, the Lab works are closely related to the studies on Flood sedimentology and elaboration of alternative methods of dating for geological events and objects.

CHRISTIAN CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND APOLOGETICS (MOSTLY IN RUSSIAN)

INTRODUCING the Truth to skeptics; STRENGTHENING the saints in their confidence in the Truth; EQUIPPING God's people to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks the reason for their hope.

EVOLUTION 101 - 25 Lessons (IN ENGLISH)

Creation by God supports every one of the laws and principles of science, as cited in these lessons. Evolution violates every one of them. Every so-called scientific fact in support of the general theory of (macro-)evolution from atheistic and anti-theistic scientists is not testable-repeatable.

CENSORSHIP

2010-01-09T18:31:00.000-08:00

Censorship of the Media Creating Insidious Chill on Free Expression on our Airwaves

by US Rep. Bernie Sanders

The following is a 2/16/2005 floor statement by Rep. Bernard Sanders in opposition to The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act 2005:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without saying.

As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves.

There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the American people should have the "freedom" to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of "government regulators," but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society.

Mr. Speaker: I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute - a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth:

"Those of use who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times. But that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children.

"Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family.

"Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole nation is permitted to see, hear or think.

"I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal and parental responsibility about most economic issues, seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural issues."

Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?

Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in creating the federal deficit. Last November, sixty-six ABC affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan," starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was "too controversial" to air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this problem and make a bad situation worse.

This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans' First Amendment rights.

In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my own state of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this legislation will have on programming decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.

Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of VT Public Television on H.R. 310:

Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters, does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in HR 310 are extreme.

The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity, indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying these proposals into law will make the situation worse.

While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling the effects every day. Public television's educational programming for children has always provided a safe haven. The same public television stations that take such care of their young viewers also respect the intelligence and discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing choices for themselves.

Vermont Public Television has always operated responsibly in our programming for adults. At times, our programs included adult language and situations appropriate to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it seems that context is no longer considered.

Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights, we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small station like VPT out of business.

Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told broadcasters there was one word that would never be appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations, including Vermont Public Television, began to make content choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.

PBS programmers began making edits to national programs being distributed to stations. An "American Experience" documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just to be sure. On "Antiques Roadshow," a nude poster was edited. This month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called "Dirty War ." In the story, a woman showers to remove radiation. When the program airs on PBS, the shower scene will be edited.

Our programming director, and no doubt most local programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing programs with words and situations that might even come close to content that could be subject to fines.

At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers live on the air. There has never been a problem with language, but the legislation's reference to using a "time delay blocking mechanism" makes us worry. We don't use a time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?

Our programming director says the FCC proposals have already made us rule out airing independent films on our "Reel Independent" program. Films by Vermont filmmakers that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted for broadcast now.
We cannot support HR 310 as it is written.

CELIBACY

2010-01-09T18:28:00.000-08:00

Ambrosian!

Abstaining from sex for life is in, healthy, cool, it's the new way.
There's a new awareness on the horizon and abstinence is playing a big
role in it. If it's a choice you already have made, are thinking about making
or interested in, you are welcome to browse through our web pages. Our message
is here for informational purposes, so keep that in mind. Ambrosian! brings
together science, nature and philosophy, and leads us to a better future.
It's the healthy lifestyle for achieving youth and good health.

CARJACKING

2010-01-09T18:06:00.000-08:00

Carjacking Facts

Robbery Prevention Advice
by Chris E McGoey, CPP, CSP, CAM
Carjacking is Robbery
Carjacking is the violent form of motor vehicle theft. It is a serious threat to our personal safety because the thief uses force and fear to rob our car from us. Sometimes the car owner or other occupants are kidnapped during a carjacking, and if lucky will be dropped off nearby unharmed. The worst case scenario occurs when you are transported to a secondary crime scene, which is usually more dangerous than the original confrontation. Those not so lucky victims have suffered other crimes like rape, aggravated assault, and even homicide.

Since the mid-1980s, carjacking has captured the attention of the media with reports of these sudden and violent attacks. Carjackers have unknowingly driven off with infants still in the backseat of the car, leaving behind a screaming and emotionally distressed parent. Other drivers have been violently pulled out of their seats and left lying on the road, terrified by what just occurred.

The crime of carjacking can be traumatic to our everyday lives because it creates fear in the common act of driving a car. Victims of carjacking have reported being unable to drive a car again while others required months of therapy. Others have become so hypersensitive, that embarrassing and dangerous situations have arisen in response to their fear when someone unwittingly approached their car on foot.

How Carjacking Got Started
Carjacking has always been around, especially in large metropolitan cities, we just rarely read about it. The crime of carjacking "took off" in the 1980s after the media published stories of bizarre situations and the violence associated with the crime. The media coined the phrase "carjacking" and the crime of auto theft took on a new identity. After a rush of publicity, other criminals "copied" the crime of carjacking. These copycat criminals must have said, "Hey, I can steal any vehicle I want without damaging it, I get the car keys, and I can rob the owner too. What a concept!"

Another reason carjacking got started is because of the sophistication and prevalence of new anti-theft devices and alarm systems. New car alarms and steering wheel locking systems made it tougher on the auto thief. Chip-integrated ignition switches, engine cutoff devices, and stolen vehicle locators are now more common in cars. Unfortunately for us, poorly motivated and unskilled car thieves have adapted by becoming more violent to get the cars they need and don't think twice about using force against us.

Sometimes criminals will carjack a vehicle for use in another crime like armed robbery or for a drive-by shooting. These carjackers prefer to have a set of car keys and not have a visibly smashed window or damaged ignition switch that can be easily spotted by the police. This class of car thief is the most dangerous because they are usually heavily armed and are not concerned with your welfare.

How Often Does Carjacking Occur
National carjacking statistics are not available. However, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)* made a telephone assessment of 221,000 households from 1992-1996 to gain an understanding of the extent of the carjacking problem. The biggest problem of tracking carjacking incidents is current police agency reporting practices. Most criminal codes have not adopted this new crime type nor do they track it statistically. Most police jurisdictions charge the crime of carjacking as a robbery since force or fear was used to steal the vehicle directly for the owner. Many police agencies record multiple charges like aggravated robbery, auto theft, assault, battery to one event but usually only the first charge (robbery) gets indexed and statistically tracked. Some jurisdictions charge the crime of carjacking as only an auto theft since a vehicle was stolen.

Since the crime of carjacking is not indexed in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, it is unlikely that we will soon see a national statistic on frequency that is generated from police reports. What we have to work with is the NCVS telephone survey as the source of our data.

From the study of 1992-1996, the NCVS learned that each year 49,000 carjackings and attempts occur in the United States. About half of the reported carjackings were failed attempts. Of the completed carjackings, 92% had weapons where only 75% were armed during the failed attempts. Unfortunately, this statistic tells us that carjackers must be armed to be taken seriously by victims. A handgun was the weapon of choice followed by a knife. Males were responsible for 97% of the carjackings and attempts and were usually carried out by either one or two perpetrators.

Where Does Carjacking Occur
Carjacking can occur anywhere, but is largely a big city problem like traditional auto theft. See my web site on auto theft facts for more information.

Carjacking occurs most often in a busy commercial area where cars are parked and when the owner is entering or exiting the parked vehicle. Most carjackings or attempts (65%) occur within five miles of the victim's home. The carjacker wants the keys readily available and the car door unlocked for a quick getaway. Carjackers tend to rob lone victims more often (92%), for obvious reasons. According to the NCVS, men were victimized more often than women, blacks more than whites; Hispanics, more than non-Hispanics; and divorced, separated, or never married more than married or widowed. This trend is not surprising given the fact that younger single males tend to take more chances and go to higher risk locations than do married persons. It is unclear whether household income or the value of the vehicle is a criterion in carjacking as the statistics are spread throughout the income levels. However the $35,000 to $50,000 income range had a slightly higher carjack victim frequency.

Surprisingly, the NCVS study indicates that 64% of the daytime carjackings were actually completed, while less than half of those at night were completed. This may be reflective of who is being victimized and who is out at night. About 62% of all carjacking victims took some form of action to defend themselves or their property. Victims were injured about 20% of the time in completed carjackings and about 16% during attempts. Although the statistics aren't clear, each year about 27 homicides are reported related to auto theft. Also interesting is that 100% of the completed carjack victims called the police, whereas only 57% called to report an attempt carjacking. This variable in reporting is probably related to the desire to get their property back and for insurance purposes.

Popular carjacking locations are parking lots, shopping centers, gas stations, car washes, convenience stores, ATMs, hotels, valet parking, fast-food drive-thru, and outside of retail stores. Close proximity to a freeway onramp is a desirable escape factor from the carjackers prospective. A risky, but popular location for the carjacker is a roadway intersection with a stoplight. A carjacker will jump out of another vehicle, pull open your unlocked drivers’ door, and force you to get out. The type of carjacking allows for a quick escape but increases their risk of being followed by other drivers armed with cell phones. There have been incidents where well-meaning citizens got into a high-speed chase following carjackers and ended up being victims themselves.

The "Bump" and Carjack
Another copycat scheme used by carjackers is to bump your car from behind to get you to pull over and stop. We have all been trained to always stop following an auto accident to exchange license and insurance information. What a perfect scenario for a carjacker!

The carjacker, and his accomplice, will follow the intended victim to a suitable location with good escape routes and few witnesses. The carjacker will crash into the back of your vehicle at low speed and "bump" you with enough force to make you believe a traffic accident had just occurred. Beware of the Good Samaritan. Typically, the drivers of both vehicles pull over, stop, and get out discussing the damage. At this point the carjacker robs you of your vehicle, its’ contents, and drives away. The carjacker's car gets driven away by the accomplice. Hopefully you won't be injured during the exchange.

What Should You Do?
Carjacking of parked vehicles depends on the car owner being inattentive to their surroundings. Carjackers, like street robbers, prefer the element of surprise. Most victims say they never saw the carjacker until they appeared at their car door. To reduce your risk of being carjacked, I have listed some common sense steps below:

•Always park in well-lighted areas, if you plan to arrive/leave after dark
•Don't park in isolated or visually obstructed areas near walls or heavy foliage
•Use valet parking or an attended garage, if you're a woman driving alone
•As you walk to your car be alert to suspicious persons sitting in cars
•Ask for a security escort if you are alone at a shopping center
•Watch out for young males loitering in the area (handing out flyers, etc)
•If someone tries to approach, change direction or run to a busy store
•Follow your instincts if they tell you to walk/run away to a busy place
•As you approach your vehicle, look under, around, and inside your car
•If safe, open the door, enter quickly, and lock the doors
•Don't be a target by turning your back while loading packages into the car
•Make it your habit to always start your car and drive away immediately
•Teach and practice with your children to enter and exit the car quickly
•In the city, always drive with your car doors locked and windows rolled up
•When stopped in traffic, leave room ahead to maneuver and escape, if necessary
•If you are bumped in traffic, by young males, be suspicious of the accident
•Beware of the Good Samaritan who offers to repair your car or a flat tire. It's okay to get help, just be alert
•Wave to follow, and drive to a gas station or busy place before getting out
•If you are ever confronted by an armed carjacker don’t resist
•Give up your keys or money if demanded without resistance
•Don’t argue, fight or chase the robber. You can be seriously injured
•Never agree to be kidnapped. Drop the cars keys and run and scream for help
•If you are forced to drive, consider crashing your car near a busy intersection to attract attention so bystanders can come to your aid and call the police
•Call the police immediately to report the crime and provide detailed information
*National Crime Victimization Survey
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - 1999

For More Information
•Auto Theft Facts
•Top 25 Stolen Cars
•Parking Lot Security Tips
•Auto Theft -- Top 10 Theft Cities
•Auto Theft -- Top 10 Port & Border Theft Cities

Death Penalty

2010-01-09T18:01:00.000-08:00

Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment, also dubbed the "death penalty," is the pre-meditated and planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person.
Passions in the US are sharply divided, and equally strong among both supporters and protesters of the death penalty.

Arguing against capital punishment, Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment."

Arguing for capital punishment, the Clark County, Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that "...there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent."

And Catholic Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, writes "...the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing."

Death Penalty in the U.S.

The death penalty has not always been practiced in the U.S. although ReligiousTolerance.org states that in the U.S., "about 13,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times."

The Depression era 1930s, which saw a historic peak in executions, was followed by a dramatic decrease in the 1950s and 1960s. No executions occurred in the US between 1967 to 1976.

In 1972, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the death penalty, and converted the death sentences of hundreds of death row inmates to life in prison.

In 1976, another Supreme Court ruling found capital punishment to be Constitutional. From 1976 through June 3, 2009, 1,167 people have been executed in the U.S.

Latest Developments
The vast majority of democratic countries in Europe and Latin America have abolished capital punishment over the last fifty years, but United States, most democracies in Asia, and almost all totalitarian governments retain it.
Crimes that carry the death penalty vary greatly worldwide from treason and murder to theft. In militaries around the world, courts-martial have sentenced capital punishments also for cowardice, desertion, insubordination and mutiny.

Per Amnesty International's 2008 death penalty annual report, "at least 2,390 people were known to have been executed in 25 countries and at least 8,864 people were sentenced to death in 52 countries around the world:"

Executions in 2008, by Country

China - 1,718
Iran - 346
Saudi Arabia - 102
United States - 37
Pakistan - 36
Iraq - 34
Vietnam - 19
Afghanistan - 17
North Korea - 15
All others - 66
Source - Amnesty International
As of October 2009, capital punishment in the US is officially sanctioned by 34 states, as well as by the federal government. Each state with legalized capital punishment has different laws regarding its methods, age limits and crimes which qualify.
From 1976 through October 2009, 1,177 felons were executed in the U.S., distributed among the states as follows:

Executions from 1976 - Oct 2009, by State

Texas - 442 (38%)
Virginia - 103
Oklahoma - 91
Florida - 68
Missouri - 67
Georgia - 46
Alabama - 44
North Carolina - 43
South Carolina - 42
Ohio - 32
Louisiana - 27
Arkansas - 27
All others - 149
Source: Wikipedia
States and U.S. territories with no current death penalty statute are Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. New Jersey repealed the death penalty in 2007, and New Mexico in 2009.

Background
The case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams illustrates the moral complexities of the death penalty.
Mr. Williams, an author and Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes nominee who was put to death on December 13, 2005 by lethal injection by the state of California, brought capital punishment back into prominent public debate.

Mr. Williams was convicted of four murders committed in 1979, and sentenced to death. Williams professed innocence of these crimes. He was also co-founder of the Crips, a deadly and powerful Los Angeles-based street gang responsible for hundreds of murders.

About five years after incarceration, Mr. Williams underwent a religious conversion and, as a result, authored many books and programs to promote peace and to fight gangs and gang violence. He was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and four times for the Nobel Literature Prize.

Mr. Williams' was a self-admitted life of crime and violence, followed by genuine redemption and a life of uniquely and unusually good works.

The circumstantial evidence against Williams left little doubt that he committed the four murders, despite last-minute claims by supporters. There also existed no doubt that Mr. Williams posed no further threat to society, and would contribute considerable good.

The case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams forced public reflection on the purpose of the death penalty:

Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm?
Is the purpose to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation?
Is the purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder?
Is the purpose of the death penalty to punish the criminal?
Is the purpose of the death penalty to take retribution on behalf of the victim? Share your thoughts: Should Stanley "Tookie" Williams have been executed by the state of California?

Lord Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury]

2010-01-04T07:19:00.000-08:00

Lord Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury]

First published Wed Mar 13, 2002; substantive revision Thu Oct 12, 2006
Anthony Ashley Cooper, the third Earl of Shaftesbury, lived from 1671 to 1713. He was one of the most important philosophers of his day, and exerted an enormous influence throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on British and European discussions of morality, aesthetics, and religion.
Shaftesbury's philosophy combined a powerfully teleological approach, according to which all things are part of a harmonious cosmic order, with sharp observations of human nature (see section 2 below). Shaftesbury is often credited with originating the moral sense theory, although his own views of virtue are a mixture of rationalism and sentimentalism (section 3). While he argued that virtue leads to happiness (section 4), Shaftesbury was a fierce opponent of psychological and ethical egoism (section 5) and of the egoistic social contract theory of Hobbes (section 6). Shaftesbury advanced a view of aesthetic judgment that was non-egoistic and objectivist, in that he thought that correct aesthetic judgment was disinterested and reflected accurately the harmonious cosmic order (section 7). Shaftesbury's belief in an harmonious cosmic order also dominated his view of religion, which was based on the idea that the universe clearly exhibits signs of perfect divine design (section 8). According to Shaftesbury, the ultimate end of religion, as well as of virtue, beauty, and philosophical understanding (all of which are turn out to be one and the same thing), is to identify completely with the universal system of which one is a part.
1. Shaftesbury's Life and Works
2. Shaftesbury's View of Human Nature: Teleology and Observation
3. Shaftesbury's View of Virtue: Moral Sentimentalism and Moral Rationalism
4. Virtue and Happiness
5. Attacks on Egoism
6. Attacks on Social Contract Theory and Defense of Political Liberty
7. Aesthetics
8. Religion
Bibliography
Shaftesbury's Works
Secondary Literature
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
1. Shaftesbury's Life and Works
Shaftesbury lived from 1671 to 1713. His grandfather, the first Earl of Shaftesbury, oversaw Shaftesbury's early upbringing, and put John Locke in charge of his education. Shaftesbury would eventually come to disagree with many aspects of Locke's philosophy (such as the latter's empiricism, his social contract theory, and what Shaftesbury perceived to be his egoism), but Locke was clearly a crucially important influence on Shaftesbury's philosophical development, and the two remained friends until Locke's death.
Shaftesbury served in Parliament and the House of Lords, but ill health curtailed his political career when he was 30 years old. From then on, he concentrated his energies on his philosophical and literary writings.
The first work Shaftesbury published was an edited collection of sermons by Benjamin Whichcote, which came out in 1698. Shaftesbury wrote an unsigned preface to the sermons in which he praised Whichcote's belief in the goodness of human beings and urged his readers to use Whichcote's “good nature” as an antidote to the poisonous egoism of Hobbes and the pessimistic supralapsarianism of the Calvinists.
In 1699, John Toland published an early version of Shaftesbury's Inquiry concerning Virtue or Merit (IVM). But Shaftesbury renounced this version of the Virtue or Merit, claiming that it was produced without his authorization.
Most of the works for which Shaftesbury is famous were written between 1705-1710. It was during this period that he rewrote the Inquiry concerning Virtue or Merit and completed versions of A Letter concerning Enthusiasm (LCE), Sensus Communis: An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour (SC), The Moralists (M) and Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author (SA).
In 1711, he collected his mature works into a single volume and added to them extensive notes and commentary, naming the book Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (C). He revised the Characteristics over the course of the next two years, up until his death in 1713. A revised edition came out in 1714.
The Characteristics is a remarkable volume. It covers a great many topics, ranging freely over morality, art, politics, religion, aesthetics, culture and politeness, and it is written in many different styles, including epistles, soliloquies, dialogues and treatises. The overarching goal of the book, as Klein has put it in his very helpful introduction, is to make its readers “effective participants in the world” (C viii). Shaftesbury saw the Characteristics as an exercise in practical (and not merely speculative) philosophy — as a work that would make people both happier and more virtuous. (See M part 1, section 1.)
The Characteristics was extremely popular in Britain and Europe throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was a book that was closely studied by numerous philosophers and artists, as well as widely read by educated people in general.
In addition to the Characteristics, there are two other posthumous collections of Shaftesbury's writings: the Second Characteristics, which is concerned chiefly with the visual arts, and Shaftesbury's philosophical notebooks, which Rand collected in The Life, Unpublished Letters and Philosophical Regimen of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury (LUP). The notebooks are particularly interesting, as they offer a view of Shaftesbury's private ruminations and his profound commitment to elements of Stoicism.
2. Shaftesbury's View of Human Nature: Teleology and Observation
Shaftesbury's view of human nature was both teleological and observation-based. Indeed, he believed that teleology and observation must go hand-in-hand — that accurate observation of human psychology requires a teleological conception of humanity, and that one needs to observe human beings to learn about the human telos. He was very critical of philosophers who examined human beings without placing their findings within a teleological context, comparing them to someone who examines the individual parts of a watch without taking into account the purpose for which the watch was designed: just as the latter person will never come to a proper understanding of the watch, Shaftesbury argued, so too the former will never come to a proper understanding of human nature. Shaftesbury thought that Descartes and Locke were guilty of this narrow, non-teleological type of philosophizing. (See SA part 2, section 1; IVM book 1, part 2, section 1; M part 2, section 4.)
3. Shaftesbury's View of Virtue: Moral Sentimentalism and Moral Rationalism
Shaftesbury, like most teleologically-minded philosophers, held that the end or telos of human nature is virtue, and much of his writing is devoted to an explication of his conception of virtue. The account of virtue Shaftesbury proposes has often been taken to be the origin of moral sentimentalism, which Hutcheson and Hume would later develop. But while there are parts of Shaftesbury's account of virtue that are undeniably sentimentalist, there are also rationalist elements that defy the sentimentalist label.
To understand Shaftesbury's account of virtue, we must first examine his account of goodness. Something is good, according to Shaftesbury, if it contributes to the “existence or well-being” of the system of which it is a part (C 168). Every animal, for instance, is a part of its species. So a particular animal, say a tiger, is a good member of its species — it's a good tiger — if it contributes to the well-being of the tiger species as a whole. There is also “a system of all animals,” which consists of the “order” or “economy” of all the different animal species (C 169). So a good animal is one that contributes to the well-being of “animal affairs” in general (Ibid). The system of all animals, moreover, works with the system “of vegetables and all other things in this inferior world” to constitute “one system of a globe or earth” (Ibid). So something is a good earthly thing if it contributes to the existence of earthly things in general. And the system of this earth is itself part of a “universal system” or “a system of all things” (Ibid). So to be “wholly and really” good a thing must contribute to the existence of the universe as a whole (Ibid). This progression of ever-larger systems is a bit dazzling, and we might wonder how we can ever know (or even make sense of) whether something is contributing to the well-being of the universe as a whole. But Shaftesbury avoids this problem by discussing in detail only that which makes “a sensible creature” a good member of its species — by focusing on whether an individual creature is promoting the well-being of its species (C 169). Perhaps Shaftesbury believed that a creature that contributes to the well-being of its species will also always contribute to the well-being of the universe as a whole, in which case being a good member of one's species would be equivalent to being “wholly and really” good. (See IVM book 1, part 2, section 1)
Shaftesbury goes on to say that the goodness or evilness of a sensible creature is based on the creature's motives, and not simply on the results of the creature's actions (C169). And he then makes a crucial claim: every motive to action involves affection or passion (C 173, 177-79, 193). Reason alone, Shaftesbury maintains, cannot motivate. This claim clearly anticipates some of the most influential anti-rationalist arguments of Hutcheson and Hume. (See IVM book 1, part 2, section 3; IVM book 1, part 2, section 4; IVM book 1, part 3, section 1; IVM book 2, part 1, section 1.)
Also crucial is the distinction Shaftesbury draws between goodness and virtue. Goodness is something that is within the reach of all sensible creatures, not only humans but also non-human animals, such as tigers. This is because a creature is good if its affections promote the well-being of the system of which it is a part, and non-human animals are just as capable of possessing this type of affection as humans. “Virtue or merit,” on the other hand, is within the reach of “man only” (C 172). And that is because virtue or merit is tied to a special kind of affection that only humans possess. This special kind of affection is a second-order affection, an affection that has as its object another affection. We humans experience these second-order affections because we, unlike non-human animals, are conscious of our own passions. Not only do we possess passions, but we also reflect on or become aware of the passions we have. And when we reflect on our own passions, we develop feelings about them. Imagine, for instance, you feel the desire to help a person in distress. In addition to simply feeling that desire, you may also become aware that you are feeling that desire. And when you become aware of that, you may experience a positive feeling (or “liking”) towards your desire to help. Or imagine you feel the desire to harm a person who has bested you in a fair competition. In addition to simply feeling the desire to harm, you may also become aware that you are feeling that desire. And when you become aware of that, you may experience a negative feeling (or “dislike”) towards your desire to harm. These are the kinds of phenomena Shaftesbury has in mind when he says that “the affections of pity, kindness, gratitude and their contraries, being brought into the mind by reflection, become objects. So that, by means of this reflected sense, there arises another kind of affection towards those very affections themselves, which have been already felt, and are now become the subject of a new liking or dislike” (C 172). (See IVM book 1, part 2, section 3.)
Shaftesbury calls this capacity to feel second-order affections the “sense of right and wrong” or the “moral sense” (C 179-80). The moral sense is that which produces in us feelings of “like” or “dislike” for our own (first-order) affections. When the moral sense is operating properly, it produces positive feelings towards affections that promote the well-being of humanity and negative feelings towards affections that detract from the well-being of humanity. The second-order feelings that the moral sense produces can themselves motivate one to action. And people are virtuous if they act from those second-order feelings. In contrast, non-human animals, because they lack the powers of reflection necessary for consciousness of their own affections, do not possess a moral sense. So non-human animals are incapable of achieving virtue (C 175). (See IVM book 1, part 2, section 3.)
Also in line with sentimentalist moral theory is Shaftesbury's discussion of how a person can come to lose his or her sense of right and wrong. He argues (in a manner that anticipates Hume) that because our sense of morality is a sentiment, it can be opposed only by another sentiment, and not by reason or belief. “Sense of right and wrong,” he writes, “therefore being as natural to us as natural affection itself, and being a first Principle in our constitution and make, there is no speculative opinion, persuasion or belief which is capable immediately or directly to exclude or destroy it… [T]his affection being an original one of earliest rise in the soul or affectionate part, nothing beside contrary affection, by frequent check and control, can operate upon it, so as either to diminish it in part, or destroy it in the whole” (C 179). (See IVM book 1, part 3, section 1.)
But while Shaftesbury claims that human moral judgment and human virtue essentially involve affection, he does not believe that all value depends on human affections. Goodness, which is the basis of morality and virtue, is an objective property, one that is independent of all human minds, and it is reason that can inform us of what that property consists. Goodness is real eternal and immutable, not something created by will, command, opinion, custom, or social contract. So even if every member of society were to approve of something harmful to humanity, it would still be vicious. For that which is destructive of the species can never be “virtue of any kind or in any sense but must remain still horrid depravity, notwithstanding any fashion, law, custom or religion which may be ill and vicious itself but can never alter the eternal measures and immutable independent nature of worth and virtue” (C 175). Fashion, law, custom, and religion can cause people to develop positive affections towards things harmful to humanity. But the development of such affections will never make such things right. The “eternal Measures” of right and wrong are not constituted by human affections. Right and wrong have an “immutable independent nature.” And we are virtuous just to the extent that our affections lead us to act in accord with these eternal and immutable moral truths. (See LCE section 4; SC part 1, section 6; SC part 2, section 1; SC part 3, section 1; SC part 3, section 2; SA part 3; IVM book 1, part 2, section 1; IVM book 1, part 3, section 2; M part 2, section 2; M part 2, section 3; M part 2, section 4.)
In Shaftesbury's account of virtue, then, reason and sentiment both play essential roles. A person is virtuous if and only if her actions flow from the properly functioning moral sentiments. And reason tells us that moral sentiments are functioning properly if and only if they promote the well-being of the species as a whole. Shaftesbury's “sense of right and wrong” is truly a sentiment, but it is a sentiment that accurately represents an objective reality — i.e., a reality that is independent of human sentiments.
4. Virtue and Happiness
Shaftesbury maintained that virtue promotes the good of all humankind. As he says, “To love the public, to study universal good, and to promote the interest of the whole world, as far as lies within our power, is surely the height of goodness” (C 20). Or as he puts it elsewhere, the virtuous person is the one who strives to develop an “equal, just and universal friendship” with all humankind (C 256). This view of the content of virtue — that to be virtuous is to promote the good of all humankind — fits well with Shaftesbury's teleological approach. For he believes that everything is designed to promote the good of the system of which it is a part. And he also believes that every human being is a part of the system that is the human species as a whole. It is natural for him to think, therefore, that every human being is designed to promote the good of the human species as a whole. (It is important to remember, however, that this view of a system and its parts explains only Shaftesbury's view of the content of goodness, which is something that non-humans can also attain. Virtue or merit, which humans alone can attain, involves not merely acting for the good of the system but performing such actions in a self-aware or reflective manner.) Shaftesbury also consistently maintains that in addition to promoting the good of humanity, virtue promotes the happiness of the virtuous person him or herself, and that vice harms not only humanity as a whole but also the vicious person. As Shaftesbury puts it, “virtue and interest may be found at last to agree” (C 167). Or as he says in the conclusion of the Inquiry, “And thus virtue is the good and vice the ill of everyone” (C 229-330). (See SC section 3; IVM book 2; M part 2).
This coincidence of virtue and happiness is just what Shaftesbury's teleological approach should lead us to expect. For teleological thinking generally involves the idea that the best life for a being is one that fulfills the being's natural end or purpose, and being virtuous is the end or purpose for which humans were designed. Shaftesbury corroborates this teleological connection between virtue and happiness by investigating the pleasures and pains of which human happiness and unhappiness consist. He begins this investigation by drawing a broad distinction between pleasures of the body and pleasures of the mind. He next contends that a person's happiness depends more on mental pleasures than on bodily pleasures. And he then seeks to show that living virtuously is by far the best way to gain the crucially important mental pleasures. Shaftesbury bases much of his argument for the connection between virtue and happiness on the idea that the mental pleasures are within one's own control, insulated from the vicissitudes of “fortune, age, circumstances and humour” (C 334). As one of Shaftesbury's characters rhetorically asks, “How can we better praise the goodness of Providence than in this, ‘That it has placed our happiness and good in things we can bestow upon ourselves’?” (C 335). The importance Shaftesbury places on our control over our mental pleasures grows directly out of his appreciation for the Stoics. Indeed, it can be plausibly maintained that Stoicism is one of the strongest and most fundamental commitments of Shaftesbury's thought overall. (See SA part 3, section 2; IVM book 2; M part 3, section 3.)
5. Attacks on Egoism
But although Shaftesbury believed that being virtuous makes a person happy, it would be wrong to label him an egoist. In fact, he launched many attacks on both psychological egoism and ethical egoism, attacks that had as their main target Hobbes and which clearly anticipated the influential anti-egoist arguments in Butler, Hutcheson, and Hume.
Shaftesbury argues that psychological egoism does a simply terrible job of explaining the wide spectrum of observable activities humans engage in. He ridicules, for instance, egoistic interpretations of things as “civility, hospitality, humanity towards strangers or people in distress,” maintaining that it is much easier to explain such phenomena simply by positing real sociability and benevolence (C 55). He points out that humans are often motivated by “passion, humour, caprice, zeal, faction and a thousand other springs, which are counter to self-interest” (C 54) And he maintains that the only way psychological egoism can be plausibly maintained is at the expense of becoming tautologous. (See SC section 2; SC section 3; M part 2, section 1.)
Against ethical egoism, Shaftesbury argues that virtue can exist only if it's possible for people to be motivated by something other than self-interest. For persons’ virtue, according to Shaftesbury, consists not of the actions they perform but of the motives they have for performing them. And the motive with which we identify virtue is benevolence, not self-interest. Shaftesbury emphasizes this point by drawing attention to the difference between a knave and a saint. We judge the saint virtuous, he explains, because we think he is motivated by something other than the selfishness of the knave. And if we came to believe that the saint were motivated solely by self-interest, we would no longer judge him to be virtuous. As he puts it, “If the love of doing good be not of itself a good and right inclination, I know not how there can possibly be such a thing as goodness or virtue” (C 46). (See SC part 2, section 3, part 3; SC section 4, part 4, Section 1; SA part 1, section 2; IVM book 2, part 2, section 2; IVM book 2, part 2, section 4.)
Shaftesbury's belief that true virtue must flow from non-egoistic motives leads him to criticize sharply the emphasis many religious moralists place on reward and punishment in the afterlife. As one of his characters explains when summarizing the goal of the Inquiry, “[The author of the Inquiry] endeavors chiefly to establish virtue on principles by which he is able to argue with those who are not as yet induced to own a god or future state. If he cannot do thus much, he reckons he does nothing” (C 266). Shaftesbury eschews considerations of the afterlife in his case for virtue because he believes that persons who perform virtuous actions only because they desire reward and fear punishment have no real virtue in them at all. And persons who are constantly made to dwell on reward and punishment are likely to become overly concerned with their own “self-good and private interest,” which must “insensibly diminish the affections towards public good or the interest of society and introduce a certain narrowness of spirit” (C 184). So an emphasis on reward and punishment cannot make people more virtuous, and it may very well make them less so (C 45-46). (See SC part 3, section 3; IVM book 1, part 3, section 3; M part 3, section 3.)
Shaftesbury's anti-egoistic view also leads him to an interesting consideration of what we should say to someone who asks for a reason to be virtuous when he knows he will not be punished for vice, or, as Shaftesbury puts the question, “Why should a man be honest in the dark?” (C 58). At times Shaftesbury suggests that a person who asks this question is already lost to virtue — that someone who cares about virtue for its own sake won't need another reason to act virtuously, and that someone who needs another reason doesn't have what it takes to be truly virtuous in the first place. At other times, Shaftesbury suggests that we should be honest even in the dark (i.e., virtuous even when we will not be punished for vice) because such conduct is a necessary condition for having an identity or unified self at all (C 127). These suggestions of how to deal with the question “Why be moral?” are almost certainly antecedents of Hume's response to the sensible knave at the end of his Enquiry concerning Morals. (See SC part 3, section 4; SA part 3, section 1).
It is noteworthy that despite his anti-egoism, Shaftesbury goes to great lengths to show that the virtuous person will be happier than the vicious person (IVM book II). At one point, he justifies this procedure by contending that while it is best to act for entirely disinterested motives, we sometimes might have to rely on interested considerations to induce to morally correct action those people (including ourselves) who are not yet capable of achieving the heights of virtue. As he puts it, “[W]e ought all of us to aspire, so as to endeavour that the excellence of the object, not the reward or punishment, should be our motive, but … where, through the corruption of our nature, the former of these motives is found insufficient to excite to virtue, there the latter should be brought in aid and on no account be undervalued or neglected” (C 269). (See IVM book 2; M part 2, section 3.)
6. Attacks on Social Contract Theory and Defense of Political Liberty
Another point on which Hume was probably indebted to Shaftesbury was criticism of social contract theory. Shaftesbury argued that the selfish beings Hobbes described in his state of nature bear no resemblance to humans as they actually are. For naturally, Shaftesbury contended, humans are sociable. And society is thus humankind's natural condition. “In short, if generation be natural, if natural affection and the care and nurture of the offspring be natural, things standing as they do with man and the creature being of that form and constitution he now is, it follows that society must be also natural to him and that out of society and community he never did, nor ever can, subsist” (C 287). Shaftesbury also argued that if Hobbes's description of an amoral state of nature were correct, then it would be impossible for Hobbes ever to establish a duty to obey the laws of society. For if there had been no duty to keep one's promises in the state of nature, then the original contract could not have created a duty. And if the original contract did give rise to a duty, then there must have been a duty to keep one's promises even in the state of nature (C 51). Shaftesbury was not the first to criticize social contract theories in this way, but his version of this criticism is stated very clearly and was probably among the most influential. (See SC part 3, section 1; M part 3, section 4.)
Shaftesbury's positive political views emphasized the importance of liberty. He believed that totalitarianism made citizens less civil and increased the chances of violent conflict, while greater liberty made citizens more “polite” and peaceful. He thought, consequently, that government should grant its citizens broad freedom to publish what they wish and practice religion in the way they choose. (See SC passim; M part 2, Section 3.)
7. Aesthetics
Shaftesbury's aesthetic theory was one of the first and most influential produced by an English-speaking philosopher. Beauty, for Shaftesbury, is a kind of harmony, proportion, or order. There is a sense in which it can be said that Shaftesbury believed that beauty is mind-dependent, in that he thought beauty is dependent on the mind of God, the artist-creator of the universe. But it is clear that Shaftesbury also thought that beauty is independent of human minds. The human responses that are the origin of human judgments of beauty are not the origin of beauty itself. (See SC part 4, section 3; M part 3, Section 2.)
Shaftesbury held that all beauty can be placed in a three-part hierarchy. The lowest order of beauty belongs to “the dead forms” — physical things such as manmade works of art and natural objects (C 323). The second order of beauty belongs to human minds, or “the forms which form, that is, which have intelligence, action, and operation” (Ibid). The third order of beauty belongs to that “which forms not only such as we call mere forms but even the forms which form” (Ibid). This highest, most supreme and sovereign beauty, belongs to God, who has created everything in the world, including human minds. (See M part 1, section 3; M part 2, section 4; M part 3, section 2.)
Shaftesbury held that aesthetic appreciation is essentially disinterested. There has been some controversy about the sense in which Shaftesburean aesthetic judgment can be said to be disinterested. But it is clear enough that he thought that true aesthetic appreciation of an object (like the motivation underlying true moral conduct) is independent of any ideas of how the object might promote one's own interests. Establishing this non-egoistic position on aesthetic judgment would also be the main goal of Hutcheson in his Inquiry concerning Beauty. (See M part 3, section 2.)
Shaftesbury sometimes maintained that virtue is a species of beauty, or that virtue and beauty are “one and the same.” He suggested that the positive reaction we have when observing a moral action or character is the same as (or one example of) the positive reaction we have when observing the beauty of nature or works of art, and that the motive to act virtuously is the same as (or one example of) an artist's motive to create beauty. Shaftesbury also said that the virtuous person is one who attempts to make her life a thing of moral beauty in the same way that an artist tries to make beautiful works of art. (See SC part 4, section 3; SA part 3, Section 3; IVM book 1, part 2, section 3; M part 2, section 1; M part 3, section 2.)
It is not entirely clear whether Shaftesbury thought that our aesthetic judgments originated in sentiment or in reason alone. At certain points he suggested the former (C 172-3) and at other points he suggested the latter (C 330-332). It's possible that his views on this matter changed over time. However that may be, it's clear that Shaftesbury thought that our aesthetic judgments originated in a tendency that is instinctive or natural to all humans. He refrained from insisting on the “innateness” of this natural human tendency because he did not want to become entangled in the epistemological debate over innate ideas, although there can be little doubt that his own sympathies were with the anti-empiricist side of this debate. (See M part 3, section 2; LUP 404, 415)
But while Shaftesbury held that aesthetic judgment originated in an instinctive, natural human tendency, he also maintained that one needed training in order to make correct aesthetic judgments. A great deal of practice and study are needed in order to develop true discernment or “taste.” The judgment of an accomplished critic is thus likely to be more natural than the judgment of an uneducated rustic. (See SA part 1, section 3; SA part 2, section 2; SA part 2, section 3; M part 3, section 2; Miscellaneous Reflections (MR) 3.)
8. Religion
Shaftesbury believed that everything in the world was created by a morally perfect God and that the world God created is the best of all possible ones. Any evil we observe, according to Shaftesbury, is only apparent or subordinate, not real or ultimate. It's no surprise, therefore, that Leibniz said of Shaftesbury's work, “I found in it almost all of my Theodicy before it saw the light of day…. If I had seen this work before my Theodicy was published, I should have profited as I ought and should have borrowed its great passages.” (See LCE section 5; M part 1, sections 2; M part 1, section 3; M part 2, section 3; M part 2, section 4.)
Shaftesbury based his belief in the existence of God on the argument for design (although at one point, C 306, he suggests that it is possible to give an a priori argument for the existence of God as well). He emphasized what he took to be the systematic nature of the universe. Everything in the universe fits together and works in perfect order, he argued, and so we can only conclude that the universe was created by a perfectly ordered, rational mind. Later versions of the argument from design, such as Paley's, are much indebted to Shaftesbury, and Hume's attack on the argument in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion could have been aimed at Shaftesbury's Moralists just as easily as it could have been aimed at Butler's Analogy of Religion. (See M part 2, section 4; M part 2, section 5; M part 3, section 1.)
Shaftesbury's emphasis on the orderly functioning of the universe led him to reject the traditional Christian view of miracles. He certainly did not think that miracles were needed to prove the existence of God. And he probably did not think that a perfectly ordered, rational mind, such as God's, would countenance miracles at all, as they constituted a violation of the natural order. Shaftesbury was somewhat circumspect, however, about issuing an outright denial of the miracles reported in the Bible. (See M part 2, section 5.)
Shaftesbury was a proponent of natural religion. He denied that humans need supernatural revelation in order to discover and realize what constitutes true religion. And he claimed that the Scriptures are not self-verifying and that we ought to accept only those parts that can withstand rational scrutiny. (See LCE section 4; SA part 3, section 1; M part 2; M part 2, section 5.)
It is difficult to find anything distinctively Christian in Shaftesbury's religious views. His theology seems to have more in common with ancient Greek philosophy than with any specifically Christian teaching. Shaftesbury was also highly critical of what he took to be the pernicious moral influence of certain Christian sects (such as Calvinism and other kinds of Puritanism) that emphasized the depravity of human nature and the jealousy of God. He maintained that such religions were a worse moral influence than atheism, as the former corrupted humans’ moral sentiments while the latter neither helped nor harmed the cause of virtue. (See LCE section 4; LCE section 5; IVM book 1, part 3.)
Shaftesbury's natural religion had much in common with the views of the English Deists. But he differed from them in holding that the essence of religion is not merely dispassionate belief in a few rationally-established tenets but a feeling of expansive love for the universe as a whole. The truly religious frame of mind, for Shaftesbury, is that of reasonable enthusiasm. Shaftesbury took great pains to distinguish this kind of enthusiasm from false, non-rational enthusiasm, which leads to superstition, zealotry, fanaticism, and sectarian violence. Shaftesbury's reasonable enthusiasm is exemplified by Theocles, the hero of The Moralists, and it unites Shaftesbury's views of aesthetics, religion, and virtue. To truly appreciate the beauty of the world, for Shaftesbury, is to revere the world's Creator, which reverence also gives rise to love for all the Creator's creatures. (See LCE, passim; M part 1, section 3; M part 2, section 3; M part 3, section 2.)
Bibliography
Shaftesbury's Works
C
Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, edited by Lawrence E. Klein, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
LCE
Letter Concerning Enthusiasm (in C, pp. 4–28).
SC
Sensus Communis: An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour (in C, pp. 29–69).
SA
Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author (in C, pp. 70–162).
IVM
Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit (in C, pp. 163–230).
M
The Moralists, a Philosophical Rhapsody (in C, pp. 231–338).
MR
Miscellaneous Reflections (in C, pp. 339–483).
LUP
The Life, Unpublished Letters and Philosophical Regimen of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, edited by Benjamin Rand, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1900.
*
Second Characters or the Language of Forms by the Right Honourable Anthony, Early of Shaftesbury, edited by Benjamin Rand, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914; reprinted, New York: Greenwood Press, 1969.
*
Preface to Benjamin Whichcote, The Works, Volume III, New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1977.
Secondary Literature
Biography of Shaftesbury with extensive discussion of his thought as a whole:
Voitle, Robert, The Third Earl of Shaftesbury 1671-1713, Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 1984.
Book length treatment of Shaftesbury's thought as a whole:
Grean, Stanley, Shaftesbury's Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, Athens: Ohio University Press, 1967.
Detailed discussions of many aspects of Shaftesbury's philosophy and its historical context:
Darwall, Stephen, The British Moralists and the Internal Ought: 1640-1740, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Schneewind, J. B., The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Gill, Michael B., The British Moralists on Human Nature and the Birth of Secular Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
On Shaftesbury's account of morality:
Grean, Stanley, “Self-Interest and Public Interest in Shaftesbury's Philosophy,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 2 (1964): 37-46.
Gill, Michael B., “Shaftesbury's Two Accounts of the Reason to Be Virtuous,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 38/4 (2000): 529-548.
Trianosky, Gregory W., “On the Obligation to be Virtuous: Shaftesbury and the Question, Why be Moral?” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 16 (1978): 289-300.
On Shaftesbury's view of innate ideas:
Carey, Daniel, “Locke, Shaftesbury, and Innateness,” Locke Studies, 4 (2004): 13-45.
On Shaftesbury's religious views:
Bernstein, John A., “Shaftesbury's Reformation of the Reformation: Reflections on the Relation between Deism and Pauline Christianity,” Journal of Religious Ethics, 6 (1978): 257-278.
Toole, Robert, “Shaftesbury on God and His Relationships to the World,” International Studies in Philosophy, 8 (1976): 81-100.
On Shaftesbury's aesthetics:
Glauser, Richard, “Aesthetic Experience in Shaftesbury,” Proceedings of the Aristotelians Society, Supplement, 76 (2002): 25-54.
McAllister, James W., “Scientists' Aesthetic Judgments,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 31/4 (1991): 332-341.
Rind, Miles, “The Concept of Disinterestedness in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetics,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 40 (2002): 67-87.
Townsend, Dabney, “Shaftesbury's Aesthetic Theory,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 41/2 (1982): 205-213.
On Shaftesbury's views of personal identity:
Winkler, Kenneth P., “‘All Is Revolution in Us’: Personal Identity in Shaftesbury and Hume,” Hume Studies, 26/1 (2000): 3-40.
Other Internet Resources
Earl of Shaftesbury entry by , in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (good general account of Shaftesbury's thought).
Deism, entry by Francis Aveling in the Catholic Encyclopedia, (on contains paragraphs and subsections on Shaftesbury's relationship to Deism).
Francis Hutcheson, first of two sections on Hutcheson in the entry "Scottish Philosophy in the 18th Century", by Alexander Broadie (University of Glasgow), in this encyclopedia.
Benjamin Whichcote, section on Whichcote in the entry "Cambridge Platonists", by Sarah Hutton (Middlesex University), in this encyclopedia.

The Huey P. Newton Foundation || The Orignal Black Panther Party

2010-01-03T23:37:00.000-08:00

Vision

The original vision of the Black Panther Party was to serve the needs of the oppressed people in our communities and defend them against their oppressors. When the Party was initiated we knew that these goals would raise the consciousness of the people and motivate them to move more firmly for their total liberation. We also recognized that we live in a country which has become one of the most repressive governments in the world; repressive in communities all over the world. We did not expect such a repressive government to stand idly by while the Black Panther Party went forward to the goal of serving the people. We expected repression.
Jesus is the truth.

BLACK MUSLIMS

2010-01-03T23:32:00.000-08:00

Black Muslims - Nation of Islam
June 2004 version

Malcolm X, subject of a popular movie, was a black Muslim who was gunned down by three black men after he left the Black Muslim movement. Most people have heard of this religion, but few really know the core of who they are and what they teach.

The Black Muslim movement was founded by Wallace Fard. Elijah Mohammed joined the movement in 1930, and assumed leadership after Fard’s mysterious disappearance in 1934. Almost all regular Muslims considered Black Muslims to be blasphemous heretics.

In recent years the Nation of Islam has decided to join mainstream Islam, which means "forgetting" their history and past. This paper shows what they used to believe.

Mohammed Was White

The Hadiths are recorded sayings and doings recorded of the prophet Mohammed. They are accepted almost as highly as the Quran by most Muslims, the longest and most highly regarded Hadith was collected by Al-Bukhari.

"He [the Prophet] uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet."Bukhari vol.1:367 (p.224)

"Whenever the Prophet used to offer prayer he used to keep his arms away (from his body) so that the whiteness of his armpits was visible." Bukhari vol.1:771, (p.430). Bukhari vol.2:140, 141 (p.77,78) are both similar. See also Bukhari vol.1:63 and vol.2:122.

The Hadith quotes are from The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

Being red, yellow, black, or white does not make a person any better or worse. However the Black Muslim religion call all whites devils, and claims that Muhammad was black. Since he was white, the Black Muslim religion either lies, or one it claims to follow is a devil.

Mohammed ‘s Black Slaves

"Narrated ‘Umar: I came and behold, Allah’s Apostle [Mohammed] was staying on a Mashroba (balcony room) and a black slave of Allah’s Apostle was at the top of its stairs. I said to him, ‘(Tell the Prophet) that here is ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Bukhari vol.9 no.368.

"he [Mohammad] was staying in an upper room of his to which he ascended by a ladder, and a black slave of Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] was (sitting) on the first step." Bukhari Hadith vol.6 no.435.

Mohammad even auctioned off a slave in Bukhari vol.3 no.711 p.427; vol.9 no.296.

Elijah Muhammad’s Words

from Message to the Black Man (1965):

"...You will agree with me that the whole Caucasian race is a race of devils." p.23

"The devils have tried to deceive the people all over the earth with Christianity; that is God the Father, Jesus the Son, the Holy Ghost - three Gods in one God - the resurrection of the Son and His return to judge the world." p.11

"The Bible is called a poison book by God Himself." p.94.

"...it is best that they throw the Bible in the waste pail, since they cannot understand it." p.90.

"The things of which I have spoken will come upon America and its people within the next 6 years." p.172 (not fulfilled over 30 years later)

"Allah came to us from the Holy City, Mecca, Arabia in 1930. He used the name Wallace D. Fard." p.16.

"I am the first man since the death of Yakub (4,000 years ago) commissioned by God directly. I say no more than Jesus said. He said that He came from God. I say that I am missioned by God." p.171.

In 1964 Malcolm X left Nation of Islam to found Muslim Mosque, Inc. Elijah Muhammad called him a traitor to be killed.

One likely reason for Malcolm X to leave is that Elijah Muhammad admitted to the rumors of the sexual goings on with his secretaries.

2/21/1965 three black men assassinated Malcolm X, then 39, in New York City.

2/26/1975 Elijah Muhammad died of a heart attack.

Dan Rather, in his autobiography The Camera Never Blinks, described Elijah Muhammad’s words succintly: "There is acid on his tongue."

Even more interesting than this is Elijah Muhammad’s view of reality on the next page.

Elijah Muhammad’s Teaching

from Message to the Black Man (1965);

One God but Polytheistic - 25,000 years. Bible and Quran written by 24 scientists - one scientist was appointed to be God. p.108

The black race created the heavens and the earth and created themselves. p.42.

The black race gave birth to a God named Yakub. p.110. He lived only 150 years. p.116

Yakub, a black scientist, created the white race 6,000 years ago. p.9

6,000 years ago the black race gave birth to Allah, He is the mightiest God since creation born after Yakub. p.111.

Orthodox Islam must bow to Black Islam (God’s choice) p.50. Arabs misunderstand the Holy Quran when they don’t accept me [Elijah Muhammad] as a prophet. p.250.

Moses used dynamite with a fuse to kill 300 of his followers. p.120. –An amazing miracle; dynamite was not invented for 2400 years!

Jesus is not God. p.9, 140

Black [Christian] preachers’ mouths are controlled by devils; there are a great hindrance to the truth of our people. p.18,47,84,89,96

Elijah Muhammad says the Bible is 2/3 prophecy. p.89. He says prophecies are a small percentage of the Bible on p.90.

The mountains were created by bombs from spaceships circling the earth. p.90

Wallace D. Fard is God [Allah]. p.1, 11, 27, 46, 52, 141, 155, 172, 237, 294.

Louis Farrakhan

Louis Farrakhan said, "We have long ago left the language of white devils behind. It was a language that was necessary for that time in our development." (John F. Davis, "Farrakhan Speaks," The Village Voice, 22 May 1984)

After splitting from W.D. Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad's son, Farrakhan took over the Nation of Islam.

But the famous black columnist Carl T. Rowan writes that Farrakhan "offers nothing more than religious bilge and racial hatred and is preying on the frustrations and rage of millions of black Americans."

"The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, I am here to declare, is risen. The Jesus you have been seeking and waiting for His return has been in your midst for 40 years, ‘but you knew not who He was.’"

Concerning Jewish people, Farrakhan said:

"Hitler was a very great man." 3/1984

"…the Zionist used the name of God and the Torah to shield their gutter religion." 7/1984

Yet Farrakhan denies he is anti-Semitic or anti-white. (Austin American Statesman 3/13/94 p.C5.) Is he trying to joke with his listeners?

Immediately after the uproar over Khalid Abdul Muhammad’s extremely racist speech, Farrakhan said, "I stand by the truths that he spoke." (Human Events 2/4/94 p.5). He suspended Muhammad only for the "manner in which the truths were presented."

Later Farrakhan said, "Muhammad needed to be more diplomatic but that he was a warrior, a fighter for his people." –like most racists.

Black Congressman Charles Rangel of Harlem says, "the hatred spewed by Louis Farrakhan is scurrilous and intolerable." Congressmen Owens (D.-NY) in a 10 page memo, and Reynolds (D.-Illinois) also stand against this.

A Summary and An Answer

Black Muslim leaders seem to say anything, even silly things, to get blacks to join their ignorance and look to whites as neither saviors nor even friends; only devils to hate. A large number of blacks, including Rangel, Rowan, Owens, and Reynolds, are not fooled.

Racism is wrong, regardless of who the target is, and regardless of who the evil racists are. Racism is a malicous evil, whether black, white, or other. If you fight evil with evil, and copy evil, then you will wake up to find you are not much different from them. Racism is stupid, and racism is evil. There is already enough stupidity and evil in the world. Seek what is wise and good.

In contrast to all this evil, the Bible in Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

God loves the world (not just some) (John 3:16) and is the One God and Father of all (Eph. 3:14;4:16). He wants us to love each other (1 John 4:19-20).

People with hatred of others do not know God. 1 John 3:10,15, 4:19-21. We are to help the oppressed. Proverbs 24:11-12; 29:7; 31:9; Isaiah 1:17; Jer 22:16; Ps 41:1)

As for interracial marriage, Moses married a black (Cushite) lady in Numbers 12. God did not rebuke Moses, but rebuked Miriam, who criticized Moses’ marriage. (Christians are to only marry Christians though, as 2 Cor. 6:14-18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 say).

For all, regardless of race or color, there is:

No other god. Exodus 20:3; 1 Timothy 1:17

No other Savior but Jesus. Acts 4:12; Php2:10-11

No other way but Jesus. John 14:6; 1 Tim 4:10

We must love others as ourselves. Mark 12:31

Jesus Christ came to this world as a ransom for all. Seek what is right, noble, and true;

Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Chapter 13 – Free Law Resources – Nolo

2010-01-03T23:29:00.000-08:00

Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13 bankruptcy: what you need to know.

Questions

What exactly is bankruptcy? Will it wipe out all my debts?
What is the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy? Which one lets me keep my property?
Am I free to choose between Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13 bankruptcy? Which type of bankruptcy should I use?
Answers
What exactly is bankruptcy? Will it wipe out all my debts?
Bankruptcy is a federal court process designed to help consumers and businesses eliminate their debts or repay them under the protection of the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcies can generally be described as "liquidation" (Chapter 7) or "reorganization" (Chapter 13). Under a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you ask the bankruptcy court to wipe out (discharge) the debts you owe. Under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you file a plan with the bankruptcy court proposing how you will repay your creditors. You must repay some debts in full; others may be repaid only partially or not at all, depending on what you can afford. For more information, see What Is Bankruptcy?

When you file either kind of bankruptcy, a court order called an "automatic stay" goes into effect. The automatic stay prohibits most creditors from taking any action to collect the debts you owe them unless the bankruptcy court lifts the stay and lets the creditor proceed with collections. For more information, see How Bankruptcy Stops Your Creditors: The Automatic Stay.

Certain debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy; you will continue to owe them just as if you had never filed for bankruptcy. These debts include back child support, alimony, and certain kinds of tax debts. Student loans will not be discharged unless you can show that repaying the debt would be an undue burden, which is a very tough standard to meet. And other types of debts might not be discharged if a creditor convinces the court that the debt should survive your bankruptcy. For more information, see What Bankruptcy Can and Cannot Do.

Back to top
What is the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy? Which one lets me keep my property?
In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you ask the bankruptcy court to discharge most of the debts you owe. In exchange for this discharge, the bankruptcy trustee can take any property you own that is not exempt from collection (see below), sell it, and distribute the proceeds to your creditors. For more information on Chapter 7, see A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Overview .

In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you file a repayment plan with the bankruptcy court to pay back all or a portion of your debts over time. The amount you'll have to repay depends on how much you earn, the amount and types of debt you owe, and how much property you own. For more information about Chapter 13, see An Overview of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

You lose no property in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, because you fund your repayment plan through your income. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you select property you are eligible to keep from a list of state exemptions. Although state exemption laws differ, states typically allow you to keep these types of property in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy:

Equity in your home, called a homestead exemption. Under the Bankruptcy Code, you can exempt up to $20,200 of equity. Some states have no homestead exemption; others allow debtors to protect all or most of the equity in their home.
Insurance. You usually get to keep the cash value of your policies.
Retirement plans. Most retirement benefits are protected in bankruptcy.
Personal property. You'll be able to keep most household goods, furniture, furnishings, clothing (other than furs), appliances, books and musical instruments. You may be able to keep jewelry only worth up to $1,000 or so. Most states let you keep a vehicle as long as your equity doesn't exceed several thousand dollars. And many states give you a "wild card" amount of money -- often $1,000 or more -- that you can apply toward any property.
Public benefits. All public benefits, such as welfare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance, are fully protected.
Tools used on your job. You'll probably be able to keep up to a few thousand dollars worth of the tools used in your trade or profession.
Back to top
Am I free to choose between Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13 bankruptcy? Which type of bankruptcy should I use?
If you meet the eligibility requirements for both types of bankruptcy, then you can choose the type of bankruptcy that makes the most sense for your situation. However, you may not have a choice.

Under the new bankruptcy law, filers whose incomes are higher than the median income for a family of their size in their state may not be allowed to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy if their disposable income, after subtracting certain allowed expenses and required debt payments, would allow them to pay back some portion of the unsecured debt over a five-year repayment period. (For more on this and other Chapter 7 eligibility requirements, see Chapter 7 Bankruptcy -- Who Can File?)

Also, if you have secured debts of more than $1,010,650 and unsecured debts of more than $336,900, for example, then you cannot use Chapter 13 bankruptcy. (For more on this and other Chapter 13 eligibility requirements, see Are You Eligible for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy?)

Most people who file for bankruptcy choose to use Chapter 7, if they meet the eligibility requirements; Chapter 7 is a popular choice because, unlike Chapter 13, it doesn't require filers to pay back any portion of their debts. For more reasons why you might want to file for Chapter 7, see When Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Is Better Than Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

However, Chapter 13 might be a better choice, depending on your situation. For example, if you are behind on your mortgage and want to keep your house, you can include your missed payments in your Chapter 13 plan and repay them over time. In Chapter 7, you would have to make up the whole past due amount right away -- and you might lose your house, if your equity exceeds the exemption amount available to you. For more on situations when Chapter 13 makes sense, see Reasons to Use Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Instead of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

Considering bankruptcy?To get the facts and find out if bankruptcy could work for you, see The New Bankruptcy: Will It Work for You? by Stephen Elias (Nolo).

Baby Boom Generation --- The role of Baby Boom Generation in the history of the United States of America.

2010-01-03T23:23:00.000-08:00

What is the Baby Boom generation?
Social Issues, 1946-1964

The term "Baby Boom" is used to identify a massive increase in births following World War II. Baby boomers are those people born worldwide between 1946 and 1964, the time frame most commonly used to define them. In 2005, that would have made them between 41 and 59 years old. There are about 76 million boomers in the U.S., representing about 29 percent of the population. In Canada, they are known as "Boomies;" six million reside there. In Britain, the boomer generation is known as "the bulge."

The Forties

How it got started. World War II ended in 1945. Most members of the armed forces came home en masse, numbering in the millions. To integrate millions of young veterans into the American economy, the 78th Congress passed the GI Bill of Rights on June 22, 1944. It was the most far-reaching item of veterans legislation passed in the nation's history. VA loans for homes and farms were made available to GIs at low interest rates, and low or no down payment. In addition, the GI Bill made higher education a reachable goal with low-interest loans.

Preceding the war was the era of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Children of that era were a generation hardened by poverty; millions were deprived of the security of a home and job. Then they fought the greatest war in human history, World War II.

The American Dream. A pent-up demand for achieving the American Dream was partly satisfied by the GI Bill. Reconnecting with families and loved ones, a large portion of returning GIs, backed by the GI Bill, married and started families, went back to school and bought their first homes. Jobs, especially in the northeast and on the coasts, were plentiful. In 1947, the GI Bill helped more than a million veterans to enroll in college. More than half the nation's World War II veterans, or 7,800,000 men and women, availed themselves of the GI Bill's provisions.

The move to the suburbs. With veterans benefits, including VA loans, the 20-somethings found suitable housing in the new tracts sprawling on the outskirts of America's cities. Documentaries on the topic indicate that the postwar suburban housing boom began in a suburban "planned community" called “Levittown,”* in New York and Pennsylvania. In fact, large-scale, planned communities and housing tracts were being built on the outskirts of all major American cities, especially in California.

It was common that the young wives of virtually entire suburban neighborhoods were pregnant at the same time. In short order, new schools had to be built. Farm and ranch land became seas of similar-looking homes without town centers, jobs, or city amenities. Eventually, many isolated suburban tracts, numbering in thousands of homes, did become legal communities, albeit on a different model from traditional communities with a core downtown business center. Interspersed throughout those new communities were "strip malls," businesses lined up in a row along roadsides, usually in common and architecturally uninspired buildings fronted by a large parking lot with little or no greenery.

Malls began to offer basic commodities, then became prime community meeting places, especially for the younger crowd. The famous quote, "There's no there there," uttered by Gertrude Stein about her birthplace, Oakland, California (a suburb of San Francisco), applies to most of America's suburbs — seemingly isolated, cultureless, boring tracts of sameness. Suburbs were relatively safe, and suitable for children, perhaps, but a breeding ground for discontentment and mischief among teenagers.

The Fifties

Years of innocence. The 1950s were, in some ways, years of innocence. The Saturday movie matinee was only 35 cents on the West Coast. The drive-in theater became part of the young-family social scene, primarily owing to cheap tickets. The main movie genres were established: melodramas, westerns, horror films, comedies, and action-adventure films. Musicals and science fiction movies were popular by the 1950s. Westerns were especially popular with families, and many were created specifically for adolescents. Popular kid shows most often followed a serial format, appearing in the afternoon on Saturdays. At times, matinees played in several installments per week. Popular heros were Tom Mix, Hopalong Cassidy, and the Lone Ranger.

Early examples of the sci-fi genre featured male protagonists fighting for law and order in outer space. These early "space westerns" included Buck Rogers (ABC 1950-51), Captain Video and His Video Rangers (Dumont 1949-54), Flash Gordon (Syndicated 1953), Space Patrol (ABC 1951-52), and Tom Corbett, Space Cadet (CBS/ABC/NBC 1950-52).

A generation reared with television. On April 7, 1927, Bell Telephone Labs and AT&T introduced the first public USA television demonstration. Pictures and sound were sent by wire from Washington, D.C., to New York City. A wireless demonstration also occurred 22 miles away, from Whippany, New Jersey, to New York City. The demonstration's main feature was a speech by Herbert Hoover, which originated in Washington, D.C., and was received on a two- by three-inch screen. Postwar television was still new in America, west of Chicago. Most shows were either live or were movies converted for TV — triggering a nationwide trend of theater closures that persists into the 21st century.
Popular kid TV shows were Buffalo Bob and Clarabelle, Captain Kangaroo, Lassie, and Leave it to Beaver. Other pastimes included malt shops, community swimming pools, and clubs. The most popular of the clubs were the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. By 1955, boomers were enjoying after-school sports at the junior-high level. The I Love Lucy show was unique — the longest continuously running show in television history, which continues to air daily. Now that's entertainment!

Innocence lost. Emulating wartime mothers, postwar American moms began to find jobs outside the home. Thus began an age of discontentment. Living in seemingly sterile neighborhoods devoid of urban diversions and the traditional extended family, many children were left to fend for themselves after school. They became known as "latchkey kids." Television became a surrogate parent.

Dr. Benjamin Spock had written a runaway, bestseller “how to” book in 1946, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, for a mere 25 cents. During Dr. Spock's long lifetime, his book was translated into 39 languages and sold more than 50 million copies, making it second in sales only to the Bible.

Dr. Spock also taught child development at Case-Western University and wrote additional books on the subject. The influence of those books on the parents and children of the Baby Boom Generation is difficult to overstate. Dr. Spock's philosophy was liberal in the sense that children reared as idealistic individuals would achieve happy and productive lives. Dr. Spock had always been a part of that generation's lives and continued to influence them in their college years, which happened to coincide with the the 1960s and 1970s.

As the Cold War heated up and American troops were sent to Vietnam, Spock became a vocal political activist, speaking out for disarmament and against the war in Southeast Asia. To Spock, that was just another way of defending the young people to whom he was so devoted. His political views made him unpopular in some circles and hurt the sales of his baby and child care book, but he persisted, convinced that politics was an essential part of pediatrics. He participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations well into his 80s and 90s, and ran for president on a third-party ticket in 1972, speaking out on issues concerning working families, children, and minorities.

During the Cold War Era, many families fatalistically built bomb shelters in their backyard. Youngsters were taught in school to “duck and cover” when air-raid sirens sounded, in preparation for a nuclear blast. The boomers were the first of all human generations to be reared under the real threat of Armageddon. Sometimes sirens were tested after school when mothers were not yet home from work — that was scary. In California, many children knew how to stand clear of the chimney and go to the nearest door frame for safety, during the occasional earthquake. That was scary as well. The suburbs were not the paradise many parents had imagined they would be.

The Sixties

Accelerating change. The 1960s was the decade that defined the boomers. The music, events, and social changes left a permanent imprint. Boomers born between '46 and '51 were young teenagers. Those individuals born during the peak boomer years, '52 to '57, were in their formative years during the Sixties. The televised pseudo-realities of Lassie, Leave It to Beaver, and the Nelson Family, portrayed innocence lost, then were replaced by the sad realities of the Cold War and the civil rights struggle, all to a rock 'n roll beat. So many changes occurred in the Sixties that an individual's age during the decade greatly affected how he or she turned out. The year 1961 was a great deal different from 1969.

The Sixties were turbulent, owing to the unrest of civil rights marches, “free love," rock music, drug experimentation, long hair and disheveled clothes, and the winds of war in Indochina. As an celebrity antiwar protester, Dr. Spock was again in the national limelight.

California was a magnet for disenfranchised dreamers, often called "hippies." They came in droves, many having dropped out of school; they came on the bus and train; they hitch-hiked from Everytown, USA. Such seminal rock 'n roll performers as Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, and Pink Floyd, resembled the mythical and fabled pied piper.

A Scott Mackenzie tune, sung by The Mamas and the Papas, lyrically advised: "If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair." Harvard professor Timothy Leary's advice: "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out," delivered at a press conference in New York City in 1966, urged youth to create countercultural change through the use of psychedelic stimulants (especially the drug LSD), and by removing themselves from the prevailing society. The phrase was derided by conservative critics and most other adults.

And they came, idealistic, euphoric and hopeful, ragged and broke. Most were disillusioned by what they found, then returned to the communities they came from, or just moved on. A few sampled the rural life in communes or on farms, but most of those became disillusioned with the tough work. Nevertheless, the idealism of the Sixties and some alternative rural communities survive and thrive in the 21st century, thanks to aging boomers with enduring values.

The Seventies
Social dreams. Those born at the early end of the boomer continuum were in their early 20s by 1970. The deaths of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Beatle John Lennon, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.; the Vietnam War; moon pioneer Neil Armstrong, the Woodstock Festival, the Watergate scandal and President Nixon's resignation and pardon (by his successor, Gerald R. Ford), all left psychic footprints in boomers' heads.

As teens and young adults, many boomer activists pushed for new federal legislation to fulfill the old social dreams of the Bill of Rights and FDR. Chief among those thoroughly American social upheavals were the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights movements.

One federal response was Affirmative Action, the mandated encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, especially in higher-education admittance and job-hiring practices. Proponents believed that a boost for women and minorities would help equalize access to the American Dream.

An argument against Affirmative Action was that preferences towards minorities and women produce “reverse discrimination," especially against white men — a punitive approach that was not inadvertent.

In the 1979 United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber case, the Supreme Court ruled that the private sector could apply voluntary racial preference programs in hiring. Another Supreme Court landmark case supporting Affirmative Action was Grutter v. Bollinger (June 1993), in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the majority of justices upheld the constitutionality of the University of Michigan Law School's Affirmitive Action program, as long as each application was processed individually.

In both cases, conservatives accused the high court of endorsing reverse discrimination. Many argued that employers and schools that preferentially favored women and minorities were committing the same injustice against whites that the Jim Crow laws had committed against blacks.

The Eighties

Political sea change. The 1980s were the "payback" years. Many "twenty- something" and "thirty-something" adults who numbered among the earlier social-movement supporters, now swung to the political Right by supporting conservative President Ronald Reagan.

Boomers, in a reaction against the way Affirmative Action had been implemented, the Reagan administration cut funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department. Reagan believed that the government promoted reverse discrimination and stated that it should relax its efforts to reach employment equality on behalf of African Americans and other minority groups. He also felt that compensating African Americans and other minority groups for past discrimination with hiring quotas, numerical goals, and timetables, ought to be eliminated. As a result of those cuts, the EEOC filed 60 percent fewer cases by 1984 than it had at the beginning of the Reagan administration. In addition, cases against segregation in schools or housing, prepared by the Justice Department, virtually disappeared.

The 1980s also experienced the worst recession since the 1930s, and economic growth in the 1980s was lower than in the 1970s.

The personal computer. The Eighties were the decade of the personal computer (PC). While computer technology had matured parallel to the boomer generation, the PC differed from previous computerized settings in that it brought full control of the computer to the individual. PCs were then wired together (networked), which created a new standard for business and government knowledge access and communication. The new PCs attracted many boomers into the computer industry, which sparked another career opportunity for that group.

Divorce. The American divorce rate peaked at 50 percent in 1979; the new divorcees were mostly boomers. Boomers were getting back into dating. They wore polyester "leisure suits" to the discotheque, and smoked marijuana, while some graduated to cocaine and other more powerful drugs. Until early in the decade, for the boomer generation, dating and sexual intimacy had become synonymous across America, nowhere more than on the East and West coasts. New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles were magnets for singles and "alternative lifestyles."

At the other end, those born after 1959 have no direct recollection of the assassination of President Kennedy; they were not yet listening to rock music by the time the Beatles broke up. They were much more likely to use illegal drugs, often to great and disturbing excess. And they were never subjected to the military draft. Any attempt to lump together early and late boomers probably would not work. There is much that ties them together, but also much that separates them.

HIV/AIDS. Early and late boomers shared common ground on the topic of sexual activity beginning in the 1980s, through the first part of the 21st century. HIV/AIDS began to affect boomers in their sexual prime by a virus that remains latent for up to 10 years. The mysterious disease first began to ravage male homosexuals, whose sexual practices were outside the societal norm. The atmosphere of "free love" began to chill when it was realized there was no cure for a disease that began to kill thousands of people each year. In the absence of understanding about how the disease spread, fear prevailed, and it was perceived that unprotected intimacy had become an invitation to die. The response of people of all ages was to practice monogamy, abstinence, special precautions during intimacy, and even distrust of partners, past and present. The "free love" party was over.

The Nineties

Into the mainstream. The boomers were now trickling into the demographic mainstream; their age range was 26 to 44 at the decade's beginning. They were still sexually active, but much more cautious. HIV/AIDS infections continued to increase throughout the decade, but were no longer confined to marginal groups. The users of illegal drugs tended to reuse needles, some of which had been used by an HIV-infected person, thus spreading the virus beyond its original hosts to the general population. HIV/AIDS left a permanent impact on the boomer generation, forcing many of them toward a more traditional view of life.

2001 and beyond

Now middle-aged (37-55), the Baby Boom generation comprises the mainstream of American demographics. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are boomers, as are many in Congress and the judiciary. However, many of the most powerful people in America are still of boomers' parents' generation. Examples include U.S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and U.S. Senator William Byrd of Virginia.

Boomers represent 26.75 percent, or 77 million of the American population. As they move into the senior citizen age group, such government programs as Social Security will be more heavily impacted as that generations' expectations of government services become dominant in the American economy.

Senior citizens are noted for their interest in voting. In the 2000 presidential election, approximately 59 percent of baby boomers voted. Older boomers were more likely to vote than younger boomers by 69 to 56 percent. The 55-64 and 65-74 age groups produced the highest turnouts at 70.01 and 72.2 percent respectively.

In the Election of 2000 and the Election of 2004, seniors thought highly of President Bush. Fifty-five percent of voters 60 and over held a favorable opinion of him, while 54 percent of that group approved of his job performance. Tellingly, nearly all the key swing states broke according to seniors’ preferences. In Florida and Colorado, where Bush received support from a majority of seniors, he won. Conversely, in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Minnesota, where Bush failed to secure a majority of seniors, he lost.

Baby boomers enjoy a higher level of education than any generation before them. About 88.8 percent of boomers completed high school, and 28.5 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. Increasing every decade, life expectancy has changed substantially over the last century. In 1900, life expectancy at birth was 47.9 years for males and 50.7 for females. In 2003, life expectancy at birth was projected to be 74.8 years for males and 80.1 for females.

As boomers head for retirement, it is well to remember that most Americans who fit within the Baby Boomer designation have lived responsible lives: working, paying taxes, rearing their children. They just happen to be the ones who surfed on the crest of runaway change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Levittowns are located in rural New York and Pennsylvania. Named after developer William J. Levitt, they were constructed with prefabricated units and mass production techniques, beginning in 1947.

Off-site search results for "Baby Boom Generation"...
Baby Boom History Summary
As the baby-boom generation matured in the 1970s and 1980s, many left behind their youthful rebellion and became what were called "yuppies" (see entry under 1980sâ€”The Way We Lived in volume 5), slang for young urban professionalbaby-boom generation matured in the 1970s and 1980s, many left behind their youthful rebellion and became what were called "yuppies" (see entry under 1980sâ€”The Way We Lived in volume 5), slang for young urban professionals. Although many ...
http://www.bookrags.com/history/popculture/baby-boom-bbbb-03/

Baby Boomers
... World War II, causing people to refer to this period as the "baby boom." Baby boomers became known for their rebelliousness. Coming of age in the 1950s and 1960s, during the heart of the Cold War, many of these people rejected the more ...
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1699

Mark Twain quotations - Babies
- The Babies speech 1879 A baby is an inestimable blessing and bother. - Letter to Annie Webster, 1876 Trading card "Funny Baby" from the Dave Thomson collection. Quotations Newspaper Articles Special Features Links Search ...http://www.twainquotes.com/Babies.html

Assisted Suicide --- Information on right-to-die and euthanasia laws ...

2010-01-03T23:20:00.000-08:00

Liberty and Death:

A manifesto concerning an individual's
right to choose to die
By Derek Humphry
24 March 2009

In a spirit of compassion for all, this manifesto proclaims that every competent adult has the incontestable right to humankind’s ultimate civil and personal liberty -- the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing.

Whereas modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity, it cannot entirely solve the pain and distress of the dying process.

Each person deals with death in their individual way. Which way is determined by their health, their ethics, and personal living conditions.

The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgments are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions.

Persuasion or provocation to the act of self-killing are deplorable and should be punished according to relevant laws. ‘Suicide’ no longer being a crime, it is unacceptable to prosecute well-meaning people for ‘assisted suicide’.

Medically hastened death by request should be made lawful as it is now in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the American states of Oregon and Washington (each has different rules).

Choosing to hasten death by self-starvation and dehydration should be accompanied by palliative care. Electing to die by terminal sedation is also a choice provided it is freely made by the patient.

Advance Directives (Living Wills) and Durable Powers of Attorney for Health Care must be respectfully considered by medical professionals at all times.

Views on the dying process contrary to those expressed in this manifesto are respected, but must not trump the autonomy of the dying person’s

The FCC Hearings in Seattle – 11/9/2007 -- and Blue Collar Conservatism

2007-11-11T14:52:00.000-08:00

One of the things that many of the Progressive commenters at the recent FCC Hearings in Seattle (concerning media consolidation) was to blame “white men” for these problems. White men were blamed for owning more than they should, and controlling everything in America. In my humble opinion, it’s not white men per-se that they should be targeting in their verbal broadsides. It’s more a certain class of monied people and their corporate henchmen who are the real bad-guys.

I do not believe it is merely a problem of blue-collar white men misperceiving what women, minorities, and even some white men are saying about them. When I bring up this subject to Progressive women and minorities, they have always denied that it is white men in general that they are talking about.

It’s the rich white men, they explain. It’s not the “regular Joe’s” they mean.

As an experiment, I initiated some conversations that evening about the black ex-CEO of Merrill-Lynch, Stanley O’Neal, who was recently ousted for some ethically, challenged activity regarding stock manipulation. “That’s the trouble with black men,” I said. “They get into a position of real power, and immediately they abuse it. They think they can do anything they want in their safe little corporate bubble!”

You can imagine the response. Liberals immediately and vociferously let you know that the color of the man is irrelevant. I then brought up the subject of white men always being blamed for problems of corporate corruption of American democracy. They insist that they are not blaming white men in general – just the rich white men and CEO’s. Black CEO’s, it seems, are still off limits for my criticism. But in their offhand comments they DO say, quite specifically and exclusively: “white men.” I’m a Progressive Liberal, but internally I’m beginning to resist all this casual demonizing of white men. I think it’s losing us elections.

In an Affirmative Action Review of Part 9 of the Federal Procurement Policies and Practices, the review states:

“Throughout the federal government, several programs seek to increase procurement and contracting with minority- and women-owned businesses. The largest of these efforts are government-wide programs overseen by the SBA; this overall effort is supplemented in some cases by agency-specific initiatives. Under these programs taken as a whole, some procurement contracts are set aside for sole-source or sheltered competition contracting, eligibility for which is targeted to minority-owned businesses (and in some cases non-minority women-owned businesses), but by statute available more broadly to "socially and economically disadvantaged" individuals. There is also a broad, race-neutral, sheltered competition or set-aside for small businesses generally. This operates separately and has a lower priority than the more targeted efforts….”

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_gov_aa_09.htm
The above quote highlights what many blue-collar white men (rightfully) believe: That is, that the Federal Government pushes the interests of women and minorities over blue-collar white men. There are any amount of excuses for this state of affairs, but if Progressives want to regain the confidence AND the votes of blue-collar white men, this favoritism must stop.

Do Progressive women and minorities want to win enough to reach out to these voters? How many more losses at the polls will it take for them to see beyond their own prejudice?

soundpolitics.com turns into conservative attack poodle

2005-03-25T12:58:00.000-08:00

headless lucy's url

2005-01-27T14:59:00.000-08:00

hlrp.blogspot.com