2012-04-30

.ca Valdība par Brīvībām: aborcija, prostitūcija, aizliegtas zāles ...


The government’s selective defence of freedom

 

 
 
 
When Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth introduced a private member’s bill on the status of the fetus last week, the government was expected to distance itself. But when Conservative whip Gordon O’Connor stood to deliver the government line, he did far more than that.
“I can confirm that as a member of the Conservative caucus for nearly eight years, the prime minister has been consistent with his position on abortion,” O’Connor said. “As early as 2005 at the Montreal convention, and in every federal election platform since, he has stated that the Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. While the issue may be debated by some, as in the private member’s motion here tonight, I state again that the government’s position is clear: It will not reopen this debate.”
It was a surprisingly sweeping and categorical pledge. And we can be sure it was crafted in the prime minister’s office, or at a minimum, personally approved by the boss.
But that was just the beginning of the surprises.
“The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision,” O’Connor declared, “and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state.”
It was a genuinely shocking moment. In effect, the government engaged the debate it said it didn’t want to discuss, but rather than siding with Woodworth and the social conservatives who want abortion restricted, it came out swinging for the other side.
“I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code,” O’Connor said. “There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.”
O’Connor also appealed to practical realities. “Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.”
In closing, O’Connor went further still, channelling the spirit of J.S. Mill. “I am sure we all recognize that the issue of abortion raises strongly held and divergent views within and outside Parliament. However, I firmly believe that each of us should be able to pursue our lifestyle as long as it is within the boundaries of law and does not interfere with the actions of others.”
With that, the government repudiated Woodworth and social conservatives who want abortion restricted.
It also repudiated a big chunk of its own agenda.
By coincidence, the same day O’Connor spoke those stirring words in the House of Commons, the government announced it would appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that had struck down key anti-prostitution laws. This was expected. The Conservatives have vociferously opposed any suggestion that the prostitution laws — which do not forbid prostitution per se but effectively make it impossible to do it without committing a crime — should be curtailed in any way.
So how does that square with the government’s declarations on abortion? Try replacing the word “abortion” in any part of Gordon O’Connor’s statement with “prostitution.”
“Whether one accepts it or not, prostitution is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of prostitution. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against prostitution, prostitution cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.”
Fits rather nicely, doesn’t it?
Notice also that in O’Connor’s statement he declined to answer the question of what constitutes personhood, which is the question raised by Woodworth’s private member’s bill. That’s important. If you believe the fetus is a person (I don’t, for the record) the issues of autonomy and liberty become more complicated. Not so in the matter of prostitution, which makes O’Connor’s words even more apt.
Then there’s marijuana and the other illicit drugs the government is making war on. Try plugging them into O’Connor’s statement.
“I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to drug use want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says a person must use drugs. No one is forcing those who oppose drugs to use them.” Again, the fit is close to perfect.
Of course, whenever someone raises J.S. Mill’s “harm principle” — that people should be free to do what they wish provided they don’t harm others — those who want to restrict liberty insist they don’t disagree. Theirs isn’t a moral objection, they say. They want the activity banned because it harms others.
These claims are often disingenuous and easily disproven. But the simplest way to respond is to take them at face value and ask “but does criminalization actually protect others from harm?” The answer is clearly no. It even inflicts harms on others that would not otherwise exist (the only reason why street prostitutes blight residential streets, for example, is that they can’t conduct their business legally elsewhere). So if harm to third parties is really the concern, the answer is not criminalization but regulation — to ensure that only informed and consenting adults are involved.
So what’s left? Why does the government think its ringing words apply to abortion but not to other moral choices? Simple. In O’Connor’s statement, he objects to “new laws” that curtail personal freedom but says that the exercise of that freedom must respect “current law.”
Today, there is no law banning abortion. But there are laws banning prostitution and drugs.
Thus, what looks like a highly principled statement about the relationship between morality and liberty in a pluralistic society is actually something less grand: It is a lazy and weak defence of the status quo.
Dan Gardner can be reached at dgardner@ottawacitizen.com.
 
 
 

2012-04-29

Cenzūrēta zinātne - Kāpēc žurnālisti ignorē zinātniekus kuri peld pret starumi?


[Vispirms, vai tā tiešām ir?]

Lawrence Solomon: Censored science

  Apr 27, 2012 – 9:26 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 27, 2012 9:58 PM ET
Bruno Comby
Bruno Comby
British environmentalist James Lovelock now admits he was ­“alarmist” on global warming.
Why media ignore scientists who tackle taboos
True to form, the overwhelming majority of press outlets failed to report the juiciest global-warming gossip of the week — a change of heart on the issue by one of the world’s most celebrated environmentalists. Also true to form, the press failed to report the most profound science story of the week — a startling theory that not only absolves humans of blame in global warming but sheds light on another taboo subject: shortcomings in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Unlike their coverage of the political establishment or the corporate establishment, journalists will rarely be skeptical of the scientific establishment. Perhaps these ­unskeptical journalists don’t question scientists out of a belief that scientists’ pronouncements are free of the self-interest that taints politicians or corporations. Or perhaps these journalists, who are themselves rarely scientifically literate, blindly accept the views of scientific authority figures because they lack the training to assess rival views. Or perhaps these journalists fear being subjected to ridicule if they buck politically correct views. Whatever the reasons for journalistic deference to dogma in science, the victim is the information-consuming public, which at best is kept in the dark, at worst is duped.
Take the juicy global-warming story I referred to. Several years ago, environmentalist James Lovelock made headlines when he announced that global warming would end the world as we know it — he predicted that “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” Google searches associating his name with global warming and climate change now exceed one million hits, and understandably so, given his reputation. Lovelock has infused environmental thought for decades through best-selling books describing Earth as a living organism — Lovelock is the one who coined the Gaia concept. Among many other honours heaped on Lovelock, Time magazine featured him in a series on Heroes of the Environment.
So, why, when Lovelock this week recanted his past views on global warming as being “alarmist,” did virtually every major news outlet on the planet ignore his change of heart? It wasn’t because he minced his words.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago,” he admitted, adding that temperatures haven’t increased as expected over the last 12 years. “There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
What else has the press, in its wisdom, decided to keep from the public in recent days? One eye-opener is the advance of ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic — both are now at or above average levels. Another is an announcement by researchers at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation that the world may be heading into a prolonged period of global cooling — the Japanese study compared sunspot activity today with sunspots that preceded the Little Ice Age in the 17th century to find close similarities.
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
Had questioning of global warming not been taboo to most journalists, these stories would have doubtless merited ink and air time, not least because they tell a fresh story. Because the subject is taboo, the press censors itself.
The freshest story of all this week, which by rights should have rated stellar coverage, involved a powerful refutation of Darwin’s theory of evolution and its mechanism, natural selection. “Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps,” Darwin wrote. Now, suggests a study published by the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society, life on Earth did not evolve smoothly at all: To the contrary, the planet owes its diversity to intense periods of productivity interspersed with immense periods of stagnancy. The mechanism for this evolving theory? Climate change on Earth, driven by galactic cosmic rays originating from exploding supernovas — the final act of stars.
This study, Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth, does have a problem, although it convincingly correlates the development of life on Earth with the explosion of nearby stars over the past 510 million years. The problem is its author, Henrik Svensmark, a professor of physics at the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute, who is reviled in the global warming science establishment for studies showing that the Sun and cosmic rays, not man, drives the current climate on Earth.
Reporters on the global-warming beat and their editors have long ignored if not disparaged Svensmark. His latest study, which shows cosmic rays to have also driven the ancient climate, provides most journalists with reason enough to continue to ignore him, even though his study has been published by the world’s oldest and one of its most illustrious astronomical societies.
There is hope, however, both for Svensmark and for the information-consuming public, which is not only starved of balanced information on global warming and evolution but on numerous other politically correct scientific subjects, popularly known as junk science. Svensmark has shown that evolutionary change can occur very rapidly after long barren periods. Journalists themselves may soon evolve into science-capable skeptical practitioners.
Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
To see Svensmark’s study dealing with evolution and global warming, click here.
For a graph showing the correlation between cosmic rays from supernovae  and biodiversity, click here.

"Balss" -- jauns bībeles pārtulkumojums -- piem. titulis "Krists" ir modernizēts

The Voice NT - Google

Thanks for your interest in The Voice!  The Voice is a new Bible translation that reads like a story with all of the truth and wisdom of God's Word.  Scholars, poets, musicians, and story tellers have come together to create this singularly unique translation that transports you into the Bible's narrative.  This bold new translation engages readers like no other Bible.

Download a free copy of The Voice New Testament at <http://nelsonfree.com/TheVoiceNTGoogle>!  


To learn more about The Voice, or order the full Bible, visit www.hearthevoice.com.

Depresija: veselību kodols -- cukuru slimība


‘Depression and diabetes all hang out together,’ expert says

 

 
 
 
 

Treating some diabetic patients for depression could help prolong their lives, says a leading U.S. diabetes expert.

Photograph by: STAFF

OTTAWA — Treating some diabetic patients for depression could help prolong their lives, says a leading U.S. diabetes expert.
“It may be the most powerful thing we do, helping people with depression,” psychologist William Polonsky told an Ottawa conference of health-care providers Saturday.
One in five people struggling with diabetes also suffers from depression, and the toxic combination can destroy lives, mounting research shows.
Among eastern Ontario’s 90,000 diabetics, one in three has sought mental-health services, according to Toronto’s Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
“Depression and diabetes all hang out together,” said Polonsky, who advises doctors and patients on the behavioural aspects of diabetes.
“And of course, if you’re significantly depressed, you may start taking poor care of yourself, which leads to a nasty, negative spiral effect.”
Speaking at the conference sponsored by the Champlain Diabetes Regional Coordination Centre, Polonsky said the daily routine of monitoring blood-sugar levels, watching what they eat and being physically active discourages many diabetics.
Family, friends and even health-care providers often feed a diabetic’s guilt by blaming them for their weight or uncontrolled glucose levels.
Polonsky, a psychiatry professor at the University of California in San Diego, pointed to a growing body of research that shows the struggle to cope with diabetes can lead to deep sadness.
In turn, depression can cloud judgment and thinking, which get in the way of dieting, exercising, and even taking the medicines that can control diabetes.
The resulting downward spiral can increase the risk of complications — blindness, amputations, kidney failure — and more than double the risk of death. Studies show heart attacks and stroke, in particular, kill eight out of 10 diabetics, making them the leading causes of death among people with the diabetes.
And because doctors often overlook symptoms of depression in diabetics, they become frustrated when their patients don’t cooperate with medical advice.
“How many times have we sat across from somebody and said, ‘What’s wrong with these people? Why can’t I get through to them?’ It’s probably because they’re depressed,” said Polonsky.
A University of Pennsylvania study, published in January’s Annals of Family Medicine, is the latest to show that treating depression, through a combination of anti-depressants and behavioural therapy, can help diabetics control their blood-sugar levels.
While the link between diabetes and depression is well documented, scientists aren’t sure which comes first, or whether the sequence is different in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes.
Type 1, which makes up about 10 per cent of all diabetes cases, is a genetically based autoimmune disease that develops early in life and destroys the cells that make insulin. Type 2 is more common and typically occurs in older adults who are overweight and whose bodies don’t respond properly to insulin hormone. Both forms lead to a dangerous buildup of sugar in the blood, which damages nerves and organs.
Since both diabetes and depression often go undiagnosed for years, answering the chicken-and-egg question is complicated, said Polonsky.
The number of Ontarians with diabetes has doubled to more than 1.1 million since 2000, and is on track to double again over the next decade, according to the Canadian Diabetes Association.
To fight the epidemic, which is straining medical services, the Ontario government has invested $741-million over four years to improve diabetes care. The disease currently costs the province $4 billion a year in health care and lost productivity and could rise to $7 billion by 2020.
 
 
 

2012-04-28

Būdams pārgatavs? (vismaz, cerams)


Survival condos

 

See out the apocalypse in luxury missile silo

 
 
 
 

When the complex is completed, there will be an indoor farm, designed to supply enough fish and vegetables to feed 70 people for as long as they need to stay underground.

The view may not be great, but features include nine-foot-thick walls, military-grade security and a spa. Welcome to Salina, Kansas, where a former Cold War missile silo is being transformed into a complex of subterranean luxury condos, allowing buyers to see out the apocalypse in comfort.
The apartments start at $1 million US each and come complete with a wind turbine, solar panels and facilities to cultivate hydroponically grown food.
As well as an electrified fence and biometric locks, the complex will boast an indoor pool, a cinema and a gym.
So far, four buyers have put down a total of about $7 million on havens for when disaster strikes.
“They worry about events ranging from solar flares to economic collapse to pandemics to terrorism to food shortages,” says developer Larry Hall, who has reserved one of the apartments for himself. He fears that the Earth will be plunged into chaos by a catastrophic solar flare that will wipe out the power grid.
For the time being, however, his bunker is a holiday home.
The exact location of the silo, which stretches 53 metres underground, is a secret. The living units are being built within a steel and concrete structure inside the original thick concrete to make them more resistant to earthquakes.
When the complex is completed, there will be an indoor farm, designed to supply enough fish and vegetables to feed 70 people for as long as they need to stay underground. Inhabitants will be expected to store sufficient dry goods to feed themselves for five years. Residents will have access to a library and surgery. Electronic screens will act as faux windows, displaying views of one’s choice.
Shelters designed to survive an apocalyptic event may constitute a niche market, but experts believe demand is increasing in the United States. The financial crisis, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina highlighted the fragility of modern life to a culture susceptible to predictions of apocalypse, pundits argue. It’s estimated that as many as three million Americans are preparing for some kind of catastrophe.
“Fear sells even better than sex,” says John Hoopes, a professor at the University of Kansas who has studied the spread of doomsday culture. “People don’t like to feel they’re the only ones fearing the inevitable, which is each individual’s personal death.”
Times of London

Žurnālisti, ej? Uzklausiet šos vārdus, lūdzu!


The other side of the story

 

An Ottawa woman whose father killed her mother, then himself shares her story

 
 
 
 

Laura Nicholson was 12 when her father killed her mother before he killed himself. Her experience was not how it was portrayed in the news, and today the aspiring journalist shares some of the things it has taught her. Among the lessons? You can’t believe everything you read, and the media need to be aware, always, of the lasting impact of words.

Photograph by: Julie Oliver, The Ottawa Citizen

When most people think of words to describe their father, killer, control freak, abuser and belittler usually aren’t the first that come to mind. The same goes for their mother; “murder victim” doesn’t ring a bell to most. It does to me. And I have the media to thank for that.
The media gave those labels to my parents when I was 12 years old, when my father shot my mother to death before killing himself. But my parents were much more than those labels, and when I read stories about murder-suicides — especially when there are children involved, as there were in Stittsville earlier this month — my heart goes out to those families.
It makes me sad to think that people who were loved and are missed can be defined by negative headlines, and it makes me worry that the children in the Stittsville murder-suicide will be haunted by the media coverage of their parents’ final days.
Because what you read in the media is never the full story, and what’s news to you for a few days stays with the people involved for the rest of their lives.
***
You could say I’m a lot like my father was. While that may seem shocking, given that I’m comparing myself to a murderer, I like to think the man who gave me life had a positive impact on it.
My father gave me his mile-long legs. Standing 6-3, his lean, athletic frame towered above nearly everyone else as he ran around the Kingston neighbourhood where I grew up. More often, his body was neatly tucked inside his Kingston Police uniform, a garment he wore proudly for more than 20 years.
I also like to think I inherited my father’s sense of direction, one that could arguably rival that of any GPS. When my family travelled to faraway lands, my father and I were the first to check out our surroundings, to learn about the area around our hotel and about the culture — and where we could find the closest restaurants. Now, as an adult travelling alone, I can’t help but remember my father’s love of exploration and I’m grateful that he instilled this in me.
Being the only child, I was the apple of my father’s eye. The moments we spent together — drives in the country, bike rides, cuddles — were sacred to us both. My father’s love for me was undeniable, beautiful and, now, very much missed.
My childhood was certainly not all rainbows and butterflies. One week into December 2003, my parents told me they were getting divorced. It caught me off guard, like a blow to the stomach. But I had no idea how much my comfortable, happy 12-year-old life was about to change.
On Dec. 23, 2003, my extended family and I were going for a Chinese food lunch with my ailing grandmother. My mother decided against going because it was my father’s side of the family, and it would have been “awkward” for her, she told me.
I started the day like a lot of 12-year-olds do: chatting on the computer with a friend. My father came down to the basement but didn’t say anything. His eyes were glazed over and his stare was as cold as ice. Almost as soon as he came down, he turned and went back up the stairs.
It was the last time I would see him alive.
Minutes later, a loud noise pierced my ears. BANG. Then another and another. BANG BANG BANG. Something must have fallen, I said to myself.
Ten minutes later, thinking nothing was wrong, I started up the stairs. I called out to my mother and father. “Mom! Dad!” No answer. I called out again, still no response. As I neared the top of the stairs I noticed the putrid smell of gunpowder. I saw my father lying on the floor, blood pouring out of his chest, and could hear a gurgling noise coming from him. My mother was slumped over the bed, where she had been sleeping when she was shot. With her eyes still closed, she looked much more peaceful than my father.
Panic set in. “Mom. Dad. You can get up off the floor now. Is this a test? ’Cause it’s not funny,” I said, my voice cracking. I lunged for the phone just steps away from my father and called 911. I was told to wait outside, so I stood in the driveway in my pyjamas, sobbing as the snow fell that dreary December morning.
I was whisked away to the Children’s Aid Society while the paramedics tried to revive my parents. I still had hope they were alive. Three hours later, a female police officer came to the CAS offices to tell me both my parents were dead.
The man whom I admired, respected and trusted was now the man who woke up one morning, went to work, got his gun from his locker and left me orphaned and abandoned.
****
Word of their deaths spread like wildfire across Kingston, then the rest of Canada. Once the media got hold of the tragedy, it was in the headlines for weeks, and occasional stories still appeared a year later. “Veteran police officer shoots wife, himself,” read one headline. “Killer’s conduct abusive, controlling, experts say,” said another. Or perhaps the worst of them all: “Abusive spouses treat partners as property.”
The media invasion of my personal situation was deeply painful. And now, after three years in journalism school at Carleton University, I can see how poorly they handled it. I’ve dreamed of a career in journalism since I was seven, but perhaps another motivating factor is that I want to change the face of media to ensure that the coverage of murders and deaths, of someone’s misfortune, is never written the way mine was.
I agree the murder-suicide should have been reported. It is a rarity when someone with such a respectable career in the community selfishly takes the life of his wife before taking his own. It is also rare for a 12-year-old girl to be orphaned at the hands of her own father. The public needed to know this heart-wrenching tale. There are lessons to be learned from my story and people need to be more aware about the stresses of policing.
However, what the public didn’t need to see were pictures of my parents’ bodies being rolled away on stretchers. And people didn’t need to hear from experts trying to “analyse” why my father did what he did or read detailed coverage of my mother’s funeral.
I remember looking at some of the articles a few years after the incident. I could feel the anger rising up inside as I came across a photo with the caption: “Funeral home workers remove the bodies of Ian Nicholson and his wife, Maureen, from their east-end house.” In the picture, caution tape surrounds my childhood home as a police officer props the door open for the workers. Next to the photo is the name of the photographer: our neighbour and a friend of my parents. The same photographer gave me his condolences at my mother’s funeral, knowing all too well he profited from the worst time in my life.
The photo haunts me to this day. It’s an image no child should ever have to see, especially when it involves your own parents. A journalist should be able to paint an accurate depiction of the situation with words, rather than upset the public — and especially the family — with a disturbing image.
In the local media, my father quickly became the poster-boy for domestic violence. The newspaper consulted therapists to determine what may have led my father to kill my mother. It is a question I still struggle with, and a therapist who never knew my father certainly can’t answer it.
Family and friends were devastated when reading headlines like: “Reports of Nicholson’s behaviour set bells ringing for therapists,” or, “She called her husband a control freak.” This couldn’t have been the Ian they all knew and loved. And it wasn’t. The Ian they cherished was a kind, loving man, a man who volunteered at the hospital, a constable who worked to keep his city safe despite his hatred for a job that made him fear for his safety. The Ian they knew was a soft-spoken, caring individual who would give the shirt off his back to someone in need.
The media didn’t know this side of my father, however. Reporters defined my father’s life by the one tragic decision he made rather than focus on his other 42 years, which he lived respectably and with dignity.
My father was not in his right mind when he murdered my mother. Insanity, loss of hope and sadness had set it. I am not excusing his actions, but I encourage journalists to look deeper at the person they are writing about — to look at someone who was a son, a brother, a husband, a father and a friend. While readers may only remember articles for a brief time after the event, they linger forever with the family. My heart and soul break for my father, a man who felt so hopeless he believed death was his only way out.
As a future journalist, I will be extra cautious to choose sources who knew the people involved in the story. Women who were acquainted with my mother ran to the media to tell their sides of the story, tarnishing my father’s reputation and deeply hurting my family and me. One of the “friends” of my mother quoted by the newspaper had known her for less than a year and didn’t know my father well, yet the reporter described them as “confidantes.”
One neighbour professed to be “best of friends” with my mother. Truth be known, this woman had not talked to my mom in years, and my mother often said how much that hurt her.
“He was like two different people,” that woman said of my father after telling a story of his “abuse.” Apparently, she said, when my father was in charge of organizing the police Christmas party, he’d give the task to my mother and would be “embarrassed” by the poor job she did. I can’t help but ask, where did these sources get their information?
In fact, true friends protect the people they love. They don’t crave attention so desperately they work to have their own names plastered all over the local paper. I want this to be another lesson for myself and other journalists: be wary of people so insistent on providing you with information about their friends.
My mother’s funeral was packed with those who loved her. And rightly so, as she was the kindest, warmest, most thoughtful woman I have ever known. The chapel was so filled that an overflow room was used for mourners who couldn’t squeeze in.
The day after the funeral, the headline read: “Daughter speaks at mother’s memorial.” A detailed description of my appearance was included. This means a reporter took up a seat in the chapel, leaving someone who loved my mother to sit in the overflow room. It fills me with anger and disgust to think my tragedy and my speech at the funeral was profited upon, particularly at the cost of other mourners. A newspaper is a business, but tact should be used when the business is intruding on the most fragile time in someone’s life.
Journalists lose credibility when they do not work with solid facts. The first story describing the event actually provided readers to the wrong house address, a fact which could have easily been checked. The paper also reported I awoke to gunshots and found my parents downstairs. I was awake and made the life-altering trek upstairs to find my parents’ bodies.
In one article, the reporter wrote, “Ian Nicholson was, in the words of his wife, ‘a control freak’ who belittled and humiliated her.” Never once did I hear my mother say this, but by listening to gossip and hearsay, the reporter deemed this a credible fact.
Had my father survived, I believe these accusations about his character would never have been published. He would have been able to sue for libel since the charges were untrue. Because he died, the media were free to publish whatever they pleased at the cost of the family.
As a lesson to myself and other journalists: be sensitive to the reputations of the dead. Even though they are not alive to defend themselves, the family is left to pick up the pieces of emotional turmoil as a result of false information.
I have no doubts this tragedy will make me a better journalist. I have gained a special empathy, which unfortunately came at a very great cost. While I try to cling to the good memories of my father, the images of his body in the photograph and the horror stories of his double personality will haunt me forever.
I choose to remember the father I knew, the kind, selfless, knowledgeable man whom I respected and adored. It breaks my heart that the real man was so drastically distorted by journalists who should have known better, who could have checked their facts, who could have looked more deeply into their hearts.
 

2012-04-27

Būdams jauns, uzskatā (izskatā, mazāk svarīgs)

The searcher, Simon Houpt, G&M Report on Business, May 2012 p. 12
Citējot: Robert Wong, Executive Creative Director, Google Creative Lab

... I think maybe I use the word "grown-up" in a derogatory way, because it means you have a fixed idea of who you are, and I think the most fun we can have is to constantly evolve and grow. ....

Vai mūsu valdībai tiešām ir jāpiemina Hitleru, sevi aizstāvējot?


Why is Harper’s team invoking Hitler to debate New Democrats?

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
The governing Conservatives are digging back into Canadian history to find a line of attack against the opposition New Democrats, who are surging in recent public-opinion polls.
For two days running, the NDP has been accused of being soft on Hitler – even though the party did not exist until 16 years after the Second World War ended.