#i just found one article saying the impact is not as significant as originally suspected | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

trying-hard · 7 years

Text

Trans Issues and Christianity

For my first post, I’d like to talk about something I care about in depth - Christianity, transgender issues, and how they intersect. As a trans woman, devout Christian, and politics junkie this intersection comes up very often for me, and I have a lot invested in it. The effects of this go far beyond just me and people like me, though. The topic strikes deep into the core of Christian notions of gender and sex, making the consequences of this debate extremely important - not just because it impacts trans people’s lives and the current political climate, but also foundational ideas of the extremely powerful and influential religion of Christianity.

In the big picture, trans issues being at the forefront of social discussions is a somewhat new thing. In 2015, Slate released an article titled “Conservative Christianity’s Discovery of Transgender Issues Worries Trans Christians“. It discusses how a group of self-described biblical counselors held a conference on “transgender confusion”. The results were not surprising; the article gives it the description of a “one-sided succession of rants against modernity and cultural change that made little or no attempt to address how religious congregations could go about welcoming individuals who are transgender and/or struggling with gender dysphoria.“ Since then, discussion has only picked up.

For example, the Church of England had visibly warmed up to trans people, going so far as to consider special services to mark gender transition. This predictably brought backlash along with it. Meanwhile, the twitter of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, the social issues arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, regularly brings up transgender issues, and is currently advertising a book on the topic. On the flip side, the United Methodist Church recently commissioned a nonbinary deacon.

To truly understand this debate, we need to understand not just the arguments commonly brought up, but the relevant traditions within Christianity. It is no surprise that gender roles are prevalent within it. The two major ancient, apostolic churches (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) have never supported women within any of the major religious roles. Methodism was a pioneering group for women preachers within Protestantism, and they started as recently as 1761. Even then, complete gender equality in church roles within Methodism wasn’t achieved until 1956.

In terms of scripture, there seems to be clearly defined gender roles. Paul does a majority of the complementarianism, with writings such as Ephesian 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. While there is a lot of exegetical work (which I won’t spend time elaborating on here) that goes into interpreting these seemingly plain verses, some of which suggests gender complementarianism is a misinterpretation, the majority agrees that the Bible does mandate certain gender roles.

Lastly, the issue of sex, both the biological kind and the action, is fundamental to much Christian thought, even if most don’t even know about the important conclusions which have led to our present. A long time ago, a person known as Augustine came into the Christian fray. Augustine had some ideas, among the most notable being the doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine posited that sex and sexuality is intimately tied to the curse of sin, passed through mankind. This is why Adam and Eve were ashamed to be naked; this is why an erection, basically a prerequisite to procreation, is involuntary; and this is why all humanity is cursed for the sins of the first humans. Sex is inherently bad, in a way, according to Augustine. The reason Augustine’s thoughts are important is because he was an extremely important figure in the development of Catholic doctrine, and even if many tenants of his thought are disagreed with today, the consequences of his thought - for example, that sex is something which should not be talked about lightly - remain in conservative doctrine.

These three points - gender and tradition, gender and the Bible, and sexuality - are important to this topic, because modern gender theory throws it all into chaos. It challenges notions of innate differences and the connection of genitalia to psychology. When so much revolves around sexual biology, what happens when that is disturbed? What about when the existence of intersex people becomes a key point? It requires rethinking longstanding views, and to institutions based in preserving the heavenly truth once and for all delivered to mankind, that’s scary.

I understand the challenges it presents to conservative and moderate Christianity, and how it’s unnerving. Despite this, I still have huge criticisms with how it’s been handled. Even discarding the very obvious criticism of “they disagree with me”, the topic has been handled atrociously by major powers in Christianity, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic Church.

Appearances and reports suggest the Catholic Church has butchered transgender issues badly alongside LGBT issues in general. Right before the Catholic Church held the Synod on the Family in 2015, a priest by the name of Kryzysztof Charasma came out as gay and in a relationship with another man. This priest, who had formerly been a part of a major doctrinal organization within the Church and had written much on theology, was rapidly fired and defrocked (removed as a priest). He later was interviewed and had many interesting things to say about the inner workings on the Church.

“The reaction to gender really began after the UN conferences, after Cairo and Bejing. The Vatican responded to those conferences with panic and disorder...

“In this situation, you cannot reflect about reality, about this thing you refuse. Therefore, the reaction to gender studies is to reject... When Darwin wrote his book, the reaction of the Catholic Church and of Christianity as a whole was to reject it. The only strategy was prohibition – not objective study, reflection, or dialogue – of human thought, which the Church perceives as not coherent with the doctrines of the faith. The same thing is now happening with gender studies.”

There is much more like this in the interview. This confirms what I had suspected beforehand about Catholicism: it is either unable to handle new challenges to gender and sexuality, or refuses to. With all due respect to the beautiful and fascinating theology of Catholicism and the intelligence of the people who study it, it seems clear to me that in this field it has grown outdated and is now entering a state of petrification. It doesn’t even need to necessarily shift completely towards the more modern perspective to avoid this; it just has to actually engage with modern gender philosophy in an intellectually honest way. As of right now, this is not what the Catholic Church is doing.

While Catholicism is the larger and more influential group, the Southern Baptist Convention’s rhetoric is worse. While acknowledging the existence of gender variance and the scientific research on the subject, they pose opposition with essentially no real solutions. While Catholicism may be inherently neutral in basically refusing to engage, the discussion surrounding the resolution to condemn transgender identity involves complete anti-intellectualism, suggesting no longer classifying being transgender as a mental illness was political and not scientific. Other lovely descriptors involve “revolt”, “confusion”, and “rebellion”; as well as suggesting being transgender involves a lack of humility. It’s not just a refusal to engage - it’s harmful, anti-intellectual rhetoric that is explicitly aimed at the political scene. While it’s been a while since that resolution was passed, if the ERLC twitter is anything to go by, the SBC hasn’t gotten much better.

Many of my criticisms could be fixed through honest, open dialogue. Intellectual isolation does not lead to finding the truth, but to other-ing people, relegating them to the threat and not to someone trying just as hard to get through life as you are. In this exchange of ideas, people are humanized, and bad ideas are shown for what they truly are. Earlier it was mentioned how the Catholic Church uses intellectual isolation to handle trans issues. It’s been noted more than once that the SBC has a similar issue, although intentionality is more unclear. Simply put, they appeal only to their own “experts”, and anyone with an outside perspective is not included. This is always bound to lead to intellectual stagnation, and it has.

I believe there are Biblical ways to reconcile the concept of transgender people with the Bible without even touching topics like Biblical infallibility. The Bible does acknowledge, if passively, the existence of intersex people within the category of “eunuchs”, and in one case explicitly lays out that they have exception from normal rules. Given that modern scientific research suggests that trans people’s brains are literally the opposite gender, should it be true, it’s not a stretch to posit that they are the exception to the rule. I don’t believe that the idea that God forms everyone in the womb is particularly Biblically founded, given the only two relevant verses I know of are poetic. There is the traducian view of reproduction as well, which suggests that souls are created along with bodies in procreation, autonomously. There is more to my views which I may cover in a later post, but not here; the point is that there is a legitimate case to be made for conservative and moderate Christians that being trans is Biblically acceptable.

This debate is complex and has far-reaching implications. Beyond even the very significant effect it has on trans people, it touches foundational principles of what is arguably the most important religion in today’s world. The debate deserves respect and understanding from all involved, and while a solution likely won’t be found soon, it is imperative that Christians, politicians, and LGBT people collaborate to ease tensions and understand each other. There is more to it than hatred or rebellion; it is something which touches the deepest parts of people.

#politics #lgbt #religion #original #transgender #trans #christianity #catholicism #catholic church #sbc #southern baptist convention #anglican communion #anglicanism #christians #christian #lgbtq

10 notes · View notes

nrip · 5 years

Text

Can Social Media Buzz Increase Your Academic Citations? –

It used to take decades of publishing for a medical researcher to gain recognition. Now, with social media, recognition can be almost instant.

The appeal of instant gratification — which can inspire further research — isn’t lost on the scientific community. Medical journals have begun publishing authors’ Twitter handles. Some journals ask authors to submit tweets with their articles. At scientific meetings, attendees post about research presentations in real time.

“There’s a push to share research on social media,” says Cleveland Clinic neurologist Vineet Punia, MD, MS, who until recently limited his social media activity to a personal Facebook account. “It made me wonder about the value of sharing. Does social media engagement increase the impact of scientific research?”

His question triggered a study recently published in JAMA Neurology on whether and how social media popularity (or “buzz”) correlates with academic impact.

“The purpose of research is not just to create knowledge, but to spread knowledge,” says Dr. Punia. “So, understanding how knowledge spreads — whether through social media or other means — should be important to researchers. Everyone wants to increase the influence of their work.”

Fortunately for the neuroscience community, neurology research tends to spread quickly on social media. More on that below. However, Dr. Punia’s study found that the number of blog posts, tweets and other mentions do little to boost academic clout.

Buzz vs. academic impact

Dr. Punia and colleagues compiled a list of all original research articles published in 2016 in five leading neurology journals:

Annals of Neurology

Brain

JAMA Neurology

The Lancet Neurology

Neurology

Using the Dimensions (Digital Science & Research Ltd.) online research tool, they recorded each article’s Altmetric attention score as of 2019. This weighted score reflects the attention an article receives online — including mentions on social media, blogs and Wikipedia — and in mainstream media and public policy documents.

Of the 1,050 neurology research articles analyzed, the median Altmetric attention score was 18. Compare that to a similar study that found cardiovascular research articles had a median score of 8 (higher scores indicate greater attention).

Nearly half the neurology research articles (493 articles, 47%) had a score of 20 or higher. Only 5% of all research articles achieve an Altmetric attention score that high.

“I was pleasantly surprised at how much online attention neurology research gets,” says Dr. Punia. “I had always assumed that cardiovascular research gets the most.”

Next, the team recorded each article’s academic citations. The 1,050 articles had a median of 20 citations between 2016 and 2019.

According to analysis, the correlation between Altmetric attention score and number of citations was significant (P < 0.01) but weak (r = 0.32).

“While we were excited to learn about neurology’s online popularity, we were humbled to learn that it didn’t necessarily translate to academic popularity,” says Dr. Punia. “More tweets and other mentions don’t mean bigger academic impact.”

Why neurology research draws so much attention

Of the 100 analyzed articles with the highest attention scores, more than one in four (n = 27) were about neurocognition topics, including memory issues and dementia.

Dr. Punia speculates that finding may be due to the public’s growing concern over a pending “dementia epidemic.” But he suspects there’s more to it.

“The brain is often called ‘the last frontier,’” he says. “It makes each of us unique, yet it’s the part of the body we understand least. That’s why the general public is so fascinated with any small finding that helps explain the brain or how brain health affects us. And that fascination is well deserved.”

This realization has prompted Dr. Punia not only to further his research but also to get a Twitter account. “I figured this study was a good first tweet,” he says.

Can patient outcomes be improved?

He and his research team now are comparing the social media power of neurology subspecialties, such as neurocognition versus stroke. They hope to uncover why some subspecialties get more online traction by analyzing research articles’ geographic origin, study format and other factors, including scientific committees’ social media presence.

Future studies will involve mining social media data to understand how neurology research spreads online. Is it primarily through the neurology community, or does the general public also play a role?

“Ultimately, we want to know if there’s a correlation between spreading knowledge and improving patient outcomes,” says Dr. Punia. “If we find one, perhaps we can better target our social media activities.”

0 notes

onlinemarketingcourses · 5 years

Text

Why we shouldn’t forget about PageRank in 2019

Before we talk about anything else, let’s address the elephant in the room.

The last official public PageRank update happened in December 2013. In October 2014, Google’s John Mueller confirmed what we’d long suspected – that Google Toolbar PageRank was officially dead. The final nail in the coffin came two years later when Google removed Toolbar PageRank from its browser.

So, understandably, a lot of people roll their eyes when they see “news” about PageRank in 2019. And a lot of people are content to let PageRank remain a relic of the past.

But even though Toolbar PageRank is gone, Google’s Gary Illyes confirmed in 2017 that PageRank* is still a ranking signal (albeit one of hundreds that Google uses).

*(To avoid confusion, I’ll be using the term “Toolbar PR” to refer to the now non-existent public version and “PageRank” to refer to Google’s behind-the-scenes metric.)

We also have other evidence that Google is still using and updating PageRank behind the scenes: In April 2018, they updated their PageRank patent and filed for a continuation.

Of course, just because Google has a patent, it doesn’t mean they use it. But there’s enough evidence here to suggest PageRank still exists and it’s still a metric that matters, even if the general public can no longer view their 1 through 10 Toolbar PR score. PageRank is far from the only metric that matters, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it entirely or pretend it doesn’t impact rankings.

Which brings us to the topic at hand: If we know PageRank is still a ranking signal but we don’t know what changes Google is making to their algorithm or how impactful PageRank is in 2019, what can we do about it?

This is where SEOs generally fall into one of two camps.

You ignore it and focus exclusively on the metrics you can accurately measure that you know will improve your website (in which case, this article won’t be of much use to you).

You use a new metric that strongly correlates with PageRank that will help you make educated guesses and optimize for the ranking signal we know still exists (in which case, read on!).

There’s no one-to-one substitution for Toolbar PR available and no foolproof way to calculate PageRank. I’m not going to peddle snake oil and tell you such a thing exists.

Instead, this article will give you a (very brief) rundown of PageRank’s history, explain how it is (or was) calculated, and then talk about a recent study that shows the correlation between these alternate solutions and rankings. We’ll end with some basic tips that should help you improve your PageRank (in theory, at least).

Let’s jump into a (short and sweet) history of PageRank.

What is PageRank?

If you had even a passing familiarity with SEO over the past few years, you’ll probably recognize Toolbar PR. Toolbar PR took the more complicated behind-the-scenes PageRank metric and condensed it down into a zero to 10 score that was easy to understand: the higher your number, the better your page.

What is PageRank? The TL;DR version is that it’s a way for Google to rank web pages according to importance as determined by the number and quality of a page’s inlinks.

So, let’s pretend your page has a PageRank of 10/10 and includes links to five other pages. According to Google’s original formula, 85% of your page’s PageRank would be divvied up between each of the pages you linked out to. 8.5/5 = 1.7. So each page would receive a PageRank of 1.7/10 from your page.

(This is a very simplified look at how PageRank was calculated. If you’re interested in the math, I recommend brushing up on How PageRank Really Works by Dixon Jones. It’s a fascinating read.)

Suffice to say that when SEOs talk about the “quality of a link” or “link authority” or “link juice” or use phrases like “not all links are created equal,” this is part of what we’re talking about.

Of course, Google’s changed a lot about how they rank pages over the years. It would be foolish to assume that PageRank hasn’t undergone a similar evolution. Nevertheless, it’s a safe bet that the fundamental concept and underlying goals of PageRank have remained fairly constant over the years.

This is based on the old PageRank patent, AFAIK. I wouldn’t surprised if there are significant things changed in the meantime. It’s still useful as an exercise, but I wouldn’t assume that this is 1:1 what’s implemented at Google now.

— 🍌 John 🍌 (@JohnMu) October 26, 2018

Why Toolbar PR died

In theory, PageRank sounds like a good way to find out which pages users are looking for and ensure that users are shown the best and safest pages that fit their search criteria. And evidently, Google is still using PageRank in some capacity in their ranking algorithm.

But, as I’ve already mentioned, by late 2013 the public-facing tool was practically pushing up daisies. So what went wrong? The short answer is: SEO went too far.

With the advent of Toolbar PR, PageRank was adopted as the ranking signal to optimize for. What came next was a wave of link farms and link spam. Unscrupulous SEOs tried to game the system and artificially bolster their PageRank score. Buying “high PR” links became its own industry and agencies began selling the service to companies around the world.

In response, Google cracked down on black-hat SEO practices and began deprecating PageRank. They also became tighter lipped about their ranking process. It wasn’t long before Google removed PageRank data from Webmaster Tools (now Google Search Console).

Google explained why many times:

“We’ve been telling people for a long time that they shouldn’t focus on PageRank so much; many site owners seem to think it’s the most important metric for them to track, which is simply not true. We removed it because we felt it was silly to tell people not to think about it, but then to show them the data, implying that they should look at it. :-),” said Google’s Susan Moskwa.

In 2016, Toolbar PR was officially gone.

So, why are we talking about PageRank today if it’s been out of sight and mind for the past three years? Because, in the absence of Toolbar PR, SEOs have devised many strength-of-domain link-based metrics we can use to approximate PageRank.*

*(Again, to be clear, none of these are exact replicas of PageRank, nor do they tap into what Google is doing behind the scenes. But, as thousands of people have discovered, they’re still useful metrics when you’re performing SEO and looking for areas to improve.)

Today, we have access to more third-party replacement metrics than ever before, and more are appearing all the time. This begs the question: Which is the best metric to use in a majority of SEO cases (i.e., what’s the new “gold standard?”)

To find out, it’s become standard practice to measure these metrics against tangible SEO results – SERP positions in particular. This way, we can see which metric more closely corresponds to real-world results.

Domain InLink Rank Correlation results

We want Domain InLink Rank to reflect the ranking power of pages as accurately as possible so SEOs gain a better understanding of the quality of their domains and pages. To test the validity of our metric, we regularly conduct Domain InLink Rank Correlation Studies.

Our most recent study took place between March 4-6, 2019. During that time, we compiled a list of 1,000,000 URLs taken from the top 30 positions in Google SERPs for 33,500 queries. We then calculated Domain InLink Rank for each SERP.

We found that the correlation between InLink Rank and SERP ranking was extremely high: 0.128482487. I won’t go into the full details here but you can check out the study if you’re interested in our specific methodology.

Suffice to say that the metric correlates strongly enough with actual Google rankings.

How to improve PageRank

Even though we can’t see our PageRank score or measure it directly, there are a few best-practice steps you can take to preserve and increase your PageRank:

Build quality backlinks. Regularly run backlink analysis (probably using one of the tools mentioned above) and make sure the link juice flowing into your site is from high-PageRank pages. As a side note, there’s a common belief among some SEO professionals that some links may not pass PageRank at all – and some may even pass negative PageRank (something close to Spam Rank). The best thing you can do to avoid these problems is just to keep your link profile clean.

Maintain a shallow site structure. You should keep your most important pages as close to your high-PageRank pages as possible. On most websites, this will be your homepage but that may not be the case for sites with internal landing pages that are higher quality and have more external links compared to homepages.

Follow best-practices for links coming out of a page. Carefully consider where links live on a page; links appearing in your content are more valuable than navigational links. And keep the number of links pointing out of each of your pages to other internal and external pages down to a reasonable number.

Tell users where links lead. Using proper anchor text will both help users navigate your content and help your SEO. Just keep it contextual and avoid keyword stuffing. When done organically, placement of relevant keywords in the anchor text tells search engines about your page’s content.

Leverage linkless mentions. As semantic search gets smarter, linkless mentions will probably grow in importance. I’m not saying they’re a ranking signal yet but we have received hints that Google has started considering online brand mentions in its search algorithm.

Conclusion

When you’re seeking new ways to improve your rankings, it helps to consider all the signals we know about and factor those into the decisions you make that improve your website experience – both for users and search engines.

InLink Rank and other similar metrics are a good starting point for evaluating the ranking potential of particular domains: industry studies have proved these metrics to correlate strongly enough with SERP rankings.

Today, links are still a vitally important part of SEO. If you understand this, you know that many of our industry’s best-practice optimizations have an impact on PageRank. We may not be able to measure it directly but it doesn’t hurt to remember that the PageRank formula is still important in 2019.

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.

About The Author

Aleh Barysevich is Founder and Chief Marketing Officer at companies behind SEO PowerSuite, professional software for full-cycle SEO campaigns, and Awario, a social media monitoring app. He is a seasoned SEO expert and speaker at major industry conferences, including 2018’s SMX London, BrightonSEO and SMX East.

Source link

0 notes

dinakaplan · 6 years

Text

Should You Eat Organic Foods to Reduce Your Cancer Risk? A New Study Says Yes

A 2018 study examined the link between organic food and cancer. And it came to some remarkable conclusions. Researchers found that eating organic foods can help cut overall cancer risk due to the reduced exposure to dietary pesticides.

By Charles Benbrook • A version of this article was originally published on Environmental Health News

More than 1.7 million Americans will be newly diagnosed with cancer in 2018, and 35% of these cases will prove fatal.

A little less than $150 billion was spent fighting cancer in 2017.

Imagine the excitement that would accompany the discovery of anything — a new drug, therapy, diet, or lifestyle change — that promises to cut overall cancer frequency by 5%.

Every year, such a discovery would spare 87,000 people this most-feared diagnosis and reduce deaths by 30,000 and cancer-related health care costs by around $7 billion.

Such monumental benefits would justify major investments and significant policy change.

Well, not necessarily.

Organic Food Cuts Cancer Risk, According to a Study

A 2018 paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine by a team of French scientists reports a 25% decrease in overall cancer risk from relatively high levels of organic food consumption, compared to little or no organic food consumption, in a large, prospective, epidemiological study.

Sizable reductions in prevalence were also seen for breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and all lymphomas.

If you’re interested, check out a written summary of the study methods or watch this 2-minute video focused on key findings:

vimeo

The French scientists suspect that the reduction in pesticide dietary exposure among study participants reporting a high-level of organic food intake is the key factor driving these encouraging results. The team did all it could to control for several confounding factors.

They stressed the study’s limits and the clear need for more precise measures of pesticide dietary exposures. They emphasized the need for all consumers to eat more fruits and vegetables, conventional and/or organic.

What About the Shortcomings of This Study?

True believers in organic food and farming systems see proof and vindication in this paper, while defenders of the pesticide-status quo are generally dismissing it, citing one or more weaknesses from a long list of widely acknowledged shortcomings in this sort of study.

Does the study prove organic food will reduce cancer rates by 25%? No, of course not. Epidemiology studies cannot prove cause and effect. Could the study have been improved? Yes, of course, as can any study.

But for people wondering whether to take this study’s encouraging results seriously, the question that really matters is: Did the weaknesses of the study likely inflate the health benefits of organic food?

Weakness #1: Self-Reported Diets

Study participants used a validated, online form to submit detailed, dietary intake data across 16 major food groups.

Yes, multiple studies report that people do not always accurately recall, or report, what they actually ate. But deviations from actual intakes across the near-70,000 people in this study were likely comparable across all participants, regardless of how frequently they reported consuming a particular type of organic food.

So, were self-reported dietary intakes a source of inaccuracy — yes. Were they a source of major bias in results — not likely.

Weakness #2: Self-Reported Organic Food Intake Frequency Across the 16 Food Groups

There were three responses taken into account in calculating an aggregate “organic food score” for each study participant across each of the 16 food categories: (1) Two points when a participant reported buying organic brands “most of the time”, (2) One point when organic brands were “occasionally” consumed, and (3) no points for all other responses (“never” or “I don’t know”).

Recall that the reduction in the number of cancer cases over a four-year period post-enrollment in this study is based on comparing the quartile (i.e. 25% of participants) at the high-end of the distribution of organic food scores (i.e., the people who eat the most organic food), compared to the 25% that consumed essentially none.

A close look at the data by quartile suggests clearly that the “low-intake of organic” group reliably contained people eating essentially no organic food, while the high-intake group included all or nearly all of the people regularly consuming organic brands across at least a few categories of the 16 foods studied.

So, regardless of some degree of over- and under-reporting of organic food intake, the comparison of new cancer cases in the high versus low-intake group amounts to a comparison of people eating some, to a lot, versus no organic food.

Weakness #3: Failure to Fully Take into Account All Confounding Variables

There has never been, and will never be, an epidemiological study that meets this threshold. So, unless one is willing to dismiss the entire field of epidemiology and all insights gained from well-designed studies, dealing with confounding factors is part of the process. Major source of bias? Not likely.

The French team carried out a variety of sensitivity analyses, introducing several confounding factors into their model individually, and then in various combinations.

After adjusting as fully as possible for confounding factors, they reported their main result in the studied cohort of 70,000 French citizens — a 25% reduction in the risk of being diagnosed with a new case of cancer within four years after study enrollment in the high-organic food intake group, compared to the low (and essentially no) organic food intake group.

Might the percent reduction have changed if another four years of cancer incidence data had been available? Yes, it almost certainly would. Might the differences have narrowed if people were followed until death? Again, probably yes. Might it have widened? Maybe, but not likely, because 25% is a large share, and many other factors are known to trigger or accelerate cancer.

But are there solid reasons to expect the above weaknesses and limitations are largely responsible for the strong statistical results in this study (i.e., consistently triggered bias in one direction)? None that I know of, or have yet heard from this study’s already vocal critics.

Why This Study Is Beneficial

Suppose the French team had been provided unlimited funding and a magic wand and were able to overcome all of the above limitations and weaknesses. And upon rerunning their main model, the actual reduction in overall cancer rates in the high-organic food intake group fell to only 5%.

Just imagine the excitement that would accompany such a finding, until of course those who just don’t believe pesticides are hazardous, or that organic food is safer, start anew the predictable litany of criticisms, questions, and worse.

In closing, thanks to the 70,000 citizens who took the time to enter all the data requested by the research team. And thanks to the French team for a quality piece of work that had to take a great effort to carry out.

I hope you will continue your work in this area, with adequate funding and perhaps even a slightly magic wand.

Editor’s Note: What Does This Mean for You If You Want to Prevent Cancer?

Organically grown foods are produced without synthetic pesticides. And they are less likely to contain dangerous pesticide residues than those that don’t get sprayed with them.

Why are pesticides harmful? We’ve known that working in fields sprayed with pesticides increases farm workers’ risks for cancer, early death, and birth defects in their children. And in recent years, the evidence has become increasingly compelling that eating foods grown with pesticides also increases cancer risk for consumers.

A 2008-2009 annual report from the President’s Cancer Panel, titled “Reducing our Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now” recommended that, among other things, individuals should choose “food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers.”

And other studies have concluded that pesticide use and cancer are linked — particularly in children.

If you want to reduce your cancer risk, choosing organically grown foods can be a good step to take. And it’s nice to know that while you’re supporting your overall health and reducing your cancer risk, you’re also contributing to the safety of farmworkers, the health of the environment, and the ability of our food systems to produce healthy food in the future. (For more on the real impact of organic food production, check out this article.)

But not everyone can afford to eat food that’s grown organically. If going organic “across the board” is too costly for your budget, you may want to focus on which foods are the most important to choose organically grown. (The “dirty dozen” most pesticide-contaminated foods are listed here.) And for tips on how to wash fruits and vegetables to get rid of pesticide residues, check out this article.

People often ask me whether those who can’t afford organically grown foods should steer clear of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. The answer is an unequivocal no. Hundreds of medical studies have illustrated the huge health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables. Most of the fruits and vegetables eaten in these studies were grown conventionally — with pesticides. Most likely, the studies would have found even greater benefits if the fruits and veggies were organic. But the healing power of veggies and fruits is so potent that even when grown with pesticides, they still play an enormously important role in safeguarding and nurturing your well-being.

If you can afford organic, I encourage it. And if you can’t, then I hope you won’t let that stop you from eating and enjoying a vast array of fruits and vegetables. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Eating more cancer-fighting plants just may be the best thing you can do to prevent cancer. And the side effects include reduced risk of heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and just about every other chronic illness known to humanity.

That sounds good to me.

Tell us in the comments:

What do you think about this study?

Do you know any other research about organic food and cancer?

Read Next:

The top 10 vegetables you can eat to prevent cancer

How to wash vegetables and fruits to remove pesticides

[Read More ...] https://foodrevolution.org/blog/organic-food-and-cancer/

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 6 years

Text

Ask the author: The people surrender nothing

The following is a series of questions prompted by the publication of Linda R. Monk’s “The Bill of Rights: A User’s Guide” (Hachette Book Group, 2018, 5th Ed.). In 1788, Alexander Hamilton argued in “Federalist 84” that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary in a democracy because “the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Not everyone was so convinced, and – in what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her foreword, calls “one of the great compromises that helped assure passage of our founding document” – the states in 1791 ratified a “terse” Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

This book – the fourth in a series of updates from the original version, which was written for the 1991 bicentennial of the Bill of Rights and which won the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award for public education about the law – presents the history of these rights and their interpretations by the Supreme Court.

Monk’s other books are “The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution” and “Ordinary Americans: U.S. History Through the Eyes of Everyday People.”

* * *

Welcome, Linda, and thank you for taking the time to participate in this question-and-answer exchange for our readers.

Question: In her foreword, Justice Ginsburg writes that “the judiciary does not stand alone in guarding against governmental interference with fundamental rights,” which “is a charge we share with the Congress, the president, the states, and with the people themselves.”

I note that your subtitle is “A User’s Guide.” How are you hoping readers might use this book?

Monk: My goal was to make the principles I learned at Harvard Law School accessible to everyday citizens. But I’m pleased that many lawyers enjoy the book as well. As James Madison said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” So knowledge comes first, but then comes practice. The stories of the citizens who stood up for constitutional principles — Fannie Lou Hamer, Mary Beth Tinker, Susette Kelo, Simon Tam — inspire me and I hope will inspire other citizens as well.

Question: You write that the Bill of Rights is “a living document” that “did not come with an instruction manual.” Can you elaborate on this idea?

Monk: I’m talking about the effect of the Bill of Rights on citizens, not on judges. As you know, the idea of a “living” Constitution is anathema to certain schools of jurisprudence, notably that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. They believe this concept gives judges a blank check. But I quote Justice William O. Douglas who wrote in 1961, “[T]he reality of freedom in our daily lives is shown by the attitudes and policies of people toward each other in the very block or township where we live.” That’s the idea I want to emphasize, that our rights are enforced by our mutual respect as citizens.

Question: The first 10 amendments to the Constitution compose the Bill of Rights, and you devote a chapter to each amendment. You add one more chapter for the 14th Amendment.

What’s the relationship between this amendment and the Bill of Rights?

Monk: The 14th Amendment, which turns 150 years old this July, is really a second Bill of Rights, because it nationalizes the freedoms that previously only restricted the federal government. The Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights bit by bit to state and local governments, which affect the most people. Before this process of “incorporation,” the Bill of Rights did not impact most Americans and few civil-liberties cases made it to the Supreme Court. In addition, the 14th Amendment for the first time introduced the principle of equality to the Constitution. “Equal protection of the laws” meant that government had to give legal justification when it treated citizens differently. And perhaps most important, the 14th Amendment defined citizenship for both the state and national governments, a process that previously had been left to the states.

Question: A lot has happened at the Supreme Court since the most recent version of this book came out in 2004. I note what must be new discussions of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment, campaign finance), District of Columbia v. Heller (Second Amendment, individual right to bear arms), Glossip v. Gross (Eighth Amendment, methods of execution), and Obergefell v. Hodges (14th Amendment, same-sex marriage), among others.

Which amendment would you say has seen the most development and attention from the Supreme Court over the past 14 years? In what direction has the law developed?

Monk: During the past 14 years, there have been substantial developments in multiple areas, as you cite. Certainly, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment to fully adopt an individual right to bear arms is significant, although several prominent liberal scholars also embraced that approach. The real frontier is how this right can reasonably be limited, just as every other right in the Bill of Rights has limits. But I think the struggle of LGBTQ Americans for protection under the 14th Amendment is the most momentous change. However, neither LGBTQ persons nor women enjoy the “suspect class” status that requires “strict scrutiny” as in racial discrimination.

Question: Your chapter on the First Amendment is at least twice the size of your chapters on every other amendment. What makes this amendment so important?

Monk: I’d say it is the amendment Americans cherish most, although they might not be able to list all five freedoms it encompasses. It protects freedom of expression — including religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. There is a lot of history and a lot of litigation about those rights, and of course a lot of reader interest.

Question: In February, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent from the court’s denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra that “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right.”

What do you think he means by this, and could you put his words into a larger context for our readers?

Monk: Far be it from me to put words in Justice Thomas’ mouth. But I gather from reading his dissent that he believes multiple lower courts, and the Supreme Court, are not treating limits on the Second Amendment as stringently as they would limits on, for example, First Amendment rights. Yet in the past century of litigation, the court has upheld time, place and manner restrictions; excluded libel, slander, active threats and pornography from free speech protection; and limited the scope of First Amendment rights in schools and prisons. The Second Amendment may just be catching up.

Question: You note that the Third Amendment “has never been the subject of a Supreme Court decision.” Can you remind us court-watchers what this amendment’s all about?

Monk: The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of troops in homes during peacetime, and in wartime without lawful procedures. Although it is viewed as a relic of the Revolutionary War, the Third Amendment has been cited as support for an unenumerated right of privacy — along with the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments.

Question: You write that the Fifth Amendment is a “constitutional hodgepodge,” the “longest and most diverse amendment in the Bill of Rights.” Can you elaborate?

Monk: It’s the longest by sheer word count, and it embraces a broad range of rights under both civil and criminal law. Of course, the best known is the “right to remain silent” popularized on television. This right stems from the Star Chamber in England, which forced witnesses to swear to tell the truth (under an oath to God, with the ultimate penalty of eternal damnation) and then asked a wide range of questions about a variety of subjects. Eventually, someone would be found guilty of something, one way or the other. The Fifth Amendment also protects “due process of law,” perhaps the most fundamental type of justice under civil and criminal law. In addition, it ranges from the grand jury in criminal law to just compensation when private property is taken by the state. A very wide scope of rights.

Question: Why do you write that the Ninth Amendment “is one of the most controversial provisions in the Bill of Rights”?

Monk: My con-law professor John Hart Ely wrote that believing in the Ninth Amendment was like believing in ghosts (He was a utilitarian and not a fan of natural-rights theory.). Judge Robert Bork compared it to an ink blot. Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law sees it as a source of unenumerated rights, just as Article I’s necessary-and-proper clause is a source of unenumerated powers. Many Americans are concerned about unelected judges being given a blank check to create rights; for others, the Ninth Amendment is that blank check. For whatever reason, the courts have been more willing to protect unenumerated rights such as privacy and travel and marriage under the 14th Amendment, even though, as Justice Arthur Goldberg said, the Ninth may be more on point.

Question: The Supreme Court has yet to decide a number of cases this term involving the Bill of Rights, including Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (First Amendment, public-accommodations laws), Carpenter v. United States (Fourth Amendment, electronic privacy), and City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt (Fifth Amendment, compelled statements).

What do you see as the biggest potential shifts in doctrine this year and into the near future?

Monk: I’m a better explicator than prognosticator, at least on the legal reasoning that should be part of any Supreme Court opinion. That’s what I focus on in my book: what the court said rather than what it might do. While I supported the outcome in Obergefell, on equal-protection grounds, I don’t understand the rationale for a liberty interest of persons “to define and express their identity.” I foresee that phrase engendering litigation. In Masterpiece, I have a personal interest because my mother made and decorated wedding cakes. And while I valued her creativity, I saw it as comparable to that of any artisan who provides a service — whether it is cake, furniture or fried chicken. And to me, fried chicken is definitely an art form.

Question: You write that for the constitutions of foreign nations, the “U.S. Bill of Rights serves as a reference point, if not always as a model.”

This question could be the subject of a whole book, but which amendments stand out as models and which as only “reference points,” and why?

Monk: The U.S. Bill of Rights applies to so-called “negative” rights rather than “positive” rights. So Americans are to be free from government restrictions on certain rights, but the Bill of Rights does not say the government must ensure positive rights — such as the right to health, education and a job. In other countries, such as South Africa, these positive rights are more prominent in their constitutions. But without a stable form of government can such rights truly be protected? The most important idea I learned in law school is “there is no right without a remedy.” That’s what makes the U.S. system unique: Our rights have legal remedies through the Constitution, which cannot be changed by majority rule.

The post Ask the author: The people surrender nothing appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/ask-the-author-the-people-surrender-nothing/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

afurst · 7 years

Text

How Should a Buddhist Deal with Discarding Erroneous Beliefs? – Modern Koans

Question:

How Should a Buddhist Deal with Discarding Erroneous Beliefs?

Response:

Humans have developed a couple of pretty neat tools for detecting erroneous beliefs. Logic and standards for evidence are two great examples. But your question gets to the heart of the matter – once you discover you’ve been acting based on erroneous beliefs, what do you do?

I suspect, as always, the answer is “it depends”. It depends on the role the belief has in your world view. Let me give an example of how I’ve recently responded to discovering that I’ve been holding an erroneous belief.

I’m researching and writing a book on the intersection of, artificial intelligence, evolutionary biology, and Buddhism. I have been reading a series of books, including several by Daniel Dennett and Ray Kurzweil. In Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained, he spends quite a bit of time discussing how computers are modeled on human design. Ray Kurzweil even goes so far as to identify brain structures that are analogous to computer functions.

But in my reading, I had come away with a belief that humans are in fact just elaborate computers. This may or may not be a reflection of Dennett’s and Kurzweil’s views, but I had certainly drawn the conclusion. Further, it was a foundational idea for my book.

The Wrecking Ball

But, I recently came across an article by Dr. Robert Epstein titled The Empty Brain. In the article’s subtitle, Dr Epstein lays to waste my assumption. He states:

Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer.

Ouch. My first reaction was resistance. In my first read, I took a highly defensive view of the article. I felt like he was just making contrary assertions, but not providing evidence. He was attacking my view and I would have none of it.

But, in a moment of rare clarity, I decided to set the article to the side and put a link to it on my to do list. I promised myself to give it a second read.

I’m glad I did. About 2 weeks later, I re-read the article. I discovered a much more nuanced view of artificial intelligence especially in the context of my book topic. Let’s just say, my to do list now contains an entry to do more research and take on some rewriting.

That Was Easy

I would put this particular example of discarding an erroneous idea in the “easy” category. While the idea lay at the center of a future book, I was able to learn, change, and adapt. Not only was I saved embarrassment, but it actually advanced my understanding. Hopefully it will lead me to a better book. It was a win for me.

But this particular belief, while important to my book, didn’t have a mind blowing impact on my world view. The closer a belief is to the heart of our worldview, the more resistance we will have to it. By more I mean exponentially more.

But, in these cases, if we somehow accepted that our idea was erroneous, what would change look like.

The question was in the context to Buddhism, so let’s target a Buddhist idea that I think is controversial. It’s an idea that stands at the heart of Buddhist philosophy – reincarnation. This topic is especially important to Mahayana Buddhists, and in particular Pure Land Buddhists of which I am one.

The Pure Land school of Buddhism, holds as its central tenet that if one recites the name of the Buddha (Namo Amitofo or Namo Amida Butsu) with the sincere desire to be reborn into the Pure Land (Sukhavati), Amitabha will meet you at death and take you there. Once reborn in Sukhavati you will achieve liberation in one lifetime.

The closer a belief is to the heart of our worldview, the more resistance we will have to it. By more I… Click To Tweet

Great Doubt

At the core of this teaching is the concept of reincarnation. As a western convert to Buddhism, I have struggled with the idea of reincarnation. I see no evidence for the simplest interpretation of rebirth – i.e. it is me, Andrew Furst, with my beliefs, opinions, and experience who is reborn into another life. I have no memory of past lives; I have strong doubts about phenomenon like past life regression and the Tibetan practice of identifying reincarnated Lamas.

In fact, my Buddhist practice does not involve belief in these particular views on reincarnation. I have found views sympathetic to my disbelief in authors like Stephen Batchelor and even Thich Nhat Hanh. The latter actually interprets the Pure Land teachings in three levels, two of which do not incorporate this simplistic view of reincarnation.

But at the same time, I must concede that in any reading of the Buddhist sutras, from the Tripitaka (the canonical early Theravadan texts) to the Pure Land Sutras (written much later) prominently feature reincarnation. A synonym for enlightenment is freedom from birth and death – i.e. reincarnation. My disbelief in this view of reincarnation may actually make me a Buddhist heretic.

Heresy?

If you’ve got skin in this game, you’re likely feeling a strong inclination for and against my views. Imagine then, if irrefutable evidence was provided that contradicted your view. What would you do? How would you adjust your practice of Buddhism? How would your worldview have to change?

For me accepting a simplistic view of reincarnation would be easier with evidence. But I suspect it would still be a shock. But I feel, like my belief that humans might be computers, I would make the transition. The evidence and my improved understanding would reinforce the change. I suspect whatever change that you would need to make would be similarly straightforward.

I would put this particular example of discarding an idea in the “hard” category.

But I need to point out one significant difference between the easy and hard. In the case of reincarnation, there is no irrefutable evidence.

Not So Easy

When we don’t have evidence, something that can reinforce change, making the transition will be hard; probably impossible. But, if we reflect on the question, this scenario doesn’t apply. That’s because we have no means to decisively determine whether it is erroneous or not.

Ideas, or as the evolutionary biologist and ardent atheist Richard Dawkins calls them, memes, operate very much like genes. The fittest survive. To a certain extent the truth of a statement has a certain bearing on its fitness. The idea that eating mercury is bad, is true and its’ truth contributes to its fitness. These ideas survive and thrive because of their fitness. The human mind is capable of incorporating them with relative ease. It is almost effortless for the human mind to adapt to a fit meme.

But there are other ideas where truth doesn’t add to, or subtract from, the fitness of an idea. A lot of religious ideas fall into this category. Belief in a God being a big one. There is no evidence for a God, but the idea persists. Believers vehemently defend the idea. I believe that this is a function of its fitness. This is a powerfully fit idea. The tenacity with which people defend it is evidence that whether or not it is erroneous, it is terribly difficult to “discard” it.

Truth OR Consequences?

Religion has persisted for millennia, at its foundation are some very fit, but likely untrue, ideas. Discarding them feel impossible.

Let’s return to my problem with reincarnation. There seem to be three possible outcomes in this log jam.

All the Buddhists that believe in a simplistic view of reincarnation are right (probable, but I don’t like it)

All the Buddhists that believe in a simplistic view of reincarnation are wrong (less probable, but not impossible)

There is a nuanced idea of reincarnation that accommodates both of these views (feels probable, and highly possible)

I put my money on option 3.

To answer the original question, How should a Buddhist deal with discarding erroneous beliefs? I feel there is little to do. It’s easy to let go of demonstrably false ideas. Where the challenge is and where the benefit can come is in dealing with difficult ideas and finding transcendence through them.

If you enjoyed this post, please like and share.

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

Modern Koans is an ongoing series that recognizes that good questions are often more important than their answers.

The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man. ― G.K. Chesterton

Dialectic Two Step, Modern Koans, Verse Us, Say What?, and Minute Meditations all copyright Andrew Furst

Subscribe to My Newsletter

Join me for a little peace through reflection, art, video, sound, and poetry (function() { if (!window.mc4wp) { window.mc4wp = { listeners: [], forms : { on: function (event, callback) { window.mc4wp.listeners.push({ event : event, callback: callback }); } } } } })();

Leave this field empty if you're human:

The post How Should a Buddhist Deal with Discarding Erroneous Beliefs? – Modern Koans written by Andrew Furst appeared on Andrew Furst.

from How Should a Buddhist Deal with Discarding Erroneous Beliefs? – Modern Koans

#How Should a Buddhist Deal with Discarding Erroneous Beliefs? – Modern Koans

0 notes

rebeccahpedersen · 7 years

Text

Another Pre-Construction Condo, Cancelled. Who Is To Blame?

TorontoRealtyBlog

I suppose it’s not fair of me to say “another” as though it were a common occurrence, since only 23 condo projects in Toronto have been cancelled since 2012.

But every time this happens, those who were “burned” cry foul, when all the while, they should have known the risks.

Two of the major Toronto newspapers picked up the story, and as a result, City Councillors are saying “something should be done,” when in fact, nothing ever will be.

Let me explain to you why this is a risk every pre-construction condo buyer takes…

I’m really having trouble understanding the world today.

Every day, it’s more and more complicated, and yet the complication arises through our own doing.

I’m one of “those people” who thinks the world is getting too soft.

Everybody is offended by everything. Constantly.

I can’t open a newspaper without seeing somebody crying foul about something, and most of the time, it’s seemingly innocuous.

The topic of “entitlement” came up in the comments section of a blog post last week, and a reader called it “the elephant in the room.” I certainly hope it’s not; I hope it’s something everybody would see, even if I, or other readers, forgot to mention it.

Entitlement is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days.

Privilege is another.

But what about responsibility?

Accountability?

When I was raised, these were traits we aspired to possess.

Remember what it was like in Grade-10 when you handed in an assignment one day late? You got 10% taken off, on the spot. Two days late? 20%. Today, public schools have not only done away with “late marks,” but just about any other responsibility or accountability that an impressionable young boy or girl ought to understand.

One of my family members is a teacher, and she has kids in her classes that get eight. Like, eight percent. As in 8% in a class, when 50% is a “passing grade.”

Do those kids fail?

No.

They’re passed, usually at the behest of some socialist guidance counselor or vice-principal, as the “leave no child behind” school of thinking believes that we should teach these children they should skip class all year, do no work, call the teacher names with no repercussion, and then move on to the next grade, rather than learn responsibility and accountability for their actions.

I suppose the “business” of university will start doing the same – passing kids along, so they can get enter the workplace completely unprepared, with no concept of reality. But in order to accomplish that, the universities would need to take some time away from their busy schedule of creating safe spaces for students who don’t want to debate anything, because there should only usually be one side to any argument.

Entitlement.

Privilege.

Responsibility.

Accountability.

I could go on. But I feel as though I may have already lost half of you.

I may be a 37-year-old, trapped in an 82-year-old’s body, about to go outside and yell at a cloud for moving too fast while shaking my fist at a young whippersnapper for skateboarding too close to to my prized petunias, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to hold it in.

A few weeks ago, a notable condominium project called “Museum Flts,” was cancelled.

I know what you’re thinking, and yes, the project was cancelled because of financial woes, and yes, we should have known this a long time ago as they clearly couldn’t afford the “a” in “Flats”…

When the project was cancelled, my phone started to ring.

I talked to a half-dozen people, some who had bought into the project and had Googled “pre-construction” and found my blog, and some in the media who thought it was a great story and wanted some background fodder.

And even though I’ve “seen everything” in this industry, I was absolutely shocked to see a complete and utter lack of understanding, and accountability, among those who had bought into the project, and were saddened, disappointed, frustrated, outraged, confused, and financially crippled by its cancellation.

Two of the major Toronto newspapers picked up the story.

Let me provide the links and a couple of excerpts for some context before we move on:

From Friday’s Financial Post: “Cancellation of 10-storey Toronto Condo Tower Throws Buyers Back Into Pricey Market”

Excerpt:

The cancellation of a ten-storey Toronto condominium development that has thrust would-be owners back into an increasingly competitive condo market has renewed calls for tighter regulations and more protections for buyers of pre-construction projects.

The Museum FLTS condominium cancelled earlier this month is the latest condo project to be shelved. Developer Castlepoint Numa cited lengthy delays in obtaining the necessary approvals, building permits and, in turn, financing, as reasons for the halt.

“Recently, the industry has been experiencing the most significant cost increases in a decade,” the developer said in a post on its website.

Castlepoint Numa is returning deposits to original purchasers and giving them the first opportunity and a discount on the next residential phase of its greater Lower Junction neighbourhood project.

But those promises are cold comfort for Michael Lynn, a 47-year-old musician and university instructor who bought a one-bedroom unit in Museum FLTS 18 months ago. He received a registered letter on his birthday earlier this month, his first inkling that anything was awry.

He was refunded his nearly $60,000 deposit, along with $400 in interest, but does not think he will be able to afford a similar property in the same neighbourhood.

Lynn believes developers should be forced to meet a higher bar before they start selling units and taking deposits.

“At the moment, they can promise the world just to get the buyer in and then, say, ‘I’m sorry we couldn’t do that’.”

I’ve done enough newspaper interviews over the years to know the game.

You need “colour” for a story to work.

A story about a condominium being cancelled does not work if you don’t have a name, a face, and a quote to go along with it.

And both articles from the National Post and Toronto Star have exactly that!

Here’s an excerpt from the Star article:

From Saturday’s Toronto Star: “Cancellation Leaves Buyers of Pre-Construction Condos Priced out of Market”

Excerpt:

Kurt Trowbridge, 34, who bought with his partner, Zak Osman, 38, says they, too, have been priced out of the market while the developer held their money for more than a year.

“We’re still in disbelief,” Trowbridge said. “The market has changed so much.”

He said he felt sick about the cancellation. The couple had worked hard to save a deposit. They had shared their happiness with family and friends.

“I felt kind of ashamed telling people we made a bad investment,” he said.

Jason Paris, 43, has been living with family while waiting for his condo but there are others worse off, he said.

“There are couples still living with their parents (that) planned their wedding timed to the condo closing. There is someone who was moving from London, England. There are people who have been impacted more than me, but it still sucks,” Paris said.

At first, he wasn’t too worried because he has a place to live while waiting for another opportunity. Then he realized that new, stricter mortgage rules that are being introduced in January will probably make it tougher to qualify for a more expensive home.

Here we have people who are willing to go on record, and put their names out there. I say, good for them.

All too often in today’s society, it’s the anonymous keyboard warriors who shout the loudest, and offer the most vitrol, not to mention act the most cruel.

I respect every single one of these people for going on record, and I understand their plight.

But forgive me when I say this: these people took a risk, and suffered from the wrong end of a risk-reward equation.

The person quoted who said, “I feel like of ashamed telling people we made a bad investment,” I have so much respect for this guy.

But Kurt, don’t be ashamed!

The people you are telling have made far greater mistakes, and far worst investments. They just might not talk about them.

At least you tried something. At least you took a risk. It didn’t pay off, but you took a risk. How many other buyers out there were frozen; paralyzed with fear, as the media continued to predict a market decline for a decade, who sat on the sidelines and did nothing?

I infamously put $15,000 into Nortel Networks when I was 19-years-old as my very first stock market investment, using a 65-year-old broker, who had been through three market cycles, and yet he thought it prudent to take every dollar I ever made pumping gas at Sunoco, making kebobs at Bruno’s Fine Foods, packaging fish at Metro, and bussing tables and eventually bartending (awesome job!) at Shark City – and put it all into ONE stock.

Talk about a bad investment. Everybody has a story.

I respect these people for making the investment, and for going on record with their stories.

But a lot of them, and all of the people I talked to last week, somehow are coming out of this saying, “It’s not fair.”

Or “It shouldn’t have happened.”

Or my favourite, “Somebody should do something.”

And that somebody is……………wait…………….I know this……………..the government?

Yes!

The classic go-to!

And thanks so much to the City Councillors who jumped on this bandwagon and offered “Something should be done,” only to go home and eat a microwave pizza.

I’m sorry, but nothing will be done.

And if “something” is done, ie. there’s a mandatory $20,000 per buyer refund for any cancelled projects, the developers will simply build that into their pricing strategy from the onset.

This is the way pre-construction condos are sold in Toronto, and it’s why for the last decade, I have been the most outspoken critic about the perils, and risks, of buying pre-construction condos.

I have never sold a pre-construction condo to a buyer. Not one.

A family friend recently told me, “That’s where you should be, dude! Those fat 4% buyer-commissions? You don’t want a piece of that?”

Nope. Never have.

As both articles noted, only 23 projects in Toronto, since 2012, have been cancelled – according to real estate think-tank, Urbanation.

But how many have been delayed by a year, or two, or five?

How many have had an “occupancy period,” where you basically pay rent on a unit you’re supposed to own, for upwards of TWO YEARS?

How many buyers were shocked to see $47,850 of “closing costs” for their $399,000 condo?

How many buyers have had their promised 10-foot ceilings changed to 8-foot, with no financial compensation? Or seen their magnificent 400 square foot terraces reduced to 60 square foot balconies, and been told, “The balcony is ‘exclusive use, common elements,’ and therefore you wouldn’t own it; you didn’t purchase it, and it’s not a material change.”?

I could go on, but you’ve heard this all from me, many times, over the last decade.

Sure, a lot of people made money on pre-construction condos, but that’s because the market continued to climb, and I maintain they’d all have made more in the resale market, not having to pay occupancy fees or closing costs.

I’ve never understood the investment. The risks are too high.

And seeing these poor folks turfed out of Museum Flts sucks, but they need to hear the tough love here: it’s the risk they took.

To come around now, and cry foul, say that “something should be done,” or complain that developers shouldn’t be able to do this, when they had every opportunity to evaluate the risk-reward proposition of this investment three years ago, simply reeks of that entitlement, privilege, and lack of accountability and responsibility we spoke of earlier.

I had clients looking at freehold houses with me several years ago.

I was showing them properties on the east side around $800,000.

They went cold on me, and I found out eventually through a mutual acquaintance that they had bought into a pre-construction condo, and didn’t want to consult me as they “knew I was completely and utterly against the idea.”

I was a little hurt that they didn’t at least run the idea by me. It had nothing to do with the commission, for those of you about to suggest as much, but rather if they knew I was “completely and utterly against it,” and didn’t ask for my opinion, then they were being irresponsible. There are pros, and there are cons. And while they had access to somebody who could point out all the cons, better than anybody, they chose not to hear it.

Their project, as you might assume from the way this story was set up, was eventually cancelled.

They were given somewhere around 0.75% interest on their deposit, and turfed aside.

Those houses I was showing them at $800,000 were worth about $1,150,000 by the time their pre-construction condo project was cancelled.

Hindsight, I know. That’s what you want to tell me.

But they could have completely mitigated that risk by purchasing an $800,000 freehold home, in an A+ location, which I said at the time, and was proved to be correct, would massively out-appreciate the market average.

I feel bad for them, but I really shouldn’t.

And nobody should feel bad for anybody profiled in the two articles above, just as nobody should feel bad that at 19-years-old, I took my life savings and put it into ONE stock, even though I should have known better. I could have blamed the stock broker, and I could have blamed accounting scandals that plagued the industry in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, and I could have simply blamed the market. But I always blamed myself, and I learned from that experience. It cost me $14,400, since I rode the stock all the way down to $2 at the advice of my broker, but it was the best $14,400 I ever spent.

I haven’t made a poor investment since, and I trace it all back to that investment when I was a kid.

So for those of you that are thinking about a pre-construction purchase, read the articles above, and ask yourself, “What level of risk would I tolerate, and how do I feel about this as a potential downside outcome?”

And for those of you that have invested in cancelled projects, don’t blame the developer.

There are so many things you could have done differently.

Did you use an agent? Or did you walk into the sales centre and trust the “floor agent” who works for the developer?

Did you hire a lawyer during the Provincially-mandated 10-day rescission period? Or did you simply assume everything was kosher, and try to save the $3,000?

Those questions are almost rhetorical, since I’d wager 50% of buyers would say “no” to both questions.

I tell new real estate agents all the time that I have a saying. A mantra, if you will. It’s simple, and it’s helpful. It goes, “Find a way to blame yourself.”

You didn’t sell that house? Find a way to blame yourself.

You didn’t get that listing? Find a way to blame yourself.

Your buyer client started working with another agent? Find a way to blame yourself.

Instead of blaming that stupid home inspector who didn’t know anything, or that jerk of listing agent who had it out for you, or that miserable parent of your buyer-client that got in your way, or your client’s idiot boyfriend who was a market bear – find a way to put the blame on yourself, and you’ll learn what you could have done differently.

I would encourage anybody with a real estate disappointment, whether it’s the buyers at Museum Flts, or anybody else out there, to try using the same mantra.

Who knows, you might learn something…

The post Another Pre-Construction Condo, Cancelled. Who Is To Blame? appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2yw4Zi1

0 notes

deniseyallen · 7 years

Text

Portman Testifies Before ITC, Fights to Protect Whirlpool Jobs from Unfair Foreign Trade

Company Praises Portman for Working to Protect Ohio Jobs

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) testified before the International Trade Commission (ITC) to fight on behalf of Ohio Whirlpool workers and against unfair trade practices. Specifically, Portman, who has a lengthy record of delivering results for Ohio workers, is fighting to protect Whirlpool and its 10,000 Ohio workers, including the more than 3,000 workers at Whirlpool’s largest American factory in Clyde, from unlawfully importing washers into the United States. Whirlpool praised Portman’s testimony and his efforts to protect the Clyde plant, where Portman hosted an employee town hall meeting earlier this year.

“Ohio has the most skilled workforce anywhere in the world, and Ohio’s Whirlpool workers make a world-class product as efficiently as anyone. In Clyde, a washer comes off the assembly line every four seconds, and dozens of state-of-the-art autonomous vehicles are constantly buzzing around the floor. I have seen this firsthand and have met with hundreds of Ohio’s Whirlpool employees; it is easy to see why Whirlpool continues to invest in Clyde and its workers,” said Portman. “However, Ohio manufacturers are too often faced with foreign competitors who cheat on trade. For years, Whirlpool has been hurt by unfair practices from their overseas competitors, who continue to look for ways to cheat, including by moving their production facilities to China. That is why I am committed to giving these workers a fair shake against unfair trade practices. With a level playing field, these workers can compete and win against anyone, and I will continue to work to ensure that our Ohio manufacturers get the level playing field they deserve.”

“We truly appreciate Senator Portman’s continued support for our workers at our Clyde, Ohio washer facility,” said Jeff Fettig, Chairman and CEO of Whirlpool Corporation. “We are hopeful that the ITC adopts Senator Portman's recommendation to approve a Safeguard remedy to help ensure U.S. washer manufacturers finally can compete on a level playing field. This decision will allow us to increase our investments at Clyde and hire more workers.”

Portman is the co-author of the ENFORCE Act and the Leveling the Playing Field Act, legislation that is paying dividends for Ohio’s workers, and he has worked closely with Whirlpool and its Ohio employees to combat unfair foreign trading practices. In 2012, Portman sent a letter urging the Commerce Department to defend Whirlpool, which returned all production to the United States in 2008. He also provided testimony to the ITC. In response to evidence of foreign companies dumping their washers in the U.S. market, the ITC heeded Portman’s concerns and penalized those foreign companies with anti-dumping tariffs.

Following the ruling, however, South Korean manufacturers moved their washer production facilities to China, skirting the order and continuing to dump its products unfairly into the United States. Portman again testified on Whirlpool’s behalf before the ITC, arguing once again that these foreign companies were illegally dumping washers into the United States. In January of this year, the ITC agreed and ruled that Whirlpool workers had been harmed by the flood of unfairly traded washing machine imports from China. The decision means additional duties will be applied to washers imported from China into the United States. Portman’s testimony today urged the ITC to put an end to these companies’ “country-hopping” strategy.

NOTE: Below is a full transcript of Portman’s remarks before the International Trade Commission:

Chairman Schmidtlein, Vice-Chairman Johanson, and members of the commission.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning as you consider the safeguard petition filed by Whirlpool Corporation.

I also want to thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, who testified today as well. Whirlpool employs thousands of workers in Clyde, Ohio. A number of them have traveled nearly 500 miles to be here today to show their support for this petition. Their attendance demonstrates the pride they have in what they make and what they do.

All of Ohio is proud of the Whirlpool plant in Clyde. I was there back in February for an employee town hall, and I can personally attest for the work they do. The plant has been active for 65 years, and every four seconds one of these high quality washers comes down the assembly line. In fact, I am told if you lined up every washing machine ever made in the 2.4 million-square-foot facility in Clyde, they could circle the Earth four-and-a-half times.

Every large residential washer sold by Whirlpool in the United States is made at the factory in Clyde. The greatest impact of Samsung and LG’s imports is felt within the local community. With 3,000 workers, this plant is a significant job provider.

Whirlpool in Clyde is quite literally a part of the local DNA. The factory has produced marriages, families, and friendships, and the tax contributions have helped pay for schools, bridges, and roads.

Scott Black, Clyde’s Mayor—who met his wife at the Whirlpool factory where he worked for 41 years—said, “Without Whirlpool being here, Clyde would still be a village and not a city.”

All this is to say we are not just talking about one factory. We are talking about the backbone of an entire community.

I have provided testimony on large residential washer imports twice before—first during investigations into washer imports from Mexico and South Korea, and then again last December during the China investigation. I want to thank you for your decisions in those two cases, but the problem persists.

You would think that the decisions from those prior investigations would have resulted in fair trade and a level playing field for American businesses. But unfortunately, I am back here today because two foreign producers––Samsung and LG––have found a way to continue this trade malpractice by simply moving their production facilities. This transient strategy has allowed Samsung and LG to ship increasingly massive volumes of low-priced washers into the United States. There is no economic justification for their moves other than to evade U.S. trade laws.

This has become trade whack-a-mole, and—at the current rate—there is alo end in sight. Samsung and LG’s country-hopping strategy exposes loopholes in the system. Simply changing the labels denoting country of origin does not change the injustice of what is being done to Whirlpool’s investment in Clyde, and it should not change the decisions the ITC has made in previous cases.

Fortunately, under U.S. law, we have trade tools to address this ongoing challenge. Specifically, Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974—also known as a global safeguard action.

Enforcement of Section 201 is necessary and proper given this case’s history. The increased quantities of washers being dumped by these overseas corporations has been the substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry, and it is unfair to the people of Clyde—and the workers here today. In fact, Whirlpool’s CEO, Jeff Fettig, has estimated that they would have been able to create 1,300 additional jobs in Clyde during the period of investigation if not for the injury caused by the increasing volume of washer imports. During that period, imports of washers doubled in absolute terms and captured market share from the domestic industry. As a former U.S. Trade Representative and a Senator from one of our country’s top manufacturing states, I am here today to say that enough is enough—this is a fundamentally unfair situation that must be addressed through Section 201. And based on your fair and objective assessments in the past, I believe you will come to the same conclusion.

While unfair trade has seriously hindered the domestic industry, there should be no doubt that the American washer industry can succeed with a level playing field.

A safeguard remedy will permit the 3,000 workers at Whirlpool in Clyde and others, like those at Staber in Groveport, Ohio, to compete head-to-head with Samsung and LG. This will create a level playing field for our companies, which will mean more jobs and better wages for Ohio workers. A safeguard remedy will stem the tide of sustained and worsening financial losses so American workers can continue to make these high-quality products here in America.

Finally, I suspect that you may hear a few things today about jurisprudence from the WTO Appellate Body concerning the need to show that “unforeseen developments” caused an increase in imports. Congress provided for a safeguard remedy to be imposed when “an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury. . . to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article.”

Congress did not include any other restrictions or requirements in U.S. law. Insofar as the WTO Appellate Body has manufactured additional obligations found nowhere in the text of the Safeguard Agreement, these “obligations” have not been incorporated into U.S. law. While I do not need to tell you this, I do not want to leave it unsaid: Congress provided a mechanism for WTO decisions to become U.S. law. That mechanism has never been employed with respect to Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. In fact, across this commission’s seventy-three safeguard determinations, it has not once found that “unforeseen developments” must be shown in order for a petitioner to be granted safeguard relief. Accordingly, U.S. law—and U.S. law alone —should be applied to adjudicate this case

While I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, I certainly hope that this proceeding is the last time I will have to address the consistent and unrelenting imports of large residential washers from Samsung and LG and the harm they are causing to manufacturers and workers here in America.

I appreciate your willingness to examine this case closely. I know that you will apply the law fairly and evenhandedly. Thank you.

###

from Rob Portman http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=654AA914-03AC-4FBA-B64F-CEDB87EE51A0

0 notes

epistolizer · 7 years

Text

Headline Potpourri #96

According to thespian Emma Thompson, way back in 1998, Donald Trump called her offering accommodations and suggested they could have dinner sometime. If we are to abide by the axiom that what happens between consenting adults is their own business and that he did not unduly threaten her after she declined, does this even rise to the level of a story? After all, Trump was apparently extending his potential conquests courtesies Bill Clinton wasn't at nearly the same time. Just ask Juanita Broderick.

A Virginia man dressed as the Joker and carrying a sword was arrested in part for wearing a mask in public. You think the sword wielding would have been the more obvious charge. Technically, this acolyte of the Crown Prince of Crime was wearing makeup and not a mask. Shouldn't this same law also apply to infidel sows adorned in burqas?

In a lecture titled “Can The Religious Right Be Saved?”, Russell Moore condemned the pastors of his youth that articulated a variety of outlandish statements found nowhere in the Bible. What, sort of like the ones Moore spews forth now?

Outrage has erupted that Trump announced his regime's intentions to enforce immigration law as originally promulgated. But aren't we obligated to obey the law because it is the law? After all, that is what businesses are told faced with choice between providing services for gay weddings or financial ruination.

An HBO producer has plead guilty as an accessory after the fact in the drug death of a 38 year old doctor and mother of three. For the dumping of the body in a hallway, the U.S. attorney said in an issued statement, “Marc Henry Johnson's immediate response to seeing a dying overdose victim should have been to summon help.” That is probably the right response. However, isn't it a bit much to extend the sympathies of victim status? For not only did this woman prefer dope and booze over her children, but as a doctor shouldn't she have known of the impact that results in the overindulgence of these vices? Seems she is responsible in part for her own unfortunate demise.

So if we are supposed to collectively get jacked out of shape over comments made by Bill O'Reilly about a Congresswoman's suspected wig, will society call as vigorously for the condemnation of those mocking balding and graying men? Wonder if those vociferous in their condemnation of Bill O'Reilly's comments ill be as outspoken in their condemnation of the knockout game or when deadbeats pillage after unpopular jury verdicts in order to loot wigs and assorted haircare products.

Jeb Bush has admonished President Trump to stop saying things that are not true. Wonder if the failed candidate was as bold in the criticism of his father's and his brother's respective regimes.

In a Ted Talk, Canadian broadcaster Coleen Christie warned that citizens must be cautious about getting their information from social media because that would mean your neighbor with a thing for cats becomes your news director. By that, she no doubt meant the important task of informing the public cannot be left to amateurs. William F. Buckley once remarked that he'd rather a chance being governed by the names in the opening pages of the phone book rather than the faculty of Harvard University. Along those lines, often these professionals are only groomed for their roles largely because they look good in a short skirt and a blouse with a plunging neckline or because of what secret society they have likely pledged unwavering allegiance to under threat of disembowelment.

In criticism of the so-called “Benedict Option” where it is suggested Christians withdrawal into a quasi-monastic seclusion in order to avoid cultural decay and doctrinal contamination, in SermonAudio remarks Pastor Sean Harris also articulated harsh words about those that retired to the beach or even Christian retirement communities. The pastor counseled that time in these sorts of places needs to be limited because they supposedly keep one away from the body of Christ. What he really must mean is that such alteration to one's life circumstances would end up directing funds away from his particular congregation. For are there not churches in beach communities if one is there that often and not congregations affiliated with or minister to Christians in active adult communities?

Yahoo News is celebrating a child with Down Syndrome as the changing face of beauty. Mind you, these are probably the same pro-abortion ghouls that in any other instance would have pressured parents to eliminate a defective child. Let's see if the public still flocks to support the child when the child is not so cute anymore and he's about a 200 pound middle aged individual still needing to be looked after in a manner similar to a toddler.

There is no winning with some shrill banshee feminists. President Trump is condemned for wallowing in the sins of the flesh over the course of his public life. However, a Washington Post harpy now condemns Vice President Mike Pence for living by a standard where he never dines alone with a woman other than his wife and does not attend functions where alcohol is present without his wife there with him.

Franklin Graham film insists that doctors surviving ebola was a miracle. On Fox News, Graham said this was a story of God saving the lives of these missionaries. If one is going to say that, isn't it conversely the story of God not saving the lives of the thousands He allowed to succumb to this epidemic? Don't like that observation? Why not just say those not weakened by living in squalor and filth might have a bit more of a chance of battling the disease? Perhaps Christian filmmakers ought to give a bit more consideration the implications of what they are saying.

Activist busybodies are now calling for the end of public applause because the gesture is offensive to the deaf. Instead,the emotion once conveyed with this gesture is to be expressed through jazz hands. But doesn't that exclude the blind unable to notice waving hands? But then again, most blind people --- unlike a significant number of deaf --- haven't organized themselves into borderline terrorist groups threatening violence against those pursuing cures to this affliction.

The State of Mississippi considered a proposal where parents would be graded regarding the extent of their involvement in the education of their children. Like it or not, report cards are part of a permanent academic record used to either reward or punish students in terms of future opportunities or the lack thereof. As such, what is to prevent such an assessment from being used against parents in terms of the child protection racket?

Wonder if those so jacked out of shape at a Canadian license plate roughly reading “Assimilate” in reference to the Borg battle cry from Star Trek but not because of any opposition to cybernetic varieties of Transhumanism but out of a desire of minorities to retain the lifestyles of their native lands still demand handouts from the Western societies that they despise so vociferously but can't seemed to renounce the creature comforts of.

The latest buzz surrounding Cinco de Mayo is lamentation regarding cultural misappropriation. In other words, even when they abandon the celebratory commemorations of their own culture in favor of those of a preferred demographic, White people are apparently still obligated to sit around glum-faced in reflective self-loathing.

New York Magazine insists that the Second Amendment makes America vulnerable to ISIS attack. Does the magazine plan to publish a similar article regarding potential terrorism resulting from lax immigration enforcement and swarms of refugees pouring over the border?

On Facebook, I stumbled across a church with a recycling ministry where used items such as furniture and other related things are being collected for international students matriculating at a nearby university. Theoretically, why would the offspring of Alibaba founder Jack Ma or even Prince Harry himself be more worthy of such eleemosynary than the progeny of a Appalachian coal miner or a laid off factory worker? In the vast majority of cases, foreigners coming to study at American universities aren't Kalahari bushmen. Rather they are going to have a significant degree of wealth to begin with if they are coming here just to study. As such, isn't it just as wrong to limit one's charity to those of this particular origin as it would be to limit one's charity to White's only? Furthermore, if these items are no longer good enough for you, isn't it racist to assume that these cast offs are good enough for foreigners? Isn't it about time Christians end this underlying contempt of their own countrymen?

Fox News talking heads applauding Trump's Libery University commencement oration insisting critics are never successful. But doesn't the network's ratings success contradict that message?

In his Liberty University commencement oration, President Trump insisted critics never really accomplish anything. But didn't Trump ride a continual drumbeat of incessant criticism to electoral victory? There is nothing wrong with that. He just shouldn't now attempt to market himself as perennial positivity.

These pharmaceutical commercials make it sound if you aren't in the doctor's office constantly that you aren't blessed but rather missing out on life. Most of the folks on these medicines aren't out riding horseback or climbing mountains. Their trips to the doctor's office are about the only place they go at all, that a struggle, and takes it out of them to the point that they never recover.

Interviewee on Fox News insists that a good parent ought to find and nurture a child's talent. As Donald Trump's unofficial propaganda office, would they endorse that message if the child's greatest skill was criticism?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany is destined to become an Islamic state and that is something that the native population is just going to have to come to terms with as a demographic and political reality. At least there is the consolation that they can hope she will be forced to put a bag over her head as well in compliance with Sharia law.

Bill O'Reilly will appear weekly on Glenn Beck's radio program. But according to Glenn Beck, Trump's carnal proclivities will lead to the acceleration of America's cultural decline but it is apparently. Yet it is apparently acceptable for Beck to finance O'Reilly because it's doubtful someone as full of themselves as O'Reilly is going to pontificate for free.

Maybe if Microsoft just sent out security updates and not attempt to download entire new copies of Window's onto customer's computers, people would be more diligent in updating their devices.

Outrage has erupted over a group of “White nationalists” that organized a protest in response to the removal of a number of Confederate memorials. Do these same mainstream media outlets emphasize the radical proclivities and ideological backgrounds of the activists behind Black Lives Matter demonstrations or the shrill banshee rallies where the psychotics on weekend release from the looney bin parade around the nation's capital in vulgar costumes? Likewise, in reference to President Trump's commencement oration, WTOP referred to Liberty University with the modifer “ultra conservative”. Are the network's listeners similarly systematically informed of the political correctness endemic to the Ivy League each time one of those expensive indoctrination centers is referenced?

It was remarked from a pulpit that someone cannot be prayed for unless the need is communicated. Isn't this essentially saying that, if God has to be told the juicy details of a specific need by the hired help, He is not quite as omniscient as assorted sermons make Him out to be.

So does the sermon claiming that it is acceptable to outwardly display our depression and to tell these feelings to God now repudiate past sermons that if you are depressed it was probably because you were in a state of sin to begin with?

In a podcast, Russell Moore claimed that the current church does not mobilize WOMMMENNN to the same extent as in the past. This actually translates as ecclesiastical functionaries jacked out of shape that the pool of free labor has about dried up.

In a message on family, a pastor suggested if young people his puberty at between 10 to 14 years of age, they should be allowed to get married. And who is supposed to provide for this couple? The pastor lamented that, in some countries, 15 year olds fight wars and, in America, 30 year olds play video games. But so long as the 30 year old has some sort of gainful employment, doesn't that comparison actually summarize the superiority of American system and way of life? Because in most instances these child soldiers are actually taken from their families against their will.

A congressional aide was condemned in the media for criticizing the deportment and behavior of the Obama children. It is claimed the condemnation was justified on the grounds that to mention the families of politicians violates an “unwritten rule”. There is nothing really wrong in violating an unwritten rule. Such a standard has not been implemented through the established procedural channels nor necessarily agreed to be binding upon those not willing to abide by it. If a subjugated population is forbidden from criticizing the progeny of their rulers and thus by proxy the the rulers themselves, shouldn't the spouses of those holding elected office also refrain from criticizing how Americans raise their own children as well as refrain from imposing their own dietary peculiarities upon public institutions over which they exercise no legitimate authority?

An episode of Generation's Radio was titled “Filmmaker Chastises Christians For Watching Films: Film Has Usurped Church”. In the discussion, a Christian filmmaker provided a summary of his upcoming projects. In the synopsis, he namedropped that one film featured actor Harry Anderson. The producer reminded that, before his decline to has-been status, Anderson starred as the judge on the sitcom “Night Court”. So if the sanctified believer is to refrain from these sorts of worldly entertainments, how is anyone in the listening audience even supposed to know what “Night Court” is? Admittedly, I saw a few episodes of “Night Court” in my youth. It must be pointed out that a significant percentage of the comedy on the series derived its humor from double entendres. I will admit that at times I enjoy that sort of borderline risque humor more than I really ought. But neither do I host a podcast where it was once insinuated that your daughter might turn out to be a lesbian if she is fascinated with The Little House On The Prairie books.

Trump's Ramadan remarks have been condemned for largely being aimed at terrorism. If terrorism is what comes to the mind of the average person when they hear terms associated with Islam, isn't that largely the fault of the violent Muslims? Buddhism seldom suffers from similar bad press. How is Trump's hijacking Ramadan as a pretext to discuss terrorism any worse than the litany of leftwing politicians co-opting Christmas in order to guilt-trip voters into supporting calls for increased social welfare budgets?

By Frederick Meekins