Medical Officials: Kids With Lice Can Go To School – WCTV

Posted on by

Today24News (blog)
Medical Officials: Kids With Lice Can Go To School
WCTV
Next they will be letting the children to to school with scabies. I suggest that the parents take a much stronger and active in the school. ...
Study: Kids with lice needn't be sent homeBrattleboro Reformer
New Report Urges Review Of School Head Lice PoliciesRTT News
Medical Officials: Kids With Lice Can Go To SchoolWCCO
TIME (blog) -Allentown Morning Call -Drug Store News
all 102 news articles »

Xcalak – An Uncommon Beach in a Little Known Corner of Mexico

Posted on by

I absolutely should not be writing about the beaches in Xcalak. I should be keeping this little-known destination a secret, but I just can’t help myself. The only saving grace may be that Xcalak is definitely not for everyone, so perhaps letting the cat out of the bag won’t be the beginning of its ruination.

The only sign of life at the town's main beach were a few village kids

Xcalak (pronounced ISH kah lack), located at the very southern tip of the State of Quintana Roo on the Caribbean side of Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, was for many years the capital of the State. Banks, grocery stores, gas stations, retail stores, an electric plant, ice cream factory and even a movie theater served residents who numbered in the thousands. Then disaster struck in the mid 50’s when a hurricane leveled the community. Rather than rebuild, the government moved the capital further north to Chetumal, and many of the traumatized residents left the area as well.

Today Xcalak, a sleepy settlement of about 300 people, is so far off-the-beaten-track that few tourists make the five-hour drive from Cancun. Those who do are usually divers bound for Banco Chinchorro or fly fishermen who arrive to test their skills on the sand flats. Beachgoers have not yet discovered the area’s charms, perhaps because the beaches here do not offer wide swaths of pure white white sand and crystalline turquoise water like those found to the north in Tulum. Quite the opposite is true: Xcalak’s beaches are narrow and covered with dried seaweed, and extensive beds of seagrass cover the ocean bottom just offshore in most places. But Xcalak offers things not often found in other beach locations.

Path through sea grass leads to exquisite snorkeling along an offshore reef

An offshore reef is easily reached from shore and offers amazing snorkeling. The reef is substantial enough that if forms a breakwater, keeping in-shore waters as calm as a lagoon, and it is possible to walk out for half a mile before the water reached chest high. The beach is virtually deserted; it is not uncommon to walk for miles without seeing another soul. And shell collectors will be in their glory, since thousands of giant conch shells litter the shoreline. Perhaps most astounding, several minor Mayan ruins have been discovered in the area, including one oceanfront site where pottery shards by the thousands are free for the picking. Whether you are a stressed out corporate type needing a place to unplug and unwind, a couple in search of a romantic vacation spot, or a beachophile looking to discover the next great destination, Xcalak is a perfect getaway in a forgotten corner of the world.

Photo Credit: Barbara Weibel
Article by Barbara Weibel of Cultural Travel with Hole In The Donut

Libertarian Wayne Root comes out against Mosque at Ground Zero

Posted on by

Should Americans have the right to build a Church or Synagogue at Mecca?

by Wayne Allyn Root

As one of America's leading Libertarian thinkers, perhaps I'm always expected to give the "Libertarian answer" to every issue. But sometimes one has to speak not as a Libertarian, Republican or Democrat, but rather as an American- preferably a common sense American. The issue of allowing a mosque to be built in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist tragedy is one of those times.

The answer is simple for a common sense American- I support religious freedom, as all Americans should. But this is not a case of religious freedom. Yes, Muslims can build their mosque virtually anywhere in America- despite 9/11...despite the Times Square bomber...despite plots by Islamic extremists to blow up the New York subway system...despite everything happening in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That's what makes our country great. We do in fact support religious freedom. You can build a mosque virtually anywhere in America.

However, there are also the rights and sensibilities of others to consider in a free society.

Does "religious freedom" mean hate groups should build statues to Hitler in front of Jewish temples in America? Should Americans raise money to build Jewish temples and Christian churches at Mecca? Should Japan build a statue to the bravery of their pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should the U.S. build a statue to the bravery of our pilots at the site of Hiroshima? Aren't those examples all about "freedom of expression," "religious freedom" and property rights? Perhaps, but is it too much to ask for a little consideration and respect toward others?

This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom...it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans...but rather as a sign of the lack of respect...a belief in our weakness...and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us. The financial district of Manhattan is not a residential area with a large number of Muslim residents for the mosque to serve. Therefore common sense suggests that the only possible reason to build it there (rather than in Brooklyn or Queens where there are large Muslim populations) is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of the site of their greatest triumph over America.

Privately funded or backed by Foreign Governments?

It is an offense to build a mosque in that location- an offense to all Americans (including Muslim Americans), all Christians and Jews, all relatives of 3000 dead heroes at the World Trade Center.

Yes, private individuals and organizations have the right to build houses of worship with their own funds. But one has to wonder where the money is coming from to build a 15-story building on some of the most expensive real estate in the country. We Americans believe in the separation of Church and State. If it turns out that this project is sponsored by a foreign government -- either directly or through a state-sponsored organization that engages in terrorism -- than the idea of this being an issue of religious freedom is a sham and an argument can be made that our Constitution would actually prohibit this mosque from being built.

However, if this is privately funded by parties with no ties to a foreign government, I have to believe that we have enough people in this country who are offended by the prospect of a mosque at Ground Zero, that the money can be raised to buy this land at a fair price from the owners. I know I'd be the first to contribute to a foundation to keep this sacred land from ever being desecrated by a symbol of the very groups that attacked America on 9/11.

We can also put public pressure on the property owners to sell to this new patriotic foundation funded by Americans. We can organize massive protests, filling the streets surrounding this property with patriotic Americans concerned that the hallowed ground of 9/11never be used as a political tool to taunt or embarrass the United States, or as a place to preach intolerance towards Americans. I, for one, am ready to fly 3000 miles to New York to join the protest.

These are the only rational answers for common sense patriotic Americans who still believe in a free society. In situations like this, none of us can afford to be Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, or politicians of any stripe. We are all proud Americans.

Editor's Note - Wayne Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate. He is currently an At-Large Member of the Libertarian National Committee, and Chair of the Libertarian Committee for Congressional candidates.

Alaska Independence Party – Libertarian Party – Sarah & Todd Palin connection

Posted on by

by Eric Dondero

The Independent Political Report (IPR) is reporting this morning that the Alaska Libertarian Party and the Alaska Independence Party have agreed to form a "new bipartisan coalition."

at least in the battle for four seats in the Alaska Legislature, including that of Speaker of the House. The Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) and the Alaska Libertarian Party (ALP) have both agreed to endorse and support each others candidates for the Alaska Legislature this year.

There are three Alaska Libertarian Party candidates, Robert Clift in HD21 in Anchorage, Harley Brown in HD25 in Spenard/Jewell Lake and Scott Kohlhaas in HD20 in Mountainvie (photo - right), Russian Jack and Northeast Anchorage. There is one Alaskan Independence Party candidate, Ray Southwell, RN of Nikiski, who is challenging Alaska Speaker of the House, Milke Chenault in House District 34. Southwell said, “Isn’t it time that like minded people from all political persuasions band together in defense of our liberties by electing those who will hold our government accountable?”

Although IPR describes this as a "new" coalition, this has been done before. The Alaska Independence Party in many ways emerged out of the Libertarian Party of Alaska in the 1980s. The LPA got immersed in a huge scandal over a raffle for a sea plane which ran awray of state election laws. For years after, Libertarian candidate ran on the "Independence" ticket. The Party itself is said to have been formed by former members and fellow travelers of the Libertarian Party.

As is well known, Todd Palin was a dues-paying member of the AIP for years. Sarah Palin herself was often an attendee at AIP events, and even produced a video for an AIP convention welcoming attendees as Governor. Of course, Sarah Palin's political mentor was former Alaska Governor Wally Hickel, twice elected on the AIP ticket.

Added to the connections, Rob Clift listed above as helping for forge the coalition between AIP and the LPA, is the very individual who invited Sarah Palin to be a guest speaker at two Libertarian Party of Alaska local supper club meetings held in Anchorage in 2005/06.

In that election year, the leadership of the LPA, including then State LP Chair Jason Dowell publicly endorsed Palin, and worked as volunteers for her campaign. Sarah Palin's opponent for Governor on the ballot Billy Toien, good naturedly endorsed her too the last 3 days of the election.

Briefly in the 2008 Presidential campaign, the Palins were slammed by the liberal media for their attachment to the AIP. Though, suspiciously, their connections to the Libertarian Party of Alaska were largely ignored.

Now the connections may be resurfacing, in an effort to connect Palin and the Tea Party to extremist of "fringe" movements. Progressive Nation and Huffington Post are reporting "The Alaskan Independence Party, The Tea Party Before There Was A Tea Party":

If you like the Tea Party, you gotta love the Alaskan Independence Party, so why has it been shunned even by Alaska politicians?

Onetime Gov. Sarah Palin sort of started this when she was running for vice president back in 2008...

Todd Palin, the husband of ex-Gov. Sarah, was for years a registered AIP party member, and now he’s helping out with the campaign of Tea Partier Miller.

Note - Joe Miller was a guest on "Libertarian Politics Live" (LPL) two weeks ago, the radio show for this blog hosted by Andre Traversa and Jim "Right Guy" Lagnese.

Sarah Palin endorsed Miller (photo) over incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski on her Facebook page last month.

Sarah Palin's ties to the Libertarian Party of Alaska do not fit the agendas of either the third party advocate folks at IPR, nor the liberal media types at HuffPo and Progressive Nation, which prefer to paint her as a "religious conservative," rather than a Libertarian. So, interestingly enough, her and her husband's ties to AIP are played up, but her ties to the LP are ignored.

Disclosure - I am a longtime friend of Scott Kolhaas, and worked closely with Rob Clift in 2005/06 in Anchorage on a local initiative. I also served as a volunteer in Sarah Palin's campaign for Governor the last few weeks of the election.

Republicans poised to take Colorado Senate seat with either Buck or Norton

Posted on by

LR FOLLOW-UP

From Eric Dondero:

We've been following the very Hot! Colorado Senate primary race between Jane Norton and Michael Bennet these past few weeks. Now comes word that either candidate would handily defeat both incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet or his challenger Andrew Romanoff.

From Hedgehog:

US SENATE – COLORADO (Rasmussen)

Jane Norton (R) 48%
Michael Bennet (D) 39%

Ken Buck (R) 48%
Michael Bennet (D-inc) 42%

Jane Norton (R) 44%
Andrew Romanoff (D) 40%

Ken Buck (R) 48%
Andrew Romanoff (D) 42

Editor's Note - we here at LR support both Buck and Norton. The RLC has not made an endorsement in this race.

Meat and Weight Contol

Posted on by

A new study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is reporting an association with eating meat and weight gain. This is a fairly robust epidemiological study, but at the same time is a good example of how such information is poorly reported in the media, leading to public confusion.

The data is taken from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Physical Activity, Nutrition, Alcohol, Cessation of Smoking, Eating Out of Home and Obesity (EPIC-PANACEA) project. This is a long term epidemiological study involving hundreds of thousands of individuals, and is therefore a great source of data. We are likely to see many publications from from it. This one looked at the association of meat eating – poultry, red meat, and processed meat – with total weight.  From the methods:

A total of 103,455 men and 270,348 women aged 25–70 y were recruited between 1992 and 2000 in 10 European countries. Diet was assessed at baseline with the use of country-specific validated questionnaires. A dietary calibration study was conducted in a representative subsample of the cohort. Weight and height were measured at baseline and self-reported at follow-up in most centers. Associations between energy from meat (kcal/d) and annual weight change (g/y) were assessed with the use of linear mixed models, controlled for age, sex, total energy intake, physical activity, dietary patterns, and other potential confounders.

They found that an increase in 240 grams per day of meat in the diet was associated with a 2kg increased weight after 5 years (that’s about 5 pounds, or 1 pound per year). The BBC reported this study as finding:

A European study of almost 400,000 adults found that eating meat was linked with weight gain, even in people taking in the same number of calories.

and

Although it is not clear why meat would lead to weight gain in people eating the same number of calories, one theory is that energy-dense foods like meat alter how the body regulates appetite control.

I find that conclusion problematic in several ways. Let’s look at the study design. One primary weakness is that weight (after the initial weighing) was self reported in most centers. This is a odd study design, and I can only assume this was a matter of practicality. Regardless of reason, self-reported weight is a major weakness. However it pales in comparison to the fact that total caloric intake was estimated, not rigorously controlled. To put this into perspective, 1 pound per year is 3500 Calories, or 67 Calories per week on average. There is no way someone can estimate their caloric intake within 67 Calories per week – that’s less than 10 calories per day.

The notion that appetite control was responsible for the findings also contradicts the assertion that total caloric intake was the same – appetite can only affect weight by increasing caloric intake. The correlation itself is in question because of the self-reported weight. But if we take the correlation as a given, the easiest explanation is that people who consume more meat also tend to consume slightly more calories, which add up over the years. Another possibility is that increased consumption of meat might also correlate with slightly less physical activity.

Assigning a cause and effect is difficult because slight changes that are difficult to measure accurately can result in modest weight differences over years.

Also, the authors concluded:

Our results suggest that a decrease in meat consumption may improve weight management.

“Suggest” and “may” are appropriate in that statement, but were largely lost in the secondary reporting. Again – even if we take the correlation as a given, this kind of data cannot be used to assign cause and effect. It cannot be concluded, in other words, that reducing meat will help reduce weight. Perhaps people who are more hungry for other reasons consume more meat, and if they cut down on their meat consumption they will just replace those calories with other sources. Other studies show that it is the consumption of calorie dense foods that correlate with weight gain, which can either be high fat and protein or high sugar. Calorie density seems to be the common element – which makes sense as increased calorie density can easily lead to overeating total calories, and it only takes a small amount to result in the kind of weight differences typically reported by these studies.

What we don’t have is evidence that decreasing meat intake as an intervention aids in weight control.

Conclusion

This study is interesting, but ultimately does not add much to our knowledge of diet and weight. It is not evidence that diets with the same calories but of different types lead to different weight outcomes, as has been reported. It does add to the literature that suggests that calorie dense foods correlate with weight gain, and this is likely due to increased overall caloric intake. There may be other factors as well, such as total activity, effects on hunger, and even calorie efficiency – how efficiently our bodies extract calories from certain foods.

But I am also struck in such studies, even intervention studies, by how small the difference are among the various diet types. This leads me to the conclusion that varying the ratios of macronutients (protein, carbohydrates, and fats) is of little ultimate utility in weight control. These studies get much attention in the media, but it is often much ado about nothing.

Meanwhile, the more significant factors are basic things like portion control and regular exercise. For health reasons other than weight control eating more vegetables is also a good idea, and this is also a good way to reduce total caloric intake.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]