Landmark TMS Provider – Achieve TMS – Opening in Claremont, CA – PR Newswire (press release)

Posted on by

CLAREMONT, Calif., Aug. 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --Achieve TMS, the largest and most experienced provider of deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (dTMS) for the treatment of depression, will open a state-of-the-art center in Claremont, CA on September 1. This new center will enable local residents and students to benefit from the powerful and highly effective impact of dTMS technology, which is approved by the FDA and covered by every major health insurance company in the U.S.

"With 1 in 6 Americans suffering fromdepressionthere is a huge need for treatments that are proven to make a difference in the battle against this debilitating disease," said Manish Sheth, MD, PhD. "Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is known to be an effective tool in the battle. Patients and their families are looking for an effective way to move away from depression into a place where lives are productive, balanced, healthy and well integrated. TMSis a vital tool that helps facilitate healing. We look forward to partnering with psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists in the Claremont area to expand access to this treatment option."

Deep TMS works by administering magnetic pulses through an H-coil on the scalp that is targeted to the mood center of the brain. The magnetic fields induce electrical currents that stimulate underactive neurons, helping to reset brain chemistry, resulting in improved sleep, concentration and overall mood. It is safe, non-invasive and highly effective for those who are treatment resistant and/or have experienced no relief from medication.

In more than 60 clinical studies globally, dTMS has consistently demonstrated statistically significant response and remission rates. The therapy is well tolerated by patients, causing no adverse effects. Treatment sessions are prescribed 5 days per week for 4-6 weeks, with each session lasting 20 minutes. There is no sedation involved, and no down time.

The new Achieve TMS Center in Claremont is located at 1490 Claremont Blvd. Suite 203.

Achieve TMS welcomes inquiries about the dTMS treatment and is scheduling complimentary consultations and appointments for Claremont at this time.

For more information please contact Achieve TMS at (877) 391-7019 or visit http://www.achievetms.com.

For media inquiries, please contact:

Laura Segall, Chief Marketing Officer

760-533-2784

172840@email4pr.com

View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/landmark-tms-provider--achieve-tms--opening-in-claremont-ca-300507785.html

SOURCE AchieveTMS

http://www.achievetms.com

More here:

Landmark TMS Provider - Achieve TMS - Opening in Claremont, CA - PR Newswire (press release)

Posted in Tms

EDAP TMS to Present at the 19th Annual Rodman & Renshaw Global Investment Conference – GlobeNewswire (press release)

Posted on by

August 24, 2017 16:20 ET | Source: EDAP TMS SA

LYON, France, August 24, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- EDAP TMS SA (Nasdaq:EDAP), the global leader in therapeutic ultrasound, today announced that Marc Oczachowski, Chief Executive Officer, will present at the 19th Annual Rodman & Renshaw Global Investment Conference to be held September 10-12, 2017 at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel, New York, New York. EDAP-TMS' presentation will take place Monday, September 11th, 2017 at 3:00pm Eastern Time. A live broadcast of the conference presentation will be available. To access the broadcast, go to the "Investor Relations" section of the Company's website at http://www.edap-tms.net. A replay of the conference presentation will also be available.

About EDAP TMS SA

EDAP TMS SA markets today Ablatherm for high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate tissue ablation in the U.S. and for treatment of localized prostate cancer in the rest of the world. HIFU treatment is shown to be a minimally invasive and effective option for prostatic tissue ablation with a low occurrence of side effects. Ablatherm-HIFU is generally recommended for patients with localized prostate cancer (stages T1-T2) who are not candidates for surgery or who prefer an alternative option, or for patients who failed radiotherapy treatment. Ablatherm-HIFU is approved for commercial distribution in Europe and some other countries including Mexico and Canada, and has received 510(k) clearance by the U.S. FDA. Ablatherm Fusion is not FDA cleared yet. The Company also markets an innovative robot-assisted HIFU device, the Focal One, dedicated to focal therapy of prostate cancer. Focal One is CE marked but is not FDA cleared. The Company also develops its HIFU technology for the potential treatment of certain other types of tumors. EDAP TMS SA also produces and distributes medical equipment (the Sonolith lithotripters' range) for the treatment of urinary tract stones using extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in most countries including Canada and the U.S. For more information on the Company, please visithttp://www.edap-tms.com, andhttp://www.hifu-prostate.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, this press release may contain forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including matters not yet known to us or not currently considered material by us, and there can be no assurance that anticipated events will occur or that the objectives set out will actually be achieved. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, the clinical status and market acceptance of our HIFU devices and the continued market potential for our lithotripsy device. Factors that may cause such a difference also may include, but are not limited to, those described in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in particular, in the sections "Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information" and "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F.

Investor Contact

CG CAPITAL Rich Cockrell 877.889.1972 investorrelations@cg.capital

Company Contact Blandine Confort Investor Relations / Legal Affairs EDAP TMS SA +33 4 72 15 31 50 bconfort@edap-tms.com

Vaulx-en-Velin, FRANCE

http://www.edap-tms.com

EDAP TMS SA Logo

LOGO URL | Copy the link below

Formats available:

Excerpt from:

EDAP TMS to Present at the 19th Annual Rodman & Renshaw Global Investment Conference - GlobeNewswire (press release)

Posted in Tms

Like most families, Test Match Special has had some bitter rows – Telegraph.co.uk

Posted on by

To celebrate TMSs 60th birthday, a match is being played (and commentated upon) in Leeds. Agnews team will take on Geoffrey Boycotts; with the two broadcasting greats represented by their respective on-field captains Phil Tufnell and Vaughan. I think I may have drawn the short straw with my captain, Agnew said with a smile.

TMS favourites will play, as well as celebrities including Jim Carter of Downton Abbey, sprinter Yohan Blake and McFly drummer Harry Judd (a good cricketer, according to Agnew).

They could have sold 10 times the tickets, Agnew said. The TMS mystique remains strong.

It is amazing how much this programme continues to appeal, Agnew said.

Our audience numbers go up and up.

It is a companion for people: most are listening in a confined space, car, headphones in the office, in bed. Often for seven hours a day, five days at a time. There is a feeling of camaraderie, that we are in it together.

For many, TMS has been there during good times and bad. Agnew himself experienced this recently.

My wife Emma has been diagnosed with breast cancer, he said. Because of the nature of the relationship we have with listeners, if I am not on it, people will ask wheres Aggers?

Read the rest here:

Like most families, Test Match Special has had some bitter rows - Telegraph.co.uk

Posted in Tms

Boycott leads out jokers at TMS T20 Test in Leeds – Yorkshire Post

Posted on by

Geoffrey Boycott chats to Jamacian sprinter Yohan Blake. Picture: Jonathan Gawthorpe

Published: 18:04 Thursday 24 August 2017

THE WEST Indies side that will step out against England at Headingley today has already taken some ribbing, but it was at a stadium two miles up the Otley Road this afternoon that the real comedians were to be found.

The BBCs Test Match Special, to celebrate its 60th anniversary, fielded two teams of jokers, retired cricketers and assorted pundits for a Twenty20 match on a Leeds University pitch at Weetwood that looked more village green than international stadium.

Geoffrey Boycott, 40 years to the month since scoring his 100th century in another Headingley Test, was one of the coaches, along with commentator Jonathan Agnew.

Boycott, these days a controversial summariser on the BBC radio warhorse, had said 24 hours earlier that this West Indies lot was the worst Test match team he had seen in more than 50 years of watching, playing and commentating.

Never one to mince his words, he appeared unrepentant as he strode onto what he described as a pockmarked pitch, beneath his customary straw Panama hat.

Instead, he offered some sage advise to his captain, Michael Vaughan. When the suns out and the pitch is dry, bat first in Yorkshire, he counselled.

Phil Tufnell, the opposing captain, was also not a stranger to the Yorkshire climate. You always come to Leeds and you always look up, he said.

The comedians taking to the crease included Andy Parsons, Dom Joly and Miles Jupp. They were joined by Made In Chelseas Jamie Laing, athlete Yohan Blake and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson.

The teams also included England cricket veterans Graeme Swann, Simon Hughes, Ebony Rainford Brent and Charlotte Edwards and BBC commentators Simon Mann and Alison Mitchell.

{* loginWidget *}

{* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* traditionalSignIn_password *}

Email Address {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} Password {* traditionalSignIn_password *}

{* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* traditionalSignIn_password *}

{* traditionalRegistration_firstName *} {* traditionalRegistration_lastName *} {* traditionalRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *} {* traditionalRegistration_displayName *}

{* socialRegistration_firstName *} {* socialRegistration_lastName *} {* socialRegistration_emailAddress *} {* socialRegistration_displayName *}

{* socialRegistration_jpCommsOptIn *}

Registering with Yorkshire Post means you're ok with our terms and conditions.

{* socialRegistration_captcha *}

{* socialRegistration_firstName *} {* socialRegistration_lastName *} {* socialRegistration_emailAddress *} {* socialRegistration_displayName *}

{* socialRegistration_jpCommsOptIn *}

By registering you are agreeing to the Terms and Conditions of the website.

You're almost there.We've just sent a confirmation email to . Check it out to confirm your registration.

We are unable to send your welcome email at this time. Please try again later by clicking the resend welcome email link from your profile page.

{* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *}

{* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *}

{* newpassword *} {* newpasswordConfirm *}

{| foundExistingAccountText |}. Either connect these accounts, or create new one using a different email address.

{| existing_provider |}

{| existing_displayName |}

{| current_emailAddress |}

{| rendered_existing_provider_photo |}

Created at {| existing_createdDate |}

Email is already registered with OtherSite. You'll be able to use the same account on current Site. Alternatively, you can create a new account with another email address.

{* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* mergePassword *}

Enter your postcode so we can keep you up-to-date with the latest local news and exciting deals.

is already registered with . You will be able to use the same account on . Alternatively, you can create a new account with another email address.

Validating

Email address is required.

We have sent a confirmation email to . Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.

We are unable to process your request at this time. Please try again later.

Congratulations, you've just sealed the deal! Sign in to your profile now to get started.

That's it, you're all done! Close this window to start browsing the site now or click here to go to your profile

Unfortunately that verification link has expired. To get a new one, just sign in to your profile now and resend the verification email.

Unfortunately that verification link has expired. To get a new one, just resend the verification email by going to your profile page.

Are you sure you want to remove this linked account?

See the rest here:

Boycott leads out jokers at TMS T20 Test in Leeds - Yorkshire Post

Posted in Tms

Resource Based Economy | The Economic Truth

Posted on by

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing ones job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money troubles you, consider this: if a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air, and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource, nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Are we ready to start up a resource based economy?

Can we convince everyone to start a resource based economy?

We believe that a resource based economy can be an amazing change for humanity, but can we convince everyone that we can have a society without the want to become rich or motivated?

We guess as with other systems we talk about its not for everyone. You have to be a highly aware human in order to live in a resource based economy as it is created for you to be your very best and to live a life of full human expression.

A resource based economy sees what is best for humanity and takes that direction. It is very opposite to todays system where corporate interest and profit chooses the road that humanity takes together.

Will a resource based economy have to be implemented with force? NO!! You have to start in the small and what we believe is that every idea has to elevate people its way. So lets start a resourced based economy and then let those who want to live in it do so! A real revolution gives people options, that is why we propose as many solutions as possible as people are different and should be able to choose their destiny without socially engineering them towards your solution!

Learn more

To learn more go to this website!

Do you like the resource based economy? Well its time to meet and connect with others that love this great economic concept: http://thevenusproject.com/ and http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

Learn more on the Venus project YouTube Channel:

Go here to see the original:

Resource Based Economy | The Economic Truth

More than 250 projects worth $5.1 billion launched in first two years of industrialisation plan – Astana Times

Posted on by

ASTANA Kazakhstan launched 258 projects worth 1.7 trillion tenge (US$5.1 billion) in the first two years of its second five-year industrialisation plan. The plan is meant to diversify the countrys economy and boost domestic production.

Photo credit: primeminister.kz

Kazakhstans First Vice Minister of Investments and Development Alik Aidarbayev reported on the countrys progress in its State Industrial and Innovative Development Programme for 2015-2019 during an Aug. 22 press conference.

In line with the industrialisation road map, we continue launching new ventures, creating and preserving jobs. We unveiled 258 projects worth 1.7 trillion tenge (US$5.1 billion) since the beginning of the second five-year plan in 2015. We created 21,000 jobs. Since the beginning of this year, 32 projects worth 489 billion tenge (US$1.47 billion) were commissioned, providing jobs to 3,900 people. Over the industrialisation years, [since 2010] 1,060 projects amounting to 5.1 trillion tenge (US$15.33 billion) were launched creating 100,000 jobs, said Aidarbayev.

One of the key goals of the programme, according to the vice minister, is the diversification of the predominantly resource-based Kazakh economy and the subsequent increase of the processing industrys share in the domestic market.

Our economy needs diversification and this programme has been working for several years now. The results are evident and every year we are witnessing the growth of the processing industry. It constitutes 12 percent of the current [gross domestic product] and 30 percent in the economy in general, added Aidarbayev.

A rapidly growing sector in the domestic economy, the processing industry also serves as a main driver of industrial growth, according to Aidarbayev.

Within seven months of 2017 the real growth in the processing industry was 6.3 percent, while production grew 5.3 percent. The volume of exports totalled $6.2 billion, which is 27.8 percent more than in the same period last year. This is due to the favourable conditions in international markets and expansion in new foreign markets. The amount of investments in the processing industry is estimated at 411 billion tenge (US$1.24 billion) in the first half of 2017, which shows a 2.7 percent increase compared to the same period last year, noted the vice minister.

The industrialisation programme allowed the country to produce 500 different commodities previously not produced domestically, including passenger and freight cars, electric locomotives, x-ray equipment and pharmaceutical products.

One hundred projects worth more than one trillion tenge (US$3 billion) are to be implemented by the end of this year.

Read the rest here:

More than 250 projects worth $5.1 billion launched in first two years of industrialisation plan - Astana Times

NITDA targets increase in ICT contribution to GDP – Guardian (blog)

Posted on by

The National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) is working to ensure that Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector increases its 12.6 per cent contributions to the nations Gross Dometic Product (GDP) this year.

NITDA, through its Office for ICT Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIIE), is already grooming some technology startups that would aid the countrys match towards the enthronement of a knowledge economy.

According to the Director-General, NITDA, Dr. Isa Pantami, at the weekend, in Lagos, NITDA is unleashing digital economy potential to deepen GDP contribution by making ICT play a key role in all aspects of the economy.Pantami said NITDA is organising the StartUP Nigeria programme, the sixth edition, where a number of startups pitched their ideas and IT solutions to angel investors.

The tech Startups that pitched included Acounteer, TheFarmyard, BeatDrone, Six, Nicademia, Livekampus, Comestibles Nigeria, Novael, TapPay, SwiftCheckup and Middleman.com.ng, which is an ecommerce platform connecting buyers and sellers while providing other auxiliary services.

Pantami said, ICT is not only indispensable for developing new products and services but also for ensuring the survival of any business in the competitive world by providing ample opportunities for growth and profitability.

According to him, the Nigerian startup ecosystem, with proper regulations and support, has capacity to become the strong catalytic force for sustainable economic growth across nations.He said that NITDA has since commenced processes for proper regulation and development, crucial for supporting the startup and entrepreneurs ecosystem in the country.

The NITDAs interwoven roles are relevant for the country to achieve its purpose of creative transformation of knowledge and ideas into new products, processes, or services meeting market needs, which culminates in successful enterprises, Pantami said.

He stated that the competitiveness of any economy in the long term depends on innovation potential of the economy gained through entrepreneurship and effective technology transfer, especially now that revenue from the oil and gas industry is on downward trend.Pantami warned that Nigeria cannot remain an oil and gas-based resource based economy, as every projections show other countries are making a turn away from oil.

The NITDA DG said, StartUPNigeria held in Lagos is a prelude to GITEX 2017, as NITDA tends to select the best startups to represent the country. This is critical in helping even the regulatory aspects of the IT sector. We identify with startups that need our technical, financial supports to push their solutions forward.

We believe Lagos is home to innovative startups; thus, we intend to assist them improve on their works. The truth is this: our country relies solely on oil and gas sector; in UK for instance by 2040 they intend to ban diesel or petrol cars, so our reliance on oil is disturbing.

We have to move from oil resource to knowledge-based economy. ICT has the answer to this. The contribution of 12.6 per cent of ICT to GDP is second to oil at the moment, but will soon takeover. India depends on ICT as $143 billion annual comes from ICT; Nigeria accounts for 180 million with 60 per cent young people who are addicted to ICT.

The DG explained that the winners from StartUp Nigeria programme, being held across the country, would later represent Nigeria at this years Gulf Technology Exhibition (GITEX) in Dubai to pitch their innovative ideas to global investment community.

Earlier, Acting National Coordinator of OIIE, Dr. Amina Sambo Magaji, thanked the exemplary leadership of the NITDA DG and the management for giving OIIE platform to meet with startups and solve needs in the ecosystem.

She said that OIIEs vision to drive ICT innovation and entrepreneurship through policies, initiatives, partnership and programs implementation by focusing on socio- economic impact, competitiveness, and sustainable & inclusive growth, was carefully crafted to ensure the startups are impacted positively.

She said the Office is not relenting on its focus, amongst others, on innovation and entrepreneurship by fostering a more innovative digital economy through turning new ideas and inventions into products and technologies that spur job growth and competitiveness while promoting economic development.

21 Jul Telecoms

4 Aug Technology

8 Aug Technology

16 Aug Telecoms

17 Aug Telecoms

2 days ago Telecoms

Read the original here:

NITDA targets increase in ICT contribution to GDP - Guardian (blog)

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community – HuffPost

Posted on by

I started my professional career in the federal government, in the U.S. EPA. I was proud of our work in Washington and proud of our country. In the years since, I always thought our national government was capable of doing better, but mostly considered its dysfunction to be the result of conflicting interests and the role of money in politics and the media. I looked elsewhere for progress and found it everywhere. Then came President Trump: For most of the past seven months Ive found the federal government disheartening and threatening, but unsurprising. Last week all of that was replaced with shame. I was deeply ashamed of the behavior of Donald Trump as he made excuses for the racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and sexist fiends marching in Virginia. It was the worst behavior I have ever seen from an American president. The president is our head of state and our head of government. He is both king and prime minister. As the head of state, his job is to represent the American people and their values. Last week he failed in performing that function; he abdicated his position as head of state.

What do the rest of us do in the face of this onslaught? He is the duly elected president, and although how long he remains in office is difficult to predict, his legitimacy as president is real. Last week we saw a little bit of what we do. Corporate leaders ran away from his advisory councils and even Republican elected leaders took him on. There will be more of this to come because Donald Trumps greatest talent is calling attention to himself. He will do whatever it takes to get noticed and most of us cannot help but watch what he is doing. However, I am coming to the conclusion that our energies would be better spent elsewhere. The federal government is too important to ignore, and so we need to continue to stay engaged, but a higher proportion of our effort should be devoted to our communities, businesses, institutions, cities and states.

The school year will soon begin and millions of American children will return to classrooms. Teachers will engage with students, coaches will inspire kids, and parents will cheer from the sidelines. Our hospitals will heal the sick with technology that continues to progress, smartphones will provide us with even more distractions than they do today, and new technology will help move us toward a renewable resource-based economy. In my home city, teenagers will help a mom carry her babys stroller up the subway stairs, someone will carry groceries to an apartment for an elderly neighbor, and people will see something and say something. We will try to keep each other safe and secure in a world that really is better than the media wants us to believe.

It also means that we need to stop waiting for the federal government to come to our rescue and fund the aging infrastructure that is crumbling in our communities. We will need to generate our own revenues to maintain subways, build bridges and tunnels, repave roads, build water and waste systems, modernize our electric grid, and expand air and seaports. This will require taxes, user fees, and public-private partnerships. Investing in the future means that we defer some gratification today so our children can benefit in the future. Extreme income inequality will not be addressed by the federal tax code and so whatever adjustments can be made will take place by the market and by state and local actions.

The absence of a federal government will make it more difficult for poorer states to invest in the future, unless they can develop a strategy that attracts capital and wealth from the outside. Here in New York City, we have the wealth needed to invest, but are suffering from political posturing and preening by our mayor and governor. Our need for a well-maintained subway system is now being held hostage to their national political ambitions. But despite their dispute, New Yorkers have the ability to generate the funds we need and our attention should be focused on crafting a deal that allows our mass transit system to be maintained and expanded.

While racists may march with torches in Virginia, we see the new multi-racial, multi-national America taking shape on our sidewalks, in our school yards, in social gatherings, and in all of our public spaces. Despite the efforts to turn back the clock to an imaginary America, our demography and mass social change have made this entire nation the gorgeous mosaic that my colleague Professor David Dinkins called New York City a quarter century ago. Most people have friends from different parts of the world and of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Most of our family stories are immigration stories. All four of my grandparents were immigrants. The global economy and world wide web have led to increased global travel and immigration. As a nation that still has a history of welcoming immigrants, America has become more diverse over the past half century. According to DVera Cohn and Andrea Caumont of the Pew Research Center:

Americans are more racially and ethnically diverse than in the past, and the U.S. is projected to be even more diverse in the coming decades. By 2055, the U.S. will not have a single racial or ethnic majority. Much of this change has been (and will be) driven by immigration. Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S. in the past 50 years, mostly from Latin America and Asia. Today, a near-record 14% of the countrys population is foreign born compared with just 5% in 1965. Over the next five decades, the majority of U.S. population growth is projected to be linked to new Asian and Hispanic immigration. American attitudes about immigration and diversity are supportive of these changes for the most part. More Americans say immigrants strengthen the country than say they burden it, and most say the U.S.s increasing ethnic diversity makes it a better place to live.

The demonstrators in Virginia were seeking to resist this emerging reality and prevent this change from occurring, but most Americans and most communities embrace diversity. Immigration presents challenges, but American communities have always been built by people from different places coming together, finding common values and sharing the ideas, beliefs, food and customs they brought from their former home. Mayor Dinkins image of the gorgeous mosaic is appropriate here. Close up, each tile in the mosaic is distinct and identifiable, but when you step back and see how the tiles fit together you see a beautiful picture that has its own grace and logic. That is the American community that most of us see every day. It may not be visible from the penthouse of Trump Tower or the ballroom of Mar-a-Lago, but it is both the American dream and, for the most part, the American reality.

The recent effort to focus immigration on highly skilled workers misses the point. Yes, we want scientists and engineers from other nations. But we also want ambition, drive, daring and leadership. My grandfather, Ben Cohen, was a baker and a carpenter. He was not well-educated. But all five of his children turned out to be successful professionals. Wed like more Albert Einsteins but we need more Ben Cohens. In the coming decades, this nation can maintain its dynamism, as it has in the past, by being the last best hope of humanity. By being a gathering place for those yearning to be free. That was not the spirit of those carrying torches and chanting disgusting slogans, but it is the American spirit at its best. Despite the chaos that has enveloped the White House, we can take comfort in the day-to-day functioning of our American communities.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the original post here:

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community - HuffPost

5 candidates to watch in the as-yet undeclared BC Liberal leadership race – Straight.com

Posted on by

Nobody has officially declared that they're running for the leadership of the B.C. Liberal party.

But privately, party members are telling me that four MLAs and one MP are preparing campaigns to replace Christy Clark, who stepped down earlier this month.

There's no obvious frontrunner, which will make this contest more fun to watch from the sidelines.And there's no indication yet that the interim leader, Rich Coleman, or the former finance minister, Mike de Jong, are going to seek the top job.

Here are the possible contenders in alphabetical order, along with their strengths and weaknesses:

The former education minister is best known in Vancouver for firing the local school board and for trying to force the district to sell the Kingsgate Mall. It's not going to serve him well in B.C.'s largest city, but it might win him some support in other areas of the province.

First elected in 2013, Bernier was previously a two-term mayor of Dawson Creek and a one-term city councillor. According to his biography, he worked for 20 years in the natural gas industry.

Strengths: A folksy public speaker, Bernier would be popular in the 250 area code of mainland B.C. where there's a large number of party members. He might come across to them as the most likable leadership candidate.

Weaknesses: The B.C. Liberal government's record of funding education was pretty dismal in comparison to other provinces. Bernier's government was also blown out of the Supreme Court of Canada for its approach to negotiating with teachers.As a former education minister, he will have to wear this if he leads his party into a general election.

Plus, he's a huge supporter of the natural gas industry just as forest-fire-weary voters are becoming increasingly conscious about climate change. Many won't buy claims anymore that natural gas is a bridge to a cleaner future, particularly if Andrew Weaver remains leader of the B.C. Greens.

The Straight was the first to mention in print the possibility of the former corporate lawyer and rookie MLA becoming the next B.C. Liberal leader. A long-time party member, Lee worked for former justice minister and prime minister Kim Campbell many years ago.

Lee is the antithesis of Clark with his low-key demeanour. He's served on a bunch of nonprofit boards and chaired Peter Ladner's first campaign for Vancouver city council. This makes him remarkably well-connected.

Strengths: He will appeal to centrist B.C. Liberals hoping for the party to perform better in Metro Vancouver. Lee is also not stained by the B.C. Liberal record and he would probably hold his own discussing various public policies during leadership debates.

Weaknesses: Lee doesn't set the house on fire with his speeches. Party members might feel he's too boring to defeat a happy warrior like Premier John Horgan.

Plus, his inexperience as an elected politician might lead the media to treat his candidacy less seriously than the others. And one of his biggest problems is that most party members live outside of the Lower Mainland.

The former high-tech executive was appointed transportation and infrastructure minister immediately after being elected as an MLA.And transportation policies in the Lower Mainland led directly to the downfall of the B.C. Liberal government.

But Stone still represents a new generation. He's from a mid-size B.C. city that's making a transition from a resource-based economy to one more reliant on other goods and services. Given the number of party members residing outside of the Lower Mainland, he'll probably be among the frontrunners.

Strengths:Stone was born in 1972, which means he'll likely be the youngest candidate in the race. He could be the preferred candidate of libertarian young tech workers, which are growing in number. He's also articulate and he'll look the best on TV, which counts for a lot in politics these days.

Weaknesses:Stone was the frontman on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, the plebiscite defeating much-needed transit and transportation improvements, and even the politically suicidal move to bring ride-sharing to the Lower Mainland by the end of this year.

While these policies might have all made sense to a guy who regularly drives the Coquihalla and is comfortable programming his smartphone, they alienated local mayors. Ride-sharing also ticks off South Asian voters in constituencies that swing back and forth between the NDP and B.C. Liberals. This record as transportation minister raises questions whether he has sufficient political intuition to become premier.

Watts is the former mayor of Surrey and likely has the highest name recognition of any of the potential candidates listed here. Since sidling up to Stephen Harper and becoming a Conservative MP, she's fallen off the radar somewhat.

Her tenure as mayor was marked by massive public investments to turn Surrey City Centre into the region's second major downtown. So far, the results have been mixed, though the growth of the SFU campus, the creation of a new KPU campus and new library, and the promotion of a high-tech zone called Innovation Boulevard will probably pay decent dividends over the long term.

Watts has a certain magnetism when she enters a room full of supporters. But it's an open question whether she has sufficient public-policy depth or an understanding of the nuances of the province to defeat a politician as intelligent as Horgan. Watts's campaign flyer about terrorism during the last federal election campaign might make some B.C. Liberals question her intellect.

Strengths: Watts will have a fully formed political machine geared up from day one of the campaign. She'll be seen as a new face on the provincial scene. And she may be able to mobilize the politically influential South Asian community to come on-side with her because she wasn't associated with the disastrous ride-sharing idea promoted so eagerly by Stone and former cabinet minister Peter Fassbender.

Weaknesses: Watts is a federal Conservative, which will alienate federal Liberals within the party, of which there are many. She's not going to win over former B.C. Liberal voters who switched allegiance to the B.C. Greens because of Clark's environmental record. And she's not likely to help the party make a breakthrough on Vancouver Island, where the B.C. Liberals were nearly shut out this year.

The former minister of advanced education managed to avoid controversy even as the former finance minister, de Jong, was treating postsecondary institutions and students with a great deal of disdain. Wilkinson is a former corporate litigator with a medical degree, which makes him far more educated than his former party leader.

But will his upper-crust, downtown Vancouver sensibility be political poison in the 250 area code?

Strengths: If Wilkinson can keep his chippy side in check, he can be a strong debater. As leader, he has potential to raise lots of money. And he's not tied to the federal Conservatives, unlike Watts. He's also brighter than some of the others named above.

Weaknesses:It's hard to see how Wilkinson, a Rhodes scholar, is going to appeal to blue-collar workers, who've become a key part of the B.C. Liberal base under Clark's leadership. We've had boring premiers before and one of them, Bill Bennett, won three terms in office.

But in this modern age of social media and 24-hour news cycles, it's hard to imagine someone with Wilkinson's charisma deficit ever igniting passion among the masses. Plus, he hurt himself with environmentally inclined free enterprisers by thrashing the City of Vancouver's efforts to make the city 100 percent reliant on renewable energy by 2050. It's not smart if you want to appeal to younger urban voters.

Link:

5 candidates to watch in the as-yet undeclared BC Liberal leadership race - Straight.com

Movie Review: In Pattinson, ‘Twilight’ sidles up to Ratso Rizzo – The Providence Journal

Posted on by

By Ann HornadayThe Washington Post

In the lowlife picaresque "Good Time," Robert Pattinson delivers what some will surely call a career-making performance, especially if they've missed his impressive turns in such similarly non-"Twilight" indies as "The Rover," "Maps to the Stars," "Queen of the Desert" and "The Lost City of Z."

No matter. Connie Nikas, Pattinson's stumblebum character in "Good Time," feels reverse-engineered to allow the former teen screen idol the attention he deserves for serious-acting chops, checking every box from aggressively antisocial tendencies to a startling physical transformation. As "Good Time" opens, Connie bursts into an office where his hearing-impaired and cognitively delayed brother Nick (Ben Safdie) is being questioned by a well-meaning therapist. Connie arrives just at the moment when a seemingly long-buried trauma is surfacing, which alerts the audience to the multivalent irony of the film's title: No matter how noble the intentions of even the most optimistic protagonist, there's something to be said for good timing.

And some old-fashioned smarts and self-awareness wouldn't hurt either.

As Connie leads Nick on what begins as a caper and ends in his own increasingly hallucinatory journey through the neon-lit underworld of Queens, "Good Time" takes the shape of movies we've seen before. One scene elicits memories of "Dog Day Afternoon," while others recall "Midnight Cowboy," "Mean Streets" and "Panic in Needle Park." In a manic, dead-eyed rendition of an antihero who's one part Charlie Manson and one part Kurt Cobain (especially after an ill-advised dye job), Pattinson infuses Connie with both charm and malevolence. He'll do anything to get what he wants in the course of a fateful night of his own misbegotten making. In the name of fraternal loyalty, he'll manipulate himself into the pocketbooks and good graces of anyone whose path he crosses, whether it's the frowzy, magical-thinking woman he's dating (played with ditsy pathos by Jennifer Jason Leigh) or the wised-up but clearly vulnerable teenage granddaughter of a Haitian immigrant (Taliah Webster).

Co-directed by Safdie with his brother Josh, "Good Time" bears some resemblance to their previous films, "Daddy Longlegs" and "Heaven Knows What," both of which gave viewers an unsettlingly intimate glimpse of overwhelming love borne of dysfunction and dead ends. "Good Time" traffics in the same sentiments, but it also represents an artistic leap forward, both in its debt to canonical thrillers and its improbably rich look. Sean Price Williams, who shot "Heaven Knows What" as a gritty vrit-like piece of street art, here embraces a far more elegant, composed sense of visual beauty, occasionally leaving behind tight, jangly close-ups to take to the skies and deliver exhilarating views of the Queens streets down below. ("Good Time" was shot on 35 mm film, and it has the texture and translucence to show for it.)

As Connie trips the night fatalistic, a shaggy-dog story turns out to contain yet another shaggy-dog story, with the fablelike weirdness of "Good Time" taking on a harder edge by way of the assaultive, techno score (by Daniel Lopatin, under the recording alias of Oneohtrix Point Never) and Connie's own increasingly off-putting sense of exceptionalism. At one point, now conspiring with a hangdog miscreant named Ray (Buddy Duress), Connie delivers a screed against dependency that somehow mashes up Freud and Ayn Rand with his own supreme hypocrisy. He has a way of saying "God bless you" just before he tricks yet another mark into helping him down his particular road to hell.

Many of those victims are immigrants, making "Good Time" feel authentically of its time and place, especially when two black characters and not Connie are reflexively apprehended by the police. But the filmmakers choose to keep the film's politics buried under the surface of Connie's lunkhead-on-the-lam hop from bail bond office to bodega to pizza joint to hospital. (Josh Safdie wrote the script with his longtime collaborator Ronald Bronstein.) A climax set in a hellish after-hours amusement park pushes "Good Time's" visuals and the audience's patience to their limit. What starts out as an invigorating odyssey winds up becoming an enervating series of postures. For all of the Safdies' prowess, and Pattinson's willingness to tarnish and rough up his own celebrity persona, there's little by way of deeper meaning to a pulp thrill ride that turns out to be as petty as Connie's crimes.

**

"Good Time"

Starring:Robert Pattinson, Benny Safdie, Taliah Webster

Rating: R for crude language throughout, violence, drug use and sexuality

Running time: 1:40

Read the rest here:

Movie Review: In Pattinson, 'Twilight' sidles up to Ratso Rizzo - The Providence Journal

Why Stephen K. Bannon was such a failure – The Washington Post – Washington Post

Posted on by

Stephen K. Bannon, the recently deposed architect ofPresident Trumps nonexistent populist agenda, wishes it was the 1930s.

That, of course, is what he promised to do: to make things as exciting now as they were back then. Now, he might not have been talking about the war or the depression or the fascists in other countries, but what he did mean was a politics where racial resentment and economic populism could once again exist side-by-side. Where Republicans could targetMuslims for special restrictionsand raise the top marginal tax rate to 44 percent; could cut legal immigration in half and undo free trade deals; could stick up for white supremacistsand spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. In other words, where the ideological heirs of the Dixiecrats were the ones calling the shots.

They havent been for a long time now.

Why not? Well, because our parties have sorted themselves based on race first and economics second. The political history of the past 100 years, you see, has really been the story of the rise and fall of the New Deal coalition. Franklin D. Roosevelts response to the Great Depression brought blacks, liberals, Northern ethnics and Southern whites all together until the civil rights movement drove them apart. Its true that the Dixiecrats the Jim Crow-supporting Southerners who left the Democratic Party to form their own, before eventually migrating over to the Republican one werent all in favor of big government, but a lot of them were. Forced to choose between that and racial backlash, however, they chose racial backlash, whether that wascalls for law and order or denunciations of welfare queens or, in the past few years, chants of build the wall.

Bannon didnt want them to choose anymore. He understood that a lot of Republicans dont care about Ayn Rand-inspired odes to heroic entrepreneurs, or paeans to the Schumpeterian beauty of creative destruction, or how much capital gains are taxed. They want their Social Security and their Medicare. Theyre called Trump voters, and they arent really represented in Washington. Thats because the money men and interest groups that members of Congress rely on ensure complete ideological conformity on the issue nearest and dearest to the hearts or rather the wallets of the donor class: how much theyre taxed. Bannon wanted to change that so people could get Democratic economic policies together with a Republican brand of racial pandering.

The only problem is you cant. Just look at Bannons proposal to increase the top tax rate to 44 percent. Who was ever going to vote for that? Republicans never would when their partys entire raison detre for the past 40 years has been keeping taxes as low as possible on the rich. And neither would Democrats when Bannon had alienated them about as much as possible with his barely disguised attempt to ban Muslims. The same was true of infrastructure. Republicans didnt really want to do it, and Democrats didnt want to with Trump. It reduced Bannon to being able to do little more than alternately insist that he wanted to build a rainbow coalition of populists we'll get 60 percent of the white vote and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote, and well govern for 50 years, he rather modestly claimed and cheer, for example, when Trump said last Fridays neo-Nazi rally was full of very fine people. Bannon never understood that one made the other impossible.

Bannon thought he was a revolutionary, but he was just whistling Dixie.

Visit link:

Why Stephen K. Bannon was such a failure - The Washington Post - Washington Post

What’s Wrong With America? – Falls Church News Press

Posted on by

So with Trump, whats wrong with us? How did we get to this point? What can we do about it? These are the great questions historically associated with the outdated existentialism of an angst-dominated post-World War II world when the (highly overrated) danger of Soviet subversion and the threat of a nuclear war disturbed the sleep of millions on almost a nightly basis.

We used to ask such questions about ourselves as individuals, as well as more collectively as a nation. Herbert Marcuse (remember him?) made his career addressing such anxieties from a theoretical-existentialist perspective. The stress associated with it helped give rise to the what me worry? and do it! 100 years from now, no one will know the difference era of the 1960s so-called hippie drugs, sex and rock and roll counterculture, at least among younger people.

There was the bomb. Some of us remember the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the planet came perilously close to an unloading of mutual and assured destruction. This writer as a lad had routine nightmares of mushroom clouds appearing on the horizon in those days and an associated horrid sensation of raw fear.

Movies like Dr.Stangelove and On the Beach didnt help to relieve the stress. Then there were the assassinations, of JFK, of Malcolm X, of Martin Luther King and of Bobby Kennedy. Then came the inner city riots. Then came the Vietnam War and with it, the universal draft. It was the last American war involving a draft, because the powers that be recognized that it was the singularly-greatest cause of the national domestic revolt against that war. My brother amazingly survived two tours of duty up the Mekong Delta on swift boats and I had two close friends, old high school baseball buddies, who died there, one by stepping on a mine the first day he was there.

Then there was the pervasive atmosphere of angry discrimination that saturated the culture, snarling at radical social disruptions like interracial marriage and, God forbid, pride in being LGBT. In the 1970s, cults exploded as remnants of the rudderless young people were lured by authoritative charlatans with answers. They were of the flower child variety on one end of the spectrum, and then of the human potential movement variety on the other, the nastier form of sensory deprivation and ego-stripping behavior modification techniques that became all the rage. Corporate America bought into it big time, ordering their employees to drink that Kool-Aid, so to speak, with the aim of improving productivity and justifying low wages by brainwashing their minions into repudiating any moral responsibility for anything beyond their own selfish self-interests.

This dovetailed with the selfish philosophies of the followers of Ayn Rand and the rise of so-called postmodern realism that set about ridiculing and discrediting any notions of love and romance. Postmodernism respects only pleasure and power and its philosophical constructs pervaded American university campuses and the arts, alike. Michel Foucault, theories of the selfish genes being like invisible hands governing all behavior, human sapien humorless advances toward immortality and the proliferation of remarkably dystopian scenarios of the future dominated.

On the flip side, religion became fundamentalist to a degree never so pervasive before, and blindly political.

Our great national sin has become selfish self-entitlement. Without excuse, people now demand to do it their way, with commitments to social bonds, reasonable compromises and covenants of mutual interests seen as the enemy.

I Want It, And I Want It Now! This is now the national mantra, more relevant and valid than E Pluribus Unum.

This drove the national economy into the ditch in the Great Recession, and there are signs that another one is on the way. It has led to the opioid epidemic, a nation hooked on drugs far more potent than heroin.

It has given rise to the Roman Empire-like bread and circuses, the common national religion being the rituals associated with wildly popular socially-sanctioned manslaughter in the form of football. Destroying brains is now our national pastime, in the face of the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence of how serious it is.

So, whats wrong with America? Try its people.

Nicholas Benton may be emailed at nfbenton@fcnp.com.

comments

Go here to read the rest:

What's Wrong With America? - Falls Church News Press

Randy Bryce is More Than A Mustache – Progressive.org

Posted on by

It was a friendly audience, but Randy Bryces voice shook anyway.

This speech was among his first to a national crowd of this sizeover 1500 people passionate about progressive politics packed into a cavernous hall at the Netroots Nation conference held in Atlanta earlier this month. Towering screens on either side of the podium projected his now famously mustachioed face to the crowd.

Bryce took pauses to check his notes. A bumped mic filled the air with static. He wasnt smooth or showy in the way one might expect a U.S. Congressional candidate to be, especially one seeking to unseat a nearly 20-year incumbent, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

But then Randy Bryce said something that Paul Ryan could not: What Im doing isnt about me.

That message is such a threat that Ryan is planning his first town hall meeting in nearly two years, an event that will be broadcast Monday night on CNN. Its also an idea that has galvanized a left wary of personality politics, signaling a return to running on the issues and for the people.

Bryce, whos lost each of his three previous bids for elected office in Wisconsin, made his mission clear in his first campaign ad, released in June.

We can do so much better together, as a community, he says. And our future depends on it.

Its a powerful line that was even more powerfully timed, released smack in the middle of Republican efforts to pass the wildly unpopular Affordable Care Act replacement, a bill written by his opponent.

Within 24 hours, the video went viral and generated $100,000 in donations for Bryce, and an equally stunning number of Twitter followers. He appeared on cable news shows and very suddenly, noted Esquire in one of several glossy magazine features, became a capital-N, capital-F National Figure.

The ad focuses on health care but Bryce and his campaign have zeroed in on an even bigger vulnerability of Ryans, and more broadly, of the American experiment itself: the dogged devotion, both personally and politically, to individualism.

Ryan has built his entire political career on prioritizing the individual over society. This foundational conservative principle always made sense to the son of a wealthy and well-connected family. Whatever Ryan aimed for, he most often got.

Ryans devotion to philosopher Ayn Rand is well-documented. He gives copies of Atlas Shrugged as Christmas gifts, he has said, and makes all of his interns read it.

Individualism is the through-line of Ryans entire legislative agenda, including his draconian budgets that attempted to slash social programs that work to benefit the collective, and most recently, the American Health Care Act.

During the lead-up to the 2010 election, in which a wave of Tea Party candidates who idolize Ryan were voted into office, Ryan called the tax-and-spend agenda of the still-new Obama administration an attack on individualism and freedom...an attack on the moral foundation of America.

It is fitting then that Ryans first town hall in nearly two years, is not really a traditional open town hall with a focus on constituent questions, but instead a glittering CNN television event, moderated by news host Jake Tapper. Its a rehash of last years CNN-Paul Ryan production in New York City prior to the Republican National Convention, adjusted so that locals can come this timeif their application for an invite is accepted. The network is also vetting questions.

Problem with calling this thing a #townhall is that Ryan thinks he's done his due diligence representing which he hasn't, Bryce tweeted Sunday night.

The event itself seems like a direct response to the Bryce campaign, which has repeatedly pointed out Ryans lack of local town hall meetings in the last two years. Earlier this summer, Ryan explained that he offers office hours and phone conference meetings instead, citing obvious security concerns and the potential for a shouting fest.

Thats no deterrent for Bryce, who cut his teeth as the longtime volunteer political coordinator for his union Ironworkers Local 8. He was a fixture at the Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison during the days of so-called Wisconsin Uprising, when massive protests swelled the city following Scott Walkers multi-pronged attack on labor unions.

Its kind of similar to grabbing a bullhorn, he told The Progressive after taking to the stage for his big speech in Atlanta. Its actually easier because I dont have to yell and I have both of my hands free.

Bryces campaign has leaned into his working-class bonafides as an ironworker and a union man. He eschews the suit and tie favored by Ryan for literal blue, collared shirts. He passed out rainbow-colored toy mustaches at the Madison Pride Parade.

With the launch of his campaign, Twitter squealed, I want him to be my father. He was likened to Ron Swanson, a manly, thickly mustachioed government employee on the TV series Parks & Recreation. One fan tweeted her childrens drawings of Bryce as superhero Iron Man.

Its tempting to iconize Bryce, but too much of an emphasis on personality over issues can be dangerous, explains LaToia Jones, a longtime Democratic organizer who unsuccessfully ran for vice chair of the Democratic National Convention earlier this year.

The issue that I have with personality-driven campaigns is that you lose the local connection, Jones told The Progressive. It gets us the White House but it loses the House and the Senate. The reality is that when we focus on one person and one persons vision as opposed to talking about the democratic values we have locally, we dont have statehouses, we dont win municipal elections, we dont win governors races.

Maryland gubernatorial candidate and former NAACP president Ben Jealous, stumping alongside Bryce at Netroots Nation, also honed in on this same message.

We're not going to win by running to the left, or running to the right, but running towards the people," he said to cheers.

While Bernie Sanders presidential campaign successfully organized around core democratic issues and a for the people message, critics said it suffered from a cult of personality that coalesced around Sanders in a way that alienated potential Democratic voters.

It is smart then, for Bryce to continue countering Ryan with the language of we and the platform to back it up. Whether it is healthcare or social security or public education or fighting climate change, the most pressing challenges we face require the collective will to carry each other.

Id like to think other people want the best for their neighbors, Bryce said. Thats pretty much all that Im doing.

Excerpt from:

Randy Bryce is More Than A Mustache - Progressive.org

Now the Libertarians have known sin: Reckoning with the rise of the … – Salon

Posted on by

Last December as the smoke was clearing from the electoral explosion and many of us were still shell-shocked and wandering around blindly searching for emotional shelter, Salons Matthew Sheffieldwrote a series of articlesabout the rise of the alt-right. The movement had been discussed during the campaign, of course. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton even gave a big speech about it. Trumps campaign strategist and chiefconsigliere, Steve Bannon the once and future executive editor of Breitbart News had even bragged that his operation was the platform of the alt-right just a few months earlier. But after the election there was more interest than ever in this emerging political movement.

Its an interesting story about a group of non-interventionist right-wingers, who came together in the middle of the last decade in search of solidarity in their antipathy toward the Bush administrations wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a motley group of conservatives, white nationalists and Libertarians that broke apart almost as soon as they came together. The more clever among them saw the potential for this new brand and began to market themselves as the alt-right, and it eventually morphed into what it is today. The series is a good read and explains that the alt-right really was a discrete new movement within the far right wing and not simply a clever renaming of racist and Nazi groups.

This week, conservative writer Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast, a Trump critic,wrote a pieceabout the Libertarian influence on the alt-right and suggested that Libertarians work harder to distance themselves from this now-infamous movement. He points out that former Rep. Ron Pauls presidential campaigns were a nexus of what became alt-right activism. Sheffield had written about that too:

Pretty much all of the top personalities at the Right Stuff, a neo-Nazi troll mecca, started off as conventional libertarians and Paul supporters, according to the sites creator, an anonymous man who goes by the name Mike Enoch.

We were all libertarians back in the day. I mean, everybody knows this,he said on an alt-right podcast last month. [Note: This podcast seems to have been deleted.]

It wasnt just obscure neo-Nazi trolls. Virtually all the prominent figures in or around the alt-right movement, excepting sympathizers and fellow travelers like Bannon and Donald Trump himself, were Paul supporters:Richard Spencer,Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor,Milo Yiannopoulosand Alex Jones. (The latter two deny being part of the alt-right, but have unquestionably contributed to its rise in prominence.) Pauls online support formed the basis for what would become the online alt-right, the beating heart of the new movement.

In fact, Ron Paul then a Texas congressman and the father of Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the original alt-right candidate, long before Donald Trump came along. Paul was also, by far, the most popular Libertarian in America.

Those of us observing the Paul phenomenon and Libertarianism from the left always found it curious in this regard. Pauls racism was simply undeniable.It was documented for decades. He hid behind the states rights argument, as pro-Confederate racists have always done, but it was never very convincing. If you are a principled Libertarian who believes in small government and inalienable individual rights, what difference does it make whether a federal or state government is the instrument of oppression?

Most of us thought a lot of Pauls appeal, especially to young white males, came down to a loathing for the uptight religious conservatism of the GOP, along with Pauls endorsement of drug legalization. That made some sense. Why would all these young dudes care about the capital gains tax?

And lets face facts, it wasnt just Libertarians who could be dazzled by Pauls iconoclasm.There were plenty of progressives drawn to his isolationist stance as well.But as it turns out, among that group of Atlas Shrugged fans and stoners were a whole lot of white supremacists, all of whom abandoned Ron Pauls son Rand in 2016 when Donald Trump came along and spoke directly to their hearts and minds.

Is there something about Libertarianism that attracts white supremacists? It seems unlikely, except to the extent that it was a handy way to argue against federal civil rights laws, something that both Paulpreandfilsendorsed during their careers, legitimizing that point of view as a Libertarian principle. (In fairness, Rand Paul has tried to pursue more progressive racial policies in recent years which may also have helped drive away his dads supporters.) Other than that, though, it seems to me that Libertarianism has simply been a way station for young and angry white males as they awaited theirGod Emperor, as they call Trump on the wildly popular alt-right site, r/The_Donald.

Still, Libertarians do have something to answer for. While principled Libertarianslike Cathy Youngcertainly condemned the racism in their ranks at the time, but others who supported Ron Paul failed to properly condemn the rank bigotry undergirding the Paul philosophy.

Lewiss Daily Beast piece certainly provoked some reaction among Libertarians. Nick Gillespie at Reasonobjectedto the characterization of Libertarianism as a pipeline to the alt-right, writing that the alt-right and Trumpism, too, to the extent that it has any coherence is an explicit rejection of foundational libertarian beliefs in free trade and free migration along with experiments in living that make a mess of rigid categories that appeal to racists, sexists, protectionists, and other reactionaries. So he rejects calls to purge Libertarianism of alt-righters, since he believes they were never really Libertarians in the first place.

Gillespie does, however, agree that Libertarian true believers should call out such people wherever we find them espousing their anti-modern, tribalistic, anti-individualistic, and anti-freedom agenda. (It would have been easy to include racist in that list but, being generous, perhaps he meant it to fall under the term tribalistic.)

Meanwhile, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler addresses some Libertariansmisplaced affinity for the Confederacy,a phenomenon I must admit I didnt know existed. Evidently,there really are Libertarianswho take the side of the secessionists, supposedly on the basis of tariffs and Abraham Lincolns allegedly monstrous record on civil liberties. Adler patiently explains why this is all nonsense and wrote, Libertarianism may not be responsible for the alt-right, but its fair to ask whether enough libertarians have done enough to fight it within their own ranks.

Good for these prominent Libertarians for being willing to confront the currents of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia that at the very least have contaminated their movement. We await the same honest self-appraisal from the conservative movement and Republican leaders as a whole.

Read more from the original source:

Now the Libertarians have known sin: Reckoning with the rise of the ... - Salon

What Are Sound Weapons? – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Earlier this month the U.S. State Department disclosed that several Havana-based diplomats have experienced incidents which have caused a variety of physical symptoms. Secretary Rex Tillerson said the incidents began last fall, calling them health attacks.

They were not the good kind of health attacks. Symptoms have included severe hearing loss, headaches, and problems with balanceforcing some diplomats to return to the United States. We hold the Cuban authorities responsible for finding out who is carrying out these health attacks, Tillerson said.

His remarks came after a search for the cause of the symptomsalso reported among Canadian diplomats living in Cuban housingled some U.S. officials to conclude that the weapon is inaudible sonic waves.

This morning journalists at CBS reported that the diplomats medical records indicated that they had undergone audiological evaluations and a battery of other tests, and that there was documented concern for the possibility that they were targets of a type of sonic attack directed at their homes, which were provided by the Cuban government. The analysis coincides with reports from the Associated Press earlier this month: After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences.

Cuba has denied what would be an unprecedented breach of obligation to protect foreign diplomats, and not to blast them with acoustic energy. But exposure to sound waves would be a plausible explanation for this constellation of vague symptoms unified by a relationship to the inner ear.

It is indeed possible to weaponize energy waves with frequencies outside the range that the human ear can detect. The concept is not new, and it has a rich history in science fiction. Weaponization of sound was a plot point in the book that Secretary Tillerson has called his favorite, Ayn Rands 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, the federal science institute creates a weapon of mass destruction which deploys ultrasonic waves. The head of state uses the device to flatten a goat in a demonstration of power, and later to destroy the work of industrious private inventors, successfully stifling private-sector innovation.

The health effects of exposure to inaudible sonic waves are also real. In 2001 after residents of Kokomo, Indiana, began reporting symptoms including annoyance, sleep disturbance, headaches, and nausea, the U.S. National Institutes of Health investigated the issue. The result was a dossier on the toxicology of infrasoundacoustic energy with wavelengths of 17 meters or more. The agency couldnt pin down the cause of the Indiana residents symptoms as infrasound, but the report did confirm that infrasound can cause fatigue, apathy, hearing loss, confusion, and disorientation. In one study cited therein, volunteers exposed to industrial infrasound for just 15 minutes reported fatigue, depression, pressure in the ears, loss of concentration, drowsiness, and vibration of internal organs.

While infrasound would seem to be a possible and plausible mechanism of the health attacks in Cuba, CNN has also reported that some incidents were accompanied by audible noisesdeafeningly loud sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor. The mechanism in that case would be less subtle. Deafeningly loud sound is so called because it either ruptures the eardrum or jolts the tiny bones of the middle ear.

At the same time, CNN also posits, The sophistication of the attack has led U.S. officials to suspect a third country is involved, perhaps seeking payback against the United States and Canada or to drive a wedge between those countries and Cuba, raising the possibility of operatives from Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, or Iran.

It's not clear why these attacks would qualify as sophisticated. Noise-induced hearing loss affects around one in four peopleonly, usually, its due to lower-level exposures over years, from attending concerts, shooting guns, and being too cool to cover ones ears when an ambulance screams past on the street. While the investigation in Havana unfolds, fascination with this sort of attack can be a reminder that it is worth arming ourselves in daily life against the more quotidian forms of sonic weaponry.

Read the original post:

What Are Sound Weapons? - The Atlantic

Euthanasia – New World Encyclopedia

Posted on by

Euthanasia (from Greek: -, eu, "good," , thanatos, "death") is the practice of terminating the life of a human being or animal with an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or a possibly undignified death in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. It is a form of homicide; the question is whether it should be considered justifiable or criminal.

Euthanasia refers both to the situation when a substance is administered to a person with intent to kill that person or, with basically the same intent, when removing someone from life support. There may be a legal divide between making someone die and letting someone die. In some instances, the first is (in some societies) defined as murder, the other is simply allowing nature to take its course. Consequently, laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care or treatments become available. Thus, while euthanasia is legal in some nations, in others it is criminalized.

Of related note is the fact that suicide, or attempted suicide, is no longer a criminal offense in most states. This demonstrates that there is consent among the states to self determination, however, the majority of the states argue that assisting in suicide is illegal and punishable even when there is written consent from the individual. The problem with written consent is that it is still not sufficient to show self-determination, as it could be coerced; if active euthanasia were to become legal, a process would have to be in place to assure that the patient's consent is fully voluntary.

Euthanasia has been used with several meanings:

The term euthanasia is used only in senses (6) and (7) in this article. When other people debate about euthanasia, they could well be using it in senses (1) through (5), or with some other definition. To make this distinction clearer, two other definitions of euthanasia follow:

There can be passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive euthanasia.

James Rachels has challenged both the use and moral significance of that distinction for several reasons:

To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in this request. Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment. The justification for his doing so is that the patient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse (Rachels 1975 and 1986).

There is also involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary euthanasia.

Mercy killing refers to killing someone to put them out of their suffering. The killer may or may not have the informed consent of the person killed. We shall use the term mercy killing only when there is no consent. Legally, mercy killing without consent is usually treated as murder.

Murder is intentionally killing someone in an unlawful way. There are two kinds of murder:

In most parts of the world, types (1) and (2) murder are treated identically. In other parts, type (1) murder is excusable under certain special circumstances, in which case it ceases to be considered murder. Murder is, by definition, unlawful. It is a legal term, not a moral one. Whether euthanasia is murder or not is a simple question for lawyers"Will you go to jail for doing it or won't you?"

Whether euthanasia should be considered murder or not is a matter for legislators. Whether euthanasia is good or bad is a deep question for the individual citizen. A right to die and a pro life proponent could both agree "euthanasia is murder," meaning one will go to jail if he were caught doing it, but the right to die proponent would add, "but under certain circumstances, it should not be, just as it is not considered murder now in the Netherlands."

The term "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words eu and thanatos, which combined means good death. Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C.E. The original Oath states: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life.

The English Common Law from the 1300s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. It distinguished a suicide, who was by definition of unsound mind, from a felo-de-se or "evildoer against himself," who had coolly decided to end it all and, thereby, perpetrated an infamous crime. Such a person forfeited his entire estate to the crown. Furthermore his corpse was subjected to public indignities, such as being dragged through the streets and hung from the gallows, and was finally consigned to "ignominious burial," and, as the legal scholars put it, the favored method was beneath a crossroads with a stake driven through the body.

Since the nineteenth century, euthanasia has sparked intermittent debates and activism in North America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel Emanuel, it was the availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era of euthanasia. In 1828, the first known anti-euthanasia law in the United States was passed in the state of New York, with many other localities and states following suit over a period of several years.

Euthanasia societies were formed in England, in 1935, and in the U.S., in 1938, to promote aggressive euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the U.S. or England, in 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain. During this period, euthanasia proposals were sometimes mixed with eugenics.

While some proponents focused on voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, others expressed interest in involuntary euthanasia for certain eugenic motivations (targeting those such as the mentally "defective"). Meanwhile, during this same era, U.S. court trials tackled cases involving critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as mercy killings, such as by parents of their severely disabled children (Kamisar 1977).

Prior to World War II, the Nazis carried out a controversial and now-condemned euthanasia program. In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, involuntarily euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered "unworthy of life. This program was later extended to include older children and adults.

Leo Alexander, a judge at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, employed a "slippery slope" argument to suggest that any act of mercy killing inevitably will lead to the mass killings of unwanted persons:

The beginnings at first were a subtle shifting in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.

Critics of this position point to the fact that there is no relation at all between the Nazi "euthanasia" program and modern debates about euthanasia. The Nazis, after all, used the word "euthanasia" to camouflage mass murder. All victims died involuntarily, and no documented case exists where a terminal patient was voluntarily killed. The program was carried out in the closest of secrecy and under a dictatorship. One of the lessons that we should learn from this experience is that secrecy is not in the public interest.

However, due to outrage over Nazi euthanasia crimes, in the 1940s and 1950s, there was very little public support for euthanasia, especially for any involuntary, eugenics-based proposals. Catholic church leaders, among others, began speaking against euthanasia as a violation of the sanctity of life.

Nevertheless, owing to its principle of double effect, Catholic moral theology did leave room for shortening life with pain-killers and what would could be characterized as passive euthanasia (Papal statements 1956-1957). On the other hand, judges were often lenient in mercy-killing cases (Humphrey and Wickett, 1991, ch.4).

During this period, prominent proponents of euthanasia included Glanville Williams (The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law) and clergyman Joseph Fletcher ("Morals and medicine"). By the 1960s, advocacy for a right-to-die approach to voluntary euthanasia increased.

A key turning point in the debate over voluntary euthanasia (and physician-assisted dying), at least in the United States, was the public furor over the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. In 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan, for reasons still unknown, ceased breathing for several minutes. Failing to respond to mouth-to mouth resuscitation by friends she was taken by ambulance to a hospital in New Jersey. Physicians who examined her described her as being in "a chronic, persistent, vegetative state," and later it was judged that no form of treatment could restore her to cognitive life. Her father asked to be appointed her legal guardian with the expressed purpose of discontinuing the respirator which kept Karen alive. After some delay, the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the request. The respirator was turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan remained alive but comatose until June 11, 1985, when she died at the age of 31.

In 1990, Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. Kevorkian was later tried and convicted in 1999, for a murder displayed on television. Meanwhile in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia.

Suicide or attempted suicide, in most states, is no longer a criminal offense. This demonstrates that there is consent among the states to self determination, however, the majority of the states postulate that assisting in suicide is illegal and punishable even when there is written consent from the individual. Let us now see how individual religions regard the complex subject of euthanasia.

In Catholic medical ethics, official pronouncements tend to strongly oppose active euthanasia, whether voluntary or not. Nevertheless, Catholic moral theology does allow dying to proceed without medical interventions that would be considered "extraordinary" or "disproportionate." The most important official Catholic statement is the Declaration on Euthanasia (Sacred Congregation, Vatican 1980).

The Catholic policy rests on several core principles of Catholic medical ethics, including the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, concomitant human rights, and due proportionality in casuistic remedies (Ibid.).

Protestant denominations vary widely on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death. Since the 1970s, Evangelical churches have worked with Roman Catholics on a sanctity of life approach, though the Evangelicals may be adopting a more exceptionless opposition. While liberal Protestant denominations have largely eschewed euthanasia, many individual advocates (such as Joseph Fletcher) and euthanasia society activists have been Protestant clergy and laity. As physician assisted dying has obtained greater legal support, some liberal Protestant denominations have offered religious arguments and support for limited forms of euthanasia.

Not unlike the trend among Protestants, Jewish movements have become divided over euthanasia since the 1970s. Generally, Orthodox Jewish thinkers oppose voluntary euthanasia, often vigorously, though there is some backing for voluntary passive euthanasia in limited circumstances (Daniel Sinclair, Moshe Tendler, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Moshe Feinstein). Likewise, within the Conservative Judaism movement, there has been increasing support for passive euthanasia. In Reform Judaism responsa, the preponderance of anti-euthanasia sentiment has shifted in recent years to increasing support for certain passive euthanasia.

In Theravada Buddhism, a monk can be expelled for praising the advantages of death, even if they simply describe the miseries of life or the bliss of the afterlife in a way that might inspire a person to commit suicide or pine away to death. In caring for the terminally ill, one is forbidden to treat a patient so as to bring on death faster than would occur if the disease were allowed to run its natural course (Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4).

In Hinduism, the Law of Karma states that any bad action happening in one lifetime will be reflected in the next. Euthanasia could be seen as murder, and releasing the Atman before its time. However, when a body is in a vegetative state, and with no quality of life, it could be seen that the Atman has already left. When avatars come down to earth they normally do so to help out humankind. Since they have already attained Moksha they choose when they want to leave.

Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not interfere in this. Euthanasia and suicide are not included among the reasons allowed for killing in Islam.

"Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice" (Qur'an 17:33).

"If anyone kills a personunless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the landit would be as if he killed the whole people" (Qur'an 5:32).

The Prophet said: "Amongst the nations before you there was a man who got a wound, and growing impatient (with its pain), he took a knife and cut his hand with it and the blood did not stop till he died. Allah said, 'My Slave hurried to bring death upon himself so I have forbidden him (to enter) Paradise'" (Sahih Bukhari 4.56.669).

The debate in the ethics literature on euthanasia is just as divided as the debate on physician-assisted suicide, perhaps more so. "Slippery-slope" arguments are often made, supported by claims about abuse of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Arguments against it are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, autonomy and quality-of-life-base arguments are made in support of euthanasia, underscored by claims that when the only way to relieve a dying patient's pain or suffering is terminal sedation with loss of consciousness, death is a preferable alternativean argument also made in support of physician-assisted suicide.

To summarize, there may be some circumstances when euthanasia is the morally correct action, however, one should also understand that there are real concerns about legalizing euthanasia because of fear of misuse and/or overuse and the fear of the slippery slope leading to a loss of respect for the value of life. What is needed are improvements in research, the best palliative care available, and above all, people should, perhaps, at this time begin modifying homicide laws to include motivational factors as a legitimate defense.

Just as homicide is acceptable in cases of self-defense, it could be considered acceptable if the motive is mercy. Obviously, strict parameters would have to be established that would include patients' request and approval, or, in the case of incompetent patients, advance directives in the form of a living will or family and court approval.

Mirroring this attitude, there are countries and/or statessuch as Albania (in 1999), Australia (1995), Belgium (2002), The Netherlands (2002), the U.S. state of Oregon, and Switzerland (1942)that, in one way or other, have legalized euthanasia; in the case of Switzerland, a long time ago.

In others, such as UK and U.S., discussion has moved toward ending its illegality. On November 5, 2006, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled newborns. The report did not address the current illegality of euthanasia in the United Kingdom, but rather calls for reconsideration of its viability as a legitimate medical practice.

In the U.S., recent Gallup Poll surveys showed that more than 60 percent of Americans supported euthanasia (Carroll 2006; Moore 2005) and attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide resulted in ballot initiatives and legislation bills within the United States in the last 20 years. For example, Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of assisted suicide, in 2000, recognizing individual interests and deciding how, rather than whether they will die.

Perhaps a fitting conclusion of the subject could be the Japanese suggestion of the Law governing euthanasia:

All links retrieved August 10, 2017.

Autopsy Brain death Clinical death Euthanasia Persistent vegetative state Terminal illness

Immortality Infant mortality Legal death Maternal death Mortality rate

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

View original post here:

Euthanasia - New World Encyclopedia

Euthanasia Wisconsin Right to Life – wrtl.org

Posted on by

It has been said that if a fence is built around something, one should learn why the fence is there before dismantling it. For thousands of years, in virtually every culture, a legal fence has prohibited euthanasia and treated it as homicide.

Current trends indicate a willingness to dismantle this protective fence, picket by picket, fueled by the desire for patient self-determination, death with dignity, and the right to control the time of death.

The first picket for which removal is advocated is to allow someone to voluntarily choose death and have someone else administer it. What harm would there be, the argument goes, if the choice is freely made, strictly regulated, and achieves a good end namely, relief from suffering or choosing ones own time?

Perhaps you are persuaded by this reasoning. It is important for you to understand why this rationale is flawed and puts many vulnerable people at risk.

Shouldnt euthanasia be legal if a patient freely requests death?This argument might seem reasonable to you. Supporters of euthanasia argue that the right of a competent patient to make medical treatment decisions should include the right to request and receive death by lethal injection.

There are dangers, however, even when patients are allowed to freely request euthanasia:

Could we just legalize voluntary euthanasia and stop there?The answer is clearly NO for legal, moral and practical reasons.

Legal:Courts all over the United States have already moved from recognizing the right of competent patients to refuse medical treatment to granting that benefit to those unable or unwilling to make the decision for themselves. The same legal principles would apply if voluntary euthanasia were available. For example, if a person not in pain can request and receive a lethal injection, then how can a request be denied to a person with mental retardation perceived to be suffering? The law will not allow such an inequity to stand.

Moral:If killing a person because he or she is suffering is morally justifiable, then it is equally moral for someone else to make the decision for a person who is incapacitated and unable to do so.

Practical:Did you know that doctors in Nazi Germany killed up to 250,000 people who were deemed unfit? These doctors added more and more people into the unfit category, including those with mental retardation, mental illness, epilepsy, and bed wetters. The experience in the Netherlands has been the same. This country initially approved only voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide which rapidly developed to include family members making death decisions for those who are incapacitated. The Netherlands recently adopted guidelines allowing parents to consent to direct killing of newborn infants with disabilities.

Shouldnt euthanasia be available for people who are in pain?No one wants to be in pain or see their loved ones in pain. This is a very real fear you may have. Fortunately, we live in a time when medicine has made great strides to manage pain. It is important to have a medical team who understands how to relieve pain.

The Wisconsin Cancer Pain Initiative has been working for many years to teach medical professionals how to relieve pain. Please clickhttp://aspi.wisc.edu/wpi/to visit their web site.

The Alliance of State Pain Initiatives (ASPI) has an excellent booklet with information for patients on how to discuss pain symptoms with their doctor. The booklet can be found atwww.aspi.wisc.edu/CPCBR.htm.

In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, the most important reasons people report for requesting suicide is not pain but loss of autonomy and fear of incapacity. We hope after reviewing this information that you will not use pain as a reason to support euthanasia.

What other reasons are promoted for using euthanasia? Make no mistake: while proponents of euthanasia sell the act by talking about people who are in severe pain, they have no intention of stopping at pain or even terminal illness.

A professor from Brown University, Jacob M. Appel, wrote in the May-June 2007 issue of the Hastings Center Report that assisted suicide should be available to people who suffer from repeated bouts of severe depression. This concept is finding support among mainstream commentators who favor assisted suicide, calling it rational suicide. They reason that mental suffering can be just as great as physical suffering so people should be able to avail themselves of death to relieve an unbearable life of mental suffering. These same arguments can be applied to euthanasia.

This rationale is known as the slippery slope. Once you open the door for killing of patients for one reason, it is nearly impossible to limit the right to that one circumstance. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan doctor who assisted in the deaths of over 130 people, helped people to kill themselves even if they were not dying. In the Netherlands, legalized euthanasia for terminal illness has been followed by recognition that it is needed for mental illness. The Netherlands has also extended the euthanasia right to newborn infants with disabilities.

How would people be affected if euthanasia is legalized?You and your loved ones will certainly be affected. The practice of medicine would change because healing and killing would become equally valid goals of the medical profession. If death becomes a legal right, doctors will feel obligated to offer death as an option to all of their patients.

Those at risk of being killed without consent or against their own wishes would become fearful of seeing a physician, being hospitalized, or entering a nursing home. You would view medical professionals and even your own family members with suspicion, fearing that they will choose death by lethal injection without your consent or even against your wishes.

Who opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia?The driving force in opposition to legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide has been medical and disability rights groups. The American Medical Association has an official position in opposition to legalization. Disability rights groups are opposed because they recognize that people with disabilities are potential victims of these practices.

In California, state and national Latino organizations worked with a coalition to defeat the proposed assisted suicide law there.

Right-to-life groups and major church denominations also worked to defeat these measures.

For more information on euthanasia, please visitwww.nightingalealliance.org.

View original post here:

Euthanasia Wisconsin Right to Life - wrtl.org

Whitfield animal shelter allowing public into kennel area, changing method of euthanasia – The Daily Citizen

Posted on by

The covering on the fence has been taken down. Animal rescue groups and other members of the public can once again go into the kennel area.

It has been less than two weeks since Whitfield County Animal Control director Don Allen Garrett's last day at the shelter and some of the controversial policies implemented in his final months have been reversed or significantly modified.

Former Murray County Animal Shelter director Diane Franklin, who also worked for several years at the Whitfield shelter, was brought in as interim director and has made a number of changes. For one, the public can now go back into the kennel area.

"I want to do what we can do to get these animals adopted in a positive way, and I think letting the rescue groups get back in there and see the dogs will help us do that," said Franklin.

In May, the shelter barred the animal rescue groups, and the public, from going back into the kennels. Previously, dog owners and members of rescue groups could go back into the kennel area to look at the animals. County officials said that move was prompted by safety and liability concerns about having people so close to the dogs.

Franklin says there are still some safety concerns.

"That's why we will require anyone going into the back to be accompanied by a staff member," she said. "And we are working on some liability waivers they will have to sign."

Board of Commissioners Chairman Lynn Laughter describes the new policy as a "modification" of the policy of not allowing people into the back, not a reversal.

"They can go in the back, but they have to be accompanied by a staff member. Previously, we were allowing them to go into the back unescorted. This strikes a good balance," she said.

Jan Eaton of Tri State Pet Rescue in Blue Ridge had criticized the policy of not allowing rescue groups into the back, saying it made their work more difficult. She said she welcomed the new policy.

"I can only speak for myself. But I would prefer to have a staff member with me when I go into the back, so I can ask questions about the dogs," she said.

The new policy seems to be similar to those in surrounding counties. Officials with animal shelters in Gordon County, Murray County and Walker County say they do allow members of rescue groups and pet owners back into the kennel areas but only when supervised by staff.

"I do have some concerns about people other than the staff being in the back," said Commissioner Roger Crossen. "There is the possibility they can be bit. But I feel better that they are escorted by a staff member. I'm one of those people who thinks we should let our department heads do their jobs, and if she thinks this is a workable policy, I think we should let her implement it."

Franklin has also taken down the covering that was placed on the shelter fence in July.

"I moved that to a pen that I am using," she said. "If you want to come out here and adopt a dog you need to be able to interact with that dog. By putting the screen around that pen, we let the dog devote his attention to the person thinking about adopting it. But it is no longer blocking public view."

Earlier this month, because of questions about training, the Georgia Department of Agriculture blocked shelter staff from euthanizing animals. County Administrator Mark Gibson says he expects the department to certify a staff member to perform euthanasia soon.

Gibson says that going forward the staff will only euthanize animals by giving them an intravenous (IV) injection. State law permits three methods to euthanize animals, in order of preference: IV, intraperitoneal injection (into the body cavity) and intercardial injection. In the past, animal welfare groups have criticized the shelter for over-reliance on intercardial injections, sometimes called the heart stick, the least preferred method.

"I am so glad to hear they are only going to use IV," said Eaton. "We don't want to see any animal euthanized. But if it has to be done, we want them to use the preferred method."

Laughter says the shelter did not violate the law by using intercardial injections and it was done humanely.

"I have witnessed them doing it. The animal was asleep when it was done. It did not suffer," she said.

But she added that if IV is what the state prefers that is what the shelter will use going forward.

Garrett retired earlier this month after some 25 years as animal control director. His last official day is Sept. 30, but officials say his last day actually at the shelter was Aug. 14. Gibson says Garrett is using unused paid time off until his official separation date. His retirement came less than two weeks after the state pulled the shelter's ability to euthanize. But officials say he was not forced out.

Garrett could not be reached for comment, and he did not file a resignation letter. His personnel file shows he routinely received solid performance reviews from county administrators over the years. But it also shows that in 2014, Garrett was suspended for five days without pay after a dog at the shelter was mistakenly euthanized before the 10-day hold on the animal was up. And in May 2015, Garrett received a formal reprimand from Gibson for failing on several occasions to make weekly deposits of all funds received at the animal shelter as he had been instructed to do the previous August.

"In addition, although not reprimanded for this particular aspect of your job, you should post either animals eligible for adoption or animals that have been adopted on social media, namely Facebook, as well as on a section of our county website which is conspicuous as possible as determined by IT with my approval," the reprimand states.

In the file, there is an August 2014 memo from Gibson to Garrett directing him to charge the same amount to everyone who picks up an animal at the shelter, develop a uniform fee schedule for services, to record all payments and to bring all receipts to the county finance department each week. There is also an April 2015 memo from Assistant Finance Director Melva Andrews to Finance Director Alicia Vaughn showing the dates that Garrett actually did make such deposits. It shows that he would sometimes go up to five weeks without delivering receipts.

Gibson says Franklin will serve as interim director until a permanent director is hired but says he does not know when that will be.

"As to a search for a permanent director, the board (of commissioners) will take up that issue as soon as we are able, but the immediate plan is to stabilize operations to provide the best service for taxpayers. When the board decides when the search begins, I don't believe a time limit may be put on it at this time because we don't want to limit ourselves by time in order to find just anyone able to perform the requirements of the position," he said.

More here:

Whitfield animal shelter allowing public into kennel area, changing method of euthanasia - The Daily Citizen

‘We’re all gonna die’: Senior citizens weigh in on euthanasia – Newshub

Posted on by

Euthanasia is a subject with no definitive ethical consensus.

Despite two attempts to pass legislation to legalise euthanasia, the practice is still illegal in New Zealand.

But for many nations across the globe the right to decide when you die has been instantiated into law.

Newshub spoke to advocates from New Zealand on both sides of the argument, before heading to Eden Village to ask the elderly how they feel.

We spoke to advocates from New Zealand on both sides of the argument

Chris O'Brien is President of the Right to Life organisation

"Right to Life opposes the decriminalisation of both Euthanasia and Physician Assisted suicide for the following reasons:

"We believe that it is a watershed issue. Once decriminalised for any category of person then it becomes a right, in fact a human right. Human rights by their very nature are universal.

"So no matter what safeguards may be inherent in any legislation we can be sure that those safeguards will over time be breached.

"This is particularly obvious in the case of the The Netherlands where Euthanasia was decriminalised in 2002. The Dutch started with legislation that allowed Euthanasia only for those patients who were considered to be suffering unbearable pain and with no hope of cure.

"Since then an ever increasing number of conditions have been added allowing for persons who are eligible for euthanasia.

"Until we arrive at the situation today where the Parliament of that country is now seriously considering Euthanasia as an option for those who are not terminally ill, and in fact simply believe they have completed their lives.

"Here lies the danger. In far less than two decades look what they are proposing? Is this what we want for New Zealand? We we can be certain that regardless of all the good intentions in the world, euthanasia once decriminalised will become un-manageable.

"Right to Life believes that Euthanasia must never be decriminalized, there no exceptions. To do so would put at risk those who are vulnerable, especially the elderly, the disabled and those who have dementia or are mentally ill.

"There are no safeguards that can effectively protect the vulnerable from coercion and exploitation.

"We already have a significant elder abuse problem and the decriminalising of Euthanasia and allowing for Physician Assisted Suicide is going to make the elderly even more vulnerable, especially given our rapidly ageing population and rising health care costs.

"Two adages. Firstly; hard cases make bad laws. Secondly; the law is a powerful educator of the public conscience. If New Zealand goes down this path then what we are saying is that suicide is a solution to a problem.

"How can we, on one hand advocate for suicide prevention, while on the other, advocate suicide and euthanasia as a solution?

"This is particularly troublesome given the very high rate of youth suicide in New Zealand.

"Doctors are healers not killers and the fact that the NZMA and other medical groups oppose euthanasia should be enough to put a stop to this proposal.

"Right to Life believes that those who are pushing for Euthanasia are well resourced, well educated and are people who are used to autonomy and being in control of their lives. They want to maintain that control right up to arranging their own deaths.

"We ask when does their 'right' to have a doctor kill them trump the right of the many thousands of vulnerable people whose lives will be increasingly at risk, if decriminalisation occurs?

"Right to Life believes that instead of proposing that doctors should be able to kill their patients, greater efforts should be being put into ensuring that our palliative care systems and delivery continues to be world class and to develop and be available to all."

David Barber represents the End of Life Choice organisation

"I have seen loved ones die in pain, with unbearable suffering and total loss of dignity, being reliant on carers to feed, wash, dress and toilet them.

"Waiting for a pain-racked death to end their suffering is I believe an intolerable situation no human should have to bear.

"Everyone should be able to end their lives painlessly and with dignity. We allow that for animals - why not humans?

"I would only stop campaigning for voluntary euthanasia or end-of-life choice if the law was changed to allow medical assistance to die for those who request it."

With all this in mind we decided to ask the elderly at Eden Village what they felt about the matter.

Watch the video.

Newshub.

Read more:

'We're all gonna die': Senior citizens weigh in on euthanasia - Newshub

Dutch Couple Chooses Euthanasia – Valley News – Valley News

Posted on by

Nic and Trees Elderhorst knew exactly how they wanted to die.

They were both 91 years old and in declining health. Nic Elderhorst suffered a stroke in 2012 and more recently, his wife, Trees Elderhorst, was diagnosed with dementia, according to the Dutch newspaper, De Gelderlander.

Neither wanted to live without the other, or leave this world alone.

So the two, who lived in Didam, a town in the eastern part of the Netherlands, and had been together 65 years, shared a last word, and a kiss, then died last month hand-in-hand in a double euthanasia allowed under Dutch law, according to De Gelderlander.

Dying together was their deepest wish, their daughters told the newspaper, according to an English translation.

The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2002, allowing physicians to assist ailing patients in ending their lives without facing criminal prosecution.

Euthanasia, in which a physician terminates a patients life at his or her request, is legal in a few countries, including Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg. Physician-assisted suicide, in which a doctor prescribes lethal drugs that a patient may take to end his or her life, is permitted in a few others, including in certain states in the United States, according to ProCon.org, a nonprofit organization that researches countries legislation on the issue.

We are pleased that we have in the Netherlands this humane and carefully executed legislation that allows the honorable wishes of these two people whose fate was painful and hopeless, Dick Bosscher, of the Dutch Association for a Voluntary End of Life (NVVE), said in a statement to The Washington Post. He said the Elderhorsts belonged to NVVE, a 165,000-member organization for euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands.

In recent years, apparent double-suicides and murder-suicides have been capturing worldwide attention amid an emotional right-to-die debate couples from Florida to Paris reportedly ending their lives together.

Assisted suicide has summoned up deep religious and ethical concerns among critics.

In the United States, the subject was widely debated in 2014, when a 29-year-old woman who had a fatal brain tumor moved from California to Oregon, where she could legally seek medical aid to end her life. California has since enacted its End of Life Option Act, joining a small number of states where it is legal.

Even in the Netherlands, according to Bosscher with NVVE, the Elderhorsts case is rare in that both of them were able to meet the criteria for euthanasia under the Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be carried out only when the patients request is voluntary and well thought-out, the patient is in lasting and unbearable suffering and there are no other solutions, among other things.

Research published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicides accounted for 4.5 percent of deaths in the Netherlands in 2015, up from 1.7 percent in 1990, before it was legal. The 25-year review found that most patients who received assistance had serious illnesses.

It looks like patients are now more willing to ask for euthanasia and physicians are more willing to grant it, lead author Agnes Van der Heide, of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, told the Associated Press.

However, Bosscher said that there are more than 15,000 requests for euthanasia each year in the Netherlands and that only about 6,000 of them are granted.

The Elderhorsts discussed their options and submitted requests for euthanasia, a year-long process their daughters called an intense time, according to De Gelderlander.

The couple, who had even planned their own funerals, died July 4.

Read the rest here:

Dutch Couple Chooses Euthanasia - Valley News - Valley News