Military Tested Germ Warfare on San Francisco and Other …

One of the largest human experiments ever was conducted on unsuspecting residents in the open air of San Francisco. It was the U.S. Governments own experiment conducted on its own people in 1950.

IFL Science reports[emphasis mine]:

In the wake of World War II, the United Sates military was suddenly worried about and keen to test out the threats posed by biological warfare. They started experiments looking into how bacteria and their harmful toxins might spread, only using harmless stand-in microbes. They tested these on military bases, infecting soldiers and their families who lived with them, but eventually they stepped things up a notch. Disclosed in 1977, it turns out that the U.S. military carried out 239 secret open-air tests on its own citizens.

In one of itslargest experiments called Operation Sea-Spray the military used giant hoses [and burst balloons] to spray a bacterial cloud of Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii, both thought to be harmless bacteria at the time, from a Navy ship docked just off the coast of San Francisco. They wanted to investigate how the citys iconic fog might help with the spread of bacterial warfare. And spread it did. Its estimated that all of the citys 800,000 residents inhaled millions of the bacteria over the next few weeks as they went about their daily lives none the wiser.

This entirely unnecessary experiment resulted in the death ofEdward J. Nevinafter he first suffered chills, fever and general malaise. TheS. marcescens bacteria alsodirectly caused the hospitalization of at least 10 others and may have spikedcases of pneumonia during that time. Heres why

S. marcescens, asoil-based bacterium that produces a bloody red pigment was used as a proxy for an anthrax attack. Although it was considered benevolent it can certainly reap death and destruction. In fact, S. marcescens is now one of the most opportunistic pathogens that loves to hang out in hospitals and create sturdy biofilms. Sadly, it latches onto people throughurinary tract infections, catheter infections, lung infections and through other hospital supplies used on vulnerable populations. It is now amongthe top 10 causes of all hospital-acquired respiratory, neonatal and surgical infections.

This bacteria is everywhere. It is now attributed to killing coral reefs via human sewage and causes cornea infections through contact lens cases. It is the reddish-pinkish moldy-looking stuff you see in an unhygienic bathroom or on spoiled food.

It has also symbiotically bonded with bacteria inside wax moth larvae the kind that are born of bee hives.

IFL adds:

But theexperiments didnt stop there. As stated, the military carried out over 200 such tests across the country, from New York to Washington DC., spraying bacteria and other fluorescent and microscopic particles into the air, one of which zinc cadmium sulfide is now thoughtto cause cancer. In another series of experiments, they even went so far as simulating an attack on Washingtons Greyhound bus station and airport.

They sprayedin the New York City subway system, on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and in National Airport just outside Washington, DC.

But the madness still didnt stop there in tandem with the British governments Ministry of Defence, the military sprayed S. marcescens,an anthrax simulant and phenol off the coast of Dorset in southern England from a ship.Not just once over a hundred times. They, too, sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide across large patchesof Britain.

By the way the biowarfare simulation attack on America was deemed a success. Meaning, the conclusion was that another country could indeed attack Americans via ships off the coast.

In Clouds of Secrecy, author Leonard Cole writes,

Nearly all of San Francisco received 500 particle minutes per liter. In other words, nearly every one of the 800,000 people in San Francisco exposed to the cloud at normal breathing rate (10 liters per minute) inhaled 5,000 or more particles per minute during the several hours that they remained airborne.

Heres the worst part, no amount of congressional hearings or lawsuits has ever compelled the government to apologize or take any other view besides justified immunity for their tests. Worse yet, before Nevins death ultimately caused by a urinary tract infection that reached his heart while recovering from prostrate surgery there had never been any reported cases of S. marcescens bacteriain hospitals.

So this writer must ask which is worse, the threat of an anthrax terrorist attack or the now hospital-acquired bacteria that the government sprayed over large swathes of major cities?

This is not a conspiracy theory its a reality. And America is not alone. Canada also has a history of testing biowarfare on innocent people. Not only are these tests on unwitting human subjects reckless and horror-inducing, but they are also clear violations of the Nuremberg Code.

If you know people who trust the governments decisions regarding public health or the environment, perhaps you should show them this article so that they give pause. If you have friends who wish to join the military for its perks please send them this reminder that their superiors may view them as disposable, living biohazards.

Why? Because it happened before time and again even though it is clearly and knowingly amoral.

Also see:

Get a niftyFREE eBookLikeatFacebook,TwitterandInstagram.

Read the original post:

Military Tested Germ Warfare on San Francisco and Other ...

The case for keeping ‘Langevin Block’ – Macleans.ca

People relax on the front lawn of the Parliament buildings near Langevin Block in Ottawa, Wednesday June 21, 2017. The federal government is renaming the Langevin Block building, which sits across from Parliament Hill, out of respect for Indigenous Peoples. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

As we mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Canadian history is in the midst of an existential crisis. From coast to coast the physical presence of many once-celebrated historical figures is being scrubbed from our midst.

Last week, in honour of the newly renamed National Indigenous Peoples Day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the Langevin Block, which houses the Prime Ministers Office, will be officially renamed in order to rid it of the name of Sir Hector-Louis Langevinan individual associated with the residential school system and the federal governments now-discredited plans to assimilate the Indigenous population.

Halifax has seen repeated demands that a prominent statue of city founder Edward Cornwallis be removed from public display because he declared a bounty on Mikmaq scalps in 1749. His name has already been removed from a local school.

Prince Edward Island has heard similar calls for Parks Canada to rename the national historic site Port-la-Joye-Fort Amherst to eradicate the legacy of British military commander Sir Jeffery Amherst, given his reputation as the mastermind behind a scheme to give smallpox-laced blankets to Indigenous foes.

And the Law Society of British Columbia recently hoisted a statute of Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie, the first chief justice of British Columbia, out of the lobby of its building because the presence of the statue is offensive to Indigenous peoples. Begbie is known as the hanging judge for sentencing six Tsilhqotin chiefs to death in 1864.

The vast preponderance of Canadas historical heroes, it seems, were genocidal maniacs undeserving of statues erected or parks, forts, cities or streets named in their honour. As the evidence of misdeeds and character flaws pile up, should we simply wipe the slate clean of all references to our past?

Then again, maybe we shouldnt be so quick to turn our backs on our former selves.

It is axiomatic of history that it exists in context. Historical figures are products of their times, as well as figures astride pedestals in parks. They had full and complicated lives that cannot be adequately understood from a single quotation or act. And with this in mind, lets look again at the charges against Langevin.

As the minister of public works in Sir John A. Macdonalds government, Langevin formalized the residential school system in Canada. Further evidence of his unsuitability for current recognition comes from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that makes repeated mention of a speech he gave in 1883: If you wish to educate the native children, you must separate them from the parents. If you leave them in the family they may know how to read and write but they still remain savages.

Taken on its own, Langevins quotation is a devastating indictment to modern ears. But what if we let the tape roll a bit longer? Later in that same speech, for example, Langevin said it was his intention to give every native child who graduates from residential school a free homestead. And in response to Langevin, Edward Blake, the leader of the Liberal party of the day, not only used words to describe Indigenous men and women that would be considered horrific today, he also complained that Ottawas plan was overly generous. The Liberal party of the day wanted to spend far less on the native file.

Extreme narrow focus on a few sentences of one speech may provide damning evidence of Langevins unfitness for present-day memorialization. But in the context of his time, Langevin actually stands among the more enlightened representatives of the federal government. As for the accusation that Langevin believed in assimilation of the Indigenous communitya concept now properly and universally considered abhorrenthe is guilty as charged.

But assimilation was conventional wisdom among all elite thinkers of his era. If statements in support of it are to be considered sufficient reason for removal from the historical record, then every politician of note in Canada prior to the 21st century must eventually be struck from the recordfrom Macdonald to Sir Wilfrid Laurier on down. Even Pierre Trudeau, often considered the father of an inclusive, multicultural Canada, was a confirmed assimilationist. His 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy planned to eliminate Indigenous status entirely. When such a plan was firmly rejected by the Indigenous community, Trudeau replied bitterly, Well keep them in the ghetto for as long as they want. Is the legacy of Trudeau senior next on the list for erasure?

And entirely ignored within the current debate over Langevin and the residential school issue is his stature as a key Francophone Quebec federalist during the crucial pre-Confederation era, which was the reason his name ended up on a federal building in the first place. Reconciliation between French and English was once considered a great Canadian virtue. It should still count for something today.

As for Cornwallis, in 1749 he did declare a bounty of 10 British guineas for every Mikmaq scalp delivered to him during a colonial-era conflict known as Father Le Loutres War. Like Langevins speech on residential schools, singular attention on this one act seems sufficient to declare him unfit for present-day consumption. By any standard, scalping is an horrific act. But once again history throws up some uncomfortable facts.

Father Le Loutres War (1749 to 1755) was the handiwork of French Catholic priest Jean-Louis Le Loutre, who goaded local Mikmaq tribes into conflict with the British in hopes of reclaiming New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for the French. For added motivation, he explicitly promised to pay Mikmaq warriors a bounty for English scalps. And they delivered. In 1753, for example, Le Loutre was reimbursed 1,800 French livres by the colonial government in Quebec City for sums he paid to the Mikmaq for 18 English scalps.

The payment of scalp bounties was unsettlingly common throughout North America during the entire colonial period. It was, in fact, standing French policy to offer payments for the scalps of the Englishmen, women and childrenas a subsidy to ensure the continued loyalty of allied Indigenous tribes. Scalp bounties in the English-speaking colonies generally only appeared when a war was on; and their value waned and fluxed depending on the publics panic level. It thus seems unfair to use Cornwalliss scalping proclamation as conclusive evidence against him when both sides in this ancient conflict, including those Mikmaq nations who today demand Cornwalliss expulsion from the public square, were fully engaged in the repulsive tactic.

And while Amherst is widely considered to be the father of modern germ warfare for allegedly handing out smallpox-infected blankets to Indigenous foes, this is a falsehood. There is no proof he ever did such a thing. Amherst responded positively to the suggestion from a fellow officer in a letter dated July 16, 1763, but this came a month after the one and only time British troops actually stooped to such a tacticduring a native siege of Fort Pitt (near present-day Pittsburgh) on June 24, 1763.

Finally, Begbie was indeed responsible for sentencing six Indigenous leaders to hanging for their role in the killing of 20 non-natives during B.C.s Chilcotin War. Yet condemning him into oblivion on this basis ignores his vast record of support and understanding for the provinces Indigenous communities at all other times. He was fluent in several Indigenous languages, recognized the concept of Aboriginal title in his rulings and took a strong position against racism. Begbie was perhaps the most liberal and native-friendly judge of his time. As for his controversial hanging decision, which the B.C. government recently apologized for, he had no choice. The death penalty was mandatory for murder cases. Despite all this, his own law society has removed him from the firmament.

To our great disadvantage, Canada has become obsessed with replaying a slow-motion, high-definition version of our past. Historical figures are now judged by intense focus on individual statements or actions. One infraction at odds with current acceptable standards has become sufficient evidence for expulsion from present-day society. Yet it is reasonable, if not inevitable, to expect that every notable figure from the past has probably said or done something that will grate against modern sensibilities, particularly with respect to Indigenous relations. It is therefore only a matter of time before every statue, park and street named for an historical character in Canada is declared incompatible with the present.

But while the fraught relationship between colonial Canada and Indigenous peoples is an important component of our history, it is not its entirety. We should not allow current attention being paid to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions findings, necessary and disturbing as they may be, to become a mechanism that strips Canada of our most significant characters and events. Or removes the context and detail from the stories of who we are and where we came from.

Read the original here:

The case for keeping 'Langevin Block' - Macleans.ca

Michael Carr: A government for the people – Vallejo Times Herald

Im not an expert on American history and any examples in here may well be inaccurate and not strictly chronological, but they are used to illustrate an overall point of view. The fundamentals of the Constitution were to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights stipulated that Congress may not make rules to take away freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, the right to form peaceful assemblies, or to take away lives or freedom of property unfairly.

All of this was justifiable given the religious persecution and government oppression that the early colonists struggled to escape from. According to Kris Kristofferson, freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose. But I believe our unbridled freedom has lost us a lot, particularly as it relates to moral and ethical standards and concern for our fellow man.

So what have we done with this freedom?

We saw a land with enormous potential from sea to shining sea. We went west in a spirit of free enterprise. We cut down forests, tilled the soil and fenced the land to establish farms and ranches. We imported cheap Chinese labor to build our railroads. In the scramble to establish the biggest piece of the pie, we denied the American Indians their freedom and denied untold numbers of Africans their freedom. Our manifest destiny spread across the continent to the Pacific Ocean and when the dust cleared, we had denied Mexico about one-third of its territory, including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.

Then, ironically, we imported cheap Mexican labor to cultivate our crops which they still do today for below minimum wages, while suffering the stigma of illegal immigrants. It took a civil war to grant African Americans a euphemism for freedom. The Native Americans still struggle to protect their sacred grounds and eke out an existence on barren reservations.

Gold in California and oil in Pennsylvania encouraged more free enterprise, more scrambling for the good life, and the rise of monolithic companies generating vast wealth for a privileged few. By the time anti-trust laws were established the damage was already done. Now we work for companies that continually reduce employee benefits and pensions to increase profits. We are encouraged to secure our futures by investing in 401ks that depend on ever increasing shareholder value that, paradoxically, depend to some extent on cutting more benefits and services. Demands to increase shareholder value encourage unscrupulous corporations and banks to sell bogus investments, derivatives and mortgages without underlying asset value.

The point is that we became so involved in our freedom of choice and entrepreneurial wealth creation that we are now all complicit in this mess by closing our eyes to the truths of inequality and the social consequences. Weve ignored the shifts in policy that continue to create a bigger and bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Weve watched as the government gave tax breaks to the rich, cut programs to the poor, and refused to raise the minimum wage. In 2015, 43.1 million people lived in poverty with the highest poverty rate among blacks and Hispanics. Approximately 15.3 million, or 21 percent, of all children under the age of 18 were in families living in poverty. We are the only country in the civilized world that does not provide universal healthcare to its people. Even communist Cuba provides free healthcare and education. We have created a vicious cycle in which the underprivileged, social injustice and the government deficit continue to grow while the middle class hangs on to its fast fading dreams of the good life. With a growing population and diminishing resources we continue to strive for an ever more elusive piece of the pie and create social unrest in the process. Is it any wonder that drugs and crime increase in impoverished inner cities and immigrant communities?

Advertisement

It was Plato who said that democracy would not work because, given a choice, the average person chooses what pleases him rather than what is good for him. I happen to believe in democracy but I think our two-party system creates a situation where the majority tends to get what is good for them but not necessarily good for society. We the people put these people in power and have watched as politicians strive to retain power by pandering to whatever is popular. As a social conscience develops in the majority we vote Democrat. As government spending and taxes are increased to pay for social programs we sense a reduction in our standard of living and government intrusion on our freedom of choice. So the majority turns to the Republicans for tax breaks and curtailment of government regulations. The results are good for the party in power but not necessarily good for society as a whole. Increasingly over the last decade, the polarization between the parties, the inability to compromise, and the vetoing of the opposing partys agenda, has lead to a legislative stalemate and an exacerbation of societal problems.

When I became a United States citizen in 2011, I had high hopes that under President Obama we would begin to see the social changes outlined in his book, The Audacity of Hope, come to fruition. Instead the intransigence of the Republican Party and its avowed intention to obstruct his agenda has lead us where we are today. Enter Donald J. Trump, who cashed in on the Washington stalemate by vowing to drain the swamp and make America great again. His ultra right-wing agenda might make a proportion of Americans richer and the country more powerful. But by declaring war on immigrants, curtailing the freedom of the press, criticizing the judiciary, appointing right-wing judges, creating cabinet posts for his family, and surrounding himself with not so veiled white supremacists, he has all the trappings of an autocrat and is disliked, or even hated, by a majority of the country. This will further exacerbate the already volatile situation existing with the underprivileged and we should be wary of some form of revolution.

Perhaps there is no simple solution but perhaps it is time to sacrifice some of our personal freedom for what is good for society. As Obama once stated to Oprah Winfrey, We are all connected as one people and our mutual obligations have to express themselves not only in our families, not only in our churches, synagogues, and mosques, but in our government, too. If we can come up with a bipartisan commission to investigate something as serious as the links between Trump campaign advisers and the Russian government, why cant we employ a bipartisan commission to resolve other issues of national importance like health care and the judiciary? Instead of endless partisan scrambling for votes and changing voting rules to suit the situation, we should recognize that only by true bipartisanship can we be sure that government is of the people, by the people and for all the people.

If we must retain a two-party system, why not get rid of the electoral college and appoint a Democrat and a Republican from each state in both the House and the Senate? Admittedly that would have the potential for more stalemate but if legislation is to get passed at least it would force an element of compromise. As for the president, election should be by a simple majority of voters.

Michael Carr/Vallejo

Read the rest here:

Michael Carr: A government for the people - Vallejo Times Herald

Syed Salahuddin declared global terrorist: Kashmiri separatists to protest against US move tomorrow – Firstpost

Srinagar: Kashmiri separatists and another organisation United Jihad Council (UJC) based in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on Thursday called for protests after Friday's prayers against the US decision to declare Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin as a "global terrorist".

Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Reuters

Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference Syed Ali Shah Geelani, head of moderate Hurriyat Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and JKLF chief Yasin Malik said protests will also be held against the "illegal and arbitrary" arrests and detention of the separatist leaders, activists and youth and raids being conducted across the valley.

"This unjustified move (of declaring Salahuddin as global terrorist) by the US government to appease the Government of India and their (US) silence regarding the oppression and human rights situation in Kashmir, is not acceptable to the people of Kashmir who will strongly protest against it across the valley post Friday prayers tomorrow," the separatists said in a statement.

The separatist leaders expressed "deep regret and dismay over the complete silence by the US over the brutal oppression in Kashmir and failure to initiate any serious steps towards the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and for restoration of lasting peace and stability in the highly volatile region".

UJC, a conglomerate of over a dozen militant groups active in the valley, also called for protests after Friday prayers against the US government's decision against its chief.

In a statement issued here, the UJC said, "the people of Kashmir reject the US decision and will hold demonstrations tomorrow to convey a message to the outside world that their struggle will continue till the achievement of the goal."

Meanwhile, High Court Bar Association also denounced the US decision and said "Salahuddin is a symbol of resistance movement and the US decision will have no impact on the indigenous and legitimate struggle of the people of Kashmir."

See more here:

Syed Salahuddin declared global terrorist: Kashmiri separatists to protest against US move tomorrow - Firstpost

Government gets rules for treatment of suspected illegal foreigners – Times LIVE

The Legal Resources Centre has welcomed a Constitutional Court judgment handed down on Thursday which held that the detention of alleged or suspected illegal foreigners without prompt judicial intervention was unconstitutional.

The LRC represented the People Against Poverty Oppression and Poverty (PASSOP) as a friend of the court.

The case involved the procedures and safeguards governing the detention of people suspected of being illegal foreigners under the Immigration Act. The High Court had declared sections 34(1)(b) and (d) of the Act constitutionally invalid. The Constitutional Court upheld the declarations of constitutional invalidity.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) had challenged these sections because the Act does not require that a detained person be automatically brought before a court within 48 hours in order for the court to confirm the lawfulness of their detention which is the case for other detained people.

The LHR also argued that while the Act envisages a warrant being obtained from a Magistrates Court for the continued detention of the suspected illegal foreigner the Department of Home Affairs interpreted this in a way that meant that the detained person did not have to appear in person before the Magistrate concerned.

PASSOP supported LHRs arguments challenging these sections of the Act.

"We are pleased that the court embraced the constitutional considerations. We welcome the judgment as a vindication of constitutional principles and human rights for everyone in South Africa including foreigners whose dignity and liberty must be respected by the state" the LRC said.

See more here:

Government gets rules for treatment of suspected illegal foreigners - Times LIVE

Don Winslow has a best seller, slams Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ – USA TODAY

'The Force' by Don Winslow(Photo: William Morrow)

Heres a look at whats new on USA TODAYs Best-Selling Books list

'The Force' is with him: Riding strong reviews and movie buzz, Don Winslow has his highest debut ever as his new cop novel, The Force (William Morrow), lands at No. 17. (The full list will be published on Thursday.)

Oh yeah, there was also that full-page ad (and tweet) in Sundays New York Times, in which Winslow blasted President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for wanting to drag us back into one of the most catastrophic social policies in this nations history: #TheWaronDrugs.

As Winslow points out in his lengthy open letter, he spent two decades researching and writing about the failed War on Drugs in his novels The Power of the Dog and The Cartel. (Winslow had his previous best showing on the list withThe Cartel, which peakedat No. 54 in 2015.)

Sessionshas directed federal prosecutors to charge defendants with the most serious "provable"crimes that carry the stiffest penalties, a reversal of President Obama's more lenient policy toward drug offenders.

So far, Trump has not tweeted a response or taken out his own full-page ad.

Winslow tells USA TODAY that he placed the ad at his own expense because "I feel so strongly that this (drug) policy is wrong. (It) seeks to expand a disastrous policy that has ripped our nation apart."

As for a response from the White House, he says: "After writing about the drug wars for two decades I have developed a number of high-ranking officials as sources. I have heard from so many people cops, congressmen, senators, governors that agree with my position but fear saying so publicly. I have not heard a formal response from the White House but I do know for a fact that Attorney General Sessions and Trump were shown the ad."

The Force is about a good NYPD cop who becomes corrupt. In a **** (out of four stars) reviewfor USA TODAY, Don Oldenburg called the novel intoxicating" and "riveting.

Ridley Scott has bought the film rights to The Force (with James Mangold set to direct) and Scott is directing an adaptation of The Cartel, based on the escapades of (now incarcerated) Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman.

In the ad, Winslow also criticized the Trump administrations gun-control policy and plugged his new book: My most recent novel, The Force, deals with the NYPD's struggle against drugs and guns. My research shows that most of the weapons used in gang violence originate in states that have weak gun laws and unrestricted gun shows.

Winslow is in the midst of a national book tour.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tkQ8qL

Go here to see the original:

Don Winslow has a best seller, slams Trump's 'War on Drugs' - USA TODAY

War on terror took backseat as Duterte focused on drug war … – Inquirer.net

Editors Note: Starting June 25, the Inquirer will run on its print, online, and social media platforms a series of stories, reports and commentaries on the socioeconomic impact positive and negative that President Duterte has made in his first year in office. The articles will focus on how the former Davao City mayor has coped with the challenges of the presidency in five major areas that Filipinos consider most important in their lives: peace and order, traffic, economy, governance and foreign policy. This evaluation of the administrations achievements and shortcomings will take into account what Mr. Duterte had promised to do during last years presidential campaign, his June 30 inaugural speech and his July 25 State of the Nation Address.

In this picture taken June 29, 2017 shows smokes billows inside Malawi City as the military launched fresh airstrikes on controlled positions of Islamic State-inspired terrorists as fighting rages for 36 days now.

Distraught housewife Camalia Bauntos husband is trapped in their house in Marawi City and she is pinning her hopes of being reunited with him on President Dutertes vow to crush a small band of Islamic State (IS)-linked terrorists who have brought destruction to the once proud Muslim city in Mindanao.

The Baunto couple, along with their extended family, voted for Mr. Duterte in 2016, helping to propel the former Davao City mayor to the countrys top government post on a promise to bring peace and order to a region long ravaged by armed conflict.

But that promise has been overtaken by deadly events. Abu Sayyaf gunmen, the Maute group and their foreign allies, who have all pledged allegiance to IS, launched a daring raid on Marawi on May 23.

After more than a month of fighting, the death toll has surpassed 400303 IS gunmen, 75 soldiers and police, and 44 civilians, according to military figures.

An estimated 200 residents, including Bauntos husband Nixon, are believed to be held hostage by the gunmen or trapped in the fighting that has transformed the once-vibrant city into a desolate landscape of bombed-out buildings resembling war-torn Aleppo in Syria.

I am losing hope, Baunto told the Inquirer. I am begging the President to rescue him. Is this the peace he had promised us?

Martial law

In reaction to the siege, Mr. Duterte declared martial law in the entire Mindanao while he was on a visit to Russia with all his top defense and security officials and cut short his trip to return home.

The President said he would not allow IS to gain a foothold in the Philippines.

The siege of Marawi was triggered by an attempt by security forces to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, the leader of an Abu Sayyaf faction who had been appointed by IS emir, or leader, in Southeast Asia.

The Armys 1st Infantry Division spokesperson, Lt. Col. Jo-Ar Herrera, said at first that Hapilon was backed by 15 gunmen, but as the firefight escalated, hundreds of others emerged from their hideouts around the city, engaging the surprised troops.

Miscalculation

Analysts said that since Mr. Duterte assumed office last year, his administration appeared to have focused much of its resources into carrying out a war on drugs, which had left at least 10,000 suspected drug users, dealers and traffickers dead.

Officials have neglected the telltale signs of Islamic radicalism among a new crop of Islamists in Mindanao, analysts said.

Richard Javad Heydarian, a political analyst at De La Salle University, said the Marawi conflict puts into focus whether [Mr. Duterte] has a proper appreciation of the sheer scale of the problem in his own backyard.

Without a doubt, the siege of Marawi has been the greatest crisis for Mr. Duterte so far, despite the myriad of controversies surrounding his key policies, including the bloody war on drugs and diplomatic spats with traditional allies, Heydarian said.

We are not only talking about the prospect of a distant caliphate under the flag of Isis, but a potentially disastrous contagion of terror across his home island of Mindanao, he said, using another name for IS.

Undercut ratings

The destruction of Marawi will likely undercut his sky-high approval ratings, particularly among Moros, who initially saw him as their sole and most powerful voice in imperial Manila since the founding of [the] Philippine republic, Heydarian said.

The Marawi siege also forced the government to reassess its independent foreign policy that had seen Mr. Duterte lambast the Philippines traditional ally, the United States, in favor of Russia and China.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, martial law implementer, has since sought help from American troops and welcomed Australian military assistance.

In many ways, it has been a sobering and heart-wrenching month for a President who sincerely cared for the people of Mindanao, yet didnt manage to fully optimize existing intelligence and security networks to anticipate, prevent and effectively contain the terrorism conundrum in his home island, Heydarian said.

Complacency

Mr. Dutertes fixation on the war on drugs had overshadowed the equally important war on terrorism, according to Rommel Banlaoi, head of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research, which has been advising the defense establishment on threat groups.

The fighting in Marawi was an outcome of continued downplaying of threats from pro-IS groups, Banlaoi said.

This government attitude of downplaying the threat resulted in unintended complacency in gathering actionable intelligence information necessary for the development of an effective preemptive counter-terrorism plan, he said.

The battle in Marawi City could have been prevented had government forces seriously exercised due diligence in gathering reliable and accurate intelligence information while enemy forces were still in [the] inception stage, Banlaoi said.

Military officials have strongly denied that there had been a failure of intelligence on IS plans in Marawi.

Long fight

On Tuesday, the President said he wanted to finish the fighting soon and saw no satisfaction even in winning it.

I already had the complete picture and I knew that it would be a long fight, he said at the Eid al-Fitr celebration in Malacaang.

In his report to Congress on the martial law declaration, Mr. Duterte said the Maute group, which had 253 men by late 2016, was bent on turning all of Mindanao into an IS province. As much as 75 percent of Marawi had been infiltrated by the Maute group and the Abu Sayyaf, his report said.

Solicitor General Jose Calida said martial law was justified because of the festering rebellion of the Maute group, which had allied with Hapilons Abu Sayyaf faction and pledged allegiance to IS.

Calida said the more dangerous Maute group had transmogrified into an invasion force of foreign terrorists to launch attacks in the Philippines if its members could not travel to Syria to fight alongside IS.

Despite shelling and bombing runs, the terrorists remain well-entrenched in a small area in the city, posting snipers at strategic points in Marawi to prevent the advance of troops more accustomed to jungle warfare than urban fighting.

The Marawi siege has alarmed the countrys Southeast Asian neighbors.

They fear that IS is trying to set up a stronghold in Mindanao, which it could use as a springboard to launch attacks across the region.

Maute brothers

Mr. Duterte had earlier dismissed the Maute brothers as drug-addled former cops.

In truth, Omarkhayam Maute studied in Egypt where he embraced Islamic militancy, according to various intelligence groups.

He taught at a madrasah in Indonesia, where his wife is from, but eventually went back home to pursue his dream of establishing a state purely for Muslims in Mindanao.

His older brother, Abdullah, was more radical and inherited their father Cayamoras ideals as a former official of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Cayamora and wife Farhanadescribed by police as the groups financierhave been arrested separately.

The brothers had set up Daulah Islamiyah, which the police had played down as a group of small-time crooks operating near Lanaos forests.

The group grabbed national headlines in September last year when they claimed responsibility for bombing the Presidents hometown of Davao, killing 15 people.

Explore on our special anniversary site the Inquirer series of multiplatform reports and commentaries on the gains and challenges during President Duterte's first year in office. Daily content begins June 25 till July 24.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Here is the original post:

War on terror took backseat as Duterte focused on drug war ... - Inquirer.net

Mental Health Of The Nation: Casualties In The War On Drugs – Bahamas Tribune

By DR MIKE NEVILLE

Before you can break out of prison you must realise that you are locked up, Unknown.

The great war on drugs! Wars cause untold devastation, death, disability both physical and mental and some people profit enormously. Drug wars are the same, death by overdose, bad reactions, murder and of course massive profits for sellers, suppliers and financiers. I am told the economy of The Bahamas benefited from the cocaine trade but the social price in addiction, crime, guns and death was always too big a price to pay. This desire to decide which are good drugs and which are bad drugs so we can fight over their use is a concept that in my humble opinion is doomed to fail.

There is a very simple fact call it a formula which helps us understand drugs all drugs have both good and bad effects.

The good effects are part of modern medicine and treat all sorts of illnesses and really save lives; the bad effects are the devastation mentioned above.

To balance my equation, we need to know if we are allergic to the drug, when even a so-called good drug can create horrendous effects. We need to know how much of the drug we are taking and the speed we are consuming it, this is called the delivery system.

A good example is aspirin, in many ways a wonder drug, used for pain, fevers, inflammation and as an anticoagulant in heart patients, it is even cheap and has no restrictions on its sale. Some people are allergic to aspirin but even if you are not, if you take too much it can burn holes in your stomach which causes bleeding and can cause death, as can a simple overdose. A wonder drug that can kill!

I talked about alcohol earlier and most of us know that drinking a bottle of cold beer slowly is totally different from drinking a bottle of rum rapidly.

Cocaine first came on the scene in the Inca culture, the leaves were chewed and a mild stimulant effect helped people work at high altitudes. Cocaine hydrochloride was isolated from the leaves in 1860 and rapidly gained a reputation as a wonder drug. It was used to increase energy, served in drinks and even injected intravenously as an adjunct to psychotherapy by Sigmund Freud himself. The ensuing addictions and paranoid psychosis put a damper on its use until the eighties when The Bahamas became the international laboratory for freebase, now known as crack. The addiction proved to be so powerful that the profiteers soon marketed it heavily in North America and then the rest of the world.

Heroin is generally regarded as the worst drug around. The very word conotates evil and certainly it creates a devastating addiction that leaves a path of destruction and death. The other side of the equation is that when working in general medicine in England, I was licensed to prescribe heroin for terminal illness and it is excellent giving good pain management whilst allowing the patient to remain mentally clear.

Cannabis, weed, pot, herb the names go on forever, not too different from the drug itself. The active ingredient tetra- hydro cannabinol breaks down into numerous active isomers which affect us differently, in effect it is more than one drug and like other drugs the effects depend on the strength and delivery system. Small doses are probably safe for most people, large doses not so safe. There is also the problem that if you happen to have the genetic make-up that makes us vulnerable to psychosis then cannabis triggers psychosis in these vulnerable people.

The great war on drugs seems to me to have been a complete failure; drugs are plentiful and relatively cheap and educational efforts seem to be failing so we are faced with a conundrum. Why not try something else? There is an old saying that the only good thing about banging your head against a brick wall is when you stop. There is a pressing need for international social research as to what happens when we change drug laws. Spain briefly legalised all drugs but drug tourism put a stop to that before true results could be evaluated. Many countries are changing their laws on cannabis use and time will tell if that is the correct way to go. Amsterdam poured money into drug education and treatment, whilst decriminalising cannabis use and granting cafes licenses to sell it. They also sent ambulances with uniformed nurses into drug affected areas where heroin addicts could get their drugs administered by the nurse free. It showed everyone that addiction was a medical problem and they really took the cool out of drugs.

I am not sure where the answer lies but as with all medical and social problems controlled international research must be the best way to find the answer.

Dr Mike Neville is a forensic psychiatrist who has practised for more than 40 years in The Bahamas, working at Sandilands, the prison and in private practice. Comments and responses to mneville@tribunemedia.net

Follow this link:

Mental Health Of The Nation: Casualties In The War On Drugs - Bahamas Tribune

The War on Drugs Places ‘Black Joy’ in the Line of Fire – AlterNet


AlterNet
The War on Drugs Places 'Black Joy' in the Line of Fire
AlterNet
These pieces will reflect on the ways in which the institutions of policing and prosecution- both driven by calls for law and order in the wake of the War on Drugs- continue to function as instruments of reinforcement for the overarching structural ...

Continue reading here:

The War on Drugs Places 'Black Joy' in the Line of Fire - AlterNet

COLUMN: Jeff Sessions’ war on drugs would continue a failed approach – Indiana Daily Student

Last week, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that drug trafficking is an inherently dangerous business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you cant, and dont, file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun.

He has used this thinking to resurrect the long-failed War on Drugs that goes against the growing bipartisan support for criminal justice reform. He has announced his intention to imprison more non-violent drug offenders, expand the police state, and crack down on medical marijuana users.

These things would happen in a country that already runs the largest prison system in the developed world, according to Prison Policy Initiative, and commits its penal labor, unprotected by the 13th amendment, to a life of modern slavery.

Where Sessions logic fails is his misunderstanding of the nature of black markets.

Drug trafficking is violent for the same reason liquor trafficking was violent in the Prohibition era. When markets arent protected by the states monopoly on violence, parties can afford to renege on their contracts and promises.

Illegality motivates traffickers to take enforcement into their own hands. Decriminalizing and taxing dispensaries, like what Massachusetts, Washington and Colorado have done with marijuana, undercuts the illicit market, weakening the power of criminals and reducing violence.

A revived tough on crime stance that attacks suppliers would do little to stop illicit drug consumption. Any economics teacher can tell you reducing supply in a market with inelastic demandlike the market for addictive substanceswouldnt reduce the quantity bought and consumed.

Rather, its more likely that a crackdown on suppliers would simply raise prices. Similarly, researchers continue to find that tougher penalties and longer jail time does little difference in deterring crime than lighter sentences, according to the Sentencing Project.

It would be wiser of Sessions to realize that the worst drug epidemic of our time is not marijuana, methamphetamines, or even heroin, but prescription opioids.

Over two million Americans suffer from debilitating addictions to pain relievers, which is more than meth and heroin addicts combined, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

And the rate in Indiana is higher than the national average.

Perverse fiscal incentives for doctors and aggressive ad campaigns by big pharma companies have pushed opioids like Vicodin, OxyContin, and fentanyl onto millions of desperate people.

Sessions and our own state prosecutors could better spend their time taking on big pharma and the pain industry for things like false advertising, as the state legislature in Kentucky is doing, according to the Kentucky Law Journal.

A better drug policy would focus on the demand of drug consumption by supporting educational programs, supervised injections and rehabilitation.

Progressive public programs in Portugal, Canada, and the United Kingdom offer medical-grade heroin to addictswhich undercuts the black marketsupervise injection sites, and mandate the inclusion of substance abuse treatment in public insurance programs, none of which is addressed in the Republican health care proposals, according to Mother Jones.

We could go a long way to a healthier, more secure public by transitioning opioid-based painkillers to cannabinoids and rewriting the fiscal incentives that lead doctors to over-prescribe, according to the Washington Post.

To be clear, I support a drug policy that reduces dependency, violent crime and minimizes risks to public health.

Sessions, however, has failed to offer policies that achieve these goals. Rather, it seems that people like him sacrifice the well-being of vulnerable Americans on the altar of wishful thinking.

Its time for change.

Like what you are reading? Support independent, award-winning college journalism on this site. Donate here.

See original here:

COLUMN: Jeff Sessions' war on drugs would continue a failed approach - Indiana Daily Student

Sunday hunting, nonprofit gambling bills pass NC legislature – News & Observer


News & Observer
Sunday hunting, nonprofit gambling bills pass NC legislature
News & Observer
Two controversial bills that loosen rules for Sunday hunting and nonprofit game night events cleared the legislature late Thursday night and are heading to the governor's desk. House Bill 559, titled Outdoor Heritage Enhanced, goes beyond a 2015 ...

See original here:

Sunday hunting, nonprofit gambling bills pass NC legislature - News & Observer

Lawmakers expand gambling, hunting in final hours of session – WRAL.com

By Laura Leslie

Raleigh, N.C. In the waning hours of session Thursday, state lawmakers sent Gov. Roy Cooper measures that would expand Sunday hunting and allow "casino nights" with alcohol for charities and other groups.

Hunting is currently banned between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on Sundays, and Sunday hunting is banned in Wake and Mecklenburg counties. House Bill 559 would allow hunting Sunday morning on private property and state gamelands, but not within 500 yards of a place of worship. It also mandates that Wake, Mecklenburg, and all other counties must allow Sunday hunting unless voters choose to ban it by countywide referendum.

Supporters say the change will encourage family hunting excursions on the weekends, but religious conservatives were opposed to the change.

Another bill headed to the governor's desk would allow "casino night" events despite the state's ban on gambling. Those events could be held by employers and trade groups as well as charities and nonprofits, as long as no money is paid for admission or in prizes. It would also allow alcohol to be served at the events. The games offered could include roulette and sweepstakes machines, even though the machines are otherwise banned by state law and subject to seizure.

First proposed by representatives from counties where law enforcement deems "casino night" fundraisers illegal, the bill initially sought to clarify that the events are allowed and that they can be held at locations where alcohol is served, but its scope expanded somewhat during the legislative process.

The restaurant and lodging industry supported the changes, but many religious and social conservatives said weakening the state's gambling ban and adding alcohol to the mix is a mistake.

More here:

Lawmakers expand gambling, hunting in final hours of session - WRAL.com

Brent Musburger’s big, new adventure involves sports gambling – Golfweek.com

Editors note: This story appeared in the May 2017 issue of Golfweek Magazine.

Brent Musburger is riding a hot hand.

The sportscasting legend just chipped in for birdie on the eighth hole at Cascata, 20 miles southeast of Las Vegas

Wheres that photographer? Musburger chirps at a visiting writer. The photographer had peeled off from the group one hole earlier. Musburgers moment of glory would live on in memory, if not pictures.

The hole-out ignites a string of victories. Musburger plays his 3-wood off the tee, keeps his ball in play and never gives his opponents a chance to rally. By the middle of the back nine, he and his playing partner, Vinny Magliulo, sports book director for Gaughan Gaming, were toasting their rout with Miller Lites.

Three months after leaving ESPN, Musburger is still doing what he loves: talking sports. But now he does it for the Vegas Stats & Information Network, or VSiN, the start-up launched by his nephew Brian, one of his victims at Cascata.

When Musburger received the request to play golf, he sent back word that hed like to play at Cascata, No. 2 behind only Shadow Creek on Golfweeks Best public-access list in Nevada. Hes been coming to Las Vegas for decades but only recently settled here and hadnt yet played Cascata, an electrifying Rees Jones design chiseled out of mountainous terrain.

Musburgers usual golf partner is his wife of 55 years, Arlene. He notes with some pride that when they play in club scrambles at Stock Farm, their club near Missoula, Mont., his buddies sometimes say they wish Arlene was their playing partner.

I always tell young guys, Get your wife playing early, he says. They think Im crazy. But its a game you can play your entire life.

A day after the outing at Cascata, Musburger is sitting in the sports book at South Point Hotel, Casino and Spa. The hotel is six miles south of Mandalay Bay, on a quiet part of Las Vegas Boulevard, if such a thing exists. Nearby, Gill Alexander, a statistical whiz kid, is wrapping up his Numbers Game show in the glassed-in VSiN studio. Musburger will be going on air shortly with his My Guys in the Desert show. (VSiN pronounced V-Sin by the staff streams its shows on its website and airs on SiriusXM channel 204.)

This is a big day for VSiN adult Christmas, as Alexander tells his audience. Its the first day of the NFL Draft, and Musburger is focused on possible storylines. Will the Bengals trade A.J. McCarron? Will the Patriots move Jimmy Garoppolo? Theyre better than anybody in the draft, Musburger says. (Both quarterbacks stayed put.) The big question: How will the draft impact teams 2017 win totals? People love to bet the over-under numbers, Musburger says. You dont have to pay attention to it every day. You can bet your favorite team. He settles on this as the hook for his show, which will start in less than an hour.

Some 40 years ago, Jimmy The Greek Snyder took Musburger to the Barbary Coast casino and introduced him to the owner, Michael Gaughan, who became one of Musburgers many friends in the desert. When Brian Musburger sought advice on launching VSiN, Brent steered him toward Gaughan. Later, over lunch, Gaughan told Musburger, I like your nephew. Im going to help him out.

Then came the call from Brian: Unc, I gotta have you.

Musburger visited South Point last fall, looked at the studio, then under construction, and decided to explore an early exit from ESPN. His brother Todd, Brians father, is his agent.

If it wasnt family, I wouldnt even think about it, Musburger said. But hell, Im 77, so someday youre going to have to get off the road.

Musburger said he and Arlene had considered moving to Las Vegas several years ago. They had many friends there and loved the various entertainment options unrelated to gambling. (The previous week he and Arlene watched An American in Paris at The Smith Center for the Performing Arts as good as any theater youll find in the world, he says.) Most importantly, Las Vegas offered easy air access to his home state of Montana.

Over the years critics sometimes wondered whether Musburgers folksy on-air demeanor was genuine, but he comes by it honestly. He grew up in Billings, Mont., with the simple desire to be a sportswriter. Even as he became the face of CBS Sports, and later ABC and ESPN, he still leaned on his newspaper training. Mark Loomis, Fox Sports executive golf producer, often traveled with Musburger when he was a young production assistant at ABC. Musburger constantly pumped locals for information and opinions on their hometown teams.

Brent would pick the brains of waiters, caddies, cabbies, trainers whoever it was, he was truly interested in that persons perspective, Loomis recalls. He didnt have to go to the head coach. He wanted to talk to everybody.

When working college games, Loomis says, you were more likely to find Musburger having a beer with students in a campus hangout rather than dining at some overpriced steakhouse. Thats where the action was. Loomis recalls that The Esso Club at Clemson was a particular favorite.

Musburger is resilient, which one might expect from a man who remained atop such a competitive profession for four decades. When his 22-year career with CBS ended abruptly and badly, he didnt pout in public. Folks, Ive had the best seat in the house, he said after the 1990 Final Four, his final assignment with CBS. Thanks for sharing it. Ill see you down the road.

His new colleagues at ABC werent sure what to expect when Musburger arrived, given his tumultuous departure from CBS.

He was great from day one, says Golf Channels Jack Graham, who worked with Musburger at ABC. There was never an ego with him. I couldnt figure out what must have gone on for CBS to let him go, because he couldnt have been a better team guy.

Among his many ABC tasks, Musburger anchored the networks golf coverage, which included the regular Tour, U.S. Open and British Open. At that time there were no hole announcers, so Musburger had to call every shot. He was doing a job thats now done by four or five announcers.

We didnt put him in a position to thrive, says Graham, a member of that crew and later ABCs golf producer.

Still, his joy for the big events was evident. You can hear it in his call at the 1995 British Open at St. Andrews Yes! Yes! Rocca has done it! when Costantino Rocca holed a 65-foot birdie putt from the Valley of Sin to force a playoff.

When ESPN bumped Musburger from its featured college football games to the SEC Network in 2015, he dutifully reported to remote outposts such as Columbia, Mo., and Lexington, Ky., to call meaningless games for smaller audiences. To this day, you wont find any public comments from Musburger criticizing ESPNs decision to make the younger, robotic Chris Fowler its lead play-by-play man. ESPN could reduce his role, but it couldnt hide the fact that Big Game Brent remained the stations best play-by-play man.

Im not surprised that he worked as long as he did, because he truly loved it, Loomis says. I was surprised he was stepping away because I thought he was going to do it forever. You could hear it in his voice how much he loved doing it.

There was no farewell tour at ESPN; he left just days after word of his plans leaked out. He again thanked viewers for sharing your time with me, and suggested that they pay me a visit at my new place out in Las Vegas. Why not? We can share a cold one, and maybe a win or two. And then he was gone.

Holy George Halas! Whats going on here? Musburger exclaims in the VSiN studio on draft day when the Chicago Bears move up to pick North Carolina quarterback Mitch Trubisky with the second pick.

Outside, curious bettors at South Point mill around the studio, staring through the glass at the broadcasting legend. Hes fired up about the Trubisky shocker. Bang on it at the top, baby! Musburger tells a young producer prior to the news update. Lean on it!

Boo! Boo! Booooo! Musburger bellows coming out of a break. I just wanted to get fans ready for the New York Jets pick.

Word of Musburgers exploits from the previous days golf outing have leaked to the crew. Gee, Brent, one chip-in sure got you pumped up, quips South Point oddsmaker Chris Andrews, a regular VSiN analyst.

Brian Musburger conceived VSiN as a means to outflank sports rights-holders. Sports gambling remains a subject the networks and the leagues dance around. Brent Musburger and CBS were decades ahead of the curve in the 1970s with weekly NFL Today segments in which Snyder picked games though they avoided talking about point spreads. Forty years later, you still wont hear Jim Nantz talking about the betting favorites for the Masters or March Madness, sports bettings biggest event.

At VSiN, anything that impacts sports gambling is fair game. Brian Musburger noted that one of the first discussions his uncle led on VSiN, on Super Bowl Sunday, concerned Atlanta Falcons center Alex Macks broken left fibula and how pain medication would impact his play.

Thats a discussion the NFL doesnt want (the networks) to have, he said. Theres still great stories to be told without that access (rights holders have). With that access almost comes an obligation to tell the story (the leagues) want to hear. Thats worthless.

Brian Musburger wants VSiN to be the CNBC or Bloomberg of sports gaming reasoned, intensely analytical, absent the histrionics that are in vogue on many sports talk shows. He reasoned that the generation of sports fans that grew up playing fantasy sports already are immersed in predictive analytics. Vegas oddsmakers such as Magliulo have made their livings studying those numbers.

What they do is a science, and its seen as some kind of shady, dark art. Its anything but that, Brian Musburger said. What they do is no different than what traders on Wall Street do in setting markets.

His uncle has believed that for decades. Far from gaming the system, Brent Musburger long ago became convinced that my friends out in the desert are a force for good in sports. All they want is an honest game. . . he said on his last night at ESPN. Its a good part of sports. I consider it healthy.

In the world of sports betting, the NFL and several other sports leagues dwarf the action on golf. It spikes during the majors and last weeks Players Championship. As with the television networks ratings, Tiger Woods drove a lot of the action when he was at his best.

He kicked our asses for 15 years, says South Point bookmaker Jimmy Vaccaro. Heres a guy who was even money in a 64-man field.

Brian Musburger

Magliulo estimated that the golf handle dropped at least 30 percent when injuries knocked Woods off Tour but has recovered thanks to interest in young stars such as Dustin Johnson, Rickie Fowler and rookie Jon Rahm. (Folks are definitely enamored with him, Magliulo says.)

Head-to-head matchups drive a lot of the wagering on golf; last week South Point posted some 40 individual matchups at The Players.

The individual matchups are the most fun to play, Musburger says, though he finds golf and NASCAR two of the most difficult sports to bet. His advice: Hold your fire Anybody who bets before a tournament might as well just give your money to the bookmakers then ride a hot golfer on the weekend.

Musburger knows the problems the golf industry has experienced. He notes that some 800 courses have closed in recent years, that time and money hinder the games growth. He suggests that a little more action might help the game broaden its appeal.

Its a better betting game than mainstream America understands, he says. He studies a sheet with the early odds on the U.S. Open and contemplates bettors interest in a matchup between Dustin Johnson and Rory McIlroy. Youd have some early action on that, he says. Golf is a great betting game. Its a great betting game to play.

Then he begins making his way across South Points sports book toward the VSiN studio, pausing to talk with friends old and new. Its almost show time.

Part of VSiNs mission, he believes, is to convince doubters of that fact. He even expresses optimism that sports gambling will be legalized nationally, particularly given President Trumps history in the casino business. The biggest opponents will be the sports leagues. NBA commissioner Adam Silver has been open to the idea, but he doesnt have much company from other leagues.

Im really not a fan of hypocrisy, Musburger says during the round at Cascata. The truth of the matter is that professional sports in this country would not be as big without gambling on the outcomes. A lot of people engage in this because they like the action. Dont pretend youre holier than thou when we all know better especially the National Football League. Gambling has helped tremendously, so you might as well legalize it and try to share in the profits.

Read the original post:

Brent Musburger's big, new adventure involves sports gambling - Golfweek.com

Supreme Court decision to take on sports gambling issue might force NCAA to accept Las Vegas – USA TODAY

NCAA President Mark Emmert.(Photo: Bob Donnan, USA TODAY Sports)

On the heels of a federal judge issuing an injunction on March 7, 2013, that barred New Jersey from allowing sports betting in the midst of an ongoing legal battle between the state and five sports organizations, the NCAA affirmed its stance that the spread of gambling is a threat to the integrity of athletic competition and student-athlete well-being.

A lot has changed since then.

Las Vegas has become the de facto hub of college basketball in the week before the NCAA tournament, with four conference tournaments held there (plus another in Reno). The NHL has expanded there. The NFL is on the way.

And now, in perhaps the most interesting stress test for the NCAAs ban on holding events in states where sports betting is legal, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear a case that could determine whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act is legal.

Supreme Court's decision could spur action in Congress, sports leagues on gambling

NCAA women's basketball needs Sweet 16 to Vegas idea

If New Jersey wins and the federal law is ruled unconstitutional, states could be able to determine for themselves whether to allow sports betting. Which could put the NCAA in an interesting situation.

Its hard to say how many states would legalize sports betting immediately. If New Jersey and a handful of others opened betting parlors, the NCAA could certainly go on about its business without much interruption as silly as that might be.

But over time, this is a losing issue for the NCAA, as the NHL and NFL have now tacitly admitted by moving into Las Vegas after going out of their way for years to avoid it. The reality is a large percentage of people who watch sports like to wager on sports and will find ways to do so whether its in a casino, online or with their local bookie.

New Jersey isn't much of a loss for the NCAA. Its a state with one FBS university (Rutgers) and one facility (the Prudential Center in Newark) that is equipped to host an NCAA basketball tournament. Even at that, the NCAA would rather play in Brooklyn or Manhattan anyway.

But if Florida or Texas or California legalized sports gambling, does it stand to reason that the NCAA would pull its events and ignore those states?

Again, its difficult to handicap how the Supreme Court is going to rule on this. Maybe status quo wins out, but on a common-sense level its getting more difficult every year to justify the NCAAs stance on sports betting.

While protecting college athletes from some seedier elements of sports gambling remains a crucial part of its mission the NCAA conducts a study on the topic every four years to guide its educational efforts much of the negative perception of Las Vegas is rooted in a different time and place. The famous photograph of UNLV players in a hot tub with Richard The Fixer Perry in the early 1990s still resonates.

Still, its difficult to reconcile a hard-line stance against holding an NCAA tournament game at the new T-Mobile Arena on The Strip when the Pac-12 holds its tournament there without incident one week earlier. And it's certainly hard to justify pulling a women's soccer tournament or an NCAA track and field event out of New Jersey because of some existential gambling threat.

Even NCAA President Mark Emmert hinted at a possible softening of the policy during his annual news conference at the Final Four in April when asked if Las Vegas would be considered for the next round of bidding for the basketball tournament.

The board has been having active discussions about that issue, Emmert said. They have not changed the policy yet. And they won't be able to do so for this round of bidding. And I've communicated this to some of the leadership in Las Vegas. They will not be eligible for this round. Whether or not the board changes its mind before the next round, I can't say. Obviously there's a lot of collegiate athletic events going on in Nevada, both regular season and tournament events. And the board's acutely aware of that, and they'll be considering it.

The NCAA didnt immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. But ultimately, the Supreme Court could be what ends up forcing its hand.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court decision to take on sports gambling issue might force NCAA to accept Las Vegas - USA TODAY

Steven Caulker: ‘I contemplated suicide over drinking and gambling addictions’ – talkSPORT.com

Caulker has been told not to return for pre-season training at QPR

Steven Caulker has revealed spiralling drinking and gambling addictions led him to contemplate suicide in recent years.

The Queens Park Rangers defender has spent in in rehab to battle his demons which have threatened to end his playing career.

Caulker claims he has been told not to report for pre-season training after bouts of depression pushed him to consider taking his own life.

He told the Guardian: "I've sat here for years hating myself and never understood why I couldn't just be like everyone else.

"This year was almost the end. I felt for large periods there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

"I'd had one last gamble and lost a hell of a lot of money in December.

"It was at that point I finally accepted I could not win. I contemplated suicide a lot in that period. A dark time."

For confidential support call the Samaritans on 116123 or visit a local Samaritans branch, see http://www.samaritans.org for details.

See the article here:

Steven Caulker: 'I contemplated suicide over drinking and gambling addictions' - talkSPORT.com

Dog gives birth to 18 pups after woman saves her from euthanasia list – Atlanta Journal Constitution

BLUE SPRINGS. Mo.

A Missouri woman who fostered a pregnant dog that was on a euthanasia list was rewarded Sunday when 18 puppies were born to the mixed-breed dog.

Its heaven. Puppy pile, you cant get any better than that, Ashlee Holland toldWDAF.

Holland fostered Ava, a pregnant golden retriever-chow mix two weeks before the dog was due.

She had no other choice, no other hope, Holland toldPeople magazine.No dog deserves to be put to sleep for space.

I was aware she was having puppies but X-rays didnt show how many, Holland told WDAF.

Holland said her 9-year-old son, a big Kansas City Royals fan, named the puppies after some sports figures.

We got Ned Yost, Dayton Moore, Buck ONeil, Holland said.We got Esky and Royal.

Holland said Ava and her puppies will be ready for adoption in eight weeks, pending medical examinations. She has sincestarted aFacebook page for Ava and her pups.

And just to clarify, I know that a lot of articles are reporting that I adopted Ava, Holland wrote on the page.That is not the case. She is my foster.

Time to end this night with some puppy dreams

See the original post here:

Dog gives birth to 18 pups after woman saves her from euthanasia list - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Single payer and Charlie Gard: When euthanasia becomes a duty – Hot Air

When is death a duty? Two days ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of doctors over the parents in a battle over a baby with a rare and fatal genetic disease. The ECHR followed rulings from British courts, declaring that doctors in the UKs National Health Service could stop life support rather than allow the parents to bring Charlie Gard to the US for experimental treatment:

Born in August, Charlie Gard has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Caused by a genetic mutation, it leads to weakened muscles and organ dysfunction, among other symptoms, with a poor prognosis for most patients.

Charlie is on life support and has been in the intensive care unit at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London since October. His doctors wish to take him off life support, but his parents disagree.

Charlies parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, wanted the hospital to release Charlie into their custody so they can take him to the United States for an experimental treatment.

The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit, a press release from the court announcing the decision said.

The couple had raised nearly 1.4 million for that effort, which would have ended NHS involvement in the case, but the courts decided that they and not the parents were in position to decide that death rather than potential treatment was what was best for the child. Now the parentscannot even take the baby home to allow him to die there rather than in hospital, even though they pledged to cover all the costs:

Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been told by Great Ormond Street their sons life support will be switched off tomorrow but he cannot leave the ward.

The couples final wish for Charlie has been blocked and his mother Connie said today in a video for MailOnline: We promised our little boy every single day that we would take him home.

Mr Gard added: We want to give him a bath at home, put him in a cot which he has never slept in but we are now being denied that. We know what day our son is going to die but dont get a say in how that will happen.

Note that there was no disagreement between the parents over the course of care they wanted for Charlie. The two of them have lived at the hospital with their baby, and have been equally united in their desire to try anything to save his life. This is not a dispute between relatives over who should have control over care (as was the issue in the Terri Schiavo case) but whether the state or the parents should have the final say. In a single-payer system such as NHS, the courts have clearly ruled that the state has more standing on whether to allow someone to die than the person or his/her nearest relations. And now, the state through its socialized-medicine providers refuse to even allow the death to take place under the circumstances desired by the family.

While this case does not directly relate to euthanasia laws, there is nonetheless a cultural and moral link to European embrace of utilitarian policies on life. In this case, neither the patient nor the family wanted an end to a life, but the state ruled that compassion demanded the withdrawal of life support even absent the need to conserve resources for care. Critics have long warned that the embrace of euthanasia would eventually transform it from a choice to a duty, and that certainly seems to be what happened in the tragic case of Charlie Gard.

National Reviews Ian Tuttle warns that well see a lot more such cases in the future:

According to the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Francis of the High Courts Family Division, who authored the decision subsequently upheld by the higher courts, death is in Charlies best interests. There was no scientific basis for believing that Charlie would respond positively to the experimental American treatment; meanwhile, there is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. If, wrote Justice Francis, Charlies damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now? It was with a heavy heart, the judge said, that he sided with the doctors. Charlie should be permitted to die with dignity. In conclusion, Justice Francis praised the parents he had just overruled: Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlies parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born.

So it was that successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their sons welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their sons best interests.

The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection those between parent and child be subordinated to the judgment of the state?

The precedent established by Charlie Gards case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for worthier patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be compassionate, too.

Any day now, theyll kill Charlie Gard. But its in his own best interest. Dont you see?

Youll see it a lot, and eventually not just in Europe, either. Socialized medicine requires rationing by the state rather than by private-market forces, and that will be true in the US if we continue to go down the single-payer sinkhole.

Excerpt from:

Single payer and Charlie Gard: When euthanasia becomes a duty - Hot Air

He Was Considered the Patron Saint of Euthanasia. Now He’s Having Second Thoughts – LifeNews.com

There are red flags. And then there are really big red flags.

Dr. Boudewijn Chabot is considered the patron saint of euthanasia in the Netherlands, which he still supports. But hes now sounding the alarm that the killing has gone too far.

This should be a glaring wakeup call for Americans who are complacent about physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, or actually support it.

In 1991, Chabot, a geriatric psychiatrist, thumbed his nose at Dutch law and admittedly euthanized a physically healthy 52-year-old social worker. The High Court found him guilty without punishment. Until recently, he had celebrated the sea change ushered in by his deadly action.

He is now singing a different tune after research revealed how many individuals with dementia are being euthanized. The numbers are skyrocketing among this segment of society that has been the central focus of his professional career. Chabot also is alarmed with whos euthanizing them and the process being circumvented to carry it out.

In the past, advocates of euthanasia have touted three important safeguards governing Hollands euthanasia law: 1) a voluntary and deliberate request: 2) an individual with unbearable suffering without the prospect of improvements; and 3) no reasonable alternative to euthanasia is available.

According to Chabot, these so-called safeguards are quickly falling by the wayside. Silently, the very foundation of the law is being eroded, he said.

He offers evidence to prove his point.

Safeguard No. 1 requires that the person who wants to be euthanized provides a verbal, deliberate request. That has now been substituted with a written a letter of intent which can easily be forged or manipulated to represent the patients wishes. The law also doesnt require that the physician administering euthanasia have a therapeutic relationship with the patient, which makes it difficult at best to know if it is a genuine request. Regardless, Chabot doesnt believe a person in the advanced stages of dementia can authentically request euthanasia when they are unaware of what will actually be happening.

Chabot was further concerned to find out that sometimes when permission isnt given, its not needed. If necessary, physical force is used. He cited a doctor who started the euthanasia process by sneaking a sedative into the patients coffee. The patient resisted the lethal injection and family members held her down as he killed her. In the end, the physician still called her a cooperative participant.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.

Safeguard No. 2 was scrapped in 2012 when the Review Committee stopped questioning doctors who said their euthanasia patients experienced unbearable suffering without a prospect of improvement. Responding to objections, the committee replied, Who are we to question the doctors? Professionals say it is already difficult to effectively judge unbearable suffering with advanced dementia, and nearly impossible without a therapeutic relationship with the patient.

Safeguard No. 3 was summarily discarded when doctors began to allow patients to reject any available alternatives and still qualify for euthanasia.

Chabot points out that the use of nice-sounding euphemisms had been an effective tool to introduce euthanasia in the Netherlands. He compares the process to how the first abortion law was introduced by saying a woman had to be in an emergency situation to get one. It didnt take long before every woman got a requested abortion if she rejected any other solution. Self-determination around the end of life is for many people as important as in the context of abortion, Chabot observed.

Chabots red flags should be an obvious concern for Americans. He writes, One can easily predict that all of this could cause a skyrocketing increase in the number of euthanasia cases and attributes it to the financial dismantling of care.

We have experienced a similar dismantling in the US, particularly in the wake of Obamacare.

Within the jungle of healthcare, insurance companies are at the top of the food chain. In the midst of the jungle, patients struggle to get through the thick vegetation of obstacles planted by insurance providers, when its the patients who should be the priority in the healthcare process.

Individuals living in states that have passed physician assisted suicide laws are most vulnerable. Insurance companies have rejected patients needs for expensive life-saving treatment, while offering to cover the cost of toxic drugs to end their lives.

Learn how to protect yourself with free end-of-life resources.

In the Netherlands, End of Life Clinic Foundation is the Planned Parenthood of the euthanasia industry. They kill patients who have been turned down by their own doctors, many of them suffering from dementia. By 2016 they performed 75 percent of all euthanasia cases involving chronic psychiatric patients. The foundation views euthanasia as virtuous labor. This sounds eerily familiar to Planned Parenthoods Care. No matter what.

The evolution of euthanasia in the Netherlands has caused Chabot to ask, What happens to doctors for whom a deadly injection becomes a monthly routine?

In summary, Chabot asks another question, Where did the euthanasia law go off the tracks? He then provides a clear cut, three-part answer.

1) When the existence of a treatment relationship was no longer required.

2) When patients with dementia were no longer required to make a definitive verbal request.

3) And particularly when the Review Committee concealed the fact that incapacitated people were being surreptitiously killed.

The former full-throated euthanasia activist doesnt see how they can get the genie back into the bottle. But, he says, It would mean a lot if wed acknowledge hes out.

America beware. It didnt take the Netherlands long to advance to their extreme euthanasia policies.

We are already quick on their heels.

Nursing Times magazine reports one in four nurses admits to injecting terminal patients with drugs to speed their dying. Two-thirds want to legalize euthanasia.

The Oregon State Senate recently approved amending their advance directive to in some cases allow withholding food and water from patients with dementia and mental illness against their will. The insurance industry was a chief advocate.

Charles D. Blanke, MD, participates in Oregons physician assisted suicide program. Yet he is surprised by how few of his colleagues (5 percent), first refer patients to psychiatrists. Depression often disqualifies an individual from receiving the lethal drugs.

He is also concerned only 17 percent of these physicians are present during an assisted suicide. Blanke offers himself to all of his patients and 100 percent of them have said yes.

Evidence shows that like abortion, the patient isnt the top priority during the killing process. The question is, can America learn from our friends across the pond before its too late?

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute.

Continue reading here:

He Was Considered the Patron Saint of Euthanasia. Now He's Having Second Thoughts - LifeNews.com

Anti-euthanasia campaigner touring Australia with some very extreme views – NEWS.com.au

A vocal member of the QandA audience expressed her own feelings on euthanasia in Australia. Courtesy: ABC

William Toffler is touring Australia campaigning against euthanasia. Picture: Facinglife.tv/Youtube

AN ultraconservative, anti-euthanasia campaigner with extreme views on abortion and contraception is this week touring Australia and meeting with senior MPs.

US doctor William Toffler believes abortion can lead to breast cancer, contraception is against Gods plan and suicide is a sin. Now hes here on the dime of a Liberal politician to convince some powerful people not to legalise assisted dying, which has been legal in his home state of Oregon for 20 years.

Im here to educate people its probably not great to make Oregons mistake, he told news.com.au. Theres a shroud of secrecy, its corrupted the practice of medicine, violating the trust between doctors and patients.

The paradigm of situational killing is anathema to end-of-life care.

This is the perfect murder. Its very flawed, very dangerous and impossible to circumscribe.

William Toffler is touring Australia campaigning against euthanasia. Picture: Facinglife.tv/YoutubeSource:YouTube

Dr Toffler who is this week addressing MPs in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth says there are no adequate psychiatric tests for people who want to end their lives and that they are not asked whether they have life insurance or who the beneficiary is.

He lists a number of anecdotes about people who did not have appropriate mental health checks, about a woman absconding with her euthanised partners $25,000 and about medical staff failing to administer lethal doses properly.

While the statistics from Oregon indicate all is well, Dr Toffler says thats because cases are not properly investigated.

Victorian MP and Leader of the The Australian Sex Party Fiona Patten told news.com.au Dr Toffler was providing a lot of misinformation and misrepresenting the situation in Oregon.

She said she supported his right to free speech but that he had no evidence to support his theories and she felt he was trying to force his views on others.

Ms Patten said she had visited Oregon, where there had not been one case of litigation, and gained a very different picture from doctors and patients.

Im hoping people look at the evidence and listen to the experts in this area and vote on its merits, she said. I dont think Professor Toffler is very helpful in that respect.

Sex Party leader and Victorian MP Fiona Patten said Dr Toffler was trying to force his views on others. Picture: Mark StewartSource:News Corp Australia

The Catholic Church and Right to Die are very well funded. I know privately an enormous number of MPs would like to see physician assisted dying approved.

We received over 1000 submissions to our inquiry. I dont think anyone with compassion could have heard them and not want to give patients at the end of their lives and suffering some kind of autonomy.

She said the alternatives to assisted dying were often violent suicides, unregulated euthanasia or Dr Tofflers recommendation of sedation, in which patients died of starvation or dehydration.

Polls show around 80 per of Victorians and, it is believed, Australians nationwide support a law for voluntary assisted dying.

Shayne Higson, Vice President of Dying with Dignity, told news.com.au that the law in Oregon had been working safely and effectively for 20 years, supported by the public and medical profession, which was why similar laws are now in place across six states in America.

Hopefully the parliamentarians of Victoria and NSW will not be persuaded by scaremongering, she said. It is a challenge when groups like Right to Life bring people here and put them forward as experts. I dont think Dr Toffler would be considered an expert in Oregon.

Hes Catholic and represents a very small minority of people.

His views are not really credible. Its disappointing that Australians, especially the Victorian Parliament, are going to be exposed to his views. We deserve a better, evidence-based debate.

There is no slippery slope, and no evidence of widespread abuse.

Dr Toffler says that while the law currently only allows assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent patients, there is no reason this would not be extended if people were suffering for longer periods of time.

Andrew Irving, holding a photo of wife Marilyn, who passed away after a long illness, at a rally supporting a voluntary assisted dying bill. Picture: Luke BowdenSource:News Corp Australia

Claiming dignity by taking a massive overdose is specious, he said. I was married for 40 years my wife died 13 months ago with cancer of the uterus.

The reality is because my wife and I knew she was going to die there was suffering, but also great joy. Our days together all more special because we knew they were numbered.

I wouldnt trade it for a nanosecond. To say an overdose is dignified, what does it say about my family, my wife, who chose to live her life fully with support from family and doctors?

Many advocates for assisted dying have spoken out against Dr Tofflers visit, which comes as the debate heats up in Australia, particularly in Victoria and NSW, where Voluntary Assisted Dying Bills have been tabled to the state parliaments.

While Premier Daniel Andrews, most of his ministers, the Sex Party and the Greens are in favour of reform, some are not, including such as Deputy Premier James Merlino, Opposition leader Matthew Guy and socially conservative Liberals and crossbenchers.

Anne Gabrielides from NSW is terminally ill and campaigning for the right to die on her own terms.Source:News Corp Australia

A spokesperson from Go Gentle Australia told news.com.au in a statement: Dr Toffler is a controversial member of the religious right and was part of a very small minority in the Oregon Medical Association who opposed a womans right to choose abortion and did so because God told him so. He has publicly aligned himself with the discredited view that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, a view opposed by, among others, the Australian Medical Association, the Cancer Council of Australia and the Breast Cancer Network, Australia.

Toffler is being sponsored in his visit to parliament by Liberal MLC Inga Peulich. Ms Peulich was one of two dissenting votes on the Cross-Parliamentary Inquiry into End-of-Life Choices Committee. Their recommendations (6-2 in favour) laid the groundwork for the voluntary assisted dying bill to go before Parliament later this year.

Along with the other dissenting voice Labor MP Daniel Mulino Ms Peulich chose not to travel with the Committee to Oregon, or other jurisdictions where assisted dying laws exist, to learn how they work.

Instead, she has chosen to sponsor a speech to MPs by a doctor with extreme religious views. A doctor whose opposition to Oregons Death with Dignity law not only predates its existence, but also flies in the face of its widespread acceptance after more than 20 years of operation.

The people of Victoria deserve better from Ms Peulich than the introduction of a religious extremist into this important public health debate.

Here is the original post:

Anti-euthanasia campaigner touring Australia with some very extreme views - NEWS.com.au

Why It’s Incoherent To Support Euthanasia And Oppose Suicide – The Federalist

Physician-assisted suicide is facing New Yorks high court, with a ruling due sometime this summer. We can already see the inherent doublespeak that is far too common among supporters of legalizing physician-assisted suicide.

In U.S. News & World Report, attorney Edwin Schallert, the representative of an advocacy group known as End of Life Choices New York, literally said, We dont view this as suicide Its a medically and ethically appropriate treatment. Schallert and his associates, as reported in Newsday, prefer to use the term aid in dying.

Here is the problem. Aid in dying implies that the individual requesting the treatment wants to die. The aid that is being procured is the result of that desire. When someone does not request aid in dying but receives aid in dying anyway, we call that euthanasia or murder.

The intent is clearly what differentiates these two situations, and, to be fair, advocates of physician-assisted suicide understand this. Perhaps they do not understand how their policies can be abused to cover up murder, but very few people would ever advocate that any type of aid in dying should be received by someone who does not want to die and did not request that aid.

However, using the language of aid in dying and operating under the assumption that this aid is only to be provided when the individual with the terminal illness explicitly requests it brings the defender of physician-assisted suicide into yet another explicit contradiction about the situational acceptability of suicide.

When a particular individual is requesting aid in dying, presumably this individual is not able to do it him- or herself. Suicide is an epidemic-level problem in our society today, and with productions like 13 Reasons Why influencing teenagers all over our country, it is obvious that many people do commit suicide without any assistance from anyone else.

Again, though, we need to look at the intent of this situation. We consider an intentional, self-inflicted death to be a suicide in all other situations, but in this particular case, Schallert wants to call this particular act anything but a suicide. Therefore, euthanasia advocates chose the much more positive-sounding aid in dying. This is supposed to be seen as something that helps people get where they want to be. For an individual who is voluntarily seeking out physician-assisted suicide, the end target is death.

The previously mentioned contradiction is rather blatant. It says suicide is permissible in certain situations, and we might call it something else, such as aid in dying. However, it is still a form of suicide based on the fact that an individual is seeking to terminate his or her own life. That is the definition we use for suicide in every other context.

Society teaches it is unacceptable for someone to choose to terminate his or her life when he or she is a teenager enduring bullying and sometimes horrific harassment from peers. In these situations, we provide counselors to help these individuals overcome their suicidal tendencies, and this is a good thing without a doubt.

That same society, by affirming physician-assisted suicide, is teaching that it is acceptable for someone to choose to terminate his or her own life, most commonly in cases of terminal illness. The suicidal tendencies in these individuals minds are apparently not wrong as, rather than bring in the professional counselors to try to help these people overcome their suicidal thoughts, they are allowed to act on them. They want to commit suicide, so because of their particular situation in life, it is somehow magically acceptable to basically not bother trying to prevent this decision.

This contradiction is exactly why Schallert and his camp cannot allow physician-assisted suicide to be called suicide, as it really ought to be classified. The minute they admit that it is suicide, they have to answer the above contradiction, and there is no good reason for saying that one life is valuable and worth support while another life is not. There is no legitimate reason for saying that a teenager needs counseling while saying an elderly, terminal cancer patient does not. One life is clearly seen as valuable and worth preserving, while another is not. It is hard to simultaneously affirm that we believe in equality yet not provide everyone the same supports.

How far do you think any type of physician-assisted suicide legislation would get if it were not covered in doublespeak? Proponents speak about being compassionate, but they are actually agents involved in dehumanizing individuals with terminal illness.

For all of the talk about death with dignity, it is interesting that these individuals are deprived of the human dignity we give to any other individual contemplating suicide. Because they have inherent value as human beings, we seek to help them overcome these destructive tendencies and affirm the value in their lives. By acknowledging physician-assisted suicide for the suicide that it really is, we are stripping these individuals of the dignity they naturally deserve. They deserve our best efforts to help them affirm the value of their own life, just like any other individual who seems to be moving towards suicide.

Helping any suicidal individual to choose life is a true affirmation of the dignity of each person no matter what. Aid in dying and its associated euphemisms do just the opposite and destroy human dignity.

Continued here:

Why It's Incoherent To Support Euthanasia And Oppose Suicide - The Federalist