As noted in the recent article Flu Crisis Hits Cancer Surgery: Britain Teeters on the Brink of an Epidemic, the flu seems to be hitting Brits pretty hard this winter. So much so that they are now short on inpatient hospital beds in some facilities. The article states that the British health care system is at near epidemic level with the flu:
So far this winter nine children and 18 adults are confirmed to have died from the virus, although in reality this number is expected to be much higher.
One intensive care doctor described the outbreak as the worst he had seen in two decades. Dr Ian Jenkins, former president of the Paediatric Intensive Care Society, who works at Bristol Children's Hospital, said: 'I've not seen this much flu in more than 20 years.'
In another article, Swine flu kills 10 in Britain; sparks fear of another pandemic in 2011, the ghost of the Swine Flu virus is resurrected as the cause of this recent spike in flu-like illness.
While the article starts out with the words, "It's back!", we have some doubt that this soon-to-be flu epidemic is solely the result of this virus. Let's not forget that virus experts stated from the early days of the so-called global Swine Flu pandemic that the Swine Flu virus went global before health authorities could do anything about it. In other words, everybody has experienced this virus to some extent by now, and the results have been somewhat blasé compared to the dire predictions of dead millions initially made by the WHO.
While the spike in flu cases in Britain is very real, the purported Swine Flu virus as the cause is likely another example of medical propaganda run amok. But if this recent epidemic in Britain isn't the result of a measly virus, then what is?
Developers of a creationism theme park have
asked the state Transportation Cabinet to
improve an Interstate 75 interchange in Grant
County to accommodate the projected 1.6 million
visitors per year.
Transportation Cabinet spokesman Chuck Wolfe
said in a statement that the proposal to increase
capacity at the Ky. 36 interchange would
undergo a thorough review.
“At this point, no commitments have been
made,” he said.
Ark Encounter, which will feature a 500-foot
wooden representation of Noah's Ark containing
live animals such as giraffes, is projected to cost
as much as $172.5 million and create 500 full-
time and 400 part-time jobs. It is expected to
open in 2014.
The park, on 800 acres in Grant County off
Interstate 75, also will include a Walled City, live
animal shows, a representation of the Tower of
Babel, a 500-seat special-effects theater, an
aviary and a first-century Middle Eastern village.
Project spokeswoman Melany Ethridge said as
many as 500 vehicles are expected to enter the
attraction's 3,500-space parking lot during peak
hours.
Wolfe said the cabinet does not know yet how
much the proposed interchange improvements
would cost.
He said it is common for developers to approach
the state, regarding traffic implications for
projects and for the state to respond by making
improvements.
Washington has revoked the visa of the Venezuelan ambassador to the US, the US state department has said.
The move comes amid a diplomatic dispute between the two countries over President Barack Obama's choice of ambassador to Caracas, Larry Palmer.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had been angered by comments Mr Palmer made about the country this year, and withdrew his approval of Mr Palmer. The US move in effect expels Venezuelan envoy Bernardo Alvarez Herrera.
It is not thought Mr Herrera is currently in the US, but the revocation means he cannot return.
State department spokesman Mark Toner said Caracas had only itself to blame. "We said there would be consequences when the Venezuelan government rescinded agreement regarding our nominee, Larry Palmer. We have taken appropriate, proportional and reciprocal action," he said in an emailed statement.
News of the revocation had been carried earlier on Venezuelan sources. Venezuela's Deputy Foreign Minister Temir Porras wrote on his Twitter account: "I can confirm. USA revoked the visa of ambassador Bernardo Alvarez."
On Tuesday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a fierce critic of the US, said: "We have denied permission to this aspiring ambassador and now the US government threatens us with reprisals. "They will do what they want, but that man is not coming here as ambassador. Anyone who comes here as an ambassador has to show respect. This is a country that must be respected."
On behalf of its currently active and former members in the Army, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) called today on the Secretary of the Army to halt its invasive and unconstitutional “spiritual fitness” survey and rehabilitation program.
Foundation Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote John McHugh, Secretary of the Army, asking him to stop the “spiritual fitness” assessment:
“It is ironic that while nonbelievers are fighting to protect freedoms for all Americans, their freedoms are being trampled upon by this Army practice.”
FFRF, a state/church watchdog with 16,000 members which also serves as the nation’s largest association of nontheists, noted that 15% of the U.S. population is not religious, but that surveys have shown that nearly 24% of all military personnel identify as atheist, agnostic or have no religious preference.
Nonbelieving soldiers who took the survey told FFRF that when they answered the spiritual questions on the survey negatively, they received a low spiritual fitness score and were referred to a “spiritual fitness training program.”
The Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program includes a mandatory “spiritual fitness” evaluation as one category of the Global Assessment Test. In the spiritual fitness category, soldiers are evaluated by how they rank statements on a spectrum from “not like me at all” to “very much like me.” The spiritual statements include:
“I am a spiritual person.”
“My life has lasting meaning.”
“I believe there is a purpose for my life.”
In their letter, Barker and Gaylor called the negative assessment for nonspiritual soldiers “deeply offensive and inappropriate.” “By definition, nontheists do not believe in deities, spirits, or the supernatural. The Army may not send the morale-deflating message to nonbelievers that they are lesser soldiers, much less imply they are somehow incomplete, purposeless or empty. As nontheists, we reject the idea that there is a purpose for life; we believe individuals make their own purpose in life.”
Those who receive low “spiritual fitness” ratings are referred to a training program in which they are told, absurdly, that “Prayer is for all individuals.” They are encouraged to use “spiritual support as your armor or battle gear” and seek out chaplain guidance, and to consider “church” and “higher power.”
“We are shocked that the training module resurrects a bogus Christian revisionist explanation for ceremonial flag folding, one which has been explicitly repudiated by the Department of Veteran Affairs,” noted Barker.
FFRF cited Supreme Court case law mandating government neutrality and protecting freedom of conscience. The spiritual fitness evaluation, FFRF noted, is also in violation of Army equal opportunity provisions.
“Service members have the constitutional right to decide whether to observe religious practices and what beliefs or non-beliefs to profess, accept or reject about life, meaning, spirits, etc. Neither CSF nor the Army may dictate what is orthodox in matters of conscience,” the letter concluded.
Urbanization on an extraordinary scale is happening in Asia, whose megalopolises are absorbing millions of new residents every year. Perhaps surprisingly, the character of these rapidly expanding cities reflects less their regions’ local traditions than the political conditions under which they have grown. A good example is Manila, possibly Asia’s most disorderly city, which gets bigger by the day, shantytown after shantytown. Despite Manila’s obvious vitality, the ancient Spanish-designed central city has degenerated into a seedy slum, in part because the Philippines has known only weak, crooked governments. No corruptly elected official cares about, say, saving a historic district or planning infrastructure adequately. In Manila, it’s everyone for himself—and this is true not just of the politicians but also of the wealthy elite, who have decamped to a vast gated community, called Makati, located nearer to the international airport than to the older Manila.
However, one finds the most striking evidence of how politics shapes the new Asian megalopolises in the differences between Seoul, South Korea’s capital, and China’s leading cities. After all, the Korean and Chinese cultures are similar. Both are founded on the hierarchical Confucian philosophy; both have been influenced by Buddhism. But Seoul is democratic, and the political debates of an open society have profoundly influenced its development. China’s cities, by contrast, reflect the autocratic and corrupt rule of the Communist Party.
Take Shanghai, China’s largest city, with a population of more than 19 million. Originally built by Europeans for Europeans, Shanghai has preserved some of the streets of its West-in-the-East past and boasts a lively, nearly tropical ambience that endears it to foreign visitors. But the Chinese government has, unsurprisingly, sought to transform the city into a glittering showcase of China’s rising power—above all, to lure foreign banks and investors away from Hong Kong. The tactic has yet to succeed: Hong Kong remains more attractive, though less because of its impressive buildings (Shanghai’s can compete in height, if not in architectural quality) than because of its commitment to the rule of law.
Shanghai is a “costly facade to maintain,” confesses Yan Hansheng, its deputy mayor for finance. The city’s primary financial resources are still its traditional factories, owned mostly by the government, which continue to grind out steel, cars, and textiles. These industries, located west of the city center, remain hidden behind the costly facade; few foreigners ever travel that far. To protect Shanghai’s gleaming appearance further, the government also keeps tight control over the population. Officials view the peasant migrants who work menial jobs in Shanghai as a stain on the Western-oriented city and prevent them from living there or sending their children to local schools. To live permanently in Shanghai, one must be born a Shanghai citizen. (The mother transmits citizenship—a system in effect throughout China.) There are some exceptions, based on merit—holding a university degree helps—or on securing a fake identity card. All other migrants who work in Shanghai, though, must return by night to the shantytowns or shoddy workers’ dormitories at the city’s periphery, far from the cosmopolitan city center.
The authoritarian Communist regime also shapes China’s capital city, though in a different way. Travelers to Beijing should not expect to find any traces of the ancient and beautiful imperial capital, whose debasement began immediately after the Communist revolution. In October 1949, from Tiananmen, the monumental gate leading to the imperial palace, Mao Zedong proclaimed the “liberation” of China and demanded that factory chimneys replace pagodas and temples. About 1,000 religious buildings, many of them hundreds of years old, were soon destroyed or transformed into belching factories. By the early 1960s, Beijing looked more like mid-nineteenth-century Birmingham than like the capital that European travelers had once nicknamed the “Holy City.” Unmoved by the pleas of some older scholars, Mao also demolished the walls surrounding Beijing, which had stood since the seventeenth century. The ostensible purpose was to ease traffic, but there were few cars in the city at the time.
On the second anniversary of Israel’s 22-day war on Gaza, a pan-Asian convoy of activists representing more than a dozen countries awaits Cairo’s approval to enter the besieged strip. The ‘Asia to Gaza’ convoy, which took off from New Delhi on December 2, is currently stuck in Latakia, Syria, as its spokesmen continue negotiations with Cairo, via Egypt’s ambassador to Damascus, on how the aid convoy can enter Gaza.
According to Asia to Gaza’s founder, Feroze Mithiborwala, the convoy is negotiating how it will enter Gaza via Egypt.
Speaking to Ahram Online by phone from Latikia on Monday, Mithiborwala said the convoy has two options: either sail from Latikia to El-Arish port of Egypt, then take buses to Gaza, or fly to Arish and ship their $1 million worth of aid supplies (including medicine, ambulances and solar generators for electricity) by sea.
“We are in the middle of talks,” he said, “we’re negotiating and renegotiating everything [with the Egyptians] so we’re not in a position to give details.”
The convoy’s Twitter account posted information late on Sunday that Egypt granted entry visas to “Indian and Indonesian activists” but without permission to cross into Gaza.
During its stop in Iran two weeks ago, the local media reported that seven Iranian MPs will join the convoy but Mithiborwala said Asia to Gaza’s Iranians are merely “civil society friends”. Asked if the problem that is stalling the convoy’s onward journey at this stage are the Iranians - given the diplomatic tension between Cairo and Tehran - Mithiborwala said he “wouldn’t comment. We’re still negotiating”.
Mithiborwala described the Egyptian ambassador to Syria as “very cooperative”.
The Asia to Gaza convoy consists of 125 to 160 people from more than 15 countries including India, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, New Zealand and Kuwait. It was scheduled to reach Gaza by December 27, in time for the second anniversary of Israel's 22-day war on the Strip that started on December 28, 2008. Approximately 1,400 Palestinians were killed and 5,000 injured or maimed in the three-week war. Half of Gaza's infrastructure was destroyed and remains unrepaired as a result of Israel's siege, which includes a ban on the entry of building materials into the strip.
What, exactly, do religious believers want from atheists?
If you follow the atheism debates in op-ed pieces and whatnot, you'll see that critiques of the so-called New Atheist movement are often aimed at our tone. Among the pundits and opinion-makers, atheist writers and activists are typically called out for being offensive, intolerant, disrespectful, extremist, hostile, confrontational, and just generally asshats. The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks. And if these op-ed pieces and whatnot were all you knew about the atheist movement and the critiques of it, you might think that atheists were simply being asked to be reasonable, civil, and polite.
But if you follow atheism in the news, you begin to see a very different story.
You begin to see that atheists are regularly criticized -- vilified, even -- simply for existing.
Or, to be more accurate, for existing in the open. For declining to hide our atheism. For coming out.
Case in point: In Bryan/ College Station, Texas, the Brazos Valley Vuvuzela Atheist Marching Band recently marched in the annual Christmas parade. Now, let's be very clear about this: The 18-person marching band didn't march with signs saying "Fuck Your Religion," or "You Know It's A Myth," or even "There's Probably No God -- Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life." They wished people a merry Christmas, and a happy Hanukkah, and a merry Kwanzaa. They played "Jingle Bells" on vuvuzelas. And they carried a banner saying they were atheists.
Which was enough, apparently, to send many Christians into fits. The atheist presence in the Christmas parade created a substantial controversy in the area. One resident interviewed by the local news, Tina Corgey, said, "I spent many years teaching my children to love and respect other people and to love the fact that they were children of God and I don't feel that they should be influenced in any other way especially not at a Christmas parade." She added, "If you have younger children they weren't going to understand but I have older children, a teenager, 8-year-old and they were curious and they asked questions and it was hard for them to believe and understand that there are actually people out there that don't believe in God."
And she was hardly alone. Her sentiments were echoed in many comments on the local news story. Including:
"There was one entry that should not have been in the parade. It was against Christmas."
"We let people make a mockery out of us!!!!! My family and I have participated or watched the parade for the last 25 years, however, this was our last and hopefully other people feel the same way. Why on Earth would we allow Atheist to be in the Parade????"
"You have no idea what this holiday means for those of use who believe in a greater being. You offend me and everyone else."
"They were there to be provocative, plain and simple. No different from a white supremacist group marching in a Juneteenth parade. This group had no business marching at that event. They are a hate group and they should be ashamed."
"It is like the KKK going to a black church saying they are there to bring peace."
"Last I checked, the event was called a CHRISTmas parade. Not a Happy Holidays, not a Merry Hanukkah, or a Jolly Kwanza. If you want a parade to celebrate non-Christian religious beliefs then lobby B/CS for your OWN parade."
"If atheist are allowed to march in the parade, then maybe next year we can add some strippers advertising the silk stocking or how about some petafiles advertising their love for the kiddos! Those wouldn't be wrong, since we are wanting to be welcoming of everyone!"
"A CHRISTMAS Parade is NOT the place for the Athiest band and they know it. They did not belong in the parade. They shouted howdy to our area of the parade and not Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays as indicated in the written article. They were mocking all the other bands and drill teams in the parade. They have a right to their beliefs or non-beliefs but flaunting it in a CHRISTMAS parade, I think not."
"By quoting the first amendment you just proved you were there to start trouble."
Just to name a few.
To be fair, these sentiments weren't the only ones being expressed. Many people clearly stated their appreciation for the atheist marching band; others said they didn't like them but respected their right to be there; still others said Christians should embrace the atheists, and hopefully turn them to Jesus.
But this "no atheists in the Christmas parade" sentiment was widely expressed. And more to the point: Many people weren't content to simply say, "I don't like this." They were saying that it should not have been allowed. They were saying that atheists, quite literally, should not have been permitted to march.
