Pakistan Backs Iran

During the Trilateral Talks between, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran; Asif Ali Zardari, leader of Pakistan, pledged to support Iran if it was attacked. This marks the second country to announce such a move. A month ago, to the day, Russia announced that any attack on Iran would be considered an attack on Moscow.

An attack on Iran is expected from Israel, and possibly the United States and the European Union as well, if Iran does not cease their nuclear program. Iran claims the program is for energy purposes, but then brags about refining uranium well beyond what is needed for energy, closing ever more so upon weapons grade. Which is exactly what Israel, the US and EU have accused Iran of, seeking nuclear weapons.

So far sanctions, have been unable to convince Iran to stop, despite the fact that the effects of them are being severely felt. Even China has joined the majority of the world on placing them against the belligerent nation. Russia, however, has vetoed every proposal by the United Nations to place international sanctions on Iran.

Tensions have remained high due to Iran's continued threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Assassinations of Iranian scientists, have not helped the matter either. Just this week attacks on Israeli embassy staff members, and the capture of Iranian bomb makers in Thailand, added even more fuel to the fateful heading.

This also marks further trouble between the US and Pakistan. Formerly allies in the war against the Taliban, Pakistan is at the conference partially to make a separate peace. The alliance has been falling apart lately as the government and military of Pakistan keep finding themselves at odds, yet the US stayed out of it when the President asked for help after Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan. China however, has been offering at least an ear to Zardari's troubles.

Gary Carter, Dead at 57

Hall of fame catcher Gary Carter succumbed to brain cancer Thursday afternoon, at the age of 57. Remembered for his non stop love of the game, he played nineteen years for four teams. The New York Mets, Montreal Expos, San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers all were lucky enough to have them on their teams during his career. He helped the Mets to a World Series win, and the Expos to their only playoff berth ever.

An 11-time All Star, he finished his career with a .262 average, 324 home runs and 1,225 RBIs. Twice he took home MVP for the All Star game, and is the only player to have a two-homer performance in both an All-Star Game and a World Series game. He also holds the record for most games caught in the NL.

"He is in heaven and has reunited with his mom and dad. I believe with all my heart that dad had a STANDING OVATION as he walked through the gates of heaven to be with Jesus," Carter's daughter, Kimmy Bloemers, wrote on the family website.

Civilization V: Gods and Kings

Civvers have been rejoicing as Thursday, 2KGames announced the first real expansion of Civilization V. Gods and Kings adds "27 new units, 13 new buildings, 9 new wonders, and 9 new playable civilizations. Among the new civilizations are the Netherlands (William I, Prince of Orange), the Celts (Boudicca), and the Mayans (Pacal the Great)."

 It will also host a brand new combat system, where the AI should be even more intelligent. It's armies should be more balanced, forcing human players to think more. Also look for melee naval units.

Favourites from Civ 4, are returning as well, though reworked to show they belong in 5. Religions are indeed back, though this time they are customizable, to a degree. Espionage has returned as well, with spies being able to do the usual things, as well as having abilities never before seen in any Civ, including ranks of their own.

With the addition of religion, of course they had to add religious city states. Mercantile city states are also being introduced. The inclusion of espionage will have effects on relations with city states, and the quest system has been vastly expanded, which also helpfully reduces the amount of gold needed to spend on them.

Lastly mentioned, but surely not the last bit of the expansion, there are three new scenarios that come with it. You can now play "the fall of Rome, explore the medieval era, and a unique scenario in a Victorian science-fiction setting."

Exciting news that will surely lead to even more One More Turn Syndrome issues for games lucky enough to be known as civvers.

Government's Continued Push to Regulate our Lives

Whether it's food, sexual education (as early as Kindergarten), or which part of our nations history is important, the nanny state knows better how to raise your children. At least according to the left.

Just a couple of weeks ago in Raeford, North Carolina, a school confiscated a preschool girls lunch because they felt it was "not nutritious", replacing her homemade turkey sandwich with
chicken meat nuggets. h/t @BBUHM at TORARADICAL.com

UPDATE: A second mother, Diane Zambrano, says her 4-year-old daughter, Jazlyn, in the same West Hoke Elementary School class as the little girl whose lunch gained national attention earlier this week, had her lunch of a cheese and salami sandwich on wheat replaced last month with nuggets, sweet potato, bread, and milk. via The Blaze, 2/17/12

UPDATE 3/7/12: The teacher who replaced the child's lunch, Ms. Maynor, has been suspended indefinitely. However, the policy that required Ms. Maynor to seize the girls lunch has not been changed.

Last week, in Lansing, Michigan, during a legislative hearing at the state capitol, Debbie Squires, the associate director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, explained to the House Education Committee why her association opposed allowing more online schools. “Educators go through education for a reason,” Squires said. “They are the people who know best about how to serve children. That’s not necessarily true of an individual resident. I’m not saying they don’t want the best for their children, but they may not know what actually is best from an education standpoint.”




As the Education Action Group at Big Government rightfully points out, Squires’ comments are noteworthy because they give parents and citizens a window into the minds of the nation’s self-proclaimed education experts. Despite their talk of “collaborating” with parents to reform public education, the establishment honestly believes that parents are too ignorant and ill-informed to choose the best learning option for their child. Not only that, but they believe charter schools and cyber schools are consuming tax dollars that rightfully belong to the government-run public schools. They argue that the only thing preventing traditional public schools from producing amazing student results is a lack of money.

The Education Action Group also points out, that despite an 82.5% increase per pupil, the U.S. Department of Education has been on a consistent academic decline. The facts suggest otherwise. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Services, per pupil spending increased by 82.5 percent – in constant dollars – from the 1980-81 school year to the 2008-09 school year. What did taxpayers get in return for their increased investment? From 1980 to 2010, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores in critical reading dropped one point (from 502 to 501), while the average math SAT score increased a meager 24 points (492 to 516). (A score of 500 is considered to be average.)

The Left in our country, from the top down, continue to drain our freedoms in the name of 'compassion'. They believe that we the people aren't capable of making the best decisions for our lives, and whether their policies or government forced legislation causes harm or takes away our individual liberties, as long as the good intentions are there... well, that's all that matters.


As Bob Beckel, liberal contributor to Fox News' The Five, said on January 18th 2012; “We liberals made a terrible mistake going back 30 years ago. We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing. We had things like public housing and we had welfare payments and all that bred dependency, and it was our responsibility, we did it for the right reasons, we need to change that. But the way you change it is not to say that it’s an opportunity society alone that’s gonna do it. It’s gonna require some government intervention. That’s our point.”

Right. Government caused the problem, so let's just trust the government to solve it.

Depoliticizing the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

Read the studies, look at the facts, keep an open mind, do not base your opinion on your beliefs about abortion and determine for yourself: Is there a link between abortions and breast cancer? What is your opinion? All comments welcome. Also, if anyone has links to other, independent studies, I'd be interested in seeing them.

The recent events of the Susan G. Koman Foundation pulling and then renewing support for Planned Parenthood has brought up, once again, the issue of “does Abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?”

As a nurse, I was interested to know the facts. It seems that there are a lot of studies out there with differing viewpoints. Both sides use the studies that support their views as “proof” one way or the other. The interpretation of the studies has been so politicized, that it is difficult to determine if there is a connection or not.

This topic is coming up again because of the Koman Foundation’s monetary support of Planned Parenthood. If there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer how could the Koman Foundation, whose main goal is eradication of breast cancer, support an organization who’s main focus is abortion? That is the issue, but both organizations have stated that they believe there is no link between abortions and breast cancer.

But why should the Koman foundation be funding Planned Parenthood? What does Planned Parenthood have to do with breast cancer? According to both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood the funding is for breast cancer screenings. In my opinion Planned Parenthood is not the best use of this money and the Koman Foundation would be better able to provide breast screenings more cost effectively if they removed the middle man. This opinion has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood’s abortions, but rather it makes better business sense. It seems that the Koman Foundation is bending over backward to accommodate Planned Parenthood and I find their connection suspect. It seems, to me, that there must be something more going on. In order to do justice to the topic, I am eliminating both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood from the discussion.

Back to the topic of abortion and breast cancer. I have looked over many studies, and there are studies to support both sides.

First, let me start by saying that I am pro-life. I do not believe in abortion and I believe that abortion is the killing of a baby. In conversations I have never used the alleged abortion/breast cancer link to support my belief. I do not need there to be a link between abortion and breast cancer for me to be pro-life. To me, the killing of an unborn baby is wrong, plain and simple. I have approached the topic with an open mind and have tried to present both sides fairly.

Those who support the “no-connection” theory, and that it has been proven debunked, will show you these from The National Cancer Institute based on a 2004 report of a 2003 workshop: "Risks of Abortion and Miscarriage" and "Causes of Cancer".

They include the results from a wide variety of studies and have been determined to be definitive proof by those who believe there is no connection. I have found that almost all of those who support the "no-connection" theory reference either this fact sheet or the conference that reported the study that this fact sheet is based on.

The American Cancer Society also links back to the above information from the National Cancer Institute report and they make the conclusion: "At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer."

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynocologists (ACOG) also refers to the 2003 workshop and the above information. They however preface the information with the following statement: "This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed."

On the other side of the debate is Dr. Joel Brind who counters in this 2005 article, in the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”, that there was reporting bias in the 2003 workshop and subsequent 2004 report.

Dr. Brind has also mentioned that during the 2004 seminar, conflicting viewpoints were not allowed to be presented. In essence he is saying that, instead of investigation all data and letting the data dictate if the theory is true, they found data to support their theory and disregarded the rest. In some cases they may have even manipulated the studies to fit the theory.

This video of Dr. Brind is from the “Life Matters” program, again politicizing the issue.

It is difficult to look at all of these and not say they are biased. Each side has an agenda. On one side are the pro-abortionists wanting to prove that there is no increased risk of abortion and breast cancer, and then the pro-life side that wants to use the link as additional ammunition against abortion.

I do need to point out that the video’s that feature Dr. Brind give logical thought as to WHY there is a risk whereas the other studies simply say there is no link, end of story. Also Dr. Brind, while not the only one supporting the connection, is the most vocal. There are medical groups that support the connection theory, as well. Again, this list is published by abortion/breast cancer coalition.

So who do you believe?

I have done some research and came across this article from 2010, which is peer reviewed, but no one has yet used it as a weapon in this abortion/breast cancer link war. "Radiological Diagnostics of Frequent Interruption of Pregnancy as a Primary Factor of Breast Carcinomas." The conclusion of this study is that “Based on the researches done for the purposes of this project, we concluded that artificial interruption of pregnancy is one of the numerous causes (factors) of breast cancer arising.” This study does not appear to have any bias and does not seem to have been sponsored by any group.

In addition, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Here is the text from a pamphlet by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

Abortion & Breast Cancer: Is there a Link? What is the Truth Behind the Controversy

How Does the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Work?

Two principles account for the link:

1. Estrogen Exposure

2. Breast Lobule Formation

Estrogen Exposure

As soon as conception occurs and even before implantation in the uterus, the embryo secretes a hormone, hCG (Human chorianic gonadotropin), which causes the mother’s ovaries to produce more estrogen and progesterone. This causes the mother’s breasts to become sore and tender.

In a viable pregnancy, estrogen levels increase 2,000% by the end of the 1st trimester. This surge in hormones causes the breasts to grow by making more Type 1 & 2 lobules where cancers can start. The breast doubles in volume by 20 weeks.

Breast Lobule Formation

•After 32 weeks of pregnancy, the Type 1 and 2 lobules mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast feeding.

•If the pregnancy ends by elective abortion, the increase in numbers of Type 1 and 2 lobules formed in the first two trimesters provide more places for cancers to start, increasing risk.

•Women who never carry a pregnancy beyond 32 weeks never fully mature their breast tissue and have increased risk.

•Women who delay full-term pregnancy past age 30 have a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than those who carry a pregnancy to term by age 20.

A Woman’s Choice

A woman who chooses induced abortion of her first pregnancy:

•Denies herself the risk reduction of a full-term pregnancy.

•May never have children—a risk for breast cancer.

•Or, delay a full-term pregnancy which increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 5% per year delayed after age 20.

A woman who chooses induced abortion after she has had a child:

•Denies herself a further 10% reduction in risk by another full-term pregnancy.

•Will have increased the number of Type 1 & Type 2 lobules where cancers start in her breast.

Here is a video that explains why it is believed that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer but it also has a segment where Dr. Brind’s explains about studies and how they should be done. This video is put out by an organization that supports the abortion/breast cancer link.  

Note: the 2007 study that is mentioned in the video, cames after the 2004 report that supposedly “debunks” the theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Research Analysis, My Opinion:

Being that there are such conflicting reports, I cannot state for certain that there is not an abortion/breast cancer link. If you compare the evidence from one side or the other, the side supporting the link has presented a much better case with better references. The National Cancer Institute's fact sheet that everyone else seems to reference is lacking the information department. They make a list of findings, "studies show," but really no reference to the studies upon which those findings are based. 

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, on the other hand, seems to believe there is a connection as addressed in their pamphlet.

In addition, if you remove all of the previous studies that have been biasedly used and focus on the independent study of 2010, there seems to be more proof that there is a link than there is not. If there is a link and there is a cover up, would those involved in the cover up be guilty of negligence? Would they not be criminally liable for withholding pertinent information from those receiving abortions? It is unlikely there will be a conclusion to this debate anytime in the near future. Though in my mind it seems there is, indeed, a connection between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.

Adoption Disguising Kidnapping

In an increasingly alarming trend children are being separated from their parents, in what basically amounts to kidnapping by government agencies. Illegal immigrants who are deported, are often being done so without their children. The children, instead of being sent back with their parents, are being placed in foster care and sometimes even given up for adoption.

In what is but one instance, the children of Felipe and Marie Montes were taken away from them, after he was deported, even though she wasn't. She is still living in North Carolina, trying to get them back, but they are about to be given up for adoption. To make things worse, two of their three children, were abused while in foster care. Both of the parents, and their American neighbours have petitioned for all three of them to be sent to join their father in Mexico.

Immigration is an important issue. But even more important is the family. A private party who did what government agencies do, would be imprisoned for kidnapping. These acts are clearly illegal and immoral, and must be stopped. If we are to deport the parents, we should not be breaking up the family, the children should be sent with them.

Outrageous and Dangerous Disregard of Parental Rights

An outrageous act of disregarding parental rights by The Division of Child Development and Early Education of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services also violates the US and North Carolina Constitutions and may also be a deadly practice.

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

- Sara Burrows associate editor of Carolina Journal.

Full Story

Disregard of Parental Rights:

The DHHS and the school blatantly violated parent's rights. When did it become okay to disregard the rights and wishes of the parents in the care of their own children? It is not alright to take the parent completely out of the equation. Parents have rights.

While the Hoke County school board does not address parental rights when it comes to food selection, they do recognize the importance of parental involvement in their child’s education.

School board policy: 1310/4002 The board recognizes the critical role of parents in the education of their children and in the schools.

The Hoke county school board and the DHHS do not have the right to indiscriminately bypass the wishes of the parent in order to force their own agenda. Parents should have the right to feed their own children whatever they want. How can they pass and enforce guidelines that exclude the parent in the decision making for their own children? Parents should have the right to feed their children what they wish. A better alternative would be for the school and the DHHS to educate the parents who they believe are not providing a healthy diet to their children so that the parents can make an informed decision. It is not their place to force what they believe is healthy eating habits upon other people’s children.

In addition to tramping on parental rights, this policy could also be illegal, it is certainly unconstitutional and has the potential to harmful to children's health and potentially lethal.

The Hoke school board states in policy code 3515 that The United States Constitution and North Carolina Constitution protect the right of an individual to choose his or her own religious or non-religious beliefs and prohibit any governmental action that may advance or inhibit such beliefs. This policy is intended to protect the religious rights of students and school personnel, to preserve the separation of church and state, and to provide guidance to students and personnel about religion in the public schools.

North Carolina constitution Article 1 Sec. 19.

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

In addition, the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Guidelines, that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services follows specifically states:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. “In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, political beliefs, or disability.

Providing students with food that goes against the child’s religious belief would clearly be in violation of the US Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution and the policies of both the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Guidelines and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.

The policy also is contrary to what we know of childhood development. Most pediatricians and child psychologists and psychiatrists agree that children go through food phases. Children will go through periods where they may only eat few or even one type of food. While they all state that a balanced diet is best (and some would even disagree as to what constitutes a balanced diet), they generally agree that children, when going through these phases should be encouraged to eat a variety of foods, but not forced. This policy goes against this by trying to force the child to eat foods they deem acceptable in place of the food the child would actually eat. In the case of the story above, the child ate only 3 chicken nuggets (which are probably highly processed) instead of the turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice that the parent provided.

This policy can also be dangerous, even lethal if the child is on a special diet due to health concerns or allergies.

There are many diseases where a child’s body may not be able to process certain foods. In addition, some children have food allergies, some severe enough to produce hives or anaphylaxis, a life threatening condition. The school would be held responsible for providing a child food that caused a negative reaction in the child.

Many parents also follow special diets for health or religious reasons. The DHHS thinks that their way is the absolute best way for all students and that all students are required to follow their guidelines, religion be damned!

How can a school and the DHHS tell parents that their children cannot keep Kosher? They can’t. This is NOT KOSHER!! The USDA guidelines state that lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home. One serving of meat and one serving of milk, that goes against Kosher dietary laws right there. Most schools do not prepare Kosher meals. Providing anything from the kitchen to the child would go against that family’s religious beliefs.

What if the child is lactose intolerant or has a milk allergy. One serving of grain, not good for those who are gluten intolerant. Not to mention, what specifically the school is serving on any given day may have ingredients that the child is intolerant or allergic to. Chicken nuggets, while the main ingredient is chicken, has fillers and breading which would detrimental to the health of a child who is gluten intolerant.

What if the family is vegetarian or prescribes to another kind of diet the precludes certain foods? Not allowed according to the food dictators.

Let parents be the parents and take responsibility for their own children. Let parents decide what their children can/can not, should/should not eat.

Youngest Pacemaker Recipient

I was just fifteen minutes old when doctors cut open my chest and installed a pacemaker to keep me alive. That's what Jaya Maharaj would tell us, if she could talk, yet.

While she was still in her mother's womb, her parents were informed that she had a dangerously low heart beat due to congenital heart block. She would not survive til full term. It was decided that labour would have to be induced at thirty-one weeks, so that little Jaya's organs would have as long as possible to grow.

A medical team of nearly two dozen was on hand for the procedures. Weighing only three and a half pounds, Jaya came into the world as smoothly as could be, but her heart rate was still too low. It was then that doctors decided to insert the pace maker directly into her chest, instead of the normal just connecting wires and then waiting to do surgery for a few weeks. Thankfully the surgery went extremely well, taking less than an hour.

Now eight months old, Jaya is doing better than could've been expected. The current pacemaker will last her until she is ten, when she will need a new one. Her parents could not be more proud of how she is living up to her name, which means victorious.

Boone's Tavern

Last night we explored Boone's Tavern which resides at the intersection of Evans and Downing, in Denver. The place is well sized. It actually holds three different bar areas, a couple dozen tables, a couple pool tables, and some other games.

I had the chicken caesar salad, which was quite good. A nice smoky flavour to the chicken. Interestingly they use an oil based, rather than cream based, caesar so whilst it tasted like caesar felt like Italian and was quite good. A brilliant touch by them, was that instead of a piece of texas toast, that most places add if they have bread at all, Boone's gives you a couple pieces of a really good pita bread.

Really nice thing about Boone's is that on Tuesday nights, all Colorado beers are only $3. Tuesday night's also have $4 drinks from all the Colorado distilleries. It's also trivia night and if you can handle multiple part questions, you'll quite enjoy that.

Unfortunately, they only have about a dozen beers on draft and the music was a little too loud for normal conversation, but we didn't let that stop us. And likely we'll end up back there sometime again. I know that I look forward to trying more off their menu, the burgers smelled delicious.

Classic Pick of the Week: Mad World!

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Blu-ray. This has to be one of the most epically insane movies ever made, not for quality and success (Marx Brothers movies and many silent comedies beat Mad in that department) but for sheer ambition, size and scope. On paper, the gags are plenty and would be enough, because it never gets old to laugh at panicked amateurs having to take over flying a plane from the drunken pilot, lots of cartoonish car crashes and explosions, an attempt at busting out of a hardware store, or a temper tantrum that literally brings down a building. And all in Cinerama no less!

Sounds fun already, but truly what makes all those situations and this movie as a whole (a three hour whole, mind you) is the massive collection of funny people. Director Stanley Kramer basically rounded up everybody that was funny in, around or anytime before 1963, threw in some serious notables and familiar character actors and packed them all in a greed-fueled race to a fortune (relatively little money by today’s standards, but Dr. Evil might approve) buried under a giant “W” with just some vague clues provided by a dying Jimmy Durante. The result, though far from the greatest comedy you’ll ever see, is still satisfying good natured nuttiness on a scale that must be seen to be believed and meant for Blu-ray. This release has a few scant extras.