text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
Health and Safety tips |
It is essential that cold room doors can be opened from the inside, even when locked. Walls should contain a pressure release valve: negative pressure can develop in the room as temperature decreases, which can make opening the door more difficult. |
Staff must be issued with suitable clothing both to keep them warm and to minimise contamination. |
You can see the main article here |
artnet international |
ROGER BEZOMBES France 1913 - 1994 "Petit Cote d'Azur" |
French painter, sculptor, medallist and designer, Roger Bezombes studied in Paris, at l'École des Beaux-Arts, who adopted the saturated colours of Henri Matisse in landscapes and figure studies often based on observation of exotic cultures, notably Mediterranean and North African. An inveterate traveller to Belgium, Germany, Italy, Greece, Crete, Israel, North Africa and the United States, Bezombes' works were regularly exhibited in Paris at the Salon d’Automne, the Salon des Artistes Independants, and Les Tuileries. His work refers heavily to artists such as Gaugain, Van Gogh, and Matisse and is loved across the world for its powerful and inimitable style. Tapestry designs for Aubusson, posters (including this image used by Air France), costumes and sets for ballets at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York. Bezombes defines the French artist as we know it today - passionate, driven, and always involved. These qualities are abundantly evident in his art, and for that reason Bezombes’ work continues to be highly desired and collected in France and abroad. |
Roger BEZOMBES France |
Petit Cote D'Azur 1968 |
Lithograph 29/150 |
460 x 345 image size |
650 x 500 paper size |
Monday, April 14, 2008 |
Charlie B says "Don't vote for Boris" |
Thanks to Stu_N for the direction, but Charlie Brooker's piece on Boris Johnson and the London Mayoral election is a classic. |
I'd probably back off from saying that BJ is a dim waste of space (he was an enthusiastic and reasonably informative guide on classical history etc) but as CB's header says "I wouldn't trust Boris to operate a mop, let alone a £10bn Crossrail project." |
If you're a London voter I'd advise: |
1) VOTE - don't waste it |
2) UT please, we beg you PLEASE, do NOT vote for Johnson |
MediumRob said... |
Okay then! |
I'm voting Ken, not because I especially like him, but because he's the only one who's got a coherent green message as well as the slightest idea about transport policy. |
Boris is just insane. Did you know he's rumoured (he doesn't give interviews) to be planning five deputy mayors, one for each area of policy? The man doesn't have any ideas of his own. |
Reidski said... |
Being a miserable bugger myself, I don't usually laugh out loud at the written word, but Brooker's piece had me chortling away. And how absolutely right he is! |
Nickname unavailable said... |
Brooker couldn't come up with a decent reason to not vote for Boris apart from hating Tories (if you are a bit mindless hating Tories is a good enough reason of course). The actual contest, unlike the article, is pretty gripping - the Livingstone supporters really think the world will collapse if he isn't re-elected. I know Ken is barking I didn't know the condition was so widespread amongst his groupies. |
Reidski said... |
Oh goodness, a Boris supporter thinking that anyone voting for Ken is a "groupie" and that anyone not supporting Boris cos we think he's a right wing racist fucker is "mindless" ... well, haven't we got that one wrong, then, eh? |
What's the betting that this anonymous commenter is white and upper middle class? |
Marie said... |
I'm white and upper middle class and I will be voting for Ken! Inverse snobbery is still snobbery. My objections to Boris are not that he's posh and rich, it's that he has no coherent ideas on how to run London and he's, yes, a right-wing racist fucker. You can be that no matter what your background. |
Reidski said... |
Marie, that is not inverse snobbery, it is simply asking a question. Good to see that you think you can answer on behalf of that tosser though! |
Marie said... |
Not answering for him, I just don't like it when people say 'that bloke's a wanker - he must be just like YOU'. |
Reidski said... |
Marie, who said that? I was making assumptions about who he is, not who he is like! |
If you have a problem with what I write and the type of person you think I am, then do so, but don't do it on the basis of what I haven't said and what you assume I'm thinking! |
Lisa Rullsenberg said... |
Oh please do play nice children...! I don't want to have to come in and break up the banter. |
Central African Republic |
Political instability in the Central African Republic (CAR) dates back to French colonization, but has been increasingly unstable since 1960 when it gained independence from France. The current crisis started in December 2012 and involves the Muslim majority (Seleka) which organized to oust General Bozize. |
On March 24, 2013, the Seleka led by Michel Djotodia, took control of CAR’s government. Djotodia declared himself president. However on January 10, 2014, after intense international pressure Djotodia resigned from the Presidency. In the aftermath the Chrisitan majority (anti-balaka) militai groups began to carry-out violent attacks against the Muslim communities throughout the country killing thousands and driving the rest away. |
Displaced Persons |
There has been massive displacement of people, both within the country and to neighboring countries such as Chad, Sudan and Cameroon. In 2012, the UNHCR estimated 130,000 CAR refugees have sought refuge in neighboring countries and an estimated 176,000 internally displaced persons remain in the CAR. On September 6, 2013 the UN was alerted to the massive number of internally displaced persons along with the human rights violations in the CAR. Among the reports were accounts of looting, torture and abandoned and burned villages (UN report). |
Lord's Resistance Army |
The Central African Republic has also become a refuge for the militant group Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by mass murdered Joseph Kony of Uganda to escape arrest by African Union patrols. The LRA has committed numerous human rights violations including abducting children for use as child soldiers and sex slaves. |
Potential for Genocide |
The humanitarian crisis in CAR has reached historic proportions. Human rights violations are committed on a daily basis including documented cases of crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, sectarian killings and war crimes. Muslim civilians have been the victims of violent attacks committed by anti-balaka Christian militia groups. There is a shortage of adequate water, food and shelter. |
Featured Images: Courtesy of UNHCR |
Sunday, February 2, 2014 |
Is There Such A Thing As Too Much Quiet? |
A young man accepted into one of the more prestigious performing arts high schools in the city goes there for the first couple of months and opts to transfer to one of the more challenging schools in the city. A neighbor who moves to a calmer more stable community stays there for a couple of months and moves back to the yelling, hollering, blaring of sirens and the screeching of tires in her old neighborhood. A sixth grade student is given a once in a lifetime opportunity to attend one of the top performing middle schools in the city, stays there for a month and chooses to come back to one of the lowest performing schools in the city. In all three of these instances, when asked why did you come back or why did you make that decision, the individuals said that "It was too quiet there." |
Now, I don't know about you, but my mind struggles to process that logic. You've left a chaotic situation for a more stable and calm place and then return to the chaos because the calm and stable is too quiet? I can't get enough peace and quiet and there are those who obtain it and then go back to the chaos. If this makes sense to you, please help me out in your feedback in the commentary section. |
A couple of weeks ago, my pastor preached a sermon titled A Question For Those Who Are Comfortable In Chaos and it centered on accepting dysfunction as a way of life or for too many as the only way of life. We must not and cannot accept dysfunction in our lives. That is not to say that things won't be dysfunctional, it is to say however, that we must always be striving to make functional what is dysfunctional. In other words, we must always be moving towards fixing or correcting what is broken or incorrect. I am truly perplexed as to how one could get to the place where so many others would love to be and then go back to the place where so many would love to get out of with the rationale of it being too quiet. You get to the mountain top and then come back into a valley that you know is chaotic, not to fix the chaos, but to join back with the noise. What they are saying is I am not happy unless I am hearing the fighting, the screaming, the cursing, the gunshots, etc. etc. etc., so therefore I will leave the quiet place and go back to that. To go back to fix the chaos is one thing; to go back to join in it and be a part of it is another. All three of the scenarios in the opening of the post are true with no names mentioned to protect the afflicted. |
For this critical thinker, leaving a place that is quiet to go back to a place filled with chaos because of the former being "too quiet," is something to critically think about. I invite you to hear me live on Saturday mornings as the host of The Reading Circle on and to follow me on Twitter @thinkcritical01. |
No comments: |
`Pathological Error' |
A Tragic Surgical Mistake Should Not Scare Women Away From Mammograms |
November 06, 1995|By Susan Shapiro. and Susan Shapiro is a sociologist and research fellow at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago. |
The woman sits shrouded in shadows, the agony and indignation in her voice almost palpable. "This has ruined my life." |
We watch the consummate evening news story--the tragic coincidence of two sure-fire audience-seducing themes: breast cancer and medical error. The teasers earlier in the newscast have alerted us. We await yet another account of the classical surgical screw-up: "Doctors amputate wrong . . ." Fill in the blank with your favorite body part. |
But the story this time is different. It's not that the wrong breast was removed. Neither should have been excised. It seems the patient didn't have cancer. "A pathological (sic) error," the surgeon explained to print journalists. By which he meant an error by the pathologist reading the biopsy slides. |
For tens of thousands of viewers transfixed by the newscast, this videotape reenactys our own elaborate denial fantasies. Who among us has not invented such scenarios? After all, we never felt better, had no symptoms, no family histories. Our mammograms were clean, not a speck to be questioned, not a shadow to be studied. There is no tumor floating in a jar in a refrigerator somewhere that we can point to as the culprit. Indeed, in a morass of slides and films and reports and second opinions--all unequivocally negative--there are just those three little words on a single piece of paper: "infiltrating ductal carcinoma." The reports are riddled with obvious typos. Why not these three words as well? They got my name wrong, my age wrong. Why not these three words? They billed me for the wrong procedure. Why not these three words? Hospitals switch babies at birth--all the time, if you believe the made-for-TV movies. Why not two little biopsy slides? My denial fantasy even includes the pathetic woman, her frail body now riddled with metastatic cancer, who gleefully celebrated on the bleak night on July 22, 1991, when she erroneously received my biopsy report. |
For every viewer imagining herself shrouded in the shadows as she plays out her own denial fantasy, several others would give anything to be in that woman's shoes--or, should I say, her bra? How many of us would happily cut off our other breast for her precious prognosis, to hear the words: "You don't have cancer." How many women have begged for prophylactic mastectomies, amputating healthy breasts in the largely futile hope that they will avert breast cancer in the future? |
This has been a year of tragic medical errors inflicted on the most unlikely victims by some of the finest hospitals in this country. I do not mean to excuse or minimize these unacceptable lapses or perhaps fissures in the self-regulatory safety-net. Nor do I want to trivialize the profound fear and ambivalence that we all face negotiating through a complex mind-numbing high-tech medical minefield where we know that invisible errors occur with some regularity. And I certainly do not want to dismiss the devastating nightmare for the woman in the shadows or dispute her claim for recompense and to hold her doctors accountable. |
But hers is a terrifying story more fitting for Halloween than for the last night of Breast Cancer Awareness Month on which it was aired. One million women in the United States today have breast cancer and do not yet know it. How many of these women have been scared off by this poignant tale? How many will stay away from doctors who they fear will be too quick to wield their scalpels? How many will delay their next mammogram, put off their monthly breast self-exam, neglect to report a suspicious lump or discharge to their doctor? How profoundly has this tale silenced the vital, if gloomy, message of Breast Cancer Awareness Month--that early detection is still the only arrow in our quiver? How many of these 1 million women will receive their diagnosis early--as I did --when the survival rate is better than 90 percent and for how many, through distrust, delay and paralysis, will this become a prophetic Halloween ghost story? Is that not the real "pathological error?" |
But most eerie and disturbing about the anguished words resounding from the shadows is how little they ring true. This victim lost far more than her breast. She lost the powerful lesson that perhaps comes only from an unerring cancer diagnosis. The lives truly ruined by breast cancer are those lost to it and those who loved them. Breast Cancer Awareness Month should also foster awareness about the lives of those who survive breast cancer--lives frequently emboldened, enriched, empowered, enjoyed, renewed and cherished, lives enlarged by compassion and generosity, awakened to unseen beauty, touched by deeper intimacy, tickled by new-found pleasures. Lives too precious to surrender to fears about pathological error. |
About 30% of children and teens in America are overweight. As a parent, you have every right to be concerned about what sugary, fattening fundraisers are doing to kids. One thing is for sure: helping schools shouldn't harm your child's health. Fortunately, raising money doesn't have to clog arteries. Try these 5 healthy fundraisers instead. |
The Sneaky Zucchini Bake Sale Traditional baked goodies are loaded with sugar, saturated fat, and white flour, but healthier alternatives are possible if all volunteer bakers are on board. Applesauce, mashed bananas, or yogurt can substitute for some or all the oil in many recipes. Finely shredded zucchini goes undetected in cookies and banana bread. Heart-healthy oats, nuts, and whole grain flours can add fiber and nutrition. Although it's very possible to make delicious yet healthy treats for your fundraiser, it's still a good idea to test sneaky recipes on your kids before making a double batch for the sale! |
The Strawberry Soiree If you'd rather not take the sneaky chef route, you can still throw a lighter, fruit-themed bake sale. A strawberry soiree could include chocolate dipped strawberries, fresh strawberry crisp, and strawberry yogurt parfaits. Choose one type of fruit, or include them all! While some butter and sugar are inevitable, a bake sale full of fresh fruit also means fiber and vitamins for everyone. |
Candy-less Sales Candy sells well to other kids (and adults!), so it's not surprising that so many fundraisers are centered around it. Unfortunately, lollipops, cakes, cookie dough, and chocolate bars are nutritional wastelands. What can kids sell instead? Try a sugar-less alternative, such as candles, flower bulbs, soap, pencils, gift cards, and magazines. |
The Non-Cake Walk A cake walk is basically a raffle, so you won't have any trouble selling tickets to a cake-less cake walk as long as you still have great prizes. Instead of cakes, offer things like passes to a skating rink, tickets to a local baseball game, toys, and gift certificates. Ask local businesses if they would be willing to donate prizes to your healthy fundraiser. |
[Whole Grain] Spaghetti Night What do pancake breakfasts, spaghetti nights, and pizza lunches all have in common? All of them could use more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains to be healthy. Start by choosing whole grains over white: buying whole grain spaghetti and substituting whole wheat flour for some or all of the white flour in pizza crusts and pancakes. Then put extra vegetables into tomato sauce, top pizzas with vegetables, and serve pancakes with berries, sliced bananas, and fresh fruit puree instead of sugary syrups. Check out more tips to get kids to love vegetables. |
Almost any unhealthy fundraiser can be given a healthy makeover. Get started today with our healthy fundraising ideas and help the next generation -- and their schools -- thrive! |
Moralism Notes for April 13 |
Main points |
In On Liberty, Mill claims that three reasons for interfering with individual liberty are illegitimate: paternalism, moralism, and offense. We talked about the first last time and the second today. For the third, I recommend pp. 438–53 and especially 444–6. |
We spent about half of our time trying to frame the discussion and the other half talking about specific examples that seem to favor Dworkin’s answer. |
What’s the question |
It is obvious (to me) that the purpose of significant parts of the law in our society is to enforce our moral values. Note that this is a separate issue of whether there is a necessary connection between law and morality. The former describes a use of the law. The latter describes its essence. Those who maintain that there is a necessary connection between morality and the law deny that there are immoral laws, for instance. This is not something that someone who describes a use of the law is committed to believing. |
In any event, humor me by granting that no one seriously maintains that it is always inappropriate to enforce moral principles with the law. Instead, what we typically get are attempts to distinguish between the parts of morality that the law can be used to enforce and those parts that it cannot be used to enforce. Specifically, we talked about Feinberg’s proposal that the law can only be used to enforce moral principles when doing so prevents one person from wronging another (i.e. violating that person’s rights) and not when doing so merely prevents someone from doing something wrong (without violating anyone’s rights). |
Dworkin maintains that Feinberg’s arguments for drawing a hard distinction like this are unimpressive. They mainly consist in assertions that when the loss of liberty is weighed against the advantages of punishing or preventing mere moral wrongs, it will always favor liberty. But that’s presumptuous. How can he say that will be true of every case? |
That’s why the invocations of particular cases undermined Feinberg’s argument. They show there is a reasonable case for legal regulation. That means they have to be confronted on an individual basis to show that the scales really do tip the way that Feinberg predicted they would. |
But, of course, that means that we would not have a hard, principled objection to using the law to enforce morality. Rather, we would go case by case, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of regulation. |
What’s the answer? |
This question is more open to dispute. Kelly and Ryan were more inclined to exclude moralism. Thinking back, I think they had different reasons. |
Kelly tended not to think that there were any examples of mere wrongs that didn’t involve wronging anyone in particular. She tended to think that if A consents to what B does to A, then not only does B not wrong A but that B does not do anything wrong at all. |
Ryan was more inclined to worry about the indirect effects of allowing the state to interfere with liberty on moral grounds. Even if some cases of regulation are legitimate, the government would use its power to regulate far more than those cases. Toby’s argument could be used along with Ryan’s. Toby argued that we’re more sure of our judgments about actions that wrong someone than we are of our judgments about actions that are merely wrong, without wronging anyone in particular. That uncertainty could open the door to all sorts of mischief. |
Speaking for myself, I think it’s possible that our discussion gave a misleading impression of our certainty about actions that wrong someone. I think we’re pretty sure that they are legitimate targets of legal prohibition. But I don’t think it follows that we’re always sure about which actions belong in that category. Do people have rights against being the targets of hate speech, for instance? I’m not sure. I’m much more sure that hate speech is wrong. (Though I’m not sure about exactly what legal penalty, if any, should be applied to it). |
Ryan’s point is also well taken. We should always be careful any time we allow the government to cross a line: we may not be able to make it go back! But I’m not sure that this is the right line. We already let it enforce some parts of morality: our rights. And we don’t want it to enforce all of even that part: imagine how awful it would be if the government enforced all of my rights, making sure that people treated me with complete courtesy, honesty, fairness, and so on. Some of our social lives have to be lived with informal enforcement. |
Anyway, the point is that we have to draw a line between what we want the government to enforce and what we don’t want it to enforce. And that line has to cut across the moral category of my rights or, to put it the other way around, actions that would wrong me. So why can’t we draw a similar line through the category of acts that are merely wrong, without wronging anyone in particular? Why can’t there be some of those that the government should not interfere with and others that it can interfere with? |
Finally, a fair amount of our discussion of the examples tended towards questions about whether the examples involved behavior that is genuinely wrong, even in the sense of being merely wrong without violating anyone’s rights. I think Dworkin would have been happy with that since he thinks that’s exactly where our efforts should be directed rather than at attempts to come up principles that rule out any regulation of the merely wrong. |
This page was written by Michael Green for Philosophy of Law, Philosophy 34, Spring 2009. It was posted April 13, 2009. |
Name of website |
Flushing the turd |
Flushing the turd |
Sometimes you have to put away the polishing cloth and just yank the chain. |
If you haven’t heard of Cindy Gallop, then you need to set aside a few minutes and head to YouTube to watch her TED talk. Cindy is |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.