Happy New Year

And then there were three!!

Stanley Kurtz is an editorial writer who has been all over the Dutch triple cohabitation contract recently passed. It seems to have slipped through the mainstream media’s viewfinder. Can’t imagine why that would be.

His article in the weekly standard [Here Come the Brides]was criticized by The New Republic’s Rob Anderson.[The Weekly Standard's absurd case against gay marriage].

This of course required a rebuttal since it was factually incorrect and misleading. Kurtz then posted his rebuttal on National Review Online. [Stanley Kurtz on Same-Sex Marriage on National Review Online]

Both sides certainly put their own spin on the information, but I believe Kurtz is on target with his views on polyamorists. The articles are worth reading as they do point out the problems that we will eventually see in the United States if we redefine marriage.

The mainstream media has trivialized the details and coverage because they know it doesn’t fit their agenda and could actually cause more harm to their plight.

The Generosity Index

Has everyone seen or heard about the Generosity Index. It was recently published and posted at the following website.
[Philanthropy]

It appears that there is a significant disparity between some of the very rich states compared with the poorer ones.

The article specifically gives some interpretations about the index; such as the state’s philosophy of government roles and religious beliefs.

Kentucky ranked 21 and Indiana 24 overall. Certainly there is room for improvement.

The top 4 states in generosity were Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Oklahoma and each of these were among the poorest 8 states.

You will see that the generosity rank of the lowest 4 states are also among the richest: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Remind me again what color those states were!

An opinion on Socialized Medicine

This article was written several years ago by Ayn Rand's intellectual and legal heir, Leonard Peikoff. It is not only opposed to the Clinton Health plan but to *all* socialized medicine. With our current healthcare situation, it is important to re-address the topic. Socialized medicine is not the answer to the problem.

Notice: The following article is Copyright 1993 by Leonard Peikoff and is being distributed by permission. This article may be distributed electronically provided that it not be altered in any manner whatsoever. All notices including this notice must remain affixed to this article.

HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D.

Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA December 11, 1993

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it *is* impractical -- it does *not* work -- but I hold that it is impractical *because* it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and *therefore* a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual *rights.* The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why *only* these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the *pursuit* -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue *their* happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to *anything* at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled *immorality* in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their *real* rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.

Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?

If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of *health* care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from *right now* to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Clinton Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country *truly* couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.

*Some* people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.

But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for *nothing*, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Clinton calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).

I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [*The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought,* NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]

"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs *and* the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- *or* he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally *or,* as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."

The Clinton plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.

The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a *moral* principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, *their* pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."

The battle against the Clinton plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on *moral* grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.

Leonard Peikoff received his PhD from New York University in 1964. As Ayn Rand's legal and intellectual heir and her long-time associate, Peikoff is the leading Objectivist philosopher. He is the author of *The Ominous Parallels* and *Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand*. He has served as chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute and is on the faculty of the newly formed Objectivist Graduate Center. He is the editor of *The Early Ayn Rand*, the Objectivist anthology *The Voice of Reason* and the second edition of *Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology*. He has taught philosophy at New York University, Hunter College and the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn.

Floyd Memorial's Heart Center Open House

The formal Black Tie grand opening on Friday night the 16th followed by the public open house on Saturday the 17th was a huge success.


The facility is beautiful and the pictures don't do it justice. The entire evening was outstanding.


Besides the Board of Directors shown here, it was a virtual Who's who of New Albany and Floyd county. Dicnitaries from every profession including the public and private sectors enjoyed the festivities, the food and drink.




Public officials including the mayor and some commisioners also attended.


The tours showed an outstanding facility that truly raises the Hospital to a regional Healthcare facility rather than just a community hospital.



We have lots to be proud of with this addition and expansion of services.

Merry Christmas to Everyone

Wishing each and everyone

a very

Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas!

Wishing all the bloggers a very Merry Christmas.

I am praying that each of you find joy in the spirit of the season and that everyone reflects on the gift of Jesus given to us 2000 years ago.

The Christmas Carol Quiz

Each of these are the first line of the last verse. You need to name the carol

1. Come, Desire of nations, come! Fix in us Thy humble home:
2. Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning,
3. He rules the world with truth and grace,
4. (3rd vrs) How silently, how silently, The wondrous gift is giv’n!
5. For lo, the days are hastening on, By prophet bards foretold,
6. Then entered in, those wise men three, Full rev’rently upon their knee,
7. Be near me, Lord Jesus, I ask Thee to stay Close by me forever, or
I love thee Lord Jesus! Look down from the sky, And stay by my side
until morning is nigh
8. So bring Him incense, gold and myrrh, Come peasant, king, to own Him,
9. Glorious now behold Him arise, King and God and sacrifice,
10. The shepherds at these tidings Rejoiced much in mind,
11. Silent night! Holiest night! Wondrous Star, lend thy light!

Answers:






1. Hark the Herald Angels
2. O Come all Ye Faithful
3. Joy to the World
4. O Little Town of Bethlehem
5. It came upon a midnight clear
6. The First Noel
7. Away in a Manger
8. What Child is This (Greensleeves)
9. We Three Kings
10. God Rest ye Merry Gentlemen
11. Silent Night

Christmas Trivia

Here is some Christmas trivia that you can use for those family get-togethers. It makes for a fun game if your family enjoys playing over the Holidays.

1 In Frosty the Snowman, who brought Frosty back to life?
2 Who lost $8,000 in It's a Wonderful Life?
3 In How the Grinch Stole Christmas, what biological shortcoming made the Grinch
so mean?
4 Who tells you she's in town by tap, tap, tappin' at your windowpane?
5 What is the biggest selling Christmas single of all time?
6 What was Scrooge's first name?
7 Where was I when I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus?
8 What was the name of Rudolph's dogsled driving friend?
9 Who said "God Bless Us, Every One!"?
10 What carol contains the line "O tidings of comfort and joy"?
11 In The Night Before Christmas I sprang from my bed to see what?
12 Name the three reindeer whose names begin with a "D"?
13 In the song "Grandma Got Run over by a Reindeer" what did Grandma go to get?
14 What was the first gift my true love sent on the sixth day of Christmas?
15 In what city did Miracle on 34th Street take place?
16 In It's a Wonderful Life, how did Clarence cleverly save George's life?
17 Who kept time with the Little Drummer Boy?
18 In The Night Before Christmas, where were the stockings hung?
19 What is the name of the little girl in most versions of The Nutcracker?
20 What is the last ghost called in A Christmas Carol?
21 What color is the Grinch?
22 How many pipers piping did my true love give to me?
23 In the movie The Santa Clause, who starred as the substitute Santa Claus?
24 What was Rudolph's punishment for his red nose?
25 In A Charlie Brown Christmas, who plays the dusty innkeeper in the Christmas
play?
26 What did the traffic cop holler to Frosty?
27 What holiday drink contains sugar, milk, and eggs?
28 What popular bite-sized chocolate candy comes wrapped in red and green foil at
Christmas?
29 What Saturday Evening Post artist was known for his whimsical pictures of Santa
Claus?
30 What one reindeer is never mentioned in "The Night Before Christmas"?
31 St. Nick's beard is like what feature of winter?
32 Name the two reindeer whose name begins with a "C"?
33 In It's a Wonderful Life, what did Clarence receive for accomplishing his
mission: wings or a halo?
34 What carol contains the word "Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la"?
35 In the "Nutcracker" section of Fantasia, what fungi dance the Chinese dance?
36 What did the Grinch use as a substitute for reindeer?
37 Wo were nestled snug in their beds?
38 What 1990 movie told of a boy's experience when two men break into his house
during Christmas?
39 What fruit is St. Nick's nose like?
40 What glittery bits of metal are hung on a Christmas tree?
41 In It's a Wonderful Life, what kind of spirit is Clarence?
42 What were Frosty's last words?
43 What piece of heavenly apparel does the Littlest Angel not wear correctly?
44 What is Charlie Brown's complaint about Christmas?
45 What instrument does Amahl play as he leads the procession in Amahl and the Night
Visitors?
46 On what street did a Santa Claus miracle occur?
47 Counting Rudolph, how many reindeer are there?
48 What happened to the drummer boy's lamb when he played his song for the Baby
Jesus?
49 What did Rudolph never get to join in?
50 What Emmy Award winning cartoon was based on a newspaper editorial?
51 What carol is known as the counting song?
52 Where did there arise such a clatter?
53 What type of canned pie filling is a big seller at Christmastime?
54 What three characters sing "The Chipmunk Song"?
55 What gift did Caspar bring?
56 In It's a Wonderful Life, what part of George's house is always broken?
57 Traditionally, does the oldest or youngest family member open the first present?
58 What carol demands figgy pudding?
59 What flower does Moore compare St. Nick's cheeks to?
60 Whose eyes were made of coal?
61 What song was originally titled "One Horse Open Sleigh"?
62 What holiday film annually appears on television more than 300 times?
63 In It's A Wonderful Life, what two friends share their names with two Sesame
Street characters?
64 What is Frosty's nose made of?
65 How does Scrooge improve Cratchit's life the day after Christmas?
66 What country started the tradition of exchanging gifts?
67 In A Charlie Brown Christmas, what winter recreation is the cast of characters
doing in the opening scene?
68 What are tiny, inexpensive gifts usually called?
69 Name the reindeer whose name begins with a "B"?
70 What W.W.II First Lady wrote a Christmas story about a girl named Marta?
71 What non-smoking association sponsors Christmas seals?
72 Visions of what dance in children's heads?
73 How many times is the name of Santa Claus used in "The Night Before Christmas"?
74 What is the most popular tree topper?
75 What song contains the line "Although, it's been said, many times, many ways"?
76 What did the Little Drummer Boy give to the Christ Child?
77 What snack is often left out for Santa?
78 In It's a Wonderful Life, who starred as George Bailey?
79 What cola company was known for its ads featuring a big, smiling Santa?
80 What does Alvin want for Christmas?
81 Who wrote "The Night Before Christmas?
82 What does the nutcracker become after killing the Mouse King?
83 What men's grooming appliance became a sled for Santa in commercials of the
sixties?
84 What do most elves wear on the tips of their shoes?
85 After red and green, what are the two most popular Christmas colors?
86 What song contains the line "Somebody waits for you, kiss her once for me"?
87 What popular Christmas toy is based on a 1903 political caricature?
88 Who first recorded "Here Comes Santa Claus"?
89 What song does a caroler sing outside Scrooge's office?
90 What two words are normally pre-printed on gift tags?
91 Where was Mommy when she was kissing Santa Claus?
92 What film told the plight of a poor mountain family during the days of the
Depression?
93 On every street corner you hear what song?
94 What was Brenda Lee doing around the Christmas Tree?
95 In A Charlie Brown Christmas, how many cents does Lucy charge for her psychiatric
services?
96 Elvis Presley recorded what sad song in the fifties?
97 In "Winter Wonderland" the lovestruck couple pretends a snowman is who?
98 What parade was first held January 1, 1886?
99 What song is full of threats and warnings about Santa Claus?
100 Where did Santa land his sleigh in "The Night Before Christmas"?
101 Who yelled "Stop" to Frosty?
102 In It's A Wonderful Life, what did George dream of becoming?
103 What is the name of the first reindeer Santa calls in The Night Before
Christmas?
104 What is the name of the most famous Christmas ballet?
105 What is the theme or essence of "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day"?
106 Who wrote A Christmas Carol?


Answers to Christmas Trivia:

1 Santa Claus
2 Uncle Billy
3 His heart was two sizes too small
4 Suzy Snowflake
5 "White Christmas"
6 Ebenezer
7 On the Stairs
8 Yukon Cornelius
9 Tiny Tim
10 "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen"
11 What was the matter
12 Dasher, Donder, Dancer
13 Her medication
14 Six geese a-laying
15 New York
16 He jumped into the river first
17 The ox and the lamb
18 By the chimney
19 Clara
20 The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come
21 Green
22 Eleven
23 Tim Allen
24 Could not play in reindeer games
25 Pigpen
26 "Stop"
27 Eggnog
28 Hershey's Kisses
29 Norman Rockwell
30 Rudolph
31 Snow
32 Comet and Cupid
33 His Wings
34 "Deck the Halls"
35 Mushrooms
36 His dog
37 The children
38 Home Alone
39 A cherry
40 Tinsel
41 An angel
42 "I'll be back again someday"
43 His halo
44 It is too commercialized
45 His reed pipe
46 34th
47 Nine
48 He came back to life
49 Reindeer games
50 Yes, Virginia There is a Santa Claus
51 "The Twelve Days of Christmas"
52 On the lawn
53 Pumpkin
54 Alvin, Theodore, and Simon
55 Myrrh
56 The bannister
57 The youngest child
58 "We Wish You a Merry Christmas"
59 A rose
60 Frosty's
61 "Jingle Bells"
62 It's a Wonderful Life
63 Bert and Ernie
64 A button
65 He gives him a raise
66 Italy (Romans)
67 Ice Skating
68 Stocking Stuffers
69 Blitzen
70 Elinor Roosevelt
71 American Lung Association
72 Sugarplums
73 None
74 Angel
75 "The Christmas Song"
76 A song on his drum
77 Cookies
78 Jimmy Stewart
79 Coca-Cola
80 A hula-hoop
81 Clement C. Moore
82 A handsome prince
83 Norelco Electric Shaver
84 Bells
85 Silver and gold
86 "A Holly Jolly Christmas"
87 The Teddy Bear
88 Gene Autry
89 "God Rest You Merry Gentlemen"
90 To, From
91 Underneath the mistletoe
92 The Homecoming
93 "Silver Bells"
94 Rockin'
95 5 cents
96 "Blue Christmas"
97 Parson Brown
98 Tournament of Roses
99 "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town"
100 Upon the roof
101 The traffic cop
102 An engineer/architect
103 Dasher
104 Nutcracker
105 Peace on earth, goodwill to men
106 Charles Dickens

AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE ON CHRISTMAS

There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the
world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu,
Jewish or Buddhist (except maybe in Japan) religions, this reduces the
workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million
(according to the population reference bureau). At an average (census)
rate of 3.5 children per household, that comes to 108 million homes,
presuming there is at least one good child in each. Santa has about 31
hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and
the rotation of the earth, assuming east to west (which seems logical).

This works out to 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each
Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a
second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the
stocking, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever
snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the
sleigh and get onto the next house.

Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed
around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept
for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78
miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting
bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650
miles per second- 3,000 times the speed of sound.

For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses
space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional
reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour. The payload of the sleigh
adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing
more than a medium sized LEGO set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying
over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself.

On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even
granting that the "flying" reindeer can pull 10 times the normal amount,
the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them-Santa would need
360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of
the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the
Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch). 600,000 tons traveling at
650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this would heat up
the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's
atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would adsorb 14.3 quintillion
joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames
almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating
deafening sonic booms in their wake.

The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a
second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his
trip. None of this matters, however, since Santa, as a result of
accelerating from a dead stop to 650 mps in .001 seconds, would be
subjected to acceleration forces of 17,000g's. A 250 pound Santa (which
seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by
4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and
reducing him to a quivering blob of pink furry goo.

Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now.

This was given to me by an engineer and thought it would be nice to add a little humor to the blogs to tie up this little mini-series.

Christmas perceptions

For many, truth and tradtion sometimes become blurred based on what we see and hear repeatedly. This happens with many things in our current society especially with politics and the media. The media can repeat mistruths over and over and the average person eventually will believe it.

It is no different with the Christmas story. What we think we know, is not always factually accurate based on available proof, namely early historical writings and the Bible.

A typical Christmas story we hear repeated is:

"It's about 2000 years ago, the evening of December 25. Mary rides into Bethlehem on a donkey, urgently needing to deliver her baby. Although it's an emergency, all the innkeepers turn them away. So they deliver baby Jesus in a stable. Then angels sing to the shepherds. Afterwards, they all join three kings with camels in worshipping the quiet, newborn."

The problem is this story may be almost entirely wrong. The events surrounding the birth have been retold so many times and in so many ways -- in plays, poetry, books and movies -- that most people have a distorted view of the true events. Basing the story on the Bible and other historical writings we see the following:
• Did Mary ride a donkey to Bethlehem? Perhaps, but there are various other possibilities. The Bible doesn't say how she got to Bethlehem. It only says that she came with Joseph.
• Did Mary arrive in Bethlehem the night she gave birth? The Bible does not suggest this. They could have arrived weeks earlier. God's Word simply states, "while they were there [in Bethlehem], the days were accomplished that she should be delivered" (Luke 2:6). Arriving in town well before her due date would make more sense.
• Did Joseph or Mary talk to any innkeepers? Perhaps, but there is no solid, biblical reason to believe that they did. Although innkeepers play a prominent part in many Christmas plays, no innkeeper is actually mentioned in the biblical record of Christ's birth. Furthermore, it is likely that Mary and Joseph actually stayed in a house with relatives, not behind some kind of Bible-times hotel.
• Was Jesus born in a stable? Or a barn? Or a cave? The Bible does not mention any of these three places in connection with Christ's birth, only a manger. Scripture simply reports that they laid Jesus in a manger because there was no room for him in the guest room. The Greek word used in Scripture is kataluma, and can mean guest chamber, lodging place or inn. The only other time this word was used in the New Testament, it means a furnished, large, upper story room within a private house. It is translated guest chamber, not inn (Mark 14:14-15). According to Bible archaeology experts, Jesus was probably born in the house of relatives, but outside (under) the normal living and guest quarters.
• "Away in a manger the baby awakes, but little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." Although this is part of a beautiful song, we cannot be sure that Jesus did not cry. The Bible does not report this.
• Did angels sing to the shepherds outside of Bethlehem? Perhaps, but the Bible doesn't specifically say that the angels sang. It says that first an angel appeared and spoke, and then appeared "a multitude of the heavenly host praising God" (Luke 2:13).
• Were angels present at the birth? It seems logical to assume that they were, however, Scripture does not report it, and there is no evidence that angels were visible to Mary and Joseph at this time.
• Did three kings riding camels come to Jesus' birth? The Bible does not say that any kings or camels visited young Jesus. It does report wise men ("magi") came, but it does not say how many. None of the early Church Fathers suggested the magi were kings. Since the word "magi" used in the Bible is plural, there were apparently at least two, and there could have been more -- even several more. The Bible simply mentions three costly gifts they presented -- gold, frankincense and myrrh, but this does not necessarily indicate the number of magi. There is also no proof of what country these men came from. Also, the wise men clearly did not visit Jesus when he was still lying in the manger, as is commonly shown on greeting cards and in plays. The magi did not arrive until sometime after Christ's presentation in the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 2:22-39). At this time, Scripture calls Jesus a "child," not a "baby." It is possible that little Jesus was walking and talking by then. Based on the calculations of King Herod and the magi (Matthew 2:16), Jesus could have been two years old or under.
• Was Jesus born on December 25 or in December at all? Although it's not impossible, it seems unlikely. The Bible does not specify a date or month. One problem with December is that it would be unusual for shepherds to be "abiding in the field" at this cold time of year when fields were unproductive. The normal practice was to keep the flocks in the fields from spring to autumn. Also, winter would likely be an especially difficult time for pregnant Mary to travel the long distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem (70 miles). This topic was discussed in an earlier blog.

So as you can see, perceptions based on repeated stories can lead to some false beliefs. Intellectual honesty that seems to be sought after really has to be based on available evidence from historical documents whether it be with the Christmas story or any other topic being discussed. I hope this was helpful!

Twelve Days of Christmas

We have a couple more days of Christmas postings before we get back to routine NA Health issues and topics.

Over the years, there have been many stories associated with the customs of Christmas. Some have been true, some false and many others a combination of the two. The internet and certain organizations have also continued to propagate certain stories with varied truth.

The Twelve Days of Christmas is one such Christmas song that has a varied history. Some legends say it was a way in which persecuted English people used the song in some sort of code to continue to spread the news of Christianity and specifically to teach the catechism message around the Christmas season. The codes related to the song are reported to represent the following:

1 Partridge in pear tree = Jesus on the cross
2 Turtle doves = Old and New Testaments
3 French hens = Faith, hope, and charity
4 Calling birds = Four Gospels and/or four evangelists
5 Golden rings = The Pentateuch
6 Geese a-laying = Six days of creation
7 Swans a-swimming = Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit
8 Maids a-milking = Eight Beatitudes
9 Ladies dancing = Nine fruits of the Spirit
10 Lords a-leaping = Ten Commandments
11 Pipers piping = Eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers drumming = Twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

Although this may have some truth associated, history probably does not support it entirely.

There certainly was a time in England’s history that Christians were persecuted and prohibited from openly practicing their Catholic faith. The years in question were from about 1558 to 1829. This began when England’s Catholic Queen Mary (Bloody Mary) was succeeded by her protestant half-sister, Elizabeth. During these years, Catholics were forbidden by law to openly practice their faith and punishments ranged from mild persecution to death. But the majority of these years were not horrible for Catholics. In fact, during much of Elizabeth’s reign, there was the practice referred to as Via Media (the “Middle Way”) allowing some to practice a faith with a combination of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Even during the times when persecution was severe, there was really no need to be secretive about the hidden truths that the Twelve Days of Christmas supposedly told. In fact, most of these things were common with the protestant teachings and not solely catechism teachings.

In addition to this, just knowing what these twelve things represented did not really help the average person unless they knew more of the specifics. For example, 12 drummers drumming related to 12 points in the Apostles creed, but unless you knew these 12 points, it really would not be real helpful in propagating the Catholic teaching.

More evidence leads to thinking that the song actually originated in France and wasn’t used in England until the latter part of the 1700’s. The partridge was a symbol known and used in France. In addition, France had been Catholic for years; therefore not really needing secretive ways to spread the Catechism message.

A song entitled “A New Dial” or “In those Twelve Days” had been recorded in the literature from about 1625. It was very spiritual in nature but was in no way meant to teach a catechism message. While there is no direct evidence to link these songs, the meanings associated with days 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 were the same in both. There is also no specific indication that Englishmen routinely used songs or rhymes as a pneumonic for spiritual beliefs although it is possible.

So we can see that there is some controversy as to what the song actually represents. There is probably some truth to the representations made above, but the exact implications are just speculative.

The ACLU and Christmas

Here is an excerpt of a poem written by John Leo of U.S. News and World Reports

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house
Not a creature was stirring not even a mouse
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care.
In hope that St. Nicholas soon would be there.
When out on a lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
There was Santa again, on his annual journeys,
Ensnared in a group of eight tiny attorneys,
They looked pretty grim and they threatened to sue,
So we knew in a flash---“It’s the ACLU”
So they paid us no heed, but went straight to their work,
Handcuffing poor Santa, then said with a smirk:
“This is secular airspace, we can’t have a saint
Flying our flightpaths---we need some restraint.
A sleigh full of toys is OK, we suppose,
But faith-based incursions we’ve got to oppose.

The poem goes on to describe many scenarios based on actual cases that the ACLU and others have been involved. The poem is a creative but sad way to describe the persistent attack that has been occurring over the last several years.

Here are just a few examples over the years from the ACLU cases and others. Although the majority of these cases were settled in favor of celebrating Christmas, it required legal action before they were resolved. There are many, many more like these:
• St. Paul Minnesota city hall banned red poinsettias because someone deemed them a Christian symbol
• City of Pittsburgh renamed the Christmas season sparkle days so no one would be offended by the C-word
• Plano Texas independent school was sued because they barred wearing red and green clothes at school
• In Rochester Minn., two girls were suspended for wearing red and green clothing and saying Merry Christmas in a school video presentation.
• In Connecticut, a library refused to display the nativity seen as part of a rotating display of local art.
• In Queens, New York, a school district refused to allow a child to include a nativity scene in the holiday display while allowing a menorah and an Islamic star and crescent.
• The Indiana School of Law removed a Christmas tree and replaced it with a generic depiction of winter
• A student in Indianolo, Iowa, was told by his school he couldn’t say “Merry Christmas” because it might offend someone
• The school district in Hanover Township, New Jersey threatened to outlaw Christmas carols at school concerts and in Maplewood New Jersey the school ordered purely instrumental Christmas music to be banned.
• Central Michigan University warned Christians that Christmas “may be offensive to others within a place of employment”, but no warnings were issued for observers of the non-Christian holidays.
• In Baldwin City, Kansas, a long standing tradition of allowing a member of the community to dress as Santa and visit elementary kids. When the Santa asked a little girl why we celebrate Christmas, she said because it was Jesus’ birthday. The ACLU sent a letter asking for an immediate halt in the practice.
• In Benton, Louisiana, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Bossier Parish Schools because the school displayed a Nativity scene on school property.
• In Tipton, Iowa, the ACLU threatened to sue the Cedar County Board of Supervisors if they allowed a Nativity scene on the county lawn.

I re-iterate the point, that if these same activities were occurring with a non-Christian activity, there would be an outcry from so many secular and liberal individuals that the news media would not be able to keep up.

The attack is real!!

Christmas flowers

The Christmas wreath has sometimes been attributed to being a representation of the crown of thorns that Jesus wore. This is probably not accurate.

The wreath more likely represents and is related to different types of headpieces that were worn in cultures of the ancient Persian Empire. Nobles wore headpieces made of fabrics and jewels and Greeks gave Olympic victors crowns. The St. Lucia festival in Sweden celebrated on Dec 13, has the oldest daughter wear a headpiece with greenery and nine lit candles.

Laurel (A Mediterranean evergreen tree (Laurus nobilis) having aromatic, simple leaves and small blackish berries) was used for Christmas decorations in Roman Christian homes whereas Europeans favored evergreens coming from their German and Celtic solstice festivities. The evergreens stayed green representing life in the time of year that was so dark. As a result, evergreens and candles became favored and were related to the yule log that was a good luck charm used in the Nordic festival of Jol Christmas. Christmas candles may also be related to Hanukkah candles, as both of the nearly concurrent observances celebrate holy light.

European Christians in the Middle Ages used holly with its prickly leaves and red berries to represent thorns and drops of blood if Christ. There is also some belief that the cross was made of holly, though others believed it was made of oak. Holly used in Christmas decorations was often kept after the holiday for protection—against witchcraft in England and against lightning in Germany. There is no known direct connection to wreaths and Christ's crown.

Mistletoe also lasted beyond the Christmas season and up to Candlemas (February 2) and further. The kissing tradition came from an old Scandanavian custom whereby enemies who met under mistletoe in the forest would lay down their weapons and maintain a truce until the next day. Mistletoe was worshiped by Druids, who believed it could cure all diseases and is usually excluded from church decorations for that reason.

Dr. Joel Roberts Poinsett, the American ambassador to Mexico, brought the poinsettia to this country in 1829. Mexicans called it the "flower of Holy Night" because its red bracts (they're not petals) make a shape like the Star of Bethlehem. Legends from Mexico state that a poor boy did not want to enter the church because he had no gift for the baby Jesus. He prayed and when his eyes opened, there was a blooming poisetta at his feet. He took this into the church as his gift. This flower has no pagan roots associated with its tradition.

Why December 25th

For all of us living in the last several hundred years, it is difficult to imagine December without relating it to Christmas and the birth of Jesus. But for several hundred years after Jesus lived and died, his birthday was not officially celebrated. It may have been lumped with Epiphany (Jan 6) as one of the church’s earliest celebrations but was not really established as a singular celebration on its own.

Some early Christian leaders such as Origen (c.185-c.254) were opposed to celebrating Jesus’ birth feeling that birthdays were used for pagan god ceremonies.

The actual date of the birth of Jesus has been debated by many people throughout history and many church leaders had their opinion on when and why it should be a certain date. They also disagreed with Origen and felt that we should recognize and celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) favored May 20 but noted that others argued for April 18, 19, and May 28th for various reasons. Hippolytus (c.170-c.236) championed January 2. when many others were wanting November 17, November 20, and March 25 for their reasons.

A Latin treatise written around 243 pegged March 21, because that was believed to be the date on which God created the sun. Polycarp (c.69-c.155) had followed the same line of reasoning to conclude that Christ's birth and baptism most likely occurred on Wednesday, because the sun was created on the fourth day.

The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen's concern about pagan gods and the church's identification of God's son with the celestial sun.

Leaders of the time knew that trying to eliminate a pagan holiday would not be accepted by the people and decided on a strategy of replacing the pagan holiday with a Christian holiday. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. In addition, the winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. This became the official holiday of Christmas.

After Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the favored religion around 336 A.D., December 25th was finally used for the celebration of Christmas in the Western churches. The Eastern churches, partly because of the ongoing rivalry with the West, however, held on to January 6 as the date for Christ's birth and his baptism. Eventually though, most Eastern Churches adopted December 25 to celebrate Christ's birth.

Pope Gregory developed a new calendar in the 16th century replacing the Julian calendar and causing a little more conflict. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches retained the Julian calendar and therefore celebrated Christmas 13 days earlier. Most all churches now recognize the Gregorian calendar and the current Dec. 25th date.

Saying that Christmas and many of the associated customs have pagan origins does have some truth and has always been a concern for Christians, but the Church has always viewed changing culture with holidays as a positive prospect. A theologian in 320 A.D. stated: “We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.”

The Christmas Attack

Here are three very nice editorials from different sources showing the utter ridiculousness of how our “progressive” country has declined.

[ Hold the 'holy' in those happy holidays - Los Angeles Times]
[Why avoid using 'Merry Christmas'? csmonitor.com]
[The American Enterprise: ‘Tis the Season]

I hope everyone reads these editorials and really think about where they stand on this issue. We are becoming less tolerant and less consistent in our philosophy.

I have personally boycotted those stores not willing to say Merry Christmas for the season.

I hope others will do the same. Money does seem to motivate these retailers.

The Christmas kickoff

Weekend events
IU vs KY 79 to 53 * * * * *
Chronicles of Narnia * * * * *

Since Christmas is under attack by the secular interests and political correctness of many, I am going to blog on some historical information about Christmas and the Season over the next few days.

Some bloggers I am sure will say Christmas is not under attack, but that is marginalizing what is occurring. If the systematic attempt to eliminate a non-Christian tradition were occurring, there would be no end to the media hype and protests. There are numerous ACLU attacks that I will highlight later in the week, but first we'll start with some history.

Bishop Perpetuus of Tours in 490 was the first official from the church to institute activities outside the cultural norm to celebrate the Christmas season. He advocated a special fast on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays from November 11 to December 24 which was referred to as Martinmas. This activity was similar to the Lent fast used for remembrance of Jesus before the Easter Celebration. This new activity spread slowly from France, Spain, and Germany but when it reached Rome about 100 years later, it took a very different direction.

Rome initially found it difficult to recognize the birth of Christ the same way they viewed his death, so they celebrated rather than fasting. But by the 11th century, they too remembered the Advent season by fasting, limiting recreation, having no marital relations and no weddings.

Somewhere during all of this the Advent celebration has started on many different dates and currently can last anywhere from 22 to 28 days but usually Advent Calendars start with Dec. 1.

Catholics and orthodox churches still use Advent in routine celebrations during the season, but other Christians may or may not utilize the Advent terminology or customs associated for their recognition of the Christmas Season. Today, we see the Christmas Season routinely starting after Thanksgiving for economic reasons, but most churches still begin celebrating the Season on or after Dec. 1.

In the Orthodox Church, Advent still includes fasting, and in most places it lasts from November 15 to December 24. The Armenian Orthodox church members fast for three of the seven weeks between November 15 (St. Philip's Day) and January 6 (Epiphany).

In Syria, Lebanon, and parts of France and Germany, December 4 (St. Barbara's Day) signals the beginning of the Christmas season.

In Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany, St., Nicholas's Day, December 6, inaugurates the Christmas festivities.

Swedes wait until St. Lucy's Day, December 13, to commence Christmas observances.

Each of these countries utilizes a historical person, story or custom to kick off the Christmas Season. The celebrations look and feel different based on cultural differences, but they all recognize and celebrate the same historical event; the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Norton's proposed move

Norton Hospital Inc. is considering a bold move with the consideration of changing the Certificate of Need (CON) from Southwest Hospital to a new facility being proposed in the Brownsboro Road area. [Southwest may lose hospital to northeast]

From a business standpoint this is probably an excellent move. Certainly the demographics support the move, and when you consider the new East End Bridge, it is probably a no-brainer.

The key indicator for hospitals is really physician-driven. If physicians are not utilizing the facility, it will fail. This appears to be the case for Southwest. With Baptist East and Surburban closer to the physician’s homes and offices, why would they want to drive to Southwest? It takes more time away from family and productive work. Traveling to multiple hospitals is time-consuming and a real hassle.

This shows good forward thinking on the Board’s part and they are meeting their fiduciary responsibilities.

Donor Insemination

Here is excerpt from the following article as a follow-up to yesterday’s posting about whether dads should be involved in the decision-making process.

Who's Your Daddy?
There's more to fatherhood than donating DNA. by W. Bradford Wilcox 12/12/2005, Volume 011, Issue 13

BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED MOTHERS ARE at a record high in the United States--almost 1.5 million in 2004 alone, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. While the rising trend is of long standing, one novel factor driving up childbearing outside marriage is the growing popularity of single motherhood by donor insemination. The incidence of this "assisted reproduction," as it is called, has more than doubled in the last decade.
Most public discussion of donor insemination for single women has been carried on in a neutral, positive, or breathlessly celebratory tone. Isn't it great, the thinking seems to be, that these women are fulfilling their aspiration to be mothers with the latest technology that medical science can offer? Support groups like Single Mothers by Choice and mainstream publications like the Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times, and the Washington Post describe donor insemination for unmarried mothers occasionally as a "sad" necessity for women who cannot find "satisfactory" partners, but more often as "awe"-inspiring, "liberating," or "empowering." Television shows like NBC's drama Inconceivable, broadcast this fall, glamorize assisted reproduction.
This enthusiasm is notable at a time when European countries are skeptical enough to actually ban the process. Sweden and Italy bar single mothers from engaging in either in vitro fertilization or use of anonymous sperm (or, in Italy, eggs), and Britain and the Netherlands have banned the anonymous donation of sperm. Also striking is how adult-centered our public conversation has been. Until recently, virtually no attention was paid to how the children of donor fathers make sense of their experience. Nor has the public debate acknowledged the moral and social ramifications of deliberately creating a whole class of children without identifiable fathers.

The article goes on to discuss the poor statistics that occur with these kids:

Take crime. One study of 6,403 boys carried out by scholars at Princeton and the University of California at San Francisco found that boys raised in single-parent homes are twice as likely as others to end up in prison. Or teenage pregnancy. University of Arizona psychologist Bruce Ellis, who studied 762 girls in the United States and New Zealand, found that girls who saw their father leave the family before age six were more than six times as likely to have a teenage pregnancy as girls whose fathers stuck around through their entire childhood. Or suicide. A study of all Swedish children between 1991 and 1998 found that those in single-parent families were twice as likely to attempt suicide and 50 percent more likely to succeed in committing suicide than children in two-parent families. Note that these studies control for factors like race, education, and poverty that might otherwise distort the relationship between family structure and child well-being.

And finally the article completes with the following excerpt:

For all these reasons, it is time to bring children's welfare into the discussion of donor-assisted single motherhood. A serious consideration of children's best interests would probably lead us down a regulatory road comparable to that being pursued in Europe, with bans on the donor-insemination of single women and on the anonymous donation of sperm and eggs. It won't be easy to rein in a multibillion-dollar fertility industry that is used to catering to the desires of adults unhindered by regulation or moral objection. Nor is it possible to protect all children from fatherlessness, given the vicissitudes of life. What should be possible is to reject the deliberate conception of children without flesh-and-blood fathers committed to playing a paternal role in their lives.

I think it’s time we reconsider our overall thought process regarding these issues for the health and well-being of our kids and our society.

A Man’s Right to Choose!

Here is an op-ed worth reading and contemplating with the following excert:

"Rather, Judge Alito's thinking about the role of men in reproductive decision-making is in keeping with how legal thinking needs to evolve in this age of readily available DNA testing."
[A Man's Right to Choose - New York Times].

I am curious what some of the “Progressive thinkers” here in New Albany think about this.

How do you rationalize your decision on this topic?

Are you willing to comment on this topic?

I don’t want legal opinions on how things stand at the present, but really how people take sides and their rationale for doing so.

This is just for open discussion!!

Who was St. Nicholas?

There really isn’t much known about this particular individual although there are plenty of legends and stories. December 6 is the day that is celebrated in his honor.

St. Nicholas is thought to have been born around modern day Turkey in a city called Myra about 280 A.D. He has been one of the most popular saints in the Greek and Latin churches even during the times when the celebration of saints was discouraged. His existence isn't attested by any historical document and all we can really say is that he was probably elected bishop of Myra sometime in the 300s.

He was made a saint after his death, but from what is written, he wasn’t really known for the giving of gifts. It wasn’t until around 1300 that gift giving was actually associated with St. Nicholas.

History states that he was born to wealthy parents and when they died, he inherited a large sum of money that he eventually gave away. The most common story told is about he supposedly threw bags of gold through a window for three girls about to be forced into lives of slavery and prostitution.

He reportedly performed a couple of miracles while he was a boy earning him the name “Nicholas the Wonder-Worker”. His legend also has him nursing only two days a week and fasting the other days as an infant, bringing dead children back to life, and blocking an executioner to save the life of his prisoner. He reportedly saved 3 sailors from drowning by stopping a storm, and showered children with gifts by throwing them into their windows. These are all legendary with no historical documentation to support the claims.

He was Bishop during the time when Maximian and Diocletian began their persecutions of Christians, and he was imprisoned.

He was later released when Constantine became emperor. He began preaching only to find a new threat of Gnostic teaching called Arianism. Biographers on his history said he personally traveled to the Council of Nicea and slapped Arius in the face. This caused so much shock amongst the other Bishops that they were going to relieve him as bishop. But then Jesus and Mary supposedly appeared next to him and the bishops recanted. This is probably just legend because there were pretty good records regarding this particular church council and Nicholas was not mentioned. History also states according to a biographer that: "Thanks to the teaching of St. Nicholas, the metropolis of Myra alone was untouched by the filth of the Arian heresy, which it firmly rejected as a death-dealing poison."

During the reign of Justinian in 565, the emperor dedicated a church in Constantinople to him and by the 900’s people from east to west were giving him acclaim and glory. There were more than 400 churches dedicated in his honor during the late Middle ages in England alone.

His popularity grew and, in Germany, especially because of the gold-giving story, it became intertwined with others to the point that some of the legends are difficult to trace. Somewhere along the line, people began to give gifts in his remembrance on his feast day. This tradition waned during the Protestant reformation in most places except Holland. Here, his legend continued as Sinterklass. Martin Luther replaced this bearer of gifts with the Christ Child, or, in German, Christkindl and over the years, that became repronounced Kriss Kringle. In American history, it has taken various forms and has been less favored at time, but ironically it is now considered another name for Santa Claus.

And now you know the rest of the story!

New info makes for current changes in CPR

New CPR guidelines have been published for 2005. The American Heart Association is now recommending 30 compressions on the chest for every 2 breaths in single person CPR. The article in the courier is a very nice summary and the AHA website also has the current recommendations:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CPR_GUIDELINES?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035630

In addition, a few other changes have been made with the AICD devices.

All of this shows that what we think we know always seems to change as more information is obtained.

Medical Students are told that “half of everything they will learn will probably be wrong; the only problem is that they don’t know which half”

Sounds reassuring for all those science and intellectual types!!

Report Cards

Here is a novel approach to being proactive. [Norton to expand hospital grades]

With insurance companies and government regulators threatening to start posting statistics, it is nice to see a local hospital take the initiative and post their data.

It shows courage and commitment to better quality healthcare. It give people more information to make better informed decisions. This practice should be encouraged at more facilities.

But with any number, they can all be manipulated. Therefore, for each item, the definition should be clearly stated about what and how the numbers are calculated. We should agree on common calculations so that we truly compare apples to apples!

Who is accountable?

Here is another incident of practicing without a license.
[Counselor overstated qualifications, charges say]
But in this case, I think the Judges, lawyers and the court should be held accountable. This sounds like a severe lack of investigation and follow-up on the parts of many involved.

I would consider malpractice against any defense lawyer that did not investigate and challenge his so-called degree. Turning things against attorneys may send a message about due-diligence.

It does not sound like he made false claims, but his degree is just probably not legitimate or recognized by governing authorities.