text:
+91 80088 98948
Cancer Awareness
Useful Information
Epaper Updates
Colon Cancer
Colon Cancer
The first thing a colon cancer or stomach cancer patient needs to understand is that the cure rate of orthodox medicine for these two kinds of cancer is virtually zero. Even the cure rate for natural cancer treatments is significantly lower than for most other kinds of cancer.
The reason the cure rate is so low is because of the damage caused by surgery and chemotherapy to the colon and / or stomach. Surgery on the colon and / or stomach damages the body's ability to digest foods and extract the nutrients from foods.
Also, chemotherapy is known to damage the lining of the colon and / or stomach, thus interfering with the body's ability to process the nutrients in foods and supplements. Chemotherapy kills fast-growing cells and there are many fast growing cells in the colon and stomach.
Because the body cannot digest foods properly, and cannot extract nutrients from the foods and supplements (because of surgery and chemotherapy), the non-cancerous cells are not able to get proper nutrition.
Causes & SymptomsCauses & Symptoms of Colon Cancer
Colorectal cancer starts in the colon or the rectum. These cancers can also be named colon cancer or rectal cancer, depending on where they start. Colon cancer and rectal cancer are often grouped together because they have many features in common.
Most colorectal cancers begin as a growth on the inner lining of the colon or rectum called a polyp. Some types of polyps can change into cancer over the course of several years, but not all polyps become cancer. The chance of changing into cancer depends on the kind of polyp. The two main types of polyps are:
Adenomatous polyps (adenomas): These polyps sometimes change into cancer. Because of this, adenomas are called a pre-cancerous condition.
Hyperplastic polyps and inflammatory polyps: These polyps are more common, but in general they are not pre-cancerous.
Dysplasia, another pre-cancerous condition, is an area in a polyp or in the lining of the colon or rectum where the cells look abnormal (but not like true cancer cells).
If cancer forms in a polyp, it can eventually begin to grow into the wall of the colon or rectum.
Many of the symptoms of colon cancer can also be caused by something that isn't cancer, such as infection, hemorrhoids, irritable bowel syndrome, or inflammatory bowel disease. In most cases, people who have these symptoms do not have cancer. Still, if you have any of these problems, go to the doctor to be treated, if needed:
A change in bowel habits, such as diarrhea, constipation, or narrowing of the stool, that lasts for more than a few days
A feeling that you need to have a bowel movement that is not relieved by doing so
Rectal bleeding
Dark stools, or blood in the stool (often, though, the stool will look normal)
Cramping or abdominal (belly) pain
Weakness and fatigue
Unintended weight loss
Who Gets Colon Cancer
A person with an average risk of colorectal cancer has about a 5 percent chance of developing colorectal cancer. Often, the cause of colorectal cancer is not known. However, these factors may raise a person's risk of developing colorectal cancer:
Age − the risk of colorectal cancer increases as people get older. More than 90 percent of colorectal cancers occur in people older than 50.
Gender − men have a slightly higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than women.
Rare inherited conditions − certain conditions significantly increase the risk of colorectal cancer, including:
Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)
Attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP)
Gardner syndrome
Lynch syndrome
Juvenile Polyposis syndrome (JPS)
Muir-Torre syndrome
MYH-associated polyposis (MAP)
Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS)
Turcot syndrome
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) − people with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease may develop chronic inflammation of the large intestine. This increases the risk of colon cancer.
Adenomatous polyps (adenomas) − these are likely to develop into colorectal cancer.
Personal history − people with a personal history of colon cancer and women who have had ovarian cancer or uterine cancer are more likely to develop colon cancer.
Race − black people have the highest rates of sporadic, or non-hereditary, colorectal cancer in the United States.
Diet − research most consistently links eating more red and processed meat to a higher risk of the disease.
Smoking − studies have shown that smokers are more likely to die from colorectal cancer than nonsmokers.
Physical inactivity and obesity
Prognosis if You Have Colon Cancer
Colorectal cancer is more common in men than women and among those of African-American descent. The number of new cases of colon and rectum cancer was 41 per 100,000 men and women per year based on 2009-2013 cases, according to the National Cancer Institute's SEER Stat Fact Sheets.
For colorectal cancer, death rates increase with age. Colon and rectum cancer are the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. The number of deaths was 15.1 per 100,000 men and women per year based on 2009-2013 deaths.
The percent of colon and rectum cancer deaths is highest among people aged 75-84.
The 5-year relative survival rate for colon cancer:
Stage I − 92 percent
Stage II − 87 percent
Stage III − 89 percent
Stage IV − 11 percent
Colon Cancer ProtocolsProtocols: How to Treat Colon Cancer
First, there must be some way to get rid of cancer cells independent of nutrition. This is critical because the stomach and / or colon are not able to digest all of the nutrients that are put into the body. Second, also because of the lack of nutrients absorbed by the stomach and / or colon, special supplements are needed which do not require as much digestion as other products. The best solution to this key issue is special nutrients, especially in liquid form.
If your surgeon wants to "debulk" your colon and / or stomach of cancer cells and tumors, keep this in mind: Colon cancer and stomach cancer patients have a lower cure rate than other cancer patients precisely because surgery and chemotherapy damage the ability of their stomach and colon to properly digest foods.
(However, if your stomach and / or colon is blocked, or are in severe danger of being blocked, then some surgery may be required for immediate survival.)
Primary: Cellect-Budwig Protocol with High RF Frequency Generator / Plasma Amplifier and Fucoidan Secondary: Rife-Beck Protocol or the Bob Beck Protocol with the MSM / CD Protocol and Fucoidan
Conventional medicine's main types of treatment for colon cancer include:
Surgery − including lymphadenectomy or colectomy Chemotherapy
How to Prevent Colon Cancer
People with an average risk of colon cancer can consider screening beginning at age 50. But people with an increased risk, such as those with a family history of colon cancer, should consider screening sooner.
You can take steps to reduce your risk of colon cancer by making changes in your everyday life:
Eat a variety of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains
Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all
Stop smoking
Exercise most days of the week
Maintain a healthy weight
Immune System Health
A healthy immune system remains your body's best defense. Not only is a weak immune system a major reason patients have cancer − and cancer itself can further weaken the immune system.
Beta glucans help regulate the immune system, making it more efficient. In addition, beta glucans stimulate white blood cells (lymphocytes) that bind to tumors or viruses and release chemicals to destroy it.
Beta Glucan has been approved in Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan as an immunoadjuvant therapy for cancer. In fact, helping with cancer is just the beginning with Beta Glucan. There have thousands of studies showing the product can protect against infections, lower your cholesterol, lower blood sugar, reduce stress, increase your antibody production, heal wounds, help radiation burns, overcome mercury-induced immunosuppression (like Thimerosal, used as a preservative in vaccines), help with diabetes, and even naturally prevent metastasis (or the spreading of your cancer).
Harvard Medical School suggests following general good-health guidelines is the single best step you can take toward keeping your immune system strong and healthy:
Don't smoke.
Eat a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in saturated fat.
Exercise regularly.
Maintain a healthy weight.
Control your blood pressure.
If you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation.
Get adequate sleep.
Take steps to avoid infection, such as washing your hands frequently and cooking meats thoroughly.
Get regular medical screening tests for people in your age group and risk category.
More Information: Building the Immune System
Healthy Diet
Your diet plays a role in a healthy immune system. The top vitamins your immune system needs to perform include:
Vitamin C − helps to repair and regenerate tissues and aids in the absorption of iron
Vitamin E − a powerful antioxidant that helps your body fight off infection
Vitamin B6 − supports adrenal function and is necessary for key metabolic processes
Vitamin A − aids immune function and helps provide a barrier against infections
Vitamin D − modulates cell growth, promotes neuromuscular and immune function, and reduces inflammation
Folate − key in development of red blood cells (a lack of Folate can make the body susceptible to cancer)
Iron − helps your body carry oxygen to cells
Selenium − slows the body's overactive responses to certain aggressive forms of cancer
Zinc − slows the immune response and control inflammation in your body
Copyright 2016. Developed By
Ambidex Software Solutions


text:
Caving to insidious Chinese censorship
After being on the receiving end of Chinese censorship, I wonder if China's ever-widening powers over free speech will even be discussed when Tony Abbott's trade delegation arrives there next week, writes L.A. Larkin.
On March 24, 2014 I was busy writing an action scene for my next thriller. My central character had just witnessed the horrifying assassination of a young girl in Afghanistan, brave enough to speak out against a drug-trafficking warlord.
The phone rang and a senior editor at Reader's Digest Australia informed me that my Antarctic thriller, Thirst, had been censored by their Chinese printers.
Thirst, published in 2012 by Murdoch Books, was part of a Reader's Digest volume of condensed novels destined for distribution in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and India. Not, I might add, in China.
China is where the books were being printed and the Chinese printers demanded that all references to Falun Gong be removed and that the word "torture", as it related to a Falun Gong practitioner, had to be deleted. I was told the printers would accept the words "religious belief" instead of Falun Gong and "torment" instead of torture.
But, of course, these are not my words. Such changes distort my opinions and the context of my story. Through a third party commercial enterprise China was attempting to use Reader's Digest to affect opinion on the touchy topic of Falun Gong outside its own borders by deleting it from my book.
I made the decision not to make the required edits and Thirst was dropped from the volume. The editor at Reader's Digest sympathised with my decision and I recognised that she was caught between a rock and a hard place, with budget and time constraints.
So imagine my surprise when I read an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on April 2, 2014 by Nick Galvin in which the managing director of Reader's Digest Australia, Walter Beyleveldt, flatly denied there had been any censorship.
I had assumed that in Australia, and other countries in which we are not arrested, tortured and imprisoned for having views that differ from our leaders, book publishers robustly resist censorship, especially extraterritorial censorship.
Is the profit motive so important (and printing in China so inexpensive) that Reader's Digest effectively cedes editorial control to the printer?
They are not alone, of course. Bloomberg China was recently accused of repressing investigative reporting regarding corruption among the Chinese leadership for fear of damaging their business interests there.
Google suffered from years of battling China's censorship laws and has been criticised for capitulating. But in both cases the product or the story was targeted at the Chinese market. My novel in the Reader's Digest volume was not.
In our interconnected globalised world, in which publishers outsource to the cheapest provider, does this mean that China's power to censor free speech, anywhere in the world, is far greater than we might imagine?
I never thought that as a fiction author I would find my work being censored. Nor, it seems, did Reader's Digest. Their senior editor told me she only knew of it happening once before and that was for a non-fiction book by Sir Edmund Hillary that mentioned Tibet.
As a result of my experience, I now realise how important it is for writers, authors, their agents and publishers to be aware of the ramifications of printing in countries where freedom of speech is controlled. We owe it to our readers who want to know that the book they have just purchased reflects the opinion of the author and hasn't been tampered with for political reasons.
What has happened to me demonstrates the insidious influence of globalisation and the triumph of commercial interests on freedom of speech. China is a cheap place to print, but it comes at a price.
As Tony Abbott's trade delegation arrives in China next week I wonder if China's human rights violations and ever-widening censorship powers will even be discussed.
As I return to writing my next novel, and think about the Afghani woman in my story who dies because she tries to tell the truth, I have to ask, what price freedom of speech?
L.A. Larkin is an Australian crime fiction and thriller author. View her full profile here.
Topics: censorship, information-and-communication, books-literature, government-and-politics
First posted
Comments (93)
Comments for this story are closed.
04 Apr 2014 12:14:10pm
Well get them printed here at home by Australian workers and that will not happen...problem solved
04 Apr 2014 1:14:00pm
That would cost more, which is why they are printed in China in the first place. The publisher wouldn't make as much money.
04 Apr 2014 1:20:24pm
Easy to say, but of course the extra cost of printing here would need to be paid by someone. That would be you, gentle reader. Are you willing to pay twice as much for "printed in Australia" or will you expect only the writer and publisher to pay for your principles?
Hint: were consumers willing to pay extra to drive cars made in Australia, or did they expect other taxpayers to pay for their preference? That is the reality you are up against.
04 Apr 2014 7:32:07pm
I'm not sure where my Ebooks are printed, but I'd happily pay twice the printing cost (zero dollars) to pretend they are printed in Australia. Hopefully this letter will reach the ABC in time and you will understand my handwriting.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 1:21:30pm
'Well get them printed here'
Why? Australia doesn't believe in free speech either.
Desert Woman:
04 Apr 2014 2:08:01pm
I can think of no country or culture that has totally free speech, totally unencumbered by rules and regulations. When you find one, please let me know.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 2:48:21pm
'I can think of no country or culture that has totally free speech'
I'm not sure how that's relevant, but if we accept that we should follow other countries, can you please point to any modern, free, western democracy that makes it an offence to offend someone?
When you find one let me know.
Desert Woman:
04 Apr 2014 4:10:44pm
Ben when you write silly statements like 'Australia doesn't believe in free speech', you open yourself to challenge. I'm sure if you could name a country or culture that didn't regulate speech in some way, you would, rather than introduce a diversion. There are good reasons for limits on totally free speech and I am a little surprised that a lawyer would be unaware of, or not respect, them.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 4:35:53pm
'when you write silly statements like 'Australia doesn't believe in free speech''
It's accurate. We believe only in restricted speech. That's fine, we should just be honest about it.
'sure if you could name a country'
I don't need to, because I don't think we should justify our laws based on what other countries do. You, however, clearly do, which is why I asked you to justify your point. I note that you could not.
'There are good reasons for limits on totally free speech'
Sure. Even accepting that, you have to admit that no other major, western democracy feels the need to ban speech on the basis of offence. Why do you think that is? Why is Australia more restrictive?
Desert Woman:
04 Apr 2014 5:14:24pm
So Ben, you agree that there are good reasons for limits on free speech which are widely recognized and applied. But you want us to disregard these good reasons and adopt totally unrestricted speech. Why?
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 6:00:14pm
'So Ben, you agree that there are good reasons for limits on free speech'
Sorry, no, I was merely accepting your point for the sake of the argument. A 'let's accept you are correct, surely you disagree with X' type of argument.
I apologise for not making that clearer.
I am still waiting for you to name another advanced, western democracy that has outlawed offence. Cheers.
Desert Woman:
04 Apr 2014 7:14:03pm
All you have is written words here Ben. I think any jury would agree that "Sure (there are good reasons for limits on totally free speech)." is agreement with my proposition. Throw your red herrings away, they have gone off.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 7:43:09pm
So can you name another western democracy that limits speech based on offence? Do you think Australia is the only one with the correct limits?
04 Apr 2014 2:32:21pm
I was very disappointed to learn the extent of Australian censorship. It's not the worse perhaps, but certainly far more restrictive than many other countries that I've been to. Over the past 10-15 years, the ever increasing pressure to conform, the limits on free speech, are very depressing. There's no respect for freedom of thought any more.
Craig of North Brisbane:
04 Apr 2014 2:47:52pm
I'd be interested to know what other countries you've been to. I've been to a few countries myself, both democratic and non-democratic, and Australia probably has the most liberal and least restrictive censorship regime of any of them.
04 Apr 2014 3:44:15pm
I've travelled widely. The first shock came for me was when in my early 20s looking through a bookshop in Japan. I found books filled with information which wasn't allowed - and still isn't permitted - in Australia. In more recent years, many websites that my friends internationally can see with no trouble at all, apparently are impossible to see for my friends in Australia. The censorship in Australia these days is horrendous. Freedom of thought isn't protected in Australia. It's not legally respected. The constitution and legal system doesn't protect freedom of speech.
Desert Woman:
04 Apr 2014 4:33:47pm
AJC, do you have an example or two? if you were discussing the 1950s I might find all that credible, but you mentioned recently.
04 Apr 2014 7:02:06pm
On an Australian website mentioning some facts that are actually forbidden for people in Australia to know about? That's funny. How do you give examples that are even illegal to expose? Oh no, you'd call that conspiracy nonsense, right? See the problem?
Desert Woman:
04 Apr 2014 7:54:02pm
You don't have to give me a website AJC, just some examples from your memory will do.
Tory Boy:
04 Apr 2014 4:32:32pm
The censorship was in China; the Australian side was just too cheap to do anything about it.
04 Apr 2014 2:55:50pm
btl, the two instances are qualitatively different.
And, don't forget:
"Freedom of speech is what is left over after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and parliament, incitement and censorship."
Justice Lionel Murphy (1922 - 1986).
What China would like to add to Murphy J's list is a different beast altogether. Relax, btl, just canter on your hobby horse. There is no need to ride it roughshod at a gallop over absolutely every peripherally related issue.
Mark James:
04 Apr 2014 5:05:28pm
"Australia doesn't believe in free speech?"
Did you ask it? If not, how do you know?
04 Apr 2014 7:02:54pm
Free speech is not protected in Australia. Not legally or otherwise. Simple as that.
Mitor the Bold:
04 Apr 2014 8:11:26pm
"Well get them printed here at home by Australian workers..."
Get them printed in Cambodia or Brazil - China's so yesterday cost-of-goods wise.
Australian workers have to find the money for a $500K house, a $30K car, food 20-50% more expensive than the USA and Europe, interest rates several percentage points higher than other OECD countries and so on. They can't afford to print books cheaply.
Australian consumers already pay at least double the price for books compared to the USA and Europe - all this extra is to prop-up Australian publishing (read: nice lifestyles for publishing execs) plus the horrible inefficiencies that have grown like algae behind a protectionist wall.
04 Apr 2014 12:27:48pm
Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental human rights. Without it, democracy is impossible.
It's unusual to see an article in support of free speech on The Drum. I would have expected more calls for censorship of dissenting opinions, as provided by the Racial Discrimination Act.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 1:22:05pm
Excellent points, well made. Others won't like you pointing out their hypocrisy though.
04 Apr 2014 4:34:55pm
Quite so Ben the Lawyer.
The Racial Discrimination Act was clearly going to lead to a new holocaust.
We all know from history that saying bigoted things doesn't cause people to believe them, its not like propaganda ever works.
The Germans clearly demonstrated that rationalism overcomes all propaganda and bigotry.
oh.... hang on......
Jimmy Necktie:
04 Apr 2014 5:08:37pm
"The Germans clearly demonstrated that rationalism overcomes all propaganda and bigotry."
I assume you mean during the nazi regime. The propaganda was distributed by the government and free speech was not allowed - ie anyone dissenting from the government line was arrested.
Perhaps, had they actually had free speech, things might have been different. Probably not since the majority of the people agreed with the government, but maybe.
04 Apr 2014 6:09:07pm
Joe. Your sentiments are misplaced. The situation in Germany didn't arise because the German regime issued racist propaganda. It arose because the German regime censored everything except the propaganda.
The RDA contains clauses which will punish you just because you voiced the wrong opinion in a public area. If that doesn't remind you of 1938-era Germany, nothing will.
Besides. When the Germans were hauled to trial for their war crimes, the judges were interested in the people they killed. Not the people they offended. Perhaps you should widen your perspective a bit.
The Blue Pill Please:
04 Apr 2014 4:45:10pm
Yes guys, one of the most fundamental human rights. However, when you include the right of untruths as free speech you are dancing with evil. Or maybe you agree that Hitler was right to express his views over and over and over until finally he obtained all power. I think you know what happened next.
More recently we could talk about a little war in Iraq, demonized asylum seekers, and my current fav, the Sgt Shiltz "I KNOW NOTHING" line used by sindo when facing ICAC.
Those who argue for unlimited free speech are very selective on how it is used me thinks.
04 Apr 2014 1:54:10pm
It was reported yesterday in Fairfax papers, not sure if elsewhere too, that the Federal Government had succeeded in legal action blocking the release of papers on East Timor to an Australian academic because their release might offend Indonesia.
Apparently an individual has no right to complain about racist commentary about them, but an offended foreign governmet gets what it likes.
How's that for hypocrisy?
04 Apr 2014 2:25:27pm
well pointed out and furthermore how strange that the libs have pushed for the release of the previous govts cabinet papers and yet papers from 30 years ago are hush hush.... double standards indeed about free speech,.
Jimmy Necktie:
04 Apr 2014 5:13:17pm
I don't see how it's a free speech issue. If the government owns the material then they can decide who sees it. IMO free speech means you can say what you want, not read what you want. This is more a freedom of information case.
Not saying I necessarily agree with the government's decision, though.
Mitor the Bold:
04 Apr 2014 8:01:36pm
"If the government owns the material then they can decide who sees it."
So, that would be the entire defence that China mounts to keep its internet filters turned up to eleven. All information they get first is theirs to suppress.
Governments in a democracy are our representatives, not our masters - and for a government that is in the midst of repealing a law that protects people from being offended it's the height of hypocrisy to then censor historical artefacts because they might cause offence.
If the facts offend the Indonesian government then so be it - our free speech is surely more important than their delicate sensibilities.
Judy Bee:
04 Apr 2014 2:56:40pm
Ahh, Freedom of speech can be abused, and misused if one wants to claim the new, renewed, and shiny 'entitlement to bigotry'. Please, be free, be bigoted, be biased, be racist, be a liar, be a misogynist, BUT let there remain some consequences..say what you like, but man up and face consequences. Perhaps in the end, nothing, absolutely nothing, is free. Fresh air anyone?
David Ferstat:
04 Apr 2014 3:17:41pm
"It's unusual to see an article in support of free speech on The Drum."
Only if you deliberately overlook the many articles by Chris Berg.
In fact, many of those accusing The Drum of a left-wing bias conveniently overlook the many contributions to the public debate by Chris Berg.
04 Apr 2014 3:56:44pm
There is more an illusion of democracy than a reality of true democracy in many countries. Australia and most of the western world have manufactured consent through propaganda and pressured censorship against dissenting opinions. I suppose the form of government is only distinguished by how barefaced the rule by elites in a country happens to be. Thanks to people believing the media and their indoctrination throughout their school years, the illusion of democracy hides the lack of real freedom quite well in the West. Limited freedoms, but the bars of the cage are well camouflaged. In many non-western nations, the bars are just more visible.
Jimmy Necktie:
04 Apr 2014 5:16:19pm
I think it's been a gradual erosion and not necessarily part of any master plan to remove freedoms. I just think the majority, including politicians, have forgotten why we have/ had them in the first place.
04 Apr 2014 7:06:26pm
Manipulation can be subtle and long term in the planning too. Not all actions that reduce freedoms are due to the ignorance of snowy pure hearted politicians and media. A lot of it was planned, and that's always been the way of the world. The ignorance can be feigned too. The majority who believe the false narratives without checking anything are guilty as well.
04 Apr 2014 5:14:36pm
so if we have free speech what is contempt of court??? we have various forms of so called free speech operating in australia and all follow some format of rules to abide by.
04 Apr 2014 5:18:12pm
Completely agree, EP.
I am equally and pleasantly surprised that it was an article from someone other than Chris Berg and Julie Novak who seem to be the only Drum contributors that defend freedom of speech. Unfortunately, most Drum readers just dismiss those two insightful, intelligent and articulate contributors because they are members of the IPA.
I believe the Lefties are a little embarrassed that their beloved tool of defence, censorship, is being used by their favourite country to shut down criticism. Evidenced by the small number of comments. This is a point I make constantly. That China et al only censor information they deem harmful. Therein lies the danger. The government of the day may find all manner of things "dangerous." In years gone by, the advertising of food high is sugar would never have been considered worthy of censorship. Now that the Lefties have declared war on sugar (only as a prelude to some kind of sugar tax), there is much talk of prohibiting the advertising of it. That is censorship and the Lefties will argue that sugar is bad for you (which is obviously true if consumed to excess) and therefore should be denied free speech (advertising a legal product).
My view is that all these things, from gambling to sugar are personal choices, but that is not the only danger. If the guiding principle is that if it is "negative" or "inappropriate", then we should censor/prohibit it, then would it not be consistent for the Government of the day to maybe ban certain political ideas. For example, many think that Libertarian principles are bad for society. So would be OK to censor them and prevent people being "brainwashed" by such messages?
Freedom of Speech should be protected in our Constitution like Freedom of Religion is currently. I trust nobody with the power to censor things that are "bad" for us. I concede that would mean no ban on advertising any legal product, including tobacco. But I always knew that they would only get more ambitious once Lefties were given the power to censor legal products. Yesterday it was tobacco, today it is sugar - what will it be tomorrow? All processed food? White bread and white rice? Having "quotas" on how much TV one can watch? Video games? All are seen today as bad for one's health.
Readers may think this a crazy idea, but even 10 years ago, some would have had me committed for suggesting a sugar tax and banning advertising of "unhealthy" foods. Yet here it is.
Are all Lefties so pure as to not run the risk of having something they may enjoy from time to time banned by some Government that thinks they know better? Or are they such extreme collectivists that they want whatever they are told everyone should want? Either way, this whole "debate" scares the hell out of me. Orwell really was a modern day Nostradamus - he just got the timing a little off
04 Apr 2014 6:09:18pm
Stick to the topic, Todd. Stop the Look-over-there! red herrings.
There are restraints on "free speech". We cannot say whatever we like.
Bolt was judged to have erred not for expressing an opinion, but for writing untruths. He tried to say the judgement was against free speech, but that was not the case.
So for all of us, especially when we do not have the power to stand up for ourselves against those who wrong us. There are laws to turn to.
Without laws there is chaos. The idea it is all a matter of individual responsibility does not cut it. What about the responsibilities of those who wold set out to harm with untruths?
As for censorship, try Coalition secrecy, or Palmer telling Jones to shut up and interrupting Garnaut?
04 Apr 2014 12:28:39pm
This, of course, raises the obvious question: if we are really serious about free speech in Australia, why aren't we addressing the issue in a serious way, not the abstract and relatively minor barrier regarding hate speech. For any genuine free-speecher, the obvious place to start is a Bill of Rights. Is George Brandis and/or the current government for or against a Bill of Rights for Australia? Anyone care to enlighten me on this? What other things is the government doing to enhance free speech? How about diluting media monopolies, for example? Anyone?
04 Apr 2014 1:01:30pm
A Bill of Rights is simply a bucket full of garbage, Pete.
I've pointed that out to you on a different Drum article.
Jimmy Necktie:
04 Apr 2014 5:26:39pm
Hi John, could you point it out to me? Such things seem to work pretty well for places like Canada and, I dare say, the US.
Peter the Lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 1:02:54pm
We don't need a billof rights to enshrine free speech. We just need a constituional amendment. Freedom of religion is alreadyguranteed by our Constitution, so we could add a simple clause saying that the government should make no law which abrogates a person's free speech." This would not clash with defamation or other laws such as villification and anti-bullying, because they are not l;aws abrogating free speech, but laws against unlawful deeds, blackening reputations and making people suffer.
I don't see how diluting media ownership has anything to do with free speech. The concept of free speech doesn't mean that private people have any duty to provide a platform for anyone to speak. The focus in the freedom of speech argument is always government banning or regulating what can be said. Private people can agree and enforce speech codes as much as they like.
The Blue Pill Please:
04 Apr 2014 4:47:34pm
Defamation as you say is civil. IF you don't have the money you don't have the right. But of course it would seem, that is the objective here right?
04 Apr 2014 5:44:27pm
Sorry dude but defamation laws abrogate free speech or there wouldn't be defamation laws. If you have the right to be a bigot why don't you have the right to blacken someone's precious reputation?
The people in Bolt's article thought he blackened their reputation and were vindicated in court, no different to defamation.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 1:23:18pm
A Bill of Rights still presumes that we do not have inherent rights as humans. Indeed, it assumes that everything that we have is given to us by governments. That's a dangerous point to take.
Realistically, a Bill of Rights would be used by the Left to advance their causes and shut down dissent. It's the way of the world.
04 Apr 2014 2:01:54pm
It appears to be much the opposite in the US, where there is a Bill of Rights, but that doesn't suit your narrative, does it?
04 Apr 2014 2:16:45pm
"Realistically, a Bill of Rights would be used by the Left to advance their causes and shut down dissent. It's the way of the world."
You need to recheck your understanding of the word "realistically". I don't think it means what you think it means.
04 Apr 2014 2:28:44pm
right wing govts censor the press and close down dissent just as much as left wing govts... theres no difference.
Mark James:
04 Apr 2014 3:13:32pm
We can certainly see how right-wing governments value freedom of speech, taxedoff
The Thatcher government, for instance, banned the voices of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, forcing broadcasters to either paraphrase their words or use actors to represent their words.
The Howard government sought to beef up Sedition laws, banned journalists from Woomera and even attempted to ban books and films.
The Bush Snr administration banned the reporting of military funerals following the war to disarm Iraq of non-existent weapons.
The Abbott government has simply shrouded everything in a cloak of secrecy and threatened ABC funding if the public broadcaster dares to stand up for free-speech.
Right-wing governments in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua during the 1980s even went a step further by banning not only speech, but people themselves, with dissidents thrown out of airplanes, collected and gunned down in football stadiums, or simply 'disappeared'.
We could, though, of course, come up with examples from the appalling records of governments of both sides of politics.
04 Apr 2014 4:42:46pm
It is a rather naive position to hold to think that only the left do naughty things.
Have a sit down and a nice cup of tea and think about all the various right leaning governments who have done naughty things over the years.
Then think about our own governments, you might just realise we don't have left or right wing governments, only centralist governments that lean ever so slightly one way or the other (and normally the lean both ways at the same time depending on the circumstances).
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 6:01:15pm
'It is a rather naive position to hold to think that only the left do naughty things.'
I never argued that. Of course, if it makes it easier for your argument to think that, do go ahead.
04 Apr 2014 1:42:13pm
Freedom of speech isn't much, Pete. All it means is that the government isn't allowed to silence you and prevent you from talking.
It doesn't mean that the government needs to give you an opportunity to speak. Or that people need to listen to you. Or that you can demand others to spend their money to ensure your speech is heard by a particular number of people.
And it doesn't protect you from the consequences of speech. If you speak in a way that threatens someone or creates danger, you'll still be held accountable. If you lie and damage someone's reputation, you can be sued for the damage. The government can't stop you from inciting a riot, but they can jail you for creating one.
We don't need a bill of rights to defend freedom of speech. We just need a society which values the freedom, so that the government won't pass laws that unreasonably restrict it.
An example is the Anti Discrimination Act. Under the current sections, you can be punished depending on whether you said the wrong thing in a public area. Since your speech hasn't harmed anyone, it seems unreasonable to punish you merely because you said the wrong thing and the public heard you.
The absence of a bill of rights allows society to discuss the law and decide whether it is appropriate. It then falls on Parliament to decide whether the law will stand. And that is both democratic and fair.
04 Apr 2014 4:49:56pm
"The government can't stop you from inciting a riot, but they can jail you for creating one."
So better an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff than a fence at the top?
Much like allowing bigots to stir up racial hatred and then deal with the consequences of increased racial hatred within the population?
Call me crazy but i'd rather see the mini "mein kampfs" shushed up before they destablise society and cause harm to people, cause people to harm other people, or even cause people to self harm.
After all aren't we trying to stop bullies at school these days?
What example should we set for our children? Do as I do? or Do as I don't do, but instead as I say?
04 Apr 2014 3:42:19pm
Folks (and lawyers), the only assurance we have of "free speech" is via legislation and the common law. If you have neither of those things backing it up, you have nothing. You have the middle ages.
Jimmy Necktie:
04 Apr 2014 5:30:11pm
"the only assurance we have of "free speech" is via legislation and the common law"
And that is the problem. You can have it one day and lose it the next. On the whim of government.
04 Apr 2014 12:28:54pm
Someone in the pay of Murdoch's "evil empire" complaining about censorship, on the ABC Drum?
I saw how the IPA was treated on the the 18C thing, so this should be interesting.
It's not like the ABC, like their buddies at Fairfax, are ever at the forefront of Free Speech advocacy, normally they are silent unless it is about more restrictions or defending existing limits on free speech.
I agree with Louisa and hope she does well, but right now in Australia, we're fighting for free speech.
Our left used to be into free speech, but now its only for themselves, you can only speak if they are happy to allow it.
As they say, scratch a leftie reveal a totalitarian.
No wonder they hate News Ltd, it's the great bastion of free speech in Australia.
Peter the Lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 1:12:57pm
I don't think that lefties were ever supporters of free speech as a concept. What they were always advocating was what they were saying was correct and therefore must be heard. That is a different thing.
So even when the left joined the right in the battle against the old censorship of obscene material, I think the right were acting on the basis that it is silly to stop free speech, whilst the left were acting because they thought it was necesary for society to be allowed to read or see what had up to then been regarded by thoose in authority as obcene books or literature.
04 Apr 2014 2:33:14pm
the right have no belief in free speech , they have a version of what they consider is free speech but not extended to all. case in point right wing leaning govts are generally more religious and christian orientated thus they will deny freedoms of speech that go against their religious world views.
04 Apr 2014 5:06:28pm
Fortunately right wing governments only seek to prevent people speaking or protesting about:
- Environmental damage
- The poisoning of people
- Dangers at work sites
For example the current government thinks it is not ok to have free speach if that free speach means you advocate not buying stuff from someone because they buy stuff from people who do naughty things to the environment (ie. removing an exemption for environmental groups from the consumer law ban on so-called "secondary boycotts")
Similarly in WA if you dare to stand somewhere with other people holding "free speach" written on a placard you are liable to be arrested, fined and excluded from being near certain public places for up to 12 months.
Some workers also decided to speak out about their safety concerns, I guess they didn't want to die on the job. They now stand to lose their cars/homes after being fined for "illegally" speaking and not working.
Clearly some "free speach" is free, and some is very expensive.
But it seems lawyers and their ilk are only concern about the right to abuse [insert racial bigoted word].
04 Apr 2014 5:55:46pm
Pete, I take it you will be leading the crusade for David Irving to be allowed to spread his nonsense in Australia? At the present time both the Right and Far Right (Labor and Liberal) have ganged up to stop him talking.
Mark James:
04 Apr 2014 1:21:57pm
Actually mick, as far as I know, Murdoch Books has nothing to do with Rupert anymore except the name.
Anyway, good to see you're still unable to write sentences without featuring your usual strawmen, and the obligatory mentions of 'News Ltd' and 'lefties.'
Now, as far as your ridiculous claim about News Ltd being a "bastion of free-speech,", I won't be permitted to post an extensive list that proves the contrary, but you might want to check out how Murdoch kicked the BBC off his Star satellite while he was trying to do business with Beijing, after the BBC had dared to upset the Chinese authorities by broadcasting a program on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Essentially, your man censored the public broadcaster on behalf of the Chinese Communist government so he could deal with despots. Don't want the people to be informed, do we? Not if it might threaten Rupert's business dealings.
Anyway, back to your strawmen and your terrible lefties . . .
04 Apr 2014 3:15:54pm
Please explain what you mean by "free speech".
What is there at present which stops you from speaking "freely"? Please be specific.
For example, do you wish to say things about people which are hurtful and not true?
Are you happy to be just hurtful without the untruth, or are you keen to be untruthful and get away with it with the excuse that it is after all your opinion.
If you read in a newspaper something untrue and hurtful about you and your family, what would you do? Would you forget all about it, write a polite letter to the Editor or find some law which would allow you to seek some redress against the untruth?
If there is no law to protect you, what does an ordinary citizen, lacking the power of a newspaper, do to make their hurt known?
You could go and yell at them for a while. Would that make a difference? Or bash them up, or burn down the building....but of course there are laws about those kinds of things.
So you want no restrictions on "free speech"? Sounds like a dog eat dog world to me. Sounds uncivilised.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 3:56:24pm
'Sounds uncivilised.'
No, I just trust in the ability of Australian society to police their own speech. You obviously do not trust your fellow Australians.
04 Apr 2014 4:45:47pm
Agreed Ben, that's the crux of the matter
So many people who want to keep the ridiculous provisions of the act about to be changed do not trust other Australians .. or more to the point, average Australians, as being reasonable people
the current trend is to accuse the majority of Australians as racist and an elite little group want to be the holders of what is "civilised"
so clearly what is civilised to the average person, is unacceptable to the left and hence they demand legal boundaries to enforce their will
I was so pleased when Nicola Roxon was unable to get her "modifications" through
I noted no one on the left defended free speech, it was left to News Ltd and the IPA - they are the champions of free speech in Australia, the rest are pretenders who pitch from the left, and cherry pick their material
Murdoch stands out as a great Australian
The Blue Pill Please:
04 Apr 2014 4:55:04pm
Did you also trust the Tobacco industry to police their own agenda. And do you trust that Eddie O and Sidno were acting in the best interest of AWH shareholders, I mean Sidno couldn't even attend board meetings, but maybe he was saving shareholder money by not flying.
I find it interesting that the neo right argue for less control & regulation for big business, shock jocks, ultra wealthy and themselves, while they seek total control and regulation for the ordinary individual.
Rotten to the core
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 5:32:48pm
'I find it interesting that the neo right argue for less control & regulation for big business, shock jocks, ultra wealthy and themselves, while they seek total control and regulation for the ordinary individual.'
Point me to the place where I have sought more control over the individual.
Mark James:
04 Apr 2014 5:02:22pm
BtL, unless you support opening the prisons, retiring the police force and doing away with the criminal justice system, then neither do you trust your fellow Australians.
Ben the lawyer:
04 Apr 2014 5:32:07pm
'unless you support opening the prisons...'
False argument. You are equating speech with actions.
04 Apr 2014 5:09:21pm
"I just trust in the ability of Australian society to police their own speech."
Though the current government doesn't trust you if you want to speak freely about:
- Environmental concerns.
- The right to speak freely in public with others about things that concern you as part of a larger group.
- Working in a safe workplace.
Fortunately we will soon be allowed to go around calling people [insert racial abuse] because that really is the most important thing we need in our country right now.
04 Apr 2014 12:31:53pm
Free speech is largely a subjective issue dependent on the political environment in which it resides. As far as Tony Abbott is concerned all he is interested in is for both parties (China/Australia) to have the freedom to say yes to a free trade agreement. The free speech issue won't go further than that.
04 Apr 2014 12:32:57pm
What an interesting piece. I had no idea the Chinese reach was so long.
04 Apr 2014 2:26:13pm
Indeed and this was simply a cut price printer printing a book for sale outside of China. I'm astonished and appalled in about equal measure. WE are now so export sales dependent on China for our standard of living, I wonder what steps they would take to pressure us if their interests were really seriously affected. They can buy iron ore from Brasil and elsewhere, I'm far less less sure about what our options are.
Brian Francis:
04 Apr 2014 1:04:39pm
I visited China some 26 years ago and being in Beijing at that time was a truly remarkable experience. I have not been since but to imagine the streets of Beijing as now being clogged with cars and gigantic buildings, these replacing bicycles and thousand year old shops, is really difficult.
Given that this growth has happened in a relatively brief period of time, it is also fair to assume that not all social issues have been addressed in that time. I can imagine that China being the world leader it is, cannot substantiate poor social policy for much longer in its growth. Yes some of the things China does or doesn't do, are difficult to understand from an Australians point of view, but the base China is being developed from must be taken into account.
China is fundamentally a great country and we are the recipients of much of their financial development goals, so it stands to reason that when we are pressuring China on their censorship standards, we need to realise that takes time and freedom of speech, whilst we take it granted, is something which matures as countries do.( I am not referring to the age of China as a country but it's more recent Western style development).
China needs to be encouraged to give up some of the censorship ways that seem to be relics of a by-gone time, but we need also to be patient and understanding.
Alen Wang:
04 Apr 2014 2:28:23pm
I cannot agree more with your opinions as a Chinese living in Australia for many years. China is still a developing country carrying too much expectation from the world, so I hope people in developed countries could be patient and give more encouragement.
Additionally, as more and more young people are getting higher education, we already realised the importance of Free Speech, and the development in many area including censership deregulation is accelarating. For example, we now talk quite freely about political issues in our daily life, particularly more freedom could be obtained from Internet.
Therefore, as to treat a hard working student, I think positive guidance and encouragement are more effective than impatience and simple criticism.
04 Apr 2014 2:36:10pm
yes china believes in free speech just ask tibet and zingjiang residents about their freedoms ......
the chinese were offered free enterprise without free speech or democracy and chose $$$$$
04 Apr 2014 1:31:16pm
If Reader's Digest were principled, they would remove all their business from that printer, and find another (inside or outside China) that was prepared to do the job they are paying them for.
04 Apr 2014 2:50:15pm
Since its inception, Reader's Digest has maintained a conservative and anti-communist perspective on political and social issues. Reader's Digest's coverage of the Soviet Union actually declined as political change made the Soviet Union more newsworthy, and that in the post-Cold War world Reader's Digest has struggled for a new counterpoint against which to proclaim American ideals. The magazine's obsession with the Soviet menace had more to do with constructing an image of the US than it did with enhancing awareness of the Soviet Union.
In her book, Condensing The Cold War: Reader's Digest and American Identity, Joanne P. Sharp says:
"hegemony is constructed not only through political ideologies but also, more immediately, through detailed scripting of some of the most ordinary and mundane aspects of everyday life ... Any political analysis of the operation of dominance must take full account of the role of institutions of popular culture in the complex milieu that ensures the reproduction of cultural (and thus political) norms"
As a hegemonic ideology was being generated by/through Reader's Digest among its US readers, this hegemonic position also was being constructed within the world at large.
04 Apr 2014 3:22:16pm
Reader's Digest should be proud that it is one of the few media organs which found the mass murder of millions of political and religious prisoners as "newsworthy", whilst the majority of the media turned a blind eye and told us the USSR and Communist China were warm and fuzzy and friendly really.
04 Apr 2014 5:02:41pm
Reader's Digest is a magazine. It provides entertainment, inspiration and information -all delivered direct to your door.
You should have paid more attention to the *lies*provided by Mainstream Media (MSM) and its presstitutes since 2001, starting with the invasion of Afghanistan.
04 Apr 2014 2:06:23pm
Tony Abbot will say nothing that will annoy the Chinese. Besides, he has no interest in free speech. Other than for his sycophantic supporters in the Murdoch press, of course, but they won't say anything that will annoy him anyway. Abbott is far more likely to regard the Chinese as exemplaries of how to suppress dissent.
04 Apr 2014 2:18:09pm
In the digital age no need to get them printed at all. Our chinese freinds still have someway to go in regards to free speech.
04 Apr 2014 2:58:59pm
Keep your wig on and dont think for a moment censorship does not happen here. Were you living under a rock when K.Rudd and Conroy wanted us all to have kiddie filters put on computers and the government was going to decide what was appropriate for all of us to look at? It started with Kiddie porn and terrorism and then a secret list of websites none of us citizens were given knowledge of, ...but what was next???.What? are we all 3 years old. Recent sovereign borders non disclosure has forced our ABC to glean information from Indonesia because the government has decided its too hot for us all to handle. Recently police have raided newspaper headquarters, seized computers and we are now approaching a stage where journalistic integrity is under threat for NOT revealing sources. In the past Police in both Melbourne and Sydney have raided and taken down Jim Hensons exhibitions and another exhibition under the specious pretext of child pornography(no kiddie porn with adults). The censorship board of australia made homophobic decisions recently regarding a movie (no NOT a porn movie) about a gay sex scene and forbid the showing and yet allowed Donkey sex(yes it was explicit) to be viewed at the sydney festival and better yet didnt even view it. As for Falun Gong do your readers really know what they say about Black people and gay people and the hate speech they spread? Falun Gong go to great lengths to cause social disharmony and quite rightly are regarded as the asian arm of nutjob religion. They are a dangerous fringe group with hate speech and violent intentions and the Chinese govt. is quite right to shut them down. Of course they market themselves VERY differently out of Canada and the US and how hardly done by they are by the Chinese.
04 Apr 2014 3:52:37pm
I am glad you go to the issue at hand. From what I read about Falun Gong I find it extremely difficult to accept them as a religion. In fact, if there was a test what qualifies as a religion, would they pass? To me it looks more like an opposition movement that inserted religious elements so they can sail under the umbrella of freedom of religion.
04 Apr 2014 5:13:06pm
Falun Gong combines the practice of meditation and slow moving qigong exercises with a moral philosophy. It emphasises morality and the cultivation of virtue in its central tenets of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance and identifies as a qigong practice of the Buddhist school, though its teachings also incorporate elements drawn from Taoist traditions.
Qigong basically being a standing breathing techique to harmonise your Qi (Chi/Life force).
I can recommend Qigong, it is rather pleasant.
Sorry I missed the terrorist organisation part out.... because that is just BS.
Brian Francis:
04 Apr 2014 4:20:45pm
Tony Abbott arrives in China next week to become involved in trade delegation which could see Australians gain some long awaited international trade Deals. This is an important and possibly sensitive round of talks that need to be carefully handled.
Whilst this is not to be critical of the ABC, I find it rather puzzling that the next edition of Q@A will be screened from China. To have a National Television Broadcaster present and debating international matters in the throws of Trade Talks is not necessarily how I see the influence of the ABC. Eying used appropriately.
I do hope this comment gets through the moderators this time as it should be discussed,
04 Apr 2014 4:44:40pm
how is it strange that the abc are engaging with people in shanghi who can watch Q and A each monday night on abc asia pacific satelite at 930 beijing time? its refreshing to see the abc extending its involvement towards china as it did last year when it went to india and also indonesia. well done abc and keep up the fantastic work... ps even though mr bolt slagged off the q and a last monday he fails to note that each week more liberal party voters actually attend the show than labor voters.
04 Apr 2014 6:04:27pm
Free speech?
It is interesting that my previous piece which is contradictory to the author's assertions on her rights to have her work published in China, is not published. Censorship ?
I used the example of the current crisis in Syria, and the surrounding countries, especially Lebanon and Jordon, to highlight my points about free speech and democracy do have a price. In these cases, a very heavy price. And the price is being paid by the poor souls, the peasants, not the people who live in the ivory towers in the UN.
I also mentioned the USA used its USAID as a front to undermine Cuba.
Now lets see free speech does exist here on The Drum !
04 Apr 2014 6:57:20pm
I wonder if all the people who believe in Free Speech also believe in Equal Speech in lets say
They can stand in any geographical spot and have their free speech as can the person they wish to speak about in reply.
so far so good and on that basis
The person who wish's to make a point via Free Speech about a person or issue from a privileged ( in the sense that it has a wide spread circulation ) position that they allow the other party or proponents of the issue the right of Equal Speech from the same pulpit ( that is access to the same audience via their privileged position.)
04 Apr 2014 7:44:11pm
I like Murdoch Books ... I have a cookbook to do with soup.
Not bad -
and as far as Chinese literary censorship goes, they will, I think, delete every word that they can which does not take the force of a transitive verb.
That's just their language, e.g. a sentence does not need conjunctions and most pronouns.
(Except the personal ones)
But they also censor what will not enforce their world-view - and good luck to that, whatever it is.
Comments for this story are closed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
China's Shanshan Feng came from five strokes back to claim her fourth Omega Dubai Ladies Masters title inside five years as she once again mastered the Majlis Course with a sizzling 64 on a blustery final day at Emirates Golf Club.
A run of six birdies in her first 10 holes took the world number four to within one stroke of the lead, held by the overnight leader Felicity Johnson. Another three straight birdies from the ninth gave her a one stroke advantage and it was effectively all over when she made an eighth birdie on the 14th hole.
"I'm really happy that I actually brought out my A Game today," said Feng, who first won the title in 2012, and then three times consecutively from 2014.
"I knew that it was going to be windy today and I knew that playing in the wind is one of my strongest parts. So even though I was five behind, but you know, in the morning, I always thought that maybe I would still have a chance to win this week and I tried my best. 8-under was a pretty good score."
Feng won with a tournament record 21-under-par for 72 holes in 2015, but the 2016 event was cut to 54 holes in honour of caddie Maximilian Zechmann, who collapsed and died early in the first round.
Rounds of 72, 70 and 64 for a total of 10-under-par ensured a two stroke victory over England's Charley Hull, who shot a flawless final round of 65 to end on eight-under and win a wager against her good friend, James, from Kettering Golf Club.
Hull explained: "It could have been a really good score, from 13, 14, 15, the putts just edged, but my friend texted me this morning. He goes, 'if you shoot 65 or lower, I'm going to get my kit off by the tree.' So I shot 65 or lower, so he's got to do it now!"
She continued: "Today I kind of woke up and got into my golf game. I've been a bit lazy all week I felt on the golf course but today I got in there and kind of concentrated. Today I did and I felt good. I holed a few putts today and I missed a lot of putts — it was on the edge. I hit a lot of good putts out there. Kind of evened itself out. Hit it pretty well, pretty decent and it was really windy today. So I'm quite happy with my score in the conditions."
India's Aditi Ashok ended in a tie for third place with England's Florentyna Parker on six-under-par and sealed Rookie of the Year honours.
Ashok said: "It was pretty solid. I actually didn't start very well today. I started, I was plus one in the first four holes but in the first four, all four were actually birdie-able with the tailwind. So I didn't really make use of that. I made a par on No. 3, which is playing one shot under compared to the field. That was not so good, but it was better after, the back nine, especially. I shot 2-under on the back nine. I'm happy. I shot 2-under three days in a row. I feel it was consistent but it could have been better. But there's always something you can do better every week. So it's fine. I think I'm tied third right now, so I'm happy with that."
The first round leader, Florentyna Parker, signed off with a 71 and said: "I struggled on the front nine and was 2-over and I finished really well, so I was 3-under for the last five holes. So that was really good. I'm pleased and I'll take it. I'm going on holiday tomorrow, so that's perfect for me. I've had a great year and eight top-10s. I'm really thrilled."
England's Georgia Hall tied for fifth on five-under alongside Ashleigh Simon, who is getting married next week, a year after being proposed to by her boyfriend and caddie David Buhai on the 18th green.
Meanwhile second round leader Felicity Johnson ended with a 75 for a share of seventh place. Johnson started with a bogey but made a strong response with a birdie at the second and an eagle at the third, extending her lead to four shots after a birdie on the fifth hole. Her challenge faded with five dropped shots in four holes from the seventh and another bogey on the 18th but she reflected: "I'm not a massive fan of playing in the wind, but it wasn't as bad as I thought it might have been. It was tricky to pick the direction out there. But yeah, it wasn't as bad as I thought it might have been. It's obviously a top-10, any day, you've got to be happy with. To put myself into the position I did yesterday, kind of was a nice feeling again to be in the right position, at the right end of the leader board."
For Feng, this was her seventh Ladies European Tour victory and her fourth title of the season, following the Buick Championship, Sime Darby LPGA Malaysia and TOTO Japan Classic, as well as Olympic Bronze at Rio 2016.
Image:A jubilant Shanshan Feng receives the iconic trophy from His Highness Sheikh Hasher bin Maktoum bin Juma Al Maktoum, Director General, Dubai Information Department. His Highness Shaikh Fahim bin Sultan Al Qasimi, Chairman of the Emirates Golf Federation, Mohamed Juma Buamaim, Vice Chairman and CEO of 'golf in DUBAi,' and Henri Burrus, Omega's Regional Sales Manager, were also present.
Click here for the leaderboard


text:
Wow! If there's anything that really gets the discussion going, it's difficult, critically-acclaimed music. For any band that takes some digesting and is adored by artsy, critical types, there will always be legions of people who think it's all a bunch of hype and those who think it's good are just a bunch of poseurs (I've been on both sides of that divide with various artists, let me tell ya). I think there is probably no better illustration of this than the heated discussion on the front and back of Swans' Young God EP.
Led by Michael Gira (now known for his solo project Angels of Light and for bringing us Devendra Banhart, Akron/Family and other artists via his label Young God Records), Swans were notorious in the 80s for being one of the loudest, darkest, most challenging acts in rock – or any other medium, for that matter. Their album and song titles alone would probably be enough to convince most people of this fact, but legend has it that they often played their live shows at such painful volumes that audience members would vomit and/or the police would come to stop the show. If that's not art, I don't know what is.
This is a long one, so let's get down to it! I apologize for the lack of order to these quotes, but it's really hard to tell what order they might have been written in, who's replying to whom, etc. Just roll with it.
|"A new world vision. Organismusic, OK?"
"Just like Nissan."
"'Raping a Slave' is fantastic – one of the most horrifying things I've ever heard – play it, but the end cuts cold."
"Possibly the most awful listening experience available. Sorry. Ultra-yuk."
"This is shit!"
"Yes exactly."
"It was great."
"This record is ultra-good."
"Please god, I just wanna be cool."
"This was never meant to be 'cool' or anything and people who 'like' it because it's 'cool' to do so are idiots. This is however some of the most powerfully gut-wrenching stuff (music, noise, whatever) ever recorded. Some people want their guts wrenched, some can't handle it. I dig this – fuck you."
"I don't give shit for 'cool.' I don't give shit for 'good, great.' I like this record. I like this band for my own reasons. Fuck everything else. OK?"
"Robt. Palmer of the NY Times wrote an article on Swans & Sonic Youth. He liked 'em! So none of you are as cool as y'wanna believe. Drop dead."
"Couldn't'a said it better myself."
"Whether you like it or not, this is not rock & roll."
"Great R & R upsets parents and clears rooms. This is great R & R and you're all fit to be listening to 'gourmet rock'!"
[written over the preceding in bright red marker:] "AND THAT'S THAT?"
"It's hard for the common to approach new ideas."
"If only this record had any …"
"God's gift to the music industry."
"Ooooh! Video please! Again and again and again. Dead cats!"
"You know what? Michael Gira went out with Madonna, for a long time even (he's the singer/founder), so he's not even as cool as one would expect. THIS IS TRUE!" [Note: this is not true, as far as I can tell. I found this interview with Sonic Youth where the interviewer says it as a joke in response to Thurston Moore's claim that she went out with a friend of theirs for a while. When the interviewer says "Madonna went out with Michael Gira," Thurston says "Why Michael Gira? . . . You can't say Michael Gira, 'cause he'd be offended."]
"It's a sad commentary on the music of today when pure shit like this gets hailed as the greatest 'music' of all time."
"Doesn't improve with age."
"Why can't we accept noise as noise and not some brilliant, 'culturally right' or relevant thing? Just admit you like or dislike it, because you like noise or don't like noise."
"You mean this isn't Heavy Metal?"
[This comment scribbled out beyond recognition.]
"Eat c–t" [This will be the only place I exercise a little restraint, and hold back from printing everyone's words as written. Unlike the FCC, I'm not that concerned with F or S bombs, but this one is a bit much.]
"Blech" [Not sure if that's in response to the record, or the previous comment. If it's the latter, my sentiments exactly!]
"Well excuse me for being interested in something new and alternative." [Wow, remember that word? "Alternative"? Those were the days . . .]
"A little musical exploration is really painless." [Unless you were in the audience at some of those Swans shows, I'm guessing.]
"I'm playing this after 'Blue Monday.' So there!"
"This sucks! Period."
"I [heart] this disc. Period."
"One of the best rock & roll bands of all time. Almost as revolutionary as the Beatles or Elvis, even."
"Wonder if it sounds better at 33?"
"This peice [sic] of garbage is a classic example of KCMU djs/programmers trying to outcool each other (at the listeners' expense)."
And, on the reverse side, the discussion continues …
"Alfred: (in regards to other side) Who ever [scribbled out word] (excuse me) performed the humorectomy on you didn't finish the job. Because, while you can't see the humor in what others say, do and write; others laugh at your exaggerated, dour passion …"
"Gee, sorry Dad …"
"'This is Mine' – gutwrenching, powerful, full of tension …"
"I love this record sooo much."
"And I think I hate Michael Gira sooo much." [These two comments appear to be by the same person.]
"Is this the only record up here that ever had an 'over' side? Basically, this is sexy. Music to sex by."


text:
What did you want to grow up to be when you were a kid?
Seeing as we seem to be having a bit of a nostalgia fest today I thought I might as well ask. When I was a kid I wanted to become a travelling landscape artist. My plans were scuppered though when I very stupidly chose not to do art at school.
Ok, your turn...
i wanted to be stuntman
i'd like to think i still keep the spirit of the stuntman alive in may day to day life.
World-Cup winning captain of Denmark
when I realised that this was a pipe-dream, an accountant :-(
a lawyer (like the rest of my family) or a doctor. or a newscaster.
i still want to be a spy though, i would be proper hard.
a film director
it still might happen if i, like, become famous for something else first and so someone lets me piss money away on a ridiculous vanity project.
now i want to be in an internationally known/loathed punk outfit that plays thrashed out versions of minimal techno records. oh yeah.
I don't think
I really thought about it to be honest. Not when I was really little. If anything, I wanted to be a drayman, because I was fascinated by them when they delivered the beer to our pub every week. I don't know why.
Later on though it was either Stephen Malkmus or Lee Chapman I think. Or at least a little bit like them, if not ACTUALLY them.
Sweet shop Owner
Because (and I quote), "Then I could eat all the sweets". Duh!
Good business plan Bobby
I wanted to be a fireman, and a train driver. What I think of as 'the classics'.
I used to make myself little fake newspapers.
that's not nerdy at all. virginia woolf did exactly the same thing and there's a new book out called hyde park gate news which is a selection of the papers she made when she was little. one day that could be you...
it's for the same
reason that i now want to own a pub, bobby.
they will at mine
"i'll have a pint of best and some strawberry laces."
Pub of the Year.
We knew a couple who ran a newsagents.
I genuinely couldn't work out why they didnt just eat all the freakin sweets, dammit!
Ice hockey player.
But instead, I became a journalist. BORRRING.
There have been loads ..
Dentist, Clown, Monkey handler, Guide Dog trainer, Rock star, Pub landlord, running a lingerie shop etc.
I studied to be a dentist clown monkey-handler, but then failed the exam
I wanted to be a pilot
then I realised that travelling would be no fun if you did it every day.
My own Theme Park
I set my sights high.
I remember allocating jobs to members of my family.
My mum was going to run the MacDonalds - which I'm sure she was delighted about.
I was a complete geek
and I wanted to be a marine Biologist! I then decided against this when I discovered my fear/hatred of Dolphins!
look over there!
it's flipper!
*runs and hides*
I have always wanted to be a
pop star - may as well not lie about it and pretned I aspired to work at Mccalren F1 as a gearbox technician or a Product Manager at Nutricia - i just intend for this dream not to die along with me.
I wanted to be a robber
I used to say it all the time. But instead I sold out, got a shit office job and hate myself!
yeah it s a bit of a closed shop is waitressing
there's glass ceilings, velvet mafia, Zionist conspiracy and old school tie network stopping some of the best silver servers in the country from attaining their dream - "stroll on, they've got it all sewn up between them they aves i tells yer, you can't even say say gollywog anymore for fear of being labelled homoracialist (ad lib til the next debate about 'Funeral')
I just wanted to rock out
ever since hearing the intro to Money For Nothing at the age of 4.
Now I'll settle for gently swaying.
no joke...
a volcanologist. but am now too scared and not sufficiently scientific.
i remember
wanting to be an engineer for a while when i was about 13, but then i ended up with a crazy ex-marine bastard for a physics teacher and i ended up quitting the subject as a result.
since then, it's been as i am now - i have no idea.
pilot, racing driver, vet, actress, teacher, rock star...
Now I'd quite like to run a book shop/internet cafe place with homemade cakes.
Ah, Watership down. Good work.
I wanted to be an optician. So I could be as well paid as a doctor, but without having to rip out peoples intestines.
I was much more sensible as a child.
i wanted to be an architect when i was a kid
now i want to be an astronaut...
i wanted to be a pilot.
it was just after going to ecuador and peru that i made my mind up.
two weeks later i wanted to be a footballer again.
i wanted to be
a wrestler.
i still do, but im not going to do anything about it.
Inspector Morse.
or Frost, or Wycliffe.. you know one of those Maverick detective types..
i was quite good til puberty when everyone grew up and became bigger/faster/stronger than me
i wanted to
be michael jackson.
im only 637 operations away from my dream.
(but its no longer my dream)
i wanted to be a scientist
not just a normal scientist
in a castle
with lightning
inventing shit, frankenstein stylee.
A writer.
or an Aviator.
I haven't changed my mind.
Since I was 6
I've wanted to be an engineer.
And soon I will be.
Also, I have a theory
that all footballers are idiots because anyone with brains gives up on unlikely dreams.
You could write
I like reading what you write.
Write more books of emo, I'll do the pictures...
It's a million dollar idea!
well a dollar idea at the very least...
Vet, or a soljer


text:
Title: For Better or Worse
Author: Lauren Layne
My Rating: A+
Genre: Contemporary Romance
Series: The Wedding Belles #2
Main Characters: Heather and Josh
Release Date: August 2016
Publisher: Pocket Books
Links to Purchase:
Sexual Intensity: hot
When small-town girl Heather Fowler finally gets promoted from assistant to actual wedding planner, she's determined to make it as one of Manhattan's elite Wedding Belles. Unfortunately, her first client demands an opulent black-tie affair at the Plaza…in five months' time. Heather's days quickly become a flurry of cake tastings, dress-fittings, RSVP cards, and bridal tantrums. But what she's really losing sleep over is the live music blaring from her playboy neighbor's apartment all night.
Five years ago, Josh Tanner was an up-and-comer on Wall Street, complete with the penthouse and the migraines. But a grim cancer diagnosis made him realize there is more to life than the corner office. If only he could convince his pretty, workaholic neighbor to let loose, too. As Heather lets down her guard, Josh is surprised when he starts falling for the sweet, vulnerable woman hiding beneath those power suits. Soon, it's Heather's turn to convince Josh to take the biggest risk of all: love.
My Review:
This book was everything. It was sweet and romantic and funny and entertaining. At moments, it broke my heart and then in the next page I'd be laughing out loud. This book is exactly why I love to read so much. It gave me all the feels and was absolutely perfect.
Josh and Heather have the best kind of relationship. It's snarky and contentious and filled with so much sexual chemistry that it leaps off the page. Their exchanges were fast and witty and reminded me so much of that kind of fast, snappy dialogue that Gilmore Girls was made famous for...just minus the teenage daughter.
Heather is trying to relish every moment of her busy, frantic life in NYC. She's dreamed of living there her entire life. Part of that dream was the perfect apartment, and she's finally making enough money to live in it. The only problem...her neighbor. He spends equal amount of time playing music with his band and banging random women. His philosophy is that you can't take life too seriously, but Heather has goals and not getting any sleep doesn't work for her.
The family dynamics for these two characters were interesting. They are both very close to their families, but that played out in very different ways for the two. I liked that. It added just another layer of emotional depth to the story.
But hands down this book is all about Josh and Heather and just how perfectly they fit together. From their dialogue (I adore how Josh calls her 4C and is obsessed with banana bread...and seriously, that played out PERFECTLY in that final scene...LOVED that so, so much) to their extremely sexy times, I truly did love these two together.
This book was wonderful and I highly recommend it. I'm so excited that it's available in print so I can put it on my keeper shelf to re-read over and over again!
I received a complimentary copy of this book in return for an honest review, but I bought myself a print copy of the book long ago as a preorder because this book is an auto-buy. Now I'm wondering if I should buy a second copy...just because I loved this book so much.


text:
Easy Wheel Purchasing Guidance - Worth Taking Into Consideration
It do without stating that a person needs to comply with some basic ideas as well as follow the ideal wheel acquiring recommendations when it pertains to acquiring wheels You may wish to look for on-line pointers and also functional wheel purchasing advice. There are numerous internet sites that promote tire and also rim packages and you may intend to check out various combination of wheels and also tires. When you buy the right size of tires, your wheels will run perfectly and also the speedometer should additionally reveal precise readings.
A wise customer should ideally embrace edge as well as tire bundles that would certainly fit your car. There are numerous websites that advertise regarding wheel offers. However, when acquiring, see to it to purchase the appropriate size of wheels. When you adopt the package deal, you could have them do the installment. It is as simple as that. If you purchase the wheels as well as tires as a plan, it exercises less costly as well as you additionally have the contentment of having it done by specialists which the wheel placement is ideal. Searching the online websites for automobiles accessories would certainly also provide you a suggestion of the availability of wheels on the market.
There is difficult competitors in this area, many thanks to the variety of websites selling devices. It is constantly far better to connect straight with individuals that are offering the wheels as well as tires. Sometimes the deals that are set up as advertisements on the net more than expressive regarding just what they supply and usually do not sell good quality items. For this reason, you should buy from trusted shops that will certainly offer you excellent quality services and products.
Comprehending The Subtleties Of Purchasing Wheels.
It is important to firstly recognize the subtleties related to buying wheels. It is certainly unworthy losing your cash on pre-owned wheels as it could give problems in the future later on. Refrain from buying substandard quality wheels. Likewise inspect the wheel acquiring guide as it will direct you on purchasing top quality and also brand-new wheels and will certainly offer you a safe trip.
The design of riding also has a bearing on the type of wheels one might want to buy. Lightweight wheels are optimal when you wish to make quick rides. If there is a lot of hill and also terrain driving, after that you certainly need to have a look at for high shock absorption wheels that have the ability to take the shock. Wider wheels are suitable for taking in shock and pressure as well as are excellent for driving on mountains as well as sloping surface.
When keeping the wheels, one needs to guarantee that they remain in top condition as well as examine them regularly to check for leaks or if you should replace any one of the spokes. With routine maintenance checks, there need to be no cause for worry.
Contact Us:
External Links:
Powered by
Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Get Started


text:
Infracolor 3 Person Sauna with Combo Heat Therapy, Full Chromo Therapy and Mp3 Sound System
Our new Lifesmart Infracolor 3 Person Sauna features the best of all worlds. Our exclusive Combination of Ceramic and Carbon Tech heaters provide the ultimate in therapy and detoxification.There is also a heater built into the floor for foot reflexology therapy. We have added the latest in relaxation therapy with our Infracolor Infusion Mood Lighting System. This system includes the every known color used in Chromo Therapy. A remote control is included to switch from mood light to mood light quickly and easily. Enjoy your favorite music with our MP3 Hook up and 2 dynamic speakers that include a built in preamp. Combined these great features produce the Ultimate Sauna Experience to soothe mind, body and spirit. This Euro Style Sauna uses side glass to create an open feel. The glass is tinted for privacy and greater heat retention. Due to the extra-large heaters used, this sauna requires 20 amps of dedicated power and you may have to add a 20 amp receptacle. Assembly is a snap and you can install this sauna anywhere indoors. Even on carpet. Add the Lifesmart 3 Person Ultimate Infracolor Sauna to your home and enjoy the affordable luxury you deserve. For more information view the video attached and click on the more info and more views tabs.
Freedom 2-Person Far Infrared Sauna
JNH Lifestyles
Freedom 2-Person Far Infrared Sauna with Canadian Western Red Cedar wood and 7 carbon fiber heaters is UL listed and ETL approved.
4-Person Infrared Health Sauna with MPS Touchview Control, Aspen Wood and 12 TheraMitter Heaters
TheraSauna uses a safe, radiant FAR infrared heat source that penetrates up to 2.5 in. below the skin surface to deep heat muscles and joints. This is the same heat source used by doctors and physical therapist. The Patented Stable Heat System produces a consistent 9.4 microns of infrared to provide more health benefits like detoxification; cardiovascular strengthening improves the immune system and relieves pain from Arthritis, Rheumatism and Fibromyalgia.
$402 to $2502


text:
My previous post had stated about the advantages of e-commerce for consumers. Generally, we admit that e-commerce had ease our life to perform the trade activities such as online banking, online purchasing and so on.
But, can we say that e-commerce only benefit the consumers?
Of course no. E-commerce also can give a lot of benefits to business organizations especially in term of cost reduction and reaching global market. Now, let we see what they are?
- Reduces Costs for Inventory Management
With e-commerce, the suppliers can reduce costs to manage their inventory of goods because they can automate the inventory management using web-based management systems. This method indirectly can save their operational costs.
"Specifically, e-commerce replaces the manual business processes with their automated electronic equivalents to accelerate ordering, delivery and payment procedures. This electronic paradigm has saved businesses billions in operational and inventory costs." Rafay Ali (2004)
- Reaching Global Market
E-commerce allows the suppliers to reach global market segment. In other words, it allows the suppliers to increase their sales meanwhile decrease the investment costs.
"Organizations can reach global areas that would have been otherwise difficult." Pallab (1996)
"It expands the marketplace from local and regional markets to national and international markets with minimal capital outlay, equipment, space, or staff." Cross-Industry Working Team (1999)
- Monitoring the Consumers' Buying Habit and Interest
The suppliers can monitor the consumers' buying habits and interests so that they can tailors their offer suit to consumers' needs and keep the ongoing relationship with them.
"Internet technologies also permit sellers to track the interests and preferences of their customers with the customer's permission and then use this information to build an ongoing relationship with the customer by customizing products and services to meet the customer's needs." William King (2006)
- Reduces Costs To Establish Store Front
The overhead costs to build the physical store front may be prevented to the suppliers who use e-commerce as their business operation.
"A traditional business may have large overhead costs associated with maintaining a storefront. But a web-based business does not necessarily have that type of overhead, which may mean that continued growth becomes easier." Melissa J. Harvey (2002)
- Reduce Labor Costs
The labor costs can be reduced with e-commerce because the sellers can automate their online store fronts.
"Automated order tracking and billing systems cut additional labor costs, and if the product or service can be downloaded then e-commerce firms have no distribution costs involved." William King (2006)
- Reduce Advertising Costs
E-commerce can reduce advertising costs because it is easier to update the advertisement using software technology.
"Print advertising can get expensive as there may be a need to update regularly, which requires new work be planned and generated. It is much quicker and more cost effective to update and maintain e-commerce marketing campaigns, especially as technology continues to improve." eCommerce Optimization (2007-2008)
Sources :
- My degree assignment


text:
By now most of you have heard the story about the Apple engineer who left the company's next generation iPhone (which is being called the iPhone 4G) on a barstool at a beer garden. He was field-testing the new device but when he left the bar, he absentmindedly left the device behind. It was picked up by another customer who proceeded to sell it to to Gizmodo for $5,000.
There are some who say that Apple is much too paranoid and secretive for something like this to have happened accidentally — that perhaps the mistake was actually a publicity stunt. But, really, it's entirely plausible that some poor guy just made a dumb mistake. You can't help but feel his pain. It is perhaps the most publicly humiliating experience for an employee, especially considering that Gizmodo bloggers actually named the poor guy and posted his picture in one of their blogs.
No one knows yet how Apple will handle this. Supposedly, the employee went to his bosses when he first discovered his mistake so they were at least able to remotely disable the phone. But the hardware was still there, of course, for Gizmodo to examine.
So what do you think? Will they fire the guy? Should they fire him? I know you guys will have a lot to say on this, so let's get started.
Full Bio
Toni Bowers is the former Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.


text:
Proposed bill would ban debit card surcharges in California
2010-02-04 · By Editor
In the interest of protecting consumers, Sen. Jenny Oropeza today introduced legislation to stop retailers from imposing surcharges on those who use their debit cards.
"During these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever to protect consumers and ensure they are not nickel and dimed out of their hard earned pay," Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said after introducing Senate Bill 933. "Regardless of whether you're buying milk for the kids or gas for the car, having an additional fee piled on just for using your own debit card is unconscionable."
Oropeza cited figures showing that since 2005, more than half of total transactions nationwide have been paid with a credit or debit card. Beginning in 2006, more purchases were made with debit cards than credit cards, she added.
While charging consumers for using a credit card is currently prohibited, no similar protection exists for consumers using their debit card.
Consumers Union, sponsors of SB 933, agreed with Oropeza's goals. "Especially at a time when more consumers are moving toward using debit cards to be more financially responsible, they should not be made to pay an extra fee for using a debit or prepaid card," said Michelle Jun, a staff attorney in Consumers Union's San Francisco office.
A date for the first policy hearing on Oropeza's measure has not yet been set.


text:
The Hollywood star, who appeared on Saturday\'s show along with co-star Halle Berry to promote their new film Cloud Atlas, said afterwards he had never wished for something to be over quicker than he had the current US election campaign - until he was on that show.

Speaking on RBB 88.8 radio station on Sunday, he said anyone in the US who had been responsible for a television show that ran for more than four hours would have been fired.

And on Monday he told Der Spiegel online, "Let me sum it up in one sentence - at one point I was standing around with a funny cat hat on my head and watched as the host hopped around me.

"And the translator was literally saying \'blah blah blah\' in my ear. He had given up trying to explain to me which famous German comedian was imitating which other famous German comedian. \'You don\'t need to know this,\' he told me.

"I don\'t think anyone... wanted to be there for three, four, five hours. How long did it last in the end? But hey it was fun nonetheless."

It was the second outing for the new host of the show Markus Lanz, who Hanks described on air as looking like a greasy banker he could not trust. At the time this was assumed to be an amusing form of joshing with the host, but his comments afterwards made them seem acidic in retrospect.

He told the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung he had no idea what the show was about. "I was on this show a couple of years ago, that time with Leonardo DiCaprio. I didn\'t understand the show then, and I understand it even less now," he said.

Berry said she could not understand what was going on - not just the concept of celebrities sponsoring weird challenges, such as a woman who said she could distinguish between hundreds of different kinds of nail polish - but because the interpreter speaking through a microphone into her ear was unclear.

She was left even more puzzled by a comment from Lanz, who asked her whether or not it was true that she had a passion for the smell of freshly-cooked meat. "Where did you hear that?" she asked him, only for a co-host to suggest that Lanz stop reading rubbish on the internet.

Hanks was assigned a dentist who said he could tell the difference between 50 different drills - and managed to do so on the television.

The stars - and their publicists - were undoubtedly drawn to the show by its unmatched audience figures - nearly 11 million people tuned in on Saturday, a figure representing a third of the television market. Wetten, dass...? has been running since 1981 and is broadcast live across Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Until last year it was hosted by Thomas Gottschalk, but he left after a contestant was paralysed when his bet, of jumping over a car being driven at him, went wrong.

Hanks and Berry are in Germany for the European premiere of Cloud Atlas - the most expensive German film ever made. Directed by one of Germany\'s favourites, Tom Tykwer, along with Lana and Andy Wachowski of Matrix success, the film cost €110 million of largely German money to make and was filmed in Babelsberg studios in Potsdam.

The Local/DPA/hc


text:
Professor Benjamin Bratman commented on a local woman's suit against an employer that required her to take religious training sessions as part of her employment. According to her suit, the woman worked successfully as for the bathroom remodeling company, but when she refused to continue attending the training, the company forced her out. Professor Bratman said that once the burden shifts to the company to explain its actions, it would have a difficult time explaining why the religious training is necessary to the company's operation. "What in the world does religious proselytizing and religion have to do with remodeling bathrooms?"
Ben Bratman on Lawsuit over Required Religious Training for Private Sector Employees
Published September 24, 2014
Referred Person:


text:
Find out about the housing register and the bidding system
Information about finding an affordable home. This includes renting or shared ownership/help to buy
Find out advice on being at risk of homelessness
Find out advice on repairs, smoke alarms and common problems
Find out about our HomeFinder Scheme for landlords
Find out if you are eligible for housing benefits and how to apply
Helpful advice for homeowners or tenants
Advice on sheltered housing and supported accommodation
If you are a landlord or developer, find out more about housing for business.
There is support and help if you're suffering from domestic abuse
Find out more housing advice and support
Find out about how we support the homeless during severe weather
Find out more about the bidding system in Kent Homechoice
Find more help during winter
If you cannot find what you are looking for in our search facility, you can use our A-Z index to find the service you require.


text:
Monday, 28 June 2010
Call for papers : The Extended Mind
In the decade or so since the publication of Clark and Chalmers' seminal paper, the extended mind thesis has had a highly significant influence on the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. This comes from the fact that it promotes a view of mind and cognition that breaks away from other such views popular in the late 20th century. Thus, the extended mind thesis promotes: one, functionalism, without the restrictions imposed by biological implementational structure; two, externalism, not only regarding mental contents, but also regarding the vehicles of content; and three, postcognitivism, where cognition is not simply a matter of internal symbol manipulation. The result is, thus, a view that could be labelled "situated and embodied functionalism".
Critics have reacted in different ways. Some have objected, on behalf of intracranialism, that the extended mind thesis is too radical, in that it flouts the distinction between intrinsic and derived intentionality in the characterization of the mental; or in that it mistakes extracranial aids to cognition for the real vehicles of cognition. Other critics, though, have argued that the development of Clark and Chalmers' insights has sometimes been too conservative, insofar as it supports a representationalist, rather than an antirepresentationalist, version of postcognitivism; or insofar as it continues to give pride of place to processes in the brain/CNS, precluding the extension of the idea of cognition to other less complicated life forms.
Teorema invites submissions on these and related topics for a special issue to be published in 2011. Papers must be written in English or in Spanish, and should not exceed 6000 words. For the presentation of their manuscripts, authors are requested to adhere to the details that can be found at Teorema. Electronic submissions, both in .doc and .pdf formats and prepared for blind refereeing, must be sent to the Editor by October 1st, 2010. Notification of intent to submit including title (tentative) and subject matter (a brief abstract) will be greatly appreciated as it will assist with the coordination and planning of the special issue.
Contact details for queries and submissions:
Prof. Luis M. Valdés Villanueva
Director de teorema
Departamento de Filosofía
Universidad de Oviedo
E-33071 Oviedo (España)
E-mail: lmvaldes at uniovi.es
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)