In “Sexorship at Northwestern,” The Motley Monk posted about an article—“Head Nurses”—published in the scholarly journal Atrium written by the Jeannette K. Watson Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Humanities at Syracuse University, William J. Peace. In his article, Peace described the nursing care he received after being paralyzed at the age of 18, in 1978. Peace identified two groups of nurses and the distinctive type of healthcare the members of each group provided to patients. Peace believed he was illuminating the taboo of disability and sex, but the content his article fell afoul of Northwestern University Medical School's (NUMS) administrators.
NUMS administrators asked Atrium’s editorial team to expunge parts of the article from the web because the content was considered inflammatory and too damaging to the new NUMS “brand,” what otherwise are called “other institutional interests.” Before long, Clinical Professor of Humanities and Bioethics, Kristi Kirschner, resigned, telling Inside Higher Ed at the time that such censorship would have a “chilling effect, antithetical to the idea of the university.”
But, after more than four months, the administrators’ requests are moot. Atrium suspended publication following a funding cut allegedly unrelated to the Peace article.
Inside Higher Ed now reports that the guest editor of the “edgy” Atrium issue, Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, Alice Dreger, has also resigned. In her resignation letter, Dreger wrote:
About her resignation, Dreger said:
It’s so petty—that’s what I kept saying—it’s a frickin’ blow job in 1978. Of course, it wound up as the Streisand effect, where everybody pays attention.
Dreger claims her focus is academic freedom, asserting that NUMS administrators made
...a profound mistake that cut to the very heart of academic freedom. It should have been acknowledged and corrected immediately….To this day, the university has not admitted its mistake, and it has not affirmed its commitment to academic freedom in a way that makes clear that similar incidents will not occur in the future.
Dreger hadn’t sought a faculty position elsewhere because she instead was hoping for a reconciliation or, as she put it, “When you’re going to marriage counseling, you don’t go out and sleep with someone else.”
In this case, Dreger is using “academic freedom” to defend a “right” for scholars to publish their research findings. This raises an important question: Does censorship—or, in this instance, “sexorship”—infringe on academic freedom? That is, should an institution’s “brand” and policies—like those of NUMS—trump the “right” for scholars to publish their research findings in journals sponsored by that institution?
Dreger believes so. That is, editors possess “academic freedom” to determine what should and should not be published in their journals.
But, this raises a problem: Those aren’t “their” journals. Editors serve at the pleasure of a journal’s publisher and/or board, which may or may not include representatives of the institutions, groups, etc., sponsoring that journal. Those entities possess the prior right to “censor” articles. And, when editors publish objectionable content, those entities also possess the prior right to “censor”—or fire—editors.
Expanding the concept of academic freedom to include a “right” to publish an article without regard to a journal’s sponsors is as troubling as is the belief that professors have the right to state whatever they want inside of college and universities classrooms. That’s not a matter of academic “freedom” because with every freedom comes responsibility. Instead, it’s a matter of taking academic “license,” that is, going as far as the institution permits before pushing back.
Let the discussion begin…
To read The Motley Monk’s previous post, click on the following link:
To read the Peace article published in Atrium, click on the following link:
To read the Inside Higher Ed article, click on the following link:
Mothers are the strongest antidote to the spread of selfish individualism.
A world without mothers would be inhumane because mothers always know how to give witness--even in the worst of times--to tenderness, dedication and moral strength.
Being a mother does not mean just bringing a child into the world, but it is also a life choice. What does a mother choose? It is the choice to give life and this is great, this is beautiful.
When one of her twins was born dead, she asked the MDs to let her hold him. Within two hours...
Let the discussion begin...
Just like the those who worship at the altar of environmentalism would have people believe about SUVs, the Food Police would have people believe that sugary drinks cause 184k deaths worldwide annually, including 25k deaths in the United States alone.
The Food Police cite a study—a revised estimate of 2013 data—that tabulated deaths from diabetes, heart disease, and cancer which scientists believe linked to the consumption of sweetened sodas, fruit drinks, sports/energy drinks, and iced teas. According to Livescience.com, the finding: Sugary drinks can cause as many deaths annually as the flu.
Really? Since when has an SUV killed anyone? If so, then why does the law hold the driver of the SUV responsible? Why not try the SUV and, if found guilty, put it in jail for voluntary manslaughter?
In the same way, sugary drinks don’t kill anyone. Those who consume these drinks freely choose to consume those beverages. Doing so, they increase the probability they will die from diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. That doesn’t mean they will die from those drinks, but the correlations are clear: Choose to drink sweetened sodas, fruit drinks, sports/energy drinks, and iced teas and the likelihood increases that those who make this choice will suffer and die from those diseases. Caveat perussi!
What the Food Police are intent upon is:
- restricting young people from exercising choice for their own good;
- training them to believe those restrictions are the norm for their own good; and,
- centralized regulation of conduct is to be expected.
But, don’t be fooled. It’s not because the Food Police care about people’s health. No, their goal is to restrict the conduct of free people as dictated by the ideology of the Food Police, in much the same way the stormy petrels want SUVs put out of production not because they “kill” people but because, for those ideologues, SUVs burn too much gas, thus contributing to the evil of “climate change” (aka, “global warming”).
The place they're starting is with children in the nation’s schools because they “care” about the kids. Malarkey! Always remember Fr. Joseph Salzman's dictum from the late-1800s: “The future belongs to those who control the schools.”
The Food Police are all about building for themselves a centralized, command-and-control government.
Let the discussion begin…
To read the Livescience.com article, click on the following link:
Canines are using their robust sense of smell to sniff out cancer and other diseases, as they can smell changes inside the human body...
Let the discussion begin...
At 8:34 on the evening of March 22--the Monday after Obamacare passed in the House following it having cleared the Senate and the evening before President Obama signed it into law--Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) sent then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton an email. She wrote:
Whew once again u are in the thick of thing--but didn’t it make your heart feel good about passage of. Health Care ----and. The. Nuns pushed it over the finish line--as usual in the fcore front of. Social. Justice and a daring willingness. To break with the. Boys--if you need a tonic. Go to the. Nuns exhibit @ the. Smithsonian--Ripley. Center. Gives the 250 year history of. Nuns in. Usa. And their role in shaping. Our country and producing 1000s of women leaders with names like. Pelosi. Mikulski. FerrarO. Sebilius.--takes less than an hour. You are doing great.
Doesn't that say it all? The President of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), Sister Carol Keehan, sold out by breaking with the boys...meaning the U.S. Catholic bishops. For Sr. Keehan, perhaps the reasoning was that the issue of abortion pales when compared to all of those taxpayer $$$s her hospitals could have potentially lost if Sr. Keehan and CHA steadfastly stuck with the boys.
Remember the Obamacare signing ceremony and Sr. Keehan regaling with her presidential pen?
Well, that was then and this is now...the June 2015 CHA annual conference where Sr. Keehan introduced President Obama, saying:
It has been my privilege to work with the President and his team over the past seven years. With CHA’s deep gratitude for his leadership and concern for the well-being of all Americans, it is my honor and pleasure now to introduce the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
Not one to be outdone, the President returned the plaudit:
I don't know whether this is appropriate, but I just told Sister Carol I love her. We would not have gotten the Affordable Care Act done had it not been for her.
Now back to Hillary's emails.
On March 24, Clinton replied to Mikulski's email:
Let’s hear it for the nuns--I knew when they came out, the die was cast and Bart [Stupak] would get his knuckles rapped. Now, let’s wrap this up in the Senate and go drink something unhealthy! All your AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] friends told me you’re doing well so take care and keep going – w the wind at you [sic] back and my fervent cheers--Hillary.
Remember U.S. Representative Bart Stupak (R-MI), the self-proclaimed, pro-life congressman who opposed Obamacare on the grounds that it provided taxpayer funding for abortion? Stupak had the votes to derail the bill's passage.
However, his knuckles must have gotten rapped mightily--a reference to the strict discipline enforced upon Catholic school students--and voila, Stupak reversed his position, voting for Obamacare. President Obama promised that federal taxpayer $$$s would not go to abortion ("wink"), took out his pen, and signed an Executive Order to prove he was a man of his word.
Upon the bill's passage, Stupak boldly proclaimed:
It is the Democrats who, through the president’s executive order, ensure that the sanctity of life is protected.
Really? Not even the nonpartisan General Accounting Office agrees, noting that Obamacare funds abortion directly.
As it ends up, the President schnookered Stupak, as federal taxpayer $$$s continue to pay for abortions. And Stupak retired.
Yep, two Catholics--a Daughter of Charity and a Democrat politician--ended up providing the heft President Obama needed to get Obamacare passed. That's not speculation. It's in Hillary's emails.
For the record, here's the email correspondence:
Let the discussion begin...
Suffering from being tired, irritable, stressed out? How about cynicism, meaninglessness, anal retentiveness, murderous rage? Or, being verly cynical, jaded, emotionally numb?
Perhaps Nature Rx is what the MD's is calling for:
Let the discussion begin...
Over at The Huffington Post, Suzy Strutner warns travelers that, for human beings, airplanes aren’t the most sanitary of enclosures. The Motley Monk knows this based upon practical experience: Almost every time he takes a trip by airplane, he gets a sinus infection within a few days.
Why is that?Strutner notes that environment is one where “hordes of humans with all types of coughs, colds and questionable hygiene habits into one tiny space to share air, armrests and all the germs that come with travel.” Those germs can include E. coli that causes severe diarrhea to MRSA bacteria that’s resistant to many antibiotics. On an airplane, those germs can live for days at a time.
Strutner suggests not touching the following:
When researchers applied a virulent strain of E. coli to airplane armrests, the bacteria lived there for 96 hours, which is longer than E. coli lived on tray tables and toilet flushers. Touching an illness-causing strain of E. coli isn’t the problem; rubbing the eyes or touching the mouth is the problem as this increases the risk of infection.
2. Tray tables
In a 2007 study, researchers from the University of Arizona swabbed tray tables. Later, 4 of 6 tested positive for MRSA and noroviruses that can cause vomiting and diarrhea. Those tray tables are cleaned, on average, once/day. Place a barrier between the food and tray table plus wash your hands before eating. The Motley Monk suggests carrying some packaged sani-wipes.
3. The lavatory's inside door handle
Picture this: People on the plane need to go to the bathroom. So, they touch all the seat tops as they walk down the aisle. They then use the bathroom, don't wash their hands, and walk out the door and grab onto all of those seat tops again. Use a paper towel to open the lavatory door and try not to touch the seat tops.
4. The toilet flush button
A safe harbor for E. coli for 48 hours. To minimize contact with all germs, cover your hand with a paper towel prior to flushing. The Motley Monk thinks this might require some deterity and practice.
5. The lavatory faucet handles
~30% of airplane faucet handles carried MRSA and noroviruses that can cause vomiting and diarrhea. Use the elbow to turn on the faucet. The solution? See #4. Plus: Is there enough room?
6. The blankets
Fresh, packaged blankets are placed on airplanes each morning. But, those blankets are then re-folded and re-used on every other flight for the rest of the day. Yikes!
7. The toilet seat
20% of toilet seats carry E. coli. Don’t ever touch a toilet seat….ever. OMG!
See the results when 3 rolls of undeveloped film from a World War II soldier In WW2 are processed. Over 70 years old, this is the first time the images have been viewed, thanks to 21st century technology:
Let the discussion begin...
With stock market volatility rising (and possibly portending a dramatic downturn), it might be best not to listen to William Devane peddle gold coins from his country club, ranch, or stylish home.
While investing in bullion makes eminent sense when the market is poised to make that downturn, the folks over at 24/7Wall St.com may have identified a better investment opportunity: Marijuana (aka, cannabis). Yes, it may be that Wall Street is looking with favor upon this "vice" and perhaps "recession proof" investment. As of Friday, August 28:
- The spot price index for one pound of marijuana jumped $70+ to $2,045 from $1,924 in the prior week.
- ~67% of the last week's transactions occurred in a range of $1,612 to $2,462/pound.
- Transaction prices ranged from an average low of $1.1k in the State of Washington state to a high of $3.4k in Midwestern black markets. In the State of Colorado, the volume-weighted average price jumped 17% from $1,784 to $2,085/pound during the past 2 weeks.
- in 2014, the Viridian Cannabis Stock Index of 75 publicly-traded companies reported a 38.4% gain.
So, it appears the sector has been on the rise and may be a little too "pricey" today.
What might happen going forward?
- The futures price for December 2015 remained unchanged at $1,385.
- The September forward rose 4% to $1,925.
- But, for the months of October through December, forward prices decline steadily.
A smart investor would patiently wait for the price/pound to decline from its current price toward $1.4 or $1.5k and then consider getting into an ETF or mutual fund "basket" of the commodity.
That's what a smart investor would do. But, The Motley Monk has absolutely no interest whatsoever in marijuana, as an investment, purported medicine, or relaxant. Never has; never will. And he doesn't recommend that anyone do so for multiple reasons. He's just reporting the investment facts as he reads them.
That said, The Motley Monk thought the 24/7WallSt.com article worth posting. Why? It gives "Buy low, sell high" an entirely new meaning!
Let the discussion begin...
To read the 24/7WallStreet.com article, click on the following link:
http://247wallst.com/consumer-products/2015/08/29/marijuana-price-rises-5-to- 2045/utm_source=247WallStDailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content =AUG312015A&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter
To read about those publicly-traded marijuana companies, click on the following link: