text:
The right thing to do
Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 5:35 pm
Tags: gay marriage, God's design for marriage, homosexuality, Latter Day Saints, Mormonism, SCOTUS, standing for the truth, Washington Post
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was in the news yesterday after the announcement on Thursday that the church will now consider those in same-sex marriages to be apostates. The policy change also declared that children of same-sex parents will not be blessed as babies and cannot be baptized until they are 18 years old. Eric Hawkins, spokesman for the LDS church, was quoted in the Washington Post saying, "Church handbooks are policy and procedural guides for lay leaders who must administer the church in many varied circumstances throughout the world. The church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages. While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, it does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership."
The church had, according to the Post article, left the discipline of same-sex couples to local leaders prior to making the change on Thursday, a change the church decided was necessary because of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage across the country. The article further clarified that the LDS church defines an apostate as "people who renounce their faith. If someone is believed to be acting in an apostate way, it triggers a disciplinary council, which can have different outcomes, from counseling to potential loss of membership."
Interestingly, the new policy puts homosexual marriage into the same category as polygamy, which the LDS church officially renounced in 1890. I am on record as arguing long before last summer's SCOTUS decision that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions would open the door to polygamous marriages, as well.
As of Friday afternoon there were more than 1,200 comments on the Post story. Not surprisingly, most of them were not supportive of the policy change. The daughters of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman said the church had gone too far. I wonder, though, of perhaps the real problem is that other faiths have not gone far enough. A number of Christian denominations have gone the other way, saying that they welcome homosexuals and believe that homosexual marriage is okay. This despite the fact, of course, that the Bible clearly states otherwise. If a church firmly believes that the Bible teaches that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, why wouldn't that church consider those who reject that core tenet of their faith to have rejected the faith? If a church expects its members to accept and agree with its statement of faith, why would it allow members who directly contradict and oppose a fundamental element of that faith? Churches that practice infant baptism expect–require, I imagine–the parents of those infants to be members of their church and to profess faith consistent with the church's teaching. Why then would the LDS church not hold that infants of same-sex couples will not be blessed? I do not know what the LDS position is on when an individual becomes old enough to become a member of the church, but the Post article says that children are typically baptized around age 8. While I do not know this for certain, of course, I cannot imagine there are many churches that would baptize an 8 year old without the consent of the child's parents. The LDS position here is that even if the parents consented, the child is being raised in a home that by its very existence contradicts the teachings of the church. Accordingly, I do not consider the LDS position change to be too severe or even inappropriate. Instead, I see a church willing to take a clear, public and unambiguous stand for what it believes in the face of a culture that has decided it does not agree. That is not easy to do, it will not make the church popular and there is little to gain from doing it. Little, that is, except the one thing that really matters–standing firm on what that church believes is the truth. There is not much I agree with when it comes to Mormon faith or teaching. In fact, I do not even agree with all LDS teaching on marriage, given that the Mormon faith teaches that marriage is an element of salvation. On this issue, though, I both agree with and applaud the church for standing boldly and firmly for God's design for marriage. I might handle some of the details differently or change some of the details of how the children of homosexuals are treated, but the details of my church practice and ordinance are different than the details of the LDS church.
My hope is that other churches, those churches that claim to hold to biblical inerrancy and authority, would likewise take an unequivocal stand for God's Truth and His design for marriage. Homosexuals need to be treated with respect, need to be shown the love of God and need to be prayed for consistently. Homosexuals are loved by God, but God hates their choices when they engage in homosexuality and they defile His design for marriage. Softening the truth of God's Word is not a loving act. Saying God condones something He clearly does not is not a loving act. Standing for unpopular truth will not win many friends, but it is the right thing to do.
Good news for marriage
Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 10:48 pm
Tags: Albert Mohler, Baker v. Nelson, DOMA, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Juan Perez-Gimenez, monogamy, polygamy, SCOTUS, Sixth Circuit, Supreme Court of the United States, traditional marriage, United States v. Windsor
Believe it or not, there may be some good news for those of us who believe in defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In late October, United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez upheld the Puerto Rican law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled, 2-1, that measures in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee limiting marriage to one man and one woman were constitutional. In both instances, the decisions held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, allows for states to define marriage.
Perez-Gimenez stated in his decision, "The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the State's authority over marriage, buttressing Baker's conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question."
Baker v. Nelson, the other decision cited above, was a 1972 case in Minnesota in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a Minnesota law limiting marriage to a man and a woman did not violate the Constitution. Baker appealed, but the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because of the way in which Supreme Court cases work, the Baker case went to the Supreme Court by way of mandatory appellate review. The refusal of SCOTUS to hear the case therefore became precedent because the refusal to hear the case was considered a decision on the merits of the case. This is important, because Perez-Gimenez explained that the Windsor case did not overturn Baker but rather complements it. "Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States' 'historic and essential authority to define the marital relation' free from 'federal intrusion.'"
The Sixth Circuit decision came after a refusal by SCOTUS on October 6 to hear appeals from states that have had their traditional marriage laws struck down by courts, making it an important decision and one that has received considerable attention and no doubt will continue to do so.
Perhaps even more encouraging to defenders of traditional marriage than either decision in and of themselves, though, is the fact that both decisions take aim at the position of those who argue that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right. Perez-Gimenez wrote, "It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance–this Court does not venture an answer here–to interpret Windsor's endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage."
Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote the majority decision in the Sixth Circuit case. He stated early in his decision that recent decisions are mostly ignoring a very, very long history of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. "For better, for worse, or for more of the same, marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world," Sutton wrote. Sutton also wrote that it is not the place of the judges of the Sixth Circuit to make policy decisions for the citizens living in its circuit; rather, its purpose is to interpret laws vis-a-vis the existing laws and precedents, of which Baker still is one. This is a breath of fresh air coming from a federal bench, especially since so many courts seem more than happy to assume the role of making, rather than interpreting, laws. Sutton went on to write, "A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States."
This element of Sutton's decision is a unique perspective on the issue, as far as I know, and I think it is going to prove to be a very important component of future cases dealing with the definition of marriage:
What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g. with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. This does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. This explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning.
The reason why this is so important is that is establishes that states do have a compelling interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman–something that others have argued is not the case. If states have no compelling interest to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the argument goes, then states have no reason or justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman other than legalized discrimination. So keep an eye on this rationale, because it is going to be extremely important.
Sutton went on to reinforce his point by writing this: "If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage." This is, of course, one of the keystone elements of the argument I have been making against homosexual marriage all along; if we change the definition of marriage to be other than between a man and a woman we eliminate any justification for prohibiting any definition of marriage, whether male-male, female-female, adult-child, human-animal, multiple spouses, etc. Albert Mohler included this observation in his blog post on the Sixth Circuit decision: "He [Sutton] also recorded that in the oral arguments the attorneys arguing for same-sex marriage had been unable to answer his question [as to why marriage should be defined in terms of monogamy]. They could not, he stated, because the only argument they could advance was moral tradition. They could not cite moral tradition as the authority for monogamy because they argued that moral tradition was not a rational basis for law when it came to limiting marriage to a man-woman union."
Perez-Gimenez stated in his decision, "The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not." Similarly, Sutton wrote, "The theory of the living constitution rests on the premise that every generation has the right to govern itself. If that premise prevents judges from insisting on principles that society has moved past, so too should it prevent judges from anticipating principles that society has yet to embrace." In other words, both judges are taking a stand for courts restricting themselves to interpreting law and letting the people make the decision about how marriage is defined. Interestingly, this is exactly what the Windsor decision meant, as well.
Mohler closed his blog with this statement: "Sometimes the right argument just has to be made, even if it does not win at any given hour. The truth will stand the test of time, and Judge Sutton deserves our gratitude and respect for making an argument in defense of both marriage and the Constitution–and for making it so well." I echo his sentiment, and would add Judge Perez-Gimenez to that, too. In the words of Galatians 6:9, let us not grow weary in doing what is good–and in this situation, it means continuing to take a stand for marriage as God defined it, and praying for those judges who are courageous enough to defend the right of the people to make that determination.
The Uselessness of Stigma
Tags: Conor Friedersdorf, debate, evolution vs creation, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, liberal, Slate, stigma, The Atlantic, Will Oremus
An interesting article appeared recently on the web site of The Atlantic. The article, written by Conor Friedersdorf, was posted on the morning of April 10 and is entitled "Why Gay Marriage Opponents Should Not Be Treated Like Racists." It was interesting both because of the way in which it addressed this issue and because of where it was published. I am not a regular reader of The Atlantic but I have certainly read its pages numerous times over the years and I have to confess I was a bit surprised–pleasantly–to find this article there.
Friedersdorf begins his article this way: "Liberals generally think of themselves as proponents of tolerance, pluralism, and diversity. Some liberals are also eager to stigmatize and punish opponents of gay marriage." He then asks if this stigmatization is a betrayal of liberal values. Excellent question, that. In response, Friedersdorf writes that if it is a betrayal it is one that most liberals find justified, one that "is no more problematic than the decision to exclude white supremacists from polite society."
In support of this position Friedersdorf cites an e-mail correspondent who said that objecting to a boycott of a company whose CEO gave financial support to California's Proposition 8 (which defined marriage as between a man and a woman) was akin to finding the Montgomery bus boycott objectionable. Friedersdorf went on to cite Will Oremus who said, in Slate, "Opposing gay marriage in America today is not akin to opposing tax hikes or even the war in Afghanistan. It's more akin to opposing interracial marriage: It bespeaks a conviction that some people do not deserve the same basic rights as others."
Interestingly, Friedersdorf agrees with Oremus that homosexuals should have the right to marry. He disagrees with him, however, in the comparison of gay and interracial marriage. Why? "Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another," Friedersdorf writes. But, he continues, "Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it's also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone." The end of that sentence is followed by an asterisk which refers to this footnote: "One thing I've noticed in this debate is how unfamiliar proponents of stigma are with thoughtful orthodox Christians—that is to say, they haven't interacted with them personally, critiqued the best version of their arguments, or even been exposed to the most sophisticated version of their reasoning, which I find to be obviously earnest, if ultimately unpersuasive."
Now it will not come as surprise to anyone who has read my opinions on this issue before that I absolutely disagree with Friedersdorf on the matter of gay marriage. I am wholeheartedly opposed to allowing marriage to be defined as anything other than the union of one man and one woman. I appreciate Friedersdorf's recognition, though, of the fact that homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue and is certainly not akin to segregation of public buses in Montgomery or interracial marriage. Friedersdorf believes just as passionately as I do that I am wrong, as are those who think like I do. Refreshingly, though, he recognizes that we can disagree for legitimately held beliefs and we can disagree without calling each other names. Referring to those who believe as I do he writes, "But it's not credible to argue that they're in the same moral category as the bigots who sustained Jim Crow, or that the narrow right they'd withhold has done similar harm and thus warrants the same response (even if you believe, as I do, that withholding the name marriage is wrong and harmful)."
Friedersdorf–again, refreshingly–also makes the point that the idea "that some people do not deserve the same basic rights as others" is a position held by many people based on many factors and characteristics yet somehow only those who oppose gay marriage seem to be vilified by the political left. Why?
As he wraps up his column Friedersdorf makes a couple of very astute observations about the use of stigma as a strategy in what should be intelligent debate. First, "What I think, in fact, is that stigma is an overrated tool for effecting change, because once you've gotten to a threshold within a community where lots of powerful people will stigmatize a behavior, the point had already been reached where it would be defeated without stigma." I don't know that I agree with him that the behavior in this case–the opposition to homosexual marriage–would be defeated without stigmatizing it but I certainly agree that stigmatizing is not an effective means of achieving meaningful change. What I think is that stigma tends to be used most often and most loudly when there is no legitimate and coherent argument to be made in opposition. Thumper famously said, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." Those who wield stigma tend to abide by a different adage, one that goes like this: "If you can't say something logical and effective to counter their argument, call them names and compare them to horrible people of the past instead."
Second, Friedersdorf writes, "Those who rely on stigma are tied to a tactic that is employed most when needed least, often against groups already marginalized within a community; no wonder stigma is correlated more strongly with signaling self-righteousness than effecting change. That isn't to say stigma is never appropriate—just that engagement and persuasion is almost always the better option, as it is on gay marriage." Again, I disagree with Friedersdorf that those who oppose gay marriage are "already marginalized" but I agree entirely that engagement and persuasion is the better option. Not just with gay marriage, either. You will see the stigma attack unleashed by liberals in the evolution versus creation debate, too, among other examples.
So…what's the bottom line? Conor Friedersdorf and I completely disagree on the issue of gay marriage. But we disagree respectfully and without calling each other names or attaching stigma. We might even, if we had a sit-down face-to-face chat, find other areas in which we agree. One thing we definitely do agree on is this: stigma is a wimpy weapon, one that brings nothing valuable to any discussion and, in fact, does more to demean and belittle those who employ it than those again whom it is being employed.
Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 3:21 am
Tags: Bible, biblical marriage, Christianity Today, Ephesians 5:11, Franklin Graham, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, homosexuality, John Piper, Richard Stearns, Russell Moore, Scripture, World Vision
On March 24 Christianity Today ran an article in which World Vision made clear that it is now hiring homosexual Christians in legal gay marriages. Interestingly, the charity's policy against sex outside of marriage is still a rule.
World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns granted CT an exclusive interview in which he explained the policy change. According to the article, "Stearns asserts that the 'very narrow policy change' should be viewed by others as 'symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity.' He even hopes it will inspire unity elsewhere among Christians."
Before I go any further I need to stop right here and state that very few things I have read or heard recently trouble me so much as someone simultaneously stating that abandoning a long-standing policy that is consistent with the Bible is a "very narrow policy change" and that this change is "symbolic…of [Christian] unity." Nothing could be further from the truth. This "narrow policy change" rests on the belief that what the Bible makes clear about homosexuality and marriage is not correct or, at the very least, has been traditionally misunderstood. It is not possible to pursue Christian unity by redefining the Bible.
Franklin Graham, in a statement on the World Vision decision, said, "World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church." Graham is exactly right; you cannot unify the church by embracing sin!
The CT article continues, "In short, World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently 'tearing churches apart' over same-sex relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor." I read that to mean that Stearns hopes that Christians will ignore World Vision's trampling of one part of Scripture in order to join forces in adhering to another part of it. The reality is, of course, that that makes no sense. After all, if what the Bible teaches about homosexuality or marriage need not be adhered to why should its teachings on caring for the poor stir me to action?
Stearns stated that the policy change is nothing more than that. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support." Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Stearns. A decision to hire and accept individuals who are living a life that is contrary to what the Bible teaches absolutely is an affirmation of that choice–whether you say it is or not.
Because of World Vision's size–it had revenue of more than $1 billion last year–and the scope of its ministries, "other Christian organizations look to World Vision for leadership on defending faith hiring practices," Christianity Today reported. That is true…and scary. When one of the largest Christian charities in the world accepts this kind of compromise it will surely lead other ministries to consider doing the same.
For that reason it is imperative that churches, parachurch organizations and other ministries, as well as individual believers, take a stand for biblical truth and against the compromise of World Vision. Franklin Graham is but one evangelical leader who was quick to denounce the decision. Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission issued a statement that included this observation:
But here's what's at stake. This isn't, as the World Vision statement (incredibly!) puts it, the equivalent of a big tent on baptism, church polity, and so forth.
At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish.
John Piper said this: "This is a tragic development for the cause of Christ, because it trivializes perdition – and therefore, the cross – and because it sets a trajectory for the demise of true compassion for the poor." Piper goes on to highlight the idiocy of the stated position of World Vision:
When World Vision says, "We cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue," here is the side they do, in fact, jump onto: We forbid fornication and adultery as acceptable lifestyles among our employees (which they do), but we will not forbid the regular practice of homosexual intercourse. To presume that this position is not "jumping into the fight on one side or the other" is fanciful.
There are no doubt many other individuals and groups that have issued and will issue similar statements affirming the biblical position on marriage and challenging the foolishness of the World Vision position. When they do we must echo a hearty "Amen!" and join in their willingness to stand on the wall to defend the truth.
Russell Moore concluded his statement by suggesting that a refusal to stand firm for the Scripture, a refusal to call sin sin and to also share the Bible's message of forgiveness is nothing more than "empowering darkness." May we never be guilty of empowering darkness. May we, instead, follow the exhortation of Paul to the church at Ephesus when he wrote, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Ephesians 5:11, ESV).
It doesn't make any sense
Tags: Barack Obama, discrimination, Fifth Circuit, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, lesbian marriage, marijuana, New York Times, Orlando Garcia, Rick Lyman, Texas, U.S. Court of Appeaks, Warren Chisum
You may not have noticed, but we are in the midst of an age in which laws are being selectively enforced and upheld. President Barack Obama famously announced early in his administration that his Justice Department would no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act or even defend it in court. Republicans in Congress took on the task of defending the law but last summer the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. When they did so, however, they also left the matter of defining marriage to the states. With increasing frequency, however, states that have attempted to do just that have had those laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman struck down as unconstitutional.
Today Texas became the most recent victim of activist judges overstepping their authority and completely reinterpreting the Constitution. Judge Orlando L. Garcia of United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that the amendment to the Texas constitution passed by voters in 2005 and defining marriage as between a man and a woman violated the United States Constitution. Why? Because, he said, it demeans the dignity of homosexuals "for no legitimate reason."
Part of Garcia's ruling reads like this: "Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution." According to a article published today by the New York Times, however, the state of Texas had reasons for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. "The [state's] lawyers denied that Texas' laws were rooted in prejudice, linking the bills instead to the state's interest in protecting traditional marriage to promote procreation and child-rearing by a mother and a father in 'stable and enduring family units,'" the article said. Apparently Judge Garcia does not consider those to be "legitimate governmental purposes."
The Times also reported that the two gay and lesbian couples who sued the state insisted that the state's ban "perpetuated discrimination and put a financial, legal and emotional burden on homosexual couples." Texas Representative Warren Chisum responded to that assertion by saying, "I've never made any statement that this bill did not discriminate. This bill does discriminate. It allows only for a man and a woman to be married in this state and be recognized in marriage in this state."
Chisum is right on the mark. The problem is, discrimination is not automatically wrong. Almost every piece of legislation discriminates. "To discriminate" is simply another way of saying "to distinguish." There are laws all across the country discriminating against people driving 90 miles per hour on the interstate or even 45 miles per hour in a school zone; laws discriminating against people who want to take merchandise from the store without paying for it; laws discriminating against people from buying alcohol before turning 21 or voting before turning 18; and, for now anyway, laws discriminating against people who want to be in government-sanctioned relationships made up of one man and two women or one person and one animal or one adult and one child. In other words, laws discriminate all the time; if they did not discriminate there would be no reason to have laws at all.
I have not read the case's briefs so I do not know exactly how the homosexual couples who sued claimed to have experienced legal, financial or emotional burdens as a result of the Texas law, but I cannot imagine their reasoning would hold up under much legitimate scrutiny. Fortunately Judge Garcia was wise enough to stay his ruling pending the appeal that will no doubt be coming forthwith. Hopefully the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, where the appeal will be heard, will actually read the Constitution and realize that it does not protect or entitle homosexual marriage.
The other laws you have no doubt been hearing about lately are those state laws that are allowing the recreational use of marijuana. Interestingly, the New York Times also has an article on that subject today. Rick Lyman's article begins like this: "A little over a year after Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana, more than half the states, including some in the conservative South, are considering decriminalizing the drug or legalizing it for medical or recreational use."
What few people seem to be commenting on (though the Times did mention it) is that marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, often called the Supremacy Clause, reads, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." There are many court decisions over the years that uphold the principle of the supremacy of federal law.
Why do I bring marijuana into the marriage discussion? Simply because both are examples of states making their own laws and in one instance they are permitted to violate the federal law without consequence and in another they are being told that the Constitution prohibits them from making their own laws even though it does not and even though nothing in the Constitution protects the right of homosexual marriage. Indeed given the absence of any federal definition of marriage the states clearly have the right to define it according to Amendment 10 of the Constitution.
In other words, states are permitted–even encouraged, I might say–to pass their own laws allowing what the federal law explicitly prohibits because the behavior being permitted is considered to be in line with a progressive or liberal change that those in power support. When states pass laws upholding or enforcing more traditional or conservative behaviors (like marriage) they are told they cannot do so. Here's the bottom line: federal law prohibits the use of marijuana but states are allowed to permit it and federal law permits the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman but states are prohibited from thus defining it. We have a very real problem on our hands; laws no matter mean anything beyond what those in power want them to mean.
President Obama has, by way, provided additional evidence for his own impeachment in his handling of the state marijuana laws. Despite the clear federal prohibition of the use of marijuana the New York Times reports that the "Obama administration has said it will not interfere with the rollout of legal marijuana in the states, as long as it is kept out of the hands of minors."
Interesting, is it not, that Judge Garcia denied that the people of Texas have a right to define marriage as between a man and a woman even though they said it was in part an effort to protect children, yet President Obama has invited states to ignore federal law so long as they protect children when they legalize marijuana.
Don't try to make any sense of it…it simply doesn't make any sense.
A sad, unfortunate and poorly timed reversal
Tags: Albert Mohler, Bill Clinton, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, gay marriage, homosexuality, Rob Portman, Supreme Court
If you follow the news you have probably already heard that Ohio Senator Rob Portman has very publicly changed his position regarding gay marriage in recent days. Portman has always been a staunch opponent of gay marriage; in 1996, as a member of the House of Representatives, he was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act; in 1999 he voted for a measure that would have prohibited same-sex couples in Washington state from adopting children; in 2011 hundreds of students at the University of Michigan protested having Portman speak at the school's graduation ceremony because of his position on gay marriage. In response to that protest, Portman's spokesman said, "Rob believes marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman."
So what changed? Well, two things. One, Portman's son "came out," informing his parents in 2011 that he is gay. Two, this revelation caused Portman to "think of this issue from a new perspective," he told Ohio reporters.
Senator's Portman's son's sexuality is none of my business; it is a private matter–or at least it was, until his father brought it into the public square to explain his own sad, unfortunate and poorly timed reversal on the issue of gay marriage. And I do not choose those descriptors lightly. Allow me to explain….
The reversal is sad because, based on his own explanations, Portman has allowed the circumstances of his life to cause him to reinterpret Scripture, and to do so inaccurately. Here's how it worked: Portman believed the Bible was clear in its opposition to homosexuality and its teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman (he was right on both counts); Portman's son informed his parents he is gay; Portman loves his son; Portman faces moral dilemma; Portman solves moral dilemma by deciding Scripture means something different than what it does, and what he had previously believed it did.
The reversal is sad because Portman decided that it was easier to embrace a false understanding of the very Word of God than it would be to stand firm in his convictions. It is easier to say God is love, and must surely want people to be happy than it is for Portman to tell his son that he loves him, but he hates his sin.
Yesterday Portman wrote a commentary in The Columbus Dispatch. In it he states that his son's announcement has caused him to think about this issue in "a much deeper way." Translation: I was opposed to gay marriage until I found out my son is gay, but my love for my son trumps my adherence to the Word of God. Portman writes that his son told him that "his sexual orientation wasn't something he chose; it is simply a part of who he is." I am sure Portman's son may believe that, and Portman may believe it, too. I have written here before about the issue of "homosexual orientation," and I am not going to rehash that now. (Desire and Deceit, an excellent book on the subject by Albert Mohler addresses this issue, too). According to Portman, "At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years."
Every parent wants–or at least should want–their children to love "happy, meaningful lives." But part of tough love–in other words, part of being a parent–means standing firm when the way in which a child wants to live that life is contrary to what is God-honoring. Portman's reasoning is exactly the same as that that I have challenged here repeatedly regarding the slippery slope that is the issue of gay marriage. Portman wants his son to be happy, Portman's son is gay, so gay marriage should be okay? That's absurd. What do we do when someone's else's son claims that what makes him happy is having sex with children? What do we do when someone's daughter says that what makes her happy is the challenge of stealing and exploiting someone's identity? What do we do when someone's child says that what makes him or her happy is taking the lives of other humans whom they find to be unattractive, undesirable, or just plain irritating? Yes, yes, I know…those are not the same things, many will say. They are not the same actions, true–but they are all choices people make.
Portman continues, "I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible's overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God." There's nothing wrong with such a wrestling match. What is wrong is realizing that the two cannot be reconciled and so deciding that the "Christian faith" should be reinterpreted in order to make it work out alright in the end. Does the Bible have an overarching theme of love and compassion? Yes. But only because the Bible also has an overarching theme of justice and holiness. We cannot accurately understand the love of God without accurately understanding the justice and holiness of God. Because He is a God of holiness, He cannot tolerate sin or have it in His presence. Because He is a God of justice, sin has a penalty that must be paid. Once we understand that, we can understand God's love–His incredible, indescribable, truly awesome love that caused Him to send His only Son to pay the price for the sins of humanity because none of us can pay it ourselves. What the Bible clearly does not teach, Senator Portman, is that God's love and compassion means God wants us to do whatever makes us happy. Are we all the children of God? In so far as He made us all, yes. In so far as we will all go to heaven? Not even close.
As far as I know all three of Portman's children are grown, but can you imagine sitting down to tell them that what they had been taught and raised to believe was God's Truth was actually wrong? "Well kids, your mom and I made a mistake. So did the pastor, and the Sunday school teacher, and, well, most of the Bible teachers we have respected over the years. Remember what we taught you about homosexuality? Turns out we were wrong. See, your brother is gay. Yes…that's right. Your brother…our son. And he surely did not choose to be that way. It is just the way he is. It is the way God made Him, apparently. So, we have been wrong. Now that we know your brother is gay we can see it all clearly. We just never understood before. But gay people really love each other, and they deserve to happy just like everyone else. Just because your brother is attracted to men does not mean that he should be denied the right to marry when he finally finds the man he wants to spend the rest of his life with….." You get the idea. Do you see it, though? Portman is saying that because his son is gay, God must surely think it's okay.
Portman goes on to make one of the more idiotic statements on gay marriage I have ever heard: "One way to look at it is that gay couples' desire to marry doesn't amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution." Uh, yeah…that's one way to look at it alright. One very wrong, misguided, and–sorry, Senator–stupid way to look at it.
Portman's lack of conviction (lack of spine?) is further evidenced in the following paragraph of his commentary, when he writes this: "Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan." So, since most people think the idea is okay, it must be okay then. Sure. Another ridiculous argument. God's Word does not fluctuate with the opinions of the people in America (or anywhere else). God's Word is the same yesterday, today and forever, and it is absolutely clear on the fact that homosexuality is sin, it is an abomination. Of course, we do live in a representative democracy in the U.S., so the opinions of the people can change the law. If that does happen it will not make it right, though, and Bible-believers need to do everything we can to oppose such a change.
And herein is why Portman's reversal is so poorly timed: the Supreme Court will soon be hearing arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, and Portman joins the rising throng of people advocating it being overturned. The only thing Portman gets right in his commentary is his suggestion that the courts, and right now the Supreme Court in particular, should not decide this issue. "I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it's moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them." I agree with that statement. The Supreme Court needs to find only that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed lawfully and is constitutional, and leave the rest up to "we the people." The Supreme Court must not legislate from the bench and declare gay marriage to be constitutional.
Which one doesn't belong?
Tags: Barack Obama, benjamin Todd Jealous, civil rights, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, gay marriage, NAACP, second inaugural, Selma, Seneca Falls, Stonewall, Stonewall Inn
Do you remember those puzzles you would do as a child, where there was a sequence of pictures and you were supposed to determine which one did not belong? There might be a glove, a baseball, a hockey stick and a bat, for example; clearly the hockey stick does not belong because it is not related to baseball. Well, I felt a bit like I was doing one of those puzzles as I listened to Barack Obama's second inaugural address. In it, he said this:
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall, just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone, to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.
The president's alliterated reference to defining moments in the fight for equality likely went either unnoticed or not understood by many who heard it–especially those of younger generations. As a student and teacher of history, though, it did not escape me.
Seneca Falls is where the first convention focused on women's rights was held in 1848. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were the most notable names involved probably, but the Declaration of Sentiments that emerged from the convention made it abundantly clear that women wanted the right to vote. Years later, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified these women were up in arms since, for the first time, the Constitution now included the word male when addressing voting rights.
Selma, of course, is the town in Alabama that is usually considered to be the launching pad of the civil rights movement.
But what about Stonewall? Most of us thinking of Confederate general T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson when we think of any historical significance to that term, but the is certainly not what the president had in mind on Monday. Instead, he was referring to the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City where a riot occurred in 1969. The riot was sparked by a police raid on the bar, apparently one of the few bars in the city where homosexuals could gather. Not only were gays openly discriminated against at the time, but it was a crime to serve alcohol to homosexuals. Police were there with a search warrant to investigate reports on the illegal sale of liquor. The result was a riot in which the bar's patrons began throwing just about anything they could find at the police officers, four of which were injured in the melee. Rioting continued for the better part of a week.
According to Martin Duberman, a professor, author and gay-rights activist who founded the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at City University of New York, Stonewall became symbolic for the gay rights movement. In 1999, the Stonewall Inn was added to the National Register of Historic Places.
My contention is that Stonewall doesn't fit with Seneca Falls and Selma. I am not suggesting that discrimination against homosexuals is okay in the areas of basic rights–making it a crime to serve alcohol to them, for example–but the connection that President Obama was trying to make was that because gay marriage is still not permitted, homosexuals are still being discriminated against. Not too long after the excerpt above, Obama said,
Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
Notice he said nothing about housing, employment, voting, even drinking alcohol. I do not know anyone who reasonably and rationally believes that homosexuals should be denied any of those rights. Rather, the president was focused on gay marriage–"the love we commit to one another" he called it. And for it to "be equal as well" he wants marriage to be redefined to include homosexual marriage.
I have addressed this issue in this blog before; homosexuality and gay rights is not the civil rights issue of our day, as so many people like to assert that it is, and as the president seemed to be suggesting in his speech. Why not? Because gay marriage is not a civil right. Homosexuality is not the same as gender or race. Homosexuality is not an irreversible fact of life over which individuals have no control. Even if I were to grant the argument that there is such a thing as a "gay gene" and homosexuals are born homosexual (something I do not grant, by the way) engaging in homosexual behavior is still optional; being a woman or being black is not optional.
Perhaps it should not surprise me, but it does, that Benjamin Todd Jealous, the president and CEO of the NAACP, had this to say in response to Obama's remarks:
In his speech, I think the president did ultimately what he does best, which is to really speak to the commonality across so many different groups in our society, the commonality across so many different struggles for rights, and get right down to the core that at the end of the day, what we're all seeking to do — and what the freedom fighters at Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall are all trying to do — is just simply move our country towards the realization of its own pledge, that this be one nation, with liberty and justice for all.
We need to wake up. The "commonality across so many different struggles for rights" is no commonality at all when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not included in the founder's embrace of "liberty and justice for all." Gay marriage is not a right, it is not a civil rights issue, and if it ever becomes the law of the land it will result in a fundamental redefinition of the basic unit of humanity. Oh, and it will throw wide open the doorway to redefining just about anything else, too; if homosexuals are granted the right to marry, after all, how can we deny polygamists the right to marry multiple wives? That is but one example of where that doorway might lead; the others are addressed elsewhere on this site, and for the sake of time and space and climbing out of the mud I will not elaborate here.
Bottom line…Stonewall does not belong, and never will belong, with Seneca Falls and Selma.
"A Culture of Hate"?
Tags: Chick-fil-A, Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, Dan Cathy, First Amendment, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, Huffington Post, HuffPost, LGBT, Mike Huckabee, Noah Michelson
Unless you live in a remote location with no access to television or Internet (which you obviously do not, since you are reading this!) you surely knew that yesterday was proclaimed "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" by former Arkansas governor, GOP presidential candidate and current FOX News contributor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee launched the idea after the media circus surrounding Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy's comments confirming that he and his (privately held) company support the biblical definition of marriage, and thereby do not support homosexual marriage. I addressed this issue already in a previous post [see "Tolerance (Again)"] so I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about Chick-fil-A directly. Rather, I have to address another example of intolerance and, in fact, ignorance, announced to the world today on The Huffington Post.
Noah Michelson, editor of HuffPost Gay Voices, posted a column today entitled "Chick-fil-A: This Is Not a First Amendment Issue." Now, I want to begin by saying that, given his position, it will not come as a surprise to you that Mr. Michelson and I disagree on the topic of gay marriage. However, I am not even going to address that, specifically. Instead, I need to address several specific comments Michelson makes in his post.
Note first of all that he states early on, "I fully support [Dan] Cathy's right to say whatever he wants (and, in fact, so does the ACLU)." On this, we–Mr. Michelson, the ACLU, and I–agree. I support Mr. Cathy's right to say that he supports the biblical definition of marriage, and I support Mr. Michelson's right to say that he does not. As I have stated in this space before, the right to state our opinions, whether or not they are popular, whether or not many others will agree, and, indeed, whether or not they are even correct, is a large part of what makes America great. And the freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Why then, does Michelson argue that this is not a First Amendment issue? He feels so strongly that it is not that he began his column saying that if he heard one more person state that the Chick-fil-A brouhaha was a First Amendment issue, "I'm going to jump out of one of the Huffington Post's fifth-floor windows and swan dive into oncoming traffic."
So how does Michelson go about suggesting that Cathy's statement, Chick-fil-A's position, and Huckabee's day of support is not a First Amendment issue? By suggesting that all of the above is actually hate speech. Immediately after stating that he supports Cathy's right to say whatever he wants, Michelson writes, "But just because someone can say something doesn't mean they should — or that we should celebrate him or her for doing so, especially when what they're saying is, at its core, promoting a culture of hate against a group of people."
Wow! Promoting a culture of hate? By openly and unashamedly stating that he supports the biblical definition of marriage–meaning that marriage is between one man and one woman–Dan Cathy is promoting a culture of hate? Against whom? Apparently, according to Michelson, against any gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered individual. Apparently it is promoting hate to say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but it is not promoting hate to say that marriage–as it has been defined for the entirety of human history–should be redefined so that men can marry men, women can marry women, or any one of however many other combinations there may be within the LGBT community.
Unfortunately, though, Mr. Michelson does not stop there. He continues, and in doing so he plunges headlong into the uninformed and in-no-way-accurate suggestion that homosexuality is the equivalent of race, or that the denial of the right for homosexuals to marry is the equivalent of supporting female slavery. Find that hard to believe? Read his column for yourself. Furthermore, Michelson claims that Cathy's and Chick-fil-A's financial support of organizations that support traditional marriage is the equivalent of donating "millions of dollars to white supremacist organizations."
Again, I have argued here before that sexual preference is in no way equivalent to race. Our race is genetic; we cannot change it. And while I do not agree that sexual preference is in one's DNA, even if I were to grant, for sake of argument, that it is, sexual activity is still a choice; the color of one's skin is not.
Michelson isn't finished yet, though. He continues by stating that those of us (and I say "us" because I am in the category of people to whom he is referring) who support the biblical definition of marriage, " still thinks [sic] that it's OK to treat us like we are, at best, just not quite as worthy to have all the rights afforded straight or cis-gendered people or, at worst, just plain evil." Now, I don't even know what "cis-gendered" means, and neither does dictionary.com, so maybe it is a typo in Michelson's post, or perhaps it is some sort of slang I have never seen, but it is safe to state that it somehow refers to those in the LGBT community. And the truth is, Mr. Michelson, I think you are every bit as "worthy" of the right to marry as I am, or as anyone else is–just so long as you do it within the legally defined limits of marriage. And as for evil, that's just not true. I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but I certainly do not consider homosexuals, or those who support the redefinition of marriage, to be evil. I consider them to be misguided, yes, and even wrong. But they are no more evil than I am. After all, Scripture makes it quite clear that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that little word "all" includes me, too. It may be cliche, but I hate the sin, not the sinner.
Oh, and speaking of Scripture, that is the next target in Michelson's piece: "Many of these statements are bolstered by religious arguments using the Bible as ammunition, but, as it's been pointed out time and again, the Bible demands we do or don't do a lot of things that we no longer do or don't do (like that we should own slaves and we shouldn't eat popcorn shrimp), and Jesus himself never uttered a single word about being queer (and if he wanted us all to be "traditionally married" so badly, you'd think the guy himself would have gotten married)."
Okay, one step at a time here. The Bible, specifically in the Old Testament, does contain a lot of instructions that the Israelites were commanded to follow that we no longer need to, both because we are no longer under the Law, and because of improvements in preparing food that make laws against eating popcorn shrimp no longer necessary. Next, Jesus never explicitly referenced homosexuality, but He did say, in Matthew 19:4, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'" That's a pretty clear embrace of God's design for marriage. Furthermore, the Bible is explicitly clear in several places that homosexuality is a sin (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27 among others) and Jesus never refuted that; everything He ever said was consistent with every other portion of Scripture.
Michelson continues by saying, "When you buy food from Chick-fil-A, you're basically saying, "Here, take this money and see to it that queer people can not only not get married, but that they also can't adopt, can be fired simply for their sexuality and/or gender identity and continue to live in a society where they are regularly terrorized, mutilated, murdered and driven to suicide." Sorry, but that's ridiculous. First of all, it's not as if every penny that Chick-fil-A makes goes to groups that support traditional marriage and/or oppose gay marriage. Second, supporting traditional marriage is not the equivalent of supporting terror, mutilation, or murder. I suspect Mr. Michelson would be hard pressed to find a single group that Chick-fil-A supports that explicitly or even discreetly supports or in any way does anything but oppose violence, harassment or intimidation of homosexuals.
So, sorry to say Mr. Michelson, but you're wrong–there's just no other way to say it. Supporting traditional marriage and advocating violence toward homosexuals are not the same thing. Opposing gay marriage and hating gay people is not the same thing. Eating at Chick-fil-A or contributing financially to groups that support traditional marriage and supporting or rejoicing over violence toward homosexuals such as you suggest at the end of your article is not the same thing.
So just how is, exactly, that those who hold a position different from yours are promoting a culture of hate? That's a bold and dangerous accusation to make, and I'd like an apology.


text:
Orestes Araújo (Port Mahon, 1853 - Montevideo, 1915) est un enseignant et historien uruguayen.

Biographie

Né à Minorque le , il s'installe à Montevideo en 1870 et travaille au journal La Paz, créé par José Pedro Varela. Araújo l'a aidé, lui et son frère , dans la mise en œuvre d'une réforme scolaire, tâche qu'il a entreprise jusqu'en 1889.

Orestes Araújo avait été inspecteur des écoles, professeur à l'Université, directeur de l'École normale d'instituteurs, inspecteur technique des Écoles de l'Uruguay. Il avait représenté l'Uruguay au Congrès international des Américanistes de Buenos-Aires, en 1910. Il était membre de la Société des Américanistes. Il meurt le  à Montevideo.

Publications
 Geografía nacional, física, política y corográfica, 1892
 Diccionario Geográfico del Uruguay, 1900
 Gobernantes del Uruguay, 1903
 Resúmen de la Historia del Uruguay y Gobernantes del Uruguay, 1904
 Historia compendiada de la Civilazión uruguaya, 1907
 Historia de la Escuela Uruguaya, 1905
 Historia de los Charmas y demâs tribus indigenas del Uruguay, 1911
 Nuestro pais, cuadros descriptivos del Urugay por autores nacionaies y extranjeros, 1896
 Nueva Historia del Uruguay
 Episodios Historicos, 1923

Références

Bibliographie

Liens externes

Historien uruguayen
Naissance en octobre 1870
Naissance à Maó
Décès en août 1915
Décès à Montevideo
Décès à 44 ans

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


It was painfully apparent when Peyton Manning walked away from the NFL with his second Super Bowl win that his skills were gone.
You could even say that Denver won in spite of Manning's play at QB.
And let's face it, corporate America needed him.
With the exception of every Patriot fan on Planet Earth, everyone seems to want Tom Brady to shut it down after this year's Super Bowl, win or lose.
Think his skills have fallen off? Perhaps, but he's probably still better at 41 or 42 than the QB for your favorite team.
You should try and undstand that Brady's certainly smarter than the QB for your favorite team. He's 'way slow, but he was always slow. He sure can't run around back there like Cam, Mike Vick, or RG3 did!
How many Super Bowls have those dudes won? Scramble on, men!
In today's NFL, you cant even breathe on a QB, so the rules favor a player like Brady.
He gets rid of the ball in about three seconds. Just ask the Chiefs.
You can't even get to him to try and hit him.
What Tom Brady just did, throwing to no receiver who can run by anyone, was his greatest achievement ever. He finally has a signature playoff road win. And he's going to his NINTH Super Bowl in spite of a defense that gave up 24 points in the 4th quarter. Honor to watch him.
With 19 seasons under his belt, you can't trick him and can't throw something at him that he's never seen.
He wants to play until he's 45, and if he keeps taking the Patriots to the Super Bowl every year, I guess we'd just better settle in and watch the highlights.
At some point, New England will have to draft a QB who will tagged as Brady's 'replacement'.
Was Jimmy G the man? Perhaps, but he can't seem to stay in one piece.
Frankly, dude's been hurt more than Brady even though he's seen much less action.
Tried of Brady being in the big game? Then beat him! Outplay him. Rush him. Harass him. Outwork him!
Tom and the Patriots go for Super Bowl win No 6 Sunday in Atlanta. No matter who wins, someone will say that it's time for Tom Brady to retire.


Hey friends! Today I wanted to tell you a little about a new favorite product I've been using-ZAK Detox Deodorant. The gracious PR people at ZAK sent me one of their lovely natural deodorants to try. Disclaimer: I was sent this deodorant so I could review it and post about it. All thoughts are my own.
I was sent the Elevate ZAK Detox Deodorant. Just to sum up this product: it is completely 100% natural, aluminum free, and all day protection. This deodorant is vegan, cruelty free, paleo, and non GMO. If you were to tell me all that, I would expect a product that smells awful and doesn't work. ZAK Detox Deodorant is the complete opposite! It has a subtle, natural smell that I liked and it does work well! There was never a point that I wished I had on a different deodorant that worked better because this did the job wonderfully. I will say that it takes a little bit to get used to because I was used to the very perfumed deodorant and this is not that. If you're looking for a very strong perfumed scent, this wouldn't be for you. But once you get used to it-the simple, natural smell is lovely.
Even better than all of that, is the fact that I don't have to worry about what harsh chemicals are in this products. Recently I realized how many chemicals companies put in products we use everyday; I don't want to use products that put unnatural chemicals in my body. And I was pleasantly surprised at how well ZAK Detox Deodorant smells and works. I would highly recommend this product to anyone I know.
It's always good to smell fresh, but using potentially hazardous products to achieve it is not a wise choice.
Denver, CO., February 23, 2016 – People of all ages and walks of life are certainly not at ease with body odor. More and more people are seeking natural solutions but never at the expense of powerful effectiveness. So it is certainly a breath of fresh air to discover natural products that really work.
To address these concerns, ZAK Body Care, an innovator in natural deodorant protection, introduces ZAK Deodorants.
"We produce our superior deodorants because we want people to say goodbye to natural deodorants that don't work. ZAK Deodorants are made to last. Our perfectly unscented deodorant is totally unscented and works well to neutralize odor. Our Elevate and Energize fragrances are made from 100% pure essential oils to give the deodorants pleasant fragrances for men and women and they provide powerful odor protection and nourishing ingredients, like a deodorant should," says Zak Lyon, Founder and CEO of ZAK Body Products.
There is a myriad of synthetic deodorants in the market and most of them are effective in suppressing perspiration and body odor. But they contain aluminum, parabens, propylene glycol and phtalates – chemicals that are potentially harmful to your health. Aluminum is a known disruptor in vital systems of the human brain and body and parabens are believed to cause high blood pressure and cancer. When applied, deodorants can penetrate through the skin down to the bloodstream. Their harmful ingredients have this tendency to cause damage to your health especially if they are used regularly for a long time.
ZAK Deodorants, on the other hand, nourish the skin when they penetrate. ZAK Deodorants are healthy and work to provide body odor protection all day. It contains nothing but all-natural ingredients that are proven to stop body odor and keep you feeling fresh and clean all day despite an active lifestyle. It is a gentle, aluminum-free deodorant that works to keep your underarms soft, safe and clean. It has no side effects and it can only guarantee 100% protection from offensive body smell.
Because ZAK Deodorants are completely natural, you can certainly expect it to deliver specific health benefits.
ZAK contains coconut oil, shea butter, aloe vera, and essential oils. These ingredients are loaded with antioxidants, vitamins, minerals and fatty acids that help to keep your body odor-free and healthy on a cellular level.
It has a natural, subdued fragrance you will surely like.
Unlike synthetic deodorants, ZAK deodorant doesn't cause the pores of your underarm to clog. While ensuring protection, it allows your skin to perform its job of releasing potentially toxic substances from within your body through sweat.
The absence of chemicals in a natural deodorant helps to keep you free from allergic and adverse skin reactions.
ZAK Deodorants provide the same level of odor protection while nurturing your skin. It keeps your armpits soft and free from dark spots that are often caused by synthetic products.
It boosts your self-confidence and keeps you free from fears of smelling bad or making a bad impression, not to mention it's free from the side-effects of artificial chemical deodorants.
In this busy and active world, it is quite easy to sweat and get body odor. While some synthetic deodorants work effectively to suppress body smell, there is never a guarantee that they are safe. It's a must for everyone to smell fresh, but it wouldn't be prudent to take the risk of using hazardous chemical products to achieve it.
"I love this deodorant! With energize I have finally found a happy alternative to the deodorants with aluminum and other natural deodorants that just aren't quite effective. I have previously had issues with other natural deodorants because they give me irritations and rashes. ZAK's works for me all the time. As a college student I am always running around and trying to go from class to class and ZAK's can keep up with me and keep me fresh, even after hot yoga and long runs. I have already recommended this product to all my friends and can't wait for ZAK Detox to expand. Well worth the price!" says Sophia, a college student from Colorado.
With ZAK, you don't have to gamble with chemical-laced products to stop body odor. It can actually give you the best of both worlds. It is a great natural deodorant for men and women. You should try it now.
About ZAK Body Products ZAK Body Products is a company that commits itself to promote health and well-being in the most natural way. It is the producer and distributor of ZAK Detox Deodorant, an all-natural product that works to give 24-hour odor protection without the risks associated with synthetic deodorants. For more information, visit www.ZAKbody.com.
Thanks for trying our deodorants out! We love making natural, healthy products and we love our customers and partners! Thanks so much for your honest opinion, we are so glad they surpassed your expectations! We've got new products coming very very soon! They're all new deodorant formulas that are just as effective! Check our website for the new listings.


Taco Casa is coming to Lubbock, with the first location set to open on 82nd Street and Pontiac Avenue this summer.
Franchisee Cody Dodson, a Texas Tech alumnus who now lives in Wichita Falls, said he saw a demand for the Mexican restaurant on social media, driven by the many students and others moving to Lubbock from other parts of Texas. He said he is excited to provide the supply.
There are signs up for the first location, across from Mary Lee Gardens on 82nd Street. Dodson said construction should start in the spring, and he estimates an early August opening. Depending on the success of the first location, Dodson said he is interested and has the franchisee rights to open more Taco Casas in Lubbock.
Taco Casa is celebrating 47 years of serving fast Tex-Mex food. The brand is based in Fort Worth, and has a major following in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Taco Casa has locations in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas.


text:
Q: String pointer to array Is it possible to use a string as a nameholder for an array?
var myArray = ["a","b","c"];
var myPointer = "myArray";

console.log(myPointer[1]); //Should return "b"

A: Yes, you can do this. I know of a few ways.
The first one would be to use eval(), but I'm not going to discuss it since I think eval() is evil.
One way to do it is to know which scope you are using. If you are using the window scope, you can always do window[myPointer][1]. If you are using a different scope, it's as easy as doing scope[myPointer][1].
If you don't have a scope or are unwilling to poison your window scope, you can always use something like this:
function blork (pointer) {
    var arrays = {
        number : [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ],
        letters : [ 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e' ]
    }
    return arrays[pointer];
}

Edit: as noted in comments on other posts, this is not really a pointer. I assume you want to determine dynamically which array you want to use based on a string value.

A: I'm not sure why you would want to do that but you can use an object of arrays for this.
var myArray = ["a","b","c"];
var myObject = {"myArray": myArray};
var myPointer = "myArray";
console.log(myObject[myPointer][1]);

A:

Primitive types, primarily strings/numbers/booleans are passed by value for efficiency purposes. Objects such as functions, objects, arrays and the like are passed by reference.

So you can make it an object and then use references to it.
See this question.
Hope that helps :)

A: I'm not sure why in your example it would return "b"...
But i think a better approach to your question would be using a dictionary, actually it's pretty common data structure in JS.
so that in your case:
var myPoint = {
    'a': 'm',
    'b': 'y',
    'c': 'p',
}

and so on..

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Why would sound reverberate indefinitely in two spatial dimensions? I came across this amazing fact that the sound propagation is distortionless only in odd dimensions, due to Huygens' principle (found in the abstract)[1]. Digging deeper, this webpage by Wolfgang Bangerth has a section on acoustic waves in a cylindrical coordinate system. The last paragraph accompanied with a video gathered my attention:

The lack of silence after the first wave has arrived means that if we were living in a two dimensional world, there would be a reverberation after each sound. People would say something, then shut their mouth, but there would still be coming a sound from their direction. It has been said that it would be very loud in a two dimensional world.

What is the reason behind this eternal reverberation?

A: This may not be a very satisfactory answer depending on your level of understanding of partial differential equations but...
This is related to the behavior of the Green's function for the wave equation.  This is a solution that represents the field due to a point impulse, a single pulse on-off concentrated at a point in space.  The behavior of the function in 3d is such that for an impulse the signal at a later time is concentrated on a spherical surface.  In 2d the field due to a concentrated impulse is spread out through the entire region contained within the leading edge of the wave.  One could say that this comes from the math, to the extent that this math adequately describes the physics of the system.  Acoustic waves exist in a medium and the "wave equation" is derived by considering small fluctuations about some background movement in the fluid (medium).  For large amplitude sound the wave equation is no longer valid (but then again some might argue that the classic definition of sound becomes invalid).  If the medium has loss in it then this reverb will die.  What is being described is the ideal behavior predicted by the Green's function.
I am not sure what "distortionless" means in this context.  I think of distortion as being due to interference from rough surfaces etc, that causes rapid, seemingly random, phase fluctuations and that can happen in 3d when boundaries are present.
I hope this helps a little.  I'd recommend Morse and Feshbach Methods of Theoretical Physics Part I for more on the Green's function.  They describe exactly this behavior in that chapter.


text:
Home / Publications / Books by Members /
"Promoting Peace through Employment and Income Generation" (A. Joseph and T. Hamaguchi)
Abraham Joseph and Takako Hamaguchi, "Promoting Peace through Employment and Income Generation," in Globalization and Economic Justice: From Terrorism to Global Peace, ed. Karikottuchira Kuriakose (Gorgias Press LLC, 2017).
Human life is not a mere search for survival. It is also a struggle for equality and economic justice. Environment and health, production of farm and industrial goods, labor supply, and marketing of goods and services are the controlling factors of economic development. None of these, however, can be actualized without peace. Peace is a crucial condition of economic development. Without peace, economic justice cannot become a reality. On the other hand, there is no peace without economic development. Peace and development thus go hand-in-hand. Our modern economy is characterized by the predominant role of neo-liberal policies and global economic trends. Can modern neo-liberalism provide humanity with peace and economic justice? How does globalization affect human conditions all across the world?
These articles are dedicated to raising global awareness and the restraining of growing injustice, while supporting the building up of a community that guarantees basic rights in a democratic society.
Abraham Joseph has held various senior-level positions at the United Nations, including the head of the Office of Socioeconomic Affairs in the UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste. He also served as a senior advisor to Timor-Leste's foreign minister.
Takako Hamaguchi worked for UNICEF for sixteen years before starting her own international development and cooperation consultancy firm.
Transition in Afghanistan: Hope, Despair and the Limits of Statebuilding (William Maley) October 10, 2018
Blount-Hill, Kwan-Lamar

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Slice sentences in a text and storing them in variables I have some text inside $content var, like this:
$content = $page_data->post_content;

I need to slice the content somehow and extract the sentences, inserting each one inside it's own var.
Something like this:
$sentence1 = 'first sentence of the text';
$sentence2 = 'second sentence of the text';

and so on...
How can I do this?
PS
I am thinking of something like this, but I need somekind of loop for each sentence:
$match = null;
preg_match('/(.*?[?\.!]{1,3})/', $content, $match);
$sentence1 = $match[1];
$sentence2 = $match[2];

Ty:)

A: Do you need them in variables? Can't you use a array?
$sentence = explode(". ", $page_data->post_content);
EDIT:
If you need variables:
$allSentence = explode(". ", $page_data->post_content);
foreach($allSentence as $key => $val)
{
    ${"sentence". $key} = $val;
}

A: Assuming each sentence ends with full stop, you can use explode:
$content = $page_data->post_content;
$sentences = explode('.', $content);

Now your sentences can be accessed like:
echo $sentences[0];    // 1st sentence
echo $sentences[1];    // 2nd sentence
echo $sentences[2];    // 3rd sentence
// and so on

Note that you can count total sentences using count or sizeof:
echo count($sentences);

It is not a good idea to create a new variable for each sentence, imagine you might have long piece of text which would require to create that number of variables there by increasing memory usage. You can simply use array index $sentences[0], $sentences[1] and so on.

A: Don't use individually named variables like $sentence1, $sentence2 etc. Use an array.
$sentences = explode('.', $page_data->post_content);

This gives you an array of the "sentences" in the variable $page_data->post_content, where "sentences" really means sequences of characters between full stops. This logic will get tripped up wherever a full stop is used to mean something other than the end of a sentence (e.g. "Mr. Watson").
Edit: Of course, you can use more sophisticated logic to detect sentence boundaries, as you have suggested. You should still use an array, not create an unknown number of variables with numbers on the ends of their names.

A: Assuming a sentence is delimited by terminating punctuation, optionally followed by a space, you can do the following to get the sentences in an array.
$sentences = preg_split('/[!?\.]\s?/', $content);

You may want to trim any additional spaces as well with
$sentences = array_map('trim', $sentences);

This way, $sentences[0] is the first, $sentences[1] is the second and so on.  If you need to loop through them you can use foreach:
foreach($sentences as $sentence) {
  // Do something with $sentence...
}


text:
4 Creative Ways to Use Donor Sperm
How to Support a Friend Living with Fertility Issues
The 10 Most Common Causes of Infertility in Women
Should We Raise a Gender-Neutral Baby?
How Do I Know if I Have Pelvic Inflammatory Disease?
What is IVF treatment and how does it work?
How Much Does Treatment at a Fertility Clinic Cost in UK?
How could I become an egg donor?
What Are Some Signs that a Man is Infertile?
Male Infertility: The Most Common Causes
How to Finance Your Fertility Treatment
Egg Freezing in the UK
Your Fertility: What is Sperm Count?
Working while Pregnant – Rights and benefits in a nutshell
Women Having Healthy and Happy Children After 40
Womb transplant – Transplanting dreams into reality
Why is Sperm Donation Treated Like the Elephant in the Room?
Become parents thanks to sperm donation or co-parenting
Families come in a multitude of forms: same-sex parented families, blended families, single-parents raising their children alone or co-parents sharing custody of their children. These are just a few examples of the many and varied possibilities. Whether you are single, in a same-sex relationship or part of a couple experiencing infertility, you too can become parents. Your first step will be to find alternative solutions to enable you to have a baby.
Are you looking for a Sperm Donor or Co-Parenting?
Laws in the UK
Laws in Ireland
© 2008-2022 CoParents.co.uk


text:
Albert Thellung, född den 12 maj 1881 i Zürich, död där den 26 juni 1928, var en schweizisk botaniker.

Thellung var filosofie doktor, privatdocent och forskarassistent vid universitetets botaniska trädgård i Zürich. Han var en beskrivande botaniker, och ägnade sig vid sina systematiska arbeten särskilt åt nomenklatur.

Bibliografi
Bland hans viktigaste arbeten kan nämnas:
 Beiträge zur Nomenklatur der Schweizerflora (1906 – 1907)
 Die Gattung Lepidium, medförfattare Hans Schinz (1906)
 Beiträge zur Adventivflora der Schweiz (1906 – 1907)
 La flore adventice de Montpellier (1911 – 1912)
 Amarantus (i Aschers och Graebners "Synopsis")

Källor

Schweiziska botaniker
Personer verksamma vid universitetet i Zürich
Botaniker under 1900-talet
Schweiziska forskare under 1900-talet
Personer från Zürich
Födda 1881
Avlidna 1928
Män
Ugglan


, we choices the top choices together with best image resolution simply for you all, and this images is among pictures collections in your finest graphics gallery concerning Children Bed Linen. I am hoping you'll like it.
posted by means of admin with 2018-06-02 23:04:42. To find out all photographs throughout Children Bed Linen images gallery you need to comply with that url.
Children Bed Linen 89 Top Baby Ideas For The Beach Uploaded by admin on Saturday, June 2nd, 2018 in category Home Design.
See also Children Bed Linen Laura Ashley Bellabutterflybl White Lalt I Love Pink from Home Design Topic.
Here we have another image Children Bed Linen Amazing Ideas Kids Beds At Tar Best Home Design Ideas And featured under Children Bed Linen 89 Top Baby Ideas For The Beach. We hope you enjoyed it and if you want to download the pictures in high quality, simply right click the image and choose "Save As". Thanks for reading Children Bed Linen 89 Top Baby Ideas For The Beach.


New York Content Creations | We Create Stunning Content!
(We're talking about our Content).
We make your vision become a reality.
We believe a website is one of the most important aspects of your online presence. Our creativity is important to us. We can help you design a UX/UI that will portray your website exactly how you want it, while also making the navigation seamless to your consumers. Building beautiful websites is like painting a piece of art to us.
Banners, Flyers, Pop-Up Websites, Posts – We do it all!
Do you need a commercial to promote your business? Are you looking to create a promo for a new initiative in your company? Give us the details and we will make your vision a reality!
The pairing of Ms. Jessica Hanna and Mr. Andrew Marks at L.I.C.C. are an impressive team.
expertise and professionalism made the project seamless.


Our cognition apprehends reality as stories, as schemas . We live by narratives and metaphors. With a group of narrative experts we partner with individuals and collectives to get mindful/skillful about the stories we live in.
Trans-formative Storytelling for personal development: workshop and private sessions.


text:
// Copyright (C) 2002-2012 Nikolaus Gebhardt
// This file is part of the "Irrlicht Engine".
// For conditions of distribution and use, see copyright notice in irrlicht.h

#ifndef __I_WRITE_FILE_H_INCLUDED__
#define __I_WRITE_FILE_H_INCLUDED__

#include "irr/core/IReferenceCounted.h"
#include "path.h"

namespace irr
{
namespace io
{

	//! Interface providing write access to a file.
	class IWriteFile : public virtual core::IReferenceCounted
	{
	public:
		//! Writes an amount of bytes to the file.
		/** \param buffer Pointer to buffer of bytes to write.
		\param sizeToWrite Amount of bytes to write to the file.
		\return How much bytes were written. */
		virtual int32_t write(const void* buffer, uint32_t sizeToWrite) = 0;

		//! Changes position in file
		/** \param finalPos Destination position in the file.
		\param relativeMovement If set to true, the position in the file is
		changed relative to current position. Otherwise the position is changed
		from begin of file.
		\return True if successful, otherwise false. */
		virtual bool seek(const size_t& finalPos, bool relativeMovement = false) = 0;

		//! Get the current position in the file.
		/** \return Current position in the file in bytes. */
		virtual size_t getPos() const = 0;

		//! Get name of file.
		/** \return File name as zero terminated character string. */
		virtual const path& getFileName() const = 0;
	};

	//! Internal function, please do not use.
	IWriteFile* createWriteFile(const io::path& fileName, bool append);

} // end namespace io
} // end namespace irr

#endif

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


You, as an author, are a business! Learn how to manage your writing business the right way.
As an author, the products you produce are books, whether they are ebooks, printed books, or even audiobooks. Your business generates revenues (at least you hope it does) and incurs expenses (which they all do). Wouldn't you like to know how to manage your money and business better?
Money Management for Authors will help you understand business basics and how to manage your money. If you don't know what your business is making or its expenses, then you can't manage it. The system that delivers this information is accounting. This book will give you an easy to understand overview of the accounting you need as an author and a basic system you can put into place today. As a fantasy author, and a former Certified Public Accountant, Tora Moon knows what an author needs to manage their money and business. She has used this expertise to help her make sense of her own writing and publishing career.
No matter where you are in your writing career, or even if you've been selling books without a formal business set up for a while, it's never too late to start to set up, manage, and track your writing business the right way! Get this book to learn how today.
Do you want to learn more about managing your author business the right way?
I'm busy working on the LIVE 7-week online course, Money & Business for Authors: Setting Up and Running Your Writing Business the Right Way, and I will let you know when registration for it opens Spring 2019. Sign up to receive notification when the registration opens, and in the meantime, each month you'll receive business and accounting tips from me.


text:
BASEBALL'S DALTON AND RANDALL SELECTED TO THE WAC PRESEASON ALL-CONFERENCE TEAM
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. - Senior reliever Tanner Dalton and sophomore starter Scott Randall were both selected to the Western Athletic Conference preseason all-conference team, the league announced this morning.
Senior Tanner Dalton made his Hornets debut last season, pitching to a 2-1 record with a 3.02 ERA over 41.2 innings. He led the team in appearances, making 32 last season. That was tied for most in the conference and ranked 28th amongst all NCAA Div. I pitchers.
In addition to leading the team in appearances, Dalton also led the Hornets with 10 saves. His 10 saves in 2018 were tied for third most in the WAC, are tied for fourth most in a single season in program history, and are the most recorded by a Hornets reliever since Sutter McLoughlin recorded a program record 17 in 2013.
Sophomore Scott Randall is Sacramento State's other preseason all-conference selection. The right-hander is just one year removed from being named a Collegiate Baseball Freshman All-America after going 7-3 with a 3.48 ERA over 75.0 innings in 2018.
As a freshman, Randall threw 75.0 innings over 17 games (16 starts) and walked just 14 all year. He ranked among the top five in the WAC in starts, wins, and walks-allowed-per-nine-innings (1.68, 4th).
The full 2019 WAC Preseason all-conference team is below.
The duo are two of eight total returners to a Sacramento State pitching staff that is expected to be a strength this year. Last season, Sacramento State's pitching staff ranked first in the WAC in ERA (3.66), Hits Allowed Per Nine Innings (8.69), Shutouts (7), Strikeout-to-Walk Ratio (3.26), WHIP (1.23), and Walks Allowed Per Nine Innings (2.37). They set a new program record with 456 total strikeouts.
In addition to releasing the preseason all-conference team, the WAC also announced the preseason coaches poll, in which Sacramento State was selected third. They received 69 total points and two first place votes.
Grand Canyon, last year's regular season champion, was picked to repeat, receiving 75 points (5 first place votes) to just barely beat out New Mexico State, who received 74 points (3 first place votes). Conference newcomer, California Baptist, who played to a 35-19 overall record last year, joins the WAC for their first season as a Division I program. They were picked to finish fifth, tied with UT Rio Grande Valley with 37 points. The full 2019 WAC Preseason Coach's Ballot is below.
Hornet Baseball returns to John Smith Field in just two weeks when Sacramento State hosts North Dakota State on Friday, Feb. 15 for Opening Night. Season tickets and single-game tickets are available now and the full schedule can be found online at HornetSports.com.
2019 ALL-WAC BASEBALL
PRESEASON TEAM
Pos. Name, Yr. Team
C Braden Williams, Sr. NM State
1B Caleb Henderson, Sr. NM State
2B Nick Gonzales, So. NM State
3B Austin Lively, Jr. Seattle U
3B Pikai Winchester, Sr. Grand Canyon
SS Joey Ortiz, Jr. NM State
OF Tristen Carranza, Jr . NM State
OF Quin Cotton, Jr. Grand Canyon
OF Jack Pauley, Sr. Northern Colorado
UT/DH Justin Mazzone, So. Seattle U
SP Jake Prizina, Sr. Seattle U
SP Scott Randall, So. Sacramento State
SP Brock Whittlesey, Sr. NM State
RP Tanner Dalton, Sr. Sacramento State
2019 WAC BASEBALL
PRESEASON COACHES POLL
# Team Points (1st Votes)
1. Grand Canyon 75 (5)
2. New Mexico State 74 (3)
3. Sacramento State 69 (2)
4. Seattle U 54
T5. California Baptist 37
T5. UT Rio Grande Valley 37
7. CSU Baksersfield 35
8. Northern Colorado 27
9. Utah Valley 26
10. Chicago State 12


A team led by David Latchman, a geneticist and administrator at University College London, has notched a mysterious retraction in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and has had 25 more papers questioned on PubPeer.
This article has been withdrawn by the authors.
An error was pointed out to us that a single figure panel (Figure 1D) from our paper published in J. Biol. Chem. 2002 v277:13693‐9, had also partially appeared in another paper of ours. Although this data is not crucial for the overall conclusion of our manuscript, we regret that due to this error we had to withdraw this paper.
Finally, it is in our interest that we intent to resubmit our revised manuscript with an amended figure.
The paper has been cited 11 times, according to Thomson Scientific's Web of Knowledge.
Retraction Watch has learned that the University College London received allegations of problems in December 2013, and convened a panel to investigate in the summer of 2014. We've contacted them to find out if this retraction is the first to result from that investigation (see update at the bottom of the post).
Fig. 4B included two magnifications of the same image of Brn-3b-overexpressing cells rather than four independent images as stated in the figure legend. The revised Fig. 4Bincludes four representative images. An additional LTR1 image (left panel) has also been included to distinguish from 3b-as-1 (right panel). These corrections do not affect the interpretation of the results or the conclusions of this work.
The Western blot images that represent Bax and Noxa protein expression in Fig. 4A were reversed, with the Bax image labeled "Noxa" and vice versa. The images are labeled correctly in the revised Fig. 4A. This correction does not affect the interpretation of the results or the conclusions of this work.
We've contacted Latchman for comment, and will update with anything we learn.
UCL has received an anonymous allegation of potential research misconduct concerning UCL staff, which is currently under consideration under its Procedure for Investigating and Resolving Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research.
The process is ongoing and it would be inappropriate for us to comment about named individuals at this stage.
Some errors have been identified in eight publications, and appropriate retractions have taken place. This should not be misinterpreted as an indication that individual authors have been either knowingly or deliberately involved in misconduct, because our processes are not yet complete. UCL is committed to maintaining the integrity and probity of academic research and we now intend to follow and complete our defined processes.
JBC should be ashamed of themselves. These insouciant retraction notices (which are actually called withdrawals, not retractions!) are nothing but an insult to the scientific community.
I am a little concerned that UCL took from December 2013 until the summer of 2014 to convene an investigative panel.
@Fernando Pessoa, the motto of many an official investigation is "Dig deep, sift most finely, but only where there are no skeletons". They may also have found it hard to find "suitable" people to be on the investigative panel. Doubtless the problems identified on PubPeer in the dozen papers will largely be found to be down to "error". Perhaps we need to generate a new jargon now, Type1 error, type 2 error and so on. I note that from the tag line this retraction is not under "dong the right thing".
Indeed a lot of open questions. Stephanou is co-author of many, but not all of Latchman's papers. He rather predictably points out that the incriminated images were "not crucial" to the overall conclusions. He does not seem to have understood. Image manipulations and other forms of data rigging are for science what doping is for sports. You gain an unfair advantage. Each paper submission and each grant application can be seen as a separate competition. If you are doped (i.e. use "beautified" images, invent "non-crucial" findings) you stand a higher chance of winning on this particular occasion, to the honest competitors' detriment. The pointing out that the manipulated figure-based conclusions have later been found to be valid is another popular defence of such intolerable practices. Even if such claims are correct, which they might well be, this makes absolutely no difference. Science is the opposite of guesswork; it is the reporting of experiments and their results. It is not the reporting of someone's expectations of what the results will be, might be, ought to be, or what they hope them to be. It is very troubling that an increasing number of "scientists" are revealed to confuse science with some sort of betting parlour. Equally worrying is the impression that too many of the others do not appear to have a major problem with that. I wonder why?
Am J Cardiol. 2004 Apr 22;93(8A):35A-40A.
Nutritional supplementation with mixed essential amino acids enhances myocyte survival, preserving mitochondrial functional capacity during ischemia-reperfusion injury.
Scarabelli TM1, Pasini E, Stephanou A, Chen-Scarabelli C, Saravolatz L, Knight RA, Latchman DS, Gardin JM.
For reference. Circ Res 90,745.
As Dave Fernig points out, forthright institutional investigations motivated by a quest for The Truth are definitely the exception. It's just going to be better and quicker to bypass the official channels wherever possible. I think any interested scientist is able to draw their own conclusions from the entries on PubPeer.
Funny thing is, once the institutions feel that they are being overtaken by events and that the world is watching, they seem to become a lot more interested in taking action. Ho hum. UCL spokespeople seem to have bent over backwards to reassure the world that they are investigating actively and that it's only a matter of time before they blame someone for those errors, all without commenting on named individuals! The smoke signals suggest to me that they are not going to be standing by their man.
Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2003 Oct 7;117(2):206-12.
Sensory neurons from mice lacking the Brn-3b POU family transcription factor are resistant to death-inducing stimuli both in vitro and in vivo.
Ensor E1, Mathews K, Payne Smith MD, Latchman DS.
1Institute of Child Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.
with figure 3A J Biol Chem 276,5204 (2001).
For reference. J Biol Chem 276,5204.
British medical journal "the Lancet" reporting on David Latchman's retraction and corrections.
It also speaks to the problem of supervisory administrative staff being incapable of poor supervision and sloppy administration when attempting to commit "quality" time to: 1) Too many students; 2) too many grants to manage; 3) too many simultaneous appointments; 4) too many committees; 5) not recognizing the human frailty of over-ambition, best-intentions and at the simple acknowledgement that one commits too thinly to too many ongoing tasks, something has to give. Oftentimes, that means one reputation and credibility.
Surely supervisory administrative staff are adults and can decide which jobs they are able to perform?
While certain modifications of primary data are often needed for clarity and/or brevity, image manipulation for deceptive purposes, to unfairly enhance or eliminate or otherwise obscure data, is misconduct and will be addressed as such.
However, to be perfectly fair to the authors, was this wording or clause even available in 2004 in the journal when they submitted their paper?
Unfortunately, I do not have access to a library with a hard-copy of the 2004 volumes of JBC when presumably this paper was submitted, but undoubtedly many RW readers do. Could someone kindly add the exact wording in the IFA at that time that clearly specifies the issue of authorship responsibilities and accountability, as well as any policies related to figure manipulation, especially splicing.
Pubpeer comments on 42 papers. At the bottom of the first page there is "Load more publications" button. Press it.
Another David Latchman publication has just come under scrutiny.
Another paper where David Latchman is penultimate author, under scrutiny.
Don't forget to press the "load more publications" button at the bottom of the first page of the list.
Previous Previous post: What if universities had to agree to refund grants whenever there was a retraction?