XIAM007

Making Unique Observations in a Very Cluttered World

Thursday, February 17, 2011

‘Death panels’: Canadian court rules baby’s life support removed against parents’ wishes -

‘Death panels’: Canadian court rules baby’s life support removed against parents’ wishes -


One-year-old Joseph Maraachli of Windsor, Ontario will have his life support removed Monday at 10 am. after the Ontario Superior Court today rejected an appeal by the parents to bring him home where he can die under their care.
A leading anti-euthanasia advocate says the decision facilitates a system where doctors are authorized to force life and death decisions on patients, warning that this is, in fact, far worse than the “death panels” recently debated in the U.S. as part of the federal health care law.
“Monday at 10 am they will kill my baby,” Moe Maraachli, Joseph’s father, told LifeSiteNews shortly after the ruling.  “There’s no more humanity.  There’s no more chance.  I’ve tried everything for him.  No more appeals, nothing.”
“I asked them: why not send him to Windsor and let him die at home?” he continued.  “They said they will give him injection, but I don’t want to.”
“I ask God, and maybe he breathe,” he added.
Joseph was taken to Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario in October where he was diagnosed with severe neurological issues. Doctors gave him no chance of recovery.  Moe and his wife Sana have asked doctors to perform a tracheotomy so that they could take Joseph home, but the doctors refused, saying the procedure was too risky.
The Maraachlis’ daughter died from similar complications eight years ago, but in that case doctors performed a tracheotomy and she was able to die at home.  Joseph’s parents want the same for him.
But in January, the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario sided with the hospital, and a date for removing Joseph’s respirator was set.  The family was able to hold it off by filing an appeal with the Superior Court.
Today, Superior Court Justice Helen Rady also sided with the hospital, saying that Joseph is in a permanent vegetative state with no brain stem reflex.  She called it “a sad and difficult case,” according to the London Free Press, and ordered the hospital to allow the parents until Monday at 10 am. “to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes.”
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who has been communicating with the parents, emphasized that they aren’t pushing for extraordinary treatment, just asking to care for their dying child at home.  “They’re arguing that the best way to do that is by doing a tracheotomy so the child can somewhat breathe on his own and care for him while he’s dying,” he explained.
“I don’t get it.  There’s nothing here that I get.  It makes no sense,” he said.  “What is in this for the hospital and the doctor?  Why would they bother doing this?”
“Is it that they want to simply say, we have control?” he asked.  “If it’s about their control, then we’re in serious trouble.  They now control when someone lives and when someone dies, and who makes those decisions, and how those decisions are made.”
Schadenberg said the court appears to be saying that hospitals and doctors can make decisions for patients whether they like it or not.  “It’s worse than the death panel concept that’s being debated in the US.  It really is, it’s much worse,” he said.  “They’re saying ‘we will decide’, they’re not even going to converse with you.  ‘We have the weight of the Court, we have the financial bearing of a massive government institution to be able to force this on you.’”
“That has serious repercussions, because you simply cannot trust the moral authority of the health care institution or the doctors,” he added.
“It’s the hospitals and the doctors once again usurping their power over the people,” he said.  “That’s what’s happening.  And they have significant power - they have the money and the courts behind them.  It’s absolutely ridiculous.”
Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s leading pro-life organization, called the situation “appalling.”  “I don’t understand it.  Do doctors’ rights now trump parental rights?” he asked.  “And what about the right of the child to die in the loving arms of his parents at home?”

Majority of women would give up sex to be skinny - other 49 per cent would rather have great sex and be 30 lbs overweight -

Majority of women would give up sex to be skinny - other 49 per cent would rather have great sex and be 30 lbs overweight -


What would you give up to be skinny? A slight majority–51 per cent–of women in a new diet survey said they would go a full year without sex if it meant they’d be skinny.
The “Diet Confessions Survey,” conducted by Fitness Magazine, asked 2,400 U.S. women about their diet histories and just what lengths they would go to in order to shed pounds.


While that 51 per cent might give up nookie, the other 49 per cent (let’s call them the sane ones) said they would rather have great sex and be 30 lbs overweight.
The survey also found:
-25 per cent have detagged a photo of themselves on Facebook or asked a friend to remove it because they thought they looked fat.
  • 25 per cent said a friend has tried to sabotage their weight loss efforts.
  • 44 per cent said they were on a diet right now.
  • 65 per cent said the size they wear is a bigger deal than the number on the scale.
  • 25 per cent said they eat as much or more than their significant other.
  • Nearly 40 per cent said they went on their first diet when they were in middle school or high school.
  • 43 per cent of women have regularly skipped meals to lose weight.
  • 22 per cent said the hardest part about being on a diet is regularly following a workout plan.

Treasury Secretary Geithner today admitted - Under Obama's budget, total federal spending will increase another 65% -

Treasury Secretary Geithner today admitted - Under Obama's budget, total federal spending will increase another 65% -


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today admitted under questioning from Sen. Sessions that the president's own budget, submitted Monday, calls for interest payments and obligations that are "excessively high" and "unsustainable." The president's plan accumulates $13 trillion in new gross debt, with interest payments on the debt rising to $844 billion a year by 2021.

Additionally, the president's budget ignores the recommendations of his own fiscal commission, causing theDemocrat Co-Chair of the Commission, Erskin Bowles, to remark that the budget "goes nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare."

Under President Obama's budget, total federal spending will increase another 65% by the end of the decade. In fact, accumulated deficits under the president's budget are greater than those in the Congressional Budget Office baseline, which assumes we essentially do nothing.



The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a "conference" on a legal challenge to Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office -

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a "conference" on a legal challenge to Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office -



In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of aconferenceon March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment,a request for a hearing on thearguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.
At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing,pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of theU.S. Supreme Court.

Read more:Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another lookhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EGGcas4M

Is Trump 'flip-flopping' - has changed party affiliation from Republican to Independent to Democrat and back to Republican -

Is Trump 'flip-flopping' - has changed party affiliation from Republican to Independent to Democrat and back to Republican -



 If the Republican Party's nominating process were like Donald Trump's TV show "The Apprentice," could he avoid hearing the words "You're fired"?
"The Donald," as the host of the NBC show, holds competitors to high standards. Consistency is encouraged as well as sticking with one's decisions. But can the would-be Republican presidential candidate meet his own test -- and will conservatives hire him?
In a recent interview, Trump declared that he believes "strongly in just about all conservative principles," is "pro-life" and against gay marriage. He has attacked President Obama's health care law and said that the United States has become the "laughingstock" of the world.
This is the same Donald Trump who has changed party affiliation from Republican to Independent to Democrat and back to Republican, according to a report.
Trump has said in interviews with CNN that he identifies more with Democrats than Republicans; that the party handles the economy better than Republicans; that President George W. Bush was "probably the worst president in the history of the United States"; and suggested that Bush should have been impeached for what Trump called "lies" over a "horrendous mistake": the Iraq war.
In 1999, while flirting with running for president under Ross Perot's Reform Party, Trump told the New York Daily News that he supported abortion rights and universal health care.
Trump and his representatives at the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.
How Trump would shrink federal deficit Donald Trump for president?
RELATED TOPICS
Donald Trump
Republican Party
Elections and Voting
In a Monday interview, Trump defended his conservative bona fides.
"I'm a very conservative person. I'm very big into the military. I'm a great guy for defense," Trump told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. "I am probably as conservative as anybody on your show, and that's going a pretty strong step."
He added: "I'm a very conservative Republican. I believe strongly in just about all conservative principles."
Those comments come on the heels of Trump's appearance last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the high-profile gathering that traditionally serves as an early proving ground for GOP presidential hopefuls.
But Trump's party allegiance, and likely his political principles, could come in to question should he announce a presidential bid.
"I am going to form a presidential exploratory committee," he told CNN's Larry King when he was considering a 1999 run. "And if I felt I couldn't win, I wouldn't run. .... I'm not looking to get more votes than any other independent candidate in history, I'd want to win."
A Daily News report from Monday said that Trump registered with the Independence Party in October 1999, switching from the GOP. The paper cites New York City Board of Elections records.
Trump ultimately never ran for president under the party. And his party ties appear to have changed more since then.
The paper also reported that he became a Democrat in August 2001, according to election records. And in 2004, the real estate mogul praised some Democratic efforts.
In March of that year, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked whether he identified more as a Democrat or as a Republican.
"Well, you'd be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat," Trump said. "And it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. But certainly, we had some good economies under Democrats as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans. Including a thing called the Depression."
In a March 2007 interview with Blitzer, regarding Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who'd lost the presidential race less than three years prior -- Trump said, "That was a shame that that race was lost." He added this about Kerry: "I'm so upset that he blew it."
It was then that Trump unleashed a harsh criticism of Bush.
"Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States." Trump cited the war in Iraq, calling it a "total disaster" and added later: "Look, everything in Washington has been a lie. Weapons of mass destruction -- it was a total lie. It was a way of attacking Iraq."
In the same interview, Trump was again asked if he felt more aligned with Democrats or Republicans.
"I'm very much independent in that way. I go for the person, not necessarily the party. I mean, I vote for Republicans and I vote for Democrats," he said.

Read more - http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/17/donald.trump.issues/index.html?hpt=T2

Walmart Employees Fired for Helping to Capture Alleged Criminal - alleged shoplifter who pulled a gun inside the store -

Walmart Employees Fired for Helping to Capture Alleged Criminal - alleged shoplifter who pulled a gun inside the store -

Four Wal-Mart employees have been fired after management said they violated company policy by disarming an alleged shoplifter who had pulled a gun inside the store.

Lori Poulsen, Justin Richins, Shawn Ray and Gabriel Stewart were all longtime workers at Wal-Mart's Layton, Utah, store. Poulsen was an asset protection coordinator, Richins and Ray were asset protection associates, and Stewart was an assistant manager.

On Jan. 13, employees allegedly witnessed a man identified as Trent Allen Longton take a netbook computer out of the package and stuff it under his shirt. When Longton attempted to leave the store, he was confronted by Poulsen, who escorted him to a nearby office. The two were joined there by Ray, Richins and Stewart, Salt Lake City's Deseret News reported.

Inside the office, Longton allegedly pulled out a loaded handgun and ran toward the office door, which was blocked by Ray, Richins and Stewart. Longton then allegedly grabbed Stewart and shoved the gun into his back. Concerned for their safety, the workers reacted forcefully and disarmed Longton.

In the police incident report, the investigating officer noted that the Wal-Mart employees acted in the "best interest and safety" of those around them. Longton, as it turned out, was a convicted felon who was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Wal-Mart managers, however, disagreed. The following week, the four workers were fired for violating the company's "Investigation and Detention of Shoplifters Policy." The policy instructs employees to retreat if an individual brandishes a weapon.

"If during an approach or investigation, it becomes apparent that the suspect has a weapon or brandishes or threatens use of a weapon; all associates must disengage from the situation, withdraw to a safe position, and contact law enforcement," reads a copy of the policy available online. "If at any point the suspect or any other involved person becomes violent, disengage from the confrontation, withdraw to a safe position and contact law enforcement."

The next paragraph instructs employees to "put people first," stating that protecting the physical well-being of "suspects, customers and Wal-Mart associates is your first priority."

Speaking with the Deseret News last week, the dismissed employees said they had nowhere to go and were forced to subdue the suspect when he charged them. They also said they were not comfortable allowing an armed man into the store area where shoppers could be at risk.

Read more - http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/15/wal-mart-security-employees-fired-for-disarming-store-gunman/