text:
Abortion, Poverty, Contraception, and Promiscuity
There has been much attention given to the latest report that abortions have fallen to their lowest rate in 40 years. The rate of below 17 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 is nearly half of the rate at its peak in 1980. Discussions in the wake of the report have focused on causation, an almost-impossible task given the complexity of the phenomenon of abortion. Isolating causes is certainly not possible, and it seems more reasonable to suggest that more-successful contraception and a more negative public attitude toward the morality of abortion have both contributed to the decline. The question of whether state-level legal restrictions on abortion make any difference is hotly disputed; since these restrictions ordinarily are passed in states where abortions are geographically less available and where the general moral culture is more anti-abortion, it would be hard to know how to separate out these factors.
I want to put these numbers in some larger perspective, by diving more deeply into the statistics about abortion. To me, these raise questions about the level to which one could drive down this abortion rate; as with our economic analysis, a focus on up-or-down trend numbers often obscures the larger phenomenon.
The first issue is the relationship of economic security to abortion. (All data here is taken from Guttmacher's fact sheets from their last survey.) 69% of abortions are for women at 200% of poverty level or below. The abortion rate for women at or below poverty is 52 per 1,000 women (15-44), but their "unintended birth" rate is also very high: 70 per 1,000. Thus, the "unintended pregnancy" rate for poor women is 137 per 1,000 – a number near six times high than that of 200%+ poverty women (26). Guttmacher actually reports that the higher income group is more likely to choose abortion for an unintended pregnancy… but of course is dramatically less likely to have an unintended pregnancy in the first place. These numbers, which really show dramatic group differences, suggest that poverty and abortion must be addressed together. However, the number do NOT suggest that, if women had more economic resources, they would be more likely to choose life. (Otherwise, we would expect a higher ratio of abortions for poor women.) Rather, they suggest that with economic security, women might be less likely to get pregnant in the first place. Indeed, if women below the poverty level continued to get pregnant at the same rate as currently, but had abortions at the rate of wealthier women, the rate of "unintended births" to those in poverty would be over 100 per 1,000!
The above numbers at least raise pragmatic questions about those whose strategy for addressing the problem is to ask, persuade, or coerce women to keep their babies. However, they also raise questions for the common solution proferred by the other side: contraception is the answer. Guttmacher, a very pro-contraception source, notes that the majority (54%) of women seeking abortions report using it either correctly or incorrectly. Of those not using contraception, Guttmacher reports that "About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past." That last sentence is significant; it calls into question the extent to which education and access are really the issue. Guttmacher even tries to determine reasons why women were not using contraception, and a mix of reasons follow, including "unplanned sex" and a perception of "low risk." What Guttmacher doesn't ask is how often this is a case of an unintended pregnancy in a non-stable relationship situation. They do report significantly (without poverty numbers): "More than one in 10 single men indicated that they did not know about the pregnancy until after the child was born. Among single men aware of the pregnancy, nearly three out of four births were reported as unintended." If abortion is strongly connected to the unintended pregnancy rate, and unintended pregnancies are far more frequently reported by in situations of singleness, then perhaps monogamy matters. The question for the contraception side is how you drive down the "unintended pregnancy" rate in light of risky sexual behavior. As they note, the trend for "unintended pregnancy" among poor women is not downward – anything but! In 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line was 88 per 1,000 women aged 15–44; it rose to 120 in 2001 and 137 in 2008—a 56% increase since 1994. At the same time, the rate among higher –income women (those with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) fell from 34 in 1994 to 28 in 2001 and 26 in 2008—a 24% decrease." Even if you increase effective contraception use, an increase in risky sexual behaviors will potentially offset this. The key number that would be helpful to know would be the abortion rate for women whose pregnancies – intended or not – occur in a stable, monogamous relationship. (Aside: the point here is not to throw stones. A public conversation about why we have difficult achieving monogamous relationships even when the vast majority of people desire them would also be helpful. We should be able to have a conversation about the problems of promiscuity without it simply be a stone-throwing contest, just as we can have conversations about the problems of drug use while not simply scapegoating individuals.)
The third issue to raise is the question of the long-term goal. Let's say we have a system of effective contraception access and use, more comprehensive health care, somewhat higher restrictions on abortion availability – where will that get us? This is a description perhaps not far from the situation in Western Europe or (excepting the legal restrictions) among higher-income American women. Western Europe has the lowest abortion rate of any region in the world (about 12 per 1,000) and Guttmacher's numbers suggest an abortion rate of about 14 per 1,000 for higher-income women. If we consider these numbers a kind of ideal-condition floor, let's say the overall abortion rate dropped to 14 or even 12 in the U.S. – a stuation where we would have between 600,000 and 800,000 abortions every year. It would be hard for anyone to suggest that we had reached a point where abortion is "rare" with these kinds of numbers. I'm not sure what proposals pro-contraception-availability advocates have to lower the rate any further than this. I suppose "long-acting" birth-control methods, which reduce error rates, are the key ones. However, I think this is also a situation where we again have to talk about sexual behavior and say that avoiding risky – and perhaps the better term is "promiscuous" – sexual behaviors is a necessary and reasonable part of reducing abortions and even unintended pregnancies.
One way to consider a mature, reasonable public conversation on this issue would be for Catholics, while not requiring any change in magisterial teaching, to admit that it is plausible in a pluralistic society to view contraception as a legitimate public health and welfare issue. Insofar as Catholic tolerate legal contraception availability (which it seems we do) and do not attempt to criminalize officially immoral sexual behaviors (which we do not), there is a space for real conversation. One might here consider the "gradualism" indicated in Pope Benedict's well-know remarks in his Light of the World interview. But correspondingly, folks like the Guttmacher Institute could admit that public discouragement of promiscuous sexual behavior should be a necessary part of their aim to reduce unintended pregnancies. There are many corresponding cases where social changes in behavior really do happen by strong discouragement. Publicly discouraging promiscuity is at least as important as, say, public discouraging of tobacco use, and just as the glamorization of tobacco use in movies was subject to very strong backlash, so too might the same be done in popular culture for promiscuous sexual behavior. To make another comparison, the glamorization of promiscuity can be criticized with the same weight given to those who speak out against denigrating media portrayals of women and African-Americans – like these, it is not a matter of passing laws but of changing what we deem as acceptable. A bridge-building conversation would be one where we had both, not just one or the other.
About the Author
David Cloutier is associate professor of theology at Mount St. Mary's University and editor of catholicmoraltheology.com. He is the author of The Vice of Luxury (2015), Walking God's Earth: The Environment and Christian Ethics (2014), and Love, Reason, and God's Story: An Introduction to Catholic Sexual Ethics (2008). In fall 2016, he is starting a position at the Catholic University of America.
33 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
One way to consider a mature, reasonable public conversation on this issue would be for Catholics, while not requiring any change in magisterial teaching, to admit that it is plausible in a pluralistic society to view contraception as a legitimate public health and welfare issue. Insofar as Catholic tolerate legal contraception availability (which it seems we do) and do not attempt to criminalize officially immoral sexual behaviors (which we do not), there is a space for real conversation.
My view is that the church's contribution to that conversation is to cheer the good public health outcomes while deploring the use of contraception in bringing about those public health outcomes; and to teach that adherence to its moral code - including living monogamous relationships, eschewing promiscuity and generously accepting children - is a holier way of living that also happens to bring about even better public health outcomes. This is, or should be, the status quo - would be the status quo if the church could find its voice and its nerve to talk about monogamy, promiscuity and the generous acceptance of children.
The problem of abortion is not because of promiscuity,in my opinon. In Europe young people are promiscuous but abortion rates are low.Neither is the problem one of access to contraception.Not to be glib, but really; people have abortions because they can. This is why wealthier women have more abortions then the poor. Because it's legal, an unintended pregnancy becomes a matter of evaluating whether one should continue with the pregnancy or not. If abortion were illigal for most of this population[wealthier, educated married women] abortion would not be thought of as necessary for the betterment of the woman or her family.For poor young and yes promiscuous women the truth is, that many if not most young poor women want to have babies. It is not an accident that in Europe where poverty as we know it here does not exist[the governement entilements are distributed more uniformly hence no stigma is attached to partaking of it] young promiscuous women don't want to have babies and abortion rates are low.The poor[here] want babies because when you're poor ,having a baby is a source of joyful anticipation;something to look forward to.The idea of having a baby is seen as a celebratory event in an otherwise disempowering life. Being a mother also gives status to a young empoverished girl.So many young empoverished and yes promiscuius girls want to get pregnant and will take a chance that the father of their child will accept the situation. Abortions rates are high among this group because ,since abortion is legal, young women give in to the demands of the father or other authority figures who convince them their lives will be hard and awful if they have a baby.The reality is ,however that these pregnancies are not unwanted, or even unintended by the young girl but she caves to pressure and has the abortion.But young women also know that it is culturally, politically incorrect to say they want to have a baby even though they're not sufficiently educated, have no job and /or, are engaged in promiscuous sex. Because it is not acceptable to say , that even under these circumstances they want to have a baby[which is natural to want when you're young and poor] they take their cue from the culture and give a narrative about unintended pregnancy and failure of the birth control to work. They know this is the only culturally acceptable narrative they can say as it deflects from having to justify how you could want a baby when you are poor.The culture does not understand or accept this. Saying you want to have a baby though you have no money, no education, no job ,no husband ,is not acceptable.They give a false narrative rather then own up to the timeless natural tendency of the poor to find joy in having babies.
people have abortions because they can. This is why wealthier women have more abortions then the poor.
I do think there is something to this. To take this to its logical conclusion, one would then expect that it will be decried as an injustice - another way inequality victimizes the poor! - that anyone has to pay anything at all for an abortion. I suppose sooner or later we'll be considering the wisdom of an HHS abortion mandate.
I'm a bit confused by why you think that proponents of contraception need to find a way to lower the abortion rate below the supposed floor. The unstated assumption seems to be that banning abortion would reduce the abortion rate below this floor, but Europe having a lower abortion rate than regions that do ban abortions implies that this is not true.
Whatever the reason or reasons, this is good news.
" ... deploring the use of contraception in bringing about those public health outcomes ..."
If increased use of contraception has anything to do with this drop in abortions, then I APPLAUD the use rather than deplore it.
Way too many Catholics want to make the perfect (assuming that not using contraception is "perfect") the enemy of the good ... the lowering of the abortion rate.
Rather than condemning contraception, perhaps the church needs to show how *traditional morality* is basically "divine common sense", i.e., demonstrate from a practical standpoint how abiding by God's rule/plan can prevent one's "getting into trouble" in the first place. This approach would not necessarily preclude *responsible* use of contraception if heterosexual marriage were acknowedged primarily as a means of companionship and not "baby-making".
My view is that the church's contribution to that conversation is to cheer the good public health outcomes while deploring the use of contraception in bringing about those public health outcomes; and to teach that adherence to its moral code ... is a holier way of living that also happens to bring about even better public health outcomes.
To put it midly, this is a bunch of pious bull-pucky. For my sensibilities, Mae West had it about right: "When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad I'm better."
I seem to remember that for clerics when it comes to having extra-celibate relationships or sexually abusing and exploiting children, priests and bishops don't seem to be overly concerned about "monogamous relationships, eschewing promiscuity and generously accepting children."
As the statistics cited above indicate, Catholics should advocate the use of contraception for all sexually active groups because it decreases rates of abortion - that is an intrinsically good thing, as my moral philosophy professor used to say.
Besides, it would be a lot less hypocritical [to advocate for contraception] since the vast majority of Catholic women - like the rest of the population in general - use contraception. It's how we live in the 21st century.
Why make arbitary distinctions based on economic status? Contraception is just good public health practice - for especially women. [And, not just for reasons of contraception.]
JIm J. ==
If a slave owner in 1840 told you that at that time "that's just the way we live", I'm quite sure you wouldn't consider that a moral justification for slavery. So why is it OK to say, "Promiscuously is just the way we live. So that makes it OK"?
You're dodging the problem. And the problem is that unwed mothers on average have children who do not flourish in important ways, and promiscuity is part of the reason that they have children out of wedlock..
JIm J. ==
If a slave owner in 1840 told you that at that time "that's just the way we live", I'm quite sure you wouldn't consider that a moral justification for slavery. So why is it OK to say, "Promiscuously is just the way we live. So that makes it OK"?
You're dodging the problem. And the problem is that unwed mothers on average have children who do not flourish in important ways, and promiscuity is part of the reason that they have children out of wedlock..
The church can't encourage the use of sinful - evil - means even for a good end.
In our secular culture, many people believe that this is simply a public policy discussion. The church agrees it is a public policy discussion, but contributes to the discussion by insisting that the discussion actually is about the intersection of personal morality and public policy. The church claims that the personal moral dimension is critical to getting this right, and in fact, adhering to the church's moral teaching brings about good outcomes along both dimensions - the personal morality dimension and the public policy dimension.
Like Fr Masia, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry when Catholics get into yet another tizzy about contraception. http://iglesiadescalza.blogspot.jp/2014/01/response-to-synod-on-family.html
Contraceptives are freely available in 7 of the 8 Catholic hospitals in Detroit, as the obnoxious "Vortex" person showed. All Catholics use contraception or condoms when required. The Mishnah and Talmud kept up an earnest debate on the rubrics of sacrificial rituals for centuries, long after these rituals no longer existed. I suspect that centuries from now Catholics will still be flogging this dead horse, as a talmudist badge of their identity!
Jim Pauwels says that adhering to Humanae Vitae brings about good outcomes. The Rabbis argued in the same way that correct performance of sacrificial rituals produced good outcomes.
But ironically no one was practicing these rituals, just as no one is adhering to the contraception ban, so measuring the alleged good outcomes became quite an academic matter.
no one is adhering to the contraception ban
Except that's not true. There are people who adhere to the contraception ban. Being married and adhering to the contraception ban isn't a theoretical construct; there are people today who are giving living witness to it. I'd think many of us can point to people - family members, friends - who have lived this way. My mother lived this way.
And of course, contraception within marriage is only one aspect of the matters under discussion. Humanae Vitae doesn't address the question of contraception use outside of marriage, but pregnancies outside of marriage apparently are a major contributor to the decision to abort. Statistics are presented in the very post to which we're commenting that a significant percentage of sexually active unmarried women don't contracept. The church has important things to tell them, too.
Joeph O'Leary, Christians have this weird impulse to "use Jews to think with." I think that taking away Christians' opportunity to use Pharisees as the bogeyman in arguments would be like taking away a baby's bottle. You are doing the same thing with th rabbis. The situations are not analagous, and it's insulting.
Ann Olivier: To paraphrase Mae West, "Promiscuity has nothing to due with it." You can always tell when a people are arguing from a weak position is when they use really bad analogies to either the Nazis, and/or to slavery. Contraception is not in any way comparable to the complete violation of human rights that chattel slavery based on racial biogtry was. Dodging? Really? Olivier you should know better that the "problems" facing the children of unwed mothers are both compound and multi-variate. Let's can all the bromides, please.
Jim Pauwels: Since facts seem to have little effect upon you, I won't go through all the struggle to get you to see the reality of women's reproductive rights and practice. While I'm sure your mother was indeed saintly, that was another place and time when women were socially and economically confined, to say the least. I'd like to meet some of these people "who are giving living witness to [it] - presumably you mean: "adhering to the contraception ban". In over thirty years of clinical practice I have never, never met a woman - poor or wealth - who chose to "abort" factored primarily on their marital status. Trust me Pauwels, a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is more complicated than than you would have us believe.
Jim J. --
My argument isn't about slavery and contraception. Those topics were just examples to illustrate my argument. My argument is aboout your clearly expressed principle in defense of contraception or abortion that "it's how we live, so it's a better path". So how do you defend that principle?
And, no, I'm not even arguing about contraception (I support it). i'm arguing about your proposed moral principle.
The difficulty that the Catholic Church is having with sexual morality stems from it currently rules based. You take a checklist and answer a series of questions. If an act has all the right answers, it is good. If it gets one question wrong, it is bad.
This makes it impossible to adapt sexual morality to each new age. There are fundamental values, but these are filtered through practical realities as well as each age's prejudices. A renewed focus on what are the fundamental values of Christian sexual morality would help us sort this out and once again be able to make statements that are capable of persuading people. Pope John Paul II tried to do something along these lines with his Theology of the Body, but it failed because it was more concerned with maintaining the form of the existing structure than building a firm foundation.
I think Ryan Rowekamp is essentially correct.
Recently a group of German theologians published a critique of Catholic Church teachings on human sexuality and marriage, and proposed a new sexual understanding for the church. Their ideas may be a life-line that will help the hierarchs to climb out of the [human sexuality] ditch they've fallen into. We'll see ...
@ Ann Olivier: Apparently, unlike you Ann, I believe that there is an intrinsic moral validity to human development when the overwhelming, super-majority of humans adopt a certain way of thinking and behavior - not perfect by any means, but at least it is democratic. The "principle" that I would defend is called human biological, social, intellectual, psychological, political, etc. evolution. The hierarchs keep digging in that hole they've fallen into instead of embracing the inexorable march of evolution [which I would posit is actually the way, or modern understanding of the way that God speaks to us, how She speaks to us!
Jim J. --
Hmm. Interesting. Sounds like a proto-natural law theory. You seem to think that a behavior can be *known* to be right when all you know is that everyone agrees that it is right. You're not saying that thinking makes it right, but universal thinking does make it *known* to be right.
But in a mature natural law theory general acceptance of a behavior is not enough to *show* that something is morally right or wrong. Understanding of *why* the super-majority accepts a certain behavio r is needed so as to reveal the goodness of that sort of action/inaction. It is always possible that the reason a whole people accepts a certain behavior or condemns a behavior might be and sometimes is purely a local reason and unreliable.
There are, I think, some problems with the foundations of the usual Thomistic natural law theory, so there's a good bit of room for discussion and argument about it. But I still think it's the best basic theory so far.
I think the data are compatible with the possibility that making contraceptives more available (via Obamacare) would reduce the abortion rate. The women who use contraception incorrectly, or formerly used contraception but stopped, often did so because of economic factors. Using the pill incorrectly often means skipping some days to "stretch" a pack of pills for a longer period of time, because it's barely affordable. Stopping taking the pill often occurs because some other expense meant that the woman simply could not buy her pills this month, or could not afford the co-pay on a doctor's visit to renew the prescription.
Mass incarceration of low income men, especially African-American men, is a huge part of the problem. It's asking a lot of women to achieve stable monogamy when something like a third of the potential husbands are either in prison or, in the case of African-American men with criminal records, essentially unemployable. (And it's important in justice to remember that low income African Americans routinely go to jail for offenses that affluent people are given a pass for. Both Rush Limbaugh and Cindy McCain committed drug violations that would have meant serious prison time for a person who could not afford expensive lawyers and expensive private rehab programs.)
I do think the Catholic bishops are out of touch with reality if they think their minimum wage hospital and university employees- including non-Catholic employees with no moral qualms about contraception- should be expected to practice abstinence or NFP and support any children that they have on $7.25 an hour.
I've been involved in a charity that helps abandoned street children in Romania. Why so many abandoned children? The former communist dictator, Ceaucesescu, banned both abortion and contraception in order to increase population size, while keeping the people impoverished. (Since he was a dictator, he was able to keep abortion truly rare: abortionists risked getting shot.) The result was a huge problem of parents abandoning children they could not support. This experience has taught me that a society CANNOT force parents to bear and care for children beyond what the parents can afford. If financially stressed people have not internalized the theology of the body in their heart- and most people have not- taking away their contraceptives will only lead to abortion or other forms of harm to children.
I went to a secular college and am very grateful that I didn't go to the Jesuit college next door. I took a couple of philosophy courses there and had many friends there, and I'm convinced that had I gone there I might not be Catholic today. The general (though not complete) lack of self-criticism was appalling, and I wanted nothing to do with the place.
Things have changed there, thank God, as they have in many of the old-style Catholic colleges. But there are still a few where self-criticism isn't included in academic life. The scary part is that the monied Catholics who support Catholic colleges generally seem to be mainly highly closed-minded people themselves, though I'm not absolutely sure of that. (Notre Dame gets a LOT of dough from Catholic donors. Maybe the Catholic liberals concentrate on it.) At any rate, money talks, and if rich Catholics quit giving because they don't understand the reason for academic freedom/self-criticism, then Catholic colleges are just as doomed as Catholic lower schools.
We'll see if Francis succeds in prying open the minds of the Catholic troglodytes, including those in the Vatican, and whether he inspires us all to more self-criticism. No self-criticism (and that includes criticism of the Faith as we understand it), no more Catholic schools..
Ann Olivier: If that Thomistic thinking works for you, knock yourself out. "Proto-natural law" is just to prescriptive for me.
The problem for the church: While Aquinas was certainly an advance for the church marrying its ethics with the Greek ancients' philosophy, it is that it has been stuck in that paradigm which assumes a static reality of the universe [pre-Coperican] always structured in constricting dualisms [good vs. evil] where there is a presumption of a deposit of universal truth [natural law] - unfortunately given the church's feudal patriarchal political structure it appropriated to itself the sole authority to discern what that is truth for the rest of us.
For me, I believe that reality is a social contruction where humans collectively are constantly discovering their truth in an ever evolving consciousness. Truth is product of a communal distillation process where the group over time - centuries really - come to consensus about what is real for them.
[For example: Evolutionists and biologists now talk about how "democracy" - a social contruction - is how social species decide when to migrate, where to go, nutritional choices, etc. And, we're not talking herd mentality here! Look it up.]
In this vision of human evolution, the Catholic hierarchy is a vestigial organ that no longer functions or contributes to the general welfare - thus, the clerics are shrinking in real terms every day. In our time, the People have surged ahead in their growing consciousness and understanding of what is meaningful [i.e., the Truth] about their own lived existence - all without the benefit or involvement of the hierarchs. [Isn't this what Ratzinger really meant when he would rant on about "moral relativism"?]
This is why the vast majority of women in general - Catholic women included - and growning numbers of men, have concluded that each woman is possessed of the right to reproductive freedom. Thus, humans have a right to circumscribe their reproduction and their expressed sexuality.
I know that this makes the hierarchs crazy. They're not in control anymore. History and culture has left them behind on the dust heap of history.
[Noticed yesterday the Vatican's narcissistic whinning reaction to the U.N. Committee on Children's scathing report on the sexual abuse and exploitation of children by priests and bishops. "How dare the U.N. tell us that our ethics and praxis is repressive and antiquatedm, needs to evolve!!!"]
I think there is a couple of fundamental flaws to this article's suggestions.
One way to consider a mature, reasonable public conversation on this issue would be for Catholics, while not requiring any change in magisterial teaching, to admit that it is plausible in a pluralistic society to view contraception as a legitimate public health and welfare issue.
The problem here is that this would require a change in magisterial teaching. The Church teaches that the willful act of contraception is an intrinsic evil. She also teaches that we may not do evil that good may come of it. Therefore, to embrace a notion that contraception can play a legitimate role in society would require the rejection of one or both other these megisterial teachings.
But correspondingly, folks like the Guttmacher Institute could admit that public discouragement of promiscuous sexual behavior should be a necessary part of their aim to reduce unintended pregnancies.
There are some advocates of contraception who really do see it as a way to reduce abortions. However, I don't think Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood can be included in their number. Guttmacher was formed when PP spun off their research arm in an attempt to give it more credibility. It may be a separate organization now, but the ideology remains the same. And we have to remember that PP is a business. It's business is abortion. While "98%" of it's services may not be abortion, abortion is it's #1 source of income. So it should not be surprizing that PP's other services actually foster its abortion business. Even it's contraception business fosters its abortion business. It focuses its contraception offerings on condoms and low-dose hormonal contraceptives, which are known to have higher failure rates when used properly and also have higher rates of improper use. They focus their contraception offerings on populations that their own research has shown to have higher rates of improper use, the youth and low-income populations. Their "sex ed" materials actually promote promiscuity and "experimentaion" and break down moral objections to sex outside of marriage. And then, when the contraceptives they promote fail the people who have bought into the culture they've created, PP is there with their abortion services.
All that depends on the notion that contraceptives lower the abortion rate. Every study that has been done has shown that the introduction of widespread contraception use raises the abortion rate in a society. It is only after the introduction of widespread contraceptive use has raised the abortion rate that mainstreaming of contraception and improvments in contraception use then reduces the abortion rate. But the abortion rate is still higher than it was before the introduction of widespread contraception use. The people who advocate for contraception as a means of reducing abortion alway focus on phase two, the decrease in abortion that results from improving contraception usage. They ignore phase one, the increase in abortion that results from introducing contraception into the society in the first place. We have to remember that since no form of contraception is perfect, contraception makes abortion a necesity.
The only way to reduce the abortion rate is to reduce sex outside of stable relationships that will welcome a child. A contraceptive culture fosters the opposite.
Another interpretation of the data: http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/article/regulating-abortion-reduces-ab...
Effective contraception prevents abortion. Period.
The reason that all the doctors on the Institute of Medicine panel recommended contraceptive coverage, including counseling, as an essential component of the Affordable Care Act is that 100% reliable contraception (e.g. implantable hormone delivery systems which provide continuously effective contraception for up to two years) is expensive. More affordable means of contraception are not nearly as reliable. The Washington University study showed the effectiveness of free and reliable contraception with respect to dramatically lowering unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates.
Native born Dutch in Holland have free abortion on demand yet have an abortion rate of 1/3 that of American Catholics. That speaks volumes about the relative effectiveness of contraception versus moral teaching in actually preventing abortions.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI directly stated that lesser evils may be tolerated in some instances if they prevent greater evils. He then went on to say that contraception wasn't justified to prevent such things as family stress and bringing new children into situations of poverty. But he didn't consider the issue of contraception to prevent abortion.
It comes down to this: if you really are serious about preventing abortion on a population basis, you shouldn't stand in the way of efforts to educate and counsel young women in matters relating to contraception and stand in the way of efforts to make 100% effective contraception available to women who choose to take the opportunity to obtain this level of contraceptive protection.
The idea of making criminals of women and doctors who find themselves in the position of having to decide whether or not to terminate a given pregnancy is loathsome, compared to the alternative to providing contraceptives so that these women need never be faced with the need to consider whether or not to choose to have abortions.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
"More affordable means of contraception are not nearly as reliable."
Larry --
I vaguely remember that contraception failed for about 1 out of 14 users. Is that the right figure these days? That would mean that out of 28 users, 2 would probably get pregnant. What are the figures these days, or are there any figures about probable failure?
Surely people ought to be given the odds of whether or not a method will work.
Hi Ann, Just now saw your Q. I'll get you a proper reference, w links...sometime in next day. - Larry W
wineinthewater- I don't think your conclusion follows from your premises. Both Augustine and Aquinas said that a Christian society could tolerate an intrinsic evil if the results of prohibiting it were worse than the evil itself. (They were thinking of prostitution which they believed reduced the occurrence of rape.) A similar argument would say, since abortion is clearly a much, much graver evil than contraception, that people who are not converted to the Theology of the Body should be encouraged to contracept rather than abort.
Can you identify these studies that say that the introduction of contraception increases abortion? And what are these societies in which contraception is suddenly introduced, being previously unknown? Contraception is as old as history. Blocking the cervix with acacia gum (which is both sticky and somewhat spermatocidal) was used in anchient Mesopotamia. Coitus interruptus is as old as the Old Testament and was well known to the Greeks and Romans. Silphium and wild carrot were consumed to prevent pregnancy since Roman times (unfortunately, they were probably abortifacients, not contraceptives). Some of the herbal brews used in the Middle Ages as contraceptives were probably at least somewhat effective. Medieval manuals for confessors discussed when married women should be questioned about contraceptive practices, both herbal and withdrawal. The condom goes back to the 18th century.
Ann Oliver: the failure rate varies by method, and also there is a different failure rate for the "typical user" vs. the "perfect user". The most reliable method is the hormonal implant, with a 0.05% yearly failure rate. The IUD is also below 1%, but it is probably at least partly an abortifacient. The pill is 9% for an average user, but 0.3% for a perfect user. The diaphragm is 12% for an average user, but 6% for a perfect user. Condoms 18% typical, 2% perfect. Spermacide 28% typical user, 18% perfect user. (Since condom and spermacide are often used together, a little math gives us 5% typical, 0.4% perfect for the combo.) Withdrawal 22% typical, 4% perfect. These figures are from the Guttmacher Institute, but the failure rates for "typical" agree with those from the US Center for Disease Control. (Links: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html, http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm)
I'm hopeful that the reliability of the pill will improve with Obamacare since many of the incorrect users were poor women stretching their pill supply by skipping some days which hopefully they will no longer need to do.
Thanks, Larry.
Hmm. Except for the hormonal implant, the odds of the other means for typical users don't look like they've improved. The pill fails in the typical user in about 1 in 10 cases. (You'd best check my math.) I'd call that quite high. Most of the other methods fail in almost 1 out of 5 cases for the typical users, which is twice as bad as the pill.
Looks like a great deal more R&D needs to be done before contraception can be considered even near reliable for most people.
Hi Ann,
Here are up to date, relevant reviews:
The take home messages are these:
Barrier methods aren't very reliable, because there is too high an incidence of "operator error."
Traditional oral contraceptives are reasonably reliable, but there is a failure rate, because the "operator" must take the pills faithfully, on schedule, and, in real life this doesn't invariably occur.
IUDs are very effective, but there is controversy concerning whether they work by preventing implantation or by increasing the thickness and viscosity of cervical mucous. The implantation prevention method is considered to be a type of abortion, according to Church doctrine.
The subdermal implantable hormone depot is even more effective than the IUD (in fact, it's virtually 100% effective - virtually the same pregnancy prevention rate as in the case of tubal ligation). It unambigously does NOT cause any type of abortion. It is fully reversible. The only downside is that it's expensive, which is why the doctors on the Institutes of Medicine panel recommended unanimously to make coverage for contraception a mandatory component of ObamaCare.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Thanks for the comments. I need to respond to wineinthewater and the story Holly Taylor Coolman posted. (1) Tolerating a lesser evil on a societal level has long-standing support in the Catholic tradition. It is presumably the status quo position for Catholics in societies where contraception is legal and widely available. (2) However, this does not solve the question of whether such toleration is prudent. My argument is that it is prudent, although such toleration should be accompanied by demands to include the problem of promiscuity in the social debate. While it seems difficulty to say that non-promicuous sex is the "only way" to reduce the abortion, I do think that it is the best way to reduce both abortion and and the problems for children of unstable family relationships, AND that sources like Guttnmacher ignore the problem of what I called the "floor" level of abortion that remains even after addressing issues of contraception availability, health care, etc. (3) Castigating Guttmacher because of its (obvious) agenda and connections to PP isn't really my point - in a sense, this is not much different than the tendency of some secular commentators to plug their ears against the Church because of the clergy sex abuse scandal. I wasn't suggesting that I buy wholesale into Guttmacher's claims that abortion restrictions have no effect - only that it is unclear to me how far such restrictions can go in addressing the problem if we can't have the larger conversation that I suggested.
A few random thoughts...
1. To the article author- Please do not suggest using the demonization tactics of the anti-smoker movement for anything else. This is one of the most insidious and hateful propaganda campaigns against a group of people I have ever seen and should have never been allowed to go beyond common sense health warnings and education. Do we really want to stir up hatred against people who are promiscuous too?
2. As long as we live in a society that denigrates and devalues human beings by reducing them, and their relationships with each other, to market commodities, how can one think there is a way to reduce promiscuity within this context? That is what nobody will talk about.
3. Along those lines, how about the idea that the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure for its own sake is pointless and the end it leads to nothing but emptiness and pain? Have enough people thinking like that though, and our entire consumer economy collapses.
4. A truly intimate relationship with another person may or may not involve sexual relations and goes far beyond that in any case. In fact the very idea of an intimate monogamous permanent relationship flies in the face of our feel good, get what you can, never sacrifice anything for anybody else selfish society which we live in. Even the word intimacy has been cooped to mean a sexual relationship, and in a lot of cases a fleeting and meaningless one.
5. I had raised the Ceaucescu issue in another publication years ago - I asked if those who say abortion is the "only issue" during elections would have considered him to be pro-life and voted for him. Never heard back on that one.
6. I feel that the church makes a grave error in lumping abortion and contraception together. These are two very different things, and one at least to me is obviously a much graver issue than the other. But I do not get this sense of moral clarity from the church at all - rather what I take away from the church position is if someone prevents a life from being in the first place, it is the same as taking a life. I find this thinking morally repugnant and dangerous.


text:
Yarn Dog
- Colored rug yarn or thick 8-ply knitting wool
- Paper
- White glue or glue stick
- Dog photos or pictures
- Cardboard
Trace a large clear picture of a dog onto the cardboard. This is just the basic outline, so don't worry about it looking exactly like the picture. Draw a mouth and eyes and outline the ears and tail. Cut the yarn or wool into one or two-inch strands. Use an egg carton to separate the colors and to make selecting and handling of yarn easier. Show your child how to glue the yarn strands onto the dog outline, creating fur-like patterns. Once the dog is finished, give the dog a name and make up a story explaining how the dog came to have such brightly colored fur.
From 365 Days of Creative Play by Sheila Ellison & Judith Gray. Copyright © 2005 by Sheila Ellison & Judith Gray. All rights reserved. Used by arrangement with Sourcebooks, Inc.
Buy the book at www.amazon.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Your tax-deductible gift to the Naval Institute Press underwrites worthy books that might not otherwise be published.
A sailor's extraordinary experiences on board an American submarine in the Pacific are candidly reported in this eyewitness account of war from a torpedoman's perspective. Robert Hunt managed to survive twelve consecutive war patrols in the submarine USS Tambor. During the course of the war, Hunt was everywhere that mattered in the Pacific. He stood on the bow of the Tambor as it cruised into Pearl Harbor just days after the devastation of the Japanese air raid, peered through binoculars as his boat shadowed Japanese cruisers at the Battle of Midway, ferried guns and supplies to American guerrilla fighters in the Philippines, fired torpedoes that sank vital Japanese shipping, and survived a near-fatal, seventeen-hour depth-charge attack. For "exceptional skill and proficiency at his battle station" Hunt received a commendation from Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. This WWII torpedoman's account of the war offers the rare perspective of an enlisted seaman that is not available in the more common officer accounts.
To capture and recount the progress of the Pacific War through Hunt's eyes coauthors Robert Schultz and James Shell examined the young submariner's war diary, as well as crew letters, photographs, and captains' reports, and they also conducted hours of interviews. Their vivid descriptions of the ways in which sailors dealt with the stress of war while at sea or on liberty show a side of the war that is rarely reported. The fact that Hunt's submarine was the first of a new fleet of World War II boats and the namesake of a significant class adds further value to his remarkable story.
Robert Schultz is the Fishwick Professor of English at Roanoke College in Virginia. His books include a novel, The Madhouse Nudes, and two collections of poetry. He has received a National Endowment for the Arts Literature Award in Fiction, Cornell University's Corson Bishop Poetry Prize, and from The Virginia Quarterly Review, the Emily Clark Balch Prize for Poetry. Online at: http://www.robertschultz.us/
James Shell has had fiction, nonfiction, and poetry published in The Roanoke Times, Jazz, College Poetry Review, Single Living, Ideas at Work, Artemis, Raconteur, GlennGould, and the University of Toronto Quarterly. A resident of Salem, VA, this is his first published full-length work.
Praise for We Were Pirates
"An absorbing depiction of a submariner's life both afloat and ashore."
— The Ensign, Fall 2011
"We Were Pirates in its honesty along has a compelling ring of authenticity that sets it apart from many wartime reminiscences. No, this isn't how Hollywood recorded the submarine war in Destination Tokyo, but it is a remarkable story told from a rare perspective that adds luster to the heroic record of American submariners in the Pacific War."
— Sea Classics


text:
Health & Pregnancy
William and Kate Welcome Their Royal Baby
July 22, 2013 -- It's a prince!
The newest addition to the royal family, the first child of the duke and duchess of Cambridge, was born at 4:24 p.m. London time and weighed 8 pounds, 6 ounces.
An official announcement posted on an ornate, gold-colored easel inside the gates of Buckingham Palace says Kate Middleton was "safely delivered of a son." The brief announcement continued: "Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well."
The child was delivered in the private Lindo Wing of St Mary's Hospital in West London, where the late Diana, princess of Wales, had her two sons, Princes William and Harry.
William was there for the birth, like most modern dads. The baby is third in line to the throne.
Reports suggest Kate will move back in with her parents for at least the first 6 weeks after leaving the hospital. Kate's parents, Michael and Carole Middleton, have a manor house in Berkshire.
Phil Dampier, author of What's in the Queen's Handbag and Other Royal Secrets, can understand that choice: "William likes the Middletons' normal lifestyle and knows that Kate is relaxed in that environment, and that her mum Carole will help out with the new baby."
Many royals employ a maternity nurse after the birth, but Kate is reportedly breaking with this tradition. Similarly, nannies have been a mainstay of royal life for centuries, but Kate and William apparently don't intend to employ a full-time nanny for their child either. "William will be hands on, too. He'll want to change nappies and read to his child," Dampier says.
"It was a totally different story for the queen and Prince Charles," he says of William's grandmother and father. "When he [Charles] was a child, he didn't see her sometimes for months on end."
Dampier predicts that William and Kate will need extra help on the child front as time goes by. "In the end they may have to have a nanny," he says. "It won't be long before Will leaves the armed forces and takes on full-time royal duties, so there just won't be the time for the couple to look after a child or children all of the time."


text:
Elon Lindenstrauss explains in his talk at the MSRI in Fall 2008 (the relevant comment is at minute 41 of the video) that the set of large Fourier coefficients of a probability measure $\mu$ on the torus ${\mathbb T}^n$ respects the additive structure. More precisely, he defines
$$A_{\delta} := \lbrace b \in {\mathbb Z}^n \mid |\hat \mu(b)| \geq \delta \rbrace$$
and says that it is "morally" true that $A_{\delta} - A_{\delta} \subset A_{\delta^2}$. (Here, the difference of two subsets is defined to be the set of all possible differences of elements in the respective subsets.) The precise statement (according to Lindenstrauss) is a consequence of the Balog-Szemeredi-Gowers Lemma.
Can someone provide the precise statement or give some hint how the lemma can be used to obtain bounds on Fourier coefficients?


text:
Processing Time - Orders typically ship in 2-5 business days. Transit via UPS Ground can take up to 6 business days. Braided and custom-made products may take 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.
Free Shipping to Contiguous United States - We do not ship to Alaska, Hawaii or the Caribbean Islands at this time.
Oversized items - Orders that ship freight may take up to 2 weeks from shipment date to be delivered. You will be contacted by the trucking company to schedule a delivery appointment.
Shipping to Canada - Orders shipping to Canada will be subject to a 15% shipping surcharge fee. The shipping surcharge does not cover duties, customs, taxes or brokerage fees which may be charged to you by the shipping courier at time of delivery. At this time we are not shipping to Yukon and the Northwest Territories in Canada.
- Style Number: 265T058GOBK
- Collection: Designer
- Brand: The American Home Rug Company
- Material: 90% Wool, 10% Silk
- Weave: Hand Tufted
- Styles: Traditional Rugs
- Origin: India
- Returns: Returns Accepted Within 14 Days of Delivery.
The American Home Designer Rug Collection is a brilliant collection of expertly handmade rugs featuring the most beautiful upscale traditional designs at remarkable prices. The velvety dense lush pile is hand-tufted made of 100% Wool with some styles containing beautiful Silk Highlights.
Returns Accepted Within 14 Days of Delivery. For our full return policy and details click here
Please Note: The images we display have the most accurate color possible. Due to differences in computer monitors, we cannot be responsible for variations in color between the actual product and your screen. Please be advised that in some cases patterns and colors may vary according to size. Lengths and widths may vary from the published dimensions. We do our best to provide you with an accurate measurement, but please be advised that some variation exists and this is not a manufacturing defect.
Fill out the information below.


text:
Phil Mickelson Earned His Money and Should Retract His Apology About Taxes
Phil Mickelson, the affable "aw shucks" fan-favorite on the PGA Tour and one of the game's greatest golfers, really stepped in it this week. He ticked off liberals by hitting it Dead Solid Perfect in a few off-hand comments about his dissatisfaction with current income tax policy.
Poor Phil. He's known as "lefty" ... but he's not that kind of lefty. He was too naïve to know that such talk is only permitted by the real pros — the tax-hiking, redistributive masters of our modern economy. He didn't realize that his job in today's American Culture is to sit there and take it. In silence.
Phil, you see, is among the hated "1 percent" — a segment of our society it is now 100 percent OK to despise. Even our president said so all through the 2012 campaign. And in today's culture, that means Phil may not, under any circumstances, merely state a heretofore non-controversial economic fact: The punitive income tax rates in California and the United States — which combined claim first dibs on nearly two-thirds of Phil's earnings — may affect his life decisions. That is the hectoring, bullying point of this piece at Forbes by Len Burman, a professor at Syracuse University.
Sir, you get paid astonishing amounts of money for playing golf — directly through the purses you win at tournaments and indirectly through all the endorsement deals that come with golf success. According to Forbes, you are the seventh highest paid athlete in the world, with $4.8 million in salary and winnings and $43 million in endorsements?
Do you have any idea how lucky you are?
Please stop whining and give thanks for being able to earn a fabulous living playing a game and selling golf clubs (even after tax). 99.999% of people would never have that option, no matter how hard they worked on their swing.
Let's get a few things straight here for Mr. Burman. Phil Mickelson is not merely "lucky." He is supremely talented, and he earns every dollar that flows into his bank account. Unlike most other professional sports, there are no freeloaders in golf. There are no guaranteed contracts.
To put in terms Burman might understand, there is no tenure. A professional golfer starts every year of competition on the course at zero dollars, and he only earns prize money by beating the best golfers in the world week-in and week-out. Come to think of it, golf (and tennis) are the two most Randian, libertarian of sports.
What's that you say? Mickelson makes millions every year in endorsements? He didn't build that? Yes, he did. As John Houseman would say, Phil earned it by being one of the best golfers in history. When you've reached that status after a lifetime of work, a cavalcade of endorsements — from Callaway golf clubs, to Exxon (gasp!), to pharmaceuticals — tend to come your way. And it's not "whining" to want to keep, say, half of what you've earned. To my mind, that's already way to much to give to government, no matter what your salary.
So what did Phil say that got the left in such a tizzy? This, which the Associated Press called "cryptic" and "polarizing":
Mickelson first made a cryptic reference to "what's gone on the last few months politically" during a conference call two weeks ago for the Pebble Beach National Pro-Am, where he won last year for his 40th career PGA Tour title. After his final round Sunday at the Humana Challenge, he was asked what he meant.
"There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state, and it doesn't work for me right now," he said. "So I'm going to have to make some changes."
Yeah. That's all. How sad. It is now considered "cryptic" by America's largest news wire for Phil to question "what's gone on the last few months politically" and merely suggest he's not happy about it. That expression of free speech — which would be fine if it was communicated in, say, 2010 in reaction to the rise of the Tea Party — gave the left such a case of the vapors that Phil felt he had to immediately apologize:
"Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public," Mickelson said in a statement released Monday night. "I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend not to let it happen again."
Heaven forbid! What have we come to when it is considered an insult for a public figure to declare punitive tax rates have him thinking of making "some changes" in where he might live?
I've been a big golf fan all my life, but over the years I've never really taken to Phil. I've been more of a Tiger Woods guy — and, despite his troubles, I still root for him. The game is more exciting when Tiger's in contention on Sundays, especially in majors. But in an American society that loves "comebacks" — even from some pretty bad stuff (just ask NFL icon and Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, playing in this year's Super Bowl) — Tiger can't truly come back until he plays well and wins another major. He has to earn it on the course before he earns it in society. And Tiger doesn't doesn't have any teammates to get him to the promised land. He has only himself. If he has a bad week, he loses. Just like Phil ... who is my new favorite golfer thanks to his accidental moment of candor about his personal economics.
The idea that Phil Mickelson has something for which to apologize — that he caused offense to his fans — is ridiculous and disheartening. The leftist, Keynesian theory of economics wrongly supposes that tax policy doesn't affect the personal decisions of free citizens in the United States. Just raise the tax rates as high as you want, and all that money will flow into the government. But the real world doesn't work that way. Just ask Gérard Depardieu.
Mickelson's statement — which he has taken back, for now — is proof that there is an "effective upper limit" on income taxes. For Phil, it's the prospect of giving 63 percent of his earnings to the government. There's a reason why most American pro golfers (and many Europeans and Australians on the American Tour) take up residence in Florida or Texas, and it's not just for the good golfing weather. Neither state has a state income tax, so those pro golfers keep more of what they earn.
For more good reading on this subject, see Brian Domitrovic at Forbes, Daniel J. Mitchell at the Cato@Liberty blog, Jim Pethokoukis at AEI, and the Investor's Business Daily editorial page. They help explain the inviolable Laffer Curve of the real world.
Articles By Jim Lakely
LIVE-STREAM: 12/16 @ 6 pm CT - Heartland Briefing on COP-21 in Paris
Heartland Institute Crushes ACLU in Net Neutrality Debate
Al Gore Mentions Heartland, Tells 11 Falsehoods in Just 35 Seconds
Heartland Climate Conference Kicks Off July 7 in Las Vegas
Benefits of Global Warming Greatly Exceed Costs, New Study Says


text:
California Bed and Breakfasts
California Deserts
California Mountains
Central Coast
Central Valley
Gold Country
High Sierra
Los Angeles County and Orange County
Napa Valley and North Coast
San Diego County
San Francisco Bay Area
More About California
California is famous for several aspects of its urban cities: the glitz and glamour of Los Angeles, the history and buzz of San Francisco, and the beach vibe of San Diego. Whatever type of vacation you are looking for, as the 3rd largest state, California's diversity of towns and environments will be able to provide it for you. Southern California is great for beach lovers and helps support a reputation as a surfer state. Northern California is great for camping, hiking, and other outdoor activities. For mountain lovers, and ski buffs, California offers the Sierra Nevada mountain range, which has the highest peak in the lower 48 at 14,505 feet. The state is also famous for its wine making destinations of which there are many! No matter which area of the state you decide to visit, there is a wine tasting experience for you. Some of the areas known for their wines are Paso Robles, Modesto, Santa Barbara, and the extraordinary counties that comprise the entire Napa Valley. Even the state capitol of Sacramento boasts a winery! Although the gold mining days are in the past for this state, it is still quite "golden" in many other ways.


text:
$util.date("MMMM d, yyyy",$topLevel.timeZone)
MGN Online
Mother Nature wreaked havoc in many parts of the Tri-States Wednesday evening.
Video of a stop light down. Trailer hits the local Staples building. Side of a Pet Supplies Plus tears down. Hail and rainfall along with lightning.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Modex 2012: See Seegrid's new solutions: GC4 and View
February 06, 2012 - MMH Editorial
Seegrid (Booth 3100) was off and running on Monday morning with a press conference introducing two new solutions to Modex and the marketplace–the GC4, a vision-guided robotic standup forklift; and View, an automated data collection tool.
Seegrid's director of sales and marketing David Noble said the market is demanding robotic trucks and autonomous vehicles, and the unmanned or unmanned GC4 vehicle responds to that demand with flexibility and an affordable price.
The View solution answers the age-old question: How can we do better? "Our technology, which is built into the brand of lift trucks that end users rely on most, captures important information that can be used to optimize efficiencies. View puts vital data in the hands of management, and that data is power to improve the operation's processes," explained Noble.
Modex 2012 is scheduled to be held February 6-9, 2012 in Atlanta's Georgia World Congress Center. The tradeshow will showcase the latest manufacturing, distribution and supply chain solutions in the material handling and logistics industry. Modern's complete Modex 2012 coverage.
About the Author
Lorie King Rogers, associate editor, joined Modern in 2009 after working as a freelance writer for the Casebook issue and show daily at tradeshows. A graduate of Emerson College, she has also worked as an editor on Stock Car Racing Magazine.


text:
HTTP Servers Software
Hot topics in HTTP Servers Softwarezope scripting tools
Orangefood.com Servlet Engine
The orangefood.com Servlet Engine is a Java based servlet container, for Servlets 2.3. The primary focus is on creating a small and highly customizable server suitable for embedding in an application or as a stand-alone server.8 weekly downloads
Zope is an open source application server specializing in content management, intranets, and custom web applications. Zope is written in Python and has a large, global community of developers and companies.4 weekly downloads
This script is very simple, you can count the files\' downloads and can block downloads from an another website(This option can be disable). It make complete stats too with browsers\' name, last week download etc.... It\'s a good file/download manager.1 weekly downloads
Soma Web Server
Soma is a powerful, multi-threaded, HTTP 1.1-compliant Web server written in Java. It features an advanced, modular design, CGI support, built-in scripting support (currently Python only), and is under constant development.1 weekly downloads
FreeYourEmail frees you of: proprietary APIs, HTML web pages, Mail clients, etc... It can incorporate multiple email accounts (GroupWise, Yahoo!, etc...) and provide a single download point. It can offer other information: Weather, Stock quotes, etc..1 weekly downloads


text:
WHEELING - Jim Simms soon will yield his post as president and general manager of Wheeling Island Hotel-Casino-Racetrack at a time when the facility is facing increased competition.
However, Simms believes the track still has a bright future.
"People are coming here to game, so we want to give them the best gaming experience possible," said Simms. "We have reinvested in the property to compete as best we can."
Article Photos
Photo/Casey Junkins
JIM?SIMMS, president and general manager of Wheeling Island Hotel-Casino-Racetrack, displays the new Sex and The City slot machine.
"We are confident we have made very good investment decisions. We are going to be the best we can be," he added, noting hotel upgrades are also in the works.
Simms recently accepted an opportunity to open a new casino in Lebanon, Ohio, a position he will accept in April. He came to Wheeling Island in 2006 to help lead the company to record revenues and profits. He was appointed as president and general manager in 2008. Delaware North officials are conducting a nationwide search to replace Simms at Wheeling Island.
One thing that could be changing in coming months is live racing. A need to cut costs in the face of strong competition from neighboring states has Wheeling Island considering this possibility.
"Racing is a declining industry. It is now less than 10 percent of our business," Simms said. "We are doing everything we can do. We have to try to keep all of our businesses solvent."
Just a few years ago, the Wheeling track - along with Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack and Resort in Chester - held a virtual monopoly over the gambling market in northern West Virginia, as well as in Pennsylvania and Ohio because those states lacked slot machines and table games.
That has changed, as both Ohio and Pennsylvania have entered the gambling market, with Maryland headed in that direction.
Though he did not want to get into specifics, Simms said he hopes the West Virginia Legislature will consider the situation in which the track finds itself with the increased competition from both Ohio and Pennsylvania.
He hopes legislators will consider reducing taxes for Mountain State casinos to allow them to continue to operate in a competitive environment.
"The Ohio casinos, as well as the winter, are really hurting us. When it is cold, people are less willing to travel," Simms said. "We are looking at a very difficult first quarter."
This month, after meeting with the West Virginia Racing Commission, Wheeling track officials learned they will only hold 107 greyhound races per week this year, which is down from 115 per week in 2012. However, Simms said he previously received "conditional approval" to only hold 101 per week, a move that he said could have saved the track $100,000 per week.
"We built that savings into our new plans," he said.
The state's kennel owners argue that Wheeling Island would rather just eliminate race altogether - a move that would be unconstitutional in West Virginia, as gambling at the tracks is only allowed because of the live racing.
At Mountaineer, General Manager Chris Kern said upgrades are ongoing, featuring new games and programming to offer guests a "pleasant" experience.
"Our recent upgrades include bright, new carpeting, new slot bases and chairs and a new inviting layout in the Uptown and Downtown gaming rooms," he said.
The track also will be the first casino in the state to offer Michael Jackson "King of Pop" slot machines.
This slot machine is the world's first to feature the iconic Michael Jackson and his unforgettable music. It features a custom surround-sound chair for an unprecedented audio experience, plus thrilling bonuses set to Michael's greatest hits including: "Beat It," "Bad," "Smooth Criminal," "Billie Jean" and "Dirty Diana."
"We are thrilled to be the first West Virginia casino to offer this exciting game," Kern said. "The 'King of Pop' video slot will definitely make for an exciting time for our guests with a state of the art gaming experience."


text:
I have a 3 wire outlet with the entrances for hot, neutral and ground. But I know that the ground entrance is not really grounded, so in effect useless. Now, since the neutral is grounded, could I connect the ground entrance with the neutral therefore grounding the ground? What would be the problem with that?
Bridging the neutral and ground at the outlet is against code. This is called a Bootleg ground. You have a few different options to bring this up to code (corresponding to the NEC electrical code):
Keep in mind that the ground and neutral should be connected together at your house's service entrance, and nowhere else.
The "ground" connector is often connected to the chassis of electric equipment, for example the metal case of your oven, lamp, etc.... One danger is that the neutral is not really at the same potential as the ground. The neutral wiring from your device has some non-zero resistance. The electric current flowing through your device also flows through the neutral wire. The current flowing through your neutral causes the voltage of the neutral to increase (based on Ohm's law, voltage = current * resistance), which can cause your neutral to be a few volts above ground. So, if you have a properly grounded device, next to a device connected to your bootlegged ground, you can shock yourself by touching the two cases since they will be at different potentials.
A second problem with connecting the ground to the neutral happens if your neutral wire breaks between the outlet and your service entrance. If the neutral breaks, then plugged in devices will cause the neutral to approach the "hot" voltage. Given a ground to neutral connection, this will cause the chassis of your device to be at the "hot" voltage, which is very dangerous.
I don't believe this is up to code, but it will pass the test from a standard outlet tester. The problem I see is if any device plugged into the outlet comes into contact with a ground (e.g. water) and that path is more efficient than going all the way back on the neutral wire through the house wiring, then hot current going through any appliance and onto the neutral would come out the ground and possibly electrocute anyone in that path.
That said, I've seen this implemented and have lived in a home where this was done without dying, or even getting shocked. But the fact that the electrician that used this trick was missing several fingers should give you pause.
I'm not in the US. Where I live this (called "combined neutral and protective earth wire") is only allowed in non-domestic power distribution.
This setup has one major problem: if phase and neutral are swapped (for example, you alter wiring in the box next to the power meter and swap wires) phase is now supplied onto the grounding contact as well and that's asking for trouble.
So you can try do that, it's likely better than no grounding, but it's likely not up to code, and it is hazardous in that if wiring is altered you can have phase on the grounding contact and hence on appliance case.
The ground is supposed to provide an alternate path to ground, in case the neutral wire doesn't do a good enough job. I don't know of any cases where the neutral would be compromised while a ground wire in the same sheath isn't -- except where someone mucked with the wiring.
If you only have two wires, that tells me you're in an older house. So it's possible (likely!) that a former homeowner did something wrong, like put a switch in the neutral, or reversed polarity. If you know all of the devices on a particular circuit, you can do the detective work to ensure that this hasn't happened.
Or you can run a separate ground wire to a water pipe. This does meet code in the US (at least as-of 1999, which is what my electrical handbook is based on), and it's what I did for my home office (I wasn't happy having computers on ungrounded circuits). To completely meet code, you need to ensure that the cold water pipe has a conductive strap to bypass the water meter. And you need to use a wire that is the same gauge as that used for the circuit (14ga for a 15 amp circuit).
nuetral should be connected to ground so that any appliances touch the hot wire you will not be electricuted because even one hot wire touch any appliances and your stepping on the ground or holding any metal and touch that appliances you will be electricuted and that metal your touching will serves as ground.
There is no such thing as neutral in electricity. That would mean not being used. the neutral and ground are both ground paths. The issue is that the ground wire is usually used to dissipate static. while it should work and cause no problems I would not want to trust it with a pc or power tool. Both wires run to the exact same bars on a breaker box so in theory itll be ok but now you'd be trying to get rid of static down a line trying to deal with power from the supply side.
protected by Community♦ Nov 18 '15 at 16:52
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Join the Columbia Health Law Association this Tuesday, April 23rd for a lunchtime workshop on Bioethics Mediation. Professor Carol Liebman and Nancy Dubler, of the Bioethics Mediation Unit at Montefiore Hospital, will lead a discussion on the intricacies of determining patient treatment in pressure-filled settings. Bioethics mediation is an evolving field of healthcare law that helps determine appropriate patient care in life and death situations. Liebman and Dubler will discuss balancing law and ethics within the healthcare system. Box lunch will be served. Contact: Raquel Toledo, firstname.lastname@example.com
© Copyright 2016, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.
For questions or comments, please contact the web administrators.
435 West 116 Street, New York, NY 10027 — 212-854-2640


text:
I have an HP DM4 laptop running Ubuntu 13.04 (although i've noticed this on 12.04 and 12.10). When I am connected to the WiFi at home none of my housemates are able to get decent connection. They can connect but not use the internet. I've noticed it a number of other places including hotspots in motels etc.
It's not a problem for me but I am becoming increasingly unpopular at home!!
I have the Broadcom STA Wireless driver installed and am using it.
Let me know if I can give any more useful information.


text:
Who Killed Economic Growth? A Postcarbon Institute Video on the Global Ponzi Scheme
Hint: It had nothing to do with the debt, a frame which Obama has foolishly bought into and reinforced.
Related Post:
Below are old comments from the earlier Facebook commenting system:
- agres (signed in using Yahoo)
Debt, per se, is not the problem. The Bronze Age Greeks had a sustainable economy that used no fossil fuel, and they financed the Trojan War with – debt.
However, oil was the downfall of that civilization. Olive oil became so valuable that 200 years after Homer, the Greeks started planting olive trees instead of fruit trees on their steep hillsides. The olives did not hold the soil as well as the fruit trees had held the soil and the resulting soil erosion destroyed their agricultural base and ultimately their civilization.
The problem is one of properly recognizing appropriate long term environmental costs for actions that have large near-term utility (value). This was true for the Greeks planting olives on steep hill sides, and is true for the burning of fossil fuels. Resource extraction is not debt, because debt is a 2…See More
4 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 2:19pm
mtmariner101 (signed in using Yahoo)
It sounds like all we have to do is stop using fossil fuels and we will all enjoy a happy future. Somehow by decoupling our economy from filthy fossil fuel we will suddenly have enough water and land to grow all the food necessary to support the 9 billion people who will inhabit our planet in a few decades. But the limits to growth are much larger than the obvious limits to cheap fossil fuels and no credible model exists to show how we can extend a good standard of living to the burgeoning populations of developing nations like India if India does not have a growing economy.
1 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 2:11pm
- stevegeneral999 (signed in using Yahoo)
And no credible model exists to show how capitalism can sustain such a standard of living for millenia
1 · Like · Reply · August 3 at 9:28pm
Anthony Silvestri · Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Quite likely we can't sustain the lives of 9 billion humans on a finite world. Unless we all want to live like the average African (with the average African's eco-footprint), which is an option, I suppose.
1 · Like · Reply · August 4 at 8:46am
Eban Goodstein · University of Michigan
Two problems with the video. First, if the premise is that we have run out of cheap fossil fuel, that unfortunately ain't so: lots of dirty coal. As China shows, the era of rapid growth based on cheap fossil fuels continues. Second, current US debt is a function of tax cuts for the wealthy and wars fought on credit cards. No question that we could afford, as a nation to pay this down.
1 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 10:17am
Peter S. Mizla · Top Commenter · Vernon, Connecticut
Do you think we can sustain economic growth on fossil fuels infinitely?
Do not see a paradox of economic growth based on the continued use of cheap fossil fuels and eventually A shattered climate?
That crossroads is near or here.
Like · Reply · August 3 at 10:44am
Daron Williams · Lewes, East Sussex
The Post Carbon Institute actually has shown some decent research that coal is no where near as plentiful as we think. As coal fields are re-examined the total reserves tend to be slashed.
The book "Black Out" talks about essentially a peak in coal by around 2040 at the latest. Even in China coal production is showing signs of peaking, they are being forced to focus more and more on imports and are trying to slow their own coal production in order to ensure that they have it in the future.
So long story made short: we don't have hundreds of years of coal left.
Like · Reply · August 3 at 11:03am
George Ennis · Top Commenter · University of Toronto
The issue in terms of measuring the price of carbon is that from an economic and financial perspective our current financial measures for accounting for all costs is not able to properly capture certain externalities such as their impact on human health, climate change, local environments etc. China for example is running into clear limits in being able to grow because of the externalities that coal burning plants impose on environments and its people.
So, yes I would agree with you that the nominal cost of coal is cheap. However , if through a properly calibrated carbon tax that captured all externalities we would find it prohibitively expensive I would argue.
2 · Like · Reply · August 3 at 11:59am
Rob Honeycutt · Top Commenter
I have some real problems with this video. Not with the premise that there are limits to growth, there clearly are, but this video paints a very thin portrait of the issue. I'm not quite ready to dismiss "economists" for the opinion of a journalist.
Big question for me when I watch the video: What happens when we have developed new clean forms of energy? The limits to FF's are not a function of their availability, the limits are due to the environmental damage they cause and the costs related to that damage. But if we manage to create clean energy how does that affect the economic equation the author is trying to make? He doesn't address that.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 2:30pm
- stevegeneral999 (signed in using Yahoo)
Basic principle of ANY system…. remove the most restrictive limiting factor, and the next most limiting factor suddenly becomes real real obvious.
Like · Reply · August 3 at 3:13pm
Rob Honeycutt · Top Commenter
I fully realize that, but there is no indicator of where that limit lies with regards to new clean energy sources. The problem I have with the message of this video is that it seems to only be saying, "Yup, the jig is up. Economic growth is impossible from here out." And, I get the sense that conclusion is being made, not on hard research, but on that's just the message they want to deliver.
I mean, come on, is that the message we send to the majority of the people of the world who live in emerging economies? "Sorry, but we already used up all the world's energy. You have to remain living like you always have." …It's rather absurd.
Like · Reply · August 3 at 3:23pm
Daniel Lerch · Portland, Oregon
[I work for Post Carbon, which produced the video.] Keep in mind that there's only so much you can say in a 5-minute promo video. All the background and analysis is in the book: "The End of Growth," free excerpts posted at http://www.postcarbon.org/eog .
Rob, you mentioned the availability of fossil fuels and also the idea of a 'clean energy economy.' We're not optimistic on either front, and you can read about some of the research underlying our views here:
– David Hughes (geoscientist formerly with Natural Resources Canada), "Hydrocarbons in North America"
…See More
Like · Reply · August 5 at 6:41pm
stevegeneral999 (signed in using Yahoo)
Growth addiction is a secondary issue.
The primary issue is our addiction to private ownership of goods and capital, because in a capitalist economy inflation is inescapable, and inflation erodes wealth. That leaves two choices under capitalism: watch a dollar's practical buying power evaporate, or grow the economy enough to offset inflationary losses.
I thought the video was awesome, but most commentary of this sort, including my own, speaks of limits to growth but stops short of the REAL issue. Joe McCarthy lives on after all.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 1:06pm
Chad Brick · Broadview Heights, Ohio
In order to maintain 3% economic growth until the end of the century, the economy would have to grow approximately 14-fold. There is no way that this is physically possible. And before you squeal about efficiency and improved technology, I would point out that these are responsible for only about a fifth of economic growth. The other 80% has been simply more people moving more stuff faster. The latter neither can nor will continue. We had best be prepared for an indefinite period of slow and ever slowing growth.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 9:55am
Wesley Rolley · Top Commenter · Northwestern University
Even a 2% growth rate would require a 6 x economic growth. Not likely in this physical universe. And 2% growth is considered bad news. We need a new economics based on ecology rather than mathematical extrapolation of past so-called progress. Then, we need a new politics based making what we can do meet the needs of the people. Not likely in the current political universe.
1 · Like · Reply · August 3 at 11:33am
Rob Honeycutt · Top Commenter
Are you talking global economic growth?
Like · Reply · August 3 at 3:25pm
David Stern · Professor at Australian National University
I think that there are limits to growth but this video does link growth and debt in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You have to borrow from someone who is currently saving.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 8:10am
Lauren Samples Bartholomew · University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA)
Are trillions in Treasury bill debt of the US government, like the last $900 B quantitative easing which ended in June, real savings or is it a "debt" against future growth rather than past savings?
Like · Reply · August 3 at 9:49am
Peter S. Mizla · Top Commenter · Vernon, Connecticut
Does that growth come from fossil fuels?
Like · Reply · August 3 at 10:45am
Todd Tanner · Works at Freelance writer
David – If you want to understand debt in a way that actually makes sense, watch these two very short videos.
Like · Reply · August 3 at 11:12am
Gauss Rescigno · FileMaker Certified Developer at Beezwax Datatools, Inc.
Great video on the world's economic and energy predicament.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 4 at 7:28am
Michael Tobis · Research Scientist Associate at University of Texas Institute for Geophysics
Excellent video! Thanks Joe, and thanks to the producers.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 10:37am
Tod Brilliant · Works at Writer/Photographer
Thanks, Michael. It's hard to put nuances into a video like this (see discussion above – many great points)… keep in mind it's a teaser, of sorts, for the newly published book, "The End of Growth" that really dives into details.
1 · Like · Reply · August 3 at 1:08pm
Lauren Samples Bartholomew · University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA)
Cute video – but then again, I'm a believer.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 9:45am
Tim Riley · Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
This view of the future is starting to make more and more sense…
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 14 at 8:46am
me (signed in using Yahoo)
(Susan Anderson)
This video is spot on. Thanks to Tanner and Honeycutt for the lively exchange on credibility, which is very helpful.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch in my head, this has put the nail in the coffin of my pleasure in paradox, six impossible things before breakfast, and the like. Sadly, we "must not mention" that we have to cut back our expansionist/consumption model, but we "must" cut back to survive. We must put our heads firmly in the sand in order to persuade people to pay attention.
I don't think. Sadly, earth has bigger bludgeons, and is going to use them!
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 5 at 11:10am
Joan Savage · Top Commenter · SUNY-ESF
At least one deep root of the push for economic growth is fear of famine, fear older than Pharaoh's warehouses full of grain. Hoarding, either direct-need goods or trade goods, has a dark underpinning of insecurity as well as a topping of conveniences and comforts. Those who can be secure and contented, trusting that the environment provides enough for us, cradle to grave, have a more limited, and less neurotic, need to stockpile. A lot of the developed world has no clue how to find contentment and security like a Bushman in the Kalahari, and our infrastructure is a terrible impediment to going in that direction.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 4 at 11:23am
Timothy Hughbanks · Top Commenter · Professor at Texas A&M University
Even if we could make renewable energy cheap and abundant enough to supplant fossil fuels with continued innovation in (primarily) solar energy in the long run, there are lots of other limits to growth. We're depleting the the oceans, soils, and very biological web of life on which we depend. Energy looks like the most pressing choke point to growth now, but I think these other limits are actually more rigid and unavoidable.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 6:39pm
me (signed in using Yahoo)
thanks for video. can you recommend any books that explore the topic in more debt?
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 3:42pm
- danallen1968 (signed in using Yahoo)
Heinberg's 'The End of Growth' & 'Blackout' & 'The Party's Over'
Martenson's 'The Crash Course'
Meadow's 'Limits to Growth' & the 30-year update
www.energybulletin.net — ~5 new artcles per day on a range of subjects centered on limits to growth & what to do about it
Like · Reply · August 3 at 6:24pm
me (signed in using Yahoo)
meant depth* on last comment. still hazy from the deficit craze.
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 3:43pm
Sonni Will · Top Commenter
Like · Reply · Subscribe · August 3 at 6:15pm


text:
REGULATION by Yohji Yamamoto
Back Tie Cropped Pants
Product Actions
Cotton pleated high cropped pants with side pockets, back flap pockets, and back ribbon waist tie. 15" rise. 19" inseam. 14" leg opening. Available in Black. Made in Japan. Cotton. Machine wash.Style # 502649685
Need Help? Have Questions? Contact Us.
Please call 1.888.222.7639 to speak with a Customer Service Representative.
We're here to help you:
Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday - Sunday, 10:30 AM - 7 PM (ET)
If you prefer email, we can be reached anytime at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Free Shipping & Returns on all U.S. Orders. See Details.


text:
Gwinnett Cash for Gold Broker Known for Paying the Most - Soon to Close
After 5 years of doing all they could to make sure local consumers received fair market value when selling their gold and jewelry - Gwinnett Gold Brokers is closing up shop for good.
The company is not giving up or even giving in. The Greater Atlanta gold and jewelry market has simply reached its natural depletion point that has been forecast all along. It's simply time for the company to move onto more emerging markets.
Just over five years ago in 2008, when yet another economic downturn began tearing into American households, American families had very little left to fall back upon. This time, they had to consider liquidating what they had hoped they would pass on to future generations. In many cases, it simply had never crossed their minds that they would have to sell their family heirlooms, keepsakes and antique jewelry of their ancestors. But the time had come for individuals and heads of household to sell the valuables that seemed to be part of the very core of their families.
A great deal of money was needed immediately to keep the households going, so it was off to the shops of those who advertised they pay "Top Dollar." Unfortunately, things went from bad to worse when they suddenly realized that these small stores all seemed to share the same goal - to pay people only 20 to 40 percent of fair market value. Another thing these stores had in common was that they were almost all very bad at convincing people that their valuables were not very valuable at all. They often ranged from simply embarrassing to openly insulting.
That's when one family based business in Gwinnett felt something had to be done and they were the ones to do it. This family had earned a decent living in the Greater Atlanta area for 20 years - and it was time for them to start paying back. Gwinnett Gold Brokers opened their doors.
Overnight, desperate families began receiving 80 to 85% of fair market value for their jewelry and precious metals instead of the 20% to 40% the "We Buy Gold" stores were paying. For the next 5 years, families who were forced to sell their most treasured possessions were returning home with enough money to take care of the things they needed to and still had money left over. A good portion of GGB's customers left with tears in their eyes and a warm sigh of relief. Many even hugged the brokers on their way out the door.
So Greater Atlanta's families have mostly run out of gold and other precious metals to sell. This had long since been forecasted. However, the folks at Gwinnett Gold Brokers vow to help when-ever they need to. If individuals in Gwinnett or Greater Atlanta have gold they need to sell but nobody will treat them fairly - they need to call Mr. Martin - Atlanta's Original Gold Broker, at (404) 759-7277. He'll do everything within his power to find a way to help people receive a fair amount for their gold and jewelry.


text:
Audio Visual Services
Audio Visual Services is a branch of Client Services in I.T.S. and is responsible for providing audio visual equipment to all teaching spaces on campus. Please note that we require 24 business hours notice when booking equipment for your class via telephone. Your requests can be made in person in Thistle West 235 or by phone at extension 3588. On-line requests can be made 48 business hours in advance. All Audio Visual Bookings are subject to equipment availability.
Please use the Audio Visual Request Form below to submit all online requests.
Below is a link to the price list for all services offered by Client Services -Audio Visual.
Client Services - Audio Visual Service Catalogue & Rental Fees for External Conferences
A Gallery of Brock University's Crestron controlled e-classrooms:
Brock University's Crestron Controlled E-Classrooms
The following links provide an overview, orientation and instructions relating to the control systems in these teaching spaces:
For your multimedia presentations at Brock, we can supply:
- Overhead projectors
- 35mm slide projectors
- Computer and video projection systems
- Cassette tape and record players
- Public address systems
- Dubbing of copyright-free international format video cassettes and DVD's
Please be aware, at present we do not deliver computer projection equipment to any of the seminar rooms on campus.
Below is a link with a document containing all of these rooms.
There is a pickup service available to faculty and teaching assistants for projection equipment in seminar rooms.
This service is only available on the main campus (St. Catharines campus).
Below are the policies for this service. One policy refers to the LCD TV Cart configuration. The other policy is for bagged equipment available for sign out from our office at Thistle 235 West. There are limited numbers of equipment sets available for pickup and sign out, so please book as far in advance as possible, with 48 business hour minimum.
Seminar LCD TV Cart Pickup Procedure
Computer Projection Equipment Sign Out Procedure
Office hours:
During the academic terms:
8:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday
8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Friday
No weekend support
Off-Term Hours:
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday -Friday
No weekend support


text:
Sorry, this Silva Document is not viewable.
Surgery and Interventional Science
The UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science
We focus on three research themes: Tissue and Energy; Nanotechnology; and Materials and Tissue. Our students have the opportunity to work with world renowned scientists and help us to solve key problems at the highest level.
Our programmes
"A Brighter Future for Oesophageal Cancer"
Published: Jul 12, 2016 5:27:29 PM
StARs Annual Reception 2016
Published: Jun 30, 2016 5:38:10 PM
2015-16 RNOH Academic Leadership Award
Published: Jun 30, 2016 5:21:53 PM