text:
Buy on DVD
The Ozzie And Harriet TV Collection [DVD]
Best of the Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet DVD
10/3/1952 – 9/3/1966 ABC 60 minutes
Black and White (1952-1965)
Color (1965-1966)
Ozzie and Harriet Cast
Ozzie Nelson as Ozzie Nelson
Harriet Hilliard Nelson as Harriet Nelson
David Nelson as David Nelson
June Blair Nelson as June (Mrs. David Nelson)
(1961-1966) Ricky Nelson as Ricky Nelson
Kristin Harmon Nelson as Kris (Mrs. Rick Nelson) (1964-1966)
Parley Baer as Darby (1955-1961)
Frank Cady as Doc Williams (1954-1965)
Mary Jane Croft as Clara Randolph (1956-1966)
Don DeFore as 'Thorny' Thornberry (1952-61)
Constance Harper as Connie Edwards (1960-1966)
Jimmy Hawkins as Jimmy (1961-1965)
James Stacy as Fred (1958-1964)
Lyle Talbot as Joe Randolph (1952-66)
Jack Wagner as Jack (1961-1966)
Skip Young as Wally (1957-1966)
Ozzie and Harriet Theme Song
"Nelson Family Theme" by Ozzie Nelson
Ozzie & Harriet Opening Credits
Ozzie and Harriet Tidbits
For 14 years we watched Ozzie, in his alpaca cardigan and Harriet, with her ever ready pot of coffee and a plate of brownies. Boomers grew up with Ricky and David.
When asked if this was a realistic view of family life, the answer is a resounding no. Their idea of a life crisis was having two chairs mistakenly delivered to the house.
Speaking of the house at 522 Sycamore Road, Hilldale, the set was an exact replica of their real life home in Hollywood.
If you remember all those scenes in the kitchen, that's because up until 1956, Hotpoint, the sponsor, was displaying their products! After that, you probably recall more outdoors scenes. Did you notice the cameras around everyone's necks? Yup, Kodak became the sole sponsor.
Ozzie was producer, director and head writer. In short, he had control.
Ricky has been bugging his father to let him sing a tune on the show. So on April 10,1957 in "Rick the Drummer" he covered Fat's Domino's "I'm Walkin." The song shot to the top of the charts.
Eventually, the boys grew up and married and their real life wives joined the show. David married June and Ricky married Kris Harmon, daughter of Tom and brother to Mark.
Ozzie Nelson died in 1975 of cancer, Rick Nelson died 1985 in a plane crash, Harriet died in 1999 of congestive heart failure and David Nelson in 2011 of colon cancer.
Harriet and Ozzie Nelson
Harriet, Ozzie, Ricky and David Nelson
David, Harriet, Ricky and Ozzie Nelson
Rick Nelson


text:
As it turns out, so are we. Strutting to a spiritually snappy groove not observed in mainstream American cinema since Marty Feldman and Andy Kaufman pranced through In God We Trust eons ago -- and weaving clever threads of supernatural intervention throughout -- Smith has fashioned a complex, contemporary Bible epic on his own terms. By turns crafty and clunky, pious and profane, it's clearly a labor of love.
Bethany, a disillusioned, lapsed Catholic who works in a small-town Illinois abortion clinic, is visited by Metatron (Alan Rickman), a seraphim who, as the voice of God, sends her on a quest to prevent the unmaking of the universe. The gist: Former angel of death Loki (Matt Damon) and renegade angel Bartleby (Ben Affleck) have been condemned for all eternity to Wisconsin. Understandably peeved by this fate, they have concocted a plan to reenter Heaven via a soul-cleansing portal located in a revisionist cathedral in Red Bank, New Jersey, helmed by brash showman Cardinal Glick (George Carlin). If they succeed, however, they'll prove God fallible, and all of creation will disintegrate.
After being attacked by a trio of Rollerblading punk demons under the command of devil Azrael (Jason Lee), Bethany is attended on her odyssey of faith by "prophets" Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (director Smith). En route to Red Bank, the pilgrims join forces with 13th apostle Rufus (Chris Rock), who was edited out of the Bible by racist patriarchs, and muse Serendipity (Salma Hayek), who inspired 19 of the 20 top-grossing movies of all time, but has of late been slumming in a strip bar.
The adventure is a weird, sarcastic, extraordinarily chatty one, as Smith has loaded his script to bursting with generational in-jokes, spiritual flights of fancy, freeform metaphysical manipulation, and of course giddy onslaughts of his trademarked rude banter. A significant figure in the comic industry (he's a writer and purveyor of the pulpy periodicals), Smith has thus far strived to bridge the gap between smart comics and smart-ass movies (especially in the juvenile Mallrats and the heavy-handed Chasing Amy). With his fourth feature, that bridge is nigh complete, and the characters dramatically dodge and weave through the narrative as in a comic book come to life. It's a unique approach, a specific shade of heightened reality.
One quirk that can be distracting, however, is Smith's penchant for summoning up pop-culture icons within the thick soup of dialogue. He astutely zeroes in on the confusion of being screwed over by director John Hughes (The Breakfast Club and, more recently, an avalanche of lucrative tripe), but he also litters his dialogue with nods many may not find familiar or particularly funny. (His own generation will probably scream.) The Hughes point is well taken. (Although, responding to allegations that he abandoned the audience who built his career, the '80s Zeitgeist maverick claimed it was they who abandoned him.) To his credit Smith has already proven himself a major voice within a thoughtful new movement, only a few years under way. It will be engaging to witness where his fruitful imagination takes him next.
Even though the direction of Dogma is competent (and the budget clearly added opportunities to stretch), it must be noted that Smith is a gifted writer who is still sussing out the directing thing. This is his sharpest, most fully realized feature since his audacious debut with Clerks five years ago, but visually dazzling it rarely is. Like Clerks, this movie is rife with accelerated who's-on-first verbosity and subtle, shrewdly telegraphed relationship tics. But because Clerks was created on such a humble scale, its wit and framing seemed effortless. Here, shouldered with an A-list cast, studio backing, and even special effects, Smith's strain sometimes shows. (And while it was wise to lose the gang fight and Fat Albert bits, some further editing wouldn't have hurt.) The concepts he's juggling are expressed too often in words, too rarely (excepting a fecal demon) in visual metaphor. But that makes it no less laudable to haul such a unique effort through the trenches.
Everyone gets to party with their roles, which is refreshing. The celestial beings seem to have the most fun, as when Damon reignites his brimstone and indulges himself in holy killing sprees or Rock throws down his take on the gnostic gospels in a burger joint. Affleck never looks quite sure of himself until he loses his patience and seeks bloody vengeance, but his final confrontation is gripping. Hayek and Lee make splendid representatives of inspiration and evil respectively. Rickman looks disturbingly pasty and doughy here, but his suave, commanding voice gives the film a gravity it would otherwise lack. (In one of the sweeter scenes, Fiorentino complains that she cannot bear her burden. "That's what Jesus said," he evenly responds.) They have some rock-singer chick (Alanis Morissette) playing God, too, but should have held out for Emma Thompson as originally planned.
The mortals are equally game for the ride. Carlin is polished and perfect as the inflated Cardinal Glick. (Who else could sell a modern-day crusade called Catholicism -- Wow!?) Fiorentino does fine work balancing the insanity of her quest with a lingering sense of doubt. Best of all Smith and Mewes finally get to stretch out their ongoing shtick beyond the limited appearances of Smith's previous movies. Smith's silent comedy is a smart arrangement for the director, but the revelation here is Mewes, who blurts out his rude tirades like an NC-17 Spicoli. There is a strong element of classic fool to Mewes, and Smith has written his friend some beautifully raunchy wisdom to spew.
All in all Dogma earns a lot of points for sheer invention, loses a couple for occasional lapses in execution, and comes out on top for wiggling spasmodically on ideological turf where most creators dare not go. In this case crude, piecemeal courage is certainly better than none at all.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Home
- Development & Aid
- Economy & Trade
- Environment
- Human Rights
- Global Governance
- South-South
- Civil Society
- Gender
Monday, October 2, 2023
DHAKA, Oct 10 2012 (IPS) - Anxiety has yet to die down over a week after crowds of Muslims torched more than a dozen temples and scores of houses in southeast Bangladesh, leaving thousands of Buddhists with the unshakeable premonition that more violence was forthcoming.
The government has repeatedly tried to assure the religious minority that they have the support and protection of the state, while the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Mizanur Rahman, apologised for the atrocities – but it seems nothing can assuage the fear of fresh violence.
"We're shocked by this unexpected violence… yet we appeal to all to maintain peace as Buddhism preaches peace and non-violence," Dr. Pranab Kumar Baruya, a former visiting professor of Dhaka University, told IPS during an interview at the Dharma Rajika Buddhist Monastery in Dhaka.
"We want communal harmony. We number only one million (in Bangladesh) and we need the support of the government and the majority of the people in a country where we've also been born and where Buddhism has been practiced for more than a thousand years," he added.
Amid mounting pressure on the government to launch a judicial inquiry into the attacks, the country's top business leaders have expressed anxieties that a recurrence of such incidents might have a negative impact on the country's image, investment and international trade.
The Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry asked the government on Thursday to take immediate measures to ensure "such unexpected incidents do not take place (again)."
"A sense of fear still persists among the Buddhist people and it's the responsibility of the government to allay the fear by providing proper security and bringing the culprits to justice," Ranjit Kumar Barua, a retired joint-secretary to the government of Bangladesh, told IPS.
Ancient relics destroyed
The riot began on Sept. 29, when large crowds of Muslims attacked Buddhist shrines and torched homes in southeast Bangladesh, home to the highest concentration of Buddhists in the country.
Protesters chanted anti-Buddhist slogans and rioted throughout the night in the town of Ramu in the tourist district of Cox's Bazar. Violence spilled into the adjoining areas and continued the following day.
The local administration had to call in the army, paramilitary troops from Border Guards Bangladesh and police forces to maintain law and order.
According to Baruya, ancient Buddhist relics, along with rare palm-leaf manuscripts of folk and religious tales (locally known as Puthis) were burned and several hundred rare statues of Lord Buddha were either damaged or looted by the mobs.
"Almost all the temples and monasteries, adorned intricately with wood carvings, were burned and damaged. They were several hundred years old; some of them were built in the late 17th or early 18th centuries," he said.
Pragyananda Bhikkhu, resident director of the Ramu Central Sima Bihar in Cox's Bazar, told IPS, "The damage done is irreparable and no one on earth will be able to compensate for this loss. The wounds might heal but they will continue to bleed deep in our hearts."
"The temples belonged to the Buddhists, but they were also priceless treasures of our country (as a whole), they were part of our heritage," Nehal Ahmed, a college professor in Dhaka, told IPS.
Police and witnesses told IPS that a photograph of a partially burned Quran, allegedly posted on Facebook by a Buddhist youth, sparked the riot.
An initial report said that the boy was tagged in the photo but did not post it himself. The Facebook user's account has since been deleted.
"This can't be accepted in this relatively peaceful South Asian nation," Ahmed said, referring to the recent deadly violence that swept across several countries in response to a low-budget American film, 'Innocence of Muslim', desecrating Prophet Mohammad.
"We've seen many deaths during protests in Pakistan over the anti-Islam film, but it was relatively peaceful in Bangladesh," he said.
Political stalemate
Top political leaders, hailing from the ruling Awami League and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), have pointed accusing fingers at each other in a blame game that has further deepened the anxiety of Buddhists who comprise less than one percent of the total population in Muslim-majority Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Home Minister, Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, who visited the scene of the violence immediately after the riot, blamed the BNP for the attacks.
The minister said the violence was planned, citing evidence of gunpowder and petrol found in the burnt monasteries and houses.
Both the prime minister and the home minister also hinted that Rohingya Muslims, refugees of persection and sectarian violence in neighbouring Myanmar (formerly Burma) who fled to Cox's Bazar two decades ago, might be responsible for instigating the attacks.
Meanwhile, Khaleda Zia, leader of the BNP and a former prime minister of Bangladesh, said on Saturday that the government itself was behind the attacks.
This week the Bangladesh Supreme Court ordered the government to ensure complete security to Buddhists and other minority groups.
Buddhist monks, primarily in Myanmar, Thailand, and Sri Lanka, staged demonstrations in front of the Bangladesh missions in their respective countries, venting their anger and demanding an impartial probe into the attacks.
International rights groups and non-governmental organisations including Amnesty International also asked the government to bring the culprits to book immediately.
Many Buddhists feel that whatever the investigation unearths, horrific memories of one of the worst attacks on the Buddhist faith will remain alive.
IPS is an international communication institution with a global news agency at its core,
raising the voices of the South
and civil society on issues of development, globalisation, human rights and the environment
Copyright © 2023 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. - Terms & Conditions
You have the Power to Make a Difference
Would you consider a $20.00 contribution today that will help to keep the IPS news wire active? Your contribution will make a huge difference.


text:
Voice Guidelines | Clearleft
I love what Ben is doing with this single-serving site (similar to my design principles collection)—it's a collection of handy links and resources around voice UI:
Designing a voice interface? Here's a useful list of lists: as many guiding principles as we could find, all in one place. List compiled and edited by Ben Sauer @bensauer.
BONUS ITEM: Have him run a voice workshop for you!


text:
Fine Asianliving Neck Pillow Thai Meditation Neck Cushion Green 18x32cm
This cushion from Fine Asianliving is specially made to make meditation just a little more pleasant. The Thai pillow is comfortable and contributes to an ergonomic posture while meditating.
Original Thai meditation cushion for inside and outside. The cushion cover is 100% cotton, the filling is 100% sustainable organic kapok. The handmade Thai cushion White double-stitched edges of durable and sturdy quality is comfortable and comfortable to wear. Use the pillow as a backrest in bed, on the couch or on the floor. You can also use the cushion as a handrail, leaning sideways against the cushion and reading a book on the couch. The cushion gives a nice support while you are relaxing.
Kapok is similar to a high quality down -- but is hypoallergenic and made from plant material. Kapok fibers are up to 8x less dense as cotton, and is even waterproof and quick drying. Kapok's texture is soft and smooth, yet malleable and resilient, which is why it is perfect for the supportive yet fluffy feel of our cushions.
Originally handmade from Thailand.
Dimensions: 18x32cm
Material: cotton, sustainable organic kapok
Este producto está hecho y/o pintado a mano y, por tanto, es único. Esto significa que puede diferir ligeramente de la imagen del producto.


text:
Many of you may recall my conversations with Dr. Adam Harwood of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary over the Spiritual Condition of Infants. I consider Dr. Harwood to be the leading scholar on this topic and recently requested his permission to repost his article on the subject to assist those who may be struggling with the issue.
For more on this topic I highly recommend Dr. Harwood's book, The Spiritual Condition of Infants.
Inherited Sinful Nature:
A View Permissible as both Biblical and Baptist
by Adam Harwood, Ph.D.
(originally published at SBCToday and reposted here by permission)
The doctrinal formulation known as inherited guilt, or imputed guilt, holds a prominent position within the history of Christianity as well as among Baptists. The claim of this paper is that inherited guilt, the view that every person inherits more than a sinful nature or inclination but also the actual guilt of the first Adam, faces the challenge of maintaining internally-consistent theological assertions when formulating a doctrine of infant salvation. In other words, there may be a better way of understanding what the Bible teaches about our inheritance from Adam and subsequent sin and death which has been answered by God in the gift of His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This view, inherited sinful nature, is presented in a basic way through seven biblical statements on the spiritual condition of infants. The paper supports this view by engaging key texts (such as 2 Samuel 12; Psalm 51:5; and Romans 5:12), major theologians (such as Augustine, Calvin, Wayne Grudem and John MacArthur), and our convention's common doctrinal statement, the BFM 2000.
This paper is offered as a resource to benefit Southern Baptist pastors. While the professors teach students about doctrinal issues such as the nature of our inheritance from Adam or how to formulate a theologically-consistent doctrine of infant salvation, it is pastors who do the hardest work. It is pastors who prepare and deliver funeral sermons for those previous infants and minister to those hurting families in subsequent years. Reared in SBC churches across the country (moved by the military every few years), I heard a wide variety of Southern Baptist pastors and Bible study teachers advocate a view which was sometimes referred to as an age or stage of accountability. This view resonated with many people as faithful to the teachings of Scripture. But there seemed to be little-to-nothing in print which articulated a biblical-theological defense for such a view. This paper is offered as a small contribution to begin filling that theological void. It is my intuition that this view of inherited guilt will be gladly received because it is already widely affirmed throughout the SBC.
The content of this paper was drawn from the work in my 2007 PhD dissertation in Theology completed at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The dissertation was revised and published in 2011 with pastors in mind. Unless a person wants to comb through 400+ footnotes from more than 200+ sources, I recommend simply reading this paper. On a personal note, it is humbling to know that God may desire to encourage and sharpen certain pastors in their high calling through this proposal. If it blesses even one pastor and aids in his ministry, then I will thank the Lord, because it was prepared as an offering to the Him and now I am honored to offer it for consideration to the pastors who serve in His churches throughout the SBC.
There are few things more painful or perplexing than the death of an infant. Because the fog of grief can cloud your thinking, the best time to set into place a biblical view about tragedy and suffering is before it strikes. Although several books have been written on the subject of infant salvation, the current proposal is unique because it attempts to address the spiritual condition of infants who are physically alive. Why focus on the spiritual condition of living infants? Before we consider the issue of the salvation of infants, we need to be clear about what the Bible does and does not affirm about their current spiritual condition.[1]
In one paper, I must exclude more information than I can include. The content, nevertheless, is organized as follows: first, a presentation of the dilemma concerning infants; second, a proposal of seven biblical statements on their spiritual condition; third, some comments of pastoral application.
The Bible presents a dilemma concerning infants. On the one hand, Genesis 3 and Romans 5 describe humanity's fall into sin and the horrible legacy for subsequent generations. We all have a relationship with the first Adam, and that relationship results in our being sinners. Even before we understand the difference between right and wrong, we are sin-stained people. The Bible also informs us that every person will spend the rest of eternity somewhere—either with God in heaven or apart from God in hell. The good news is that God did not abandon his broken creation. At the very moment we were hopeless and helpless in our sin, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). Jesus, who was and is fully God and fully man, lived and died and was raised to provide the forgiveness of sin and to make peace between God and man (1 Cor 15:1–4; 1 Tim 2:5–6).
But the sad part of the good news is that not everyone will be forgiven of their sin. Jesus spoke of a broad gate and road, which lead to destruction, and the many who would go that way (Matt 7:13). Jesus warned about the danger of being thrown into hell (Luke 12:5). Thankfully, some people will go to heaven. And those people who go to heaven will at some point in their lives hear the saving message of the Gospel—that Christ died for our sins. And the people who hear that message will have repented of their sin and turned to Christ for the forgiveness of their sin.
The dilemma comes when we consider infants. I'll define an infant as a person who is one year old or younger (including the pre-born). Infants are part of sinful humanity. Even if they don't yet know they are sinners, they inherit from the first Adam a sinful nature. And later in life, they will inevitably and certainly act out of that sinful nature and knowingly commit sinful acts. But infants who die never had a chance to hear, understand, and respond to the Gospel. It's not just that they do not hear and respond; infants cannot hear and respond to the Gospel.
It seems wrong to think that the loving God of the Bible would allow those infants to spend eternity in hell. But it seems equally wrong to think that the holy God of the Bible would welcome guilty people—no matter how young—into heaven. Thus, the dilemma: How does God welcome some, or any sinful infants into heaven? The Bible doesn't explicitly answer this question. When Anabaptist leader Balthtasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) was asked about the eternal destiny of unbaptized infants, he wrote, "I confess here publicly my ignorance. I am not ashamed not to know what God did not want to reveal to us with a clear and plain word."
The Bible does not explicitly answer that question. There is no chapter and verse in the Bible that answers that particular question in that particular way. We can, however, based on Scripture's clear teaching regarding sin and God's judgment, attempt to build from Scripture an argument for how we think God deals with people who die in infancy. We can also rule out some wrong answers.
These are the kinds of questions that need to be answered:
- In the Bible, are infants and adults treated the same way?
- Does the Bible teach that infants are already guilty of sin or only that they inherit a sinful nature and will later become guilty?
- In the Bible, does God judge our sinful nature? Or does He judge only our sinful thoughts, attitudes, and actions?
Are infants guilty of sin or not? If you believe that people need to hear and respond to the Gospel to be saved, and you say that infants are guilty of sin, then the consistent conclusion is that all infants who die without hearing and responding to the Gospel will be separated from God. But almost no theologian says that. Nearly all theologians hold out hope that some (or all) of those infants will go to heaven. But most of those same theologians also say that infants are guilty of sin. If you begin with infant guilt, then you're left with a doctrinal system in which some sinful, guilty people (infants) are welcomed into heaven. That system is internally inconsistent.
Let me illustrate for you the inconsistencies. Ronald Nash was a well-respected theologian and philosopher who taught at Christian colleges and seminaries for 40 years and wrote more than 30 books. He attempted to reconcile infant guilt and the hope of heaven in his 1999 book entitled When a Baby Dies. Nash insists that infants are guilty because of their sinful nature. So, infants are guilty. However, "divine judgment is administered on the basis of sins committed in the body." He cites 1 Cor 6:9–10, which includes sexual sins and says this excludes infants. So, infants are not guilty. But, Nash writes, infants are guilty due to their sinful nature. So, infants are guilty. However, infants don't know the difference between good and evil, so they are incapable of personal sin. Nash cites Romans 1, which is "clearly dealing with responsible adults." So, infants are not guilty. Typically, Ronald Nash is consistent and clear. But in this case, he insists that infants are guilty before God and at the very same time not guilty. How can that be?
That's the dilemma. What is their spiritual condition? What can we know from Scripture? To address this dilemma, I will present and defend seven biblical statements on the spiritual condition of infants and close with suggestions for pastoral application.
(1) Infants are people. Sometimes we think and speak about infants, especially in the womb, as not-yet-people. Infants are a fetus or a potential person, but not yet a person. That is not the view of Scripture. In Psalm 139, David explains how God formed him in his mother's womb. David was "made" and "woven" together. Even when David was "unformed substance," God saw him and David's future days were written in God's book. In Jeremiah 1, God tells Jeremiah that He "knew" Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb. And God "consecrated" Jeremiah before he was born. From these passages, we see that infants are people, which means they are the special creation of God and (Gen 1:27) made in God's very image. Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not distinguish grammatically between pre-born or born-alive infants. He used the same Greek word (brephos) to refer to John the Baptist as a baby inside the womb (Luke 1:41) and to Jesus as a baby outside of the womb (Luke 2:12). The womb is the place where God creates people. In the words of the widely-read twentieth century theologian, Dr. Seuss, who repeatedly made this statement in Horton Hears a Who: "A person's a person no matter how small." Infants are people.
(2) Infants are impacted by sin. One of the questions people ask before they read my book is this: "If infants are not guilty of sin, then why do some infants die? Isn't death a result, or wage, of sin?" That is a great question. Death is a result or wage of sin. And some infants die. But it does not follow that their deaths are a result of either personal or inherited guilt. Instead, death is the result of God's universal judgment against sin. Even infants can be caught up in the horrible effects of living in a fallen world.
Consider one example of the death of an infant in Scripture: David's first son. Second Samuel 11 details the awful events of David's adultery with Bathsheba. David's cover-up ended in the death of her husband, Uriah. In chapter 12, the prophet Nathan confronted the king with a story that ended with the accusation, "You are the man!" Struck by that truth, David admitted his sin. God forgave David but announced that there would be severe consequences for his actions. One of those consequences was that the child in Bathsheba's womb would die (12:14). Scripture tells us that the child was born and became sick. David fasted and begged God to spare his son's life. But the infant died. Question: What sinful action did the infant commit in order to earn the punishment of death? The answer (of course): Nothing. The infant had done nothing wrong. The child didn't die because of Adam's sin. The text is clear that the child didn't die because of his own sin. The child died as a direct result of David's sin. Our sins can have horrible consequences for other people, including infants.
Consider also Pharoah's infanticide in the day of Moses and King Herod's infanticide in the day of Jesus. Those babies did nothing wrong. I don't cite these examples to say that the death of infants can always be blamed on the sinful actions of other people. The story of Job and the teachings of Jesus (John 9) tell us that is not the case. Instead, what we have seen is that infants can suffer death without personally committing any acts of sin. Infants are impacted by sin.
(3) Infants are not sinless. We reject Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that infants are sinless and Adam was only a bad example that we choose to follow. That's wrong. Only Jesus was born without sin. All other people, including infants, inherit a sinful nature from Adam. People may look at babies and speak of their innocence and purity. If by those words, they mean that infants have not yet knowingly committed sinful actions, then yes, they are innocent and pure. But if they mean that infants are without sin exactly like Adam and Eve before the fall or like Jesus, then no.
David wrote this: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps 51:5). Old Testament scholars who comment on this passage explain this as David's reference to his sinfulness from the first moment of his life. But this is not a comment on infant guilt. Systematic theologians sometimes cite this verse to support a claim of infant guilt. That is not what David said. OT scholars who provide the explanation for Psalm 51:5 I am advocating include: Franz Delitzsch, Edward Dalglish, Mitchell Dahood, Michael Goulder, Hans-Joachim Kraus, and others. These Old Testament scholars say David is not referring to guilt but sinfulness.
Scripture clearly connects us to Adam. Sin entered the world through one man (Rom 5:12). So, all orthodox Christians agree that infants are not sinless. What they disagree on is guilt. There are two different views of this. That brings us to our next position.
(4) Infants inherit from Adam death, not guilt. Augustine taught, and John Calvin later affirmed, that all infants inherit from Adam not only a sinful nature, but also his guilt. Augustine argued that all of humanity was physically (seminally) present when Adam sinned in the Garden. So, we were physically present in Adam. Calvin, though, argued that Adam acted as our representative, or our federal head. He acted as our representative. When Adam sinned, he acted on our behalf and because he is our representative, when he was judged guilty we were judged guilty. In either case, this tradition of Augustinian-Calvinism teaches that all people inherit from Adam both a sinful nature and Adam's guilt. So, the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition affirms that all people, even as infants, have inherited guilt. In explaining this view, theologian Wayne Grudem wrote that "even before birth, children have a guilty standing before God and a sinful nature that not only gives them a tendency to sin but also causes God to view them as 'sinners.'" Calvinists point to Rom 5:12-21, in which Paul parallels the work of Adam and the work of Christ. But despite the teachings of Augustine and Calvin, Paul was not arguing for our guilt in Adam. Rom 5:12 states, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." Paul connects sin to death and states that all have sinned.
Some people read Augustinian-Calvinism into Romans 5, insisting that every person will die because "all sinned," adding these words that are not in the text: "in Adam." They say Romans 5 means we're all guilty because of Adam's sin. But the text only states that "death spread to all men, because all sinned." We need to be careful not to read a theological system into the text of Scripture.
Several New Testament scholars who comment on Romans 5 are careful not to read inherited guilt into the passage. C. E. B. Cranfield, in his International Critical Commentary on Romans, allows for a distinction between Adam's sin being passed to infants and the guilt they later incur after they commit sinful actions. He writes, "But those who die in infancy are a special and exceptional case, and Paul must surely be assumed to be thinking in terms of adults." In Cranfield's estimation, Paul was dealing with adults in Romans 5 not infants.
Millard Erickson raises the problem of reading an exact correspondence into Romans 5. If all people were present and guilty because of Adam's disobedience (universal condemnation), then an exact correspondence would mean that all people were made right with God through Christ's obedience (universal justification). But that is not the case. We reject Universalism. Rather, we say that one must personally ratify the work of Christ in our life by responding in repentance and faith to be saved. In a similar way, we must personally ratify the work of Adam in our life. We do so the first time we commit an act of sin after we know the difference between right and wrong. We must become guilty. (The picture on the next page attempts to illustrate Erickson's view of conditional imputation.)
The Scriptures teach substitutionary atonement (Christ died in our place) not substitutionary guilt. You are not held responsible for the sins of another person but for your own transgressions. You are not held guilty for the sins of your father, your grandfather, or your great-grandfather. Can their sins have consequences on you? Yes. Are you held guilty for the adultery of your great-great-grandfather or the lies of your great-great-great grandmother? No. Neither are you held guilty for the sins of the first Adam. We are connected to Adam, but we answer to God for our own sin and guilt. We inherit from Adam death, not guilt.
(5) Inherited guilt requires inconsistent claims regarding our inheritance from Adam and its effect upon infants when formulating a doctrine of infant salvation. If you begin by assuming infant guilt, then an infant's only hope for heaven is found in one of four ways, all of which appear to be doctrinally inconsistent.
If you begin with infant guilt, then the infant might have a hope of heaven due to baptismal regeneration (baptism for salvation). This was Augustine's solution. He thought baptism would cleanse the infant of the stain of "Adamic sin." But if an infant died before being baptized then, he wrote, the infant would suffer a "milder condemnation" in hell because the infant still retains the guilt of Adam's sin. But we reject baptismal regeneration–both for infants and for adults. People aren't made right with God by the act of water baptism–whether by sprinkling or immersion. Guilty people are made right with God by repenting of their sin and placing their faith in Christ. But if you begin with infant guilt, the road to infant salvation may pass through baptismal regeneration.
If you begin with infant guilt, then the road to infant salvation may travel the road of parental faith. Covenant theology holds out the promise that infants who die with believing parents may go to heaven due to the covenant nature of salvation. They point to 1 Cor 7:14 sanctification and the nature of covenant promises being "to your children." This is the example of John Calvin and Wayne Grudem. Infants of believers can have this hope but not infants with unbelieving parents. So, the difference between heaven and hell for an infant now lies in whether or not parents are Christians?! We reject that view.
If we begin with infant guilt, then hope for heaven can also be found in forgiveness apart from repentance at death. Infants who die remain guilty but enter heaven apart from repenting of that sin/guilt and apart from confessing faith in Christ. When would infants repent of their guilt? John Piper speculated in a footnote of an otherwise excellent book that infants who die will mature after death and confess Christ.[2] Was it a commitment to infant guilt that led Piper to speculate about post-mortem confessions of Christ? That is not a good solution.
If we begin with infant guilt, then their hope for heaven can be based on forgiveness apart from the commission of sin. If we begin with inherited guilt, then you are left with an infant who is guilty of sin before committing any act of sin. Infants are considered guilty, then, on what basis? On the basis of Adam's actions in the Garden. Those options fall short because they begin with an assumption that is foreign to Scripture: infant guilt.
(6) Infants are free from condemnation but will later become guilty for sins committed after they develop moral knowledge.
Free from condemnation? Moral knowledge? What is the basis of such a statement? Is there one example from Scripture of infants being declared free from God's judgment simply because of their lack of moral knowledge? Yes.
Recall the story of the 12 spies. Ten said, "We can't take the land because of the giants." Two said, "God has promised us the land, so we can take it." Do you remember why Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years? Because they voted with the ten spies, who failed to trust God. Deuteronomy 1 and Numbers 14 records God's judgment against them. With the exception of Joshua and Caleb, the older generation (defined in Scripture as twenty years and older) would not enter the Promised Land. Instead, they would wander around and die off in the desert. After the last of that generation died, the younger generation of Israelites would enter the land. What was the single reason the younger generation was spared God's judgment? Their age. I am not suggesting that 20 is the age of accountability, but according to Deut 1:39, that younger generation had "no knowledge of good or evil." They lacked moral knowledge and were spared from God's judgment.
Even some Calvinists affirm this reading of this story. Pastor and author John MacArthur holds a similar interpretation of Deut 1:39 and links that with the spiritual condition of infants today. In his book Safe In the Arms of God, he writes, "The Israelite children of sinful parents were allowed to enter fully into the blessing God had for His people. They were in no way held accountable, responsible, or punishable for the sins of their parents. Why? Because they had no knowledge of good and evil, right or wrong." Then, he quotes Ezek 18:20, which reads (ESV), "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
MacArthur continues, "The same is true today. A child may be conceived out of wedlock. A fetus may be aborted by an ungodly mother. A child may be beaten to death by an ungodly father. But before God, that child does not bear culpability for the sins of the parents. The children were considered 'innocent' of sin. They had not rebelled; they had no 'say' regarding the Israelite's rebellion and unbelief. In a profound way, God blessed their innocence."
If the Bible teaches that sin and death (not guilt) comes from Adam, then when does a person become guilty? Although there is no "age of accountability" in the Bible, there are conditions for accountability:
1. You know the difference between right and wrong.
2. You knowingly commit your first sinful act.
Only after those two conditions are fulfilled is a person guilty before God and under condemnation.
This basic view was the consensus among theologians prior to Augustine. It has been affirmed by various Christian thinkers throughout church history. In my estimation, the proposed view is more consistent with both the doctrinal statement of the SBC and more clearly reflects the claims of Scripture. Of the two views (inherited guilt or inherited sinful nature), only one of them (inherited sinful nature) is affirmed explicitly in Article 3 of the BFM 2000, "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation." It is permissible, however, to affirm inherited guilt, because such a view claims more not less than the BFM 2000.
Infants, according to the BFM 2000, are not transgressors; infants are free from condemnation. Why? Because they have not yet become capable of moral action. This describes the conditions we noted above for an age of or condition for accountability. This failure to affirm inherited guilt is advocated in Article 3 of the BFM 2000 and runs contrary to most systematic theology textbooks in print. Inherited guilt is a dominant but weaker view. It needs to be refuted because it is unnecessary for a robust doctrine of sin. But whether you affirm inherited guilt or sinful nature, it's clear that all infants are descendants of the first Adam and have inherited (at least) a sinful nature.
(7) In the Bible, God judges sinful actions, not our nature.
Consider the following statements from Scripture about God judging sin: 2 Cor 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." What is the basis of God's judgment in this verse? Our nature or our actions?
Consider the argument that Paul builds in his letter to the Romans. In chapter 1, God's wrath is revealed against the following actions: the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (v. 18), fail to honor or thank God (v. 21), claim wisdom (v. 22) but choose idolatry (vv. 23–25), and practice homosexuality (vv. 26-27). What is the basis of God's judgment in this passage? Our nature or our actions? The same things can be seen in the rest of Romans 1.
Romans 3:10 is a classic statement of man's unrighteousness, "There is no one righteous, no not one." What follows in vv. 11–18 is not a summary of man's sinful nature but his sinful actions. We fail to understand or seek God (v. 11), turn aside and fail to do good (v. 12), speak sinful words (vv. 13–14), kill, destroy, fail to live peaceably, and fail to fear God (vv. 15–18). What is the basis of God's judgment in this passage? Our nature or our actions?
Reflecting on Romans 1-3, New Testament scholar Harold Hoehner writes, "Paul makes it very clear in Romans that it is their willful acts of transgression and disobedience that bring this wrath."
The significance? Augustinian-Calvinists argue for our guilt and the judgment of God based upon our sinful nature but Paul argues for our guilt and the judgment of God based upon our sinful actions, which excludes infants.
In this paper, I have argued:
1. Infants are people.
2. Infants are impacted by sin.
3. Infants are not sinless.
4. Infants inherit from Adam death, not guilt.
5. Inherited guilt requires inconsistent claims when formulating a doctrine of infant salvation.
6. Infants are free from condemnation but will later become guilty for sins committed after they develop moral knowledge.
7. In the Bible, God judges sinful actions, not our nature.
I'll close with a few words regarding pastoral application.
God has things to say to parents who have lost an infant due to miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or some other tragedy. These Scriptures are meant to bring hope and encouragement and can be affirmed regardless of one's position on our inheritance from Adam.
- Your child was fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139).
- Parents should never have to bury a child. It's not the way life should be. David modeled in Psalm 13 the appropriate response when we enter those dark times. He brought his questions and his pain to God–continually stating that his hope and trust are in God.
- The death of infants demonstrates in painful clarity that this world is broken. But Christ through His death on the Cross defeated death and will remake and restore His broken world. Because of God's decisive victory in Christ, there will one day be neither death nor mourning (Rev 21:4).
- God is present. He can provide comfort and peace as you trust Him (Rom 15:13).
- Jesus welcomed little children (Mark 10). He pointed to them as examples for adults of citizens in God's kingdom. Just as Jesus welcomed little children during His earthly ministry, He still welcomes them into heaven. Jesus does the same thing now that He did 2,000 years ago. He takes infants in His arms and blesses them (v. 16).
- Like King David, who mourned the death of his infant son, parents who know the Lord (because only those parents will be in heaven) can say, "One day, I'll go to be with him" (2 Sam 12:23). Parents, you have a solid biblical basis for the hope of one day being personally reunited with your child.
- Jesus alone is the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). Jesus alone is our only hope for resurrection and reunion with our loved ones, whether they are adults, children, or infants.
Under God's good providence, the theological conclusion regarding infant salvation has been shared by Baptists for more than 400 years. This was true whether one self-identified as a General or Particular Baptist, Sandy Creek or Charleston Baptist. The same is true today.[3] The two streams of Baptist tradition still differ on the nature of our inheritance from Adam. But we stand united on the reason pastors can make such a claim. Pastors can comfort any family grieving the loss of a precious infant because of the boundless love God demonstrates at the Cross of Christ, for "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8).[4]
[1] Because this manuscript was not intended for academic peer-review, few quotations are cited. For bibliographic information or a more comprehensive treatment of this topic, see Adam Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011).
[2] John Piper, Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear The Gospel to be Saved? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 77 n. 6. Surprisingly, Piper cites in support of his claim Ronald Nash, When a Baby Dies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), who argues in chapter 3 against precisely the view to which Piper is open, salvation via post-mortem faith.
[3] For an example of this agreement, see R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin, "The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?" at http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/, accessed June 14, 2012
[4] For a chapel presentation by Dr. Harwood in which he explains the Baptist Faith and Message 2000's affirmation of inheriting a sinful nature but rejection of imputed guilt, see http://www.truett.edu/chapel/fall-2011-chapel/fall-2011-chapel-video-player.html


text:
Get the definately mug.
Idiot-speak for "definitely". One of the most common moronic misspellings found on the internet.
The new Backstreet Boys CD is, like, definately the best thing ever.
by monsieurjohn June 25, 2003
Get the definately mug.
The word many people use to spell 'definitely' until they suddenly realise they've been spelling it the wrong way.
by insertexpletive December 18, 2004
Get the definately mug.
The modern mis-spelling of definitely seen in almost every modern example where a spell checker was not deployed, most commonly in internet chat, probably from its mis-pronunciation by modern youth and/or being confused with unfortunately.
Yeh, man! Definately!!
by ..WiL May 16, 2005
Get the definately mug.
The wrong way to spell definitely.
Bro: I got a 700 on my SATs! I am definately going places.
by knoxie December 22, 2008
Get the definately mug.
The most common spelling of the word "definitely" in internet forums, comment pages, and chat rooms. If you pay attention, you will find that "definitely" is actually the second or third most common spelling. Alternatives include "definatly", "definetly", or best of all "defiantly".
Microsoft's Zune is Definately no iPod - and the person who made that digg post is definitely no English major.
by Cliff November 22, 2006
Get the definately mug.
"definitely," as blogged, emailed, or texted by a complete moron.
by Curt McGirt June 27, 2007
Get the definately mug.
A word used in place of "definitely" by the same people who write (or say) "agreeance" in place of "agreement" and "grammer" in place of "grammar".
We are definately in agreeance that your grammer is impeccable.
by DrSamba March 30, 2010


text:
Matters of Parallax, and Process Over Outcome
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
In comments under a previous post, rhjunior puts it all together, it's one of my Mother's favorite stories about the three blind men and the elephant (although, behind the link, I see it has become six blind men).
Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."
They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.
"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.
"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.
"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right…
The poster of the comment seems to wonder why I rambled on instead of linking to the story, then adds this pithy summation: "…[T]he liberal thinks that the only one that was wrong — was the elephant."
There's a simple reason why I chose not to link to the story. As we relate the situation to real life, we here in reality are lacking the luxury of a wise, sighted guru happening along and filling us in on what an elephant looks like. Everyone mortal is effectively "blind." Which matters to us, since this is the House of Eratosthenes, who is some guy who lived thousands of years ago and figured out the size of the Earth by following clues. Not, House of some guy who was getting in nerd-fights with other guys before some wise sage or deity made the time to tell him the whole story so the fighting would stop.
In fact, while I was writing it, I was questioning my own judgment call as I moved on from something. The thing with the barn in the painting…
This is why liberals like art, I think. The barn in the painting, the direction from which the artist chose to paint it, the colors, the lighting, the flowers in the field in front of the barn, the time of day – even the frame in which the canvas is mounted – they all coincide together to make a unique experience, and that experience is the reality. You paint the same barn from a different angle, and to them that's an entirely different thing. To people who actually have to build things that go, there is a linkage between the two, and we use this to figure out what the barn is really like. Therefore there is a reasoning process going on.
They don't engage in any such reasoning process because they don't see the linkage; therefore they don't see the point. The sunflowers in front of the barn are just as important as the barn itself. Contradictions that arise, present them with no pressing reconciliation chore whereas the rest of us have to stop everything to figure out what's happening with that damn barn, like: Why does the color appear different at midday from at twilight?
There is more inspection due here, because the "liberals" — in this context meaning, people who think reality is invested in the images perceived by the observer rather than in the object itself, which is generally true — are not exclusively ignorant, and neither are their counterparts, who see the images as merely manifestations of a reality that is too complex to be entirely encompassed in any one single image. Each side of this split is paying attention to something that its opposite is ignoring entirely.
I mentioned a pair of paintings of a single barn, taken from two different angles and two different times of day. I also mentioned sunflowers in a field, in the foreground of one of these. (Presumably, the sunflowers would be out of frame in the other painting, or perhaps off to the side, or in the background.) In the context here we think of "conservative" as an observer who envisions the barn in the painting as a three-dimensional object, with the painting simply a partial representation of it.
Four disparities in these world-views arise.
Beauty: The liberals appreciate the "art" as a complete story unto itself, in ways the conservatives do not. Each painting is a package deal and it may or may not involve a positive emotional experience. If it does, all the elements of the story are pertinent. The brushes, the oil, the matte, the frame, the barn, the flowers, the fence posts, the birds, the sky, the clouds. This is why Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made…if you ask a liberal. If a conservative is dragged into the conversation, the conversation falls apart as the conservative asks all these unwelcome questions like: Uh, there have been a whole lot of movies made about a character falling from grace, what makes this any different? And then the liberal becomes exasperated and tired of this conversation because it is a communication with someone outside of the emotional experience, so typically will say something like "You just have to watch it! I can't explain it! Watch Citizen Kane, you'll 'get it!'" They aren't being insincere. There's a lot of tangential stuff that goes into the experience, like how a stained-glass window pane is photographed, which to the conservative is just so much noise — which brings me to —
TMI: The sunflowers in front of the barn. To the liberal, they're every bit as important as the barn itself. To the conservative they're just in the way, especially after the conservative has managed a gander at the second painting, and figured out that the barn is the common object, and that these two paintings are of the same barn. To him, this is a matter of interest and all sorts of fascinating chores emerge from this simple acknowledgement of the obvious, that the barn has three dimensions and is (probably) a real thing that stands, or once stood, somewhere. One can therefore figure out the barn's size and shape, where the two painters stood relative to one another, how big the barn is, what doors and other openings it has. The liberal is not captivated by this because the liberal doesn't acknowledge the link between the two paintings. He may favorably appreciate both of them. But if that's the case, it is important to understand that the liberal mind finds these to be positive, pleasing, unique and independent experiences. And the sunflowers are part of it. To the conservative, trying to figure out the size and shape of the barn, the goddamn things are just in the way.
Contradictions: "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." So says Professor Hugh Axton in the first third of Atlas Shrugged, winding up Part I which is called "Non-Contradiction." The fact that a genuine contradiction cannot exist, makes apparent contradictions quite useful. For example, this is how parallax works. If two stars are 45 angular minutes apart in March, and 15 angular minutes apart in September, and one of the stars is much further away so that our distance to it is functionally infinite, this tells us a great deal about our distance to the closer one. In pursuing this trajectory of reasoning we are making use of a duality of perspectives. Confined to only a single perspective, we would be deprived of this evidence and would not be able to arrive at this conclusion until we came across some other way to gather the information. For a much simpler example, we can ponder the visual chores done within the brain of anybody who enjoys the advantage of two working eyes as this person experiences visual depth. It's all about reconciling apparent contradictions between two images, known to be associated with each other. Liberals, by and large, don't do this. And that's why the conflict persists. They don't seem to appreciate the value of it. Many among their number have two working eyes apiece, I think. How is it they can ponder weighty subjects, like what to do about our indigent, whether there is such a thing as human effect on the climate, and in so doing fall short of the thinking capacity they engage whenever they look down the street? I don't know the answer to this. You will have to ask them.
Distortion: For all the noise liberals make about the value of nuance, you would think they'd be able to appreciate that different stories can be told about the same reality, there may be different observations made, and yet both stories might be true. And yet, time after time we see conflict arise around them, which they then blame on others, because they perceive that the other story must be a "lie." Like William F. Buckley used to say, "…liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, [but] it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view." This very often causes them to confuse "do you agree" with "do you know": The "true" story is somehow established as being one and the same with somebody's telling of it, much like, again, that barn in the painting. Somehow it is established that a certain painting is the "Original Van Gogh." It would therefore follow that anything else purporting to be the same thing, with detectable differences, must be a replica and therefore fake, worthless, even a blight. This makes sense with paintings, doesn't make quite so much sense with the perception of reality. Because, again, with paintings the value is linked to the painting itself — it is the object of value. Problems arise when they carry this mindset into the real world. A great example is climate change. I have no problem "admitting" that humans might possibly have an effect on it, in the sense that all organisms within an environment affect each other, along with the environment itself, and the environment affects them right back. That much is just how nature works. Even when you jump off the ground into the air, in the purest technical sense you are engaging in an interaction with the Earth as the force from your legs repels the two of you momentarily apart. And yet, have you been in a climate change dispute that failed to degenerate, as they so often do, into something like "What qualifications do you have to question the science that says global warming is caused by humans?" Think of it from their mindset: The "theory" is a painting, it doesn't reflect anything else, it is its own reality. Any statement about the same thing, deviating from this prototype in any detectable way, is a demonstrable fake. Anything done about a certain thing, must adhere to an orthodox process, or else it is invalid — nevermind the outcome.
The take-away from all this is, our friends the liberals are at the center of a great deal of conflict, and they're probably to be blamed for it, but we shouldn't be too hard on them before we make an effort to understand things…from their point of view. In a lot of ways, they're simply children who have made a mistake about how to perceive the world around them, and then unfortunately went through the ensuing years of maturation with this mistake left uncorrected. They just haven't gone through the experience that would compel them to make the correction. They think images are reality, and that explains most of it. Probably watched too much television or something.
Why are they so nasty sometimes? People who are hoodwinked by something, and secretly suspect this is the case, tend to want everybody else to be hoodwinked by the same thing. Peers who have not been hoodwinked the same way, offend them, because it shows that they haven't had to be hoodwinked and somewhere they must have made the decision that this should happen. Inferiors who have not been hoodwinked, offend them the same way, because it reminds them that they have the intellectual fortitude to solve their own problems and they haven't seen fit to marshal this fortitude. Superiors who have not been so hoodwinked, offend them, because it poses a problem for their dogmatic "truth" that all good things come from communicating and investing belief in a common set of "good" messages, read that as, genuine, truthy images. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush believing in un-liberal things, and rising to the office of President of the United States, offends the dickens out of them. But as soon as Barack Obama is sworn in, the Reagan and Bush things are effectively scrubbed from history; not never happened (until the time comes to blame something on them). Welcome to the age of "We know we're right because Obama is President."
And that gets into a fifth perception-discrepancy that arouses conflict, the perception of time. Liberals do not view time the same way normal people do. But that is truly a post for some other day.
Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Rotten Chestnuts.
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0


text:
The Free Gaza Movement today condemned the Israeli state's violation of international maritime law when it hijacked their cargo ship MV Rachel Corrie in international waters, and vowed to organize another freedom flotilla in the coming months to break the state's blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The aid ship, containing thousands of tonnes of humanitarian supplies to the besieged people of Gaza, was forcibly seized by armed Israeli military personnel and was forced to dock at the port of Ashdod in Israeli state territory on Saturday afternoon. The hijacking met no resistance from the eleven activists and eight crew members on board, who were determined not to offer the military any excuse for further violence.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the activists' non-violence to claim that the deadly hijacking of six other ships of the flotilla earlier in the week was a result of what he called "hate organized by violent Turkish terror extremists" on one of the other boats, the MV Marmara.
In response to Netanyahu's remarks, the Free Gaza Movement said in a statement from Cyprus, "We'd like to remind Mr. Netanyahu that the only hate evidenced on board all six boats on Monday morning came from the Israeli attackers. Israeli soldiers violently boarded the entire flotilla, beating, shooting and hooding passengers as though they were in Abu Ghraib."
Nine flotilla members were shot dead by Israeli state-sponsored hijackers, many of them from gunshots to the face and back of the head, and dozens of others wounded, prompting outrage from all over the world.
Laura Stuart, a British housewife and rescue worker who was on board the Marmara, described frantic attempts to treat the injured in a makeshift sick room on the ship, and the failed attempts to resuscitate some of the dead. "People had been shot in the arms, legs, in the head - everywhere. We had so many injured. It was a bloodbath", she said.
Andre Abu Khalil, a Lebanese cameraman for Al Jazeera TV, who was on board the Marmara during the assault, said that twenty of the flotilla members formed a human shield to prevent the Israeli soldiers from scaling the ship." He described how the first wave of attackers was fought back, and four Israeli personnel were captured and taken below-decks.
Referring to Israeli state claims that those killed were armed and attacked first, he said that all he saw during the whole incident were "slingshots, water pipes and sticks". "They were banging the pipes on the side of the ship to warn the Israelis not to get closer", said Abu Khalil. One activist used a loud hailer to tell the Israelis the four captive soldiers were well and would be released if they provided medical help for the wounded activists, but after a ten-minute stand-off the Israelis opened fire.
"One man got a direct hit to the head and another one was shot in the neck," he said. In all he saw some 40 people wounded, some to the legs, eye, stomach and chest.
Canadian Farooq Burney, director of a Qatari educational initiative, said the attackers waited more than an hour before treating the wounded, even though activists had made a makeshift sign reading, "S.O.S. .. Please provide medical assistance", and were waving a makeshift white flag of peace.
The 37-year-old Canadian said he witnessed one elderly man bleed to death before his eyes after being shot.
"He just passed out in front of us and we couldn't see where he was hit so we opened up his life jacket and we could clearly see that he was hit in the chest," Burney said. "He was losing a lot of blood. It was on … the right, just close to his chest and there was blood coming out from there. He passed away."
The Irish cargo ship Rachel Corrie, named after an American activist killed by Israeli bulldozer in Gaza, was carrying construction materials, paper and medical supplies to the people of the Gaza Strip, who have been subject to a process of ever-tightening siege by Israel since Hamas won the elections to government in the Palestinian Occupied Territories in 2006.
But despite the loss of life, the seizure by the Israeli state of many of the humanitarian supplies, and the traumatic experiences of those that survived the assault, the Free Gaza Movement made a commitment today to send more aid ships to Gaza later in the summer.
In a press release today, the group's spokespersons, Greta Berlin and Mary Hughes, said, "We are putting Mr. Netanyahu on notice that we are returning in the next couple of months with another flotilla, that his actions and the actions of his soldiers have energized thousands of people who have stepped forward with offers to help and participate on the next voyage."


text:
His and Hers Modern Pipe Cut Style Matching Cobalt Wedding Ring Set
His and Hers Modern Pipe Cut Style Matching Cobalt Wedding Ring Set
Our His and Hers Modern Pipe Cut Style Cobalt Wedding Ring Set has a highly polished mirror like finish, and because it they are made with solid, genuine cobalt chrome it is similar in color to white gold and platinum (whiter hue than tungsten carbide) and is scratch resistant. This ring set consists of a 6MM and an 8MM pipe cut style ring, which can be purchased individually if prefered on our website. These rings makes for an awesome wedding ring set as the shine will last a lifetime!
Like all of our Cobalt Rings these rings are Comfort Fit, and due to the rings being manufactured of bio-inert materials they are 100% hypo-allergenic. These rings are engravable, please check our custom engraving page for font samples.
Buy with confidence as this His and Hers Modern Pipe Cut Style Cobalt Wedding Ring Set comes with our 21-day satisfaction guarantee and is backed by our Lifetime Warranty.
** Please note that while engraved rings cannot be exchanged or returned under the 21 day satisfaction guarantee, a claim can be made under the lifetime warranty. Therefore, we encourage our customers to ensure proper fit before having their rings personalized or engraved. You can select 'Try Rings On First' to receive your rings without engraving, and receive a return shipper to send them back for engraving and size changes (USA only for return shipper, engraving must be pre paid for return shipper option) **
Retail Price: $679.99
Our Price: $124.99
Retail Price: $369.99
Our Price: $124.99
Retail Price: $369.99
Our Price: $124.99
- Precious Metals
- Tungsten Collection
- All Titanium Rings
- Cobalt Chrome Collection
- All Stainless Steel Rings
- Personalized Fingerprint Jewelry
- Engravable Gifts
- New Arrivals
- Affordable Wedding Ring Sets
- Promise Rings
- Classic Domed White Gold Rings
- Classic Domed Gold Wedding Rings
- Custom Ring Engraving
- Find My Ring Size
- Shipping Information
- Visit Our Blog


text:
BRADENTON, Fla. – It was ironic that Ivan DeJesus Jr. was the Pittsburgh Pirates' starting shortstop Tuesday when they routed Spain's World Baseball Classic team 10-0.
DeJesus was very conflicted before deciding to drop off Puerto Rico's WBC roster last week so he could remain in the Pirates' spring training camp and try to win a bench job.
"It's tough, especially with the first round being in my home country," DeJesus said, referring to Puerto Rico facing Spain in its first game of first-round pool play on Friday night in San Juan. "I really wanted to play in the WBC but ultimately had to decide what was best for my career. I'm in a new organization and I just think it's better I stay here than maybe be away for three weeks. I don't think I would have had any chance to make the team if I left spring training."
So DeJesus, who went 1-for-3, remains in camp and is in what appears to be a six-man competition for two utility infielder spots with Josh Harrison, Jordy Mercer, Chase d'Arnaud, Brandon Inge and Anderson Hernandez.
DeJesus was one of four players the Pirates acquired from the Boston Red Sox on Dec. 26 in a trade for closer Joel Hanrahan. DeJesus had been traded to the Red Sox from the Dodgers in October as a player to be named in the August deal that sent Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett from Boston to Los Angeles.
"Boston had already taken me off the 40-man roster but I didn't think they were going to trade me, so it was a real surprise," DeJesus said. "I wasn't expecting it but it's the best thing that could have happened to me. The Pirates have given me an opportunity to play this spring and show them what I can do and I feel very welcome here."
Gaby Sanchez, likely the only player in the lineup who will be on the opening day roster, went 3-for-3 with a double, home run and two RBIs. The right-handed hitting Sanchez is expected to platoon at first base with Garrett Jones this season but played third base against Spain.
Hernandez also homered.
Gerrit Cole, the first overall selection in the 2011 amateur draft, started and struck out six in three innings as he combined with four relievers on a five-hitter. He allowed two hits and one walk.
"The big thing for me right now is trying to get my mechanics nailed in the bullpen (during pre-game warmups) then taking that over into the game," Cole said. "I felt I did that today. I felt really good out there."
Rhiner Cruz, a Houston Astros reliever and one of just two players with major-league experience on the Spanish roster, took the loss as he allowed three runs in one inning.
Spain's roster consists almost exclusively of players from Latin American and the United States who are of Spanish origin and the only other one beside Cruz with major-league experience is first baseman Barbaro Canizares.
Cruz made his debut with the Houston Astros last season and was 1-1 with a 6.05 ERA in 52 games. Canizares played in five games for the Atlanta Braves in 2009.
Spain upset Israel in a qualifying tournament in September at Jupiter, Fla., and now is in a difficult pool that also includes the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. However, the Spaniards, who play the Baltimore Orioles on Wednesday in Sarasota, are hoping to create a little buzz for baseball in a soccer-mad nation.
"We needed to play a team like this because this is the kind of competition we are going to be facing in San Juan," said right-handed reliever Eric Gonzalez, who pitched for Lake Erie in the independent Frontier League last season and is the lone Spanish national on the team as he is a native of the Canary Islands. "We didn't play that well today but it was a good test for us and we can learn from it."
NOTES: Pittsburgh RHP Jeff Karstens (biceps tendinitis) threw live batting practice before Tuesday's game and reported no discomfort. Karstens' next step is to pitch a simulated game this week. If that goes well, he would likely be able to pitch in a game for the first time this spring in the middle of next week. . Sanchez's home landed deep into the new left-field stands that opened this season at 80-year-old McKechnie Field. . Hernandez and Pirates CF Darren Ford each had two hits.


text:
Code Inspection: Thread static field has initializer
ThreadStaticAttribute makes a field thread-local. This means that every thread has its own reference corresponding to the field. Fields marked with
ThreadStaticAttribute must be static and not initialized statically.
This attribute does not affect instance fields. If you need a thread-local instance field you can use the
ThreadLocal<> type that has been introduced in .NET 4.0.
If a static field has an initializer, this initializer is invoked only once - on the thread that executes the static constructor. If initialization on all threads is needed, then the field can be encapsulated by a lazy-initialized property:
[ThreadStatic] private static object myFoo; public static object Foo { get { if (myFoo == null) myFoo = new object(); return myFoo; } }
<ThreadStatic> Private Shared Dim myFoo As Object Public Shared ReadOnly Property Foo As Object Get If (myFoo Is Nothing) Then myFoo = New Object() Return myFoo End Get End Property
Alternatively, the
ThreadLocal<>class can be used (as of .NET 4.0):
private ThreadLocal<object> myFoo = new ThreadLocal<object>(() => new object());
Dim myFoo As ThreadLocal(Of Object) = new ThreadLocal(Of Object)(Function() New Object())
Last modified: 08 March 2021


text:
Currency Displayed in
Hover over image to zoom
Copyright 2023 Moviestore Inc.. All Rights Reserved. Sitemap |
Bigcommerce Premium Themes by PSDCenter
All prices are in USD.
Compare Now
Click the button below to add the Gene Autry sits on his saddle with gun drawn 8x10 inch photo to your wish list.


text:
What do you do when you already have a couple of well-received netbooks? You make another one, of course. And sure as Shadrach, HP is following up on the success of its consumer-friendly Mini 1000 and business-centric Mini 2140 netbooks (not to mention its designer-minded Mini 1000 Vivienne Tam) with the HP Mini 110. We received a unit shortly before the news broke, so we can't offer you a full review yet, but here's a quick take following an afternoon of playing around with HP's newest netbook.
The big difference between the new model and its predecessors is a couple hundred bucks. Available on June 10, the Mini 100 XP (available in "Black Swirl") will sell for $329, while the 110 Mi edition (Linux-based) starts at $279. Compare those prices with the $549 tag on the Mini 1000 that we reviewed seven months ago.
The hardware hasn't changed much: The Mini 110 carries the same CPU, the same RAM config, the same hard drive, the same awesomely large 92-percent keyboard–even the same crummy mouse button layout that's been driving me bonkers since HP introduced it on the HP Mini 2133. The new model also comes loaded with a three-cell battery–as did the Mini 1000, which lasted only 2 hours, 47 minutes on a charge. (Travelers' advisory: Consider popping an extra 40 bones for the BX06 Mini Battery to pick up a little extra on-the-go gusto.)
What do you gain and what do you lose with this more affordable model? Well, HP swaps out the multimedia dongle port in favor of a built-in VGA port (plus a built-in RJ-45 ethernet jack for good measure). The sweet-looking speaker grille planted inside the 1000's hinge is absent from the 110, replaced by a horrid-sounding speaker mounted beneath the display. That display offers a 10.1-inch-diagonal image with a native resolution of 1024 by 576, and the slick edge-to-edge plastic cover has has vanished in favor of a big plastic bezel that makes the Mini 110 look like the love child of the Mini 1000 and the Acer Aspire One.
Upgrade options exist, naturally: 802.11b/g not enough, and you want wireless WAN? Done. Demand this netbook in "White Swirl" or "Pink Chic"? As of July 8, those colors will be available. Feeling cramped? You can slot in a 250GB hard drive and boost the RAM to 2GB.
I also appreciate the Mini 110's software selection, which is slightly more robust than the usual feeble bloatware. For instance, Syncables allows you to sync five PCs on a network. We'll have more to report on the software bundle when our full review of the Mini 110 goes live.
Otherwise, this looks like a slightly thicker, economy-class version of last year's model. The 110 measures 10.3 by 6.6 by 1.2 inches and weighs 2.33 pounds, compared to the Mini 1000's 10.3 by 6.6 by 0.99 inches and 2.25 pounds. And that isn't a bad trade-off for the extras inside the machine–and the lower price.
We have to wait and see how it does on our WorldBench 6 test suite, but it's almost certain to perform on a par with the Mini 1000, which earned a 30 (slightly below the current netbook average of 36). Check back later for a complete review.


text:
On Chorea
Of Pomeroy, Ohio.
Essay read before the Meigs and Mason Academy of Medicine at Middleport, Ohio, February 15, 1872.
Chorea is essentially a disease of the nervous system. The name "chorea" is given to the disease on account of the dancing propensities of those who are affected by it, and it is a very appropriate designation. The disease, as it is commonly seen, is by no means a dangerous or serious affection, however distressing it may be to the one suffering from it, or to his friends. Its most marked and characteristic feature is a clonic spasm affecting the voluntary muscles. There is no loss of sense or of volition attending these contractions, as there is in epilepsy; the will is there, but its power to perform is deficient, the desired movements are after a manner performed, but there seems to exist some hidden power, something that is playing tricks, as it were, upon the will, and in a measure thwarting and perverting its designs; and after the will has ceased to exert its power in any given direction, taking things into its own hands, and keeping the poor victim in a continual jigger as long as he remains awake, generally, though not always, granting a respite during sleep. The disease commonly begins by slight twitchings in the muscles of the face, which gradually increase in violence and variety. The eyelids are kept winking, the brows are corrugated, and then elevated, the nose is screwed first to the one side and then to the other, and the mouth is drawn in various directions, giving the patient the most ludicrous appearance imaginable. The upper extremities may be the first affected, or both simultaneously. All the voluntary muscles are liable to be affected, those of the face rarely being exempted.
If the patient attempt to protrude the tongue it is accomplished with a great deal of difficulty and uncertainty. The hands are kept rolling-first the palms upward, and then the backs. The shoulders are shrugged, and the feet and legs kept in perpetual motion; the toes are turned in, and then everted; one foot is thrown across the other, and then suddenly withdrawn, and, in short, every conceivable attitude and expression is assumed, and so varied and irregular are the motions gone through with, that a complete description of them would be impossible. Sometimes the muscles of the lower extremities are not affected, and I believe they never are alone involved. In cases of death from chorea, all the muscles of the body seem to have been affected, and the time required for recovery and degree of success in treatment seem to depend greatly upon the amount of muscular involvement. Romberg refers to two cases in which the muscles of respiration were affected.
The disease is generally confined to childhood, being most frequent between the ages of eight and fourteen years, and occurring oftener in girls than in boys. Dufosse and Rufz refer to 429 cases; 130 occurring in boys and 299 in girls. Watson mentions a collection of 1,029 cases, of whom 733 were females, giving a proportion of nearly 5 to 2. Dr. Watson also remarks upon the disease being most frequent among children of dark complexion, while the two authorities just alluded to, Dufosse and Rufz, give as their opinion that it is most frequent in children of light hair. In every case visiting the clinics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New York, and of which I have the notes, the subjects were of dark complexion. Temperature is said to exert an influence over the disease, it being according to some authors, most frequent during the winter months, and scarcely known in the tropics. Its mean duration is from thirty to sixty days, and although it is chiefly confined to children is not entirely so. Spontaneous terminations frequently occur upon the establishment of the menses in girls and of puberty in boys. There appears to be in certain cases of unusual severity or long continuance a degree of fatuity established, but it is usually recovered from upon the subsidence of the disease.
According to Rilliet and Barthez, as quoted by Dr. Condie in his work on diseases of children: "Patients laboring under chorea, being attacked by measles, scarlatina, variola, or other acute febrile disease of childhood, the chorea will generally be diminished in intensity or entirely removed."
They state that "out of nineteen cases nine were attacked with other diseases, and eight were evidently influenced by them." M. Rufz, denies that concurrent diseases exert any influence upon the severity or duration of chorea. There is generally constipation with disordered stomach and appetite, it sometimes being defective and at others ravenous. Pain is not a common attendant upon the disease, although headache may frequently be present and sometimes tenderness along the course of the spinal cord, which is increased by pressure. "Epilepsy and hemiplegia," remarks Dr. Condie, "are not uncommon results of chorea," and in many cases falling under his notice the patients had died of tubercular meningitis. Dr. Todd states that "paralysis of a limb which has been affected by chorea is not uncommon." He also states that the sounds of the heart are often changed in chorea; a bellows sound is frequently observed, and is either aortic, systolic, dependent upon anemia, or much more frequently mitral, systolic or regurgitant.
Rheumatism and rheumatic pericarditis, have been shown by Dr. Copland to be frequent accompaniments to chorea. M. Lee, Begbei, Nairn, Kirkes, Trousseau, and others point out its frequent occurrence in connection with pericardial inflammation, and internal and external rheumatism. Trousseau says that examinations into the condition of the heart, and inquiry as regards rheumatism, should always be instituted.
As regards the pathology of chorea, very little satisfactory information has been gained, and indeed in a large number of persons who have died of chorea, and upon whom autopsies have been performed, in the hope of illuminating this dark subject, no morbid changes have been found of a nature to lead to the supposition that they were in any way connected with the disease, while lesions discovered in others, such as inflammation of portions of the brain, turgescence of its vessels, with effusion of serum; hypertrophy and injection of the brain and spinal cord; turgescence of the vessels of the brain and spinal cord, with several bony plates half way up the spine upon the piamater; a concretion in the left hemisphere of the brain; a tumor pressing upon the tubercular quadrigemina, with inflammation and sanguineous effusion; ecchymosis of the membranes, and a pulpy condition of the spinal cord, and an abscess within the cerebellum, as reported by Clutterbuck, Serrs, Cox, Patterson, Roser, Willan, Copland, Monad, Hutten, Beight, Brown, Keir and Schrode, these might, I say, have exerted and doubtless did exert powerful influences over the cases in which they occurred.
The most probable theory, and one which I believe is most generally accepted at the present day is, that the disease depends upon some functional derangement in the cerebellum. Modern physiologists pretty generally agree upon the opinion first advanced by Flourens, that the function of the cerebellum is to direct, govern and coordinate the movements of the muscular system. This being the case, then, the irregular ungoverned movements of the muscles in chorea would most decidedly and emphatically point to the cerebellum as the seat of the difficulty. Undoubtedly, the ab[s]cess of the cerebellum discovered by Schrode was the exciting cause in that instance. But even if we take it for granted that we have discovered the sedes morbi we are still left in ignorance in regard to the nature of the derangement. And here we must leave the interesting subject of the pathology of this disease, and trust that the science, which has accomplished such wonders, through the never-tiring devotion of its votaries, may yet "overturn and overturn, and overturn it," until it is laid open to the light of day.
The causes predisposing to chorea are various: Improper and indigestible articles of diet, confinement in illy ventilated apartments, with want of proper exercise; disordered digestion, etc. While the exciting causes are irritation from dentition, irritation in the stomach and alimentary canal; by worms, retained faeces, etc., anger, fright, rheumatism and injuries to the head. It is, also, singular as it appears, sometimes the result of mitation. Some authors mention the disease as occurring epidemically in schools, and in one instance among a religious sect in Kentucky and Tennessee. The disease sometimes assumes a character different from ordinary chorea, and a number of cases of this kind are alluded to by Watson. Some keep beating measured time as if they were marching to music, others are seized with an irresistible propensity to roll over and over; others to stand on their heads, others to walk forward or backward, sometimes rapidly and in one direction, until exhausted or checked by some obstacle.
The treatment of chorea now most generally adopted is by purgatives, tonics, counter-irritants, and anti-spasmodics. The first indication is, if possible, to remove the exciting cause and it will probably be different in each individual case. Bleeding used to be employed, and it is said with good results, but it is rarely used at present, except in cases when there is much pain in the head, or along the spine, when it may be taken moderately by cups or leeches.
Purgatives should be used to unload the intestines, and the bowels should be kept open, and in a condition as near normal as possible, not allowing a day to pass without a full and free evacuation. In the early stages the mild cathartics may be employed, as the fluid extract taraxacum and senna, calomel combined with rhubarb or jalap, and followed by castor oil.
The pil. comp. cath., or ol. ric., may be required when constipation is resisting, and the bowels are in a torpid state. Spts. turpentine is highly recommended by some, either by itself, or in combination with castor oil, tr. senna, etc. Tartarized antimony has been recommended by some in as large doses as can be borne by the stomach.
In the British and Foreign Medical and Surgical Review for January, 1858, two cases are reported as being successfully treated by it. In the first case the chorea had lasted a month and was increasing in intensity. Large doses of tart. emetic were given on two successive days, and thirty hours after its first administration, all choreic movements had ceased. The chorea reappeared under a severe fit of passion, but again yielded to tartar emetic. In the second case the chorea was at first general, but immediately became partial. It resisted tonic and other treatment for six months, but yielded to tartar emetic in twenty-eight hours. Counter-irritation is often employed, either by blisters along the spine, pustulation by croton oil, or by friction with tartar emetic ointment, this last method being considered by some good authorities as preferable. The most essential part of the treatment consists in the administration of tonics, nearly all of which, both vegetable and mineral are found serviceable. Of the vegetable tonics, the best are the different preparations of bark, and the salts of quinia. Of the minerals, the chalybeates, arsenic and zinc, are undoubtedly the most valuable. Iron may be given in form of sesquioxide, proto carbonate or sulphate, and, indeed, will be found useful in any of its forms.
The proto-carbonate of iron, gr. v.-vii., given in syrup, will often be found very useful. The zinci sulph. has a great deal of testimony in its favor; the disease yielding to it when many other medicaments have failed. Its use is generally begun in small doses, say one grain, and gradually increasing a grain at a time until the stomach will bear twelve or fifteen grains. The effects produced in individual cases must guide the practitioner, and if one tonic fails, another must be substituted and persevered in as long as any benefit accrues from its use, and so on throughout the whole catalogue, if necessary. Cimicifuga, nux vomica and iodine have been used with marked su[c]cess by some, and are highly recommended by them. Opium, belladonna, hyoscyamus, stramonium, etc., are often serviceable in quieting muscular action and producing sleep, and the same may be said in favor of chloral hydrate and chloroform, the latter being used in event of failure of the other remedies. These drugs can be considered, however, only as adjuvants to the tonics. In conjunction with these means the cold bath or sea-bathing, plenty of exercise in the open air, and a strict attention to diet will in most cases prove successful.
Electricity applied along the spine has proven in the hands of some a powerful curative agent in chorea. It should never be applied directly to affected parts, as the disease is thereby aggravated, rather than relieved, and it should not be continued after the patient is convalescent. The diet should be nourishing and easy of digestion, the food to consist of such articles as beef extract, milk, eggs, etc., the condition of each patient indicating the kind and quantity of food to be given. Gymnastic exercise is often of much good and is employed by some as the sole means of cure. After recovery care should be taken to remove all exciting causes; the bowels are to be kept free and in a soluble condition, and in short, all irritation to both mind and body are to be removed as far as it is possible to do so.
And now I wish to draw your attention more particularly to a form of the disease which exists, so far as I know, almost exclusively on the east end of Long Island. It is peculiar in itself and seems to obey certain fixed laws. In the first place, let me remark that chorea, as it is commonly known to the profession, and a description of which I have already given, is of exceedingly rare occurrence there. I do not remember a single instance occurring in my father 's practice, and I have often heard him say that it was a rare disease and seldom met with by him.
The hereditary chorea, as I shall call it, is confined to certain and fortunately a few families, and has been transmitted to them, an heirloom from generations away back in the dim past. It is spoken of by those in whose veins the seeds of the disease are known to exist, with a kind of horror, and not at all alluded to except through dire necessity, when it is mentioned as "that disorder." It is attended generally by all the symptoms of common chorea, only in an aggravated degree, hardly ever manifesting itself until adult or middle life, and then coming on gradually but surely, increasing by degrees, and often occupying years in its development, until the hapless sufferer is but a quivering wreck of his former self.
It is as common and is indeed, I believe, more common among men than women, while I am not aware that season or complexion has any influence in the matter. There are three marked peculiarities in this disease: 1. Its hereditary nature. 2. A tendency to insanity and suicide. 3. Its manifesting itself as a grave disease only in adult life.
1. Of its hereditary nature. When either or both the parents have shown manifestations of the disease, and more especially when these manifestations have been of a serious nature, one or more of the offspring almost invariably suffer from the disease, if they live to adult age. But if by any chance these children go through life without it, the thread is broken and the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the original shakers may rest assured that they are free from the disease. This you will perceive differs from the general laws of so-called hereditary diseases, as for instance in phthisis, or syphilis, when one generation may enjoy entire immunity from their dread ravages, and yet in another you find them cropping out in all their hideousness. Unstable and whimsical as the disease may be in other respects, in this it is firm, it never skips a generation to again manifest itself in another; once having yielded its claims, it never regains them. In all the families, or nearly all in which the choreic taint exists, the nervous temperament greatly preponderates, and in my grandfather 's and father 's experience, which conjointly cover a period of 78 years, nervous excitement in a marked degree almost invariably attends upon every disease these people may suffer from, although they may not when in health be over nervous.
2. The tendency to insanity, and sometimes that form of insanity which leads to suicide, is marked. I know of several instances of suicide of people suffering from this form of chorea, or who belonged to families in which the disease existed. As the disease progresses the mind becomes more or less impaired, in many amounting to insanity, while in others mind and body both gradually fail until death relieves them of their sufferings. At present I know of two married men, whose wives are living, and who are constantly making love to some young lady, not seeming to be aware that there is any impropriety in it. They are suffering from chorea to such an extent that they can hardly walk, and would be thought, by a stranger, to be intoxicated. They are men of about 50 years of age, but never let an opportunity to flirt with a girl go past unimproved. The effect is ridiculous in the extreme.
3. Its third peculiarity is its coming on, at least as a grave disease, only in adult life. I do not know of a single case that has shown any marked signs of chorea before the age of thirty or forty years, while those who pass the fortieth year without symptoms of the disease, are seldom attacked. It begins as an ordinary chorea might begin, by the irregular and spasmodic action of certain muscles, as of the face, arms, etc. These movements gradually increase, when muscles hitherto unaffected take on the spasmodic action, until every muscle in the body becomes affected (excepting the involuntary ones), and the poor patient presents a spectacle which is anything but pleasing to witness. I have never known a recovery or even an amelioration of symptoms in this form of chorea; when once it begins it clings to the bitter end. No treatment seems to be of any avail, and indeed nowadays its end is so well-known to the sufferer and his friends, that medical advice is seldom sought. It seems at least to be one of the incurables.
Dr. Wood, in his work on the practice of medicine, mentions the case of a man, in the Pennsylvania Hospital, suffering from aggravated chorea, which resisted all treatment. He finally left the hospital uncured. I strongly suspect that this man belonged to one of the families in which hereditary chorea existed. I know nothing of its pathology. I have drawn your attention to this form of chorea gentlemen, not that I considered it of any great practical importance to you, but merely as a medical curiosity, and as such it may have some interest.
This work was published before January 1, 1928, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse