Western Kentucky Lady Topper graduate assistant Kristina Covington has been suspended following her arrest Monday. Covington, along with four other people, were arrested on drug trafficking charges after the Bowling Green Police Department found 1.2 pounds of marijuana, a little less than $2,000 and a machete during a probation and parole house check at 1428 Park St.Covington, who did not live at the residence, was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance within 1,000 yards of school.
WKU coach Mary Taylor Cowles was not available for comment. WKU Athletics’ Director Wood Selig issued a statement.
“WKU Athletics has decided to immediately suspend Lady Topper graduate student assistant Kristina Covington from all WKU Athletic related activities pending the resolution of this legal issue, at which time we will revisit her role and status as an administrative graduate assistant with the Lady Topper basketball program,” Selig said. “We feel such action is in the best interest of both Kristina and our Lady Topper program at this time.”
Covington just completed her first season as graduate assistant. The Elizabethtown native was also a four-year letterwinner and two-time all-Sun Belt Conference selection. In four years, Covington scored 1,076 points and helped lead the Lady Toppers to the NCAA Tournament in 2003.
Covington played professional basketball in Israel for two seasons before returning to Western.
She was jailed Monday in Warren County Regional Jail and released Tuesday after posting a $5,000 surety bond.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Wow!
I thought I was generous, but the Vice President has me by a mile:
The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.
The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney's books. That left about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheney's owed $529,636 in taxes.
The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.
The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney's books. That left about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheney's owed $529,636 in taxes.
I Give This Guy 6 Months
Sunil Gulati discusses the future of soccer the same way he addresses his Principles of Economics class at Columbia University.
When he is asked about the viability of a professional women's league, Gulati, a 46-year-old economist and the newly elected president of the United States Soccer Federation, answers: "There's no right to exist, so to speak, of any sports venture, or any business venture, for that matter. In the end, the market will decide."
Sunil Gulati, meet Larry Summers.
When he is asked about the viability of a professional women's league, Gulati, a 46-year-old economist and the newly elected president of the United States Soccer Federation, answers: "There's no right to exist, so to speak, of any sports venture, or any business venture, for that matter. In the end, the market will decide."
Sunil Gulati, meet Larry Summers.
You Gotta Love College Professors
Now is it just me, or should this nut be fired...immediately. Oh wait, I forgot about that whole tenure thing. Nevermind.
HIGHLAND HEIGHTS - A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.
NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.
Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.
Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.
"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.
Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."
She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a "slap in the face" to women who might be making "the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion."
Wouldn't you think students in a graduate-level course would be a bit more mature? I could see some 18 year-olds getting fired up by their professor and doing something stupid, but these are - presumably - mature human beings. Then again, it is the literature and language department. As an English major myself, you won't find a more radical and pathetic collection of people anywhere on a university campus.
HIGHLAND HEIGHTS - A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.
NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.
Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.
Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.
"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.
Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."
She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a "slap in the face" to women who might be making "the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion."
Wouldn't you think students in a graduate-level course would be a bit more mature? I could see some 18 year-olds getting fired up by their professor and doing something stupid, but these are - presumably - mature human beings. Then again, it is the literature and language department. As an English major myself, you won't find a more radical and pathetic collection of people anywhere on a university campus.
The Coz Is In Town
Here's what he had to say yesterday:
"Put a body on 'em."
Comedian and social commentator Bill Cosby gave that advice to a largely African-American audience during an afternoon parenting session at Xavier University.
Cosby, 68, said that means parents must stay involved in every aspect of their child's life - from friends to homework - to prevent family breakdown and out-of-control behavior.
Parents also should have a network of people who can help keep an eye on potentially wayward kids.
"These children need bodies on all of them," Cosby said. "If you're not doing that, then you should be ashamed of yourself."
I love the Coz, but how sad is it that it take a comedian to say what needs to be said to - and about - the black community. He speaks again tonight and there's sure to be fireworks.
"Put a body on 'em."
Comedian and social commentator Bill Cosby gave that advice to a largely African-American audience during an afternoon parenting session at Xavier University.
Cosby, 68, said that means parents must stay involved in every aspect of their child's life - from friends to homework - to prevent family breakdown and out-of-control behavior.
Parents also should have a network of people who can help keep an eye on potentially wayward kids.
"These children need bodies on all of them," Cosby said. "If you're not doing that, then you should be ashamed of yourself."
I love the Coz, but how sad is it that it take a comedian to say what needs to be said to - and about - the black community. He speaks again tonight and there's sure to be fireworks.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Bill Simmons Bursts the Big O's Bubble
Q: Whoa, whoa, WHOA. You wrote of Oscar Robertson: "The triple-double in 1961 was a little overrated because all the offensive stats were completely skewed that season (it was like a steroids year in baseball)". You owe us an explanation. That stat -- along with all the praise from guys like Russell and Wilt -- has kept the Big "O" on a pedastal in my mind for years. If this stat isn't legit, everything changes for me. The world is no longer round.--Greg I., Philly, Pa.
Bill Simmons: Little-known fact: NBA stats are completely screwed up from 1959-67. Teams were running and gunning at a breathtaking pace. For instance, the 1960 Celtics scored 124.5 points per game and averaged nearly 120 shots a game, but since the shooters weren't as good back then (the Celts only shot 41 percent that year, which also led the league), they also averaged a whopping 80.2 rebounds per game. To put that in perspective, Phoenix led the league with 111.9 points and 85 shots per game, but they only averaged 44.1 rebounds per game because everyone can make a jumper now and it's not run-and-gun.
Take Oscar's first five years compared to Magic's first five years. From 1961-65, Oscar averaged 30.3 points, 10.4 assists and 10.6 rebounds ... but he was the 17th-best rebounder in the league over that time (in an eight-team league) and the third-best rebounder on his own team (behind Wayne Embry and Jerry Lucas). Magic averaged 18.2 points, 10.3 assists and 8.0 rebounds ... he was the 36th-best rebounder in the league over that stretch (in a 23-team league) and the second-best on his own team (behind that ninny Kareem). Oscar's team averaged 69 rebounds a game from 1961-65; Magic's team averaged 45 a game.
Not to infringe on Hollinger's territory here ... but if you pro-rated Magic's stats to the run-and-gun 1961-65 era, they would look something like this: 21 points, 12 assists and 12 rebounds per game. Even if you transported the 1987-90 Fat Lever (18.9 points, 8.9 rebounds, 7.5 assists, 19th-ranked rebounder), he would have matched all of Oscar's numbers except for the scoring. But if you brought Oscar to the modern era? His rebounding per-game would have dropped into the 7-8 range and the "Who was the only NBA player to average a triple double?" trivia question wouldn't exist. It's true.
(Random "comparing the players from different eras" comment: From 1979-83, Moses Malone averaged 26.8 points and 15.4 rebounds a game. Transport him back to the '60s and he would have averaged something like 30 and 25 every night. To put this in perspective, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 41.7 points and 25.3 rebounds a game from 1960 to 1964, Bill Russell averaged 15.5 and 24.0, and Elgin Baylor averaged a 32-16. And yet, you never hear Moses mentioned in the "greatest centers ever" discussion. I find this interesting.)
Bill Simmons: Little-known fact: NBA stats are completely screwed up from 1959-67. Teams were running and gunning at a breathtaking pace. For instance, the 1960 Celtics scored 124.5 points per game and averaged nearly 120 shots a game, but since the shooters weren't as good back then (the Celts only shot 41 percent that year, which also led the league), they also averaged a whopping 80.2 rebounds per game. To put that in perspective, Phoenix led the league with 111.9 points and 85 shots per game, but they only averaged 44.1 rebounds per game because everyone can make a jumper now and it's not run-and-gun.
Take Oscar's first five years compared to Magic's first five years. From 1961-65, Oscar averaged 30.3 points, 10.4 assists and 10.6 rebounds ... but he was the 17th-best rebounder in the league over that time (in an eight-team league) and the third-best rebounder on his own team (behind Wayne Embry and Jerry Lucas). Magic averaged 18.2 points, 10.3 assists and 8.0 rebounds ... he was the 36th-best rebounder in the league over that stretch (in a 23-team league) and the second-best on his own team (behind that ninny Kareem). Oscar's team averaged 69 rebounds a game from 1961-65; Magic's team averaged 45 a game.
Not to infringe on Hollinger's territory here ... but if you pro-rated Magic's stats to the run-and-gun 1961-65 era, they would look something like this: 21 points, 12 assists and 12 rebounds per game. Even if you transported the 1987-90 Fat Lever (18.9 points, 8.9 rebounds, 7.5 assists, 19th-ranked rebounder), he would have matched all of Oscar's numbers except for the scoring. But if you brought Oscar to the modern era? His rebounding per-game would have dropped into the 7-8 range and the "Who was the only NBA player to average a triple double?" trivia question wouldn't exist. It's true.
(Random "comparing the players from different eras" comment: From 1979-83, Moses Malone averaged 26.8 points and 15.4 rebounds a game. Transport him back to the '60s and he would have averaged something like 30 and 25 every night. To put this in perspective, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 41.7 points and 25.3 rebounds a game from 1960 to 1964, Bill Russell averaged 15.5 and 24.0, and Elgin Baylor averaged a 32-16. And yet, you never hear Moses mentioned in the "greatest centers ever" discussion. I find this interesting.)
The Long Shadow of Divorce
When Linda Rhodes's parents divorced nearly 30 years ago, she knew the family was forever altered. But what she couldn't imagine then was the far-flung responsibility she would shoulder in helping her parents in their later years in separate locations. She frequently shuttles from her home in suburban Philadelphia to her mother's house in Phoenix and her father's home in Erie, Pa.
"For the past 10 years, I've been pretty active with both of them," says Dr. Rhodes, author of "Caregiving as Your Parents Age."
This kind of caregiving triangle is becoming more common as a generation of divorced parents grows older. The US Census reports that 7 percent of older men and 8.6 percent of older women are divorced. In 1960, less than 2 percent of men and women in this age group were divorced.
"We're facing a demographic bubble," says William Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "The divorce revolution, the big increase, started in the late 1960s. The average person who gets divorced is in their 30s. We're coming up to a generation who in large numbers are going to enter late adulthood."
Calling this "the long shadow of divorce," Professor Doherty adds, "We tend to think of the impact of divorce as something that occurs during childhood. We forget how long it goes on."
That impact in later years can include everything from caregiving, as in Rhodes's case, to questions of loyalty, finances, and inheritance. At the same time, these late-life interactions offer opportunities for forgiveness and reconciliation.
Divorced elderly parents, particularly fathers, are less likely than widowed elderly parents to have adult children willing to provide informal care, says Barbara Steinberg Schone, a senior economist at the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality in Rockville, Md. She has studied the effects of divorce on families in later life.
Because fathers have typically been noncustodial parents, many have had weaker family ties after divorce. But, Ms. Steinberg Schone adds, "That may change because now there's more joint custody. Fathers have played a more active role."
Remarried parents typically receive less informal care from their children, she also finds. In addition, they tend to give less cash assistance to their children than parents who married only once.
"For the past 10 years, I've been pretty active with both of them," says Dr. Rhodes, author of "Caregiving as Your Parents Age."
This kind of caregiving triangle is becoming more common as a generation of divorced parents grows older. The US Census reports that 7 percent of older men and 8.6 percent of older women are divorced. In 1960, less than 2 percent of men and women in this age group were divorced.
"We're facing a demographic bubble," says William Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "The divorce revolution, the big increase, started in the late 1960s. The average person who gets divorced is in their 30s. We're coming up to a generation who in large numbers are going to enter late adulthood."
Calling this "the long shadow of divorce," Professor Doherty adds, "We tend to think of the impact of divorce as something that occurs during childhood. We forget how long it goes on."
That impact in later years can include everything from caregiving, as in Rhodes's case, to questions of loyalty, finances, and inheritance. At the same time, these late-life interactions offer opportunities for forgiveness and reconciliation.
Divorced elderly parents, particularly fathers, are less likely than widowed elderly parents to have adult children willing to provide informal care, says Barbara Steinberg Schone, a senior economist at the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality in Rockville, Md. She has studied the effects of divorce on families in later life.
Because fathers have typically been noncustodial parents, many have had weaker family ties after divorce. But, Ms. Steinberg Schone adds, "That may change because now there's more joint custody. Fathers have played a more active role."
Remarried parents typically receive less informal care from their children, she also finds. In addition, they tend to give less cash assistance to their children than parents who married only once.
This Is Gutsy, Even for the WaPo
Today's big story:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
Wow, pretty serious stuff. But then 12 paragraphs down we get this:
Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
So we sent 3 teams, not one. Two said weapons lab, one said no. Come on, guys, just report.
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
Wow, pretty serious stuff. But then 12 paragraphs down we get this:
Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
So we sent 3 teams, not one. Two said weapons lab, one said no. Come on, guys, just report.
Whitey Fights Back
From the NY Times:
Alan Moldawer's adopted twins, Matt and Andrew, had always thought of themselves as white. But when it came time for them to apply to college last year, Mr. Moldawer thought it might be worth investigating the origins of their slightly tan-tinted skin, with a new DNA kit that he had heard could determine an individual's genetic ancestry.
The results, designating the boys 9 percent Native American and 11 percent northern African, arrived too late for the admissions process. But Mr. Moldawer, a business executive in Silver Spring, Md., says they could be useful in obtaining financial aid.
"Naturally when you're applying to college you're looking at how your genetic status might help you," said Mr. Moldawer, who knows that the twins' birth parents are white, but has little information about their extended family. "I have three kids going now, and you can bet that any advantage we can take we will."
Genetic tests, once obscure tools for scientists, have begun to influence everyday lives in many ways. The tests are reshaping people's sense of themselves — where they came from, why they behave as they do, what disease might be coming their way.
It may be only natural then that ethnic ancestry tests, one of the first commercial products to emerge from the genetic revolution, are spurring a thorough exploration of the question, What is in it for me?
Many scientists criticize the ethnic ancestry tests as promising more than they can deliver. The legacy of an ancestor several generations back may be too diluted to show up. And the tests have a margin of error, so results showing a small amount of ancestry from one continent may not actually mean someone has any.
Given the tests' speculative nature, it seems unlikely that colleges, governments and other institutions will embrace them. But that has not stopped many test-takers from adopting new DNA-based ethnicities — and a sense of entitlement to the privileges typically reserved for them.
Prospective employees with white skin are using the tests to apply as minority candidates, while some with black skin are citing their European ancestry in claiming inheritance rights.
So the dunces set up the absurd system of racial quotas, and now whitey (or should I say, non-whitey) is taking advantage of it. Classic.
Alan Moldawer's adopted twins, Matt and Andrew, had always thought of themselves as white. But when it came time for them to apply to college last year, Mr. Moldawer thought it might be worth investigating the origins of their slightly tan-tinted skin, with a new DNA kit that he had heard could determine an individual's genetic ancestry.
The results, designating the boys 9 percent Native American and 11 percent northern African, arrived too late for the admissions process. But Mr. Moldawer, a business executive in Silver Spring, Md., says they could be useful in obtaining financial aid.
"Naturally when you're applying to college you're looking at how your genetic status might help you," said Mr. Moldawer, who knows that the twins' birth parents are white, but has little information about their extended family. "I have three kids going now, and you can bet that any advantage we can take we will."
Genetic tests, once obscure tools for scientists, have begun to influence everyday lives in many ways. The tests are reshaping people's sense of themselves — where they came from, why they behave as they do, what disease might be coming their way.
It may be only natural then that ethnic ancestry tests, one of the first commercial products to emerge from the genetic revolution, are spurring a thorough exploration of the question, What is in it for me?
Many scientists criticize the ethnic ancestry tests as promising more than they can deliver. The legacy of an ancestor several generations back may be too diluted to show up. And the tests have a margin of error, so results showing a small amount of ancestry from one continent may not actually mean someone has any.
Given the tests' speculative nature, it seems unlikely that colleges, governments and other institutions will embrace them. But that has not stopped many test-takers from adopting new DNA-based ethnicities — and a sense of entitlement to the privileges typically reserved for them.
Prospective employees with white skin are using the tests to apply as minority candidates, while some with black skin are citing their European ancestry in claiming inheritance rights.
So the dunces set up the absurd system of racial quotas, and now whitey (or should I say, non-whitey) is taking advantage of it. Classic.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Isn't This Painfully Obvious
Drug companies are inventing diseases to sell more of their products, it has been claimed. Scientists have accused major pharmaceutical firms of "medicalising" problems like high cholesterol or the symptoms of the menopause in a bid to increase profits.
Experts from around the world will meet in Australia today to discuss what they have labelled "disease-mongering".
The group, which includes experts from Britain, will gather in Newcastle, New South Wales, where researchers have been examining the issue. David Henry and Ray Moynihan, of Newcastle University, claim the industry is exaggerating conditions and turning them into something more serious.
Female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and "restless legs" syndrome have all been promoted by the pharmaceutical industry in the hope of selling more drugs, they say.
High cholesterol and osteoporosis-are being described as diseases in their own right, the researchers claim, turning healthy people into patients. In turn, this wastes precious resources and can cause medically-induced harm.
Even shyness is routinely presented as a "social anxiety disorder" resulting in the person being prescribed anti-depressants.
In the case of male sexual disfunction, the researchers say, Viagra is promoted as not only a genuine treatment for erectile dysfunction but also a lifestyle improver. The two men make their claims in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal.
They accuse drug companies of funding disease-awareness campaigns through the media that are more about selling drugs than helping or educating the public.
"Like the marketing strategies that drive it, disease-mongering poses a global challenge to those interested in public health, demanding in turn a global response," they say.
Mr Moynihan and Mr Henry say that, in their view, disease mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
"It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industryfunded disease-awareness campaigns, more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health," they add. Conference organisers say they will try to draw a line between "market-driven exercises and legitimate disease-awareness programmes". 'Miracle solutions'
Drugs companies hit back last night. GlaxoSmithKline said: "We pride ourselves in providing miracle solutions to the health care needs of people every day.
"We utterly refute any suggestion that we would in any way hype or overplay the very real needs of patients that are treated all over the world.
"One of the exciting things about medical science is that we are finding new solutions to ailments or problems people have, and this is something good we can offer." Pfizer, which makes Viagra, said: "We would refute accusations that the pharmaceutical industry is medicalising society. Treatments that can make serious and potentially life-threatening conditions better should surely be welcomed.
"Pfizer would only promote prescription medicines to health care professionals, and only in line with what licensing bodies have outlined, for them to use their clinical judgment."
Experts from around the world will meet in Australia today to discuss what they have labelled "disease-mongering".
The group, which includes experts from Britain, will gather in Newcastle, New South Wales, where researchers have been examining the issue. David Henry and Ray Moynihan, of Newcastle University, claim the industry is exaggerating conditions and turning them into something more serious.
Female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and "restless legs" syndrome have all been promoted by the pharmaceutical industry in the hope of selling more drugs, they say.
High cholesterol and osteoporosis-are being described as diseases in their own right, the researchers claim, turning healthy people into patients. In turn, this wastes precious resources and can cause medically-induced harm.
Even shyness is routinely presented as a "social anxiety disorder" resulting in the person being prescribed anti-depressants.
In the case of male sexual disfunction, the researchers say, Viagra is promoted as not only a genuine treatment for erectile dysfunction but also a lifestyle improver. The two men make their claims in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal.
They accuse drug companies of funding disease-awareness campaigns through the media that are more about selling drugs than helping or educating the public.
"Like the marketing strategies that drive it, disease-mongering poses a global challenge to those interested in public health, demanding in turn a global response," they say.
Mr Moynihan and Mr Henry say that, in their view, disease mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
"It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industryfunded disease-awareness campaigns, more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health," they add. Conference organisers say they will try to draw a line between "market-driven exercises and legitimate disease-awareness programmes". 'Miracle solutions'
Drugs companies hit back last night. GlaxoSmithKline said: "We pride ourselves in providing miracle solutions to the health care needs of people every day.
"We utterly refute any suggestion that we would in any way hype or overplay the very real needs of patients that are treated all over the world.
"One of the exciting things about medical science is that we are finding new solutions to ailments or problems people have, and this is something good we can offer." Pfizer, which makes Viagra, said: "We would refute accusations that the pharmaceutical industry is medicalising society. Treatments that can make serious and potentially life-threatening conditions better should surely be welcomed.
"Pfizer would only promote prescription medicines to health care professionals, and only in line with what licensing bodies have outlined, for them to use their clinical judgment."
These Go Hand-In-Hand
The news that his boyfriend, Jason Johnson, was expelled from University of the Cumberlands was still sinking in when Zac Dreyer sat at a computer to spread the news.
"He is being asked to leave the university because he is gay," Dreyer wrote Thursday on the Web site MySpace.com, the same site school officials used to confront Johnson. "Help get the story out there so that all the gays and lesbians at the university will no longer have to live in secrecy, in fear of having their dreams crushed in front of them."
Within a few hours, friends and students at the small Baptist college in Williamsburg were commenting in blogs about Johnson's expulsion. The buzz grew over the weekend, and by yesterday the issue drew reaction from legislators in Frankfort and on gay advocacy organizations' Web sites nationwide.
Johnson, a sophomore majoring in theater arts, was expelled from the university Thursday because he declared online that he is gay. In a statement released last week, the university's president, Jim Taylor said students are held to a "higher standard" and that "students know the rules before they come to this institution."
Doesn't this part of the sentence ("a sophomore majoring in theater arts") basically imply the end ("he declared online that he is gay"). I mean, how many straight theater arts majors did you ever know?
"He is being asked to leave the university because he is gay," Dreyer wrote Thursday on the Web site MySpace.com, the same site school officials used to confront Johnson. "Help get the story out there so that all the gays and lesbians at the university will no longer have to live in secrecy, in fear of having their dreams crushed in front of them."
Within a few hours, friends and students at the small Baptist college in Williamsburg were commenting in blogs about Johnson's expulsion. The buzz grew over the weekend, and by yesterday the issue drew reaction from legislators in Frankfort and on gay advocacy organizations' Web sites nationwide.
Johnson, a sophomore majoring in theater arts, was expelled from the university Thursday because he declared online that he is gay. In a statement released last week, the university's president, Jim Taylor said students are held to a "higher standard" and that "students know the rules before they come to this institution."
Doesn't this part of the sentence ("a sophomore majoring in theater arts") basically imply the end ("he declared online that he is gay"). I mean, how many straight theater arts majors did you ever know?
Quote of the Day
"It is hard to see how the GOP is not like the Titanic, except it is aiming for the iceberg." -- Conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt
Monday, April 10, 2006
Interesting Comments on Race Here and Abroad
The actor who plays the Iraqi dude on Lost says America less racist than his native England:
They're still a couple, and he's never had second thoughts about leaving his native England behind, Andrews said.
"It was bloody awful, to be honest," he said. His Indian ancestry, he said, left him largely disenfranchised in a country that remains dominated by "small-minded" attitudes toward race and social class.
America "has its problems. But there's a sense of possibility here. ... In England, the class system is about a thousand years old and it's not going to change any time soon. You don't feel that here.
"Here, it's an economic class system ... But it doesn't feel that you're going to be trapped in it forever, like you do in England. You feel like you can break out of it," said Andrews, who trades his English accent for a Middle Eastern one in "Lost."
I thought the Euros were the enlightened ones.
They're still a couple, and he's never had second thoughts about leaving his native England behind, Andrews said.
"It was bloody awful, to be honest," he said. His Indian ancestry, he said, left him largely disenfranchised in a country that remains dominated by "small-minded" attitudes toward race and social class.
America "has its problems. But there's a sense of possibility here. ... In England, the class system is about a thousand years old and it's not going to change any time soon. You don't feel that here.
"Here, it's an economic class system ... But it doesn't feel that you're going to be trapped in it forever, like you do in England. You feel like you can break out of it," said Andrews, who trades his English accent for a Middle Eastern one in "Lost."
I thought the Euros were the enlightened ones.
I See Nothing Wrong With This
I call it dodgeball justice.
LIBERTY, Missouri (AP) -- A youth minister was charged with assault for allegedly knocking down a 16-year-old boy and kicking him in the groin after taking a head shot from the teen in a dodgeball game.
David M. Boudreaux, 27, was charged Wednesday with one count of third-degree assault. According to court documents, the incident happened in February at Crescent Lake Christian Academy.
Authorities said the teen missed Boudreaux with one throw but then knocked the youth minister's glasses off with the next.
The boy apologized, authorities said, but Boudreaux pushed him backward, and when the teen got up again Boudreaux kicked him in the groin and left.
The teen suffered whiplash and post-concussion syndrome and had blood in his urine after being kicked, according to court records.
LIBERTY, Missouri (AP) -- A youth minister was charged with assault for allegedly knocking down a 16-year-old boy and kicking him in the groin after taking a head shot from the teen in a dodgeball game.
David M. Boudreaux, 27, was charged Wednesday with one count of third-degree assault. According to court documents, the incident happened in February at Crescent Lake Christian Academy.
Authorities said the teen missed Boudreaux with one throw but then knocked the youth minister's glasses off with the next.
The boy apologized, authorities said, but Boudreaux pushed him backward, and when the teen got up again Boudreaux kicked him in the groin and left.
The teen suffered whiplash and post-concussion syndrome and had blood in his urine after being kicked, according to court records.
Garry Wills Is A Fool
Garry Wills, a month ago in the NYRB:
When [Martin Luther] King issued a call for religious leaders to join him in Selma for a renewed march on March 9, the outpouring of hundreds of clergy from many faiths clogged the airways. He had built up such a network of ecumenical religious trust that bishops and elders who had told their fellow believers not to take part in political activity declared this an exception. Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who first said he could not get there without violating Shabbat, consulted his teachings and found that one can work on Shabbat to save lives. On the march itself, Heschel said he "felt like my feet were praying." Seminaries and convents allowed eager young priests and nuns to join in. The theologian Robert McAfee Brown, then teaching at Stanford, flew in from California. Though Branch does not indulge in such contemporary references, I thought instantly of the difference between this outpouring of religious support for the beaten marchers and the eruption of right-wing religiosity that sent President Bush hurrying to Washington to block a court order on Terri Schiavo's condition. There was a time, not so long ago, when religion was a force for liberation in America.
Garry Wills, in Sunday's Times:
There is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
So which is it, Garry?
When [Martin Luther] King issued a call for religious leaders to join him in Selma for a renewed march on March 9, the outpouring of hundreds of clergy from many faiths clogged the airways. He had built up such a network of ecumenical religious trust that bishops and elders who had told their fellow believers not to take part in political activity declared this an exception. Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who first said he could not get there without violating Shabbat, consulted his teachings and found that one can work on Shabbat to save lives. On the march itself, Heschel said he "felt like my feet were praying." Seminaries and convents allowed eager young priests and nuns to join in. The theologian Robert McAfee Brown, then teaching at Stanford, flew in from California. Though Branch does not indulge in such contemporary references, I thought instantly of the difference between this outpouring of religious support for the beaten marchers and the eruption of right-wing religiosity that sent President Bush hurrying to Washington to block a court order on Terri Schiavo's condition. There was a time, not so long ago, when religion was a force for liberation in America.
Garry Wills, in Sunday's Times:
There is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
So which is it, Garry?
Why Are American Blacks Quiet On Darfur?
Interesting. I'd say it's because Al Sharpton, Jesse, and the Congressional Black Caucus don't have a fair-skinned evildoer to wag their finger at.
How Quickly I Forget
Every time I start getting down on Bush, something like this comes along to remind me why I supported him. From the New Republic:
JOHN KERRY AND JESUS:
Continuing his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, John F. Kerry addressed (by telephone) a conference convened by that racist hustler and prevaricator Al Sharpton who won, if I'm not mistaken, exactly one delegate at the party convention in 2004. According to The New York Times yesterday, in what appeared to be rather inchoate remarks, Kerry used Iraq as a trope but offered a ten-point plan for the nation from soup to nuts ... well, from getting Osama bin Laden to legislating lobby reform. The Times alluded to Kerry's well-known verbosity. So it wasn't surprising that he also went off and said, "Not in one phrase uttered and reported by the Lord Jesus Christ, can you find anything that suggests that there is a virtue in cutting children from Medicare." I'd actually go Kerry one further: I doubt that Jesus ever mentioned Medicare at all. Still, it's probably significant that some presidential aspirants--Kerry, for one--want to demonstrate that there are among them some real live Democrats for God. Or, as the Times said about him, he is "A Roman Catholic, who has struggled at times to talk about his own faith ... Mr. Kerry also told the group that he believed 'deeply in my faith'." Now, there are many Catholics including high ecclesiastics who doubt this. But who am I to have a point of view on what is essentially an intramural fight? In any case, as it turns out, Kerry is not only a Roman Catholic but also an ecumenicist. Once again I rely on the Times: Kerry asserted that "the Koran, the Torah, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles had influenced a social conscience that he exercised in politics." My God, what bullshit politicians feel obliged to utter! Or maybe the bullshit is already second nature, or even first. But since Kerry raised it, let me ask: What hadith of the Prophet influenced him the most, and why? And here I have a personal interest: Which of the injunctions of Leviticus and who among the Prophets have the most meaning for him? Ordinarily, of course, I wouldn't ask such personal questions of a politician. In the spirit of Jesus, Kerry will certainly forgive me for doing so.
--Martin Peretz
JOHN KERRY AND JESUS:
Continuing his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, John F. Kerry addressed (by telephone) a conference convened by that racist hustler and prevaricator Al Sharpton who won, if I'm not mistaken, exactly one delegate at the party convention in 2004. According to The New York Times yesterday, in what appeared to be rather inchoate remarks, Kerry used Iraq as a trope but offered a ten-point plan for the nation from soup to nuts ... well, from getting Osama bin Laden to legislating lobby reform. The Times alluded to Kerry's well-known verbosity. So it wasn't surprising that he also went off and said, "Not in one phrase uttered and reported by the Lord Jesus Christ, can you find anything that suggests that there is a virtue in cutting children from Medicare." I'd actually go Kerry one further: I doubt that Jesus ever mentioned Medicare at all. Still, it's probably significant that some presidential aspirants--Kerry, for one--want to demonstrate that there are among them some real live Democrats for God. Or, as the Times said about him, he is "A Roman Catholic, who has struggled at times to talk about his own faith ... Mr. Kerry also told the group that he believed 'deeply in my faith'." Now, there are many Catholics including high ecclesiastics who doubt this. But who am I to have a point of view on what is essentially an intramural fight? In any case, as it turns out, Kerry is not only a Roman Catholic but also an ecumenicist. Once again I rely on the Times: Kerry asserted that "the Koran, the Torah, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles had influenced a social conscience that he exercised in politics." My God, what bullshit politicians feel obliged to utter! Or maybe the bullshit is already second nature, or even first. But since Kerry raised it, let me ask: What hadith of the Prophet influenced him the most, and why? And here I have a personal interest: Which of the injunctions of Leviticus and who among the Prophets have the most meaning for him? Ordinarily, of course, I wouldn't ask such personal questions of a politician. In the spirit of Jesus, Kerry will certainly forgive me for doing so.
--Martin Peretz
Pretty Good Money If You Can Get It
"24" star Kiefer Sutherland has inked a multifaceted deal with 20th Century Fox Television.
The rich pact, which is set to begin in June, calls for the actor to continue on the hit Fox drama for three more years and includes a two-year development deal for Sutherland's soon-to-be-launched production banner.
Details on the deal were sketchy Friday, but sources pegged the acting portion alone at more than $40 million for the three seasons, which could make Sutherland the highest paid actor in drama series.
When athletes get this kind of obscene money, people scream and holler and say they're overpaid. Will there be any reaction to this? I doubt it.
The rich pact, which is set to begin in June, calls for the actor to continue on the hit Fox drama for three more years and includes a two-year development deal for Sutherland's soon-to-be-launched production banner.
Details on the deal were sketchy Friday, but sources pegged the acting portion alone at more than $40 million for the three seasons, which could make Sutherland the highest paid actor in drama series.
When athletes get this kind of obscene money, people scream and holler and say they're overpaid. Will there be any reaction to this? I doubt it.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
The Gospel of Judas
I originally thought this story was so silly (didn't we put this to bed a few thousand years ago) and those reporting on it so uninformed (secular Leftists reporting on matters of faith is, while very entertaining, mind-numbing) that it would just fade away. But apparently not. So here's the scoop:
Suppose that sometime around the year 3,800 A.D., someone wrote a newspaper that began: "According to a recently-discovered document, which appears to have been written sometime before 1926, Benedict Arnold did not attempt to betray George Washington and the American cause, as is commonly believed. Rather, Benedict Arnold was acting at the request of George Washington, because Washington wanted Arnold to help him create a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of private property."
A reader who knew her ancient history would recognize that the newly-discovered "Arnold document" was almost certainly not a historically accurate account of the relationship between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. The reader would know that the terms "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "abolition of private property" come from a political philosophy, Marxism, which was created long after Washington and Arnold were dead. The reader would also know that the most reliable records from the 18th century provided no support for the theory that Washington or Arnold favored a dictatorship of the proletariat or the abolition of private property.
This Friday's coverage of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" in much of the U.S. media was appallingly stupid. The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous.
In the March 2 issue of USA Today, ancient Egyptian documents expert James Robinson correctly predicted that the owners of the Judas Gospel manuscript would attempt to release it to coincide with the publicity build-up for "The DaVinci Code" movie, but explained that the "gospel" was part of a genre of pseudo-gospels from the second century onward, in which the authors simply made up the stories. In contrast, virtually all serious scholarship about the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) believes that they were written much closer to the events they describe--sometime in the first century a.d.
The influential Christian bishop Ireneus, in his treatise Against Heresies, written in 180 a.d., denounced the Gospel of Judas as the product of a gnostic sect called the Cainites. (Book 1, ch. 31, para. 1.)
The "Gospel of Judas" asserts that Jesus asked Judas to betray Jesus so that Jesus's spirit could be liberated from its earthly body. ("You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.") This statement is a classic expression of gnosticism, and for that reason is antithetical to Christianity.
Unfortunately, the amazingly mendacious DaVinci Code presents a picture of gnosticism that is wildly false — so it is helpful to set the record straight about what gnostics really believed.
The roots of the Gospel of Judas and of gnosticism go back to Marcion (approx. 100-160 a.d.). After he was excommunicated for heresy, he founded his own sect, the Marcionites. The Marcionites never grew as numerous as orthodox Christians, but for several centuries they were important rivals to the orthodox.
The Marcionites believed that the physical world was created by the angry god of the Old Testament, and that Jesus had been sent by a different god, who had nothing to do with the created world. Marcionites strove to avoid all contact with the created world. They were celibate, and ultra-ascetic. They did not even allow the use of wine at communion, insisting only on bread. Consistent with this highly ascetic view, they rejected war in any form. The Marcionites also denied the authority of the Old Testament, and most of the Gospels. Their only scriptures were portions of Luke, and ten epistles from Paul. (The idea of expunging the Old Testament from the Christian Bible was reintroduced by Adolf von Harnack, a very influential late-nineteenth and early twentieth-century liberal Protestant theologian. The Nazis enthusiastically adopted Harnack’s proposal.)
The great nineteenth-century Catholic theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman explained that gnostics such as the Marcionites believed in "the intrinsic malignity of matter." The rejection of the Old Testament was necessary because the Old Testament is replete with stories about the wonders of the created world. In the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God looked at his newly-created natural world, "and God saw that it was good." Then, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....And so God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." The Song of Songs rejoices in a newly-married couple’s sensuous love. Ecclesiastes celebrates the natural cycle of life.
The New Testament agreed that the God who was the father of Jesus was the same God who had made the material world. In Acts, the Apostles prayed "Lord, thou are God, which has made heaven, and earth, and the sea..." Newman also pointed out that "All the Gnostic sects seem to have condemned marriage for one or another reason." This is the opposite of the mainstream Christian view which, while recognizing that celibacy can be a special calling for some people, celebrates "holy matrimony." The Marcionites acknowledged that Jesus had been born of a woman, but claimed that the fetal Jesus never touched Mary’s body or received any nourishment from her womb. The Marcionite and other forms of Gnostic pacifism have a reasonable internal logic. If the entire world and every human body is repulsively unclean (if one looks on the whole creation the same way that the Old Testament regarded a leprous corpse), then it makes sense never to lift a finger to defend a human being who is being attacked. Why try to preserve the evil human body from destruction? And how sinful it would seem, in the Gnostic view, to involve oneself in the material world so greatly that one would actually use a physical weapon. The earliest Christians seem to have foreseen that something like gnosticism would attempt to substitute itself for Christianity. In the First Epistle to Timothy, Paul specifically warned about the false teaching that would arise from "doctrines of devils." The evil doctrines that would arise in "latter times" would be "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."
Timothy’s instructions also drew an important parallel between the carnal eating of meat and the carnality of marriage. Both are gifts which God created for humanity.
Gnosticism’s hatred of the created world sets it in direct opposition to Jewish and Christian doctrine from the first chapter of Genesis all the way through the New Testament.The Gospel of Judas adds no historical information to the biography of Jesus, but it does provide additional information about the gnostic heresy which thrived in the mid-second century, and which has attracted many adherents today as well.
Suppose that sometime around the year 3,800 A.D., someone wrote a newspaper that began: "According to a recently-discovered document, which appears to have been written sometime before 1926, Benedict Arnold did not attempt to betray George Washington and the American cause, as is commonly believed. Rather, Benedict Arnold was acting at the request of George Washington, because Washington wanted Arnold to help him create a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of private property."
A reader who knew her ancient history would recognize that the newly-discovered "Arnold document" was almost certainly not a historically accurate account of the relationship between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. The reader would know that the terms "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "abolition of private property" come from a political philosophy, Marxism, which was created long after Washington and Arnold were dead. The reader would also know that the most reliable records from the 18th century provided no support for the theory that Washington or Arnold favored a dictatorship of the proletariat or the abolition of private property.
This Friday's coverage of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" in much of the U.S. media was appallingly stupid. The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous.
In the March 2 issue of USA Today, ancient Egyptian documents expert James Robinson correctly predicted that the owners of the Judas Gospel manuscript would attempt to release it to coincide with the publicity build-up for "The DaVinci Code" movie, but explained that the "gospel" was part of a genre of pseudo-gospels from the second century onward, in which the authors simply made up the stories. In contrast, virtually all serious scholarship about the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) believes that they were written much closer to the events they describe--sometime in the first century a.d.
The influential Christian bishop Ireneus, in his treatise Against Heresies, written in 180 a.d., denounced the Gospel of Judas as the product of a gnostic sect called the Cainites. (Book 1, ch. 31, para. 1.)
The "Gospel of Judas" asserts that Jesus asked Judas to betray Jesus so that Jesus's spirit could be liberated from its earthly body. ("You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.") This statement is a classic expression of gnosticism, and for that reason is antithetical to Christianity.
Unfortunately, the amazingly mendacious DaVinci Code presents a picture of gnosticism that is wildly false — so it is helpful to set the record straight about what gnostics really believed.
The roots of the Gospel of Judas and of gnosticism go back to Marcion (approx. 100-160 a.d.). After he was excommunicated for heresy, he founded his own sect, the Marcionites. The Marcionites never grew as numerous as orthodox Christians, but for several centuries they were important rivals to the orthodox.
The Marcionites believed that the physical world was created by the angry god of the Old Testament, and that Jesus had been sent by a different god, who had nothing to do with the created world. Marcionites strove to avoid all contact with the created world. They were celibate, and ultra-ascetic. They did not even allow the use of wine at communion, insisting only on bread. Consistent with this highly ascetic view, they rejected war in any form. The Marcionites also denied the authority of the Old Testament, and most of the Gospels. Their only scriptures were portions of Luke, and ten epistles from Paul. (The idea of expunging the Old Testament from the Christian Bible was reintroduced by Adolf von Harnack, a very influential late-nineteenth and early twentieth-century liberal Protestant theologian. The Nazis enthusiastically adopted Harnack’s proposal.)
The great nineteenth-century Catholic theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman explained that gnostics such as the Marcionites believed in "the intrinsic malignity of matter." The rejection of the Old Testament was necessary because the Old Testament is replete with stories about the wonders of the created world. In the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God looked at his newly-created natural world, "and God saw that it was good." Then, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....And so God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." The Song of Songs rejoices in a newly-married couple’s sensuous love. Ecclesiastes celebrates the natural cycle of life.
The New Testament agreed that the God who was the father of Jesus was the same God who had made the material world. In Acts, the Apostles prayed "Lord, thou are God, which has made heaven, and earth, and the sea..." Newman also pointed out that "All the Gnostic sects seem to have condemned marriage for one or another reason." This is the opposite of the mainstream Christian view which, while recognizing that celibacy can be a special calling for some people, celebrates "holy matrimony." The Marcionites acknowledged that Jesus had been born of a woman, but claimed that the fetal Jesus never touched Mary’s body or received any nourishment from her womb. The Marcionite and other forms of Gnostic pacifism have a reasonable internal logic. If the entire world and every human body is repulsively unclean (if one looks on the whole creation the same way that the Old Testament regarded a leprous corpse), then it makes sense never to lift a finger to defend a human being who is being attacked. Why try to preserve the evil human body from destruction? And how sinful it would seem, in the Gnostic view, to involve oneself in the material world so greatly that one would actually use a physical weapon. The earliest Christians seem to have foreseen that something like gnosticism would attempt to substitute itself for Christianity. In the First Epistle to Timothy, Paul specifically warned about the false teaching that would arise from "doctrines of devils." The evil doctrines that would arise in "latter times" would be "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."
Timothy’s instructions also drew an important parallel between the carnal eating of meat and the carnality of marriage. Both are gifts which God created for humanity.
Gnosticism’s hatred of the created world sets it in direct opposition to Jewish and Christian doctrine from the first chapter of Genesis all the way through the New Testament.The Gospel of Judas adds no historical information to the biography of Jesus, but it does provide additional information about the gnostic heresy which thrived in the mid-second century, and which has attracted many adherents today as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
