Monday, March 06, 2006
FREDERICTON SOUP KITCHEN SUFFERS OVER $10,000 IN DAMAGE!!!
George Piers told me with the vouchers, money, damage and the video cameras stolen? It would total well over $10,000!!!
Many were surprised that this very sad story wasn't in the Irving's Newspaper!!!!
WAKE UP CALL!!!
I arrived home tonight and what a wake up call. There was an ambulance in the alley. A roomer burned himself on a stove.
Puckett dead at 44 following stroke
BERNARD LORD WILL BE KNOWN TO IGNORE THE CHIILDREN IN NEW BRUNSWICK!!!
The Times March 07, 2006
The crazy coalition holding back science
It's time to tackle the backward-looking legislators and political extremists who are allied against progress
PRO-CHOICE feminists and pro-life fundamentalists will tomorrow unite in outraged solidarity against what they see as the unethical exploitation of female reproductive tissue.
They have chosen International Women’s Day to raise placards that say: “Hands Off Our Ovaries”.
One’s suspicions are aroused when extremists from opposite ends of the political spectrum find common cause — and for good reason. The immediate issue that has fermented this unlikely alliance is the prospect that the Government’s fertility watchdog will clear women to donate eggs solely for the purposes of medical research. The “ovarian coalition” opposes the move. All right-minded people should back it to the hilt.
Click here to find out more!
We are not talking here about women being coerced to provide eggs or offered financial inducements to do so. On the contrary, the proposal is simply that women should be allowed to donate eggs voluntarily if they are satisfied that the specific risk to their health from the invasive procedure (which involves the artificial stimulation of ovaries) is justified by the medical advances that could result.
Such altruism is surely to be praised, not prohibited, particularly when one considers that the chronic shortage of eggs has seriously impeded attempts to produce cloned embryonic stem cells. These remarkable little things hold out the prospect of cures for a range of illnesses including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
It may seem strange that pro-choice feminists have decided to campaign against freedom of choice — until, that is, you hear their paranoid mutterings about “male doctors instrumentalising women’s reproductive capacities”. Choice, it seems, is only legitimate if it is exercised in a way that is approved of by the Sisterhood. The principal concern of the pro-life brigade is, of course, quite different. They are against testing on human embryos in all circumstances.
Given the divergent moral principles of the two sides, it has been difficult for them to find a common language in which to express their disapproval of egg donation. They have settled upon the dubious expedient of questioning the scientific basis of stem cell research. Undermining public confidence in science for ideological reasons is abhorrent, if familiar. It is reminiscent of the animal rights extremists who pretend that medical advances derived from animal experimentation are inapplicable to humans.
The good news is that the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority is likely to ignore the advice of the anti-donation campaigners and will soon liberalise the rules on donation. Those with loved ones suffering from Parkinson’s should not, however, celebrate just yet. The disturbing reality is that the ethical conservatives may yet thwart the success of therapeutic cloning by virtue of the damaging influence they wield beyond these shores.
Outside the United Kingdom and like-minded countries is a wider world in which scientists are being held in check by backward-thinking legislators. Medical innovation that might elicit an honour for a British scientist would lead to a jail sentence in the United States, Germany, Austria and Norway. The problem is that you can give British researchers as much freedom as you like but their progress will be at snail’s pace without the international collaboration that is crucial to scientific progress.
This issue is of such importance that an influential group of intellectuals gathered in London last week to come up with general principles that might provide some much-needed regulatory consistency. Their intention was noble, their optimism naive. How can we hope for international uniformity when the world’s decisionmakers apply incompatible (and often incoherent) principles to the field of medical ethics? In the midst of this global chaos is it any wonder that we see the coming together of wacky coalitions?
Things will rapidly get worse. The confusion surrounding the legitimacy of embryonic stem cell research is compounded when we delve into areas such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (in which embryos can be selected for particular genetic traits), gene therapy (which alters the genetic make-up of selected cells in the body), cybernetics (the alteration of mental or bodily function by embedding electronic systems within the body) and psychopharmacology (the chemical alteration of brain state or mood).
Some of the ethical issues raised by these emerging technologies are already upon us. Ritalin and other stimulants are prescribed to more than four million schoolchildren in the United States while others are buying the tablets from them to help to boost concentration for exams. Anabolic steroids and growth hormone are routinely (if illegally) taken by top athletes.
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is already available for several dozen diseases. Nanodevices to destroy tumours could be available within a decade. Meanwhile, legislators fumble around in the dark.
It is not as if we lack a principle that can be used to tease out the moral implications of the new sciences. The proposition that public policy should be used to maximise aggregate welfare has been around for centuries and is central to the writings of Hume, Mill and other thinkers who helped to civilise the world. These pioneers would have had as little truck with those who resist embryonic stem cell research as they would with the feminists battling against voluntary egg donation.
It is often said that morality is failing to keep up with the pace of technological change. The truth is quite the reverse. “Public morality” — often dressed in the language of religious fundamentalism — is holding back scientific progress, something that will impose lasting damage on humanity.
WHAT ARE THE IRVINGS UP TO NOW??????
Someone email me these pictures a few hours ago.
The old strip Mall on Crown street is no more!!!!
I heard this afternoon that shoppers is expanding but.....
I really do not think they are going to be that big??
I heard there is more to it than that because irving now owns downey's property too as well as all along thorne ave. ((Kents and old Canadian
The Irvings are slowly filling that side of the march creek in as well as building back there so I think there may be a few surprises down the road that in the end will not surprise anybody at all!
This will just be another oh you should have seen this comming...Duh Duh...
NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY SERVICES ARE STANDING FIRM ON THEIR DECISION OF NOT HELPING THESE KIDS!!
The single mother of two hasn't heard nothing from New Brunswick Family Services.
Is this a new policy of the Bernard Lord Government to ignore families with young kids???
LOYALIST TREVOR HOLDER COULD DESTROY MEMRAMCOOK WITH A STROKE OF A PEN!!!
Someone received this email from the Beaubassin committee.
They are saying that they have no say!!!!!
My God???? This is terrible because the Irving's Lobbylists will surely force Trevor Holder to sign the papers.
This will be like the deportation of the Acadians in 1755.
Will I be calling Trevor Holder a Loyalist bigot for the rest of his miserable life? Time will tell!!!!
Here's the letter -
Recommendation (positive or negative) will be made by BPC for Minister Holder march 15 2006. The Minister than will make a decision (no time frame is set).
Director of Beaubassin Planning Commission
NO TEMPTATION HAS SIZED YOU EXCEPT WHAT IS COMMON
TO MAN. AND GOD IS FAITHFUL; HE WILL ALSO PROVIDE A
WAY OUT SO THAT YOU CAN STAND THE TEST.
( 1 CORINTHIANS 10:13 *NIV )
Now as you know this World is filled with sinful desires.
Temptations are everywhere, for you can find them on Television,
in the Movies, or even on the Internet as well!
Now this isn't something new for even our Savior Jesus Christ
even faced temptation on this Earth as well! That is written in
the Book of Luke, ( 4:1-13.) Therefore when you find yourself
being tempted, remember who the great tempter is and; BE
SELF-CONTROLLED AND ALERT YOUR ENEMY THE DEVIL
PROWLS AROUND LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO DEVOUR.
( 1 PETER 5:8 )
Also never think that God is tempting you, for it is written;
WHEN TEMPTED, NO ONE SHOULD SAY, "GOD IS TEMPTING
ME." FOR GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED BY EVIL, NOR DOES
HE TEMPT ANYONE; BUT EACH ONE IS TEMPTED WHEN,
BY HIS OWN EVIL DESIRE, HE IS DRAGGED AWAY AND
ENTICED. ( JAMES 1:13-14 )
So Charles, always turn to prayer when you find yourself being
tempted. FOR WE DO NOT HAVE A HIGH PRIEST WHO IS
UNABLE TO SYMPATHIZE WITH OUR WEAKNESSES, BUT
WE HAVE ONE WHO HAS BEEN TEMPTED IN EVERY WAY,
JUST AS WE ARE YET WITHOUT SIN. LET US THEN
APPROACH THE THRONE OF GRACE WITH CONFIDENCE,
SO THAT WE MAY RECEIVE MERCY AND FIND GRACE TO
HELP US IN OUR TIME OF NEED. ( HEBREWS 4:15-16 )
Now may; THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BE
WITH YOUR SPIRIT, the next time you face temptation! Amen.
(PHILIPPIANS 4:23 )
With My Love & Prayers,
your servant Allen
[ Prayer Requests---Contact Us---Bible Study---*Donations* ]
[ Audio---Subscribe---Change of Address---Unsubscribe ]
Apostle Paul Ministries, P O Box 55996, Hayward, CA 94545
(c) Copyright 2006 by Apostle Paul Ministries
HOW COME DOG THE BOUNTY HUNTER HASN'T BEEN SHOT YET????
Personally? I believe it’s all BS but I’ll blog it anyway!!!!
When the Survivors series began?
I quickly changed the channel.
Can you imagine being on a island starving or whatever and the filming crew are not going to say- CUT!!!!
and proceed to give the individual a helping hand.
My favorite BS has to be - Dog the Bounty Hunter!
Come on now? The Americans always praise themselves by telling the whole world they are allowed the right to bare arm???
How can this Bounty hunter just walk into people’s home or on the streets without being shot?
I might add that he doesn't go around with a firearm.
As the survivor series?
Do they say- CUT!!! Then proceed in the area to find out is it’s safe for the Dog?
I often wonder about this? What do you think?