January 5, 2010
The piece says that television isn’t a factor, but keep this USA Today article in mind:
A study released Monday adds to the debate over whether television impairs children’s language development. It found that parents and children virtually stop talking to each other when the TV is on, even if they’re in the same room.
For every hour in front of the TV, parents spoke 770 fewer words to children, according to a study of 329 children, ages 2 months to 4 years, in the June issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Adults usually speak about 941 words an hour.
Children vocalized less, too, says author Dimitri Christakis of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute. In some cases, parents may have spoken less because they sat a child in front of a TV and left the room, he says. In others, parents simply zoned out themselves while watching TV with a child. Researchers didn’t note the content of the TV shows.
Read the rest of this entry »
January 4, 2010
by James Corbett Source: Global Research Jan 4, 2010
If history has taught us anything, it is that we need to beware those populist politicians who claim to be men of peace by nature but men of war by necessity. The most violent wars this planet has ever seen, the most brutal regimes that have ever sought to repress their own citizens, the most genocidal schemes have always been nurtured under the leadership of politicians who offer war, violence and domination as a way of achieving peace.
Napoleon waged wars of agression in country after country, terrorizing the peoples of Europe and ravaging their lands in the name of a continent-wide peace under the French flag.
Hitler, too, assured the world that his conquests were born of necessity, a means to achieve the “living space” that the German people required to live in peace.
Vietnam, too, was a war to achieve peace. If Vietnam fell to the communists, the world was told, the dominoes would begin to fall in country after country and it would not be long before the red tide flooded Western shores.
Read the rest of this entry »
August 18, 2009
source: Telegraph UK
Frontline health and social care workers will be among the first to be vaccinated in October along with people with serious underlying health problems and pregnant women.
However a survey by Nursing Times has found many frontline nurses have reservations.
Only one in three said they are prepared to have the H1N1 vaccine with a third undecided and the rest saying no.
Almost 1,500 nurses were polled, of whom 91 per cent said they were frontline.
It comes after news that parents are also concerned about the vaccine, with worries predominantly about the safety of its contents, side effects, and the amount of testing that will be done.
Of the nurses who said they would not get vaccinated, 60 per cent said concern about the safety of the vaccine was the main reason.
A further 31 per cent said they did not consider the risks to their health from swine flu to be great enough, while nine per cent thought they would not be able to take time out of work to get immunised.
“I would not be willing to put myself at risk of, as yet, unknown long-term effects to facilitate a short-term solution,” said one respondent.
A further respondent said: “I have yet to be convinced there is a genuine health risk (from swine flu) and it’s not just government propaganda.”