"Milgram's classic experiment pitted the subject's moral beliefs against the demands of authority. Of all the psychology experiments I am aware of, Milgram's produces the most startling and disturbing. Remember when this experiment was conducted - people were searching for explainations for how the attrocities of World War II had occured.
Around this time (early 1960's) research was being conducted into the authoritarian traits of Germans in an attempt to explain how the attrocities of World War II could have taken place. Milgram's study demonstrated that these traits were not confined to Germans and were not confined to certain types of situations (eg war). This was a profound and extremely thought provoking discovery."
"There is never a duel with the truth. The truth always wins and we are not afraid of it. The truth is no coward. The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the force of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan. The truth is imperishable, eternal and immortal and needs no human agency to support it. We are ready to tell the truth as we understand it and we do not fear all the truth that they can present as facts. We are ready. We are ready. We feel we stand with progress. We feel we stand with science. We feel we stand with intelligence. We feel we stand with fundamental freedom in American. We are not afraid. Where is the fear? We meet it, where is the fear? We defy it, we ask your honor to admit the evidence as a matter of correct law, as a matter of sound procedure and as a matter of justice to the defense in this case."
Alfred McLung Lee & Elizabeth Bryant Lee, The Fine Art of Propaganda, 1939."
"With this federally approved evil subsidy, Congress has taken a major step toward securing the future of evil and all its unholy causes," said Marion Conyers of the American Enterprise Institute. "Our legislators recognize that evil, as a belief system and a way of life, is absolutely vital to any public policy in which punishment of the righteous and the reward of the loyal servants of darkness is the goal."
The $540 million will be earmarked primarily for temptation-related evils, with 70 percent going toward the funding of greed, lust, avarice and gluttony, and hatred-based evils such as cruelty and wrath. The remaining 30 percent will go toward sloth, usury, and idolatry, with an additional, non-existent 45 percent allotted toward deception and corruption.
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Body Type Male Female Athlete <10% <17% Lean 10-15% 17-22% Normal 15-18% 22-25% Above Average 18-20% 25-29% Overfat 20-25% 29-35% Obese 25+ 35+%%
There are three major types of omega 3 fatty acids that are ingested in foods and used by the body: alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Once eaten, the body converts ALA to EPA and DHA, the two types of omega-3 fatty acids more readily used by the body. Extensive research indicates that omega-3 fatty acids reduce inflammation and help prevent certain chronic diseases such as heart disease and arthritis. These essential fatty acids are highly concentrated in the brain and appear to be particularly important for cognitive and behavioral function. In fact, infants who do not get enough omega-3 fatty acids from their mothers during pregnancy are at risk for developing vision and nerve problems.
As mentioned previously, it is very important to maintain a balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the diet. Omega-3 fatty acids help reduce inflammation and most omega-6 fatty acids tend to promote inflammation. An inappropriate balance of these essential fatty acids contributes to the development of disease while a proper balance helps maintain and even improve health. A healthy diet should consist of roughly one to four times more omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3 fatty acids. The typical American diet tends to contain 11 to 30 times more omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3 fatty acids and many researchers believe this imbalance is a significant factor in the rising rate of inflammatory disorders in the United States.
In contrast, however, the Mediterranean diet consists of a healthier balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and many studies have shown that people who follow this diet are less likely to develop heart disease. The Mediterranean diet does not include much meat (which is high in omega-6 fatty acids) and emphasizes foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids including whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, olive oil, garlic, as well as moderate wine consumption.
Adults BMI: Women Men underweight < 19.1 < 20.7 in normal range 19.1 - 25.8 20.7 - 26.4 marginally overweight 25.8 - 27.3 26.4 - 27.8 overweight 27.3 - 32.3 27.8 - 31.1 very overweight or obese > 32.3 > 31.1
The rise in obesity has been linked to changes in diet and leisure patterns, and even the increased use of cars.
While obese children already face health and social problems, there will also be a further price to pay, according to Jenny O'Dea, a nutritionist at Sydney University.
"We see many physical outcomes, but we also see economic costs for many decades to come," she said.
"These children are very unlikely to lose weight. Something like 80% of overweight children become overweight adults, so I think it really is quite a medical time bomb... just waiting to happen."
A major breakthrough in publicly detailing the history of the Australian nuclear weapons program was a documentary called "Fortress Australia", shown on ABC TV on 22nd August 2002. To me the main new revelations in it were the final confirmation that the Jervis Bay nuclear power station was primarily for producing plutonium, and an interview with Sir Philip Baxter (once described as "Australia's Dr Strangelove"!) where he confirms my suspicions that the primary purpose of Australian nuclear weapons was to defend the country against refugees from a northern hemisphere devastated by a future nuclear war.
By 1916 it was being fully deployed throughout the German lines. It was instrumental in the disaster of the Somme at times cutting down advancing British troops in windrows much like they were wheat.
Fortress Australia had a long gestation. Two decades ago I picked up a self-published book - Without Hardware - penned by Catherine Dalton, daughter of British poet and historian Robert Graves, of I, Claudius fame.
The story dealt with the mysterious death in the late 1950s of Catherine’s husband Clifford Dalton, a leading engineer at the newly established Atomic Energy Commission’s research facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Dalton drew a picture of a highly secret institution, which she believed had a malicious hand in her husband’s untimely demise. In 1983, with the financial assistance of the Australian Film Commission, I set about writing a feature-length dramatic screenplay based on the book.
Some years later, when the American nuclear film Silkwood and two Australian features with nuclear themes were released, I realised the project would not survive in an already saturated market. After more than a dozen drafts, I relinquished the option. What I didn’t drop was an interest in the affairs of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) in the 1950s and 60s. That interest deepened when I came upon an extraordinary interview in the archives with the Commission’s Chairman, Sir Philip Baxter, in which he called for a biological, chemical and nuclear-armed Australia.
I also discovered a newspaper article from the early 1970s in which Baxter suggested that Australia was capable of producing nuclear weapons within a matter of years. I wondered how this could be achieved without the scientific infrastructure, the means to produce plutonium and the years of research and development required for such an enormous undertaking. The only conclusion I could come to was that these essential precursors to bomb production already existed. And if they did exist, then there must have been the political will in Australia at some time to build atomic weapons. But in the early 1980s, the official Government documents relating to nuclear defence and atomic matters were unavailable, due to the 30-year secrecy rule. A few people, however, had investigated the subject.
In a 1975 feature article for Search (a journal published by the Australian & New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science) historian Ann Moyal questioned both the highly secretive research agenda of the AAEC and the Gorton Government’s decision in 1969 to build a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. In Moyal’s view, the economics of the reactor didn’t add up, unless it was to be used to provide plutonium for atomic weapons. Alice Cawte, in her excellent book, Atomic Australia, made a similar deduction.
In September 2000, I felt it was now time to revisit the story. I knew that documents relating to Australia’s early atomic history would now be open to inspection. To my surprise, there were more documents relating to Australia’s interest in nuclear weapons than for both uranium and atomic energy put together.
Many of the documents about nuclear weapons' policy came from the Department of Defence, the Prime Minister’s Department and the Department of Supply, but those relating to the technical, scientific and economic aspects of bomb production were authored by the AAEC and often bore the signature of its Chairman, Sir Philip Baxter.
They revealed:
§ A serious concern between 1946 and 1971 about Australia’s inadequate defences in the atomic age.
§ Prime Minister Robert Menzies in the early 1950s believed that the defence forces would inevitably be armed with nuclear weapons.
§ Growing doubts as to whether Australia’s allies, the United States and Britain, would provide nuclear protection.
§ The Menzies government had made numerous but unfruitful approaches to Britain and America to secure nuclear technology.
§ In 1958 Menzies made a direct approach to his British counterpart Macmillan to buy British nuclear weapons.
§ Sir Philip Baxter, the Chairman of the AAEC, continually pressured the government to either acquire the weapons or create the infrastructure to build them in Australia.
§ A growing fear of our northern neighbours (especially after China exploded its first atomic bomb in 1964, and Indonesia boasted that it would soon have the bomb) resulting in the government calling on the AAEC to provide costs for building the bomb.
§ How Australian uranium was denied to Britain in 1966 so that there would be enough radioactive materials to start a nuclear weapons program.
§ Baxter’s preferred tenders for the Jervis Bay Nuclear Reactor were those that could produce plutonium for building the bomb.
Other defence related documents provide an extraordinary insight into the mistrust held by Australia, not only of its potential enemies, but also of its allies. They reveal both a country fearful of its future and a belief that battlefield nuclear weapons were the answer to Australia's defence needs.
With many of these documents in hand, I went to Film Australia, as it seemed a natural project for its National Interest Program. The greatest challenge was to bring the story alive on film. As a specialist in archive film, I knew sourcing newsreels and informational films dealing with defence and politics wouldn’t be difficult. But this project also required footage not in the public domain. More than 50 hours of archive footage was located, many hours of which have never before been released for public screening.
One such film was a ‘classified’ version of a documentary called Operation Blowdown, which covered the scientific and military aspects of a simulated nuclear blast in North Queensland in 1963. This bizarre experiment assumed that the next war involving Australia would take place in the jungles of South East Asia or even New Guinea and involve nuclear weapons. Out of the US National Archives came extraordinary footage of the first Chinese Nuclear blast in 1964 – an event that so worried Menzies he called for a report on the costs of producing Australia’s own bombs.
Spectacular colour footage of the British bomb tests in Australia, the Woomera rocket range and the Lucas Heights research facility was also uncovered. ANSTO - the modern incarnation of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission - generously supplied splendid historical footage and gave the production permission to film its HIFAR Reactor. Candid ABC interviews with AAEC Chairman, Sir Philip Baxter, provide a chilling insight into both the risks for Australia of another global war and the hazards of allowing scientists to plan for it. Baxter's call, in 1972, for nuclear weapons to repel refugees from a global catastrophe is one of the most disturbing interviews I have ever seen.
A rewarding aspect of the production was meeting the twelve interviewees who bring the story to life with surprising insights about Australia’s bold bid for a nuclear arsenal. A fortunate find was Jim Walsh, a Harvard University researcher, who investigates countries that have pursued atomic weapons options and either failed or succeeded, then renounced them. Walsh’s grasp of the Australian nuclear weapons story is unequalled.
During production we were able to uncover many relics of Australia’s nuclear history. Central to the story is the proposed Jervis Bay nuclear reactor, which would have provided the plutonium required for nuclear weapons' production. In 1970, hectares of eucalypt forest were removed to provide foundations for the reactor. Today, the scar on the landscape remains as a stark reminder of our secret interest in developing a nuclear bomb.
We also travelled to Woomera Rocket Range, where Australia joined with Britain to develop guided missiles for the nuclear age. The crumbling launching pads and the spent weapons that litter the range represent the last vestiges of our defence relationship with Britain.
The most striking aspect of filming these places is that we were visiting territory once prohibited to all but scientists and defence personnel. These were places that were meant to provide the nation’s protection in the event of another global war, yet at the same time they were escalating the tension and suspicions that could have precipitated it.
Ultimately, we have produced Fortress Australia to allow Australians to understand the thinking of their political, scientific and defence leaders who flirted with the bomb.
It is a story about the all-too-trusting relationship between science and society. A tale from the height of the Cold War about secrecy and deception with poignant lessons for democracy – a story that powerfully resonates into the present day.
Peter Butt - Producer/Director
Take your weight in kilograms (kg) and divide it by your height in metres (m) and then divide the result by your height in metres (m) again.
Healthy weight BMI = 18.5 -24.9
Overweight BMI = 25 - 29.9
Obese BMI = 30 -39.9
Severely obese BMI = 40 +
But since about 1980, the country has been beyond the point where further increases in weight would do anything other than harm life expectancy.
Yet the overeating has continued: the average calorie intake rose by about 10% between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s.
Now, according to some calculations, close to one-third of Americans are clinically obese - about 50% more than even the chubbiest equivalent country.
The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) has classified 55% of adult Americans, or 97 million adults, as overweight or obese. This compares to 43% in 1960.
"The goal of this project is to determine why drivers can "look but fail to see". A large fraction of traffic accidents are of this type: drivers collide with pedestrians in plain view, with cars directly in front of them (the classic "rear-ender"), and even run into trains. (That's right -- run into trains, not the other way around.) In such cases, information from the world is entering the driver's eyes. But at some point along the way this information is lost, causing the driver to lose connection with reality. They are looking but they are not seeing"
Evensong is an office of the Anglican church. It is supposed to be sung every evening as thanks to God for the day and a prayer for protection during the coming night. Evensong has an equivalent morning service called Matins.
The book's fame did carry a word for phrenology with it; but Constitution is not a book about phrenology, instead it is a book of natural philosophy which teaches that Man is as subject to natural laws as the rest of Nature- Physical, Organic, and Moral. Ignorance of or disobedience to the natural laws led to "punishment"- such as catching a cold from exposure to the elements. The first steps towards the good life were to study and obey the distinct natural laws (notably excluding the Bible). Combe's book was hugely controversial from the 1820s through the 1850s. Evangelicals founded societies to oppose it, wrote books and articles against it, and sometimes even burned it! Thus fuss popularly believed to have resulted from Darwin's Origin of Species pales in comparison to that of Combe's Constitution, one of the most influential books of the 19th century. The 8th was the final edition revised by Combe. "
But now, more than 200 years after his death, he has been hailed as one of Scotland’s "forgotten heroes" who pioneered the theory of evolution a century before Charles Darwin, and forged the way for Scots inventors.
In a new book - written by an amateur historian - Lord Monboddo of Edinburgh, an eminent but eccentric High Court judge, has been credited as the first to come up with Darwin’s famous theory of natural selection.
Jan-Andrew Henderson, 38, claims that Monboddo circulated the theory in Edinburgh in the 1700s, but it was dismissed because he was well known for his eccentricities, once famously sending his wig home from court in a sedan chair while he walked.
Henderson, who discovered the lord’s theory while researching his book The Emperor’s Kilt: The Two Secret Histories of Scotland, said Monboddo was "light years" ahead of his time with the revolutionary ideas. "He was a minor celebrity in Edinburgh because he was considered to be very eccentric. But he actually came up with the idea that men may have evolved instead of being created by God.
"His views were dismissed because people thought he was mad and in those days it was a very controversial view to hold.
"But he felt it was a logical possibility and it caused him a great deal of consternation, he actually did not want to believe the theory because he was a very religious person."
Lord Monboddo, James Burnett, was born in the village of Monboddo, Kincardine in 1714 and educated at King’s College, Aberdeen, before settling in Edinburgh.
In 1737, he joined the Faculty of Advocates, eventually becoming an eminent judge at the Court of Session. As he grew older he indulged his passion for writing and penned two books, the first being Of the Origin and Process of Language in 1740. In his books he detailed his evolutionary theory.
He wrote: "Man is formed, not however all at once, but by degrees and in succession: for he appears at first to be little more than a vegetable then he gets sense, [sensitivity to pain] but sense only that he is yet little better than a muscle [mollusc].
"Then he becomes an animal of a more complex kind, then a rational creature, and finally a man of intellect and science."
Monboddo died in 1799, 100 years before Darwin’s theory was circulated.
Henderson believes that when Darwin finally did voice his theory of evolution, it may have been in response to Monboddo’s earlier ideas. "Lord Monboddo was famous for his ideas in Edinburgh and strangely enough Darwin went to medical college in the city so he may well have heard of Monboddo’s theory while he was studying there."
Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionary biologist said: "There were several theories of evolution about before Darwin’s became popular. I have not heard of this one before but it sounds perfectly plausible."
Towards the end of his life, after voicing a number of opinions about orang-utans having their own language and the existence of a remote, exotic island called Nicobar inhabited by people with tails, Monboddo was seen as "mad".
Henderson said: "In the end, he became a bit of an object of ridicule. But he was a very smart man, open to ideas and light years ahead of his time in terms of thinking. He was not a scientist and came up with the idea as a complete concept. It was a process of pure logic, which was quite a feat for someone 100 years before Darwin’s time in a very religious age."
Other theories in Henderson’s book include the idea that the modern-day kilt was designed by an Englishman - factory manager, Thomas Rawlinson - in the 18th century.
But, more heartening to Scots is his theory that the Dundee inventor James Bowman Lindsay produced the world’s first electric light in 1839, 40 years before it was "discovered" by the American Thomas Edison.
The Scot first demonstrated the light in the Thistle Hall, Dundee. "What this proves is that Scots forged the path years before other theorists and inventors and influenced the world in lots of ways that people don’t even realise," Henderson said. "It’s strange that a nation that is so proud of their inventions have managed to miss so many theorists, scientists and pioneers.
"Everyone knows the famous inventors like Bell and Baird but these guys are the forgotten heroes of Scotland."
Thursday, 28th September 2000
The Scotsman "
He refused to sit on the Bench with his fellow judges but sat underneath with the court clerks. This was due to a decision, which went against him when he was the claimant in a case involving the value of a horse.
In 1773, he published a notorious book Of the Origin and Progress of Language. It included the theories that man was derived from animals, that orang-utangs were related to humans and capable of speech, and that in the Bay of Bengal there was a nation of human creatures with tails. These ideas "afforded endless matter for jest by the wags of the day", but today are seen to be related to the theory of evolution. Slightly more eccentric was his belief that babies are born with tails and that midwives cut them off at birth.
In 1785, when he was 71, Lord Monboddo was visiting the King's Court in London when part of the ceiling of the courtroom started to collapse. There was a great rush from the building, until the danger was past and order restored. Lord Monboddo, who was deaf and shortsighted, was the only person who did not move from his seat. When asked why, he explained that he thought it was "an annual ceremony, with which, as an alien, he had nothing to do". "
"While her commitment is never in doubt, Ms. Bronstein's intemperate outbursts have earned her the sobriquet of 'the swearing Mother Teresa'. Her take-no-prisoners style has landed her in hot water with many governments and citizenry, earning her severe beatings and kidnap attempts on her children."
John Cleghorn, chairman of the Royal Bank said, "Naomi's career is compelling evidence that one person can strive and triumph against the odds."
A proper etiquette does exist for how we address our Church leaders. As a point of courtesy, all Catholics should be familiar with these forms of address. Even though we may live in an increasingly informal world, such good formalities help to make us respectful of proper authority.
So let’s start at the top – the pope. A person would greet Pope John Paul II as "Your Holiness," "Most Holy Father," or "Holy Father." A letter written to him would be addressed, "His Holiness, Pope John Paul II," with the salutation, "Your Holiness" or "Most Holy Father."
Next in the hierarchy comes the cardinal. A person would greet a cardinal, for instance Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, by saying, "Your Eminence" or "Your Lordship" (which is very British). In addressing a letter to Cardinal McCarrick, one would write, "His Eminence, William Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington" with the salutation, "Your Eminence," "Most Eminent Cardinal," or "My Lord Cardinal."
In recent times, some people will reverse the word order, saying, "Cardinal William McCarrick" instead of "William Cardinal McCarrick." The formal word order originated in the time when last names were not common, but individuals were known by occupations or even places. For example, "John, the Smith" (or Blacksmith) eventually became "John Smith." The same evolution occurred with cardinals: What would have been "William, the Cardinal" would now be, with the use of family names, "William Cardinal McCarrick."
Another interesting diversion for us concerns a patriarch. Patriarchs are cardinals but have honorary precedence over a cardinal. For example, the Patriarch of Jerusalem is Archbishop Michael Sabbah. A person would greet him, saying, "Your Beatitude." In addressing a letter to him, one would write, "His Beatitude, Michael Sabbah, The Patriarch of Jerusalem" with the salutation, "Your Beatitude."
Both an archbishop and a bishop would be greeted as "Your Excellency" or "Your Grace" (again very British). For example, one would greet Bishop Loverde as "Your Excellency." In writing to him, for instance, about how much you enjoy this column (only kidding), you would address the letter, "The Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington," with the salutation, "Your Excellency."
Although some people today informally would approach Bishop Loverde and say, for instance, "Bishop, how are you?" one should properly say, "Bishop Loverde, how are you?" or "Your Excellency, how are you?" Worse yet, I was at a dinner conference once in the diocese and the master of ceremonies said, "We are so happy. Tonight we have bishop." I was not sure whether "bishop" was the main course or the guest speaker. Just as a person would never approach Pope John Paul II and simply say, "Pope, how are you?" the title of office, in this case "bishop," should not be used in an address without either the definite article the or a proper name.
A monsignor would be greeted as "monsignor." A letter to Monsignor Bradican, for example, would be addressed as "Reverend Monsignor Francis Bradican," or "Reverend and Dear Monsignor," with the salutation, "Dear Monsignor." (The proper abbreviation is "Rev. Msgr.")
Prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, some Monsignori had the distinction of "Right Reverend Monsignor" or "Very Reverend Monsignor." Such distinctions are no longer made among Monsignori except for certain members of the Papal Household and those who serve in special offices of the Vatican Curia.
Finally, we come to the priest. He would be greeted simply as "father," which reflects his spiritual fatherhood to those entrusted to his care by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A letter to him would be addressed, "The Reverend William P. Saunders," for example, with the salutation, "Dear Father Saunders" or "Reverend and Dear Father Saunders." Some "Fathers" are also formally addressed "Very Reverend" when they have a special duty; for example, Father Frank Ready, the Dean of Deanery II, would be addressed, "The Very Reverend Frank Ready."
While this review is not exhaustive of all of the Church offices, the major ones have been considered. Further information may be found in the Official Directory for the Diocese of Arlington and The Church Visible by James Charles Noonan Jr.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
