Quo Vadis, Eh?

The barrier performance of latex rubber

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:07:00 +0000

A study in permeability and manufacturing flows of latex rubber published by C.M. Roland in The Rubber World:

From a broad assessment of data on HIV transmission rates during heterosexual contact, the use of a condom was estimated to provide only a tenfold reduction rate risk of contagion. This compares, for example, to the 5,000-fold increase in protection level afforded by avoiding coitus with partners from high risk groups

The author concludes:

Latex rubber devices originate as a suspension of particles coated with surfactants intended to prevent the particles from coalescing. The use of such a material for barrier protection for a 100 nanometer virus seems counter-intuitive. Certainly the presence of defects in latex rubber is well established; however, the origin, detailed nature and hence relevance of these flaws to the prophylactic performance of latex rubber is open to question. Channels penetrating the entire thickness of latex gloves have been directly observed, but more evidence of this type is needed. Unfortunately, condom inspection methods currently in use are inadequate for the detection of micron-sized flaws.

Could condom use be the solution?

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:56:00 +0000

“It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”

says... the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

In the very editorial criticizing the statements of Benedict XIV, The New York Times ends up by recognizing that he is right. Speaking about condom effectiveness to prevent AIDS, after mentioning the CDC and the Cochrane Collaboration organization, the Times warns: “However, both groups warned that condom use cannot provide absolute protection. (...) The best way to avoid transmission of the virus is to abstain from sexual intercourse or have a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected person.”

The New York Times

from "Behind the “Pro-Condom Media Uproar:” The Old Struggle of Rationalism and Secularism against the Church" by Luis Sergio Solimeo

Condom promotion in Africa has been a disaster

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:26:00 +0000

A neo-colonialist pro-sexual revolution lobby is behind the attacks against the Pontiff and is being pursued by fringe groups within the United Nations and the European Union

-writes Bernardo Cervellera in the Catholic Online article. He also points to many scientific and empiric studies supporting view that condom promotion brings more promiscuity and increases rate of AIDS and STDs.

Prestigious medical journal distorts FACTS about condoms

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:11:00 +0000

The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal ventured into a political/moral arena. It went as far as to distort scientific FACTS to attack the Pope for "distorting scientific data". The Washington Post states that "The Pope Maybe Right":

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Irena Sendler vs. Al Gore

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:47:00 +0000

WYD08 Receive the Power

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:02:00 +0000

World Youth Day Sydney 2008 Final Trailer

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:39:00 +0000

World Youth Day 2008

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:33:00 +0000

World Youth Day 2008 - Melbourne Diocese

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:31:00 +0000

World Youth Day 2008 - Sydney

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:25:00 +0000

Bella - movie of the year - opens today in Windsor

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:45:00 +0000

Great movie opens today @ Silvercity. The public loves it despite some sour grapes from not very important movie critics. Bella was the winner of People's Choice Award at Toronto Film Festival.

FCP Convention Saturday April 12th

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:43:00 +0000

Ron Gray will be a key-note speaker. More info on FCP website

I have a dream!

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:11:00 +0000

Giuseppe Gori, Straight Thoughts 162:

Yesterday it was Martin Luther King day. His dream of equal dignity with respect to the colour of one’s skin was realized within a generation.

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I have a dream of my own.

I have a dream that within my life time truth shall prevail, and abortion shall cease to be called a “procedure” and be recognized for what it is, the killing of a human being.
I have a dream that one day we will look back at our society, and our judges and our politicians and ask: “How could they?”
“How could a few judges affect all of society for two generations?”

"How could politicians not be moved to action?"

“How could they allow the killing of millions of their own children and continue with their daily business?”

“How could they destroy human life, when their knowledge of biology was so advanced as to know exactly when life begins?”

Just as today we look back at the Russians, and Stalin and his army and ask, “How could they?”

Just as we look back at the Germans, and Hitler and his Gestapo and ask: ”How could they?”

I shall not rest until cultural leaders like King will emerge, and set aside their own ambitions of fame and power, and dream of a world of justice and dignity for all.

20 years of no restriction hunting season on the unborn

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:58:00 +0000

Morgentaler's "truth" as revealed in 1st Degree Morgentaler:

You can vote for this movie at Project Breakout (needs registration).

Note also spreading of a virulent historic lie by Provost and Vice-President (Academic) Greg Moran in his citation for Morgentaler about alleged antisemitism in pre-war Poland. You could also think that he implied that Gestapo and concentration camps were Polish not German institutions in occupied Poland. One big lie meets another lie.

Remebrance Day/Independence Day

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:00 +0000

November 11th has a special significance for me and other Poles. We remember the veterans that laid their lives to keep Canada free but also commemorate Independence Day of Poland. Canadian soldiers helped bring freedom to the Polish nation in 1918. Thank you!

Bring the Pope to Canada 2008

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:05:00 +0000

Do you remember John Paul II's visits to Canada? Do you remember the crowds and the enthusiasm?

Now is your chance to help to bring his successor to our country. Quebec City holds 49th International Eucharistic Congress in June 2008. We are asking Our Blessed Father Benedict XVI to visit us.

As Suzanne of the Facebook group Bring the pope to Quebec City explains:

A very serious effort to bring the pope to Quebec City has been launched by former Quebec cabinet minister Marc Bellemare (now leader of a municipal party, Vision Quebec).

The pope's presence in Canada would obviously be an opportunity for him to speak out for the culture of life and the rights of unborn children.

Most of North America is enmeshed in the culture of death, but in Quebec it's especially bad. We need a strong voice to defend the unborn.

So please, sign the petition

The petition is in French but don't worry:

One small hitch: the petition I have is in French, but no big deal.

Go to http://www.pape2008.com

Click on "Signer la pétition ici".

On that screen you will get a small form. Note:

Prenom= First name
Nom= last name
Courriel= email address

The checkbox asks whether you want your name to show up in the list of signatures. If yes, check it, or leave it blank to keep your name private.

The blogburst:

BlueWave
ProudtobeCanadian
Deborah Gyapong
The Bear Blog
Stand Your Ground
SoCon or Bust

Dwight Duncan - Save Our Schools!

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:17:00 +0000

I drove length of Riverside last night and noticed yellow stickers on Dwight Duncan's Liberal signs. I stopped and backed up to read:

SAVE OUR SCHOOLS!

I am not sure if conservative partisans tried to make Duncan look ridiculous or was the sticker really approved by our Honourable Member. I have a feeling that the latter is true.

Now, what does he mean by SAVE OUR SCHOOLS - from whom?

Perhaps from Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal government. (Just to make clear, I do not support J. Tory's proposal and his later flip-flops.) Preston Manning writes in yesterday's Globe and Mail:

What is most instructive, however, is the provincial breakdown. With respect to reading, Alberta students had the highest international score of all jurisdictions tested, with Ontario students in fifth place. In science, Alberta students placed third behind Finland and Japan, with Ontario students 15th. And with respect to combined mathematics, Alberta students placed second behind Hong Kong, with Ontario students 11th.

Preston Manning explanation for Alberta advantage makes sense:

Alberta excels in Canadian and international education comparisons because the province provides parents with a greater range of educational choices, more "freedom to choose" the best educational options for their children, and more resources to support those choices.

Alberta ensures equity and choice in kindergarten to Grade 12 by funding independent schools and home schooling, as well as the public system.

Giuseppe Gori, in his interview on The Agenda (posted here earlier), stated that the whole issue of funding for private schools was a desperate attempt on Tory's side to find a difference between two left-of-centre parties (Liberals & Progressive Conservatives). Here is what P. Manning has to say on the issue:

The educational debate in Ontario is narrowly focused on whether to publicly fund one form of alternative education, namely religious schools. The bigger issue is how to expand freedom of choice in education for all Ontario parents, while improving the performance of both public and private schools and ensuring their adherence to provincial educational standards.

Family Coalition Party platform on education is based on parental choice and improving schools through competition by introducing the voucher system. P. Manning seems to agree:

Can mixed educational systems such as Alberta's be improved? Of course. Freedom of choice could be further enhanced by providing parents with educational vouchers that they could cash in at the public or private educational institution of their choosing.

SAVE OUR SCHOOLS? I agree and some experts too:

In the words of Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby: "It appears that public schools are induced to raise achievement when they are faced with competition. ... This is not only good news for students; it should be welcome news to those who think that public schools have much good potential."

Now, Lynn Martin Show AM800 manipulates elections

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:32:00 +0000

Lynn Martin Show CKLW AM800 - I've just spent 40 minutes waiting in the phone queue to ask Windsor-Tecumseh candidates how would they address democratic deficit as created by local media censorship, and specifically how do they feel about exclusion of John Curtin from the Lynn Martin's show and exclusion of FCP and Greens from The Windsor Star coverage of local ridings.

Finally when the show ended I was told by the screener that Windsor West candidates during the show that followed would not want to answer my question, that they were only interested in their local issues. I tried to show him that it was quite presumptuous for him to speak on behalf of the candidates.

We are being actively blocked by the local media from sharing Family Coalition Party message with the voters. Producers of Lynn Martin Show @ AM 800 CKLW have refused to allow John Curtin to participate in the Friday morning show. All other parties, including Greens were invited. As I've described in the previous post, The Windsor Star has limited their coverage only to the three largest parties excluding both FCP and Greens.

The station's program director Keith Chinnery kindly explained to John that because FCP has no candidate in Essex then our candidates from the remaining ridings are not allowed to speak to their voters.

What a parody of democracy!

The Windsor Star manipulating election process

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:59:00 +0000

My letter to the editor:

The Windsor Star has committed an outrageous act of censorship or, at least, failed in its duty to its readers to offer factual information. In Wednesday's riding profile on Windsor-West, the editors had omitted names of two candidates running in the election. These are: Daniel Dionne (Family Coalition Party) and Jason Haney (Green Party). That's true that they both represent smaller parties. However both of these parties gained hundreds of thousands votes across Ontario in the previous election. The Windsor Star has ignored over 1200 Windsor-West voters that voted for Green Party in 2003. This is a manipulation of election process that no media can be proud of. Not surprisingly people are turning to the internet and bloggers for true and factual information. If you want to find out what is really happening in Windsor and Essex County check W.E.Speak at www.windsoressexspeak.com. There you will find a compilation of blogs, each with its own point of view and agenda that are not hidden.
Just in case that The Windsor Star is going to repeat its misinformation I will list the candidates for Windsor-Tecumseh: John Curtin (Family Coalition Party) and Andrew McAvoy (Green Party), for Essex: Jessica Fracassi (Green Party) and Aaron Parent (Libertarian Party), for Chatham-Kent-Essex: Mark Morin (Family Coalition Party) and Ken Bell (Green Party). I have not listed the three main parties candidates since I am sure the editors will not forget about them.

As I was afraid they have repeated this fraud in today's edition - this time in Windsor-Tecumseh riding profile.

In Wednesday's edition they blow up headlines and photos to fill the space to sizes never seen before on page 3 just to keep up the pretense of lack of space.

Today somebody forgot and left a gaping hole where the info on other candidates should be. Gaping hole not only on the page of a newspaper but in their reputation and democratic process. I can't recall seeing an empty space on the pages of The Windsor Star before.

Shame on you!

Go! FCP Go!

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:12:00 +0000

MMP - good people still don't get it

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:38:00 +0000

Here is my conversation with friend of mine, politically involved and educated young man who wrote to me:

Unfortunately, considering the political climate, there is a very clear danger that Gwen may be right in a sense... I would not be surprised if the Liberal and NDP and maybe Green party lists did exactly that type of "inclusion"... and this would weaken our already weak Legislature.

I have to vote for the current system, even though it would be nice to see a couple of FCP MPPs.

I am really surprised by your stand after all the information I've sent your way.

You say yourself that that the current legislature is weak. Sometimes the only way to fix a broken leg is to break it again and set it anew. Yes, that's true that, in a short term, the the culture of death may benefit from the change. But so would culture of life. Aren't we as Catholics directed to choose a greater good?

Once pro-life side has a presence in the parliament (sorry but pro-life MPPs representing pro-abortion party don't count) our efforts at grassroots level will be supported and have a voice. We know that in the current system there is no hope for pro-life cause. Show me even one legislative (federally or provincially) pro-life victory in the last 40 years! As far as I can see, we're heading the other way, loosing with every step.

On personal note, the MMP system would solve my dilemma in Essex riding. With no FCP candidate locally, it would allow me to vote for Richard Knaziew without voting for rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual John Tory and his party. With the present system I will not vote for anybody who promotes himself as "John Tory candidate" as Richard does on his signs and in his speeches. I don't see him as an effective pro-life witness when he is so enamored with a looser like John Tory as his leader.

BTW, as much as Richard was pretty good in the radio debate, his referendum answer was just plain stupid. The electoral change is not an issue worth debating during election campaign? Give me a break!

Good job with getting Richard on the second page of Windsor Star today. It is great to have pro-life issues up in front. However isn't a bit disingenuous if he promotes his pro-life stand without also explaining militantly anti-life stand of his leader? It seems like our pro-life cause is used here for dirty politics to confuse voters and get them to vote for PC party that has exactly the same stand on life issues as Liberals.

Here is what Giuseppe Gori says on radical left gaining with MMP:

Simple ethics
a) Why are we really talking about the NDP and the left?
Because the people using this argument want to scare their audience (people who are small "c" conservatives and undecided).
If they were talking to a Workers' Union meeting they would never raise that point!
This tactic of course is unethical. It is called scare-mongering.
b) The system we will choose on October 10^th, after more than a hundred years of FPTP, would have to be in place for a long time.
Who knows which parties Ontario voters will form and support just FOUR years from now? Imagine 40 years from now!
c) An electoral system must be fair, at a meta-level. It is a constitutional matter, and should not be a political matter.
On this I wrote another article. This is actually the main point.
See: "Ontario, Why Change? MMP - A synopsis"
d) Judging the electoral system change on the basis of who benefits from it is dangerous and unethical:
- Dangerous because the alternative to more democracy is more oligarchy (or even worse.)
- Unethical because someone justifies a choice of method (the means) on the basis of the objective (the end).
"The end justifies the means" is a proposition widely rejected by Christian ethical standards.

FCP's John Curtin debates at 3 PM

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:28:00 +0000

John Curtin, FCP candidate for Windsor-Tecumseh will be taking part in All Candidates Meeting at:

Edward Street Neighbourhood and Senior Centre

Location:
1150 Edward St.
Windsor, ON
N9G 1E5
Phone: (519) 945-7426

Tuesday October 2nd, at 3 PM

MMP-Debunking the fearmongers

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:18:00 +0000

The debate on electoral system continues:

Andrew Coyne in National Post writes:

(...) apologists for the status quo have more or less given up arguing for first past the post on its merits. The pretense that it delivers "stable majorities" can no longer be sustained: recent elections in Ontario have produced, in order, NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments, none with a majority of the votes, yet each interpreting the support of its own minority as a mandate to impose a succession of radically different policy regimes on the rest of us.
So instead first-past-the-posties have focused on raising fears about the alternative. These fall into two broad categories: fears about proportional representation in general, and fears about mixed-member proportional in particular.
So weak are these general arguments against PR that opponents have lately shifted their focus to the alleged failings of the mixed-member system. I'll deal with these next time.

Giuseppe Gori clears

MISINFORMATION ON THE REFERENDUM

The "Against change" side relies on people's mental inertia for defending the status quo, but some people are also using misinformation and fear as weapons in their arsenal. We do not think this tactic is ethical.

The "For change" side criticizes the FPTP system based on facts. This is because people are familiar with the current system and would immediately spot misinformation.
The people who want change have the burden of proof and must also overcome a two-folded supermajority to effect change.

Steve Paikin leads a debate on The Agenda click on the video for Sept 27th show (left column)

LFL&A blogs exclusively for MMP:

Voters Win!TVO.org's Battle Blog of Sept. 17 asks Who's Afraid of MMP? Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if Mixed-Member Proportional representation goes forward?

CBC has a handy pro-con table on MMP (scroll to the bottom of the page)

FCP's Giuseppe Gori interviewed by Steve Paikin

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:09:00 +0000

If its broken, fix it , says A. Coyne

noreply@blogger.com (xaveryptak) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:03:00 +0000

More of Andrew Coyne on electoral systems:

Democracy, as everyone knows, is a system of majority rule. It is a system marked by free and fair elections between rival political parties, their success or failure depending on the number of votes they can attract. It is a system in which every adult citizen has an equal say in choosing who should represent them.

By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy....

By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy. We are not governed by majorities, competition between parties is not free and fair, nor do their relative fortunes depend on their popularity with the voters. Most striking of all, we do not give every citizen equal say at election time. Everyone may get one vote, that is true. But some votes count more than others. Some -- most, in fact -- do not count at all.