Um...drinking makes it easier for homosexuals to have sex just like everyone else? I'll charge $100 for that.
Original Post: cnsnews
By: Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding a study that seeks to discover a link between drinking and having sex among homosexuals in Argentina.
The study will send researchers to six bars in Buenos Aires to interview both patrons and proprietors in an effort to discover what it is about those bars that may encourage the risky behavior.
The study began on Sept. 30, 2008, and runs through Aug. 31, 2010. It already has cost taxpayers $198,776. By the time the project ends, it will have cost $403,902, according to NIH.
The grant, awarded to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the division of NIH that studies the effects of alcohol and alcoholism.
The study’s primary focus is to determine the relationship among drinking, bars frequented by homosexuals, and risky sexual behavior to see if certain bars in Argentina might be good targets for HIV-prevention campaigns.
“Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed, and sexual behavior occurs, the goal of this two-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high-risk sexual space,” the study’s abstract explains.
"To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place, patron characteristics, type and level of alcohol consumption, and social dynamics that are at play and potentiate each other to result in sexual risk behavior."
The study has six goals, including the collection of information on six specific bars in Buenos Aires; the appearance, of those bars, alcohol availability, patrons, and types of sexual behavior taking place. The study also seeks to identify which factors contribute to alcohol consumption and sexual behavior in the bars.
“The specific aims of this study are to … 2) identify factors that contribute to alcohol use and high-risk sexual behavior in the venues,” says the abstract.
Researchers will interview 48 of the men who patronize the bars, as well as the bar staff to gather information on the types of alcohol consumed and sexual behavior engaged in.
“Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use.”
After discovering why men who drink in these bars have homosexual sex, researchers will then try to discover whether it is possible to conduct anti-HIV interventions and how to conduct those interventions.
The study will “4) assess willingness of venue owners/personnel to partner with HIV prevention organizations in reducing HIV risk in these settings and [what] types of prevention programs they find acceptable.”
While the study is being conducted in Argentina, it is being funded with U.S. tax dollars. The grant recipients--who could not be reached for comment--say in the abstract that information gathered in the bars in Argentina might help inform similar efforts in America.
“We expect findings to be useful in informing venue-based interventions for these types of venues in other countries.”
The study is among a number funded by the NIAAA to examine the relationship between drinking and the spread of HIV, including a study of tourism, prostitution, and HIV in the Dominican Republic and another study examining drinking and HIV among prostitutes in China.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Muslims declare security measures against their faith
source
So, apparently Muslims can just declare Fatwas whenever they want. The airport security devices were going to be put into place after one Muslim, with Al Qaeda contacts tried to blow up a plane with his crotch.
Our current security measures are apparently unable to deal with terrorists so we came up with more secure measures that should be. But then potential terrorists just said "no". No? Really? They can just do that? That's brilliant!
I'll bet the Emperor of Japan wished he thought of that during WWII. "You're going to drop an atomic bomb on us? You can't. Being blown up by an atomic bomb is against our religion". Well, I guess we have no choice but not to bomb them then.
So we're going to put in these new scanners designed to help us find suicide bombers and then exclude the very people who they were designed to protect us against in the first place. Genius!
For the record, It's against my religion for my country to be attacked by people who have declared a jihad against us because we're infidels for not belonging to a religion that can just declare fatwas against anything that stands in our way.
So, apparently Muslims can just declare Fatwas whenever they want. The airport security devices were going to be put into place after one Muslim, with Al Qaeda contacts tried to blow up a plane with his crotch.
Our current security measures are apparently unable to deal with terrorists so we came up with more secure measures that should be. But then potential terrorists just said "no". No? Really? They can just do that? That's brilliant!
I'll bet the Emperor of Japan wished he thought of that during WWII. "You're going to drop an atomic bomb on us? You can't. Being blown up by an atomic bomb is against our religion". Well, I guess we have no choice but not to bomb them then.
So we're going to put in these new scanners designed to help us find suicide bombers and then exclude the very people who they were designed to protect us against in the first place. Genius!
For the record, It's against my religion for my country to be attacked by people who have declared a jihad against us because we're infidels for not belonging to a religion that can just declare fatwas against anything that stands in our way.
Brad Krause West Allis Wisconsin Open Carry Case - Feb 17 Hearing Results
Original Post: freerepublic
By: Secret Agent Man
Was in the courtroom today to hear the ruling from municipal judge Paul Murphy regarding Brad's case.
For a quick rundown, WI is an open carry state. Brad was on his property planting a tree, and was wearing a holstered firearm in plain sight. A neighbor called West Allis police asking about the legality of open carry. The result was two squads being dispatched and Brad being drawn on by two officers, handcuffed for 45 minutes while the police tried to figure out what to charge him with (as open carry is the only legal way to carry in WI). They charged him with disorderly conduct and confiscated his weapon and holster.
The result today was the judge had a couple months in between the first date to today to read over briefs filed by both Brad Krause and his attorney Steve Kane, and the city attorney's office, to which he'd be issuing a ruling on whether Brad was guilty or not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. (I would point out the whole reason the police charged Brad with 'disorderly' conduct was the mere fact he was armed. So in reality the charge against Brad was more accurately, 'being armed while armed.')
The courtroom apparently was pretty packed for a West Allis Tuesday morning. I would estimate a good 50-ish people were there for this one case.
Basically the judge seemed to go back and forth while issuing his reasoning before the verdict. First citing the idea that city governments can't pre-empt state constitutional rights was one avenue of thought. Then being upset that the legislature and our Attorney General (who ducked this issue) could clear all of this up by either issuing a ruling (AG) or clearing up the laws pertaining to carrying them in WI. Then discussing how e felt bad for the police because they don't really know what to do about this. Then steering back into the fact that people being offended doesn't trump constitutional rights. Making a statement to the effect that it is not lawful to use ordinances and statutes to deprive someone of their constitutional rights. Finally discussing whether Brad, simply by carrying was being disorderly or not. It looked like at some times it would go the city's way, and some times it appeared he would rule in Brad's favor.
The end result was that Brad was found not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. The judge made it clear that this is most likely not the end of this case because he believed whatever side 'lost' would probably appeal to a higher court. Certainly if Brad lost an appeal would be in the works. It is unclear at this early point if the city of West Allis will appeal or not. If I were to bet on it, IMPO, they will.
The issue of returning his weapon and holster are a separate issue per the judge, and it will be up to Brad to get his property back from the police department. There is a chance that he will have to go to court to get a court order, if they do not return it to him after he again submits a request to them to have it returned to them.
The ironic thing is that his weapon is the same weapon the West Allis police use, and his ammo was the same that they use. The only difference is that he has a superior holster than they do (positive retention) that makes it almost impossible for someone other than Brad to remove the gun.
So the end result to day is that there is a win for Brad. It probably is not over, he still needs to get his property back, and deal with the legal bills. But it's definitely a good day in Wisconsin, for every gun owner out there. Because the issue is not just about guns. It is a larger issue about rights, constitutionally guaranteed rights, that can't be taken away by local government just because they say they can (pre-emption). It is about not being able to have your rights taken away because someone else is offended or uncomfortable about you simply exercising your rights. It is a much bigger issue than just guns.
By: Secret Agent Man
Was in the courtroom today to hear the ruling from municipal judge Paul Murphy regarding Brad's case.
For a quick rundown, WI is an open carry state. Brad was on his property planting a tree, and was wearing a holstered firearm in plain sight. A neighbor called West Allis police asking about the legality of open carry. The result was two squads being dispatched and Brad being drawn on by two officers, handcuffed for 45 minutes while the police tried to figure out what to charge him with (as open carry is the only legal way to carry in WI). They charged him with disorderly conduct and confiscated his weapon and holster.
The result today was the judge had a couple months in between the first date to today to read over briefs filed by both Brad Krause and his attorney Steve Kane, and the city attorney's office, to which he'd be issuing a ruling on whether Brad was guilty or not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. (I would point out the whole reason the police charged Brad with 'disorderly' conduct was the mere fact he was armed. So in reality the charge against Brad was more accurately, 'being armed while armed.')
The courtroom apparently was pretty packed for a West Allis Tuesday morning. I would estimate a good 50-ish people were there for this one case.
Basically the judge seemed to go back and forth while issuing his reasoning before the verdict. First citing the idea that city governments can't pre-empt state constitutional rights was one avenue of thought. Then being upset that the legislature and our Attorney General (who ducked this issue) could clear all of this up by either issuing a ruling (AG) or clearing up the laws pertaining to carrying them in WI. Then discussing how e felt bad for the police because they don't really know what to do about this. Then steering back into the fact that people being offended doesn't trump constitutional rights. Making a statement to the effect that it is not lawful to use ordinances and statutes to deprive someone of their constitutional rights. Finally discussing whether Brad, simply by carrying was being disorderly or not. It looked like at some times it would go the city's way, and some times it appeared he would rule in Brad's favor.
The end result was that Brad was found not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. The judge made it clear that this is most likely not the end of this case because he believed whatever side 'lost' would probably appeal to a higher court. Certainly if Brad lost an appeal would be in the works. It is unclear at this early point if the city of West Allis will appeal or not. If I were to bet on it, IMPO, they will.
The issue of returning his weapon and holster are a separate issue per the judge, and it will be up to Brad to get his property back from the police department. There is a chance that he will have to go to court to get a court order, if they do not return it to him after he again submits a request to them to have it returned to them.
The ironic thing is that his weapon is the same weapon the West Allis police use, and his ammo was the same that they use. The only difference is that he has a superior holster than they do (positive retention) that makes it almost impossible for someone other than Brad to remove the gun.
So the end result to day is that there is a win for Brad. It probably is not over, he still needs to get his property back, and deal with the legal bills. But it's definitely a good day in Wisconsin, for every gun owner out there. Because the issue is not just about guns. It is a larger issue about rights, constitutionally guaranteed rights, that can't be taken away by local government just because they say they can (pre-emption). It is about not being able to have your rights taken away because someone else is offended or uncomfortable about you simply exercising your rights. It is a much bigger issue than just guns.
Man With Pro-Life Anti-Obama Sign Pulled Over, Faces Police, Secret Service
Original Post: lifenews
By: Steven Ertelt
Enid, OK (LifeNews.com) -- An Oklahoma man with a homemade sign on his vehicle was pulled over and harassed by police for allegedly making a threat against the president. Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police officer followed him for several miles and eventually signaled him to pull over.
The officer mistook the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn," as threatening.
"I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong," Harrison told the McClatchy-Tribune news service in a interview.
"It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said, saying he disagrees with Obama. "I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?' He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'"
The officers confiscated the sign and gave him a slip of paper saying he would be subjected to an investigation.
Harrison told the news service he eventually received a call from someone claiming to be a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and who wanted to know how to return his sign to him.
The person asked Harrison if he wanted to file a complaint and he took some papers in case he wanted to do so.
After the call, Harrison received a second call from someone with the Secret Service who said agents were at his home. Upon calling his attorney, Harrison went home.
"When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups," he recounted.
"We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said, describing the agents as friendly. He said they interviewed him for 30 minutes and left.
"I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison told McClatchy-Tribune. "I don't know what I'm going to do."
Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, told the Tulsa World newspaper that the officer misunderstood the sign and never should have seized it.
"We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."
"(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."
By: Steven Ertelt
Enid, OK (LifeNews.com) -- An Oklahoma man with a homemade sign on his vehicle was pulled over and harassed by police for allegedly making a threat against the president. Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police officer followed him for several miles and eventually signaled him to pull over.
The officer mistook the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn," as threatening.
"I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong," Harrison told the McClatchy-Tribune news service in a interview.
"It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said, saying he disagrees with Obama. "I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?' He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'"
The officers confiscated the sign and gave him a slip of paper saying he would be subjected to an investigation.
Harrison told the news service he eventually received a call from someone claiming to be a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and who wanted to know how to return his sign to him.
The person asked Harrison if he wanted to file a complaint and he took some papers in case he wanted to do so.
After the call, Harrison received a second call from someone with the Secret Service who said agents were at his home. Upon calling his attorney, Harrison went home.
"When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups," he recounted.
"We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said, describing the agents as friendly. He said they interviewed him for 30 minutes and left.
"I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison told McClatchy-Tribune. "I don't know what I'm going to do."
Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, told the Tulsa World newspaper that the officer misunderstood the sign and never should have seized it.
"We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."
"(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."
EPA finds air public threat
report
It's very comforting to know that an unelectable government agency that hasn't passed 4th grade science is in charge of an issue that affects so many aspects of our lives as well as our lively hood.
Shhh....The EPA doesn't know this.
It's very comforting to know that an unelectable government agency that hasn't passed 4th grade science is in charge of an issue that affects so many aspects of our lives as well as our lively hood.
Shhh....The EPA doesn't know this.
Dept. of Homeland Security declairs about half the country terrorists
Report
This report is pretty awesome and not at all Orwellian or Totalitarian in any way. It only declares:
-Returning Veterans
-small government enthusiasts
-anti-abortionists
-states rightists
-and people with combat training
terrorists that have to be watched because we're a huge threat to America because of the violence we've been known to inflict.
People like Nidal Hasan are fine, but I have to be watched (apparently with out the presumption of innocence) because I want a smaller government and believe that states should have more authority as per the Constitution.
It's also rather shocking for my Liberal friend and roommate to find out that they are now Right wing extremists. The former is a Vet and the latter has combat training.
This report is pretty awesome and not at all Orwellian or Totalitarian in any way. It only declares:
-Returning Veterans
-small government enthusiasts
-anti-abortionists
-states rightists
-and people with combat training
terrorists that have to be watched because we're a huge threat to America because of the violence we've been known to inflict.
People like Nidal Hasan are fine, but I have to be watched (apparently with out the presumption of innocence) because I want a smaller government and believe that states should have more authority as per the Constitution.
It's also rather shocking for my Liberal friend and roommate to find out that they are now Right wing extremists. The former is a Vet and the latter has combat training.
“volunteer coast guard”
Really? The left really does go out of it's way to lionize thugs, criminals, and nerdowells. With terrorists being renamed "man made disasters" now this. I suppose if I took up mugging as a profession I could put down "voluntary IRS agent".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)