Thursday, February 26, 2015

Isis Believes After the death of both the Dajjal and the Mahdi, the Muslim Jesus will rule the Earth.

Isis is selective in its use of hadith. For instance, other Ahadith have it that Jesus, will return to a place east of Damascus and will join forces with the Islamic messiah, the Mahdi, in a battle against the false messiah, the one eyed Dajjal- Armilos for Jews.
After the death of both the Dajjal and the Mahdi, the Muslim Jesus will rule the Earth. This hadith is less useful to Isis, though its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, looks to some observers to be trying to style himself as the Mahdi.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Renters Versus Home Ownership In Canada








A life-sized Oscar statuette snorting cocaine on its hands and knees on Hollywood BLVD.

 

Cocaine-snorting Oscar statue removed after popping up on Hollywood Boulevard days before Academy Awards

Los Angeles street artist Plastic Jesus has caused controversy by placing a life-sized gold Oscars statue snorting cocaine on Hollywood Boulevard, just yards from the red carpet.

Even the statues party hard in Hollywood.
A life-sized Oscar statuette snorting cocaine on its hands and knees popped up for a few hours on Hollywood Boulevard on Thursday — just days before the glamorous Academy Awards and yards from the red carpet.
The stunning gold figure is meant to draw attention to Hollywood’s “hidden” problem of drug addiction, which goes unnoticed until the death of an A-list celebrity, Los Angeles street artist Plastic Jesus told the Daily News.
“We’re deluded if we’re saying that cocaine isn’t a major part of Hollywood and almost every other city in the world,” he said. “A lot of people will sit down and watch the Oscar show this Sunday and then go and indulge in cocaine.”
The controversial piece of art, titled “Hollywood’s Best Party,” shows an Oscar figure snorting drugs through a rolled up $100 bill, as a black “American Excess” card lies nearby.
It drew tons of attention after it was placed on the famous California street near La Brea Ave. Thursday at 9 a.m. But the artist removed it about 2 p.m. after a “grouchy, old man started ranting about it,” Plastic Jesus said.
“I want to cause controversy about the issue. But I don’t want to cause controversy about the placement,” he said. “I didn’t want a confrontation. The piece is out there. People have posted it. It got enough publicity to get people to think.”
The Oscars statuette is snorting cocaine out of a $100 bill, as a black "American Excess" card lies nearby. 
The artist moved the statue – made of fiber glass, with the cocaine created out of crushed aspirin -- back to his studio in downtown Los Angeles, but he plans to display it again on Melrose Avenue on Saturday.
He had no specific celebrity in mind during the three weeks it took him to build the statue, he said.
“The piece is really just to show how much a part of everyday life for people cocaine is,” Plastic Jesus said. “In the current war on drugs, this isn’t working. The term controlled substance is an absolutely joke. There is absolutely no control.”
Last year, Plastic Jesus created a similar statue of a life-sized Oscar statue injecting heroin, which he said garnered him a lot of support.

Source


Saturday, February 14, 2015

Nutella Exposed As Unhealthy Sugar Spread By CBC

Watching what you eat? You may want to take a closer look at some of the labels on the food on store shelves. Healthy eating is a priority for many Canadians trying to lower their risk of many chronic diseases, and for those concerned about their weight.

But you can’t always trust what’s on the label of "healthy" foods. "I think it's really unfortunate that we have this situation where every aisle of the supermarket is preying on us," Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, a doctor who specializes in weight loss and nutrition, told CBC's Marketplace co-host Erica Johnson. "We shouldn't be forced as consumers to study nutrition labels to see if the claims on the front are accurate," he says.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/5-healthy-food-claims-to-watch-out-for-1.2955149 

Pasco Police Shoot Man Throwing Rocks

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

What is the Deep Web? A first trip into the abyss



The Deep Web (or Invisible web) is the set of information resources on the World Wide Web not reported by normal search engines.

According several researches the principal search engines index only a small portion of the overall web content, the remaining part is unknown to the majority of web users.
What do you think if you were told that under our feet, there is a world larger than ours and much more crowded? We will literally be shocked, and this is the reaction of those individual who can understand the existence of the Deep Web, a network of interconnected systems, are not indexed, having a size hundreds of times higher than the current web, around 500 times.
Very exhaustive is the definition provided by the founder of BrightPlanet, Mike Bergman, that compared searching on the Internet today to dragging a net across the surface of the ocean: a great deal may be caught in the net, but there is a wealth of information that is deep and therefore missed.
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/5650/cyber-crime/what-is-the-deep-web-a-first-trip-into-the-abyss.html

Saturday, February 7, 2015

The Strange Stories Behind 'Strange Animal,' Gowan's 30-Year-Old Classic Album


I might be misinterpreting it a bit, but did "Strange Animal" get you fired from Ronnie Hawkins' band?

That's a better story than the real one, close though. Ronnie has always been an astute individual and still is... So on January 10, 1985 we played the Toronto Auto Show down at the Automotive Building at the C.N.E. I was his piano player and what would be my trademark mullet was well on my head at that point. And about a week later, on January 15, "A Criminal Mind" was released. Two days later, we're only at January 17, we were playing at the auto show in Montreal.

So we finished our first set and by the end of that set there was a gathering of people by stage right (in front of me), and I could hear them between songs saying things to each other in French. And I heard the words "le criminal," "le criminal guy, no?" And I thought, "Are they talking about 'Criminal Mind'?" So the set ends, and as we're stepping off the stage Ronnie's behind me, and a fan asks, "Are you that 'Criminal Mind' guy?"

I was stunned. And I went, "Yes!" And immediately all these hands went up with papers to sign. So in that moment it kinda blocked Ronnie a bit, and Ronnie's going around me — there were some people getting his autograph as well — and as Ronnie steps around me he says, [affects Hawkins' southern drawl] "It looks like you done played your last show with me, son."
So I won't take that as a firing, I'll take that as a bon voyage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/04/gowan-strange-animal_n_6612684.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Realtors scrambling after threats by board to cut access to MLS

The Toronto Real Estate Board is threatening to cut off a vital lifeline — access to the Multiple Listing Service — for realtors who continue to push the information envelope by offering sold data of homes on public websites.
The move is largely seen as aimed at a new, tech-savvy generation of realtors who believe that all MLS data — and especially sales histories of homes — should be readily accessible online, as it is on popular U.S. sites such as Zillow.com and Trulia.com, which allow folks to do more of their own research.
TREB did not respond to requests for interviews.
Some realtors were scrambling this week to ensure their websites weren’t in violation of TREB rules. At least one brokerage — which counts a former TREB president and a president-elect among its realtor ranks — appears to have shut down an innovative app that, for a year, has offered sold data right to househunters’ phones.

Source

Canadian Supreme Court allowing assisted suicide

Supreme Court reverses course, allowing assisted suicide and reshaping nation’s political agenda

 

 

The Conservative government that vowed never to reopen the question of assisted suicide is seeking to buy time in the wake of the bombshell ruling. Unanimous and unequivocal, the ruling will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada.
It set out circumstances where the country’s top court said assisted suicide is constitutional — under a physician’s care, for consenting adults who determine they cannot tolerate the physical or psychological suffering brought on by a severe, incurable illness, disease or disability — a stunning reversal of the court’s 21-yearold ruling in the Sue Rodriguez case.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the government needs to absorb the ruling on a matter so “sensitive” for many Canadians. He hinted it could take the whole year granted by the court to develop a legislative response. Neither the NDP nor Liberals stated a clear party position, but both hinted at the need for federal guidelines to protect the vulnerable.
In the 9-0 judgment, the court declared the Criminal Code’s absolute ban on assisted suicide goes too far. Its attempt to protect “vulnerable people” also prevents competent, consenting adults suffering “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” from making core decisions about how they live and die, and so breaches three of the most basic rights: to life, liberty and security of the person, all enshrined in Sec. 7 of the Charter, and is not justified in a free democratic society. The judges declared the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.”
The ruling is not limited to disabled individuals who are unable to kill themselves unaided, nor to cases of terminal illness or people near death. Instead, the ruling applies broadly in cases of a major illness, disease or disability that inflicts intolerable physical or psychological suffering on a patient. The court said nothing in its ruling would compel a physician to act against his or her conscience or religious beliefs, and it is up to lawmakers to balance conflicting rights.
The decision was signed by the court, as a signal of a powerful consensus among all nine judges including the retiring Louis LeBel, and six of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s appointees.
The court suspended the effect of the ruling for 12 months.
Parliament now has several options:
It could enact a new law laying out a scheme for physician-assisted suicides — setting out guidelines for determining consent, timelines, residency requirements, or the extent of medical assistance for example, as Quebec has done.
It could decide not to draft a new law, allowing the ruling to stand as an expression of principles and leave details up to provinces or medical regulatory bodies and authorities to oversee.
If Parliament does not draft a new law within that time, the effect of the decision would be to allow physician-assisted suicides within those limited circumstances. But it would not permit anyone to aid individuals to commit suicide at any time. The general prohibition still stands.
Afederal government could invoke the Constitution’s little-used escape or override clause that allows governments to legislate “notwithstanding” basic rights in the Charter. In an election year, that’s seen as political dynamite.
University of Ottawa law professor Carissima Mathen said unlike when the abortion law was struck down in 1989, the overall law against assisted suicide still stands, so a national regime that codifies the Supreme Court ruling would be an appropriate legislative response rather than no law at all, said Mathen, “and you need co-operation with relevant health authorities to ensure the system is managed competently.”
She said it would be “very dangerous and unfortunate” if there were no law, leaving disputes to be settled in individual prosecutions by a trial judge “who will basically be told by a defendant that applying this law in this case is unconstitutional. That’s what would happen if they do nothing.” She said use of the “notwithstanding” clause to override the court’s findings would be out of step with a majority of Canadian public opinion on an issue that affects many families directly.
Already social conservatives who support the Harper-led government are calling on the Conservatives to do just that.
Campaign Life Coalition urged Parliament to invoke the override clause, Sec. 33 of the Charter, or enact a law “that protects vulnerable Canadians from assisted suicide.” Others slammed the high court for judicial policy-making.
The family of Kay Carter, one of two B.C. women at the heart of the challenge, was overjoyed at what daughter Lee called a “huge victory for Canadians and a great legacy for (her mother) Kay.”
For them, and the civil libertarians and right-to-die advocates who joined their fight for the change, it was a clear and decisive victory.
Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor, another B.C. woman, suffered from different debilitating conditions when they launched the landmark case. Both have since died. Carter’s family escorted her to Switzerland, which allows physician-assisted suicide. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association took up their challenge. The court said the litigation was in the broad, national public interest and deserved full legal costs — estimated to be in the millions — to be paid by the federal government with some costs to be paid by the government of British Columbia.
But disabled advocates agonized. In a statement, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) and the Canadian Association for Community Living challenged governments to maintain or expand home-care services and supports, a national suicide prevention strategy for persons with disabilities and degenerative conditions, and “most critically” questioned whether governments would provide access to palliative care as a universally available service at the end of life.
CCD spokeswoman Catherine Frazee, shaken by the ruling, said “disabled people are very much at risk and I think we have to rise up and assert that disabled lives matter.”
Friday’s decision overturned the court’s1993 ruling in Sue Rodriguez’s bid for help to end her life before ALS made it impossible to even ask. The high court said it was time to revisit that because of legal changes in how courts analyze the constitutionality of statutes, and evidence based on the international experience that now shows how “safeguards” can be built into a “permissive regime” to protect vulnerable people from error or abuse.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Bottles of Walmart-brand echinacea, contain no echinacea at all


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Bottles of Walmart-brand echinacea, an herb said to ward off colds, were found to contain no echinacea at all. GNC-brand bottles of St. John's wort, touted as a cure for depression, held rice, garlic and a tropical houseplant, but not a trace of the herb.
In fact, DNA testing on hundreds of bottles of store-brand herbal supplements sold as treatments for everything from memory loss to prostate trouble found that four out of five contained none of the herbs on the label. Instead, they were packed with cheap fillers such as wheat, rice, beans or houseplants.
Based on the testing commissioned by his office, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said Tuesday he has sent letters to the four major store chains involved — GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens — demanding that they immediately stop selling adulterated or mislabeled dietary supplements.
Schneiderman said the supplements pose serious risks. People who have allergies or are taking certain medications can suffer dangerous reactions from herbal concoctions that contain substances not listed on the label, he said.

Rand Paul Is A Quack And His Views Are Dangerous



Republicans have learned to dodge questions about climate change by saying, “I’m not a scientist.” When Rand Paul started getting questions about vaccines on Monday, he had no such excuse.
The junior senator from Kentucky has been through medical school and residency, and remains an actively (if occasionally) practicing ophthalmologist. But there Paul was on Laura Ingraham's radio show and then on CNBC Monday, spouting what most public health experts would consider highly misleading information about vaccine safety -- and about how, or at least when, parents should vaccinate their kids:
I don't think there is anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom. I'll give you a good example. The Hepatitis B vaccine is now given to newborns. We sometimes give five and six vaccines all at one time. I chose to have mine delayed. I don't want the government telling me that I have to give my newborn Hepatitis B vaccine, which is transmitted by sexually transmitted disease and/or blood transfusions. Do I ultimately think it is a good idea? Yeah. And so I had mine staggered over several months. I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing, but I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn't own your children. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health.
To hear Paul tell it, vaccines are a worthwhile preventive measure, but carry significant risks of harm -- enough to warrant spacing them out over time. That’s simply not the case. All medical interventions can cause side effects, but immunizations are among the most effective and the very safest interventions we have, with the risks of adverse consequences exceedingly low.
And while the idea of spreading out vaccinations over time has gained some popularity, experts say this, too, lacks scientific basis. The Institute of Medicine, the nonprofit organization that’s part of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at this question specifically and concluded that there is no reason to delay immunizations. On the contrary, the IOM determined, the recommended schedule from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- the one that requires, yes, multiple shots at once -- makes sense. In fact, IOM said, delaying vaccines could be harmful, since it leaves babies vulnerable to dangerous diseases for longer periods of time.

Paul, on the air, defended his views by saying, "I guess being for freedom would be really unusual." But it's not unusual to argue that your freedom can infringe upon somebody else's. And the argument in favor of vaccination requirements is that, when you decide against inoculation, you jeopardize the health not just of your own child but also of other people in the community. That's because failure to inoculate undermines the “herd immunity” or "herd protection" necessary to keep diseases from spreading, particularly among vulnerable populations like the very young and people with immunological problems.
As Sarah Kliff at Vox has noted, researchers say that it takes immunization rates of 92 to 94 percent in order to establish herd immunity for measles. The rate has already fallen below that in some states, and because anti-vaccination advocates tend to cluster, it’s fallen dangerously below that level in some communities. That’s why measles is starting to make a comeback, even though more than nine out of 10 Americans have gotten measles shots.

The courts understand this -- and have for a long time. Modern law on vaccinationstraces back to a 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the state fined a preacher who refused to get a smallpox vaccination, and the preacher sued. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that Massachusetts, like all states, had expansive “police powers” to protect the health and safety of its citizens -- and that requiring vaccinations (in this case, under penalty of a fine) was well within the limits of that power. Just a few weeks ago, a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit against New York’s vaccination law on the very same grounds -- and issued its decision unanimously just two days after hearing oral arguments, calling the requirement “clearly constitutional.”
Paul isn’t the only presidential aspirant who has sent mixed signals on vaccination. Hours before Paul was on TV, Chris Christie was on MSNBC explaining that he, too, thought vaccines should be optional. (He later issued a statement clarifying that he thought all parents should vaccinate their kids.) Back in 2008, Hillary Clintonsuggested the federal government should investigate possible links between vaccines and autism. While this was before the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, fully retracted an infamous medical article alleging such a link, it was after the scientific community had rejected the central finding. (On Monday, Clinton issued a clearer endorsement of vaccines.)

The Best Online Last Will And Testament Website

PartingWishes.com - Write a will, power of attorney or living will (Click here)
No lawyer required.  Just answer the simple questions to create your legal documents online.
Make updates at any time free of charge.  Lawyer approved, at one-tenth the cost.
Also offers FREE services to create your funeral wishes, last messages and online memorials.

amazon deals 2

Live Face On Web

CNN.com - Most Popular

Oddee -

CNN.com Recently Published/Updated