JUMP Bikes

Photo for “My Thoughts: Women’s issues” blog dated October 2015

Your smartphone could soon be the first step for diagnosing skin cancer "...Nature Today hints at a future where anyone, anywhere, might be able to perform skin cancer screening on a smartphone."

https://plus.google.com/100212344229354267307/posts/CxZpN8wARrV?_utm_source=1-2-2

9th Circuit Court will hear Oral Argument over travel Ban tonight, 2/7/17. ABC News. Trump to find out.

Fact

If you opened up the case of the original Macintosh, you will find 47 signatures. One for each member of Apple's Macintosh division as of 1982. DS 1/26/2017

Jus’ lookin’ at the beautiful pictures on google

Image credits: Google images

Should be titled, “As I understand the planned parenthood debate” or similar. People make their own definitions. You do have a lots of facts written in a large blog. I am all for you, maybe I’m just a newcomer.

Defunding Planned Parenthood explained

When more fuel is poured on the fire that is our national discourse on abortion, context starts missing. The question, often, is not as cut and dry as whether abortion should be legal or not, whether it’s moral or not or whether women should have a choice or not. It’s about how we can reconcile reducing abortions and making healthcare for all accessible.

As the country’s lawmakers determine whether to end funding for Planned Parenthood, which receives about 40 percent or $500 million from the federal government annually, it’s good to put things into perspective.

First off, I’m always amazed with how little sensitivity activists on both sides of the argument approach this issue. The left disregards the question of morality while the right disregards the question of choice.

The left will tell you that women shouldn’t be told what to do with their bodies. Maybe so, but 41 percent of women are pro-life. Those women seem to value morality over choice. The right will tell you that abortion in any circumstance is immoral, yet the truth is circumstances arise and in the real world the crippling, unsafe alternatives and the financial and social burden of raising a child for too many outweigh the short-term yet unspeakably painstaking choice to seek such a medical procedure, however invasive.

A couple truths here. 79 percent of the people who receive services from Planned Parenthood are low-income Americans who live 150 percent or lower below the poverty line. These people are on Medicaid or receive care indirectly through another government-funded program called Title X.

Another truth is that 95 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. This has been debunked time and again. Numbers have been cherry-picked by conservatives and the claims have never aligned with reality.

Another truth, however, is that according to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-2014 annual report, the organization conducted 323,653 abortions. Respectable estimates say that this accounts for no more than 12 percent of all Planned Parenthood’s services. However, that is not a small number. For many who have the deepest convictions around protecting life in their view, this number is appalling. Even if you aren’t a social conservative, it’s a grim number.

The two things we don’t know are the circumstances in which these abortions were sought and how much revenue Planned Parenthood generates from these procedures.

So what does Planned Parenthood exactly do? 76 percent of their work relates to testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and infections as well as contraceptive care. This is followed by pregnancy tests, prenatal care and cancer screenings.

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in extreme cases like rape, incest or to protect the mother. Some states have expanded their own funding of Planned Parenthood and expanded the circumstances by which state funds could be used for abortions.

Defunding Planned Parenthood in the immediate would cut government spending. The problem is the consequences of less funding means a real probability of more unplanned pregnancies which leads to an increase in government spending because these people will at that point likely be eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, unrelated to active pregnancies, people who would have otherwise gone to Planned Parenthood for services like to treat an STI or receive a cancer screening would need to find another clinic. If those clinics are crowded, this can limit access to important services to both women and men.

These are all possibilities, yet how probable these consequences will arise isn’t clear. Those who are for protecting Planned Parenthood’s federal funding are not being modest about sounding that alarm.

On the political right, you have a very principled position. Something like, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to fund an organization that conducts abortions.” On the left, a more pragmatic position, “Women should have access to these services, so the government should help fund these services. If the government doesn’t fund them, then these bad things will happen.”

What has always gotten the political left support for funding anything is this “cause and effect” argument. “If we don’t fund this or regulate this, then this will happen.” It’s effective, frequently necessary yet creates a habit that lacks discipline and a mindset that often disregards more innovative approaches to solutions.

Those on the political right who support defunding may have determined that despite the preventative services that Planned Parenthood delivers, the organization’s continued support for abortion procedures is a non-starter. Is it truly that easy to hold that view even as someone who receives equal or better care someplace else? Or can we along with our lawmakers devise other ways all Americans can receive preventative care? These are both questions worth asking.

Like most topics and issues we confront as a nation, this is more complex than any presidential candidate, activist or cable news talking head has portrayed. At the very least, I hope this has made some sense and provoked some thought for readers here. I hope to revisit this issue again soon, perhaps with a proposal.

Climate Change Promotes People Problems

December 14, 2013

In a BBC news article, because of weather causing homes to be destroyed, farmlands to be flooded, and low lying cities to be inundated, the BBC explains that is why poor people remain poor. The more developed nations are doing what they can, but more is needed. Children in low income neighborhood are prone to depression; and a quarter of the World’s children are struggling to learn because of malnutrition. With no hope of something better for your children, sometimes life seems too hard. What would you do for your children? These too, are people problems.

At present,  those without are barely keeping up with clean water; food is hard to come by, so the housing - homes put together with tin and discarded scraps - is simply not possibly able to be improved and  ‘reinforced’ against ANY possible weather conditions.

There will be 325 million of those people, highly exposed to the elements by 2030 in 49 countries. Sub-Saharan Africa will be home to 118 million, over a third of that ‘people number’. Expert researchers for the Overseas Development Institute have ”often heard that ill health is what keeps people poor”. If we are going to feed and care for the third world, we must consider better ways to house them - or take Climate Change into account - which would help US also. It would do ”a world full of good”.

And Some Are Thinking Ahead

The Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, the journal, ‘Science”, and the University of California at Berkeley have completed and compared several dozen studies of relationships between climate (not weather) and conflict. These compilations are from most regions of the world, and from points in the past 10,000 years. 100’s of papers were weeded out.

They find a correlation as to what they call, being ”hot and bothered”,  differing from ‘cool and composed’. In other, more obvious words, “higher temperatures and a disagreeable attitude are connected”. Some disagree, however. They say that the underlying mechanisms remain unclear”, that is, no ”A causes B”.

More Reptiles?

Another, interesting point is that, due to Climate Change, warming makes reptiles bigger, and mammals smaller. This change has been recorded in the Florida Museum of Natural History, and in the journal ”Science Writers 2013”.

Now, most would consider reptiles more distant from ourselves than other mammals, and that when hearing the word ‘reptile’ thinks of dinosaurs, crawling creatures and lizards, mostly animals to avoid. This ‘swerving of nature’ toward animals we avoid may be deemed towards more - violence - and it may not. It is just included here for the reader.

”Murders Could Follow Math Law”

In South America, in one country, the murder rate is exceedingly high. Postulates say that it is due to poverty, population concentrations, and ”loss of face”, requiring revenge. Again, however, statistics show those are in the same pot, but ”there is no cause and effect”, no ”A causes B”. Some ask “Can Big Data Help Predict Future Crime”? Ever hear of a movie about “Pre-crime”, starring Tom Cruise? My question: Is this “comparable information” with Climate Change? Are they, too, ”hot and bothered”? Is this information being discouraged?

”Air Pollution Kill Millions Each Year”

In cities, even avoiding crime, where high ‘particulate matter’, fine dust material suspended in the air (pollution), premature mortality exceeds others by 15 - 20%. WHO, the “World Health Organization” says Beijing, Karachi, New Delhi, Kahmandu, Lima, Shanghai, Arequipa, Mexico City, Cairo are such cities. That’s over 86.7 million total population, of which over 17 million deaths are preventable! Because there are multiple cities in different countries,  WHO says it’s beyond individual control and that a national or international body is needed.

How much is the value of 17 million lives? There could be another Einstein! Another Mandela!!

Air Is Everywhere - No One Country Owns It, But One Could Ruin It -

The BBC reports ”Air Pollution Still  Is Harming Health”.

NBC news reported in July 2013 that ‘air pollution causes Lung Cancer and worsens Heart Failure’, virtually the same words. There is  the indicator that ”more pollution equals more disease”.

The Danish Cancer Society Research Center says ”there is no safe level” or, ‘if you live in a polluted city, you will get these diseases’.

In Japan, the Okayama University Graduate School of Environmental and Life Sciences reported in the Lancet Medical Journal that, after compiling and correlating 17 different studies of over 300, 000 people in 9 European countries over 13 years, that a (as tiny as) “a ten micro-gram per cubic meter increase in Co2 will cause a 2% increase in the likelihood of Heart failure” … !

In another grouping of 47 studies of the greenhouse gases in the air of the US and Europe, that with an increase of 1 ppm (part per million) of Co2 (gasoline exhaust), you will have a 3.5% increased risk for Heart failure… One wonders if that is over a lifetime, or annually, or … shorter?

Overall …

These are not inconsequential studies, and neither are they area specific. The indication is that, according to accumulated knowledge, past recorded events and computer modeling, that “what we make is killing us”. Have you ever heard about lemmings? How about just going out and jumping over a cliff? We are smarter than that, aren’t we? If one saw a rake with prongs up, would -you- turn it over? How about a field full of ‘prong exposed’ rakes?

Again, it is beyond individual control, but together, we are stronger than by ourselves.

Sources: ”http//www.BBC.co.uk/news/science-environment-24538078, N.P.R. 12/14/13, or ”http://nbcnews.to/15HIUvH”, ”http://www.BBC.co.UK/news/science-environment-23315781”, ”China Coal Policy Cuts Lifespan”, ”Why Delhi Again Has Become Submerged By Smog”, ”http://nbcnews.to/18q08i4”, ”http://wwwqw.BBC.co.UK/news/science-environment-23630749”, ”http://www.BBC.co.UK/news/science-environment-24493530”, ”http://nbcnews.to/13KrUEa”, ”Technology May Help Predict Crime” - 10/28/12, N.P.R.

DS

Ocean’s Source

    Where does Earth’s oceans come from? It is said that comets brought water tot the earth, but look at comets. The comet that was landed on recently is veritably dry. Meteorites hold 22% of water in their rocks. If you seen the video where part of a meteorite is crushed and heated, water vapor forms. Meteorites that formed the Earth brought water in their rocks. You may say comets did the same, but have you thought of the amounts needed? Whatever rocks with that much water did it.

David Schaedler November 25, 2015

Source image: Gooogle images

Russian Election Investigation

What happened to the Russian Election Investigation? I first heard about it when bold assertations of definite incursions into our Democratic Election process was apparent. Then, a determined investigation. Last, they threw out Nunes, who had ties that were in appropriate. Now, submerged again. So, what’s happening? No news. Are they quietly disbanding? If our elections were voided by a foreign power, which would be a first, we are in a questionable state of governance. Who really tipped the scales? How was this done? Can we insure it doesn’t happen again? Look what happened. Our chosen president has decided to begin a war with another country, already in it’s own Civil War. Regardless of how badly they acted, he can only do that by an action of Congress. Which he had not done. In doing this, Russia, who has sided with Syria, has said he has broken international law by provoking this war. Russia has many states under it and following it. America used to have other countries following it, what now? With a new administration, the world governments must choose, and knows something about it. Since we only have one world, we must walk a tightrope, too. Admittedly, I am an American, and must not provoke the powers that be. But how badly has this gone? By starting instigation into another’s war, he, and America, has been label a criminal. Which is not what the US has been. We were once called ‘The World's​ Policeman’. And from that, we were discouraged, too. When will we ever get it right? Right now in America, our police seem to be under fire. Body cameras and videos of police harassment of suspects and innocent victims are abundant. It seems the police can’t get it right. Or maybe we can’t see they are doing their best. The truth is, in the last number of years, crime has fallen. So things are really okay. But they want to do better. Well some things go only so far. As to “The World’s Policeman”, we can’t expect other cultures to be like US, who are quite different, a 'free’ country. David Schaedler. 4/11/17

For my blog, “Robot roaches” this date.

Source: Google images