2009 acrylic painting on canvas.
200 x 140 cm (78 x 55 inches).
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tonight's The Night Doctor Who Scene Video
Watch the special Doctor Who scene from Tonight's The Night above and view screen caps from it here.
Everest ER
David has narrated a new series for BBC One called Everest ER and it starts tonight at 19:30pm.
Summit season is about to start at Everest Basecamp, and the doctors working at the highest hospital in the world gear up to deal with a constant stream of life-threatening emergencies.
With hundreds of climbers about to enter the death zone, it is only a matter of time before Everest claims its first casualties.
Summit season is about to start at Everest Basecamp, and the doctors working at the highest hospital in the world gear up to deal with a constant stream of life-threatening emergencies.
With hundreds of climbers about to enter the death zone, it is only a matter of time before Everest claims its first casualties.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Does One Bite of Something Off Plan have to Mean the "Kiss of Death" to your Low-Carb lifestyle?
Seriously, who has not been tempted and who has not succumbed from time to time? Quite honestly, I've been tempted and succumbed many times. It is true though that sometimes it could mean that we throw in the towel for a lot longer than the one indulgence. It is a choice though to do that. It always is. I have had times when one bite leads to enjoying the forbidden food and then the next day I'm back on track. I've also had times when I made a decision to go high-carb again for a lot longer, and always-always I regretted it. My weight would eventually go up and my blood work would not look as good, plus my energy levels would fluctuate wildly.
Does one bite of something off plan have to mean the "kiss of death" to our low-carb way of eating? No, but it is a risk and as long as one knows the risk and has made the firm mental commitment to get back on track the very next meal or the very next day or as soon as is practical (maybe it's a vacation and we're hanging loosely in the saddle of life, so to speak), then one is more likely to hop on the wagon again without too much damage being done psychologically, emotionally and physically. It does not make one a bad person, a failure or whatever to indulge occasionally, but many, many people take one slip-up to mean that and they throw in the towel for a very long time, until all their weight is regained and sometimes more. It's sort of crazy to think about, but it happens.
I think it would be better to abstain, but if one does indulge, to go into it with one's eyes open and mentally very aware of the pitfalls. Soon thereafter is the time to remind oneself of the many benefits of low-carbing and the many negatives of the old lifestyle. Remind yourself of how great your skin looks or how much firmer and less pudgy you look (even if your weight is higher than you would like), etc. and get back on track quickly. :-)
Does one bite of something off plan have to mean the "kiss of death" to our low-carb way of eating? No, but it is a risk and as long as one knows the risk and has made the firm mental commitment to get back on track the very next meal or the very next day or as soon as is practical (maybe it's a vacation and we're hanging loosely in the saddle of life, so to speak), then one is more likely to hop on the wagon again without too much damage being done psychologically, emotionally and physically. It does not make one a bad person, a failure or whatever to indulge occasionally, but many, many people take one slip-up to mean that and they throw in the towel for a very long time, until all their weight is regained and sometimes more. It's sort of crazy to think about, but it happens.
I think it would be better to abstain, but if one does indulge, to go into it with one's eyes open and mentally very aware of the pitfalls. Soon thereafter is the time to remind oneself of the many benefits of low-carbing and the many negatives of the old lifestyle. Remind yourself of how great your skin looks or how much firmer and less pudgy you look (even if your weight is higher than you would like), etc. and get back on track quickly. :-)
Former San Quentin warden honored for speaking out against death penalty
During her stint as warden of San Quentin State Prison, Jeanne Woodford oversaw the execution of 4 death row inmates without ever discussing her personal feelings about the death penalty.
On Thursday night, however, Woodford received an award from Death Penalty Focus for her courage in speaking out against capital punishment. Woodford, who went on to serve as both director and undersecretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, began sharing her thoughts about the death penalty about a year after retiring in 2006. Others honored by the San Francisco-based nonprofit included New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former California Attorney General John Van De Kamp.
Singling out Woodford and Van De Kamp, Death Penalty Focus director Lance Lindsey said, "They're courageous because they're coming out of communities that are often associated with a knee-jerk tough-on-crime position. What they represent is a smart-on-crime position."
Woodford, 56, said she has always opposed the death penalty.
"Initially for me it was just a matter of, does this really make sense to be killing people to avenge the death of someone else?" Woodford said in an interview this week.
She said it is a debate that will never be settled.
"Some people believe in an eye for an eye, and some people don't," she said.
Woodford, who started her career as a prison guard at San Quentin, said there are more practical reasons for opposing capital punishment.
She said the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent because of the time it takes to execute condemned prisoners. She said that due to improvements in prison security, capital punishment is no longer needed to protect the public from the possibility that killers might escape. She noted that prisoners can now be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And, she said, it costs far more to execute a condemned prisoner than to keep one in prison for life.
'"I just really worry about the state of California," Woodford said. "I worry about the fact that we continue to spend so much money on issues that aren't giving us any benefit. The death penalty is one of those."
Woodford said the state also can no longer afford to incarcerate nonviolent offenders or to skimp on mental health and drug treatment programs, which keep people out of prison. She said money is being wasted by sending parole violators back to state prison for minor violations.
"We're not making intelligent choices about who should be in state prison and who shouldn't," Woodford said.
During her stint as warden at San Quentin from 1999 to 2004, Woodford initiated a number of experimental programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
"We currently look back on that time with some nostalgia," said Jacques Verduin, executive director of the Insight Prison Project, a San Rafael-based nonprofit that works with San Quentin to provide rehabilitative programs.
"Jeannie was one of the first to understand that the community could play a larger role in this prison, or prisons period," Verduin said.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, disputes Woodford's economic critique of capital punishment. The foundation is a public interest law organization that files friend of the court briefs to speed the implementation of executions.
"The argument assumes that the present costs are necessary and will continue and that is not a valid assumption," Scheidegger said. "The costs can be greatly reduced. The appeals don't need to last 20 years. Virginia does it in 5."
In a guest editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in October, Woodford recalled presiding over the execution of Robert Lee Massie. Woodford said she chose to write about Massie "because he would be the poster child for why people say we need a death penalty." Massie was originally sentenced to death in 1965, but his sentence was later commuted to life. He was paroled in 1978, murdered a liquor store owner during a robbery eight months later, pleaded guilty, and was once again sentenced to die.
Massie was one of several death row inmates who effectively volunteered to be executed by dropping their appeals, Woodford said.
"So it's really like assisting with their suicide," Woodford said. "What that ought to say to people is that permanent imprisonment isn't an easy punishment for anyone."
Source: Marin Independent Journal, May 24, 2009
On Thursday night, however, Woodford received an award from Death Penalty Focus for her courage in speaking out against capital punishment. Woodford, who went on to serve as both director and undersecretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, began sharing her thoughts about the death penalty about a year after retiring in 2006. Others honored by the San Francisco-based nonprofit included New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former California Attorney General John Van De Kamp.
Singling out Woodford and Van De Kamp, Death Penalty Focus director Lance Lindsey said, "They're courageous because they're coming out of communities that are often associated with a knee-jerk tough-on-crime position. What they represent is a smart-on-crime position."
Woodford, 56, said she has always opposed the death penalty.
"Initially for me it was just a matter of, does this really make sense to be killing people to avenge the death of someone else?" Woodford said in an interview this week.
She said it is a debate that will never be settled.
"Some people believe in an eye for an eye, and some people don't," she said.
Woodford, who started her career as a prison guard at San Quentin, said there are more practical reasons for opposing capital punishment.
She said the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent because of the time it takes to execute condemned prisoners. She said that due to improvements in prison security, capital punishment is no longer needed to protect the public from the possibility that killers might escape. She noted that prisoners can now be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And, she said, it costs far more to execute a condemned prisoner than to keep one in prison for life.
'"I just really worry about the state of California," Woodford said. "I worry about the fact that we continue to spend so much money on issues that aren't giving us any benefit. The death penalty is one of those."
Woodford said the state also can no longer afford to incarcerate nonviolent offenders or to skimp on mental health and drug treatment programs, which keep people out of prison. She said money is being wasted by sending parole violators back to state prison for minor violations.
"We're not making intelligent choices about who should be in state prison and who shouldn't," Woodford said.
During her stint as warden at San Quentin from 1999 to 2004, Woodford initiated a number of experimental programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
"We currently look back on that time with some nostalgia," said Jacques Verduin, executive director of the Insight Prison Project, a San Rafael-based nonprofit that works with San Quentin to provide rehabilitative programs.
"Jeannie was one of the first to understand that the community could play a larger role in this prison, or prisons period," Verduin said.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, disputes Woodford's economic critique of capital punishment. The foundation is a public interest law organization that files friend of the court briefs to speed the implementation of executions.
"The argument assumes that the present costs are necessary and will continue and that is not a valid assumption," Scheidegger said. "The costs can be greatly reduced. The appeals don't need to last 20 years. Virginia does it in 5."
In a guest editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in October, Woodford recalled presiding over the execution of Robert Lee Massie. Woodford said she chose to write about Massie "because he would be the poster child for why people say we need a death penalty." Massie was originally sentenced to death in 1965, but his sentence was later commuted to life. He was paroled in 1978, murdered a liquor store owner during a robbery eight months later, pleaded guilty, and was once again sentenced to die.
Massie was one of several death row inmates who effectively volunteered to be executed by dropping their appeals, Woodford said.
"So it's really like assisting with their suicide," Woodford said. "What that ought to say to people is that permanent imprisonment isn't an easy punishment for anyone."
Source: Marin Independent Journal, May 24, 2009
Jimmy Mason: The count, the punch, and the “ear flick”
The "ear flick" dad - as the media loves to call him - Jimmy Mason, appeared on the Sunday programme tonight to air his views on his court case. Last week he faced charges of assaulting his child in Christchurch. Earlier in the month I was asked whether I thought Mason would be convicted. I said he has to be convicted of something.
And he was. Although I understand that the conviction has not yet been entered.
One of the charges Mason faced was for punching his son in the face and pulling – Mason called it "flicking" - his ear while he was riding his bike with his brother. A teacher and an off duty policewoman witnessed the assault, the cop reported it to the police, six police turned up to speak to the witnesses. Then Mason was rung up and let off with a warning two days later because police considered the assault was inconsequential under the anti-smacking legislation.
Mason then blabbed to the media saying that he was disciplining his kids and complained about the warning for an “ear flick”, hoping media coverage would provide public outrage and pressure to remove the warning. So the witness read this story, then she contacted the mediaand went back to the police, who then charged Mason with assault. Apparently, he intends to appeal.
I wonder if this teacher was a supporter of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation? Russell Brown, of Public Address is. He clearly stated as fact, that a jury has found Mason guilty of punching his four year-old son in the face, then criticises those who question that. And the extent of his criticism surprised me because he’s normally a pretty reasonable sort. But The Christchurch Court News did not say he was found guilty for a punch, assuming that’s where Brown got his info from. Just that the punch was part of the count he was guilty of. Even Mason said he didn’t know what part/s of the count he was guilty of.
Granted, the evidence apparently was that Masondid punch his son, but the court was told there was no evidence of injury to the face. The count Mason was found guilty of was a punch as well as the " ear flick" as it is been so widely reported in the media. We don't know for certain whether he was found guilty for the punch, as Russell Brown authoritatively claims, the ear pull, as Family First's Bob McCoskrie would like to hope - or both, as appears possible given that they were both part of the same count.
Brown says:
So why on earth is the Herald's story this morning headlined "Ear-flick' father guilty of assault". Wouldn't 'Father who punched son in the face found guilty of assault' be a more appropriate headline?Perhaps it would be if the Herald knew if that was what he was found guilty of. One thing everybody should agree on now: THe case was not a test of the anti-smacking law. Even the courts said that.
However, that didn't stop Deborah Morris-Travis of The Yes Vote claim, after hearing that the boy had been punched in the face by his dad that the [anti-smacking] law has passed a very important test" with the Mason case. Even the judge had cautioned against this stance. Yet most people with half a brain would have acknowledged that the law had nothing to do with this case. Unfortunately this comment was not included in the summing of the interview's key points.
Brown goes on to attack his critics – and for some time has described them as enablers of abuse - using his his consistently inaccurate use of the word “pro-beating” to cover anything from a light tap with the hand to a vicious beating with a length of hose, which has rendered that term completely useless in any debate. But I’m starting to suspect may have been the intention all along.
Of McCoskrie and the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Garth McVicar, who apparently get the ear of the media, Brown states:
They're on speed-dial precisely because they will always instantly give a quote, even when they have no idea what they're taking about.But guess who said this on speed dial when heard about the "ear flick":
If an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be "marched down to the slammer." [but] Police have used their discretion by choosing not to prosecute the man and believes a warning is the right punishment for incident.And this:
The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.Like, an "ear flick" was the same as a whack in the head that can cause death!!! I’m sure you can guess. At the time these people – Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro - had no idea what they were talking about. They and their ilk are inconsistent. They want adults to be treated the same as kids under the law, ( well, they`ll pick and choose which laws), while saying it is fine to "march [adults] down to the slammer" if they flick the ear of another adult, but say it's fine to let let them off if they do it to a kid as part of parenting. In other words it's fine to break the law as long as the police think it's ok. They are inconsistent when it suits. Russell Brown shares that inconsistent perspective. He needs a good cup of herbal tea and a wee lie down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)