Student Athletes

Every year, we hear of student athletes suddenly collapsing and dying on the practice field. More often than not, underlying undiagnosed heart conditions are blamed for these tragedies. As a new school year begins, and with it, a new student sports season, this issue has once again come to the forefront of public consciousness.

Several years ago, the European Society of Cardiology called for EKG screenings of all young athletes, and there have been noises from advocacy groups in the United States seeking similar guidelines. An EKG (electrocardiogram) measures electrical impulses from the heart and can detect abnormalities in function even when symptoms are not present.

Detection of underlying abnormalities has a two-fold advantage. Obviously, detection of potential problems would allow young athletes to take measures to protect their health. Beyond that, early detection of underlying heart problems can allow for earlier - and thus often more effective - intervention and treatment when needed.

There is no doubt that EKG screening of student athletes saves lives. The stories that don't make as much news as athletes tragically dying of sudden heart failure, are those of young athletes who get screened on their own, and are alerted to potential problems before they get on the game-field.

Universal screening of all student athletes, however, is not without problems. The variations of heart-related ailments are as numerous as the cells in our bodies, and not all preclude athletic activity. Healthy students should not be prevented from playing athletic sports on the basis of abnormal EKG results if the underlying condition is one that would still allow the student to play safely. Guidelines for screening would need to address how test results would be handled in a way that is safe and fair, while still protecting students' medical privacy.

There is also the issue of cost - and this again, is two-fold. First, there is the cost of EKG screening. A relatively simple procedure, it can be performed for as little as $30. However, the follow-up tests necessary to determine the cause of abnormal results can run from hundreds of dollars, to thousands of dollars - and the incidence of "false-positive" abnormal EKG results that are proven innocent by further testing is relatively high; as much as twenty percent in mass-screening situations. The prohibitive cost of follow-up testing could cause some students to be denied participation in sports on the basis of false-positive EKG testing.

Should student athletes be required to undergo EKG testing before they can play?

Gun Statistics Fallacies Corrected

One often-cited statistic for why gun ownership should be restricted or eliminated is that "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder (1). However, the researchers who did the study initially cautioned that their data came from a single county, was not a representative sample, and did not look at cases in which crime was prevented with a gun that did not result in the death of the criminal. From a scientific standpoint, the 43:1 ratio is a severely flawed statistic when applied to the general population.

Nationwide, firearms are used for defense or protection 2.5 million times a year, and less than 1% of those cases result in criminal fatality (2). Furthermore, these uses are estimated to be 3 to 5 times greater than the number of firearms related crimes committed annually nationwide (3). Clearly, this comprehensive data is much more scientifically valid than the 43:1 ratio.

Regarding the supposed danger to family members in a home where a firearm is kept, the comprehensive data again shows exactly the opposite of the non-scientific study's findings. Nationwide, 54% of firearms deaths annually are suicides (4), while the accidental shooting of a family member accounts for less than 2% of firearms fatalities (5). Furthermore, of the 43 cases of a family member firearms death cited in the original study, 37 were suicides (1).

Data from comprehensive, scientifically valid research suggests that the ratio of accidental death of a family member, to defensive use of a firearm against a criminal, is 1 in 90,000 (5), rather than the scary but unfounded 43 to 1 ratio so often quoted.

Should private gun ownership be restricted or eliminated?

What Is Normal?

We hear the word tossed about in everyday conversation, but what does it really mean?

Normal is defined as the standard or common type according to Dictionary.Com. But how are these standards determined?

Obviously, culture plays a role in "normal." In America, it is "normal" for children to go to school. In some countries in Africa, it is very much not the norm for children to attend school as only the wealthy can afford to do so without assistance.

There are those who would suggest, then, that normal is relative. It certainly seems that this is the case, but this line of thinking can quickly lead to danger.

In certain nations, young girls are routinely subjected to genital mutilation. This violent and dangerous practice is often carried out on girls ten or twelve years of age, against their will, without anesthetizing agents and often without sterile instruments. Is this "normal" simply because it is common?

Obviously there must be a more centrally defining characteristic of the word "normal." I have yet to determine, however, what that defining characteristic might be.

What is normal?

Socialist ~ The New N-Word?

According to Carlos Watson of MSNBC, the word "socialist" is used by racist people as a "code" for the "n-word." You can watch the news clip HERE or read more about it HERE.

According to the dictionary, a "socialist" is simply "an advocate or supporter of socialism." Socialism is defined as "(1)a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (2) a procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. (3) the stage (in Marxist theory) following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

I don't know what dictionary Mr. Watson is using, but it seems pretty clear to me that the word "socialist" is in no way referencing race, ethnicity, or skin color and cannot be compared to the use of the six letter racial slur beginning with the letter N. Of course, it fits in well with the plan of action outlined in the HCAN Plan of Action memo, which instructs supporters of the socialist health care plan to avoid responding to point-by-point arguments and instead use circular logic by painting opponents as extremists. It also fits well with the the Whitehouse Hotline which was set up for citizens to report friends and neighbors who dare to oppose our supreme leader.

What does "socialist" mean to you?

Islam & Christianity

NOTE: There is NO bashing of ANY faith allowed here - period. If in doubt, don't say it.

"Allah" means "God" in Arabic. However, English-speaking Muslims primarily refer to the supreme deity as "Allah," while Christians refer to the supreme deity as simply, "God." The words do tend to be somewhat interchangeable across languages and cultures, but are the two faiths worshiping the same deity, or not?

I do not believe that Allah and the Christian God (Jehovah) are the same deity. Furthermore, I believe that in pushing towards this idea that all paths lead to the same truth, we have deceived ourselves and driven deeper wedges between faiths which otherwise could have learned to co-exist. Before you slam me for being anti-Muslim, fundamentalist, etc. let me explain.

Learning about and embracing the similarities between faiths in the name of unity and peace is a noble cause indeed. However, doing so at the expense of the core beliefs of various faiths is ultimately doing a disservice to all. It would be much more logical to accept that we speak of different deities, and understand that with nothing aside from our own faith as "proof" the best we can do is follow our own beliefs. The one thing most world religion's respective higher powers share in common is a desire for us to do good, and not harm.

Regarding the difference between Allah and Jehovah, it is obvious that these are not the same deity. To suggest otherwise is an offense against both faiths. The sacred texts of Islam and Christianity are in direct contradiction to one another on some of the most basic and fundamental issues.

According to the Bible, Jehovah has a Son named Jesus or Yeshua, who was God in the flesh, who came to earth to die on the cross and be resurrected from the tomb for the salvation of sinners. According to the Qur'an, Allah has no son and it is the highest form of blasphemy to suggest that he does. Furthermore, the Qur'an states that Jesus was a great teacher and a prophet, and that while he was crucified on the cross Allah actually removed him from it, took him to heaven, and provided an alternate to die in his place there.

Allah has no Son. Allah is not Jehovah. There is nothing wrong with recognizing this, and learning to coexist peacefully as two independent faiths, rather than continuously offending one another and/or compromising one's own beliefs to bend the facts and pretend otherwise in the name of false unity.

Do you think the Christian's "God" is the same deity as the Muslim's "Allah?" Does it matter?