We won't know if we can fight obesity until we try?

Posted on July 12, 2005 by Ampersand

There’s a lot to disagree with in Paul Krugman’s recent anti-fat column, but I was particularly annoyed by his opening:

The obvious model for those hoping to reverse the fattening of America is the campaign against smoking. Before the surgeon general officially condemned smoking in 1964, rising cigarette consumption seemed an unstoppable trend; since then, consumption per capita has fallen more than 50 percent.

But it may be hard to match that success when it comes to obesity. I’m not talking about the inherent difficulty of the task – getting people to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more may be harder than getting people to stop smoking, but we won’t know until we try.

So it’s Krugman’s view that we haven’t tried yet?

Holy shit!

I mean, the Feds have been speaking out against America’s expanding waistbands, in increasing tones of panic, for decades. Even as Americans get fatter and fatter and live longer and longer, each successive surgeon general has task forced and press released and new programmed and blue-ribbon scientific committeed against the growing fat menace.

And Krugman thinks they haven’t even started yet. I guess that’s better than admitting that yelling and nagging and guilting and kvetching and scolding and sneering and moralizing and chiding and the-sad-fact-is-ing and reproaching at fat people doesn’t actually turn fat people thin.

And the federal government could (and probably will) try it for another few generations, and you know what? It still won’t turn fat people thin. And we’ll keep on getting fatter. And living longer.

Krugman concludes “that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success.” That’s only true, of course, if you ignore decades of failed government interventions to make Americans thinner.

P.S. There’s also some anti-corporate rhetoric in Krugman’s article, which I generally agree with. But why – apart from anti-fat ideology – is only the fast food industry criticized? Krugman not only fails to criticize the huge diet and medical corporations which put their weight behind the anti-fat campaign, he mindlessly repeats their party line.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 21 Comments

Covert Affirmative Action for Men in College Admissions

Posted on July 12, 2005 by Ampersand

It’s been a fairly open secret for years that some colleges give a preference to men in admissions, but as far as I know it’s never been shown in an empirical study before. From the Montreal Gazette:

Men appear to be given preference in admissions as university applicant pools become more female, a provocative new study has found.

Raising the spectre of affirmative action for a group not historically disadvantaged but increasingly under-represented in undergraduate classes, the study examined admissions data from 13 liberal arts colleges in the United States and estimated a tipping point for male preference kicks in when the female applicant pool reaches between 53 and 62 per cent. The study found “clear evidence” of a preference for men in historically female U.S. colleges.

There, being a male applicant raises the probability of acceptance by 6.5 to nine per cent.

“Schools can certainly have more than 50 per cent females and not give preference. But at some point, if females become too dominant, they do seem to give preference to males,” lead author Sandy Baum said in an interview.

Results of the study, completed by economists from New York’s Skidmore College and Lewis and Clark College in Oregon, will be published in a coming edition of the journal Economics of Education Review.

There are thousands of unspoken “affirmative actions” to help men in our society, helping some men into the good job tracks, the positions of authority, the better gallery shows, etc. I’d argue that our entire “Father Knows Best” economy is a covert form of AA that helps men in the job market. Things like this happen all the time.

What’s reported on in this article actually seems like one of the least harmful forms of AA for men. The resource in question – admission to college – is essentially unlimited; the very few unlucky female students who might not get admitted to college X because of this sort of policy will get into college Y instead.

But I’m curious: Why do colleges feel the need to do this? From a “diversity” perspective, there’s really not a significant difference between a student body that’s 50% male and one that’s 40% male; neither one can really be said to be lacking male perspectives in their student population. I presume that tuition money from women spends just as easily as tuition money from men. So what’s so scary about a female-majority campus?

Elsewhere in the article, it mentions that an admissions committee at McGill University suggested that good grades are overemphasized as a measure of student achievement, and might be biased against men:

The committee [discussed]… a more qualitative and less grade-driven admission process. “The application of grades as the sole measure of academic merit may not, in fact, be without an inherent bias,” state the minutes of the admissions committee…

That’s an interesting contrast with a comment made about the “are men better at math” question by Harvard professor Elizabeth Spelke:

Books are devoted to this question, with much debate, but there seems to be a consensus on one point: The only way to come up with a test that’s fair is to develop an independent understanding of what mathematical aptitude is and how it’s distributed between men and women. But in that case, we can’t use performance on the SAT to give us that understanding. We’ve got to get that understanding in some other way. So how are we going to get it? […]

I suggest the following experiment. We should take a large number of male students and a large number of female students who have equal educational backgrounds, and present them with the kinds of tasks that real mathematicians face. We should give them new mathematical material that they have not yet mastered, and allow them to learn it over an extended period of time: the kind of time scale that real mathematicians work on. We should ask, how well do the students master this material? The good news is, this experiment is done all the time. It’s called high school and college.

Here’s the outcome. In high school, girls and boys now take equally many math classes, including the most advanced ones, and girls get better grades.

So apparently the ability to do well in classes is a false, biased measure of the ability to go to college and… do well in classes. Huh.

I could buy that if we were talking about a group that was substantially disadvantaged – denied access to decent textbooks, AP classes, a reasonably good school, or whatever. If you told me that the grades of the students at the poorest high schools in the USA weren’t a fair reflection of their abilities, for example, I’d be inclined to agree. But I don’t think that boys in general are given less resources for learning than girls in general.

Thanks to “Alas” reader Mel for the tip.

Posted in Affirmative Action, Feminism, sexism, etc | 81 Comments

Women's eNews' Cheers & Jeers

Posted on July 12, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

A few days ago Women’s eNews did its usual Cheers and Jeers write-up– in which they highlighted recent current events concerning women’s lives, such as reproductive rights and gender equality.

Cheer:
A group of doctors is sharing first-hand memories of either performing or playing some role in providing illegal abortions back in the days before the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortions legal, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health said Friday in a press release. With the future of legal abortion uncertain, the group wants to stress the dangers of returning to a time when women are forced to undergo unsafe procedures.[…]

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich made an attempt on Thursday to curb the increasing neglect of women’s health caused by skyrocketing insurance prices, the Peoria Journal Star reported. Provisions of a law he signed require health insurance companies to provide coverage for all ovarian and breast cancer screenings for at-risk women.

Spain has signed a commitment to work toward gender equality and anti-discrimination in its attempts to reach the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations Development Fund for Women said Friday in a press release. The agreement will lead to stronger cooperation between the U.N. organization and the Spanish government.

The United Church of Christ will support and celebrate same-sex marriage, The New York Times reported Monday. The approval of the church’s members was backed by its president, Reverend John H. Thomas. The move signals the church’s opposition to recent calls for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[…]

Afghanistan has extended an invitation to Yakin Erturk, a women’s rights specialist on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the U.N. News Center reported Thursday. During her visit, Erturk will gather information about the current status of women and then provide strategies for action. Violence against women is expected to be the primary subject of Erturk’s tour.[…]

Well there’s some good news. The future of the Supreme Court and the fate of Roe, and perhaps even Griswold, are very much topics and issues that directly impact women’s lives–hopefully in a positive manner. The U.N. promoting gender equality around the world, especially in countries where women and girls barely have all the rights typical of a citizen, is another plus. Now, let’s move onto the bad news…

Jeer:
More women are unable to afford proper health care, according to The Kaiser Family Foundation. Over 25 percent of non-elderly women–with or without insurance–either abstain from or wait for needed healthcare due to an inability to meet rising health care prices, the foundation said Thursday in a press release.

The national study also concluded that 66 percent of the uninsured women delayed or went without care. Researchers found that many women had not, for many years, discussed major causes of poor health in women, such as smoking, low calcium, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, rates in mammogram, Pap tests for cervical cancer and colon cancer screenings have also fallen. The pap test rate, one of the most significant declines, has fallen from 81 to 76 percent since 2001.

Other news to jeer at this week:

In what appears to have been an act of violence, a fire erupted Monday at the only women’s health clinic to perform abortions in West Palm Beach, Fla., reported the Miami Herald. No physical injuries were suffered. There were extensive damages to the building, equipment and medical records. The presence of lighter fluid made it a suspected arson.[…]

Many of the nation’s top magazines covering academic and political issues feature bylines that are overwhelmingly male, this month’s Columbia Journalism Review reports. The Nation male writers outnumber females 3:1, at Harper’s Magazine the ratio is 7:1, at The New Republic it’s 8:1, at Foreign Affairs it’s 9:1. Bylines at The National Review were the most male-dominated, with a ratio of 13:1.[…]

Unsafe medical conditions in Mexican abortion clinics are causing Mexican women to travel north to obtain safer procedures in California, according to a study presented to a University of California Berkeley forum on Wednesday, the Contra Costa Times reported.[…]

Women feel more pain in their lifetimes and are more sensitive to it than men, according to Bath University psychologist Ed Keogh, a BBC News report said Monday. The pain experienced by women appears to be more severe in terms of frequency, duration, and intensity. Explanations for the disparity include hormonal differences as well as women’s likelihood to attend to the emotional aspects of the pain.

Darn.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc, International issues, Supreme Court Issues | 3 Comments

D&D Geeks Attacked By Zombies

Posted on July 12, 2005 by Ampersand

here in montreal we have this big mountain/parc called the mount-royal. think of it as central parc as mountain. and every sunday for the past 20-something years thousands of hippies converge and play tam tams for hours. over the years all sort of other things started happening. most people just lay in the grass and smoke some pot while the cops turn a blind eye. people sell bracelets and piantings while some DnD nerds fights with big duct-tape swords.

thats what we were interested in. what would happen if an army of zombies came out of the woods and attacked the duct-tape fighters?

Go read the whole story. It sounds like a pretty damn glorious day – and like fun for everyone, including the D&D nerds. Plus, there are some pictures.

Posted in Whatever | 10 Comments

Rove's Deceptions: Update

Posted on July 11, 2005 by Ampersand

UPDATE (July 11, 2005):

So it would seem that O’Donnell was on target with the revelation of Karl Rove being the ‘source’ that threw Valerie Plame to the press, however, the spin surrounding it is nauseating. So here’s what the lawyers and the spin-doctors are saying via the LATimes:

According to Newsweek, Cooper and Rove discussed Wilson’s wife in the context of who at the CIA had been responsible for the trip. Cooper noted in the e-mail that Rove was trying to raise concerns about the credibility of Wilson’s report.

Cooper wrote his bosses that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson,” saying that the trip had not been authorized by senior officials.

Rather, “it was, KR said, [W]ilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip,” the e-mail stated, according to Newsweek.

Luskin, Rove’s attorney, declined to confirm or deny the contents of the e-mail.

But Luskin said in an interview Monday that Rove never identified Plame by name and never intended to reveal her identity. He said Wilson’s wife came up as an afterthought in a conversation that Cooper had initiated, primarily for a story about welfare reform.[…]

At the same time, Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.

They also said that although Rove asserted he did not intend to disclose her identity, a jury might find otherwise based on other factors, such as whether he discussed Plame, even anonymously, with other reporters.

So lets recap on this. Apparently in this day of information and technology when you can Yahoo or Google the phone number of someone in a foreign country, national media would find the reference ‘Wilson’s wife’ to be unclear and are so incompetent as to not be able to find out her name? Who’s buying this nonsense?

How about the spin that she wasn’t ‘covert’? So now we spend millions of taxpayers dollars on issues that could have been answered without a grand jury, simply by stating that she wasn’t covert? Why bother with a grand jury at all if this was the case? Well, in a nutshell, because she was covert and this is all about spinning at this point.

The whole ordeal has left me so angry and outraged. I’m just hopeful that people won’t let this one slide under the rug, like the rest of the nasty things that have occurred with this administration. It’s time for some accountability.

From July 2, 2005:

Fresh off the press, it seems that political bombshells may well outshine the fireworks on the 4th of July. In the past few weeks, liberals and progressives have concluded Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor had a big mouth – but just how big seems to be the new political bombshell looming on the horizon.

Word has it that Lawrence O’Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst claimed tonight on the syndicated show, McLaughlin Group, that the source behind the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame is none other than the president’s right hand man, Rove.

“What we’re going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper’s e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

“And I know I’m going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of…for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine’s going to do with the grand jury.”

So what will happen to Rove, should this statement by O’Donnell be proven true, considering revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a federal crime? Perjury charges? Treason charges? A Bush pardon and business as usual?

Interestingly enough, Joseph Wilson, former ambassador and husband to Ms. Plame named Rove as the source who leaked his wife’s name to the press from the beginning, was met with cynicism, disbelief and relative silence from that oh so ‘liberal’ (tongue in cheek!) press of ours. If Cooper does indeed name Rove as the source to the Grand Jury, I will be watching with fascination as to how the administration will wiggle out of this one.

Oh, by the way Karl, Pope Boniface VIII left a message for you:

“Silence is the genius of fools and one of the virtues of the wise.”

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Whatever | 6 Comments

Let Them Marry

Posted on July 11, 2005 by Ampersand
Since the modification of the laws that apply to marriage, and the Christian views on the issue, are controversial these days, I am going to explain my own opinion:

I am completely in favour of allowing Christians to get married.

I think that trying to prevent it is unjust and a mistake.

Christianity is not a disease. Christians, even though they are disliked or mistrusted by many, are normal people and should have the same rights as everyone else, as if they were, let’s say, homosexuals or computer programmers.

I am aware of the fact that many traits in the behaviour of Christians, such as their attitudes towards sex, many seem strange to the rest of us. I know that sometimes, reasons of health policy could be argued against them: for example, their dangerous, delibarate rejection of contraceptives. I also know that some of their traditions, like the public exhibition of images of tortured people, may make some people feel uncomfortable.

But all this, besides being an image transmitted by the media rather than the reality, is not a reason to prevent their marriage.

Some could argue that Christian marriage is not real marriage, because to them, it is a ritual, and a covenant with their god, instead of a contract for the union of two people. Also, since sex outside marriage is condemned by Christianity, some could say that allowing Christians to marry would encourage marriages in order to avoid shame in their communities or simply because they wish to have sex (forbidden to them outside a marriage), increasing domestic violence and dysfunctional families. But we have to remember that this is not exclusive of Christian families and that, since we cannot know the thoughts of others, we should not judge their intimate motivations.

On the other hand, to say that their unions are not true marriage and that therefore they should be given some other name is just a mean, petty technique to lead the debate towards semantic questions that are beside the point. Even among Christians, marriage is marriage and a family is a family.

And with this I will go on to another very controversial subject that I hope does not seem too radical: I am also in favour of allowing Christians to adopt children.

Some people might be outraged by my affirmation. A few are likely to reply, “Christians adopting!? Those kids could become Christians!?”

I see that type of criticism and my answer is: even though the children of Christians have a much higher likelihood of becoming Christians also (contrary to what happens to the children of homosexuals or computer programmers), I have already made clear that I believe Christians to be human beings like everybody else.

Despite the opinions of some and the hints that we have, there is no conclusive evidence that Christian parents are less well equipped to raise a child, or that the religiously biased atmosphere of a Christian home is a negative influence of a child. Besides, adoption offices judge each case individually so it should be up to these to determine whether a pair of parents is the right one or not.

In short, in spite of what some people think, I believe that Christians should have the right to get married and to adopt children. Just like homosexuals, or computer programmers.

From a Spanish blog post (the link’s down right now, but I’m including it just in case it comes back), translated by Nia, and via Knotted Knickers and The Un-Apologetic Athiest.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 13 Comments

Bisexuality "revisited" within a NYT article and GLAAD's response

Posted on July 10, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

“Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited.” That’s the headline of this controversial article within the New York Times discussing a new “study” dealing with bisexuality–specifically Bisexual men.

[…]But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted.[…]

“I’m not denying that bisexual behavior exists,” said Dr. Bailey, “but I am saying that in men there’s no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.”[…]

Hence the controversy–which centers not only around the biphobic wording of the headline but also the findings purported within the article as G.L.A.A.D. elaborates…

On July 5, “The New York Times” published an article by Benedict Carey titled “Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited.” The article examined the findings of a forthcoming study that the “Times” says “lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.”

The claims put forward in the article, combined with the derogatory headline, are raising questions not only about the “Times'” reporting on this study, but also about the study itself.[…]

It isn’t until eight paragraphs later that readers encounter the first warning against drawing hasty conclusions based on the Bailey study’s small sample.

But it’s the article’s headline — “Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited” — that has generated the most concern and anger among bisexual community leaders and members. This sensationalistic, derogatory headline (not written by the article’s author) impugns the honesty and integrity of bisexual people everywhere, accusing them of lying and deceiving others about their sexual orientation.[…]

We here at ‘Alas‘ are no strangers to the issue of Biphobia and discussions dealing with the unique struggles and even prejudice Bisexual people face, in a society that is hostile to those who don’t fall into strictly one side of the sexual orientation spectrum, whether it be heterosexuality or homosexuality. ‘It just has to be one extreme–there can be no middle ground and it “doesn’t exist” anyway, specifically in men’. So much b.s.

Perhaps this can be attributed to some extent to our culture’s unwillingness to discuss sexuality in an open and frank manner and accept it, and not allow ourselves to be caught up in archaic and puritanical sexual-phobias, or even constricting gender/sex roles. Maybe?

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues | 23 Comments

Anti-Feminists Attack Pharyngula (yes, again)

Posted on July 10, 2005 by Ampersand

Chronology:

1) An article on The New Republic‘s website embarrasses some conservatives by printing the unsurprising truth that many conservative pundits don’t believe in evolution, or are followers of intelligent design, or hedge on the matter.

2) Todd Zywicki, of the Volokh Conspiracy, suggests that lefties would be just as embarrassed by questions such as “Are differences between men’s and women’s aptitudes solely a result of society and culture, or is there an evolutionary basis for some of those distinctions?”

3) PZ at Pharyngula responds to Zywicki. Here’s a taste:

He’s making the old, tired nature/nurture distinction, and it drives me nuts. It’s a false dichotomy that is perpetuated by an antiquated misconception about how development and biology works. Genes don’t work alone, they always interact with their environment, and the outcome of developmental processes is always contingent upon both genetic and non-genetic factors. There is nothing for which this is more true than the development of the mind: the brain is a structure which is incredibly plastic and responsive to input, since that is its job, to respond in sophisticated ways to complex situations.

4) Not for the first time, anti-feminists invade Pharyngula, get their asses kicked, and – in a distinctive, almost dadaesque touch – declare victory.

* * *

Regarding Todd’s point, like a lot of other folks who have commented, I think he’s comparing incomparables. The extent to which biology makes differences in behavior between the sexes inevitable and predictable is hotly debated within the scientific community. No one I know of argues that evolution has no effect on behavior, or has no effect on sex differences; however, some folks (myself included) argue that because biology always interacts with culture and nuture, there is no “female behavior” or “male behavior” that is biologically immutable among humans, apart from obvious reproductive behaviors like “giving birth.” While right-wing partisans may consider this view ridiculous, it’s not out of the bounds of reasonable scientific discourse.

On the other hand, not believing in evolution – or thinking that “intelligent design” ought be taught as science – is a genuinely ridiculous position, far outside the bounds of reasonable scientific discourse.

* * *

Along the way, I was reminded of this excellent Brian Leiter post on why Larry Summers’ academic freedom was never under attack. And another excellent Leiter post against civility, which I’m linking because I might want to discuss it later.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Whatever | 49 Comments

New form of spam: "i'm so happy i found your site"

Posted on July 9, 2005 by Ampersand

Has anyone else been getting a lot of flattering spam messages in their comments lately?:

I dont even remember how i reached your site but it doesnt matter, cause i’m so happy i found it, it really made me think, keep up the good work

I’ve deleted dozens of anonymous comments along those lines this week. I don’t know what the benefit to spammers is (there’s no URL in the comment), but I have a theory: They’re trying to get around the WordPress 1.5 spam-blocking system, and similar systems like it. In these systems, the first post by a new comment-writer must be approved by the blogger, but future posts by that same writer are automatically approved. The goal is to get me to approve a few of these anonymous, adoring comments; and then in a month or two hit me with hundreds of Texas hold’em spam or whatever.

That’s my theory, anyway.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 18 Comments

News concerning the London terrorist attacks

Posted on July 9, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Naturally, the United Nations condemned the terrorist attacks committed against the citizens of London, and now call for cooperation in fighting terrorism…

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Just hours after a series of explosions in London, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Thursday to condemn the terrorist attacks and vowed to bring those responsible to justice.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan echoed that sentiment.

“These vicious acts have cut us all to the core, for they are an attack on humanity itself,” Annan said in a statement. “Today, the world stands shoulder to shoulder with the British people.”

A resolution approved by the council condemned “without reservation the terrorist attacks in London … and regards any act of terrorism as a threat to peace and security.” It urged all states to cooperate in finding and bringing to justice the perpetrators and expressed the council’s “utmost determination to combat terrorism.[…]”

Also, the London police have revised the timeline for the attacks. With, of course, speculation as to which terrorist group was possibly responsible for these heinous acts.

LONDON (AP) — Police radically revised the timing of the deadly blasts that tore through the London Underground, saying Saturday that the bombs were detonated just seconds apart – not 26 minutes as first reported. The explosions were so intense that none of the 49 known dead has yet been identified.[…]

Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner Brian Paddick said the near-simultaneous nature of the attacks Thursday indicated timers – not suicide bombers – set off the explosions. He cautioned, however, that the investigation was in an early stage and nothing had been ruled out.[…]

Investigators repeated their assertion that the bombings bore the signature of al-Qaida, the terror network blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. The organization, headed by Osama bin Laden, has gained a reputation for sophisticated timing in its terror strikes.[…]

Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, the alleged mastermind of last year’s Madrid railway bombings, who also goes by the name Abu Musab al-Suri, has emerged as a suspect in the London attacks, according to unidentified investigators cited in The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday.[…]

Transit officials originally said Thursday’s blasts occurred over a 26-minute span, but computer software that tracked train locations and electric circuits subsequently determined the first blast shattered the rush-hour commute at 8:50 a.m in Aldgate station, east London, with the next two erupting within 50 seconds.

A fourth explosion tore through a double-decker bus near a subway entrance, killing 13 people, nearly an hour later. The attacks hit as President Bush and other G-8 leaders were holding a summit in Scotland and a day after London was named the host city for the 2012 Olympics.[…]

More than 20 people injured in the blasts remained in critical condition, and an unknown number of bodies remained in the Russell Square subway tunnel, where heat, dust and dangerous conditions slowed crews trying to reach the corpses. Many London subway lines run more than 100 feet below ground.[…]

When asked about the claim of responsibility by a group calling itself The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the BBC on Saturday it was “reasonably obvious that it comes from that type of quarter.”[…]

Continue reading here for the whole article.

Posted in International issues | Comments Off on News concerning the London terrorist attacks