"You're making the unwarranted assumption that less abortion means higher birth rates. In fact, that contradicts another argument anti-abortion people like to make, namely that abortions encourage promiscuity and out of wedlock births."
Out of Wedlock Birth Stats Overall Birthrate. While the birthrate has gone down, the proportion of these births that are out of wedlock has increased. No contradiction there.
Abortion Reduces Crime
Moderate this "Offtopic" along with all the other abortion posts, but it has to be brought up in light of the posts referring to the discredited Freakanomics abortion theory.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2550.html
by Paul Nowak
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
August 30, 2006
Chicago, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new paper by two prominent economists will challenge a claim in the best-selling book Freakanomics that legalized abortion has reduced crime.
John R. Lott Jr. and John Whitley, affiliated with the University of Chicago, have written a paper challenging the pro-abortion claims made by Freakanomics author Steven D. Levitt. Lott and Whitley expect their paper to be published in October in the journal Economic Inquiry, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
In his book, Levitt argues that the ready availability of abortion since its legalization in 1973 resulted in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime in later generations. He cited arrest records to claim that abortion would account for a 1% reduction in crime each year over the next two decades.
Lott and Whitley are challenging Levitt's assumptions, pointing out that Levitt did not consider all the factors affecting the crime rate, including the increase of children born out of wedlock since the Roe v. Wade decision. According to their research, ready access to abortion has made women more likely to engage in premarital sex, and as a result more children are being born to single women.
They point out that 5 percent of white children were born out of wedlock from 1965 to 1969, compared to 16 percent in the 1980's. Black children born out of wedlock increased from 35 percent to 62 percent in the same period.
These children of unwed mothers, statistically more at risk of becoming criminals, are responsible for the increase of murders by 700 cases in 1998 alone, according to Lott and Whitley. Such a dramatic increase carried a financial price tag of $3.3 billion in "victimization costs," according to their paper.
Lott and Whitley are not the first to challenge Levitt's popular book.
In November 2005, Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and research assistant Christopher Goetz, told the Wall St. Journal the data Levitt used was faulty.
Foote said there was a "missing formula" in Levitt's original research that allowed him to ignore certain factors that may have contributed to the lowering of crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s.
Foote also argues that Levitt counted the total number of arrests made when he should have used per-capita figures. After Foote adjusted for both factors, the abortion effect simply disappeared, the Journal reported.
"There are no statistical grounds for believing that the hypothetical youths who were aborted as fetuses would have been more likely to commit crimes had they reached maturity than the actual youths who developed from fetuses and carried to term," the Foote and Goetz say in their report.
given this guy milk and warm cookies instead. Then he'd be their pal for life and tell everything he knows about the other bad guys.
This story is such a yawner, I had trouble caring enough to type a response. I just don't care that they made a bad guy hurt, I don't care that they withhold information from the other bad guys either.
Dental Carries didn't become common until man started farming cereal grains. As you guessed, cavities became even more common with the introduction of cheap sugar.
You may enjoy this article about primitive diets.
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nast y_brutish_short.html
In order for the bacteria to make hydrocarbons, they must have carbon. Where will this come from? If you are converting vegetable matter, it comes from the vegetable matter which gets it from CO2 in the atmosphere. We live in a self-contained environment.
The only other "problem" with gasoline is the pollutants. These come from incomplete combustion and contaminants originally in the oil. Since these organisms make pure hydrocarbons, the only combustion product would be water and CO2.
You can't get much cleaner than that.
I believe that recent glacial melting has been pretty well associated with soot from such things as the Environmentalist-loved diesel, not Global Warming.
All you have to do is ignore the Enviro-Wackos and drill in Alaska, off California and in the Gulf of Mexico.
You can blame most of our problems in the Mideast on them.
They are *so* easy to rule over!
People who don't believe anything strongly think that anything and everything is OK. Therefore it is easy to get them to believe that just because you aren't actively beating them, what you are doing is OK. You could be killing off their entire family line and as long as it isn't through active means, they think it is OK.
If I was a company that had applications broken by the Verisign change, I would write them a letter informing them that I will be seeking damages to cover the cost of changing my software and any lost business I experience due to their changes.
how they prove that it was any given individual sharing files? For instance, there's 5 people in my household. All of them have access to the computers. The internet service is in my name. Just because someone is out there using my service doesn't mean that it was *me*.
Because she's your typical Populist/Communist politician. Promise lots of free bread & free circuses, all the while ignoring the real issues, such as "How to get rid of the invading illegal immigrants who are sucking the hospitals, schools, prisons and other public services dry". You want to see the real budget buster, you neeed look no further.
Any country that still had a functioning immune system would have made this invasion a military priority.
Fair Use is any use that:
1) Is not for Commercial Use. And..
2) Does not deprive the owner of their item.
We understand the RIAA just fine, thank you. We need to put an end to being hassled at Kinkos etc when we want to copy passages out of books too. We need to put an end to being hassled for copying music, books or any other media for personal use.
Doesn't the RIAA understand that they are being boycotted? I refuse to buy anymore products associated with them and their sleazy tactics. And I find most music & motion picture artists to be disagreeable too. It's going to be a long time before they get any money out of my pocket!
Stem cells are available from far more sources than aborted fetuses. Like umbilical cords for instance. Nothing wrong with taking a few samples that way.
Despite attacks on his scholarship, professor defends `Gun Culture' book BY RON GROSSMAN Chicago Tribune
ATLANTA - KRT NEWSFEATURES
(KRT) - One thing for sure, Michael Bellesiles is a professor who believes in sticking to his guns.
A year ago, his book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," won the Bancroft Prize, the most coveted award in the field of American history. But once critics began checking the footnotes, his career imploded.
Last May, the National Endowment for the Humanities ordered the Newberry Library to take the federal agency's name off the grant enabling Bellesiles to spend a sabbatical year at the Chicago institution. Emory University, his home base, appointed a blue-ribbon panel of outside academics to investigate, and its recently released report pronounced Bellesiles "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work."
The Bellesiles affair is one of a series of similar episodes to rock the normally tranquil halls of ivy. The popular historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose were accused of plagiarism. Author Joseph Ellis was suspended by Mt. Holyoke College for telling tall tales about himself in his history classes.
But Bellesiles' situation is unique: He was charged not with plagiarism, but with making up his sources and the data backing his assertion that gun ownership was rare on the early American frontier. Also, while the others confessed and apologized, he steadfastly maintains his scholarship is sound.
"I was absolutely shocked!" he said of the committee's report in what may have been his first interview since leaving Emory. "Obviously, they were very angry at me."
He was sitting in a coffee shop across town from Emory. Since resigning his professorship last month, Bellesiles has avoided the university's Atlanta campus. He doesn't want to present former colleagues with the embarrassing choice of either lowering their eyes or saying hello to a pariah, he explained. He has also avoided the media.
Bellesiles said he decided to resign after hearing rumblings the university planned to demote him in rank.
"That would have been an affront to my honor," said Bellesiles, 48.
Indeed, his boyish, clean-cut appearance and straightforward demeanor seem to belie the academic high crimes and misdemeanors of which he has been adjudged. Listening to him, it is momentarily tempting to think that his version of the story - Bellesiles sees himself as the victim of an intellectual lynching - might somehow be true, for all its implausibility.
From the moment it was published, Bellesiles' book drew far greater attention than most academic works, as it and he were swept up in sweep into America's bitter debate over gun control.
His thesis contradicted Charlton Heston and the organization he heads, the National Rifle Association, who claim that guns are like apple pie and mom, so linked to our past that restricting the right to own them would violate the American experience.
Bellesiles argued that our love affair with guns is an acquired taste. His data indicated seemed to show that gun ownership was rare in early America.
---
Because it supported the anti-gun side of the argument, "Arming America" was hailed in liberal publications and condemned damned in conservative circles.
The New York Review of Books saluted Bellesiles for pulling the rug out from under "fanatics who endow the Founding Fathers with posthumous membership in what has become a cult of the gun."
The NRA and its supporters attacked Bellesiles in print and - by his account - in real life harassed him personally. He said that death threats prompted him to remove his family from Atlanta to an undisclosed location. Out of concern for personal security, his teenage daughter legally changed her name.
In retrospect, even some of his supporters wonder why they weren't more critical of his thesis that Americans living on the frontier in the 1800s could have survived without guns while facing armed Native Americans. Could they have found meat by simply trapping wild animals rather than hunting them with guns?
Bellesiles recalled his bewilderment at the anger his book stirred up. Far from being an advocate of gun control, he grew up accustomed to firearms and hunting.
"I have switched to bow and arrow," he said. "I don't think it would be good for me to hang out at a gun club, right now."
---
Initially, the campaign against Bellesiles prompted academics to rally to his defense. The American Historical Association passed a resolution condemning the personal attacks and harassment to which he was subject.
Since then, the circle of his supporters has shrunk dramatically. Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor who was on Bellesiles' side, said "Arming America" remains on the reading list for his classes, though for a new reason.
"It's clear now that his scholarship is less than acceptable," Rakove said. "There are cautionary lessons for historians here."
Bellesiles' ivory-tower problems began when Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren observed that Bellesiles' calculation of gun ownership was mathematically impossible.
Bellesiles' defense was to portray himself as picture himself a babe in the woods, a simple humanist lacking the statistical skills of his more sophisticated critics. He still says: "Look, I've never been good at math."
Next came the war of the e-mails.
Lindgren and others asked to see Bellesiles' raw data: the notes from the numerous archives across the country where he said he did his research. For one reason or another, he couldn't make many available. Trying to explain why, he seemed only to dig himself in deeper.
He claimed, for instance, to have used 19th century court documents from San Francisco. When it was pointed out that the city's records were destroyed in the great 1906 earthquake and fire, Bellesiles belatedly remembered reading them at a nearby archive in Contra Costa County.
But the archive's staffers said they had no recollection of his doing research there, and that their collection has no San Francisco records.
Much of his original research, by Bellesiles' explanation, is unavailable because it was destroyed when a pipe broke, flooding his office. Yet professors up and down the hall don't recall their offices suffering the same kind of damage as Bellesiles, who said yellow pads with his research notes were reduced to illegible pulp by the water.
---
Jerome Sternstein, a retired Brooklyn College professor, devised a test of that hypothesis.
"I tried to set up similar experimental conditions, and so put a dozen yellow pads in my shower for over an hour," Sternstein said. "By the next morning, they'd dried out and were perfectly readable."
Bellesiles doesn't lack for rejoinders. Indeed, the e-mails between him and his opponents have gone on in a seemingly endless cycle of rebuttals and counterarguments.
He said he had read microfilm of local records from certain local archives at an Atlanta branch of the National Archives. Critics observed that the National Archives don't store local records.
Bellesiles responded that he obtained the records from other sources but took them to the National Archives because the microfilm reader in his office was faulty.
"I never said I found the microfilm there," Bellesiles said. "I said I read it there."
He added that he intends to keep up the fight to vindicate his theory. He has lined up visiting professorships in England for the next academic year. After that, he would like to remain in teaching, possibly at the high school level. He added that he has to earn a living and adamantly denies widespread campus speculations that Emory gave him a generous handsome cash settlement to go quietly.
"I only wish that were true," he shrugged.
By his account, it is not he but the members of Emory's investigative committee who were the poor historians. He says he wrote a book with 1,347 footnotes and the panel found fault with material in five of them.
Yet, he does acknowledge a certain responsibility for his fate. He delayed fighting back, Bellesiles noted, thinking his critics were attacking on too narrow a front to pose a real danger.
"I will admit," he said, "that for too long I thought this was only a tempest in a footnote."
Even my wheelchair bound Uncle could protect himself from not just one strong young thug, but from several. And it is comforting to know that I don't have to be with my 75 year old Mother all the time to know she is safe. Smith and Wesson are very good bodyguards of the infirm.
Slashdot Mirror
The last Sandisk USB drive I bought was craptastic.
Just when you think the Global Warming Idiocy is losing steam, it gets even crazier. :(
"You're making the unwarranted assumption that less abortion means higher birth rates. In fact, that contradicts another argument anti-abortion people like to make, namely that abortions encourage promiscuity and out of wedlock births."
Out of Wedlock Birth Stats Overall Birthrate.
While the birthrate has gone down, the proportion of these births that are out of wedlock has increased.
No contradiction there.
I find it interesting that the rise in abortions also correlates roughly to the rise in illegal immigration.
Have we killed off some of our workforce?
Abortion Reduces Crime Moderate this "Offtopic" along with all the other abortion posts, but it has to be brought up in light of the posts referring to the discredited Freakanomics abortion theory. http://www.lifenews.com/nat2550.html by Paul Nowak LifeNews.com Staff Writer August 30, 2006 Chicago, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A new paper by two prominent economists will challenge a claim in the best-selling book Freakanomics that legalized abortion has reduced crime. John R. Lott Jr. and John Whitley, affiliated with the University of Chicago, have written a paper challenging the pro-abortion claims made by Freakanomics author Steven D. Levitt. Lott and Whitley expect their paper to be published in October in the journal Economic Inquiry, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. In his book, Levitt argues that the ready availability of abortion since its legalization in 1973 resulted in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime in later generations. He cited arrest records to claim that abortion would account for a 1% reduction in crime each year over the next two decades. Lott and Whitley are challenging Levitt's assumptions, pointing out that Levitt did not consider all the factors affecting the crime rate, including the increase of children born out of wedlock since the Roe v. Wade decision. According to their research, ready access to abortion has made women more likely to engage in premarital sex, and as a result more children are being born to single women. They point out that 5 percent of white children were born out of wedlock from 1965 to 1969, compared to 16 percent in the 1980's. Black children born out of wedlock increased from 35 percent to 62 percent in the same period. These children of unwed mothers, statistically more at risk of becoming criminals, are responsible for the increase of murders by 700 cases in 1998 alone, according to Lott and Whitley. Such a dramatic increase carried a financial price tag of $3.3 billion in "victimization costs," according to their paper. Lott and Whitley are not the first to challenge Levitt's popular book. In November 2005, Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and research assistant Christopher Goetz, told the Wall St. Journal the data Levitt used was faulty. Foote said there was a "missing formula" in Levitt's original research that allowed him to ignore certain factors that may have contributed to the lowering of crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s. Foote also argues that Levitt counted the total number of arrests made when he should have used per-capita figures. After Foote adjusted for both factors, the abortion effect simply disappeared, the Journal reported. "There are no statistical grounds for believing that the hypothetical youths who were aborted as fetuses would have been more likely to commit crimes had they reached maturity than the actual youths who developed from fetuses and carried to term," the Foote and Goetz say in their report.
given this guy milk and warm cookies instead. Then he'd be their pal for life and tell everything he knows about the other bad guys. This story is such a yawner, I had trouble caring enough to type a response. I just don't care that they made a bad guy hurt, I don't care that they withhold information from the other bad guys either.
I reset my start page from Google to Altavista. I don't miss Google one bit.
The people pushing this are nice, gun-grabbing, Liberal Democrats. What could possibly be the problem?
Dental Carries didn't become common until man started farming cereal grains. As you guessed, cavities became even more common with the introduction of cheap sugar. You may enjoy this article about primitive diets. http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nast y_brutish_short.html
In order for the bacteria to make hydrocarbons, they must have carbon. Where will this come from? If you are converting vegetable matter, it comes from the vegetable matter which gets it from CO2 in the atmosphere. We live in a self-contained environment. The only other "problem" with gasoline is the pollutants. These come from incomplete combustion and contaminants originally in the oil. Since these organisms make pure hydrocarbons, the only combustion product would be water and CO2. You can't get much cleaner than that.
I believe that recent glacial melting has been pretty well associated with soot from such things as the Environmentalist-loved diesel, not Global Warming.
All you have to do is ignore the Enviro-Wackos and drill in Alaska, off California and in the Gulf of Mexico. You can blame most of our problems in the Mideast on them.
They are *so* easy to rule over! People who don't believe anything strongly think that anything and everything is OK. Therefore it is easy to get them to believe that just because you aren't actively beating them, what you are doing is OK. You could be killing off their entire family line and as long as it isn't through active means, they think it is OK.
If I was a company that had applications broken by the Verisign change, I would write them a letter informing them that I will be seeking damages to cover the cost of changing my software and any lost business I experience due to their changes.
how they prove that it was any given individual sharing files? For instance, there's 5 people in my household. All of them have access to the computers. The internet service is in my name. Just because someone is out there using my service doesn't mean that it was *me*.
Because she's your typical Populist/Communist politician. Promise lots of free bread & free circuses, all the while ignoring the real issues, such as "How to get rid of the invading illegal immigrants who are sucking the hospitals, schools, prisons and other public services dry". You want to see the real budget buster, you neeed look no further. Any country that still had a functioning immune system would have made this invasion a military priority.
Just say that name to yourself. "Darl" I can almost hear his father now: "Darl! ya jus go slop dem der hogs for I wup yo ass."
1) Is not for Commercial Use. And..
2) Does not deprive the owner of their item.
We understand the RIAA just fine, thank you.
We need to put an end to being hassled at Kinkos etc when we want to copy passages out of books too. We need to put an end to being hassled for copying music, books or any other media for personal use.
Repeat after me: Reproduction for non-comercial use is NOT theft! Leave it to the RIAA and libraries will be illegal.
Doesn't the RIAA understand that they are being boycotted? I refuse to buy anymore products associated with them and their sleazy tactics. And I find most music & motion picture artists to be disagreeable too. It's going to be a long time before they get any money out of my pocket!
Uh, Lawyers?
Stem cells are available from far more sources than aborted fetuses. Like umbilical cords for instance. Nothing wrong with taking a few samples that way.
Despite attacks on his scholarship, professor defends `Gun Culture' book
BY RON GROSSMAN
Chicago Tribune
ATLANTA - KRT NEWSFEATURES
(KRT) - One thing for sure, Michael Bellesiles is a professor who believes in sticking to his guns.
A year ago, his book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," won the Bancroft Prize, the most coveted award in the field of American history. But once critics began checking the footnotes, his career imploded.
Last May, the National Endowment for the Humanities ordered the Newberry Library to take the federal agency's name off the grant enabling Bellesiles to spend a sabbatical year at the Chicago institution. Emory University, his home base, appointed a blue-ribbon panel of outside academics to investigate, and its recently released report pronounced Bellesiles "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work."
The Bellesiles affair is one of a series of similar episodes to rock the normally tranquil halls of ivy. The popular historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose were accused of plagiarism. Author Joseph Ellis was suspended by Mt. Holyoke College for telling tall tales about himself in his history classes.
But Bellesiles' situation is unique: He was charged not with plagiarism, but with making up his sources and the data backing his assertion that gun ownership was rare on the early American frontier. Also, while the others confessed and apologized, he steadfastly maintains his scholarship is sound.
"I was absolutely shocked!" he said of the committee's report in what may have been his first interview since leaving Emory. "Obviously, they were very angry at me."
He was sitting in a coffee shop across town from Emory. Since resigning his professorship last month, Bellesiles has avoided the university's Atlanta campus. He doesn't want to present former colleagues with the embarrassing choice of either lowering their eyes or saying hello to a pariah, he explained. He has also avoided the media.
Bellesiles said he decided to resign after hearing rumblings the university planned to demote him in rank.
"That would have been an affront to my honor," said Bellesiles, 48.
Indeed, his boyish, clean-cut appearance and straightforward demeanor seem to belie the academic high crimes and misdemeanors of which he has been adjudged. Listening to him, it is momentarily tempting to think that his version of the story - Bellesiles sees himself as the victim of an intellectual lynching - might somehow be true, for all its implausibility.
From the moment it was published, Bellesiles' book drew far greater attention than most academic works, as it and he were swept up in sweep into America's bitter debate over gun control.
His thesis contradicted Charlton Heston and the organization he heads, the National Rifle Association, who claim that guns are like apple pie and mom, so linked to our past that restricting the right to own them would violate the American experience.
Bellesiles argued that our love affair with guns is an acquired taste. His data indicated seemed to show that gun ownership was rare in early America.
---
Because it supported the anti-gun side of the argument, "Arming America" was hailed in liberal publications and condemned damned in conservative circles.
The New York Review of Books saluted Bellesiles for pulling the rug out from under "fanatics who endow the Founding Fathers with posthumous membership in what has become a cult of the gun."
The NRA and its supporters attacked Bellesiles in print and - by his account - in real life harassed him personally. He said that death threats prompted him to remove his family from Atlanta to an undisclosed location. Out of concern for personal security, his teenage daughter legally changed her name.
In retrospect, even some of his supporters wonder why they weren't more critical of his thesis that Americans living on the frontier in the 1800s could have survived without guns while facing armed Native Americans. Could they have found meat by simply trapping wild animals rather than hunting them with guns?
Bellesiles recalled his bewilderment at the anger his book stirred up. Far from being an advocate of gun control, he grew up accustomed to firearms and hunting.
"I have switched to bow and arrow," he said. "I don't think it would be good for me to hang out at a gun club, right now."
---
Initially, the campaign against Bellesiles prompted academics to rally to his defense. The American Historical Association passed a resolution condemning the personal attacks and harassment to which he was subject.
Since then, the circle of his supporters has shrunk dramatically. Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor who was on Bellesiles' side, said "Arming America" remains on the reading list for his classes, though for a new reason.
"It's clear now that his scholarship is less than acceptable," Rakove said. "There are cautionary lessons for historians here."
Bellesiles' ivory-tower problems began when Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren observed that Bellesiles' calculation of gun ownership was mathematically impossible.
Bellesiles' defense was to portray himself as picture himself a babe in the woods, a simple humanist lacking the statistical skills of his more sophisticated critics. He still says: "Look, I've never been good at math."
Next came the war of the e-mails.
Lindgren and others asked to see Bellesiles' raw data: the notes from the numerous archives across the country where he said he did his research. For one reason or another, he couldn't make many available. Trying to explain why, he seemed only to dig himself in deeper.
He claimed, for instance, to have used 19th century court documents from San Francisco. When it was pointed out that the city's records were destroyed in the great 1906 earthquake and fire, Bellesiles belatedly remembered reading them at a nearby archive in Contra Costa County.
But the archive's staffers said they had no recollection of his doing research there, and that their collection has no San Francisco records.
Much of his original research, by Bellesiles' explanation, is unavailable because it was destroyed when a pipe broke, flooding his office. Yet professors up and down the hall don't recall their offices suffering the same kind of damage as Bellesiles, who said yellow pads with his research notes were reduced to illegible pulp by the water.
---
Jerome Sternstein, a retired Brooklyn College professor, devised a test of that hypothesis.
"I tried to set up similar experimental conditions, and so put a dozen yellow pads in my shower for over an hour," Sternstein said. "By the next morning, they'd dried out and were perfectly readable."
Bellesiles doesn't lack for rejoinders. Indeed, the e-mails between him and his opponents have gone on in a seemingly endless cycle of rebuttals and counterarguments.
He said he had read microfilm of local records from certain local archives at an Atlanta branch of the National Archives. Critics observed that the National Archives don't store local records.
Bellesiles responded that he obtained the records from other sources but took them to the National Archives because the microfilm reader in his office was faulty.
"I never said I found the microfilm there," Bellesiles said. "I said I read it there."
He added that he intends to keep up the fight to vindicate his theory. He has lined up visiting professorships in England for the next academic year. After that, he would like to remain in teaching, possibly at the high school level. He added that he has to earn a living and adamantly denies widespread campus speculations that Emory gave him a generous handsome cash settlement to go quietly.
"I only wish that were true," he shrugged.
By his account, it is not he but the members of Emory's investigative committee who were the poor historians. He says he wrote a book with 1,347 footnotes and the panel found fault with material in five of them.
Yet, he does acknowledge a certain responsibility for his fate. He delayed fighting back, Bellesiles noted, thinking his critics were attacking on too narrow a front to pose a real danger.
"I will admit," he said, "that for too long I thought this was only a tempest in a footnote."
---
2002, Chicago Tribune.
Even my wheelchair bound Uncle could protect himself from not just one strong young thug, but from several. And it is comforting to know that I don't have to be with my 75 year old Mother all the time to know she is safe. Smith and Wesson are very good bodyguards of the infirm.
:)- Good job, Hammerhead - Dead link. That does appear to at least be Austalian.