underwater

Just a few months ago, Parra's car was hit by a drunken driver and his head was almost completely severed from his body, with only his spinal cord keeping it connected. Parra barely recalls what happened. "I just remembered hearing someone screaming," Parra told Good Morning America. "They said it was my friend but I can't tell you because I wasn't there 100 percent." Parra was rushed from the scene to the emergency room at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix. Doctors had never seen such injuries. It almost didn't matter that he had a broken clavicle, pelvis, tailbone and ribs. They were stunned to learn of the injury to his neck that technically ripped off his head. His skull was ripped from the cervical spine, detaching Parra's head from the neck. A Hollywood Moment At that point, it seemed only a miracle could save Parra. But that is essentially what he got in the form of Dr. Curtis Dickman of the Barrow Neurologic Institute at St. Joseph's. What happened in that Phoenix hospital seemed like something straight out of Hollywood. "Most people with this injury die at the scene of the accident because it requires very severe and violent forces to create this type of injury," Dickman said. No one can say if it was luck or destiny, but it so happens that Dickman had been perfecting a technique to treat an injury as rare as Parra's. The surgeon had been testing the method on human cadavers. The young man ended up being the first person in the world to undergo the experimental surgery that saved his life. Before undergoing the surgery, Parra summoned the pastor of his church to the hospital. "It was one of the nurses that called me who said you need to come to the hospital immediately. I said is there something wrong? She said 'no, Marcos won't let us perform surgery on him until you come pray for him,' " said Arthur Tafoya, pastor of the Glendale Apostolic Church. The spinal cord and arteries had not been damaged, making Parra an excellent candidate for Dickman's technique, which makes use of two surgical screws. Turn of the Screw Surgeons delicately inserted the screws through the back of Marcos' neck to reconnect the first vertebrae to the base of the skull. This pulled the severed bones back into position. A piece of Marcos' pelvis was used to patch his neck and skull together. "What distinguishes this technique from the other techniques available is that it preserves the majority of motion in the neck," Dickman said. "And when the motion is lost, it's disabling." After the surgery, it was a long and difficult recovery period. Parra spent four months wearing a halo-brace to help his neck heal and went through hundreds of hours of rehabilitation. He is now back on the basketball court and loving every minute of his life. "I'm here to enjoy life," Parra said. "This is nothing. I could be in bed or in a wheelchair, contained in a wheelchair for the rest of my life. Or not be here, be dead. This ain't nothing, I'm walking. After everything I went through, this is a walk in the park for me right now, thank God."

France - Would be Under German rule if not for the US Germany - Was at one time seeking world domination and commited one of the biggest atrocities of mankind yet both of these countries think they are more intellectual and possess a greater wisdom than the US......although i respect the fact that everyone has a voice to disagree with us.....i have yet to see a convincing argument stem from them other than the inspectors need more time....i am with bush and agree that iraq has had more then enough time....how much time do you give them....they have had 12 years of deception.....whats another 2 years going to do....nothing....i think that when we defeat iraq....we will have loads of evidence to show the world.....within 3 months of victory.....

i am talking about the here and now....not what has happend in the past.....and i am not saying we should murder muslims....i am saying we should wipeout these fanatics who believe that islamic rule should be spread throughout the world....they hijack religions and use violence to spread their power and message....and now that i think about it.....i would want to murder catholics who were using violence to spread their religion....i would kill every last one of them....the fact is that we don't have to worry about that right now.....i am not religious so i don't give a shit what religion is being hijacked.....

i will bet you a gentlemans bet that america will do everything in its power...although it will be up to the people of iraq to follow through....to try and install a democratic government in iraq....

everything....we are pissed and want to take care of our biggest threat....saddam....iraq was always on the agenda.....way before 9/11....but after 9/11 the american public is pissed....wants to kick somebody's ass....and has a logical argument of why we would want to topple saddams regime.....even though the inspectors have not found any weapons......you would be extremely naive to believe that he does not have every single last drop of VX, Anthrax, ect.......hidden 15 stories below the ground....in civilians basements...in mosques.....in hospitals....in schools......he is a threat to the world.....and 9/11 sparked a movement to prevent people like him from threating our freedom......and back to these limp-wristed euro-trash......they are not in tune with our agenda.....so what i am saying is....that if there is a terrorist attack on one of their homelands...and 1000's die.....they will be on a boat heading for the middle east to try and wipeout anybody who might be a threat to them in the future....

does anybody else think that if a terrorist attack happend in europe all hell would break loose....if someone set off a bomb in berlin that killed 3,000 people....they would immediately send their troops to the middle east and start a war.....kinda like when someone dies and you see it on the news and you could give a rats ass....but someone you are close to dies and it is devestating.....i feel that they are not connecting with us because they just don't feel the pain or the threat of their civilians being killed...

i too would risk my life to defend american values....anybody who wants to promote their religous beliefs and values with violence and intimidation deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth...i think that middle east is sorely underestimating america's resolve to spread democracy and freedom.....

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow, Julian Borger in Washington, Terry Macalister and Ewen MacAskill Thursday January 23, 2003 The Guardian The US military has drawn up detailed plans to secure and protect Iraq's oilfields to prevent a repeat of 1991 when President Saddam set Kuwait's wells ablaze. The US state department and Pentagon disclosed the preparations during a meeting in Washington before Christmas with members of the Iraqi opposition parties. Iraq has the second biggest known oil reserves in the world producing, in their current run-down state, about 1.5m barrels a day. But experts contacted by the Guardian predict this could rise to 6m barrels a day within five years with the right investment and control. At the meeting, on the future of a post-Saddam Iraq - details of which have been disclosed to the Guardian - the state department stressed that protection of the oilfields was "issue number one". One of those at the meeting said the military claimed that a plan to protect the multibillion oil wells was "already in place", hinting that special forces will secure key installations at the start of any ground campaign. As well as immediate concern about the environmental impact of having hundreds of Iraqi wells on fire, US, British, Russian, French and other international oil companies are already taking soundings about Iraq's multibillion pound oil supply. The companies are reluctant to mention oil in public, fearing it will feed Arab suspicion that it is the main factor in the confrontation with Iraq. Yet, with war looming, discussions in private have inevitably begun on the future of the world's second biggest oil reserves. The US and British governments deny that oil is a factor in the confrontation with Iraq. The Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, said yesterday: "The charge that our motive is greed - to control Iraq's oil supply - is nonsense, pure and simple. It is not about greed: it is about fear [about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction]." The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, told the Boston Globe yesterday: "If there is a conflict with Iraq, the leader ship of the coalition [will] take control of Iraq. The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Whatever form of custodianship there is ... it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose." Asked whether US companies would operate the oilfields, Mr Powell said: "I don't have an answer to that question. If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people." There is a debate within the US administration over whether some of Iraq's oil revenues might be used to cover part of the costs of occupation, which is expected to last 18 months. The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed. The state and justice departments, meanwhile, have insisted that the money be held in trust. "There are two competing needs here: the budgetary need for forces which will be extraordinary, and the need to get it up and running and show the Iraqi people some real results and some real improvement in life," said Andrew Krepinevich, a Pentagon adviser, whose organisation, the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, carried out a study of the issue for the Pentagon. The relationship between the oil industry and the US administration, from the president, George Bush, downwards, is the closest in American history. The Wall Street Journal last week quoted oil industry officials saying that the Bush administration is eager to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry. According to the officials, Mr Cheney's staff held a meeting in October with Exxon Mobil Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConcocoPhilips, Halliburton, but both the US administration and the companies deny it. The BP chief executive, Lord Browne, said last year he was putting pressure on Mr Bush and Tony Blair not to allow a carve-up. A Foreign Office source confirmed that the security of Iraq's oilfields was of paramount concern. "That is something that is being assessed across Whitehall," said the source. "But whether or not the Iraqis manning the wells will blow their future livelihood upon an order from Baghdad remains another issue. A lot of that will be about getting there first. The importance of preventing an environmental catastrophe is right up there."

i thought you liked space exploration of the brown star.....

just as the jews, italians, and every ethnicity sticks to their own...so do the arabs of the world....its such a human flaw.....it will be interesting to see if the arab world becomes united and we begin to face threats from all other middle eastern countries as a result of us attacking iraq....they will not be viewing him as so powerful when we destroy baghdad and drop a daisy cutter right on top of saddams forehead......mid-february we'll meet them at the bike rack with bells on baby....

i agree...this economy is a piece of shit...funny how we lived through one of the greatest expansions of all times and now we have to live through this....it was the best of times....it was the worst of times....i used to make crazy$$$ and now i make tee-tee.....uggggghhhhhh......if only i could turn back time.....do do do do....i would find a way....do do do do do.... to make a few million $$$$'s.... do do do do do....

its in the blood....they would probably become blood buddies instead of butt buddies....

a quick and decisive victory will clear up a huge amount of uncertainty and that in turn will help the market and the economy....less government spending....less strain on relationships.....less american casualties....and america will be rid of a major threat....we will also hold the keys to iraqs oil industry which will help out....if its not quick we are screwed.....

economists are always a day late and a dollar short...

if we have a quick victory it will do nothing but good things for the economy....a long drawn out confrontation with a lot of US casualties would put us in a huge hole....

to each his own....if somebody wants to get the hiv then thats their issue....i don't practice unsafe sex and i am not gay so the rest of the world can do whatever they choose.....guess some people are fucked up in this world...

the french are weak intellectuals.....they need a good ole' fashion southern ass whooping!!.....

ford is a joke....mustangs are ugly...the focus is like driving a go-cart....the only thing i like is the explorer....and thats not even that great...

i guess they think its sexy....it makes them more of a gay in essence...and available to all of the other gays with aids....its twisted...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a major victory for the fast food industry, a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a widely watched suit in which McDonald's hamburgers and French fries were blamed for children's obesity. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said the plaintiffs, including a 14-year-old girl who is 4-foot-10 and 170 pounds, failed to show McDonald's Corp.(NYSE:MCD - news) products presented a danger unknown to consumers. He also cited concerns the case could "spawn thousands of similar 'McLawsuits"' against all types of restaurants. "This opinion is guided by the principle that legal consequences should not attach to the consumption of hamburgers and other fast food fare unless consumers are unaware of the dangers of eating such food," Sweet said. "If consumers know...the potential ill health effect of eating at McDonald's, they cannot blame McDonald's if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald's products." Although the judge threw out the suit in it's entirety, he ruled the plaintiffs could refile claims in Manhattan federal court within certain limits. Sweet also said McDonald's had rightfully pointed out that the case was the first of its kind to reach this stage in federal court and could result in thousands of copycat cases. The suit was brought on behalf of overweight children who ate at two McDonald's restaurants in the Bronx borough of New York City. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, blaming McDonald's for health problems that included diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol. The suit was one of at least four cases filed against McDonald's and other fast food chains over the obesity issue. At least two cases have been dropped and another is dormant. The judge noted that Americans spend more than $110 billion on fast food each year, and cited studies showing that on any given day in the United States, almost one in four adults visits a fast-food restaurant. "The potential for lawsuits is even greater given the numbers of persons who eat food prepared at other restaurants in addition to those serving fast food," Sweet said, citing reports that show almost half of the American food dollar is spent on food eaten away from home. He said the court had a duty to "limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree and to protect against crushing exposure to liability." __________________________________________ there is some common sense in this world....fat bastards should be thrown in a fat camp....

Thursday, January 16, 2003 By Dana Blanton Almost all Americans think the country's economy today is in bad shape, and a plurality ranks the economy as a higher priority for the federal government than the war on terrorism. The latest FOX News poll, conducted January 14-15 by Opinion Dynamics Corp., shows that few Americans rate the current condition of the economy positively. Today, 13 percent think the economy is in excellent or good shape, down from 24 percent six months ago and 28 percent last January. Overwhelmingly the public says the economy is in only fair (46 percent) or poor (40 percent) shape. These results lead a majority to say the economy needs a "big jolt" (60 percent) as opposed to "minor tweaking" (27 percent). What that jolt should include is the trillion-dollar question. Last week, President Bush announced a 10-year plan to help stimulate the economy, including over $670 billion in tax cuts. Majorities favor all elements of the Bush economic and tax plan with one exception -- the stock dividend tax cut. The dividend aspect, which is one of the largest pieces of the White House proposal, is favored by a plurality (47 percent) but received the lowest level of support of all the elements and is opposed by fully 37 percent of the population. The highest level of support is for tax cuts for small businesses, with fully 88 percent in favor of this proposal. Increasing the child tax credit for parents is favored by 78 percent, followed by ending the marriage tax penalty (74 percent favor), ending the tax on estates (67 percent favor), and accelerating tax cuts that had been planned for future years (54 percent favor). There is bipartisan support for cutting taxes on small businesses, increasing the tax credit for families with children, and eliminating the additional taxes married couples pay. Party differences are much more evident on some of the other proposals. Republicans are more likely to favor eliminating the double taxation on stock dividends (60 percent) than are Democrats (32 percent), and also more strongly favor making the tax cuts that were scheduled for future years effective immediately (68 percent of Republicans favor and 42 percent of Democrats). Overall, the public is divided on whether President Bush's proposed tax cuts are good for people in their situation. When asked if the cuts are fair "to people like you," 38 percent say fair and 42 percent say unfair; however, there are large differences between the parties on this question. Sixty-four percent of Republicans say the president's proposed cuts are fair compared to only 15 percent of Democrats. It's unclear to some Americans what distinguishes the president's economic plan from the one proposed by Congressional Democrats. Over one-quarter admits they do not know the difference between the two plans. The Republican plan has a slight edge when it comes to helping the economy, with 36 percent saying the Bush plan is more likely to make the economy grow compared to 32 percent who think the Democrats' plan will boost the economy. Keeping your money in your pocket is a place the Republicans get the nod. Forty-one percent think GOPers want individuals "to keep more of your own money" while 30 percent think the Democrats and 12 percent say neither party wants you to keep your money in your pocket. "After 9/11, partisans across the spectrum rallied behind the president and that carried over on issues like the economy and other domestic policy concerns," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "Now it is clear on the economy and taxes that partisan differences are reappearing as strongly as ever." Both the Republicans and Democrats receive equal doses of skepticism about what motivated their proposed plans. When asked which political party's plan is more likely to be based on politics than on what is good for the country, about one-third of the public says the Republicans' plan, one-third says the Democrats' plan, and 16 percent say both plans were based on politics. Today, 63 percent of the public approve and 28 disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. While still impressive, the president's job approval rating has been on a gradual decline. Six months ago about 70 percent approved of Bush's job performance and a year ago 83 percent approved. If former President Bill Clinton were still president today, 39 percent think he would be doing a better job than Bush handling the economy, 29 percent say Clinton would be doing a worse job and 28 percent think their job performances would be about the same. When asked the same question but focused on handling the war on terrorism, 24 percent think Clinton would be outperforming Bush, 48 percent think Clinton would be doing a worse job and 22 percent think there would be no difference between the two. Iraq and North Korea Iraq is seen as more of a threat to the United States, but North Korea isn't far behind. About 40 percent of the public think Iraq poses the greater immediate threat, 33 percent say North Korea is the bigger problem and 18 percent see both countries as equally threatening to Americans. A majority of Americans remain in support of disarming Iraq and removing Saddam from power (67 percent support, 25 percent oppose). As has been the case in the past, Republicans are much stronger supporters of taking military action against Iraq than are Democrats (82 percent and 52 percent respectively). Few people think Saddam will resign and go into exile. Fully 78 percent think it is more likely that the United States will go to war with Iraq than think Saddam will go into exile and war will be prevented (10 percent). 21. Do you support or oppose U.S. military action TO DISARM IRAQ AND REMOVE Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Support 14-15 Jan 03** 67% 17-18 Dec 02** 65% 19-20 Nov 02** 68% 22-23 Oct 02 LV** 62% 8-9 Oct 02 LV** 72% 24-25 Sep 02 58% 8-9 Sep 02 66% 6-7 Aug 02 69% 9-10 Jul 02 72% 30 Apr-1 May 02 70% 30-31 Jan 02 74% 28-29 Nov 01 77%

WASHINGTON — Thirty years after the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy, both sides of the fiery abortion debate are still battling over what's best for women and their unborn children. Wednesday marks the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that made abortion legal. While pro-abortion groups fight to ensure that the decision is never overturned, anti-abortionists continue to maintain that the practice constitutes legalized murder. Groups from both sides planned a myriad of events Wednesday to support or criticize the decision. But this year's demonstrations and debates are fairly typical of the past 30 years. The all-male Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Jan. 22, 1973, that a woman's right to choose was based on her constitutional rights to personal liberty, which entails her privacy. The decision overturned state laws banning abortion. Since then, an average of more than 1 million women a year have had abortions, making them one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. But the decision's future may be uncertain. The recent conjectures about the future composition of the Supreme Court and recent limits placed on abortion in 34 states may be signs that Roe vs. Wade may not reach maturity. "I would give anything, I mean, I could rest peacefully, I really believe if Roe versus Wade was overturned," said Norma McCorvey, the formerly pro-choice, formerly anonymous Jane Roe in the case. President Bush is staunchly opposed to abortion, but he has never been tested on the topic. Abortion-rights supporters fear that with an aging Supreme Court bench, a Bush selection of a replacement justice could shift the debate and the law. "I think any vacancy with the prospect of a Bush nominee jeopardizes Roe v. Wade," said Nan Aron, president of the pro-abortion rights Alliance for Justice. Abortion is a source of division in the Supreme Court, which favors a 5-4 split permitting the practice. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote in favor of abortion rights. Abortion-rights advocates fear that if she retires, Bush will likely choose a nominee who opposes abortion rights. O'Connor, 72, has served 21 years on the court. "It's in the greatest danger it's ever been in," Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal said of the Roe decision. "You're one vote away." Only current Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 78, sat on the court in 1973, and he was one of the two dissenting opinions. Should he retire, those who oppose abortion fear Bush may be pressured to choose a moderate to replace him. Conservatives say they would oppose, for instance, the president's friend and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who while a member of the Texas Supreme Court, voted to allow a teenager to get an abortion without parental consent. "For all the pro-life groups, Judge Gonzales is probably a nonstarter as a nominee," said Richard Lessner, spokesman for the Family Research Council. "It would be absolutely a tragedy if he were nominated," said American Life League President Judie Brown. Abortion foes would prefer J. Harvie Wilkinson, the chief judge of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, or Samuel A. Alito of the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit. Theodore Olson, the government's solicitor general and the lawyer who argued on behalf of Bush before the Supreme Court following the disputed 2000 Florida recount, is also popular among anti-abortion activists. Although neither O'Connor nor Rehnquist has indicated retirement is on the way - and likely would not make a move until after the 2004 election - all sides agree that whoever is nominated to become the next judge will face a tough, partisan confirmation in the Senate, in which abortion will be a central issue. That could be the reason that Brown's American Life League is putting pressure on Democratic Catholics in Congress to vote in sync with their religious tenets. The group is launching an ad campaign to coincide with the anniversary of Roe and follows a decree by Pope John Paul II last week that demands Catholic lawmakers vote in concert with their religious values. The ads are expected to slam a dozen Democrats, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, for "flagrantly ignoring" their religion and perpetuating "the current culture of death." "This Crusade and the ad campaign are designed to ... demand that they either recant their openly pro-abortion stance or cease claiming to be Catholic," Brown said. Conservatives say they are looking forward to a vote this year in the Republican-led House and Senate that would ban so-called "partial-birth" abortions, which take place in the last trimester of pregnancy. Bush has said he would sign the bill banning the practice. Though no votes are scheduled yet on the topic, advocates on both sides of the battle say they expect that it won't be long before the law heads to the Supreme Court. Aside from the religious-based and judicial battles brewing, women's groups say legislators cannot deny women the fundamental right to make choices about their own bodies. They argue that any effort to undermine Roe v. Wade is an attack on civil rights. "Roe v. Wade is a piece of a much larger issue about who should make certain decisions and how much autonomy should women have," said Sarah Weddington, the attorney who won the abortion case in the high court. "If women can't control their reproductive lives and the timing and spacing of their children, we are unable to control anything else about our lives we have," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL-Pro Choice America. "We are at the whim of our biology." But others say women's groups undermine women's rights by choosing to focus on this fight. "I think it's very unfortunate that the feminists have made the right to abortion as their central and number one example of what they mean by women's rights," said Phyllis Schlafly, head of the conservative group, the Eagle Forum. Polls show that a majority of Americans support abortion rights, but that support is highest when a woman's life or health is in danger or there is evidence that the baby will be physically or mentally impaired. According to a Pew Research Center poll of 1,218 adults last week, six in 10 oppose the Supreme Court completely overturning the high court's decision. But a Gallup poll of 1,002 adults taken at the same time, shows that 57 percent said abortion should be legal only under some circumstances.

______________________________________________ New ROLLING STONE Managing Editor Ed Needham is set to hit complete controversy with a 4-page report: "Bug Chasers: The Men Who Secretly Long To Be HIV+." Filed by Greg Freeman, the shock story claims some men with HIV are deliberately having unprotected sex with those who want to be infected! MORE "The men who want the virus are called 'bug chasers,' and the men who freely give them the virus are called 'gift givers.' While the rest of the world fights the AIDS epidemic and most people fear HIV infection, this subculture celebrates the virus and eroticizes it," reports Freeman in the February 6, 2003 edition of ROLLING STONE. At least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into [bug-chasing] category, according to one claim in the "special report". "In this world, the men with HIV are the most desired, and the bug chasers will do anything to get the virus." Gay groups "aggressively encouraged" Freeman to drop the article. One sad passage captures a young man in New York City who wants to be infected: "His eyes light up as he says that the actual moment of transmission, the instant he gets HIV, will be 'the most erotic thing I can imagine.'" An infector is quoted as saying: "I'm murdering him in a sense, killing him slowly, and that's sort of, as sick as it sounds, exciting to me." Most AIDS activists prefer to deny the problem exists to any significant extent, says Dr. Bob Cabaj, director of behavioral-health services for San Francisco County and past president of Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. "They don't want to address that this is really going on." In a gonzo-journalism ROLLING STONE moment, Cabaj claims at least 25% of all newly infected gay men fall into [bug-chasing] category. END

i always found all of those magazine's to be so boring...asta la vista....

..