Articles Books

More than 13 million men and over 36 million American women suffer from testosterone deficiency. It jeopardizes not only their sexual and reproductive health, but also the cardiovascular system, bone and muscle strength, memory and emotional well-being. The key culprits are estrogen-like manmade chemicals that permeate our air, water and food supply according to Sheldon Krimsky. The link is
undeniable. I've seen first-hand how synthetic chemicals can disrupt endocrine and reproductive systems. They threaten our
fertility, our intelligence--our very survival. Based on current medical and environmental evidence, "Hormonal Chaos" cuts through the hype and confusion about environmental chemicals and the vital role that hormones play in key bodily functions. It explains the consequences of estrogen-like compounds in the environment and the chaos in our bodies due to hormone imbalances. The author charts a course for scientists and government officials to clean up our environment to avoid continued damage to the future health of our nation.

Abraham Kryger, MD, author of , Listen to Your Hormones, a Doctor's Guide to
Sex, Love and Long Life.

Emergency! Emergency! There is a proublem with our patient. I think we should just leave them away from us, so we don't get what they have. Said one of the goofiest doctor there. That is something you should never do. You are a doctor and if your patient needs you then you have to be there for them. The smartest doctors' had to say the same thing I have written to you right now. If you want to become a doctor or even a pharmisist you need to take care of everything around you, because that is the only way that makes you a good person, and a good doctor, or pharmasist or a veternarian. Or even something else. You just have to put your head and sometimes your heart for it, so people call you a good person. BY: RUCHI SHAH

Now here's a book for writers (and would-be writers)! Anyone who's ever stared at a blank page in the typewriter or a blank computer screen needs this book ... if for no other reason than to take a break! I've read enough how-to-write books - including the staple of the writing world, "Ideas for Books and Articles" list books - to really appreciate this tongue-in-cheek look at the world through the jaded eyes of writers suffering an apparent case of (lazy) writer's block.
Enjoy - and then write some of these articles (I too would like to know how to "Fart Like a Lady".

Found this article as a reference online. Outstanding advice for anyone looking to understand the process and become an effective advocate. Although written for physician advocacy, all pertinent points can be applied to any cause. Excellent guidance from someone who obviously understands the process.

This article was inspiring.
If you would like to participate in a journal club, you can at
(...)

I loved this book. As a writer, I wanted to get more information about expanding my portfolio. This book is easy to read, full of helpful information and inexpensive. You can't get much better than that! However, this book focuses on magazine article writing and not so much on books. So if you're an aspiring article writer, I say, "Don't pass this book up!"

This is a fine article by Keith Windschuttle. It begins with a quote from Chomsky, where he says that since a hypocrite is one who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others, the entire commentary of the War on Terror is pure hypocrisy.

Well, that's interesting. Just who is Noam Chomsky?

Chomsky has made some fine contributions to the field of linguistics. He helped restore a rationalistic approach to linguistics that has basically replaced the behavioralist approach of B. F. Skinner.

Chomsky came up with the concept of context-free grammars, and developed many of their properties. He showed the equivalence of regular grammars and finite automata, he showed the equivalence of context-free languages and push-down automata, and he showed the equivalence of grammatically computable functions and Turing-computable functions. He has backed the idea that language acquisition in humans is largely innate, and the evidence for this idea seems to be increasing. He's a very bright person who has made many genuine scholarly contributions to society.

In my opinion, even Chomsky's approach to social issues has had some positive aspects. While many people have addressed national policy issues principally in pragmatic terms, Chomsky has emphasized moral issues. He has wisely advised us to avoid resolving debates on moral issues purely on pragmatic grounds. And he has advised us to be wary of the role of the media in obtaining popular consent for dubious policies.

As Windschuttle explains, Chomsky is not a relativist, but one who advocates pursuit of truth and knowledge about human affairs. Chomsky supports his claims on the basis of evidence. By the way, I'm this way myself: I also advocate pursuit of truth and knowledge about human affairs, I'm not a relativist, and I support my claims on the basis of evidence.

Well, when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia, Chomsky welcomed it. I myself was very slow to realize the differences between Cambodia and Viet Nam, so I'm not too surprised that Chomsky had some of the same problems. The point that Windschuttle makes, however, is not merely that Chomsky acted as an apologist for the Pol Pot regime but also failed to admit that he'd been wrong and that the Pol Pot regime had been genocidal.

Windschuttle then says that Chomsky's pattern of behavior has continued into the present century, as his response to the events of 9/11/2001 was that no matter how bad the terrorist actions were, the United States had done worse. And Windschuttle also quotes Chomsky as saying that "virtually everything Israel is doing, meaning the United States and Israel are doing, is illegal, in fact a war crime. And many of them they defined as `grave breaches,' that is, serious war crimes. That means that the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial."

Of course, I understand the attitude of wanting outlaws to be brought to trial. I always wanted Arafat to be brought to trial for his many terrible crimes. But I never noticed Chomsky ask for Arafat to be brought to justice! And Windschuttle points out that neither has Chomsky asked for communist leaders of China, Cambodia, or Vietnam to be brought to trial.

Windschuttle concludes that Chomsky has been guilty of hypocrisy. Chomsky has said that it is the responsibility of an intellectual to pursue truth and expose lies. But Chomsky has not hesitated to suppress truth and perpetrate falsehoods on behalf of regimes he has admired. He is "a mandarin who denounces mandarins."

I agree. I recommend this article.

I had to read this book for a class. The book was amazing and very interesting! I love the book!! Worth buying and reading!

I do not know the poetry of Wislawa Szymborska. But I was deeply impressed by his Nobel Speech. Of all those I have read it seeemed to me the most genuinely modest. It is also generous and considerate. It speaks about the poet's somewhat awkward place in society. It tells of how the 'poet's life' is ordinarily the least capable of arousing general interest, at least in the form of film biography. It also speaks beautifully about the poet as 'inspired. But it does not limit the ranks of the inspired to the artistic alone, but rather includes all those who are called to do some kind of work.
It contains a very persuasive statement about the uniqueness of each person.And how it is the poet's task time and again to write of the uniqueness.
It shows a humble and my mind realistic sense our limitations in knowing the world.
Here is Szymborska's, to my mind very persuasive conclusion.

"Poets, if they're genuine, must also keep repeating "I don't know." Each poem marks an effort to answer this statement, but as soon as the final period hits the page, the poet begins to hesitate, starts to realize that this particular answer was pure makeshift that's absolutely inadequate to boot. So the poets keep on trying, and sooner or later the consecutive results of their self-dissatisfaction are clipped together with a giant paperclip by literary historians and called their "oeuvre."

Both the author and reviewer seem kind of uninformed about let's say the last 80 years of religion and science scholarship (1930's onward). But whatever, an intersting read none the less. There are dozens and dozens of first rate 19th, 20th, and 21st scientists of whom "skeptics should be grateful to have a theist in our camp defending the virtues of science." Rare might be 1st rate biologists, but as far as scientists that have won major prizes and successfully work at major universities the list is fairly vast. For example, two big names that should be on the author's and reviewer's minds are Freeman Dyson and John Polkinghorne.