Content Maker Network Blog

Hair Drug Testing

Myths vs. Reality

Myth: Hair drug testing is good, but not a common variety of drug testing, because it is so expensive.

Closed: drug tests are so far more pricey rather than a standardurinalysis–we’re talking dollar bills to cents here–and is a more groundbreaking form of drug testing, so most employers choose for a ordinary urine drug test. Psychemedics, the companythat makes hair drug tests in the United States, has been quite victorious at depressing the monetary value and increasing awareness, but a whole shift from urine to hairhas a ways to go.

Myths: There is little difference of opinion between a urine drug test, and hair drug testing.

Truth: Quite untrue. A urine drug test is better, cheaper, widely available, and at this point, an accepted process of drug testing. Hair drug testing is not as invasive–making it perfect for confidential spheres of testing, such as student drug tests–than its similitude.

Open: Hair drug testing shall detect drug metabolite exposure and/or illicit drug use frommany ages past.

Reality: Indeed, hair drug testing will expose drug “use”–direct andindirect exposure–for up to seven years. The hair strand is analyzed analogous tomeasuring the years of a tree by its internal ring structure. Body hair is likea Velcro for all things ingested from your diet, the air you breathe, and yes, to any banned substances. This is a tremendous benefit of hair drug testing, butalso places a greater moral dilemma: is exposure real “use”?

Myths: Hair drug testing can be overcome by trimming your head.

Truth: While remaining empty of hair may appear to make sense when placed witha drug test that uses hair as its specimen, alas for you, no, it will not function.I mean, it is not like one could go out, steal a Gilette razor, shave the head, and pass hair drug testprotocol simply because your bald! No, seriously, the examiner will simplyclip some body hair. There is zero way to shave your path out of a hair drug test.

According to AppleInsider, Apple Computer is planning to open as many as 20 new retail stores in the U.K., a number of new stores in Germany, and a third store in Toronto, Canada.

These aggressive plans follow the recent success Apple has had in moving into the educational computer market in Europe. The company displaced Dell to take the No. 1 spot in western Europe for educational computer sales with a 15.2 percent market share.

Apple has traditionally been strong in educational sectors, but had lost market share in recent years. Now with successful new products like the iMac, iPod and iTunes the company has renewed its appeal to a new generation of younger computer users.

European Apple execs hinted that the company’s next push in Europe might be towards IT departments. According to Apple people, this long-sought-after-market is seeing a shift towards the kind of technologies that Apple has specialised in: instant message, podcasting, and corporate video production.

**French government targets Apple iTunes with legislation

Legislation was recently tabled in the French National Assembly that seems to be targeted at Apple iTunes. The new legislation is intended to squelch services such as iTunes that use digital format exclusivity as a means of controlling distribution.

In other words, the backers of the bill would make it illegal to sell digital music that was formatted so it could only be played on specific players. iTunes downloads can only be played on Apple devices like the iPod.

Some consumer groups see this as a way of charging customers more than once for the same product. Apple is not alone in following such a policy, but the success of iTunes makes the company the most prominent and most visible target.

The bill would also make it easier to circumvent digital rights management technology such as Apple’s Fair Play and Microsoft’s Plays for Sure which the bill’s authors see as a way of restricting consumer access to digital music which they have already paid for in some other format.

The fine for “digital piracy” would also be reduced from the current $300,000 to a mere 38 euros when used for personal purposes.

What is behind the proposed bill is an attempt to create a “global” solution to digital music distribution, where once purchased in one format a piece of music would be available in all formats, and playable on all players. Consumers would pay a small fee and then be allowed to download and share music with very few restrictions.

Predictably, many established artists oppose the bill, while many less established artists support it. New artists are interested in exposure for their music and see laws that restrict access as favoring older, more established artists. Once they become established they become not-so-surprisingly sympathetic to marketing techniques that help them cash in on their success.

Rick Hendershot publishes Linknet News | Earn up to 75% of PPC Revenue | Hotelbewertungen – Hotelbewertungen und Hotelinformationen

The offshore financial centres have been forced in recent years to review almost every aspect of the ways in which they operate in response to the international anti- money laundering laws and initiatives by major economies such as the E.U. and the U.S.A. to increase co-operation in the areas of preventing tax avoidance and tax evasion. These pressures continue and it is clear that the only way forward is for these centres to eliminate, as a priority, all forms of discrimination between different classes of taxpayer. Some jurisdictions have taken active steps to secure their futures, but some have difficulty in doing so and some are having to give up the struggle.

Gibraltar’s tax haven status to be scrapped

Gibraltar is an example of a territory with a discriminatory tax regime. A non-resident may form a company there, which pays an annual flat tax of between £225 and £300. The same company owned by a local resident may pay tax at 35% on its profits. Gibraltar is a member of the E.U. and a dependent territory of the U.K. It was recently announced that Britain, threatened by Court action, has given into E.U. demands to abolish the special tax regime.

The Gibraltar exempt company regime will accordingly close as from July 2006 and will be abolished altogether in 2010. In the intervening period the number of companies benefiting from the scheme will be capped at 8464 and any company, which changes ownership, will lose the benefit immediately.

Jersey

Jersey is another territory, which may encounter problems. It relies heavily on the financial sector for its revenue, much of which is generated from a flat corporation tax on companies, owned by non residents, but conducting their trading activity elsewhere, in much the same way as Gibraltar.

The Island is considering introducing a goods and services tax and/or a zero rate corporation tax as part of its solution to the problem. In the meanwhile the debate goes on. The local newspaper has reported that some fund managers would like to join the E.U. and a former Economic Advisor to the government has been quoted as saying that any clamp down on its tax haven status would force the Island to consider joining. In more colourful language, one of the members of a local professional body is reported as having said that the jurisdiction would “self-implode within three years” because “it is “staggeringly dependent on corporation tax”.

Problems Onshore

It is not only the offshore centres, which are feeling the pressure. The E.U. is attacking the Dutch International Financing Activities scheme and the Belgian co-ordination centres scheme. In the U.S. the I.R.S. has forced Mastercard to supply records of transactions of U.S. residents with accounts in Antigua, Barbuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. The government has entered into exchange of information agreements with these territories and is negotiating agreements with Panama and the British Virgin Islands.

The Chesterfield Group provides a full range of trustee, and corporate advisory, formation and management services and invites enquiries. More particulars can be found on our web-site http://www.chesterfield-management.com
REF=CH3EZ

It is undeniable that Cambodia is changing. When I arrived in Cambodia in 1995, one in three Cambodians I met carried a weapon. Arms were for many the only way to ensure security. Yet, in the decennium I live in Cambodia, I have never seen one used against me or anybody, except for one: a policeman shot some game in the forest but didn’t catch it.

I’ve collected weapons. 5 years ago, I travelled to Dey Krohom village in Kratie province along roads which the year after were de-mined because the road was part of what once was the National road from Phnom Penh to Kratie and Stoeung Treng and is was going to be rebuilt into what Cambodians cal a “speedway”. I’ve seen the mines when a year later, I travelled the same road again to inspect my development projects.

Each one might have killed me. Do you know that mines tend to float under the soil and move where no-one expects any mines.

>From 2000 to 2004, I worked for the EU ASAC, an EU weapons management programme for establishing weapons security to the country. My job was to help collect weapons from the civilian population which was only a small part of a much more encompassing programme. My job also included implementing police support regarding to security as a complement to the weapons collection.

The programme was implemented on the request and with the full support of the Cambodian government. Next week, the government will destroy some 8,000 weapons and thus bring the total of destroyed weapons since the start of the EU peace plan to more than 175,000 weapons.

These weapons include not only weapons from the civilian population, but also military surpluses. Some argue that it is the oldest weapons that were destroyed, but all of the weapons in the destruction were usable. Being usable – if only for spare parts -, they could be sold on the black market and used in other conflicts in the region.

By destroying those weapons, the Cambodian people acts as true Buddhists, choosing for Peace in the Region. “Put down your weapon, take up the Dharma” edified the Buddhist Teachers. And that is what Cambodians are doing.

The EU has been the initiator of the multi-facetted peace programme. Two Japanese organisations are fulfilling the promises of European initiators: if you make peace development will come. Cambodian people have turned their weapons. JSAC and JCCP, two Japanese organisation now offer development projects to the villages, communes and districts that have surrendered all their weapons and are proven weapons-free. Clean water wells are in some places the highest priorities, elsewhere schools or school toilets were built.

The principle of the weapons collection project was not to pay for the weapons, but to offer community-owned projects instead. Every weapon that was collected from the civilian population had to be destroyed and was.

The military surplus weapons are those that are left over from the EU ASAC Weapons Registration and Safe Storage project. Here safe storage buildings for weapons and computerised registration system have been provided to the Cambodian Army and Gendarmerie.

The weapons are destroyed in public ceremonies in the presence of the population. These ceremonies are called “Flames of Peace.” EU, Cambodian or Japanese experts count the weapons as part of the process and check that no more ammunition remains in the weapon that could turn the celebration into a tragedy.

The EU assistance programme has also supported the National Committee for weapons management, the draft of a new arms law and oversees the implementation of that law.

Next week, two of those bonfires take place in Cambodia. On Monday 26 September, 3,430 weapons will be burned ceremoniously in Siem Reap province with Japanese support and on Tuesday about 4,500 in Sihanoukville with European support.

The Japanese destruction ceremony will take place in Angkor Chum district, there where the people have turned them in. The ceremony in Sihanoukville will take place on Ochheuteal Beach and is open to any visitor. If you happen to be in Sihanoukville, this is a unique occasion to witness the Cambodian contribution to peace building.

Is the only way to fight Fundamentalist Extremists becoming one yourself? Having grown up in a liberal democracy, being educated in the ideals of freedom of speech and expression, diversity, multi-culturalism and the political correctness that stems from such a comprehensive education, I find myself questioning whether I am a closet fascist when it comes to the way in which the British Judiciary are referring to the whole issue surrounding the London suicide bombers of 7 July and the related legal news stories stemming from this.

I cannot understand the logic of the British Judiciary in countering the British Government’s call for the expulsion of a number of foreign nationals specifically identified as contributing to anti-British feeling amongst the Muslim community. For example, one of the people due for expulsion is Abu Qatada, a Jordanian who has been tried and convicted in his absence in Jordanian courts for terrorism and given a life sentence. He is known as Osama bin Laden’s ‘Ambassador in Europe’. Now he is concerned that if he is returned to Jordan he will face the death sentence. The question becomes one of whether we can expel someone from Britain to what may be their death? While we don’t know the details of his Jordanian convictions, terrorism in the Middle East tends to be pretty deadly, so it is fair to suspect this person has been convicted of something relating to people being killed.

This is where liberal ideals and common-sense conflict – while we may agree in Human Rights Law, is it so wrong if we don’t care that this man is being sent back to what might be his death? When someone commits themselves to terrorism, do they give up their right to justice when they so blatantly abuse it? How can we allow someone to rely on Human Rights law when they have so obviously overlooked the human rights of everyone else in the country? On a more local level, why do we have someone at liberty in Britain who has been convicted of terrorism in another country? Why were they being granted freedom of speech, and freedom to gather audiences, when it was known that they had fundamentalist tendencies and links with terrorist organisations? Is it our policy in Britain to say ‘welcome to Britain and feel free to hate our society and way of life?’

It would be wrong to withdraw many of our fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech because we are scared of what people might say – but surely when there is evidence that people have gone beyond what are acceptable societal boundaries then they need to be restrained in one way or another. Is this not what the new anti-terrorism provisions are seeking to do? Finding a way of tackling fundamentalism without resorting to fascism is going to require some common-sense in terms of interpreting the law.

Nobody wants to see a repeat of the shooting of the innocent Brazilian on the underground system, but neither do people want to encounter suicide bombers. For years there have been critical news reports on Isreali soldiers shooting Palestinians who they believed to be suicide bombers, many of whom may have been innocent, as well as reports of suicide bombers blowing themselves up in buses and bars – now the reality of this is hitting Britain. There is no way to stop a suicide bomber but to kill them before they detonate themselves. Equally, there is no way of being absolutely sure that somebody is a suicide bomber until they actually detonate themselves. There lies the Catch 22 which will dominate the British legal system for years to come. Here we believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but by the time a suicide bomber is proven guilty it is too late.

So where does this leave us? If we can identify the underlying factions that are stirring up fundamentalist ideals, is it not common-sense that we either imprison or deport them? Even the Muslim Council of Great Britain supports such moves. However, we need to make sure that the extremists don’t win by lulling us into a fascist state out of fear, and hence we become what they are propagating we already are. It will be common-sense that wins, not fascism, but it needs to be applied through the judicial system, not just in Government.

Eddie Blass is a freelance academic and ghostwriter specialising in business & management, futures, legal, and educational issues.

Be an American, it gets just a little bit annoying when the people that live in this country just can’t seem to be real Americans, but yet they come from what ever country and expect to enjoy our freedoms, and our way of life, I think we need to put an end to this type of thing ever happening, it just stands to reason that if you want to be here and enjoy our country and it way of life, then the least you could do is respect it.

I love the United States, and I love everything about it, I truly get sick and tired of seeing all these people that don’t love it, but they are still here, I’ve had the distinct displeasure of meeting some of the lower crust of this of this country, I’m sure you know them, the people who are here just to raise a stink about our country, and the way that things are here.

These people are telling me things like, I hate the people from the USA, and the only reason that I’m here is to farther my cause, I think this country needs a tune up, it reminds me of the hippies from the 1960’s but with out the smell, it’s just discussing to me that we true Americans have to put up with this kind of idiocy and horrible attitude about things in this land.

I heard from people of Mexican decent that their here to take their country back, and that we should just roll over and let them do as they please, and from people of mid eastern decent that, all that care about is furthering their terrorist activities, and it does disturb me to the point of no return, but it would seem that most of the people that live here, just seem to wear their blinders and go on their merry way, oblivious to what’s going on here, we must be politely correct at all costs.

We just can’t afford to let these people who don’t give a damn about our country hear how we really think about things, I think it’s time to remove the blinders, and let our friends know that we support them, and by the same token, let our enemies know that we don’t, if it’s necessary then go right a head and profile them, if it keeps the country just a bit safer then why not help our country and it’s way of life.

Most of these people are here to farther their own way of thinking, and could care less about our country and it’s way of doing things, they’d just love to bring the USA down to their level, people tell me that I need to be more tolerant, but I say we need to be less tolerant in this country, and we need to check out these people that are pouring in from every border of our country a lot more.

We need to know what they’re doing here and how long they plan to stay, if they want to stay here, then they need to let our government do a complete background check on them while they remain in quarantine until we know that their safe to let in to our land, and I don’t care if they want to whine about profiling, if it helps to keep our country just a bit more safe from the scourge of humanity.

We have terrorists in our country forming their own cells, and reporting back to their people in their countries about the activities of our government, an how to get around our security in our land, but we still have to be politically correct, in an effort not to upset these people, when does this moronic way come to an end, when our country does? It’s time that we’re allowed to protect our country and it’s people.

David C. Atkin

muscle car restoration

Jody closed the scrap book. They sat silently for a moment. Charlotte was the first to speak, rather cautiously. “Well done. Something said well that desperately needed saying. The book review serves as a splendid device. It offers the tool to foster passing of painful truths without a killing of the messenger.” “Yes,” sadly responded Jody, “you see, I completely understand McVeigh’s motivation. In time his outrageous deed may become more prophetic than pathetic.”

Jody had much to say about this event. He noted the outrage by those who survived or lost loved ones in the event, and that all others without exception, were so intensely hateful that no one dared to question any motivation that might have set McVeigh in motion. Could Jefferson have been a prophet for McVeigh or merely a crutch? Had our free republic gone too far in teaching abuse as Brandeis spoke of? For such as Jefferson, quoted by McVeigh, both tyrant and patriot must collide. Did McVeigh fully understand the consequences of such extraordinary act, and carefully identify his role?

Had he not the sense to know the backlash would completely eradicate any noble curative action he might hope to make? No one seemed to make the slightest move to understand how anyone could feel any kind of ill will against soft federal workers, self serving, in paper shuffling jobs, for the most part, with even on the job baby sitting as collateral duty. No one seemed to realize how far socialism of employment and parenting and child care had saturated a free nation of free choice by using the taxes confiscated from a vast number of workers who made it independently on their own. No one worried then or now about federal government policing or the loss of freedom of choices.

Rather, great haste was made to put in place of that flimsy building a sorry in your face monument that further promoted the government’s on the job permissiveness with little chairs for little people, so none must ever forget that they remain on the job in an adult work day world, and glorify this child abuse fostered by parents who never hesitate to put their children in the care of others no matter the expense or inconvenience to all others except themselves. No one ever howled out for tax breaks so one parent could stay home when children needed that kind of attention. No one complained about the planned bastards or later deserted children by one or both the parents. No one, not a single printing had been seen to explain how this way out socialism might move one who had once cared, to instability and an over reaching reaction.

A young reporter watched the execution of McVeigh, who, it was reported, lay quietly, nodded calmly to each, one by one as he caught their eyes, and then with his eyes wide opened, fixed on the camera in the ceiling, calmly passed away.

“It was awful, it was evil,” said Jody, “such terror, such screaming silence, that none would dare to hear before desperation aggravated McVeigh to the point of deliberate destruction. Not before. Certainly not then. Then never, thereafter.”

“I hear you Jody, and I understand you, them and even maybe even McVeigh, a little. His was a deep dastardly gash and will take a very long time to heal, even a little.” “Added to that,” said Jody “is the certain knowledge that not much will change for the good. Only more policing and oppression. Freedom destructive pro-active policing by a centralized government.”

“Talking of death and dying,” said Charlotte, rising, “I have one.” She shelved the scrapbook, and pulled down her slim volume. “Ready?”

Charlotte prefaced: “This speaks of an idealist I once knew. One who could not cope with realities and disappointments. One who turned to himself for a solution. That permanent solution to a temporary problem:
Memory of a Dead Poet

After singing of Elizabeth and people and church and bells

you in green-leafed dreaming once cried O, Ecstasy!

but quickly stilled that mystic joy

searing otherworldly word-dreams into silence.

Departing a world that once tried to kill and failed you went

leaving behind a lingering trail of sorrow and broken dreams

to haunt the hearts of friends.

Journeying outward setting aside all thoughts of Elizabeth

and quiet shy glances of love over cups of tea

as the poetic flowering of your soul no longer sang

or gazed at open skies, ecstatic trembling green leaves,

Elizabeth, bells or tea.

As it oozed out the red-stained window blown through your skull.”

“Jody, how can goodness go so wrong?” said Charlotte, quietly closing the book.

JimElzie Livingston has published hot social/political opinion editorials, many included within this, his first book length publication. He is an award winning poet, painter and occasional thespian. He has held a number of elected and appointed public service positions.

France with all their diplomacy and the reputation of being the best diplomats in the world are losing control of their country. The situation is similar to that in our own country where big government and big business are so tightly entwined that they are strangling the people.

We have just begun to see the tip of France’s Iceberg of Sorrow. There will be more.

In our country people are dissatisfied with Bush War II and the Government’s reaction to major disasters at home. Our government is flat broke. Although the stock market has ignored that fact, the hammer of economics always falls.

We don’t have to look back too far too see the reactions to the Vietnam War. The youth of our country went into despair. They decided to live with no laws and like pigs. You couldn’t find a clean rest stop in the country. Riots occurred in our cities.

All was not well.

France needs to get their act together. We need to get our act together.

Here are some things we can do for starters:

1. Stop the hemorrhaging in Washington. Raising the spending limit is not the answer. Congress needs to tighten up and stop funding worthless programs. Congress should review costly laws on the books that are no longer needed. Each member of congress should clean up his own act, reducing office and travel expenses. Governmental agencies should be asked to immediately stop hiring new people to reduce the ranks of government permanently.

2. Stop fighting with the illegal immigrants in our country. Provide a way for those who want to leave to go back home. Help them develop jobs in their homelands. Process those who want to stay so that they can become citizens. Stop infiltration across our borders. New immigrants would come in on temporary work visas only. We need to learn to defend our borders, wide as they are.

3. Raise taxes on windfall income. Executives are continually ripping off stock holders. Tax all income and bonuses over one million a year at a rate of 90% with no deductions whatsoever. On death, all assets over two million dollars are returned to the U.S. Treasury. Stockholders can have 90% of overcompensation returned by simply filling a Federal form.

If Number 3 were actually written into law, the volume would be six inches thick. No rich man would pay any taxes whatsoever.

Well, I tried!

What do you think should be done?

The End

France, deficit, debt, national, immigrants, big, business, compensation, taxes, hippies, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq

John T. Jones, Ph.D. (tjbooks@hotmail.com, a retired VP of R&D for Lenox China, is author of detective & western novels, nonfiction (business, scientific, engineering, humor), poetry, etc. Former editor of Ceramic Industry Magazine. He is Executive Representative of IWS sellers of Tyler Hicks wealth-success books and kits. He also sells TopFlight flagpoles. He calls himself “Taylor Jones, the hack writer.”

More info: http://www.tjbooks.com

Business web site: http://www.aaaflagpoles.com

Repercussions from the recent supreme court decision

I recently wrote an article calling attention to the decision of the Supreme Court enabling state and local governments to take property by eminent domain in the interests of increasing tax revenues.

See:
The Supreme Court-Eminent Domain-A Conundrum
October 17, 2005.
www.ezinearticles.com

At the time I did not express an opinion as to whether it was a good decision or not, but I did express concern that it might lead to abuses.

I can understand that where a blighted area exists it might be advisable to use this law for the common good, even though a few people might suffer in the process.

It seems that my worst fears were well founded.

Michael Brown the Mayor of Riviera Beach, Florida has launched re-development program that will take two thousand homes and businesses affecting six thousand persons in order to have developers build a marina, an aquarium and some luxury condominiums.

This is not a blighted area, the homes are rather modest but it is by no means a slum.

The owners allege that they will only receive half their real value. The Mayor has referred to them as being selfish. If I were to lose my home even if I got full value for it I would not be happy, but to take a horrendous loss on top of it is unthinkable.

I’m not generally an activist, but this is a case where Americans should stand up and make their opinions known to our representatives. Even if they disagree with me they should make their opinions known so that this controversy can be put to an end.

This is a very important matter and I fear that this situation is only going to spread and worsen. This could happen to any of us.

My feeling is the supreme court should be made to amend it’s ruling so that the rich cannot take advantage of the poor, as I feel is happening in this case.

I don’t think congress should do more than take an oversight position. For them to get involved would make conditions even worse.

Written by: George W. cannata Author and publisher of http://www.caveatemptorus.com a shopping guide/Fraud digest web site . The author is a retired manufacturing executive with many years experience in procurement. This article may be reprinted or copied so long as it is not altered in any way and that the author receives full credit and the link to my web site is retained.http://www.caveatemptorus.com

Not For The Catholics

A report in MSN Slate Magazine ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2128276/ ) announced that some recent experiments gave scientists the ability to extract embryonic stem cells without killing the embryo. It then posed the question ” Has the report changed any minds”.

For non-Christians, it might. But the Christian objection to embryonic stem cell research isn’t entirely based on the right to life issue. And it’s not (as many people presume) based on the objection to ‘fiddling with the power of God’. There’s a much deeper stance behind it.

For a Christian, the rules and creeds we follow aren’t just a standard list of do’s and don’ts. They’re a way of life, and sometimes new technologies present undefined theological questions. The Christian reacts to this from a gut instinct because the real Christian doesn’t need a list to understand that something is wrong.

For example, the evil of abortion is obvious because it violates the sanctity of life …but the whole question of abortion isn’t just one of murder. And taking away the label ‘murder’ doesn’t make it any more acceptable to the real Christian. Because abortions is more than murder. It’s a person running from responsibility. It’s a person enjoying pleasure without accepting the natural result. It’s a person hiding from some kind of violent or painful event. It’s a person not accepting a gift from God.

I could go on, and abortion is always one or all of these. So even if the embryo were not a living soul, abortion would still be labeled as ’sin’ by healthy Christians. And so is embryonic stem cell research.

More than questioning whether or not a scientist could extract stem cells and keep an embryo alive, someone might ask how many embryos the scientist murdered while trying. Or perhaps how much danger the embryo is in during the process. Or even why scientists insist on creating embryos for the purpose of testing at all. God gave us a perfectly natural way to produce new life. On top of that, He made it enjoyable.

So man started by keeping the conceptions from interfering with the pleasure. And now we’re trying to keep the pleasure from interfering with the conceptions. In this process, God’s entire plan was lost.

Catholics don’t just object because it’s unnatural. Catholics object because it’s not practical. Our understanding of science and medicine isn’t simply one of discovery, but one of solutions. We see it as a way to increase the quality of life. But this isn’t so with modern science. Where as a certain number of embryos die because of miscarriage, now millions die because of in-vitro fertilization. And where scientists were once limited by what was moral, they’re now limited by a lack of direction.

Written by Eric Engel from The Catholic Letter at http://thecatholicletter.com