YOUR CHANCE TO MEET ‘CHANCE’ THE WONDERDOG!

first_imgHe hit the headlines when his owners abandoned him in a back garden for almost a month.Now, almost two months after he was found by members of Donegal Pet Rescue, the public is to be given the chance to meet Chance the Boxer dog.There have been dozens of requests by people across Donegal to adopt Chance but alsop to come and see him. Now the DPR  is inviting people to come along and say hello to Chance at their charity shop on Thursday 17th May 11am-2pm.He will be kept in his pen so as not to get him stressed but as many people as possible are being encouraged to attend.The DPR Charity Shop is located Lower Main Street, Letterkenny, diagonally opposite Old Dunnes, next to FBD Insurance. Phone 086 259 2324YOUR CHANCE TO MEET ‘CHANCE’ THE WONDERDOG! was last modified: May 9th, 2012 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:ChanceDonegal Pet Rescuelast_img read more

Donegal man bit Garda and threatened to shoot bouncer

first_imgA Donegal man who bit a garda’s hand as he was being arrested in a melee displayed “incredible strength” during the violent struggle, a court has heard.One garda said Niall Sweeney (31) showed a level of strength he “did not think was possible” for a man of his build, while pepper spray had no effect on him. Earlier, Sweeney had threatened to shoot a bouncer when he and friends were asked to leave. It had been his first night out drinking in 10 years.Judge John Hughes jailed him for three months and suspended another two.Sweeney, a truck driver and father-of-two from Co Donegal, had admitted the threat to kill but pleaded not guilty to assault causing harm to Garda Kevin Meaney, as well as public order offences.He was found guilty on all counts.For full story see https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pubgoer-jailed-for-biting-garda-and-threatening-to-shoot-bouncer-38015346.htmlDonegal man bit Garda and threatened to shoot bouncer was last modified: April 15th, 2019 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:bouncerm shootcourtjailedNIall Sweeneythreatlast_img read more

Ferndale builds early lead, beats South Fork 41-13 in Little 4 opener

first_imgFERNDALE >> Having seen South Fork cut his team’s lead to 13 points just before the halftime, Ferndale head coach Kim Jorgensen knew that his team had an opportunity to take advantage of come the start of the second half.Having deferred to the second half, Jorgensen’s squad had a chance to put some distance in between themselves and the Cubs right away.Heeding the advice of their veteran coach, the Wildcats did exactly that.Senior quarterback Nathan Hansen ran for a touchdown and threw for …last_img

Tinkering with Human Embryos More Brazen than Ever

first_imgSecular biologists want to see how long they can keep embryos in a dish before killing them.You can feel the undercurrent in Nature News’ story about a new record for keeping human embryos alive: they want to extend it past the 14-day limit set by international agreement. Sara Reardon writes:The work, reported this week in Nature and Nature Cell Biology, also raises the possibility that scientists could soon culture embryos to an even more advanced stage. Doing so would raise ethical, as well as technical, challenges. Many countries and scientific societies ban research on human embryos that are more than 14 days old; in light of this, the authors of the studies ended their experiments before this point.The proverbial angel on the shoulder cries, This is unethical. The devil cries, The old rules are outdated. Do it! Do it! We all know what “ended their experiments”. It’s a euphemism for “killed them.” Is there nothing left of human exceptionalism? Look at the attitude of this secular biologist:Scientists have well understood the earliest stages of life in many other animals for decades. “It’s really embarrassing at the beginning of the twenty-first century that we know more about fish and mice and frogs than we know about ourselves,” says Ali Brivanlou, a developmental biologist at the Rockefeller University in New York City and lead author of the study in Nature. “This is a bit difficult to explain to my students.”Humans are just another animal, in other words. Dissection after death is one thing—medical students profit from dissecting cadavers donated to science—but to take a helpless, developing human embryo and watch it for days or weeks and then kill it is different. If Brivanlou extended his reasoning, why not treat humans like lab rats to know more about them? We grow lab rats and inject them with cancer. We stuff them with drugs and watch what happens. We wring their little necks. Why were the German scientists culpable at the Nuremburg trials? Weren’t they trying to understand humans to know more about them? Did good intentions excuse what they did? There’s nothing in Brivanlou’s argument to forbid experimentation on live humans except the number of days of gestation and development. He shouldn’t find the ethical reasons we treat animals differently hard to explain to his students. He could tell them he is thankful mad scientists didn’t play with his embryo.Brivanlou’s argument also begs the question that growing human embryos in a dish is the only way to learn about them. Modern technology has provided numerous ethical ways to study human development without killing the subject, including advanced imaging with ultrasound, MRI and CT. If an embryo is stillborn or dies from natural causes (without intentional killing, as with abortion), then the parents can offer the embryo to science. Why are scientists chomping at the bit to play with human embryos and kill them?But their achievements in the lab may be grounds for re-examining the limit, says George Daley, a stem-cell researcher at Children’s Hospital Boston in Massachusetts. He says that it is somewhat arbitrary. Such a debate would be complex and heated, and it could reach beyond researchers working directly with human embryos. If scientists succeed in growing stem cells into embryo-like structures, it could be difficult to determine whether the structures count as embryos, and thus are subject to the 14-day rule. “It’s an interesting ethical discussion we’ve got ahead of us here,” says Pera.The latest success at keeping embryos alive for 13 days raises the perennial-haunting question of when life begins. Presumably, the 14-day limit was set in place as the time of gastrulation, when an embryo can no longer divide into twins, and thus (as the thinking goes), becomes an “individual.” Conservatives and theologians consider life to begin at fertilization. On Breakpoint this week, John Stonestreet commented on the flash of light that occurs when sperm meets egg. Is this not an empirically observable marker for the “spark of life” that commences the beginning of a new individual human being? See the “fireworks” for yourself in a video clip on The Guardian.The BBC News merely notes that some scientists want to “reconsider” the 14-day limit. “It is an area that could spark huge ethical debate in the coming years,” James Gallagher reports, considering only pro-extension arguments, failing to quote any conservative ethicist providing reasons for not cutting up human embryos and treating them as scientific lab rats.Even 14 days is not enough for the extreme secular progressives. New Scientist tries to push the origin of personhood to 8 weeks, months, and longer:Only gradually, at about 8 weeks, does the embryo become a fetus with the essential organs at least roughly mapped out. Only much later is the nervous system developed, and only much, much later does the fetus have the capacity to feel pain.A primitive streak is not a nervous system. A bunch of cells is not an organised human being in any robust biological sense. A number of days does not define life.Well, then, if it’s not the number of days, that means zero days, does it not? Logically, that should refer to the time of conception. On what basis will they define a human life in a “robust biological sense” that could not be fudged in the future? If scientists succeed in pushing the limit here, future scientists will continue pushing it more and more, following the same line of reasoning. It’s not really human till a week after birth. It’s not really human till kindergarten. The elderly are not really human. Beware, “new scientist,” when they come for thee.To Christians and Jews, all humans have dignity and value, being created in the image of God. The Bible speaks of individuals as fully  human persons even as they are in the womb, such as in Psalm 136, Jeremiah 1 and Luke 1. Every pregnant woman (except, perhaps, those brainwashed by Planned Parenthood) knows that she carries a unique individual in her body. No distinction is made for when God starts knitting together our inward parts; it is not after 8 days, or 14, or 8 weeks. It is not for man to set a limit. When sperm joins to egg, the entire unique genome of an individual comes together. That is the most distinctive moment at which everyone can affirm with certainty that life begins. If you don’t want the special interests to win by default, you must engage the debate. Take the information we and other conservative organizations provide you with and use them to urge your elected leaders from letting scientists erode the value of human life. (Visited 30 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

US congratulates India, Pak for cricket diplomacy

first_imgIndian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, left, and Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, applaud the players, prior to the start of the Cricket World Cup semifinal match between Pakistan and India in Mohali on Wednesday, March 30, 2011.The US on Wednesday congratulated India and Pakistan for progress made in the peace talks and lauded the leadership of the two countries for initiating “cricket diplomacy”.”We commend the leaders of both countries for carrying forward with what the media is calling cricket diplomacy,” US Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer said.In a statement issued here, he also applauded the progress made on a wide range of issues in the just-concluded Home Secretary level talks.Roemer wished Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani for success in their endeavours.This is Gilani’s first visit to India after becoming Prime Minister of Pakistan in March 2008. The two leaders had earlier met in Sharm-el-Shaikh, Washington and most recently last year in Thimphu on the sidelines of the SAARC Summit.”India and Pakistan will take the talks forward at their own pace, ability and character. Continued dialogue, combined with cricket diplomacy, expanding people-to-people ties and enthusiasm and optimism on both sides, offers promise of a more prosperous and peaceful region,” Roemer said.Gilani is in Mohali to watch the cricket World Cup semi-final match between India and Pakistan.Singh had invited Gilani to watch the sporting event after it became clear last week that India would take on Pakistan in the semi-final.advertisement- With PTI inputslast_img read more

New Study: Are You Leaving Money in the Middle?

first_imgMind the gap.That’s the advice in a new report on mid-level donor programs. The folks at Sea Change Strategies caution that nonprofits are missing out on a ton of money simply because they’re overlooking a committed and productive audience: middle donors —the donors who give more than low-dollar direct marketing donations, but less than major gift targets. THE MISSING MIDDLE: Neglecting Middle Donors Is Costing You Millions, by Sea Change Strategies’ Alia McKee and Mark Rovner, does double duty as a wake-up call and roadmap for creating effective mid-level donor programs. The study is based on interviews and data from 27 organizations and experts, including heavy hitters like Roger Craver and nonprofits such as The Nature Conservancy and the Human Rights Campaign. The free whitepaper includes:8 habits of highly-effective mid-level donor programsA sample framework for a 30-day action planIn-depth profiles of two highly effective mid-level programsFresh from the AFP conference in San Antonio, Alia McKee shares some more insight about The Missing Middle:How do you distinguish mid-level giving from a major donor program? Is it simply the dollar amount or are there other things going on here?Alia: It’s really about the dollar amount. Of course the definition of middle donor varies from organization to organization, but it tends to hover anywhere between $250-$9,000 cumulative in a year.In the report, you touch on possible challenges on getting executive buy-in. Can you give us some ideas on how to make the case for investing in a mid-level donor program?Alia:1. Among the groups participating in the Wired Wealthy Study, donors at the $1,000 to $10,000 levels (annual giving via all channels) represented roughly one percent of the donor population, but were giving more than a third of the dollars. That’s a HUGE amount of revenue.2. Middle donors are actually an organization’s most committed donors. They will be retained and upgraded far more than smaller donors and far more than major donors. They represent a very significant block of money, commitment and loyalty.3. A functional and philosophical gap exists between direct marketing programs and major gifts programs. Hence, middle donors often receive lackluster treatment that is driven by attribution wars and resentment across the organizational divide. But their capacity to give is huge—so minor tweaks to their treatment can yield big results in revenue. What was the biggest surprise for you in this research?Alia: Despite the fact that every fundraiser and expert we talked to universally agreed that mid-level donors are exceptionally valuable, they also agreed that most organizations haven’t made the kinds of investments necessary to make the most of this immense opportunity.Can small shops pursue a mid-level donor program?Alia: Absolutely. Small changes in stewardship of middle donors can yield results regardless of an organization’s size. Of course, capacity is an issue. But many nonprofits we spoke to approached this creatively including:Staff pizza parties to stuff personalized mailers to middle donorsVolunteer phone calls to middle donors thanking them for their supportMore substantive content to middle donors culled from other organizational communicationsCan your online efforts help your mid-level strategy?Alia: Digital outreach is not the silver bullet when it comes to middle donors. You must communicate with those donors across channels (e.g. be channel agnostic) and give them substantive communications in person, via phone, by notecard or by email. Ideally, you’d reach them through their self-selected preferred channels. Just for fun: Monie in the Middle or Malcolm in the Middle?Alia: Malcolm in the Middle, but only because of Bryan Cranston!Get in touch with your Missing Middle. Join our free webinar with Sea Change Strategies’ Alia McKee and Mark Rovner on Tuesday, May 6 at 1pm EDT. Register now for your chance to hear from these two fundraising gurus and get your mid-level donor questions answered. (Can’t attend the live session? Register anyway to get a copy of the recording sent directly to you via email.)last_img read more

Major Gifts Fundraising 101: It’s Not About Us. It’s About Them!

first_imgFundraising is the gentle art of teaching the joy of giving. —Henry RossoBack in the early 2000s, my husband and I lived in London for a few years. During one memorable job interview, a very clueless (okay, uninformed) interviewer asked me rather abruptly, “What’s the difference between you and someone on the street shaking a tin cup?” It’s okay to cringe. I did. Rather, I think I did either before or after I picked up my chin from the table in shock. It took me about a second to compose myself before I embarked on a long reply about the strategy and relationship-building skills that I would bring. Fundraising to him was perceived as unpleasant (I am reading between the lines of his question!) and begging (how else do you describe shaking a cup for money?). It was random, unpleasant, and certainly involved little to no contact between fundraiser and donor.What this interviewer didn’t understand is that as fundraisers, we aren’t just asking people for money. That’s certainly a major job responsibility, but there’s a lot more to what we do. We are relationship architects between our organizations and the donors who currently or, we hope, will eventually support us. This is true across all kinds of fundraising—annual funds, online/mobile giving, individual and institutional major gifts, events, planned gifts. Our goal is to create two-way conversations that are not transactional and circular exchanges of asking and receiving money. We know this isn’t sustainable in the long term. How do we shift our approach to our donors? Let’s start by looking what giving does for the donor—an important starting point to becoming “donor-centric.”Research has found that giving has a positive psychological effect on donors. Three different studies I’ve come across all concluded that there’s a correlation between a person’s charitable giving behaviors and their level of happiness. Arthur Brooks found patterns in his research of charitable giving that seemed to suggest that donors become wealthier after making their philanthropic gifts. All three research studies consistently showed that people who gave money charitably said they were “very happy” versus nongivers who reported lower percentages of happiness. Similar statistics are related to volunteering as well. Wow! Giving and volunteering make donors feel healthier and wealthier and give them a greater sense of empowerment and purpose.This means that fundraising—both asking and receiving—can actually be a pleasant and happy experience. So, why does fundraising sometimes seem so hard? Donors want to give their money away, right? The answer may lie in how we’re talking to them.Step 1 is “the why”: understanding the philosophy that drives your donor.Several months ago, the Chronicle of Philanthropy published an article that caught me eye called “What Donors Want to Hear Before a Fundraiser Seeks a Big Gift.” Interestingly, it wasn’t about sharing strategies and metrics of an organization’s work—getting to that “impact” and “effectiveness” we know is important. The article reported that time and again, donors felt like fundraisers didn’t stop to learn about them—their philanthropic dreams and intentions, factors that influence their giving patterns (income, family responsibilities, other charitable commitments, etc.). Equally as important, major donors didn’t feel like organizations didn’t view them as partners—as co-investors in their success. That’s key. How many times have we as organizations felt hesitant to “involve” our major prospects by “sharing too much” with donors about our dreams, challenges, and solution ideas because we don’t feel they have programmatic expertise and will only start to “meddle”? So, before we launch our pitch or make our ask, think about how well do we know what drives our donors to invest in us?Step 2 is what I call “the what”: positioning your mission, vision, and work in a way that demonstrates results and change.Donors of all kinds, whether high net worth individuals, annual fund donors, foundations, or corporations, are driven by a sense of wanting to make a difference. They are giving through an organization to solve a societal issue that is important to them. That’s why impact and effectiveness are key data points that donors are watching. Donors simply want to be sure their gift of whatever size is helping to move the needle toward solving a problem—greater access to education, an end to homelessness, a reduction in hunger, stronger community resilience, and so on. It’s like choosing a stock to buy: You want the one that’s performing the best. But in this case, social change is the “profit” that all philanthropists are measuring, and the organization that demonstrates the biggest results and potential for results are the high-performing stock.Next time, I’ll address Step 3, “the how” of crafting meaningful major gift conversations that engage and inspire your donors.last_img read more

Economic Consequences at the Household Level of Maternal Complications in Bangladesh

first_imgPosted on May 30, 2012June 21, 2017Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Colleagues at the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Bangladesh (ICDDR,B) recently published a paper, Costs of Maternal Health-related Complications in Bangladesh, in the Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition that explores the economic repercussions on households of maternal complications in a rural setting in Bangladesh.Abstract:This paper assesses both out-of-pocket payments for healthcare and losses of productivity over six months postpartum among women who gave birth in Matlab, Bangladesh. The hypothesis of the study objective is that obstetric morbidity leads women to seek care at which time out-of-pocket expenditure is incurred. Second, a woman may also take time out from employment or from doing her household chores. This loss of resources places a financial burden on the household that may lead to reduced consumption of usual but less important goods and use of other services depending on the extent to which a household copes up by using savings, taking loans, and selling assets. Women were divided into three groups based on their morbidity patterns: (a) women with a severe obstetric complication (n=92); (b) women with a less-severe obstetric complication (n=127); and (c) women with a normal delivery (n=483). Data were collected from households of these women at two time-points—at six weeks and six months after delivery. The results showed that maternal morbidity led to a considerable loss of resources up to six weeks postpartum, with the greatest financial burden of cost of healthcare among the poorest households. However, families coped up with loss of resources by taking loans and selling assets, and by the end of six months postpartum, the households had paid back more than 40% of the loans.Read the full paper here.Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read:last_img read more

New Report Shows That Midwife-attended Births Are on the Rise in the United States

first_imgIntroduction: Data on attendance at birth by midwives in the United States have been available on the national level since 1989. Rates of certified nurse-midwife (CNM)–attended births more than doubled between 1989 (3.3% of all births) and 2002 (7.7%) and have remained steady since. This article examines trends in midwife-attended births from 1989 to 2009.Methods: The data in this report are based on records gathered as part of the US National Standard Certificate of Live Birth from a public use Web site, Vital Stats (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/VitalStats.htm), that allows users to create and download specialized tables.Results: Between 2007 and 2009, the proportion of all births attended by CNMs increased by 4% from 7.3% of all births to 7.6% and a total of 313,516. This represents a decline in total births attended by CNMs from 2008 but a higher proportion of all births because total US births dropped at a faster rate. The proportion of vaginal births attended by CNMs reached an all-time high of 11.4% in 2009. There were strong regional patterns to the distribution of CNM-attended births. Births attended by “other midwives” rose to 21,787 or 0.5% of all US births, and the total proportion of all births attended by midwives reached an all-time high of 8.1%. The race/ethnicity of mothers attended by CNMs has shifted over the years. In 1990, CNMs attended a disproportionately high number of births to non-white mothers, whereas in 2009, the profile of CNM births mirrors the national distribution in race/ethnicity.Discussion: Midwife-attended births in the United States are increasing. The geographic patterns in the distribution of midwife-attended births warrant further study. Posted on July 5, 2013August 15, 2016Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)A new study, published last month in the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, shares an analysis of two decades of CDC data showing that midwife-attended deliveries are on the rise in the United States. In fact, the report shows that the rate of midwife-attended deliveries more than doubled between 1989 and 2002 and have remained steady since.A piece in Time Magazine on June 25th discussed the new study and some of the various reasons for the increasing trend of midwife-attended births in the United States:In other developed nations, midwives are routinely tasked with bringing new life into the world. Not so in the U.S., where delivery is largely presided over by obstetricians. But a new study finds that midwives are getting busier, delivering 8.1% of the country’s babies in 2009 — a record high.Slice the data differently and the proportion rises even further. Consider vaginal births only — midwives don’t do cesarean sections — and the figure rises to 12.1%, or about one of every eight deliveries, according to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).“If this trend continues, it will bring us more in line with the rest of the world in giving midwives a central role in prenatal care and birth,” says study author Eugene Declercq, professor of community-health sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health. “Given that other countries have lower costs and better outcomes, it would be a positive thing for this country.”Read the full story in Time Magazine’s Health and Family section.More about the study (from the study abstract): The full text of the study is available here but requires a subscription to the Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health.Share this:center_img ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read:last_img read more