Sisters

Time passes.
Life happens.
Distance separates.
Children grow up.
Jobs come and go.
Love waxes and wanes.
Men don't do what they're supposed to do.
Hearts break.
Parents die.
Colleagues forget favors.
Careers end.

BUT....

Sisters are there, no matter how much time and how many miles are between you.
A girl friend is never farther away than needing her can reach.
When you have to walk that lonesome valley and you have to walk it by yourself, the women in your life will be on the valley's rim, cheering you on, praying for you, pulling for you, intervening on your behalf, and waiting with open arms at the valley's end...

Sometimes, they will even break the rules and walk beside you... Or come in and carry you out.

Girlfriends, daughters, granddaughters,
daughters-in-law, sisters, sisters-in-law, Mothers, Grandmothers, aunties, nieces, cousins, and extended family: all bless our life!

The world wouldn't be the same without women, and neither would I.

When we began this adventure called
womanhood, we had no idea of the incredible joys or sorrows that lay ahead. Nor did we know how much we
would need each other...

Every day, we need each other still. Pass this on to all the women who help make your life meaningful.
I just did.

Meaningless Goals

 

 

 

A farmer had a dog who used to sit by the roadside waiting for vehicles to come around. As soon as one came he would run down the road, barking and trying to overtake it.

One day a neighbor asked the farmer "Do you think your dog is ever going to catch a car?" The farmer replied, "That is not what bothers me. What bothers me is what he would do if he ever caught one."

 

Many people in life behave like that dog who is pursuing meaningless goal.

The Easier Way May Actually Be the Tougher Way

Once there was a lark singing in the forest. The lark stopped a farmer passing by and asked, "What do you have in the box and where are you going?" The farmer replied that he had worms and that he was going to the market to trade them for some feathers. The lark said, "I have many feathers. I will pluck one and give it to you and that will save me looking for worms." The farmer gave the worms to the lark and the lark plucked a feather and gave it in return.

The next day the same thing happened and the day after and on and on until a day came that the lark had no more feathers. Now it couldn't fly and hunt for worms. It started looking ugly and stopped singing and very soon it died.Many times we look for the easier way, which really ends up being the tougher way.

Thanks and Regards,

 

 

Pomegranate - The Elixir of Youth

Help protect the Gray Wolf

A large, tawny gray wolf (Canis lupus) that formerly occupied diverse habitats throughout northern North America and Eurasia but now lives in fewer, more limited areas because of human encroachment. Also called timber wolf.

 

Wolves are highly social animals that live in family groups called packs. At the top of the food chain, they have a very important role in the ecosystem. In the years since they were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, wolves have helped reduce an overpopulation of elk in the Park, and have kept elk from lingering undisturbed in Aspen groves and along streams. Biologists now believe this has led to the recovery of over-browsed trees and shrubs in these areas, which in turn, has helped birds, fish, beavers, moose and other wildlife find new places to call home. Gray wolves were deemed “recovered” in the N. Rockies and removed from federal protection in 2011. The restoration of this large carnivore has been one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act, and a remarkable example of wildlife restoration in America.

The gray wolf is the smallest subspecies and most edangered . In North America, the largest gray wolf is found in Alaska and western Canada and the smallest is found in Mexico. They weigh 50 to 90 pounds. The wolf is 4 ft. long and has a tail about 1ft. 3 inches long. Their coats can vary from black, gray, to white. The underparts and legs are a yellowish white.

Wolves can travel for hours and can run up to 20mph. The alpha wolves are dominant and generally the mother and father of the pack. The alpha wolves eat first, but the other members of the pack try to steal the food before their turn. The gray wolf is a predator of larger animals than itself, like deer, moose, and elk.

Gray wolves have strong family ties. They often mate for life. The female wolf has four to six cubs in April or May. The cubs are born after two months. We can only guess about the behavior of the wolf because humans destroy their habitat.

In 1973, the gray wolf was on the endangered species list in the U.S.A. The government said to kill the wolves. But, when the wolves went on the endangered species list the government had to change their plan.

Some reasons why the gray wolf is endangered is because they are misunderstood. A long time ago, people paid hunters to kill the wolves. This is called a bounty. The bounty lasted until 1967. 55,000 wolves killed each year between 1870 and 1877. Hunters shot them. They poisoned the wolves with strychnine and they also poisoned them with a poison compound 10 80 1080. The hunters trapped the wolves. The wolves were trapped and hunters infected them with mange which the wolf would bring back to destroy the pack later. The hunters would capture the wolves and put ropes around each of the wolves legs then pulled them off one at a time and watched them die a slow and painful death.

We can help the gray wolf by trying to understand them better. We can also help them by trying not to shoot them and not destroying their habitat. The wolves are part of the ecological system and what would happen if they weren't here?

No Reprieve in the Rockies

One year after feds strip protections, states go all-out against wolves

May marked a year since Congress made the unprecedented political move of stripping Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in the Northern Rockies—leaving Idaho and Montana in charge of managing wolves in their states. The result: Hundreds of wolves have been hunted, trapped and aerial-gunned in an aggressive attempt to undo one of conservation’s greatest success stories.

In just a year, Idaho cut its wolf population by about 40 percent, to 600 or fewer. Under the state’s plan, which was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho has permission to lower the number of wolves to fewer than 200.“It’s as though Idaho has been transported back to the 1890s—to a time when wolves were aggressively targeted for eradication,” says Suzanne Stone, Defenders’ Rocky Mountain representative. “These extreme wolf-killing policies have no place in modern-day wildlife management.” Idaho is now planning to more than double the number of wolves—to 12—that a single hunter can take in the upcoming 2012-2013 hunting season.

THANK YOU!

Defenders supporters sent more than 150,000 messages to Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Congress and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking them to stop Idaho’s extreme anti-wolf policies. A big shout out to all those who spoke out on the wolf’s behalf.
 

Meanwhile, Montana lost more than a third of its wolf population since May, with Reuters reporting about 260 wolves killed. State officials are now moving toward an aggressive anti-wolf policy similar to Idaho’s. At press time, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission approved a fall hunt that would eliminate quotas in nearly all hunting districts, extend the hunting season by two months into the breeding season, allow wolf trapping for the first time and permit the use of electronic calls—something that is generally not allowed for other game species.

“Caving to political pressure, Montana is basing its decision on anti-wolf rhetoric rather than science,” says Stone. “There is no justification for state officials to abandon what was once a more measured approach to wolf management. Livestock losses are at a five-year low and elk populations are above population objectives in the majority of the state.”

In Wyoming, home to about 328 wolves, federal protections have not yet been removed. But assuming they will be by fall, Wyoming officials have proposed allowing hunters to kill up to 52 wolves in a trophy game area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. More than 30 wolves are in a zone where they can be shot on sight without a hunting license. That means about 30 percent of the wolves outside of Yellowstone are likely to be killed later this year if federal delisting of wolves in Wyoming moves forward. Their fate now rests in the hands of the Obama administration.

 

“Officials in these states are pursuing some of the same short-sighted, predator-control strategies that put wolves on the endangered species list in the first place,” says Jamie Rappaport Clark, Defenders’ president. “They’re treating wolves like vermin instead of managing them like valuable native wildlife. That’s not how these states manage other species like black bears and mountain lions, and it’s not a responsible way to manage wolves either.”

The wolf-kill mentality comes mostly from anti-predator residents who care more about protecting livestock and having easy hunting opportunities than safeguarding native species. But conservationists and biologists credit wolves, along with grizzlies, for helping to restore balance to an ecosystem that had been out of whack for decades because of artificially inflated elk herds, which overgrazed native vegetation.

In fact, the loss of major predators in forest ecosystems and the resulting explosion of large herbivores cripples the growth of young trees, causing stream bank erosion and reducing biodiversity by harming fisheries and other wildlife, according to a recently published Oregon State University report reviewing 42 scientific studies done over the last 50 years.

“Wolves are part of America’s wildlife heritage and play a vital role in maintaining a healthy environment,” says Clark. “States should be managing for robust, sustainable populations, not the absolute bare minimum to keep the species from going extinct. The American people made an investment in wolf recovery that continues to pay dividends in the form of tourism dollars and healthier landscapes. Studies have shown that wolf tourism brings in millions of dollars every year to the Yellowstone region. We should be building on that investment instead of undermining it.”

See personalized photos of hundreds of Defenders’ passionate and creative wolf supporters—and add your own—at www.defenders.org/wolfweek.

Cancer Prevention Tips to Beat the Odds

With 1 in 29 women in South Africa being diagnosed with breast cancer, it's no wonder that cancer is one of the most serious diseases women face!

That's why we wanted to share some tips from CANSA - The Cancer Association of South Africa - to help increase your odds for breast cancer prevention:

·         A breast self-examination (BSE) should be done at least once a month.

·         Get an annual mammogram or do a clinical breast examination at any CANSA Care Centre.

·         Limit alcohol consumption. Your risk goes up by 7% with each drink you have per day.

·         Follow a healthy diet and exercise regularly.

If you'd like to get more info on breast cancer prevention, visit: www.cansa.org.za .You can also donate your time or cash to help further the research in fighting cancer - just like us.

 

Beat the odds!

Are fireworks necessary?

The Cost of a Mammogram

A friend mentioned today on Facebook that she went for her yearly mammogram and gynaecologist checkup, both just routine checkups for preventitive measures. The cost was R2046 (that is 233USD - 146GBP - 180EUR). That is excluding the pathologist costs of a further R160. Why can South African government not give each woman a free mammogram per year, the cost of a mammogram will be far less than the cost of cancer treatment itself.



Read article below about the cost of a mammogram in various parts of the world:-


In a recently published study in the journal Cancer, the authors concluded that people without health insurance who lived in rural areas were less likely to have routine health check-ups. According to the lead author, Dr Patricia Carney, “People in rural areas tend to go to the doctor only when they are ill, so they don’t get a chance to talk about cancer screening.”

Previous research that focused on people in cities showed that the rates of cancer screening were lower among the uninsured. In this recent study, 78% of rural women who lacked health insurance had not had a mammogram in the previous three years. As Dr Carney said, “If you have insurance of any kind, you are more likely to go for a health visit, and if you have a health visit, you’re more likely to be up-to-date for cancer screening.”




There are, of course, a variety of reasons why screening rates might be low. These include the distance to the nearest clinic, a lack of interest in personal healthcare and, for the uninsured or partially insured, the cost. This got us thinking: What does a mammogram cost in different parts of the world? In the brief analysis that follows, we have used exchange rates of $1.00 = £0.64 = R8.22, without taking into account purchasing power parity.

In the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service (NHS) has offered a government-sponsored breast screening service for over 20 years, almost 2 million women each year have a mammogram at a cost of $70 to the NHS. For those women with private health insurance, they can expect to pay up to $350 for a mammogram of both breasts and a further $550 if ultrasound images are also gathered. In the USA, there is an innovative service where women can search for breast imaging clinics based on where they live. In Lake Grove, New York, for example, the least expensive price for a mammogram is $210 while the most expensive is $1650.

In South Africa, at a university teaching hospital like Groote Schuur, patients are means tested. A woman earning less than $4,400 per annum would pay just $4.25 for her mammogram, while a woman whose annual salary exceeds $9,000 would pay $40. At a private Cape Town hospital, a woman would pay $120 for a breast examination that includes both mammography and ultrasound. The question we need to ask, however, is this: What is the cost of not having a mammogram?



Posted - Friday, June 29th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
http://www.caperay.com/blog/index.php/2012/the-cost-of-a-mammogram/

What Binti Jua Knew

By Barbara J. King

Friday, August 15, 2008

A toddler falls over a railing, 24 feet down, into the gorilla enclosure of the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago. There he lies, unconscious, among seven apes, some with poundage and power exceeding that of an adult man. As one of them approaches the boy, onlookers tense.

But Binti Jua, an 8-year-old female gorilla, picks up the boy, and, carrying him along with her own infant, gently hands him over to zoo staff.

This stunning event in 1996 earned Binti Jua global headlines (and can be seen, if in grainy video, on YouTube). It was an incident that no one who witnessed it -- in person or online -- could forget. But there was nothing about Binti Jua, or any of the chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans that exhibit reasoning and empathy, in Russell Paul La Valle's July 27 op-ed, " Why They're Human Rights."

La Valle argued that the Spanish Parliament should not award human rights to apes, as it is considering. He opened with a throwaway line about monkeys in the circus -- and made his first mistake. First of all, monkeys' bodies are smaller than those of apes, their thinking is less complex and they are more distantly related to humans. But a far more serious error was La Valle's assertion that apes are "irrational, amoral."

In an echo of 17th-century philosopher Rene Descartes' dualism, La Valle invoked a strict dividing line between humans, who reason, and animals that rely on "instinctual, inherited knowledge of how to survive." It's clear that La Valle hasn't spent much time with apes lately -- or looking into any of the major findings by primate scientists over the past two or three decades. In expressing reasoning and empathy, Binti Jua was not unique; nor was her behavior an artifact of zoo life. Wild chimpanzees plan ahead and carry tools to work sites, where they crack open hard-shelled nuts with wood and stone hammers. They choose sides thoughtfully in ongoing competitions for status and reward friends' loyalties while exacting revenge on their enemies. When close companions suffer wounds or injuries, wild chimpanzees groom and care for them.

(This compassion by chimpanzees, it must be said, is at times matched by their outright cruelty to each other. What species does that remind you of?)

Captive orangutans modify their own gestures according to how much a human companion seems to comprehend their requests. Bonobos use a symbol-laden computer keyboard to discuss with their caretakers plans for the day, as well as to make promises about being "good."

The apes that I have described, and many more that my fellow primatologists write about, are neither irrational nor amoral. The zoologist and ethologist Frans de Waal has argued that the origins of morality can be found in our primate cousins, and my own anthropological work suggests that the evolutionary roots of today's human religiosity can be found in the ape world.

It's important to correct La Valle's misunderstanding of apes, but not because I'm a fervent supporter of legalizing rights for animals. The question is complex and arguable: whether to award rights to apes or to assume responsibility for apes' welfare. But while writers such as La Valle bandy words about and academics such as I discuss the philosophical aspects of rights, the great apes are dying.

The combined forces of poaching, diseases such as ebola fever, habitat destruction and the trade in bushmeat are killing off the apes at unprecedented rates. If we write them off as irrational and amoral animals, we will fail to grasp the depth of their suffering at the hands of our own species -- a suffering that is cognitive and emotional as well as physical.

Barbara J. King is a professor of anthropology at the College of William and Mary and is the author of "Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion."

 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation

The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation is a charitable organization headquartered in Short Hills, New Jersey and dedicated to finding treatments and cures for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury and other neurological disorders. It also works to improve the quality of life for people living with disabilities.

In 2002, Christopher Reeve said, “Nothing of any consequence happens unless people get behind an idea. It begins with an individual and they share the idea with more individuals…and eventually it becomes a movement.”

The Reeve Foundation was started in 1982 as a community response to a crisis that has grown into a national movement. The early pioneers who started this Foundation (originally named American Paralysis Foundation) began this work at a time when spinal cord research was considered the graveyard of neurobiology. Christopher Reeve’s injury in 1995, he became quadriplegic as a results of a horse riding accident, changed the field forever and made this one of the most promising fields in research. Dana Reeve was universally known as the model for care giving, and her legacy includes the creation of the Quality of Life program, which not only includes a grants program that has awarded over $10 million to organizations that help people living with paralysis in the here and now; but also includes our Paralysis Resource Center that has reached tens of thousands of those living with paralysis and their families with useful, often life-saving and life-changing information.

Reeve sought out the help of the APF and lent them his name and funding and eventually turned it into the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation and then the Christopher Reeve Foundation.
As of early 2006, the Foundation has awarded more than $64 million (USD) in research grants and more than $8 million in quality-of-life grants.

After Reeve's death in October 2004, his widow, Dana Reeve, assumed the role of Chair of the Foundation. Dana Reeve herself died 17 months later, in March 2006, of lung cancer after which Peter D. Kiernan, III became Chair.

On March 11, 2007, the Foundation announced that it changed its name to Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation on the first anniversary of Dana Reeve's death. The change, according to a news release by the Foundation, was to reflect the "partnership, courage and compassion of the Reeves."Peter T. Wilderotter, formerly the Vice President of Development was named the President in March 2007.^[1] In the spring of 2010 The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, partnered with the Life Rolls On foundation.