forked from NVIDIA/NeMo
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
valid.real
100 lines (100 loc) · 9.55 KB
/
valid.real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
A Republican strategy to counter the re-election of Obama
Republican leaders justified their policy by the need to combat electoral fraud.
However, the Brennan Centre considers this a myth, stating that electoral fraud is rarer in the United States than the number of people killed by lightning.
Indeed, Republican lawyers identified only 300 cases of electoral fraud in the United States in a decade.
One thing is certain: these new provisions will have a negative impact on voter turn-out.
In this sense, the measures will partially undermine the American democratic system.
Unlike in Canada, the American States are responsible for the organisation of federal elections in the United States.
It is in this spirit that a majority of American governments have passed new laws since 2009 making the registration or voting process more difficult.
This phenomenon gained momentum following the November 2010 elections, which saw 675 new Republican representatives added in 26 States.
As a result, 180 bills restricting the exercise of the right to vote in 41 States were introduced in 2011 alone.
The new election laws require voters to show a photo ID card and proof of US citizenship.
Furthermore, these laws also reduce early voting periods, invalidate the right to register as a voter on election day and withdraw the right to vote of citizens with a criminal record.
Before the 2006 elections, no US State required voters to show a photo ID card.
Indiana was the first State to impose such a requirement.
In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Indiana law.
The Republican authorities were quick to extend this practice to other States.
Over the past two years, they sponsored bills in 34 States to force voters to show a photo ID card.
It is important to note that, unlike Quebec, American citizens do not have a universal ID card such as the health insurance card.
In fact, 11% of American citizens, i.e. 21 million people of voting age, do not possess a photo ID card issued by a government agency of their State.
In addition, five million new voters in 2012 do not have such identification.
And it often costs over a hundred dollars to obtain the required identity card.
The new restrictions disproportionately affect young people, minorities and people with low incomes.
In fact, 25% of African Americans, 15% of those earning less than $35,000; 18% of citizens over 65 and 20% of voters 18 to 29 years old do not have the required photo ID card.
And that's not all.
Students, voters considered to be voting more for Democratic candidates, are not allowed in several States to use the photo ID card issued by their institution.
On the other hand, these same States allow fishing or hunting club members, who vote more Republican, to use the cards issued by these clubs when they vote.
Prior to 2004, no State required proof of citizenship to vote.
Arizona was the first to introduce such a requirement.
Since 2011, a dozen States have adopted laws requiring voters to prove they are American citizens.
These measures are clearly intended to limit the Hispanic vote.
However, it appears that two out of three Hispanic voters favour the Democratic party.
What is more, in 2011 Republican legislators sponsored laws abolishing the registration of voters on election day in eight States.
In addition, they limited the right of individuals and groups to provide assistance to voters wishing to register.
These restrictions are not without consequence.
For example, during the 2004 general election, voter registration campaigns contributed to registering around 10 million citizens.
However, the measures adopted since 2009 have led to a 17% drop in the registration rate of new voters in 2010 compared to 2006.
In addition, Republican legislators have enacted laws in five other States aimed at reducing the early voting period.
For example, during the 2008 general election in Florida, 33% of early voters were African-Americans, who accounted however for only 13% of voters in the State.
The same applied to Hispanics.
These represented only 11% of voters, but 24% of citizens who voted early.
On the other hand, 76% of voters were white but these represented only 46% of early voters.
Of course, Democratic legislators and their supporters vigorously opposed the adoption of laws restricting voter registration.
Several bills were blocked by vetoes of Democratic governors.
The United States Attorney General intervened to suspend the most controversial laws.
They were able to partially limit the damage.
For example, only 16 out of 34 States have adopted laws requiring the presentation of a photo ID card.
However, the new rules put in place will undoubtedly make it more difficult to exercise the right to vote in 2012.
Democratic critics denounce the partisan character of the laws that have been passed and they see a clear objective of influencing the 2012 results in key States.
A 2011 Brennan Centre report shows that the States that have adopted these laws represent 171 of the 270 votes needed in the electoral college to win the Presidency.
It is too early to say with certainty that these legislative changes in the electoral system will have significant impacts on the outcome of the 2012 presidential elections.
But one thing is certain: these new provisions will have a negative impact on the turn-out.
In this sense, the measures will partially undermine the American democratic system.
Prostate cancer screening: take the test or not?
Indeed, the PSA test sometimes shows erroneous results with false negative or even false positive results, which involve unnecessary medical interventions.
Enough to make already reluctant men hesitate to take screening tests.
Take the test or not?
We asked two specialists for their opinion.
In studies conducted in the United States, there was a lot of contamination between control groups, so it is difficult to interpret the data and make firm recommendations.
Another study, this time a European one, concluded that there was a difference in mortality between patients who were screened and those who were not.
This study also showed, with a follow-up after 12 years, that it is between 30 and 40% more likely for metastases to occur in the absence of screening.
I therefore recommend the test from age 50, or 40 if you have a direct relative who previously had prostate cancer.
African-American men are also more at risk.
The key is to make the right decision once cancer has been detected.
There are aggressive cancers and others that are indolent.
The patient really needs to be made to understand the degree of risk of his cancer, by offering him the options available, not necessarily treating prostate cancers that are not long-term life threatening, and opting instead, in such cases, for active monitoring of the disease.
Today, many men in whom cancer has been detected will not be treated because their cancer is not aggressive and is not life threatening.
Active monitoring will be suggested, and if the disease progresses, they will be offered treatment.
More and more, specific criteria are being determined in order to decide who should or should not be treated.
Therefore I recommend taking the test.
But the important thing is to have a discussion with your doctor to determine whether or not to take it.
In collaboration with the Société internationale d'urologie [SIU], Movember has created a tool that makes it possible to evaluate the pros and cons of the PSA test.
You can download the document (in English for the time being, a [French] translation will be available shortly) at this address: http://ca.movember.com/fr/mens-health/prostate-cancer-screening
Preventing the disease
Unfortunately, there is no miracle recipe for preventing cancer.
Despite the progress in research, the adoption of healthy living habits remains the best way to reduce the risk of suffering from it.
It is estimated that if everyone ate well and exercised enough, 30% of cancers could be prevented.
"If no more people smoked, this rate would increase to at least 50%," says André Beaulieu, spokesman for the Canadian Cancer Society.
On the other hand, it is estimated that roughly 10% of cancers are hereditary.
Some are also completely unexplained.
For the Canadian Cancer Society, the fight against tobacco remains a priority, despite the decrease in the number of smokers.
Cigarettes are linked to 85% of lung cancer cases.
It is also a risk factor for a number of others.
This massively damages people's health.
"Even today, there are 1.5 million smokers in Quebec" deplores spokesperson André Beaulieu.
Encouraging data: 10 years after giving up smoking, the risk of dying from cancer drops by half.
Weight
Overweight and obesity are also conducive to the onset of the disease, according to the SCC.
They can increase the risks of cancer of the breast, colon and rectum, oesophagus, pancreas and uterus.
"Research shows that the regular practice of physical activity throughout your life protects against colon cancer" it is also said.
Diet
The organisation also recommends limiting your consumption of red meat.
In large amounts, it increases the risks of developing colo-rectal cancer.
Likewise, so do cured meat products, and these should be avoided.
The conservation of meat by smoking, drying or curing can cause the formation of carcinogens.
"They can damage cells in the body and lead to the development of cancer" it is explained.
Vitamins
In recent years, a number of scientists have studied the links between vitamin supplements and cancer.
For the time being however their research is inconclusive.
Studies on vitamin E are contradictory, according to the SCC.
While one study noted a decrease in the risk of prostate cancer, another noted an increase.