Liam and his mother find an injured pigeon, but Liam isn’t sure what to do. Aren’t pigeons kind of pests? His mother suggests they take the bird to a nature centre, and Liam begins to realize that every animal, no matter what kind, deserves care, respect and a place in our world. Young readers will find a friend in this series featuring quiet but strong eight-year-old Liam Kingbird.

Liam is starting at a new school, and he is worried about making new friends. When a classmate asks about Liam’s cleft lip, Liam is afraid the boy is making fun of him. But in class that afternoon, Liam discovers that what makes him different also makes him special, and that is a reason to be proud. Young readers will find a friend in this series featuring quiet but strong eight-year-old Liam Kingbird.

Ben Wheatley directs this jet-black British comedy in which a romantic break turns into a bloody killing spree. Sheltered teenager Tina (Alice Lowe) accompanies her new boyfriend, 30-something misanthrope Chris (Steve Oram) on an 'erotic odyssey' - aka a caravan tour of the North of England. But unbeknownst to Tina, Chris harbours a dark secret: he is a serial killer whose explosive outbursts result in the violent deaths of any random strangers who happen to mildly inconvenience him. As the body count mounts, even the clueless Tina starts to suspect that her new boyfriend may not be quite what he seems.

What are the final limits of medicine? What should we not try to cure medically, even if we had the necessary financial resources and technology? This book philosophically addresses these questions by examining two mirror-image debates in tandem. Members of certain groups, who are deemed by traditional standards to have a medical condition, such as deafness, obesity, or anorexia, argue that they have created their own cultures and ways of life. Curing their conditions would be a form of genocide. Members of other groups are seeking to provide medical treatment to what would conventionally be deemed 'cultural conditions'. Mild neurotics who take anti-depressants to elevate their mood, runners who use steroids, or men and women seeking cosmetic surgery are asking for medical treatment for problems that might be solved culturally, by changing norms, pressures, or expectations in the broader culture. Each of these two debates endeavors to locate medicine's final frontier and to articulate what it is that we should not treat medically even if we could. This volume analyzes what these two contemporary debates have to say to each other and thus offers a new way of determining medicine's final limits.

What are the final limits of medicine? What should we not try to cure medically, even if we had the necessary financial resources and technology? This book philosophically addresses these questions by examining two mirror-image debates in tandem. Members of certain groups, who are deemed by traditional standards to have a medical condition, such as deafness, obesity, or anorexia, argue that they have created their own cultures and ways of life. Curing their conditions would be a form of genocide. Members of other groups are seeking to provide medical treatment to what would conventionally be deemed 'cultural conditions'. Mild neurotics who take anti-depressants to elevate their mood, runners who use steroids, or men and women seeking cosmetic surgery are asking for medical treatment for problems that might be solved culturally, by changing norms, pressures, or expectations in the broader culture. Each of these two debates endeavors to locate medicine's final frontier and to articulate what it is that we should not treat medically even if we could. This volume analyzes what these two contemporary debates have to say to each other and thus offers a new way of determining medicine's final limits.

Comedy horror co-written and directed by Jim Hosking. Middle-aged Brayden (Sky Elobar) lives with his grumpy father Big Ronnie (Michael St. Michaels) and together they run a small tour business in L.A. When the alluring Janet (Elizabeth De Razzo) takes a tour, it sparks a bitter competition for her affections between father and son. Things then take a sinister turn when a number of tour-goers end up murdered by a mysterious figure covered in grease and oil, leaving Brayden to suspect his junk food-loving father might have something to do with it.

In "Drawing the Line," Andrew Stark takes a fresh and provocative look at how Americans debate the border between the public realm and the private. The seemingly eternal struggle to establish the proper division of societal responsibilities --to draw the line --has been joined yet again. Obama administration initiatives, particularly bank bailouts and health care reform, roil anew the debate of just what government should do for its citizens, what exactly is the public sphere, and what should be left to individual responsibility.

Are these arguments specific to isolated policy issues, or do they reveal something bigger about politics and society? The author realizes that the shorthand, "public vs. private" dichotomy is overly simplistic. Something more subtle and complex is going on, Stark reveals, and he offers a deeper, more politically helpful way to view these conflicts.

Stark interviewed hundreds of policymakers and advocates, and here he weaves those insights into his own counterintuitive view and innovative approach to explain how citizens at the grass-roots level divide policy debates between public and private responsibilities --specifically on education, land use and "public space," welfare, and health care. In doing so, "Drawing the Line" provides striking lessons for anyone trying to build new and effective policy coalitions on Main Street.

"All of these debates... are typically portrayed as conflicts between one side championing the values of the public sphere... and the other those of the private realm.... A] closer look shows that each side asserts and relies coequally on both sets of values... but applies them in inverse or opposing ways." --From the Introduction

Ranging over a wide array of cases, Andrew Stark draws on legal, moral, and political thought--as well as the rhetoric of officeholders and the commentary of journalists--to analyze several decades of debate over conflict of interest in American public life. He offers new ways of interpreting the controversies about conflict of interest, explains their prominence in American political combat, and suggests how we might make them less venomous and intractable.

Stark shows that over the past forty years public opinion has shifted steadily toward an objective conception of conflict: instead of considering case-by-case motivations, we have adopted broadly prophylactic rules barring a variety of circumstances with no regard for whether individuals facing those circumstances would be moved in culpable ways. At the same time, we have shifted toward a subjective conception of interest: where we once focused narrowly on money, we now inquire into various commitments individuals might pursue in ways that could impair their judgment.

In exploring the consequences of these twin migrations--the passage of "conflict" from a subjective to an objective understanding; the transformation of "interest" from an objective to a subjective conception--the author aims to make our debates over public ethics less vexatious for officials, and more lucid for citizens.

This volume is a comprehensive and accessible guide to the ramifications and problems associated with conflicts of interest in the professions. It contains fifteen new essays by noted scholars of applied ethics on the topics of law, medicine, journalism, engineering, financial services, anthropology, movie-making, physical therapy, literary criticism and other fields (Practical and Professional Ethics Series). It will appeal to scholars of applied ethics, law and wil be useful as a resource for those in the professions discussed in the volume.