Power company tells customer she is dead
VIENNA
Thu Jul 15, 2010
VIENNA (Reuters) - An Austrian woman has had to convince her electricity supplier that she is alive after the company wrote to her asking for information about her contract following her "passing away."
In a personally addressed letter, the Linz-based company said it had heard of her death through her bank, daily Oesterreich reported on Thursday.
"I am not the dead one," 58-year-old Christine R. wrote back in a fax and email to the company, explaining that it was her neighbor who had died and she was the custodian. She eventually went to the customer center in person to prove her existence.
"It was an unfortunate mistake," a spokeswoman for the company said. "There was a muddle in the paperwork and the letters we automatically send out. It has been resolved now."
odd
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Nazi Prison Guard Arrested - Sentence will be ........
It would seem to me, from this brief description of Kunz's involvement, that he was an unwilling accomplice. Born near or on the Volga river in Russia, he joined the Russian army. He was captured by the Germans and given the choice of joining them or remaining in a prisoner of war camp. A side note to Russian Prisoner of War Camps: Not as bad but nearly as bad as a death camp for gypsies or other undesirables. His living conditions would be extremely harsh. The 3-6 month life expectancy for Russian prisoners (and others) probably helped to influence Kunz in making his decision.
It is necessary to understand the circumstances and conditions which surrounded events such as Kunz and others. We need to recognize how he found himself in that situation, acknowledge his ability to survive - not only in the German camp but after the war, he avoided the Russians, who would most certainly have killed him had they discovered his conversion.
And then, once we acknowledge how he was forced into this untenable situation - Mr. Kunz should be executed. The crimes for which he is responsible are too great to go unpunished. I recognize the situation he was in and that each of us wants to live, but he did not give that chance to the scores he helped to murder and the tens of thousands he watched die. Some crimes are too great, no matter what conditions may have existed to precipitate their involvement in the heinous acts which followed ...
You are caught up in a whirlwind of events in which you are pulled into a gang. You do not know anyone but the lowest guy on the totem pole, who knows only one other person. Two of the senior members kidnap three girls, bring them to the gang clubhouse where they are held for several days during which time they are raped by everyone several times, sodomized, and otherwise sexually degraded. After the rapes the two senior members who started the whole process, murder the three girls, and you are given the task of disposing of the body. Eventually the bodies are discovered and CSI is on the job, soon after that the police begin arresting members of the gang, and eventually you. In Court you are charged with rape, kidnapping, sodomy, and murder. Heinous crimes most certainly, but what should the outcome be? Life in prison without the possibility of parole and castration. For the two senior members - death.
I give the example to place the outcome of Mr. Kunz into some perspective. Heinous acts were committed by the gang, but the magnitude matters. Mr. Kunz had a choice - he could have, should have, reflected on the events unfolding before him - day 1 he would have witnessed enough evil to understand he was in the midst of the mother of all evil - the Nazi death machine. He could have run away, he would have been killed. He should have simply killed himself, or if he did not have the courage to do that, to say no to what was expected of him and face the consequences. Because he did not have that courage and participated in a great evil, he needs to be punished.
Assume that the gang member pulled into the gang escapes justice, he flees to Iowa where he lives the next 55 years of his life as a model citizen. When he is about 71, he is discovered when his fingerprint is checked nationally against a cold case in the city where the crime occurred and somehow it all comes together. He is arrested and charged with rape and sodomy and murder. What should the penalty be? Prison for 20 years. He could, in theory, get out of prison when he is 91, and given the fact he was 16 when the crimes were committed - it would be reasonable. I would make a few allowances for family to visit and spend time with him, but he would still be punished for the crime.
There is a difference in the quality of the actions - Kunz versus the hypothetical gang member. That difference should distinguish their punishment and is the reason why Kunz should still face the death penalty.
We do not wish to change you, we do not wish to make you a useful member of society, we need to expunge you from society, for the good of society. Versus the gang member who, while an accomplice to murder and deserving of prison, does not rise to the same level and therefore, even decades later, does not deserve the same fate he would have faced 70 years earlier
'Nazi's 430,000 deaths'
By VINCE SOODIN
July 28, 2010
The Sun.co.uk
A SUSPECTED Nazi death camp guard has been charged over the murders of 430,000 Jews.
Samuel Kunz, 88, allegedly served Hitler's Third Reich in the Belzec camp in occupied Poland during World War Two.
He is number three on a most wanted list of ex Nazis.
Kunz was charged after prosecutors said he served as a guard from January 1942 to July 1943 where it is claimed he helped exterminate Jews.
He is also accused of the shooting a total of ten Jews in two other incidents.
Top Nazi hunter Efraim Zuroff said Kunz participated in the so-called Operation Reinhard to eliminate Polish Jews.
Mr Zuroff, from the Simon Wiesenthal Center which fights anti-Semitism, said: "The indictment of Samuel Kunz is a very positive development.
"It reflects recent changes in the German prosecution policy, which have significantly enlarged the number of suspects who will be brought to justice."
Connection
German officials are now considering whether and when to hold a trial.
Kunz was found living near the western German city of Bonn after his name came up in investigations connected to the trial of another suspected Nazi John Demjanjuk.
Demjanjuk, 90, is currently on trial in Munich on charges of being an accessory to the murder of 28,060 Jews as a guard at Poland's Sobibor death camp.
He denies he was ever a camp guard.
Prosecutors allege both Kunz and Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk, a retired Ohio car worker who was deported to Germany from the US last year, trained as guards at the Trawniki SS camp.
Kunz, whose family is German, was born in August 1921 on Russia's Volga River and joined the Red Army, claims Klaus Hillenbrand, a German expert who has written several books on the Nazi period.
But during World War Two he was captured by the Germans and given the choice of either staying at a prisoner of war camp or cooperating with the Nazis, said Hillenbrand.
Adolf Storms, a 90-year-old former SS sergeant who was number four on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's list of most-wanted Nazi war crimes suspects, died earlier this month before he could be brought to trial.
germans
It is necessary to understand the circumstances and conditions which surrounded events such as Kunz and others. We need to recognize how he found himself in that situation, acknowledge his ability to survive - not only in the German camp but after the war, he avoided the Russians, who would most certainly have killed him had they discovered his conversion.
And then, once we acknowledge how he was forced into this untenable situation - Mr. Kunz should be executed. The crimes for which he is responsible are too great to go unpunished. I recognize the situation he was in and that each of us wants to live, but he did not give that chance to the scores he helped to murder and the tens of thousands he watched die. Some crimes are too great, no matter what conditions may have existed to precipitate their involvement in the heinous acts which followed ...
You are caught up in a whirlwind of events in which you are pulled into a gang. You do not know anyone but the lowest guy on the totem pole, who knows only one other person. Two of the senior members kidnap three girls, bring them to the gang clubhouse where they are held for several days during which time they are raped by everyone several times, sodomized, and otherwise sexually degraded. After the rapes the two senior members who started the whole process, murder the three girls, and you are given the task of disposing of the body. Eventually the bodies are discovered and CSI is on the job, soon after that the police begin arresting members of the gang, and eventually you. In Court you are charged with rape, kidnapping, sodomy, and murder. Heinous crimes most certainly, but what should the outcome be? Life in prison without the possibility of parole and castration. For the two senior members - death.
I give the example to place the outcome of Mr. Kunz into some perspective. Heinous acts were committed by the gang, but the magnitude matters. Mr. Kunz had a choice - he could have, should have, reflected on the events unfolding before him - day 1 he would have witnessed enough evil to understand he was in the midst of the mother of all evil - the Nazi death machine. He could have run away, he would have been killed. He should have simply killed himself, or if he did not have the courage to do that, to say no to what was expected of him and face the consequences. Because he did not have that courage and participated in a great evil, he needs to be punished.
Assume that the gang member pulled into the gang escapes justice, he flees to Iowa where he lives the next 55 years of his life as a model citizen. When he is about 71, he is discovered when his fingerprint is checked nationally against a cold case in the city where the crime occurred and somehow it all comes together. He is arrested and charged with rape and sodomy and murder. What should the penalty be? Prison for 20 years. He could, in theory, get out of prison when he is 91, and given the fact he was 16 when the crimes were committed - it would be reasonable. I would make a few allowances for family to visit and spend time with him, but he would still be punished for the crime.
There is a difference in the quality of the actions - Kunz versus the hypothetical gang member. That difference should distinguish their punishment and is the reason why Kunz should still face the death penalty.
We do not wish to change you, we do not wish to make you a useful member of society, we need to expunge you from society, for the good of society. Versus the gang member who, while an accomplice to murder and deserving of prison, does not rise to the same level and therefore, even decades later, does not deserve the same fate he would have faced 70 years earlier
'Nazi's 430,000 deaths'
By VINCE SOODIN
July 28, 2010
The Sun.co.uk
A SUSPECTED Nazi death camp guard has been charged over the murders of 430,000 Jews.
Samuel Kunz, 88, allegedly served Hitler's Third Reich in the Belzec camp in occupied Poland during World War Two.
He is number three on a most wanted list of ex Nazis.
Kunz was charged after prosecutors said he served as a guard from January 1942 to July 1943 where it is claimed he helped exterminate Jews.
He is also accused of the shooting a total of ten Jews in two other incidents.
Top Nazi hunter Efraim Zuroff said Kunz participated in the so-called Operation Reinhard to eliminate Polish Jews.
Mr Zuroff, from the Simon Wiesenthal Center which fights anti-Semitism, said: "The indictment of Samuel Kunz is a very positive development.
"It reflects recent changes in the German prosecution policy, which have significantly enlarged the number of suspects who will be brought to justice."
Connection
German officials are now considering whether and when to hold a trial.
Kunz was found living near the western German city of Bonn after his name came up in investigations connected to the trial of another suspected Nazi John Demjanjuk.
Demjanjuk, 90, is currently on trial in Munich on charges of being an accessory to the murder of 28,060 Jews as a guard at Poland's Sobibor death camp.
He denies he was ever a camp guard.
Prosecutors allege both Kunz and Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk, a retired Ohio car worker who was deported to Germany from the US last year, trained as guards at the Trawniki SS camp.
Kunz, whose family is German, was born in August 1921 on Russia's Volga River and joined the Red Army, claims Klaus Hillenbrand, a German expert who has written several books on the Nazi period.
But during World War Two he was captured by the Germans and given the choice of either staying at a prisoner of war camp or cooperating with the Nazis, said Hillenbrand.
Adolf Storms, a 90-year-old former SS sergeant who was number four on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's list of most-wanted Nazi war crimes suspects, died earlier this month before he could be brought to trial.
germans
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Gel Your Teeth Back to Normal: No More Cavities
Anything to end the plague of having teeth drilled and filled. Dentists will soon be liked, not feared or hated.
Gel that can help decayed teeth grow back could end fillings
By Pat Hagan
Daily Mail
27th July 2010
A gel that can help decayed teeth grow back in just weeks may mean an end to fillings.
The gel, which is being developed by scientists in France, works by prompting cells in teeth to start multiplying. They then form healthy new tooth tissue that gradually replaces what has been lost to decay.
Researchers say in lab studies it took just four weeks to restore teeth back to their original healthy state. The gel contains melanocyte-stimulating hormone, or MSH.
We produce this in the pituitary gland, a pea-sized gland just behind the bridge of the nose.
MSH is already known to play an important part in determining skin colour - the more you have, the darker your flesh tone.
But recent studies suggest MSH may also play a crucial role in stimulating bone regeneration.
As bone and teeth are very similar in their structure, a team of scientists at the National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris tested if the hormone could stimulate tooth growth.
Their findings, published in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Nano, could signal hurtnot just an end to fillings, but the dreaded dentist drill as well. Tooth decay is a major public health problem in Britain. Around £45m a year is spent treating decayed teeth and by the age of 15, teenagers have had an average of 2.5 teeth filled or removed.
Decay is caused by bacteria, called streptococcus mutans, that live in the mouth and feed on sugar in the diet. Once the bacteria stick to the enamel, they trigger a process called demineralisation - they turn sugar in the diet into a harmful acid that starts to create holes in the teeth.
For decades, the main treatment for cavities has been to 'drill and fill'. However, an estimated one in five Britons suffers from dental phobia, a fear of dentists which means some would rather endure pain and suffering than face the prospect of having their teeth drilled.
The new treatment is painless. And although fillings halt decay, they can come loose and sometimes need refilling.
Experts believe new tooth cells would be stronger and a permanent solution.
The French team mixed MSH with a chemical called poly-L-glutamic acid. This is a substance often used to transport drugs inside the body because it can survive the harsh environments, such as the stomach, that might destroy medicines before they get a chance to work.
The mixture was then turned into a gel and rubbed on to cells, called dental pulp fibroblasts, taken from extracted human teeth. These cells are the kind that help new tooth tissue to grow.
But until now there has been no way of 'switching' them back on once they have been destroyed by dental decay. The researchers found the gel triggered the growth of new cells and also helped with adhesion - the process by which new dental cells 'lock' together.
This is important because it produces strong tooth pulp and enamel which could make the decayed tooth as good as new.
In a separate experiment, the French scientists applied the gel to the teeth of mice with dental cavities. In just one month, the cavities had disappeared. The gel is still undergoing testing but could be available for use within three to five years.
Professor Damien Walmsley, the British Dental Association's scientific adviser, said the gel could be an interesting new development, but stressed it is unlikely to be able to repair teeth that have been extensively damaged by decay.
'There are a lot of exciting developments in this field, of which this is one,' he said. 'It looks promising, but we will have to wait for the results to come back from clinical trials and its use will be restricted to treating small areas of dental decay.'
Scientists have developed a 'tongue' gel as part of a new approach to tackling bad breath and preventing tooth decay.
Halitosis is usually caused by bacteria in the mouth. The latest treatment, developed by Meridol, takes a mechanical and chemical approach. It consists of a tongue scraper, gel and mouth wash.
The extra-flat tongue cleaner is used to scrape bacteria off the tongue. The tongue gel and mouthwash are anti-bacterial and contain chemicals that attach themselves to odour-producing compounds, which are then flushed out with the mouthwash. Both gel and mouthwash contain fluoride.
teeth
Gel that can help decayed teeth grow back could end fillings
By Pat Hagan
Daily Mail
27th July 2010
A gel that can help decayed teeth grow back in just weeks may mean an end to fillings.
The gel, which is being developed by scientists in France, works by prompting cells in teeth to start multiplying. They then form healthy new tooth tissue that gradually replaces what has been lost to decay.
Researchers say in lab studies it took just four weeks to restore teeth back to their original healthy state. The gel contains melanocyte-stimulating hormone, or MSH.
We produce this in the pituitary gland, a pea-sized gland just behind the bridge of the nose.
MSH is already known to play an important part in determining skin colour - the more you have, the darker your flesh tone.
But recent studies suggest MSH may also play a crucial role in stimulating bone regeneration.
As bone and teeth are very similar in their structure, a team of scientists at the National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris tested if the hormone could stimulate tooth growth.
Their findings, published in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Nano, could signal hurtnot just an end to fillings, but the dreaded dentist drill as well. Tooth decay is a major public health problem in Britain. Around £45m a year is spent treating decayed teeth and by the age of 15, teenagers have had an average of 2.5 teeth filled or removed.
Decay is caused by bacteria, called streptococcus mutans, that live in the mouth and feed on sugar in the diet. Once the bacteria stick to the enamel, they trigger a process called demineralisation - they turn sugar in the diet into a harmful acid that starts to create holes in the teeth.
For decades, the main treatment for cavities has been to 'drill and fill'. However, an estimated one in five Britons suffers from dental phobia, a fear of dentists which means some would rather endure pain and suffering than face the prospect of having their teeth drilled.
The new treatment is painless. And although fillings halt decay, they can come loose and sometimes need refilling.
Experts believe new tooth cells would be stronger and a permanent solution.
The French team mixed MSH with a chemical called poly-L-glutamic acid. This is a substance often used to transport drugs inside the body because it can survive the harsh environments, such as the stomach, that might destroy medicines before they get a chance to work.
The mixture was then turned into a gel and rubbed on to cells, called dental pulp fibroblasts, taken from extracted human teeth. These cells are the kind that help new tooth tissue to grow.
But until now there has been no way of 'switching' them back on once they have been destroyed by dental decay. The researchers found the gel triggered the growth of new cells and also helped with adhesion - the process by which new dental cells 'lock' together.
This is important because it produces strong tooth pulp and enamel which could make the decayed tooth as good as new.
In a separate experiment, the French scientists applied the gel to the teeth of mice with dental cavities. In just one month, the cavities had disappeared. The gel is still undergoing testing but could be available for use within three to five years.
Professor Damien Walmsley, the British Dental Association's scientific adviser, said the gel could be an interesting new development, but stressed it is unlikely to be able to repair teeth that have been extensively damaged by decay.
'There are a lot of exciting developments in this field, of which this is one,' he said. 'It looks promising, but we will have to wait for the results to come back from clinical trials and its use will be restricted to treating small areas of dental decay.'
Scientists have developed a 'tongue' gel as part of a new approach to tackling bad breath and preventing tooth decay.
Halitosis is usually caused by bacteria in the mouth. The latest treatment, developed by Meridol, takes a mechanical and chemical approach. It consists of a tongue scraper, gel and mouth wash.
The extra-flat tongue cleaner is used to scrape bacteria off the tongue. The tongue gel and mouthwash are anti-bacterial and contain chemicals that attach themselves to odour-producing compounds, which are then flushed out with the mouthwash. Both gel and mouthwash contain fluoride.
teeth
Monday, July 26, 2010
Euros and Health Care: Equality is the Goal
JULY/AUGUST 2010
Mind the Gap
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
Bloomsbury Press, $28 (Hardcover)
Claude S. Fischer
The strong version of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s argument in The Spirit Level implies that President Obama’s fight to reform health care was pointless. Extending the availability of health insurance cannot substantially improve Americans’ health. Instead, the president would make us all happier, healthier, and longer-lived, their logic suggests, if he could get the richest, say, 5 percent of Americans to leave the country.
Wilkinson and Pickett, eminent health scholars from the United Kingdom, present considerable evidence correlating unequal incomes in nations or American states with negative outcomes in physical health, mental balance, levels of violence, social integration, teen births, school performance, and just about everything else. Inequality, they explain, makes people focus on status and their relative positions on the prestige ladder. [No, it does not, what instigates or is the catalyst for this obsession on status is ... THE MEDIA and liberals telling us how poor we are and how rich THEY are, which creates the obsession to be equal or the same as THEM]. Such obsessions, in turn, create anxiety, distrust, and social isolation, which raise people’s level of physiological stress. Finally, stress, as we all now know, exacts high costs. It weakens the immune system, for example, and drives people to poor coping behavior such as overeating and lashing out at others. Through these steps, The Spirit Level argues, economic inequality becomes bad for everyone’s health.
But does this psychological explanation really account for the harms of inequality? And just how sure are we that the social ills Wilkinson and Pickett canvass are even caused by inequality? Whether we accept their psychological framework determines to some extent how we will respond to problems of inequality, and in hewing to it, the authors generate some pretty tepid solutions.
Measuring inequality
The Spirit Level does not argue simply that being poor is bad for people. Indeed, in developed societies, the authors insist, an individual’s wealth is not critical. It is of course healthier to be rich than poor, but what matters most for Westerners are the gaps between the rich and the middling and the poor in their societies. Wilkinson and Pickett reject economic growth as a public-health policy, in part because such growth might benefit the affluent as much or more than those of lesser income. Income differences would not necessarily shrink, and it is these gaps that we must mind.
For proof, the authors present dozens of similar, paired graphs. Across the bottom of each graph is a scale running left to right from low to high income inequality. On the vertical axis is a measure of the prevalence or intensity of a social problem, such as obesity or depression. The authors plot the locations of several Western countries and Japan, and the dots typically line up such that the more inequality, the worse the problem. In the international comparisons, Japan almost always falls in the bottom left corner of the space—low inequality, few problems—while the top right of the space—high inequality, many problems—mostly is reserved for the United States. In the U.S.-focused versions of these graphs, states take the place of nations. The states do not line up quite as neatly, but the pictures convey the same message: more inequality, more bad stuff.
Lest these graphs seem intimidating, understand that one of this book’s virtues is how straightforward and reader-friendly its prose and figures are. (There are even cartoons.) Wilkinson and Pickett also crisply and lucidly summarize research drawn from nearly 400 scholarly references. The authors anticipate criticisms, take pains to explain complex issues, and respect the reader. And as someone who many years ago coauthored a book on the hazards of inequality, I am sympathetic to their project. But are their numbers right? Is there an association between inequality and bad outcomes—do the graphs tell the whole truth? And, if there is a correlation, is inequality really the major cause of all those problems?
One concern is how we measure inequality. Researchers often use a measure of the distribution of income—usually, the “Gini coefficient”—or compare the income of the richest 10 or 20 percent of the population to that of the poorest 10 or 20 percent.
But different metrics produce different results. Good and comprehensive measures of inequalities in accumulated wealth rather than annual income show much greater inequality: in 1999 an American family at the 80th percentile of income made about two times what a family at the 50th percentile did, but the family at the 80th percentile in wealth owned about six times the assets of the 50th-percentile family. On the other hand, good and comprehensive measures of consumption indicate less inequality: a family at the 80th percentile of spending paid only 1.5 times as much for food and clothing as did a family at the 50th percentile. American families almost all the way down to the very poorest own cars, televisions, and the like, and some commentators point to such consumption numbers to dismiss the concern about income inequality.
Using a metric other than money also changes the picture. For instance, while inequality in how much people earn has widened considerably in the United States for about four decades, inequality in how long people live has narrowed somewhat.
A second question about the empirical basis for the connection between inequality and well-being is whether the authors have fairly examined all the bad outcomes. A major omission in their graphs is the suicide rate, which is considerably lower in more unequal countries. The authors try unpersuasively to explain this away, contending that in unequal societies people project their status anxiety outward, blame others rather than themselves, and thus end up killing others rather than themselves. Another outcome Wilkinson and Pickett ignore is the rate of births to unwed mothers, which also trends downward as inequality rises, especially if one brackets anomalous Japan. (By the way, anyone can easily play this game of chart-your-bad-outcomes by ransacking the Web sites of the U.N. Human Development Report, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the U.S. Census Bureau, and then copying the tables into spreadsheets.) The authors may have overreached by implying that virtually every social ill can be blamed on inequality.
Researchers have put much of the data Wilkinson and Pickett use onto statistical torture racks to extract confessions, but often elicit only garbled croaks.
Finally, there is the problem of what the aggregate numbers mean for any given person. Wilkinson and Pickett’s graphs are displays of what are called ecological correlations, that is, they represent the connection between the income inequality of a country (or state) and some average outcome—say, average life span, or average risk of being obese. Such averages hide huge variations within countries and states, variations that overlap. The average Japanese man will live four years longer than the average American man, but many millions of American men will outlive many millions of Japanese men. Ecological correlations based on averages vastly overstate the actual connection between inequality and individuals’ life spans. This is not just a technical quibble. A substantive implication of this distinction is that it is better for your health to be rich in America than to be poor in Japan, no matter what the average differences are.
Wilkinson and Pickett would respond that it is still healthier for both the rich and for the poor to live in Japan than in the United States. Whether that is so gets yet more complicated. But, even if the graphs exaggerate the implications of national inequality for individuals, we can allow the authors this: in a Rawlsian sense, if you did not know how rich you would be, then choosing to be born in a more equal society would, all else staying constant, decrease your risks of many bad outcomes. How much of a decrease is difficult to estimate.
Sven versus Jack
Grant that inequality is often correlated with bad outcomes. Is inequality therefore the cause? With overly bold claims such as, “we have shown that reducing inequality leads to a very much better society,” Wilkinson and Pickett assert that there is more than a correlation here, that inequality is a—perhaps the primary—cause of bad outcomes such as violence, short lives, repression of women, psychological depression, and so on. Here is where most of the academic controversy focuses: is there some other factor that is really at work, such that income inequality is just a side issue? Researchers have put much of the data Wilkinson and Pickett use onto statistical torture racks trying to extract truthful confessions, but often elicit only garbled croaks.
Some critics argue that these ecological correlations between inequality and average outcomes are just a statistical illusion arising from the fact that the health benefits of each additional dollar are greatest for people of low incomes and marginal for people of high incomes.
Others hold that some X factor, perhaps as yet unidentified, explains The Spirit Level’s graphs. My own candidate, which I invite others to test, is cultural—the Sven versus Jack factor. If you look at most of the book’s graphs of nations, you will see that the “good” quadrant—low rates of inequality, low rates of problems—is largely composed of Nordic and northern European nations (and non-Western Japan, which should be bracketed). The “bad” quadrant is largely composed of the United Kingdom and its former colonies. Continental European nations fall into a mushy middle. If you look at most of the U.S. state graphs, you generally see in the good quadrant northern tier states, such as Minnesota, which were heavily settled by descendants of Scandinavia, and see in the bad quadrant southern states, which were much more intensively settled by highlanders from the British Isles. Thus, the Sven versus Jack factor.
The Nordic-British contrast also corresponds to the difference between social democratic and neoliberal states, which can confuse cause and effect even more. Is there something about the Nordic region’s history or culture that leads those nations to be welfare states, relatively equal, and healthy, and something about Anglo-Saxon history or culture that does the opposite—with varying levels of inequality being simply a byproduct?
Wilkinson and Pickett well understand these sorts of objections and have responses, both technical and logical. One strategy for handling the correlation-is-not-causation issue is to look at historical change: in cases where inequality has dramatically risen or fallen, what consequences followed? Unfortunately, here one starts cherry-picking examples. When East Germans were integrated into the rest of Germany, they joined a more economically unequal society, and their young people got more obese. Score one against inequality. On the other hand, between 1970 and 2005, income inequality in the United States, as measured by the Gini index, grew about 20 percent, but homicide rates dropped 30 percent. More systematic studies of what follows from changes in inequality tend to be more equivocal.
Researchers have not sorted out the causal issue yet, but the best provisional judgement is probably that economic inequality contributes something, albeit much less than the authors claim, to some health and social problems, but, again, fewer than the authors claim. Even the skeptics, however, do not argue that inequality is good for anyone but those on the top of the pyramid.
Psychology, politics, and solutions
If inequality does, to some degree, cause social problems, why? Wilkinson and Pickett emphasize that the mechanism here is social psychological: inequality creates anxiety about status and feelings of unfairness that eat at people. In the words of a chapter title, “inequality gets under the skin.” Unlike the volume of studies on the correlation between inequality and health, there is little research that directly tests this proposition. The authors collect a variety of suggestive evidence, such as laboratory studies on how people react to being put in low-status positions and primate studies on what happens when rankings among apes are messed with. But a lot of the case is built by argumentation and inferential stretch.
One recurrent issue in trying to explain any causal factor concerns the geographical level at which inequality operates. In the research literature, the strong correlations between inequality and bad outcomes tend to be seen when comparing nations, but when researchers compare smaller units, towns or neighborhoods, the connection between inequality at the local level and outcomes is considerably weaker. This is puzzling for the psychological analysis: wouldn’t people be more psychologically affected by their neighbors’ wealth than by the wealth of folks far away, say, in Malibu or on the Vineyard? The authors firmly argue that, no, what matters is where you—and your neighbors—fit in the national hierarchy; people know their national rank, and that is what generates the angst. Perhaps.
In a status-riven society, the winners fear that their perches are insecure, and they know that there is a long way to fall.
Even if people who feel they are at the bottom pay a psychological and health price for being down, are they not balanced out by those at the top who gain psychologically from being up? (In spite of the authors’ claims to contrary, wealthier people are, according to available metrics, happier.) Shouldn’t these two reactions balance each other out nationally? Wilkinson and Pickett would insist, in response, that everyone suffers psychologically from inequality, those at the bottom but also those at the top. In a status-riven society, the winners fear that their perches are insecure, and they know that there is a long way to fall. Besides, there’s always someone to envy on a yet higher branch.
Is this psychological mechanism necessary to explain the bad outcomes of inequality? One alternative, which the authors reject, is that it’s really all about material disadvantages, not psychological angst. Wilkinson and Pickett say ‘no,’ and point to statistical studies suggesting that international variations in average income make less difference to outcomes than do international variations in the inequality of incomes. But the results are not all consistent. The authors also point to examples: low-income Americans are richer than low-income people in other societies, but the Americans’ health is worse.
A different explanation, recently suggested and documented by many scholars, invokes politics. They find that more heterogeneous societies and states—those highly divided by race, religion, language, or income—under-produce “public goods” such as community health care, safety, and education. For example, the higher the proportion of African Americans in a state, other things held constant, the lower the public welfare expenditures in that state. People in diverse nations or states may have greater trouble building the trust necessary for public action. Or perhaps the reason is that majorities in diverse nations or states resist spending their tax money on “those people.” Income inequality, then, may produce bad outcomes because class divisions in a nation or state lead to political paralysis or to unconcern by the wealthy about the fate of the less well-off. If the politics of inequality account for poorer health, then one might focus on politics as the route to fixing the problems. But Wilkinson and Pickett do not.
Their discussion of solutions dwells mostly on promoting employee-owned businesses, an odd focus. Such enterprises pay their executives less than typical corporations do, and Wilkinson and Pickett believe that their workers therefore have lower status concerns and less stress. Such workers may be more sympathetic to economic redistribution. But there is no logical reason why such businesses would beggar their neighbors any less than other businesses do, and this program hardly seems sufficiently muscular to bring American inequality down to Finland’s level.
As I pointed out at the top, if the authors took their analysis literally, they might suggest direct manipulations of inequality: send the richest people—or, probably more efficiently, the poorest people—out of the country or the state. Inequality would go down and well-being would go up. Alternatively, leave the inequalities as they are, but devise ways to hide them from people—censor the media, say (no more Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous)—so that people do not know their relative positions. That should, according to The Spirit Level, bring down crime, disease, obesity, and so forth. The authors do not go in these directions, and these are, of course, not plausible solutions in a democratic society. But they are the logical implications of The Spirit Level’s explanation.
There are more productive avenues they might have considered. The authors eschew economic growth to lift the poor because their data suggest that national wealth is not as critical as national inequality in affecting health, because growth might preserve or even expand inequality, and because growth violates their green principles. Further economic development in developed nations, they assert, is an exhausted route to greater well-being. Most economists, I am sure, would disagree. Most politicians, I suspect, would consider the dismissal of economic growth a wrong-headed strategy for electoral victory.
Similarly, Wilkinson and Pickett pay little attention to Robin Hood–like redistribution, which would attack inequality more directly (although not as directly as exiling the rich). Maybe they consider that program too obvious to expound upon, or perhaps too politically difficult to attain, or too tied into the very status concerns and materialism that explain why inequality gets “under the skin.”
And there is little, if any, consideration in The Spirit Level for another strategy, one that tackles the specific difficulties of heterogeneous societies straight on: providing public goods in lieu of directly reducing inequality. National health insurance is one such public good; universal pre-school is another. The public, universal provision of water and sewer systems about a century ago did more than any other program to extend Americans’ life spans in the last several generations. Proponents argue that such universal entitlements—Social Security and Medicare being the major examples—evade Americans’ resistance to “hand outs” and to explicit “leveling,” and therefore have the highest chances of political success.
There is probably no way to avoid the heavy political lifting involved in channeling economic growth—yes, it will return—more equitably. Given this, and The Spirit Level’s occasional overconfidence, it might seem easy to discount the book. But Wilkinson and Pickett make a valuable contribution in enthusiasm and evidence, both of which will help fuel any effort to squeeze down the widening inequalities of our era.
euros and health care
Mind the Gap
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
Bloomsbury Press, $28 (Hardcover)
Claude S. Fischer
The strong version of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s argument in The Spirit Level implies that President Obama’s fight to reform health care was pointless. Extending the availability of health insurance cannot substantially improve Americans’ health. Instead, the president would make us all happier, healthier, and longer-lived, their logic suggests, if he could get the richest, say, 5 percent of Americans to leave the country.
Wilkinson and Pickett, eminent health scholars from the United Kingdom, present considerable evidence correlating unequal incomes in nations or American states with negative outcomes in physical health, mental balance, levels of violence, social integration, teen births, school performance, and just about everything else. Inequality, they explain, makes people focus on status and their relative positions on the prestige ladder. [No, it does not, what instigates or is the catalyst for this obsession on status is ... THE MEDIA and liberals telling us how poor we are and how rich THEY are, which creates the obsession to be equal or the same as THEM]. Such obsessions, in turn, create anxiety, distrust, and social isolation, which raise people’s level of physiological stress. Finally, stress, as we all now know, exacts high costs. It weakens the immune system, for example, and drives people to poor coping behavior such as overeating and lashing out at others. Through these steps, The Spirit Level argues, economic inequality becomes bad for everyone’s health.
But does this psychological explanation really account for the harms of inequality? And just how sure are we that the social ills Wilkinson and Pickett canvass are even caused by inequality? Whether we accept their psychological framework determines to some extent how we will respond to problems of inequality, and in hewing to it, the authors generate some pretty tepid solutions.
Measuring inequality
The Spirit Level does not argue simply that being poor is bad for people. Indeed, in developed societies, the authors insist, an individual’s wealth is not critical. It is of course healthier to be rich than poor, but what matters most for Westerners are the gaps between the rich and the middling and the poor in their societies. Wilkinson and Pickett reject economic growth as a public-health policy, in part because such growth might benefit the affluent as much or more than those of lesser income. Income differences would not necessarily shrink, and it is these gaps that we must mind.
For proof, the authors present dozens of similar, paired graphs. Across the bottom of each graph is a scale running left to right from low to high income inequality. On the vertical axis is a measure of the prevalence or intensity of a social problem, such as obesity or depression. The authors plot the locations of several Western countries and Japan, and the dots typically line up such that the more inequality, the worse the problem. In the international comparisons, Japan almost always falls in the bottom left corner of the space—low inequality, few problems—while the top right of the space—high inequality, many problems—mostly is reserved for the United States. In the U.S.-focused versions of these graphs, states take the place of nations. The states do not line up quite as neatly, but the pictures convey the same message: more inequality, more bad stuff.
Lest these graphs seem intimidating, understand that one of this book’s virtues is how straightforward and reader-friendly its prose and figures are. (There are even cartoons.) Wilkinson and Pickett also crisply and lucidly summarize research drawn from nearly 400 scholarly references. The authors anticipate criticisms, take pains to explain complex issues, and respect the reader. And as someone who many years ago coauthored a book on the hazards of inequality, I am sympathetic to their project. But are their numbers right? Is there an association between inequality and bad outcomes—do the graphs tell the whole truth? And, if there is a correlation, is inequality really the major cause of all those problems?
One concern is how we measure inequality. Researchers often use a measure of the distribution of income—usually, the “Gini coefficient”—or compare the income of the richest 10 or 20 percent of the population to that of the poorest 10 or 20 percent.
But different metrics produce different results. Good and comprehensive measures of inequalities in accumulated wealth rather than annual income show much greater inequality: in 1999 an American family at the 80th percentile of income made about two times what a family at the 50th percentile did, but the family at the 80th percentile in wealth owned about six times the assets of the 50th-percentile family. On the other hand, good and comprehensive measures of consumption indicate less inequality: a family at the 80th percentile of spending paid only 1.5 times as much for food and clothing as did a family at the 50th percentile. American families almost all the way down to the very poorest own cars, televisions, and the like, and some commentators point to such consumption numbers to dismiss the concern about income inequality.
Using a metric other than money also changes the picture. For instance, while inequality in how much people earn has widened considerably in the United States for about four decades, inequality in how long people live has narrowed somewhat.
A second question about the empirical basis for the connection between inequality and well-being is whether the authors have fairly examined all the bad outcomes. A major omission in their graphs is the suicide rate, which is considerably lower in more unequal countries. The authors try unpersuasively to explain this away, contending that in unequal societies people project their status anxiety outward, blame others rather than themselves, and thus end up killing others rather than themselves. Another outcome Wilkinson and Pickett ignore is the rate of births to unwed mothers, which also trends downward as inequality rises, especially if one brackets anomalous Japan. (By the way, anyone can easily play this game of chart-your-bad-outcomes by ransacking the Web sites of the U.N. Human Development Report, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the U.S. Census Bureau, and then copying the tables into spreadsheets.) The authors may have overreached by implying that virtually every social ill can be blamed on inequality.
Researchers have put much of the data Wilkinson and Pickett use onto statistical torture racks to extract confessions, but often elicit only garbled croaks.
Finally, there is the problem of what the aggregate numbers mean for any given person. Wilkinson and Pickett’s graphs are displays of what are called ecological correlations, that is, they represent the connection between the income inequality of a country (or state) and some average outcome—say, average life span, or average risk of being obese. Such averages hide huge variations within countries and states, variations that overlap. The average Japanese man will live four years longer than the average American man, but many millions of American men will outlive many millions of Japanese men. Ecological correlations based on averages vastly overstate the actual connection between inequality and individuals’ life spans. This is not just a technical quibble. A substantive implication of this distinction is that it is better for your health to be rich in America than to be poor in Japan, no matter what the average differences are.
Wilkinson and Pickett would respond that it is still healthier for both the rich and for the poor to live in Japan than in the United States. Whether that is so gets yet more complicated. But, even if the graphs exaggerate the implications of national inequality for individuals, we can allow the authors this: in a Rawlsian sense, if you did not know how rich you would be, then choosing to be born in a more equal society would, all else staying constant, decrease your risks of many bad outcomes. How much of a decrease is difficult to estimate.
Sven versus Jack
Grant that inequality is often correlated with bad outcomes. Is inequality therefore the cause? With overly bold claims such as, “we have shown that reducing inequality leads to a very much better society,” Wilkinson and Pickett assert that there is more than a correlation here, that inequality is a—perhaps the primary—cause of bad outcomes such as violence, short lives, repression of women, psychological depression, and so on. Here is where most of the academic controversy focuses: is there some other factor that is really at work, such that income inequality is just a side issue? Researchers have put much of the data Wilkinson and Pickett use onto statistical torture racks trying to extract truthful confessions, but often elicit only garbled croaks.
Some critics argue that these ecological correlations between inequality and average outcomes are just a statistical illusion arising from the fact that the health benefits of each additional dollar are greatest for people of low incomes and marginal for people of high incomes.
Others hold that some X factor, perhaps as yet unidentified, explains The Spirit Level’s graphs. My own candidate, which I invite others to test, is cultural—the Sven versus Jack factor. If you look at most of the book’s graphs of nations, you will see that the “good” quadrant—low rates of inequality, low rates of problems—is largely composed of Nordic and northern European nations (and non-Western Japan, which should be bracketed). The “bad” quadrant is largely composed of the United Kingdom and its former colonies. Continental European nations fall into a mushy middle. If you look at most of the U.S. state graphs, you generally see in the good quadrant northern tier states, such as Minnesota, which were heavily settled by descendants of Scandinavia, and see in the bad quadrant southern states, which were much more intensively settled by highlanders from the British Isles. Thus, the Sven versus Jack factor.
The Nordic-British contrast also corresponds to the difference between social democratic and neoliberal states, which can confuse cause and effect even more. Is there something about the Nordic region’s history or culture that leads those nations to be welfare states, relatively equal, and healthy, and something about Anglo-Saxon history or culture that does the opposite—with varying levels of inequality being simply a byproduct?
Wilkinson and Pickett well understand these sorts of objections and have responses, both technical and logical. One strategy for handling the correlation-is-not-causation issue is to look at historical change: in cases where inequality has dramatically risen or fallen, what consequences followed? Unfortunately, here one starts cherry-picking examples. When East Germans were integrated into the rest of Germany, they joined a more economically unequal society, and their young people got more obese. Score one against inequality. On the other hand, between 1970 and 2005, income inequality in the United States, as measured by the Gini index, grew about 20 percent, but homicide rates dropped 30 percent. More systematic studies of what follows from changes in inequality tend to be more equivocal.
Researchers have not sorted out the causal issue yet, but the best provisional judgement is probably that economic inequality contributes something, albeit much less than the authors claim, to some health and social problems, but, again, fewer than the authors claim. Even the skeptics, however, do not argue that inequality is good for anyone but those on the top of the pyramid.
Psychology, politics, and solutions
If inequality does, to some degree, cause social problems, why? Wilkinson and Pickett emphasize that the mechanism here is social psychological: inequality creates anxiety about status and feelings of unfairness that eat at people. In the words of a chapter title, “inequality gets under the skin.” Unlike the volume of studies on the correlation between inequality and health, there is little research that directly tests this proposition. The authors collect a variety of suggestive evidence, such as laboratory studies on how people react to being put in low-status positions and primate studies on what happens when rankings among apes are messed with. But a lot of the case is built by argumentation and inferential stretch.
One recurrent issue in trying to explain any causal factor concerns the geographical level at which inequality operates. In the research literature, the strong correlations between inequality and bad outcomes tend to be seen when comparing nations, but when researchers compare smaller units, towns or neighborhoods, the connection between inequality at the local level and outcomes is considerably weaker. This is puzzling for the psychological analysis: wouldn’t people be more psychologically affected by their neighbors’ wealth than by the wealth of folks far away, say, in Malibu or on the Vineyard? The authors firmly argue that, no, what matters is where you—and your neighbors—fit in the national hierarchy; people know their national rank, and that is what generates the angst. Perhaps.
In a status-riven society, the winners fear that their perches are insecure, and they know that there is a long way to fall.
Even if people who feel they are at the bottom pay a psychological and health price for being down, are they not balanced out by those at the top who gain psychologically from being up? (In spite of the authors’ claims to contrary, wealthier people are, according to available metrics, happier.) Shouldn’t these two reactions balance each other out nationally? Wilkinson and Pickett would insist, in response, that everyone suffers psychologically from inequality, those at the bottom but also those at the top. In a status-riven society, the winners fear that their perches are insecure, and they know that there is a long way to fall. Besides, there’s always someone to envy on a yet higher branch.
Is this psychological mechanism necessary to explain the bad outcomes of inequality? One alternative, which the authors reject, is that it’s really all about material disadvantages, not psychological angst. Wilkinson and Pickett say ‘no,’ and point to statistical studies suggesting that international variations in average income make less difference to outcomes than do international variations in the inequality of incomes. But the results are not all consistent. The authors also point to examples: low-income Americans are richer than low-income people in other societies, but the Americans’ health is worse.
A different explanation, recently suggested and documented by many scholars, invokes politics. They find that more heterogeneous societies and states—those highly divided by race, religion, language, or income—under-produce “public goods” such as community health care, safety, and education. For example, the higher the proportion of African Americans in a state, other things held constant, the lower the public welfare expenditures in that state. People in diverse nations or states may have greater trouble building the trust necessary for public action. Or perhaps the reason is that majorities in diverse nations or states resist spending their tax money on “those people.” Income inequality, then, may produce bad outcomes because class divisions in a nation or state lead to political paralysis or to unconcern by the wealthy about the fate of the less well-off. If the politics of inequality account for poorer health, then one might focus on politics as the route to fixing the problems. But Wilkinson and Pickett do not.
Their discussion of solutions dwells mostly on promoting employee-owned businesses, an odd focus. Such enterprises pay their executives less than typical corporations do, and Wilkinson and Pickett believe that their workers therefore have lower status concerns and less stress. Such workers may be more sympathetic to economic redistribution. But there is no logical reason why such businesses would beggar their neighbors any less than other businesses do, and this program hardly seems sufficiently muscular to bring American inequality down to Finland’s level.
As I pointed out at the top, if the authors took their analysis literally, they might suggest direct manipulations of inequality: send the richest people—or, probably more efficiently, the poorest people—out of the country or the state. Inequality would go down and well-being would go up. Alternatively, leave the inequalities as they are, but devise ways to hide them from people—censor the media, say (no more Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous)—so that people do not know their relative positions. That should, according to The Spirit Level, bring down crime, disease, obesity, and so forth. The authors do not go in these directions, and these are, of course, not plausible solutions in a democratic society. But they are the logical implications of The Spirit Level’s explanation.
There are more productive avenues they might have considered. The authors eschew economic growth to lift the poor because their data suggest that national wealth is not as critical as national inequality in affecting health, because growth might preserve or even expand inequality, and because growth violates their green principles. Further economic development in developed nations, they assert, is an exhausted route to greater well-being. Most economists, I am sure, would disagree. Most politicians, I suspect, would consider the dismissal of economic growth a wrong-headed strategy for electoral victory.
Similarly, Wilkinson and Pickett pay little attention to Robin Hood–like redistribution, which would attack inequality more directly (although not as directly as exiling the rich). Maybe they consider that program too obvious to expound upon, or perhaps too politically difficult to attain, or too tied into the very status concerns and materialism that explain why inequality gets “under the skin.”
And there is little, if any, consideration in The Spirit Level for another strategy, one that tackles the specific difficulties of heterogeneous societies straight on: providing public goods in lieu of directly reducing inequality. National health insurance is one such public good; universal pre-school is another. The public, universal provision of water and sewer systems about a century ago did more than any other program to extend Americans’ life spans in the last several generations. Proponents argue that such universal entitlements—Social Security and Medicare being the major examples—evade Americans’ resistance to “hand outs” and to explicit “leveling,” and therefore have the highest chances of political success.
There is probably no way to avoid the heavy political lifting involved in channeling economic growth—yes, it will return—more equitably. Given this, and The Spirit Level’s occasional overconfidence, it might seem easy to discount the book. But Wilkinson and Pickett make a valuable contribution in enthusiasm and evidence, both of which will help fuel any effort to squeeze down the widening inequalities of our era.
euros and health care
NY Times: It is a TAX INCREASE after all - WH has admitted.
We were all warned that it involved tax increasaes. We were told it would raise taxes, and taking would be necessary for the government to run this program, but Obama lied and told us otherwise - many fell for his lies and as a result 4-5 Congressman made the wrong choice.
Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
By ROBERT PEAR
The New York Times
July 16, 2010
WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.
“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.
Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.
Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”
Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.
Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”
In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.
In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.
The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.
taxes
Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
By ROBERT PEAR
The New York Times
July 16, 2010
WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.
“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.
Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.
Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”
Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.
Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”
In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.
In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.
The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.
taxes
Illegals: Penis Pumps. May as well give them sex changes ...
Penis Pumps for Illegals?
by Todd Starnes
A Minnesota town is outraged over reports that an illegal immigrant was implanted with a penis pump – paid for by taxpayers.
Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate said the expense to taxpayers was more than $50,000.
“It’s shocking,” he told FOX News Radio. “It’s certainly disturbing as well. You know it’s not going to set well with the public at large.”
Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto wants to know how an illegal immigrant was able to obtain tens of thousands of dollars in medical assistance.
“There’s no logical argument for why that should have been approved,” Ciliberto told the Shakopee News. “I don’t know how many illegal aliens are getting emergency medical assistance for such a procedure.”
Ciliberto told county commissioners the cost of taking care of illegal immigrants in their community is skyrocketing.
“It should be obvious when Scott County goes from seven bookings in 2006 to 90 bookings in 2009 – that Arizona’s problem is Minnesota’s problem, too,” he told the newspaper.
According to published numbers, the county spent more than $800,000 housing inmates with immigration holds – and that doesn’t include medical coverage.
“We have no control over the southern border,” he said. “We don’t know who is coming in and what country they’re coming from.”
Regardless, local officials said they are required by federal and state laws to provide welfare to illegals – from court costs to health care – including a penis pump.
At least one local said they sympathize with the plight of Arizonans.
“My hats off to Arizona, to people who’ve said, ‘We’ve had enough,’” Commissioner Barbara Marschall told the newspaper. “We’re thousands (of) miles away from the southern border. It’s here and it’s going to get worse.”
illegal aliens
by Todd Starnes
A Minnesota town is outraged over reports that an illegal immigrant was implanted with a penis pump – paid for by taxpayers.
Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate said the expense to taxpayers was more than $50,000.
“It’s shocking,” he told FOX News Radio. “It’s certainly disturbing as well. You know it’s not going to set well with the public at large.”
Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto wants to know how an illegal immigrant was able to obtain tens of thousands of dollars in medical assistance.
“There’s no logical argument for why that should have been approved,” Ciliberto told the Shakopee News. “I don’t know how many illegal aliens are getting emergency medical assistance for such a procedure.”
Ciliberto told county commissioners the cost of taking care of illegal immigrants in their community is skyrocketing.
“It should be obvious when Scott County goes from seven bookings in 2006 to 90 bookings in 2009 – that Arizona’s problem is Minnesota’s problem, too,” he told the newspaper.
According to published numbers, the county spent more than $800,000 housing inmates with immigration holds – and that doesn’t include medical coverage.
“We have no control over the southern border,” he said. “We don’t know who is coming in and what country they’re coming from.”
Regardless, local officials said they are required by federal and state laws to provide welfare to illegals – from court costs to health care – including a penis pump.
At least one local said they sympathize with the plight of Arizonans.
“My hats off to Arizona, to people who’ve said, ‘We’ve had enough,’” Commissioner Barbara Marschall told the newspaper. “We’re thousands (of) miles away from the southern border. It’s here and it’s going to get worse.”
illegal aliens
Mexico's Drug War: Being Lost on All Sides
The drug war need not be lost in Mexico, but with an endemically corrupt government , military, police, and judicial system, it makes winning, unlikely. The best prognosis - the end of the world. There is no clean government in Mexico - from cabinet members who resign and or are arrested for aiding the cartels to police taking bribes, to soldiers working for the drug lords to protect the drugs until they smash through the American side. In between - everyone else.
Of course no one arrested in Mexico is guilty - it is always the corrupt soldiers or police who did it. However, if you look at cases and witness statements, it becomes more clear that more often than not, it was the corrupt police or soldiers.
The Wall Street Journal
July 17,. 2010
AMERICAS NEWS
By NICHOLAS CASEY
Inside Mexico's Drug War, Americans Allege Abuse
CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico—Two Americans were driving back to El Paso, Texas, last December after an afternoon across the border in Ciudad Juárez. A few blocks from the border, they were surrounded by Mexican army trucks and pulled from their Dodge Ram.
Mexico's military says it found two suitcases full of marijuana in the cab of the pickup truck. Two soldiers later testified that they drove the two Americans to a military compound on the outskirts of town, questioned them briefly, then turned them over to civilian authorities. The Americans were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell.
Those two men—Shohn Huckabee, 23 years old, and Carlos Quijas, 36—are being held in a Ciudad Juárez jail. They tell a different story about what happened that night. They say Mexican soldiers planted the marijuana in their truck. When they arrived at the military base, they say, they were blindfolded, tied up, hit with rifle butts, shocked with electricity and threatened with death.
Allegations of mistreatment of suspects have caught the eye of the U.S. Senate committee that oversees financial aid to Mexico for its war on drugs. In an internal report, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says it received allegations of serious human-rights violations in Ciudad Juárez last year. The report cites an unidentified young man picked up in El Paso who said he was arrested by the Mexican military in Ciudad Juárez and beaten and shocked. The man said he was released after the military concluded he had no useful information about trafficking, the report says.
Mr. Huckabee says he was subjected to similar tactics. "I believe what was done to me was torture," he said in an interview. "When I did not answer their questions, they shocked me with a wire that was in my hands. My whole body froze up. The pain went from bearable to a point where I couldn't even talk."
Mexican prosecutors say the two men were caught red-handed. Two soldiers involved in their arrest testified at their trial that they counted 99 packages of marijuana in the suitcases, weighing more than 100 pounds.
Messrs. Huckabee and Quijas say they've never been involved with drugs and would never have tried to cross the border with two suitcases of marijuana. During their trial, they produced three witnesses who testified that they saw soldiers put suitcases into Mr. Huckabee's truck. A verdict is expected this month. Each man faces up to 25 years in prison.
[...]
The Wall Street Journal interviewed nine residents of Ciudad Juárez—some of whom had been convicted of crimes—who said they were tortured by soldiers at the main army camp on the outskirts of the city.
A 33-year-old forklift operator said he had a firearm pointed to his head and was told he would be killed during a 48-hour interrogation. Two brothers, ages 53 and 56, said the military put plastic bags over their heads, shocked them and staged mock executions. A 25-year-old construction worker said soldiers used a Taser to shock his testicles. A 54-year-old diabetic rancher said he was blindfolded, beaten and shocked on his testicles, elbows and hands. He showed a reporter scars.
Between 2006 to 2009, complaints to Mexico's National Human Rights Commission about the military grew tenfold, to about 4,000, including allegations of robbery, rape, torture and killing. The allegations threaten to undermine public support for President Calderón's military campaign against traffickers. Some 50,000 soldiers now patrol the country.
In its statement, the military said it doesn't use torture under any circumstance. In Mexico, soldiers answer to their own military court system and not to civilian authorities, which means states can't prosecute them for abuse.
Mexico
Of course no one arrested in Mexico is guilty - it is always the corrupt soldiers or police who did it. However, if you look at cases and witness statements, it becomes more clear that more often than not, it was the corrupt police or soldiers.
The Wall Street Journal
July 17,. 2010
AMERICAS NEWS
By NICHOLAS CASEY
Inside Mexico's Drug War, Americans Allege Abuse
CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico—Two Americans were driving back to El Paso, Texas, last December after an afternoon across the border in Ciudad Juárez. A few blocks from the border, they were surrounded by Mexican army trucks and pulled from their Dodge Ram.
Mexico's military says it found two suitcases full of marijuana in the cab of the pickup truck. Two soldiers later testified that they drove the two Americans to a military compound on the outskirts of town, questioned them briefly, then turned them over to civilian authorities. The Americans were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell.
Those two men—Shohn Huckabee, 23 years old, and Carlos Quijas, 36—are being held in a Ciudad Juárez jail. They tell a different story about what happened that night. They say Mexican soldiers planted the marijuana in their truck. When they arrived at the military base, they say, they were blindfolded, tied up, hit with rifle butts, shocked with electricity and threatened with death.
Allegations of mistreatment of suspects have caught the eye of the U.S. Senate committee that oversees financial aid to Mexico for its war on drugs. In an internal report, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says it received allegations of serious human-rights violations in Ciudad Juárez last year. The report cites an unidentified young man picked up in El Paso who said he was arrested by the Mexican military in Ciudad Juárez and beaten and shocked. The man said he was released after the military concluded he had no useful information about trafficking, the report says.
Mr. Huckabee says he was subjected to similar tactics. "I believe what was done to me was torture," he said in an interview. "When I did not answer their questions, they shocked me with a wire that was in my hands. My whole body froze up. The pain went from bearable to a point where I couldn't even talk."
Mexican prosecutors say the two men were caught red-handed. Two soldiers involved in their arrest testified at their trial that they counted 99 packages of marijuana in the suitcases, weighing more than 100 pounds.
Messrs. Huckabee and Quijas say they've never been involved with drugs and would never have tried to cross the border with two suitcases of marijuana. During their trial, they produced three witnesses who testified that they saw soldiers put suitcases into Mr. Huckabee's truck. A verdict is expected this month. Each man faces up to 25 years in prison.
[...]
The Wall Street Journal interviewed nine residents of Ciudad Juárez—some of whom had been convicted of crimes—who said they were tortured by soldiers at the main army camp on the outskirts of the city.
A 33-year-old forklift operator said he had a firearm pointed to his head and was told he would be killed during a 48-hour interrogation. Two brothers, ages 53 and 56, said the military put plastic bags over their heads, shocked them and staged mock executions. A 25-year-old construction worker said soldiers used a Taser to shock his testicles. A 54-year-old diabetic rancher said he was blindfolded, beaten and shocked on his testicles, elbows and hands. He showed a reporter scars.
Between 2006 to 2009, complaints to Mexico's National Human Rights Commission about the military grew tenfold, to about 4,000, including allegations of robbery, rape, torture and killing. The allegations threaten to undermine public support for President Calderón's military campaign against traffickers. Some 50,000 soldiers now patrol the country.
In its statement, the military said it doesn't use torture under any circumstance. In Mexico, soldiers answer to their own military court system and not to civilian authorities, which means states can't prosecute them for abuse.
Mexico
Obama and His Healthcare Fiasco
He conjured it up, and now we have to suffer.
And if this is the case for them, why are we any different.
‘NHS doesn't care about cost of medicine’: Drugs firms accused of profiteering by raising prices by ONE THOUSAND per cent
By Jason Lewis
The Daily Mail
18th July 2010
Millionaire who raised the price of widely-used drugs by 1,000% over two years says: ‘I don’t have to justify my profits to anyone’
Drugs companies making everyday medicines for the NHS are facing claims of profiteering after imposing huge price rises for commonly prescribed drugs.
The increases – some as high as 1,000 per cent in just two years – coincided with some of the firms involved earning massive profits.
One company boss said the NHS ‘doesn’t care what it costs’.
Drugs made by Teva, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical firms. It is the main producer of Qvar asthma inhalers, which have gone from costing a couple of pounds to £16
The medicines are not new innovative products developed by pharmaceutical companies after enormous investment in research and development.
Instead, they are unbranded so-called ‘generic’ drugs which have been available for many years and include commonly used antibiotics prescribed to millions of patients.
Last night, The Mail on Sunday investigation prompted the Department of Health to reveal it had launched a review of the price increases and to say that it was examining what action could be taken against manufacturers deemed to be making excess profits.
The revelations will be particularly upsetting for cancer patients and others trying to get access to expensive life-prolonging drugs which have been blocked on the grounds of cost.
Last month, in the latest controversial decision of its kind, the UK’s medicines advisory body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, recommended against the NHS paying for a new breast cancer drug.
One of the medicines under the spotlight after a huge unexplained price increase is hydrocortisone tablets – a daily lifesaver for thousands of kidney patients.
medical
And if this is the case for them, why are we any different.
‘NHS doesn't care about cost of medicine’: Drugs firms accused of profiteering by raising prices by ONE THOUSAND per cent
By Jason Lewis
The Daily Mail
18th July 2010
Millionaire who raised the price of widely-used drugs by 1,000% over two years says: ‘I don’t have to justify my profits to anyone’
Drugs companies making everyday medicines for the NHS are facing claims of profiteering after imposing huge price rises for commonly prescribed drugs.
The increases – some as high as 1,000 per cent in just two years – coincided with some of the firms involved earning massive profits.
One company boss said the NHS ‘doesn’t care what it costs’.
Drugs made by Teva, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical firms. It is the main producer of Qvar asthma inhalers, which have gone from costing a couple of pounds to £16
The medicines are not new innovative products developed by pharmaceutical companies after enormous investment in research and development.
Instead, they are unbranded so-called ‘generic’ drugs which have been available for many years and include commonly used antibiotics prescribed to millions of patients.
Last night, The Mail on Sunday investigation prompted the Department of Health to reveal it had launched a review of the price increases and to say that it was examining what action could be taken against manufacturers deemed to be making excess profits.
The revelations will be particularly upsetting for cancer patients and others trying to get access to expensive life-prolonging drugs which have been blocked on the grounds of cost.
Last month, in the latest controversial decision of its kind, the UK’s medicines advisory body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, recommended against the NHS paying for a new breast cancer drug.
One of the medicines under the spotlight after a huge unexplained price increase is hydrocortisone tablets – a daily lifesaver for thousands of kidney patients.
medical
Obama Golfed while the Debt Escalated, the Market Fell, and Consumer Confidence Sank.
It is sad to watch as liberals lose all their ammunition they stored up for Bush - born to wealth (poor compared to Gore or Kerry), a guy who played golf while soldiers died (Obama has been golfing quite a bit and presumably some of that time American soldiers were being shot at, at the very least) - or the claim that Bush was golfing all the time - and now, Obama, who, not even two years in, has outpaced Bush.
AMAZING.
Is Obama getting any work done, with all that golf? Apparently so or we would have liberals rioting in the streets claiming that he was neglecting his responsibilities (as they did when Bush would golf) ... and yet, when Bush golfed (much less than Obama) he was attacked for failing to be on duty, to be in the office, in charge ... listen liberals, if Bush was neglecting his responsibilities, Obama abdicated his responsibilities a long time ago.
Here is an idea Mr. Obama - INCREASE taxes on ANY golf related material 180%. Country clubs with golf courses, golf clubs, golf balls, golf fees ...
There are about 30,000,000 golfers in the United States of which 9 million are regular and frequent players. They also tend to range toward the top of the economic pile. Golfers spend more than $26 billion each year (including equipment) with the median gree fee hovering around $34. Golfers spend about $26 billion a year on travel to go play golf at various courses. Over $50 billion. Now tax it. double the green fees, double everything, tax anything related to gold and you have just scored $50 billion you can use to pay for more things you can't afford - and when you play golf Mr. Obama, you should be paying.
Obama Has Shot 41 Rounds of Golf as President
by Keith Koffler on July 16, 2010, 3:30 pm
President Barack Obama has played a remarkable 41 rounds of golf since becoming president, easily outpacing his predecessor and possibly damaging his ability to portray himself in 2012 as a populist advocate of average folks.
With the excursions lasting on average at least five hours, the president has devoted a total of more than 200 hours to golf, not counting time spent on the White House putting green. That’s the equivalent of twenty five eight-hour work days, or five work weeks spent smacking golf balls.
The former community organizer’s 41 trips around the links – a standard of recreational activity well beyond the budgets of most Americans – compares to only 24 total outings for former President George W. Bush, according to statistics compiled by White House chronicler Mark Knoller of CBS News. Bush, whose golf outings were used to help deride him as a callow, lazy, rich boy, played his 24th and last round on Oct. 13, 2003, saying he was ending the practice out of respect for the families of Americans killed in Iraq.
Since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 rig workers and started the Gulf oil spill, Obama has teed up seven times, according to White House Dossier’s count. This includes back to back sessions April 23 and 24 while on vacation at the Grove Park Resort & Spa in Asheville, NC, just days after the crisis began.
Obama’s focus on golf borders on obsession. Startled reporters follow him out to the course in the motorcade in the broiling Washington heat and then wait in the air conditioning while he puts in 18 holes. Rarely does he play any less.
On June 19, he dragged the 67 year old Vice President Biden onto the course for a sweltering 18 holes, calling into question whether he was trying to commit murder-by-golf in order to free the 2012 VP slot up for Hillary.
From a period stretching from April 3 to May 22 of this year, the president went golfing eight of nine weekends. WOULD YOUR WIFE LET YOU DO THAT?? WOULD YOU LET YOUR HUSBAND? Michelle, what gives?
He went out only once in June when, with the Gulf of Mexico slowly becoming the new U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve and accusations of presidential inattention at their height, White House image counselors appeared to think the golf needed scaling back. But he’s back with a vengeance, having made his way out on the course both weekends so far this month.
Since he’s officially on vacation this weekend in Bar Harbor Maine, there appears to be little holding him back from heading out to the greens at least once.
While on the course, Obama for the most part likes to keep it nice and light, often playing with a youngish crowd. No deep discussions of policy on the links.
One of his companions on nearly every outing is Marvin Nicholson, the affable, White House trip director. Nicholson, a former “body man” to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), is the perfect guy for getting away from it all, having worked as a golf caddy, a bartender, and in a windsurfing shop – where he met Kerry.
Also generally on hand is David Katz, a former Obama campaign photographer.
Emphatically not invited for the most part are members of Congress or senior White House aides.
The White House is of course sensitive to the awkward look of the whole thing. A search of the word “golf” on the White House page or the photo sharing site Flickr brings back only nine official White House photo results, three of which are neither of Obama nor golf. A search for “basketball,” the everyman’s game, brings back 39 photos.
But who wants to be the White House official to tell the president to cut back on golf? Somebody with another job offer, one would presume.
obama plays golf
AMAZING.
Is Obama getting any work done, with all that golf? Apparently so or we would have liberals rioting in the streets claiming that he was neglecting his responsibilities (as they did when Bush would golf) ... and yet, when Bush golfed (much less than Obama) he was attacked for failing to be on duty, to be in the office, in charge ... listen liberals, if Bush was neglecting his responsibilities, Obama abdicated his responsibilities a long time ago.
Here is an idea Mr. Obama - INCREASE taxes on ANY golf related material 180%. Country clubs with golf courses, golf clubs, golf balls, golf fees ...
There are about 30,000,000 golfers in the United States of which 9 million are regular and frequent players. They also tend to range toward the top of the economic pile. Golfers spend more than $26 billion each year (including equipment) with the median gree fee hovering around $34. Golfers spend about $26 billion a year on travel to go play golf at various courses. Over $50 billion. Now tax it. double the green fees, double everything, tax anything related to gold and you have just scored $50 billion you can use to pay for more things you can't afford - and when you play golf Mr. Obama, you should be paying.
Obama Has Shot 41 Rounds of Golf as President
by Keith Koffler on July 16, 2010, 3:30 pm
President Barack Obama has played a remarkable 41 rounds of golf since becoming president, easily outpacing his predecessor and possibly damaging his ability to portray himself in 2012 as a populist advocate of average folks.
With the excursions lasting on average at least five hours, the president has devoted a total of more than 200 hours to golf, not counting time spent on the White House putting green. That’s the equivalent of twenty five eight-hour work days, or five work weeks spent smacking golf balls.
The former community organizer’s 41 trips around the links – a standard of recreational activity well beyond the budgets of most Americans – compares to only 24 total outings for former President George W. Bush, according to statistics compiled by White House chronicler Mark Knoller of CBS News. Bush, whose golf outings were used to help deride him as a callow, lazy, rich boy, played his 24th and last round on Oct. 13, 2003, saying he was ending the practice out of respect for the families of Americans killed in Iraq.
Since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 rig workers and started the Gulf oil spill, Obama has teed up seven times, according to White House Dossier’s count. This includes back to back sessions April 23 and 24 while on vacation at the Grove Park Resort & Spa in Asheville, NC, just days after the crisis began.
Obama’s focus on golf borders on obsession. Startled reporters follow him out to the course in the motorcade in the broiling Washington heat and then wait in the air conditioning while he puts in 18 holes. Rarely does he play any less.
On June 19, he dragged the 67 year old Vice President Biden onto the course for a sweltering 18 holes, calling into question whether he was trying to commit murder-by-golf in order to free the 2012 VP slot up for Hillary.
From a period stretching from April 3 to May 22 of this year, the president went golfing eight of nine weekends. WOULD YOUR WIFE LET YOU DO THAT?? WOULD YOU LET YOUR HUSBAND? Michelle, what gives?
He went out only once in June when, with the Gulf of Mexico slowly becoming the new U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve and accusations of presidential inattention at their height, White House image counselors appeared to think the golf needed scaling back. But he’s back with a vengeance, having made his way out on the course both weekends so far this month.
Since he’s officially on vacation this weekend in Bar Harbor Maine, there appears to be little holding him back from heading out to the greens at least once.
While on the course, Obama for the most part likes to keep it nice and light, often playing with a youngish crowd. No deep discussions of policy on the links.
One of his companions on nearly every outing is Marvin Nicholson, the affable, White House trip director. Nicholson, a former “body man” to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), is the perfect guy for getting away from it all, having worked as a golf caddy, a bartender, and in a windsurfing shop – where he met Kerry.
Also generally on hand is David Katz, a former Obama campaign photographer.
Emphatically not invited for the most part are members of Congress or senior White House aides.
The White House is of course sensitive to the awkward look of the whole thing. A search of the word “golf” on the White House page or the photo sharing site Flickr brings back only nine official White House photo results, three of which are neither of Obama nor golf. A search for “basketball,” the everyman’s game, brings back 39 photos.
But who wants to be the White House official to tell the president to cut back on golf? Somebody with another job offer, one would presume.
obama plays golf
Middle Class: Shrinking, and you wonder why.
Majority of Small Business Sector Facing Higher Taxes Under Obama Plan
From Ryan Ellis
Monday, July 26, 2010
•The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year
•Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.
•According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.
•All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.
•Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
•S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
taxes
From Ryan Ellis
Monday, July 26, 2010
•The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year
•Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.
•According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.
•All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.
•Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
•S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
taxes
Oliver Stone: Delusional and Out of Context
There is not much to say. In 1991, I believed Oliver Stone was taking a stand, exposing the dark-side, giving us the truth (albeit his version). His JFK sent him into the Hollywood wilderness for several years, and when he came back he was roaring to go - and expose the darkest secrets and darkest moments of America ... all out of context. He wanted to show Cuba, Russia, Venezuela and every other anti-American state as the troubled and beleaguered hero standing against the goliath US.
I respected Oliver Stone in 1991. Today I will never watch anything this man produces or has involvement in, again. His time in the 'wilderness' exposed him to some serious shit and whatever it was, I am very confident it was delusions of idiocy. He is pathetic and that does not mean the Jewish lobby is not powerful, rather, taking that bit and extrapolating to where you suggest Hitler was misunderstood (same with Stalin) ... pathetic. That numbers alone determine how evil one is. If that is the case, he should show Pol Pot as a hero of some sort - only 2 million dead. On the other hand, Mao did 50-80 million - he should be a real evil-doer. Numbers alone. Pathetic.
Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'
By Alana Goodman
Sun, 07/25/2010
Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America's focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the "Jewish domination of the media."
The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the "powerful lobby" of Jews in America.
Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series "Secret History of America," seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."
"Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support," Stone told reporter Camilla Long during the interview, which can be found behind the paywall on the Sunday Times' website.
Stone said that, "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."
The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.
"The Jewish domination of the media," responded Stone. "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years."
The director, who recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, also slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as "horrible."
"Iran isn't necessarily the good guy," said Stone. "[B]ut we don't know the full story!"
The Scarface screenwriter had even more encouraging words for socialist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who Stone called "a brave, blunt, earthy" man. The director has recently been promoting his Chavez-praising documentary called "South of the Border."
When the interviewer pointed out that Chavez has had a less-than-stellar record on human rights, Stone immediately dismissed the criticism.
"The internet's fully free [in Venezuela]," said Stone. "You can say what the hell you like. Compare it with all the other countries: Mexico, Guatemala, above all Colombia, which is a joke."
While Stone has not been as blunt about his views on Jews and the Holocaust in the past, he has been outspoken in his fondness for Chavez and his disagreements with the U.S.'s policy on Iran.
On ABC's Good Morning America on July 28, the director told anchor George Stephanopoulos that he "absolutely" believes Chavez is a good person, and claimed that there was "there's no pattern of censorship in this country [Venezuela]."
Stone also said that if the U.S. pursued sanctions against Iran, "it's going to be like North Vietnam again."
Stone cold stupid
I respected Oliver Stone in 1991. Today I will never watch anything this man produces or has involvement in, again. His time in the 'wilderness' exposed him to some serious shit and whatever it was, I am very confident it was delusions of idiocy. He is pathetic and that does not mean the Jewish lobby is not powerful, rather, taking that bit and extrapolating to where you suggest Hitler was misunderstood (same with Stalin) ... pathetic. That numbers alone determine how evil one is. If that is the case, he should show Pol Pot as a hero of some sort - only 2 million dead. On the other hand, Mao did 50-80 million - he should be a real evil-doer. Numbers alone. Pathetic.
Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'
By Alana Goodman
Sun, 07/25/2010
Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America's focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the "Jewish domination of the media."
The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the "powerful lobby" of Jews in America.
Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series "Secret History of America," seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."
"Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support," Stone told reporter Camilla Long during the interview, which can be found behind the paywall on the Sunday Times' website.
Stone said that, "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."
The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.
"The Jewish domination of the media," responded Stone. "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years."
The director, who recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, also slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as "horrible."
"Iran isn't necessarily the good guy," said Stone. "[B]ut we don't know the full story!"
The Scarface screenwriter had even more encouraging words for socialist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who Stone called "a brave, blunt, earthy" man. The director has recently been promoting his Chavez-praising documentary called "South of the Border."
When the interviewer pointed out that Chavez has had a less-than-stellar record on human rights, Stone immediately dismissed the criticism.
"The internet's fully free [in Venezuela]," said Stone. "You can say what the hell you like. Compare it with all the other countries: Mexico, Guatemala, above all Colombia, which is a joke."
While Stone has not been as blunt about his views on Jews and the Holocaust in the past, he has been outspoken in his fondness for Chavez and his disagreements with the U.S.'s policy on Iran.
On ABC's Good Morning America on July 28, the director told anchor George Stephanopoulos that he "absolutely" believes Chavez is a good person, and claimed that there was "there's no pattern of censorship in this country [Venezuela]."
Stone also said that if the U.S. pursued sanctions against Iran, "it's going to be like North Vietnam again."
Stone cold stupid
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Giant Sucking Sound - Hint: It Ain't a Good Thing for the Majority of US
middle
The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it
Jul 15, 2010
by Michael Snyder in Recession
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.
What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
economic
The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it
Jul 15, 2010
by Michael Snyder in Recession
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.
What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
economic
Strangle your daughter because she wasn't a good student? Not typically unless you are Muslim.
Although not technically an honor killing by the usual statndards of such, there are many bits left out of the story, from what I have been told by someone who lives in that city and has heard and read other bits to the story.
Outrage over ruling that mom who strangled daughter won’t be jailed
By Daryl Slade, Postmedia News
July 15, 2010
Canada.com
Aset Magomadova leaves the Calgary courthouse last week at the end of the first day of her sentencing hearing in connection with the killing of her 14-year-old daughter, Aminat, whom she strangled with a scarf.Photograph by: Ted Rhodes, Calgary Herald, Calgary HeraldCALGARY — A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.
A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.
“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation.
“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. The issue is human life. Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.”
In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management.
The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of justice.
“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio.
“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.”
Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.
The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.
A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it.
LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.
Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives.
“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.”
Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court.
“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.”
Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.”
Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence.
“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?”
LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.
He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off.
“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning.
“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.”
The Crown appealed the conviction long ago and is almost certain to take the sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but Vomberg said he could not comment about such a possible situation at this time.
Both sides are allowed under law to have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
islam
Outrage over ruling that mom who strangled daughter won’t be jailed
By Daryl Slade, Postmedia News
July 15, 2010
Canada.com
Aset Magomadova leaves the Calgary courthouse last week at the end of the first day of her sentencing hearing in connection with the killing of her 14-year-old daughter, Aminat, whom she strangled with a scarf.Photograph by: Ted Rhodes, Calgary Herald, Calgary HeraldCALGARY — A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.
A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.
“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation.
“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. The issue is human life. Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.”
In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management.
The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of justice.
“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio.
“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.”
Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.
The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.
A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it.
LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.
Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives.
“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.”
Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court.
“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.”
Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.”
Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence.
“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?”
LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.
He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off.
“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning.
“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.”
The Crown appealed the conviction long ago and is almost certain to take the sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but Vomberg said he could not comment about such a possible situation at this time.
Both sides are allowed under law to have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
islam
Obesity Rating: Goodbye Privacy, Hello Big Brother
I do hope liberals are happy. Government intervention ionto every aspect of their lives, forget you inspid fear of government intrusion into the bedroom you quaga, government intrusion into the very essence of your genetics is FAR MORE insidious and more threatening.
Get a life and realize you are losing liberties faster under this menace of a Congress, than under 30 years of Republicans.
We will all have an obesity rating, perhaps it can go on our Facebook page or when we add ourselves to a dating site. Right up there with what do you like to do and what is your occupation we will add an obesity number.
Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.
The obesity-rating regulation states that every American's electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”
The law also requires that these electronic health records be available--with appropriate security measures--on a national exchange.
The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law. Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, define the "meaningful use" of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers--including doctors and hospitals--must establish "meaningful use" of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing "meaningful use" of EHRs.
Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: "The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."
Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation--developed by Dr. Blumenthal--that requires that all EHRs keep track of a person’s Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a person’s weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity.
Michelle Obama has made dealing with the problem of childhood obesity the main theme of her term as First Lady.
According to the CDC, “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”
A person’s BMI score is used as a tool to screen for obesity or excessive body fat that could lead to other health problems. While it does not actually measure body fat directly, according to CDC, the BMI scores generally correlate with a person’s body fat percentage.
The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies such as HHS and CDC. The CDC, which calls American society “obesogenic” – meaning that American society itself promotes obesity – collects BMI scores from state health agencies every year to monitor obesity nationwide.
“Electronically record, retrieve, and transmit syndrome based public health surveillance information to public health agencies,” the regulations read.
With the spread of electronic health records, the CDC apparently will be able to collect such data more efficiently and with greater accuracy because the electronic record keeping systems can send the data automatically, eliminating the need for government – both state and federal – to keep, send, and process physical records.
obama
Get a life and realize you are losing liberties faster under this menace of a Congress, than under 30 years of Republicans.
We will all have an obesity rating, perhaps it can go on our Facebook page or when we add ourselves to a dating site. Right up there with what do you like to do and what is your occupation we will add an obesity number.
Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.
The obesity-rating regulation states that every American's electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”
The law also requires that these electronic health records be available--with appropriate security measures--on a national exchange.
The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law. Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, define the "meaningful use" of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers--including doctors and hospitals--must establish "meaningful use" of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing "meaningful use" of EHRs.
Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: "The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."
Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation--developed by Dr. Blumenthal--that requires that all EHRs keep track of a person’s Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a person’s weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity.
Michelle Obama has made dealing with the problem of childhood obesity the main theme of her term as First Lady.
According to the CDC, “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”
A person’s BMI score is used as a tool to screen for obesity or excessive body fat that could lead to other health problems. While it does not actually measure body fat directly, according to CDC, the BMI scores generally correlate with a person’s body fat percentage.
The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies such as HHS and CDC. The CDC, which calls American society “obesogenic” – meaning that American society itself promotes obesity – collects BMI scores from state health agencies every year to monitor obesity nationwide.
“Electronically record, retrieve, and transmit syndrome based public health surveillance information to public health agencies,” the regulations read.
With the spread of electronic health records, the CDC apparently will be able to collect such data more efficiently and with greater accuracy because the electronic record keeping systems can send the data automatically, eliminating the need for government – both state and federal – to keep, send, and process physical records.
obama
Obama's Exceptionalism
And while all of Europe - almost every European country with socialized medicine - is retreating from the catastrophe of socialism, Obama is plowing forward. Odd isn't it. He told the world some months ago that everyone was exceptional, implying we were not more exceptional than anyone else.
So I ask - what makes him think we can make it work, when all the European states can't.
obama
socialism
So I ask - what makes him think we can make it work, when all the European states can't.
obama
socialism
Saturday, July 24, 2010
True: THEIR BIGGEST mistake - not defending themselves against ... well, people with no honor, respect, or loyalty.
My Biggest Mistake in the White House
Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.
By KARL ROVE
July 15, 2010
Wall Street Journal
Seven years ago today, in a speech on the Iraq war, Sen. Ted Kennedy fired the first shot in an all-out assault on President George W. Bush's integrity. "All the evidence points to the conclusion," Kennedy said, that the Bush administration "put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth." Later that day Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters Mr. Bush needed "to be forthcoming" about the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Thus began a shameful episode in our political life whose poisonous fruits are still with us.
The next morning, Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards joined in. Sen. Kerry said, "It is time for a president who will face the truth and tell the truth." Mr. Edwards chimed in, "The administration has a problem with the truth."
The battering would continue, and it was a monument to hypocrisy and cynicism. All these Democrats had said, like Mr. Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had these weapons. This didn't keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham organized a bipartisan letter in December 2001 warning Mr. Bush that Saddam's "biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs . . . may be back to pre-Gulf War status," and enhanced by "longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Yet two years later, he called for Mr. Bush's impeachment for having said Saddam had WMD
On July 9, 2004, Mr. Graham's fellow Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, charged that the Bush administration "at all levels . . . used bad information to bolster the case for war." But in his remarks on Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the war resolution, he said that "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America."
Even Kennedy, who opposed the war resolution, nonetheless said the month before the vote that Saddam's "pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated." But he warned if force were employed, the Iraqi dictator "may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists."
Then there was Al Gore, who charged on June 24, 2004, that Mr. Bush spent "prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies" and accused him of treason, bellowing that Mr. Bush "betrayed his country." Yet just a month before the war resolution debate, the former vice president said, "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later catalogue the serious errors in the intelligence on which Mr. Bush and Democrats relied. But these commissions, particularly the Silberman-Robb report of March 31, 2005, found that the "Bush lied" charge was false. Still, the attacks hurt: When they began, less than a third of Americans believed the charge. Two years later, polls showed that just over half did.
The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false—and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.
At the time, we in the Bush White House discussed responding but decided not to relitigate the past. That was wrong and my mistake: I should have insisted to the president that this was a dagger aimed at his administration's heart. What Democrats started seven years ago left us less united as a nation to confront foreign challenges and overcome America's enemies.
We know President Bush did not intentionally mislead the nation. Saddam Hussein was deposed and eventually hanged for his crimes. Iraq is a democracy and an ally instead of an enemy of America. Al Qaeda suffered tremendous blows in the "land between the two rivers." But Democrats lost more than the election in 2004. In telling lie after lie, week after week, many lost their honor and blackened their reputations.
liars
Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.
By KARL ROVE
July 15, 2010
Wall Street Journal
Seven years ago today, in a speech on the Iraq war, Sen. Ted Kennedy fired the first shot in an all-out assault on President George W. Bush's integrity. "All the evidence points to the conclusion," Kennedy said, that the Bush administration "put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth." Later that day Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters Mr. Bush needed "to be forthcoming" about the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Thus began a shameful episode in our political life whose poisonous fruits are still with us.
The next morning, Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards joined in. Sen. Kerry said, "It is time for a president who will face the truth and tell the truth." Mr. Edwards chimed in, "The administration has a problem with the truth."
The battering would continue, and it was a monument to hypocrisy and cynicism. All these Democrats had said, like Mr. Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had these weapons. This didn't keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham organized a bipartisan letter in December 2001 warning Mr. Bush that Saddam's "biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs . . . may be back to pre-Gulf War status," and enhanced by "longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Yet two years later, he called for Mr. Bush's impeachment for having said Saddam had WMD
On July 9, 2004, Mr. Graham's fellow Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, charged that the Bush administration "at all levels . . . used bad information to bolster the case for war." But in his remarks on Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the war resolution, he said that "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America."
Even Kennedy, who opposed the war resolution, nonetheless said the month before the vote that Saddam's "pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated." But he warned if force were employed, the Iraqi dictator "may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists."
Then there was Al Gore, who charged on June 24, 2004, that Mr. Bush spent "prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies" and accused him of treason, bellowing that Mr. Bush "betrayed his country." Yet just a month before the war resolution debate, the former vice president said, "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later catalogue the serious errors in the intelligence on which Mr. Bush and Democrats relied. But these commissions, particularly the Silberman-Robb report of March 31, 2005, found that the "Bush lied" charge was false. Still, the attacks hurt: When they began, less than a third of Americans believed the charge. Two years later, polls showed that just over half did.
The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false—and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.
At the time, we in the Bush White House discussed responding but decided not to relitigate the past. That was wrong and my mistake: I should have insisted to the president that this was a dagger aimed at his administration's heart. What Democrats started seven years ago left us less united as a nation to confront foreign challenges and overcome America's enemies.
We know President Bush did not intentionally mislead the nation. Saddam Hussein was deposed and eventually hanged for his crimes. Iraq is a democracy and an ally instead of an enemy of America. Al Qaeda suffered tremendous blows in the "land between the two rivers." But Democrats lost more than the election in 2004. In telling lie after lie, week after week, many lost their honor and blackened their reputations.
liars
Obama: My Policies Have Gotten Us Out of The Mess ...
I am just unsure of what mess he has fixed. So far, it is getting worse - higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence, less spending, more taxes .... I don't see anything he has gotten us out of, just a deficit of over $1.5 trillion this year.
Obama: Voters to decide who caused 'this mess'
(AP) – July 16, 2010
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama acknowledges that the fall elections could amount to a referendum on his stewardship of the nation's affairs.
Obama tells NBC in an interview that "nobody in the White House is satisfied" with continuing high unemployment.
But he also says the midterm congressional elections could come down to "a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and my policies that got us out of this mess."
The president said in the interview he believes voters "are going to say the policies that got us into this mess, we can't go back to." He also said Washington "has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics — who's up and who's down — and not enough on what we're doing for the American people."
obama
Obama: Voters to decide who caused 'this mess'
(AP) – July 16, 2010
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama acknowledges that the fall elections could amount to a referendum on his stewardship of the nation's affairs.
Obama tells NBC in an interview that "nobody in the White House is satisfied" with continuing high unemployment.
But he also says the midterm congressional elections could come down to "a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and my policies that got us out of this mess."
The president said in the interview he believes voters "are going to say the policies that got us into this mess, we can't go back to." He also said Washington "has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics — who's up and who's down — and not enough on what we're doing for the American people."
obama
The Swiss and THEIR funny world
Swiss adopt cows for the summer
By Alexandra Troubnikoff (AFP)
July 13, 2010
LA LECHERETTE, Switzerland — Most Swiss head to the beaches for their vacations, but others are opting for a rustic holiday in the mountains where they are spending time with their adopted cows over the summer.
Launched five years ago by herder Michel Izoz, a cow adoption project called Mavachamoi -- word play in French for "my cow" -- is proving popular among urban dwellers in Switzerland.
Among the 20 cows available for rent at his farm in La Lecherette in the canton Vaud, only Ilda, Rosette, Tola, Ursula, Usine and Quenele are still available. All the others have been booked for the summer.
Izoz noted that some cows are more popular than others, especially those with horns as they "appear more authentic."
Clients go online to the website www.mavachamoi.ch for a catalogue showcasing the cows on post-card perfect meadows. For 280 euros (350 dollars) , they can reserve a cow for a season, during which they can visit the animal as often as they wish.
Most reservations are made as gifts, Izoz said, pointing out that the project offers a chance for city dwellers to compare "the stressed out world of the cities and the hard lives in the mountains."
Izoz told AFP that he had started the project mainly to "show people that farming life is really different from what we imagine."
To put forward his point, Izoz requires clients to spend at least four hours working at the farm, during which they are to round up the herd, cut wood, participate in the treatment or making of cheese prepared in wood fire in the large copper vats.
"Often, it makes my son laugh" to see the city people doing the farmwork that requires some dexterity, said Esther Ginier, another farmer who offers 16 cows for rent at her farm in La Comballaz.
Most end up being surprised by how hard life can be in the idyllic mountain pastures through which they hike during the weekends, said Katherine Bolay, a retiree participating in the project with her husband.
"They discover that the mountain pastures is seven days a week, we do not get Sundays off and we have little vacation," Ginier pointed out.
"We are most stressed by the weather, we live with nature, and its rules," said the Vaudoise farmer at her 17th-century farmhouse, decorated with flowers and antique bells.
The adoption also offers other surprises.
"The children discover in Switzerland, the country of cows, that milk does not come from packets. Straight from the udder, it's smooth, it's warm, it's sweet," said Bolay.
Parents meanwhile also manage to revisit their childhood memories. They also often leave with farm products, said her husband Jacques Bolay.
They realise that "the cows are not that dumb and that like people, they have their own character, with a dominant one, a curious one, a greedy one... and even nasty ones which charge at us," he said.
Claude Kobler has adopted Sirene since 2007.
For him, it is about making a contribution to the alpine herders.
But what makes the IT consultant of a Geneva bank happy is the contact with the different world.
His Fribourgeouis speckled cow appears, too, to enjoy the patronage, "as it produces more and more milk."
By Alexandra Troubnikoff (AFP)
July 13, 2010
LA LECHERETTE, Switzerland — Most Swiss head to the beaches for their vacations, but others are opting for a rustic holiday in the mountains where they are spending time with their adopted cows over the summer.
Launched five years ago by herder Michel Izoz, a cow adoption project called Mavachamoi -- word play in French for "my cow" -- is proving popular among urban dwellers in Switzerland.
Among the 20 cows available for rent at his farm in La Lecherette in the canton Vaud, only Ilda, Rosette, Tola, Ursula, Usine and Quenele are still available. All the others have been booked for the summer.
Izoz noted that some cows are more popular than others, especially those with horns as they "appear more authentic."
Clients go online to the website www.mavachamoi.ch for a catalogue showcasing the cows on post-card perfect meadows. For 280 euros (350 dollars) , they can reserve a cow for a season, during which they can visit the animal as often as they wish.
Most reservations are made as gifts, Izoz said, pointing out that the project offers a chance for city dwellers to compare "the stressed out world of the cities and the hard lives in the mountains."
Izoz told AFP that he had started the project mainly to "show people that farming life is really different from what we imagine."
To put forward his point, Izoz requires clients to spend at least four hours working at the farm, during which they are to round up the herd, cut wood, participate in the treatment or making of cheese prepared in wood fire in the large copper vats.
"Often, it makes my son laugh" to see the city people doing the farmwork that requires some dexterity, said Esther Ginier, another farmer who offers 16 cows for rent at her farm in La Comballaz.
Most end up being surprised by how hard life can be in the idyllic mountain pastures through which they hike during the weekends, said Katherine Bolay, a retiree participating in the project with her husband.
"They discover that the mountain pastures is seven days a week, we do not get Sundays off and we have little vacation," Ginier pointed out.
"We are most stressed by the weather, we live with nature, and its rules," said the Vaudoise farmer at her 17th-century farmhouse, decorated with flowers and antique bells.
The adoption also offers other surprises.
"The children discover in Switzerland, the country of cows, that milk does not come from packets. Straight from the udder, it's smooth, it's warm, it's sweet," said Bolay.
Parents meanwhile also manage to revisit their childhood memories. They also often leave with farm products, said her husband Jacques Bolay.
They realise that "the cows are not that dumb and that like people, they have their own character, with a dominant one, a curious one, a greedy one... and even nasty ones which charge at us," he said.
Claude Kobler has adopted Sirene since 2007.
For him, it is about making a contribution to the alpine herders.
But what makes the IT consultant of a Geneva bank happy is the contact with the different world.
His Fribourgeouis speckled cow appears, too, to enjoy the patronage, "as it produces more and more milk."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments