Thursday, December 30, 2010
Obama pays doctor's to tell patients to kill themselves
Original Post: NY Times
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. Because if Obama can't use the legislative process, he can just use his dictatorial powers to add to the law after it has already been written.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. ie. the government will pay doctors to try to get patients to kill themselves.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. I thought we needed this bill to stop insurance companies from cutting off care for the sick? I guess it's just ok with the government does it.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. Or, Obama doesn't need congress and we no longer have separation of powers. Obama can just write regulation and make his well done. Between that and the power usurping Czars, we might as well not even have Congress anymore.
In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.
“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.
The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”
Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.
Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.” So, this was necessary because patients and doctors couldn't discuss end of life treatment before? I don't think that was the case, in fact I'm pretty sure such conversations were prevalent. They were even prevalent with out the financial incentive for doctor's to advise patients to end themselves.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.” It's not a myth if it's happening.
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. Because if Obama can't use the legislative process, he can just use his dictatorial powers to add to the law after it has already been written.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. ie. the government will pay doctors to try to get patients to kill themselves.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. I thought we needed this bill to stop insurance companies from cutting off care for the sick? I guess it's just ok with the government does it.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. Or, Obama doesn't need congress and we no longer have separation of powers. Obama can just write regulation and make his well done. Between that and the power usurping Czars, we might as well not even have Congress anymore.
In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.
“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.
The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”
Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.
Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.” So, this was necessary because patients and doctors couldn't discuss end of life treatment before? I don't think that was the case, in fact I'm pretty sure such conversations were prevalent. They were even prevalent with out the financial incentive for doctor's to advise patients to end themselves.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.” It's not a myth if it's happening.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Global Warming causes global cooling -> global warming
Original Post: NY Times
Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming
By JUDAH COHEN
Published: December 25, 2010
THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.
All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.
How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.
For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia.
Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.
But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has expanded across the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Siberia, just north of a series of exceptionally high mountain ranges, including the Himalayas, the Tien Shan and the Altai.
The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.
As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.
The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.
Well that makes absolute sense. Because y'know, snow is mirror shaped that always reflects up and is totally not a prism, that would just refract light. Snow also doesn't melt when exposed to sunlight that would increase it's temperature about the 32 degree point that typically melts water. So when it warms up it causes snow which cools things off. But if we do the right thing and reduce the carbon in the atmosphere, it'll cool things off both of which will reflect the sunlight back into space cooling off the world in perpetuity.
The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.
That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.
Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.
It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it. And there you have it, it's cold because it's hot.
Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming
By JUDAH COHEN
Published: December 25, 2010
THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.
All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.
How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.
For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia.
Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.
But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has expanded across the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Siberia, just north of a series of exceptionally high mountain ranges, including the Himalayas, the Tien Shan and the Altai.
The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.
As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.
The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.
Well that makes absolute sense. Because y'know, snow is mirror shaped that always reflects up and is totally not a prism, that would just refract light. Snow also doesn't melt when exposed to sunlight that would increase it's temperature about the 32 degree point that typically melts water. So when it warms up it causes snow which cools things off. But if we do the right thing and reduce the carbon in the atmosphere, it'll cool things off both of which will reflect the sunlight back into space cooling off the world in perpetuity.
The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.
That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.
Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.
It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it. And there you have it, it's cold because it's hot.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Clueless bloggers attack Fox News for memo that says “show both sides” of the global warming/cooling story
Original Post: whatsupwiththat
Posted on December 15, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Fox News Channel
Joe Romm and Al Gore share one thing in common besides being paid for blogging, writing, and making opinions on climate to scare the dickens out of people: they don’t understand what journalism is supposed to be about. Not only that, Joe shows his own bias and hyprocrisy compared to how he dealt with Climategate emails a year ago:
Note: No, I’m not thrilled with reprinting part of an illegally stolen e-mail, but this was in Wired and has been confirmed by the author and actually deals with the science.
Kudos to Media Matters for unearthing this story from the anti-earth folks at Fox News. See also the Politico story, “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”
He seems thrilled to publish such a “stolen email” now, when it suits his cause. And of course, he puts the Fox News email front and center, but you won’t find him doing that for any of the climategate emails, lest he scare the flock.
And here’s what he’s all bent out of shape about, this passage from the Fox News “illegally obtained” email, bold mine.
…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
Gore writes on his blog today:
“Fox News has consistently delivered false and misleading information to its viewers about the climate crisis. The leaked emails now suggest that this bias comes directly from the executives responsible for their news coverage.
Heh, a year ago Gore wouldn’t even read the emails from CRU, and got caught with his foot in his mouth: Al Gore can’t tell time – thinks most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old
Of course, there’s no mention of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, being hauled into court in Britain and found to be “false and misleading”.
There’s also no mention of the CRU emails on Gore’s blog, the entire month of November last year, even after major media outlets such as the New York Times had reported on it. He was sure to wish everyone a “happy Thanksgiving” though. In fact it took Gore a full month, until Dec 18th, 2009 to make any mention of it at all, and then it was only a sideways glance, by reporting on a favorable story (for him) in Politico.
And let’s not forget this story, where Al locks our reporters from his presentation, and is even bold enough to put up a sign to that effect: Gore to press: Stay Out!
It seems to be a pattern with Mr. Gore: Journalists pan Gore secrecy
Neither Al or Joe seem to get what journalism is supposed to be about. Here’s a clue.
The Encyclopedia of American journalism, By Stephen L. Vaughn, page 38, says:
A “core journalistic value”.
As Lachlan Markay at Newsbusters writes:
So Sammon instructed staff to incorporate the most basic tenets of science and journalism – skepticism and political neutrality, respectively – into their reporting on contentious scientific issues with tremendous political implications. And this is a problem?
Only if you are MediaMatters, Joe Romm, or Al Gore.
Posted on December 15, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Fox News Channel
Joe Romm and Al Gore share one thing in common besides being paid for blogging, writing, and making opinions on climate to scare the dickens out of people: they don’t understand what journalism is supposed to be about. Not only that, Joe shows his own bias and hyprocrisy compared to how he dealt with Climategate emails a year ago:
Note: No, I’m not thrilled with reprinting part of an illegally stolen e-mail, but this was in Wired and has been confirmed by the author and actually deals with the science.
Kudos to Media Matters for unearthing this story from the anti-earth folks at Fox News. See also the Politico story, “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”
He seems thrilled to publish such a “stolen email” now, when it suits his cause. And of course, he puts the Fox News email front and center, but you won’t find him doing that for any of the climategate emails, lest he scare the flock.
And here’s what he’s all bent out of shape about, this passage from the Fox News “illegally obtained” email, bold mine.
…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
Gore writes on his blog today:
“Fox News has consistently delivered false and misleading information to its viewers about the climate crisis. The leaked emails now suggest that this bias comes directly from the executives responsible for their news coverage.
Heh, a year ago Gore wouldn’t even read the emails from CRU, and got caught with his foot in his mouth: Al Gore can’t tell time – thinks most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old
Of course, there’s no mention of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, being hauled into court in Britain and found to be “false and misleading”.
There’s also no mention of the CRU emails on Gore’s blog, the entire month of November last year, even after major media outlets such as the New York Times had reported on it. He was sure to wish everyone a “happy Thanksgiving” though. In fact it took Gore a full month, until Dec 18th, 2009 to make any mention of it at all, and then it was only a sideways glance, by reporting on a favorable story (for him) in Politico.
And let’s not forget this story, where Al locks our reporters from his presentation, and is even bold enough to put up a sign to that effect: Gore to press: Stay Out!
It seems to be a pattern with Mr. Gore: Journalists pan Gore secrecy
Neither Al or Joe seem to get what journalism is supposed to be about. Here’s a clue.
The Encyclopedia of American journalism, By Stephen L. Vaughn, page 38, says:
A “core journalistic value”.
As Lachlan Markay at Newsbusters writes:
So Sammon instructed staff to incorporate the most basic tenets of science and journalism – skepticism and political neutrality, respectively – into their reporting on contentious scientific issues with tremendous political implications. And this is a problem?
Only if you are MediaMatters, Joe Romm, or Al Gore.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Al Gore defiantly shakes fist at global warming
How green is Al Gore's $9 million Montecito oceanfront villa?
Original Post: USA Today
How inconvenient is this news? Former vice president Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, bought a gated $8,875,000 ocean-view villa in Montecito, Calif., where Oprah Winfrey also owns a mansion, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Gore, author of the best seller An Inconvenient Truth about the dangers of global warming, received much criticism for the high electric use of his 10,000-square-foot historic home in Nashville. He says he's added 33 rooftop solar panels and seven geothermal wells and buys only renewable energy.
Does he plan to green the California villa, which reportedly has more than 6,500 square feet of living space, a swimming pool, spa and fountains?
Gore didn't respond to the Times' requests for comment, so its story is based on "real estate sources" familiar with the deal. The Times first reported the purchase last month, citing the Montecito Journal, but without further confirmation, Green House mentioned it only briefly.
The Huffington Post carries photos of the villa on 1.5 acres with wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms. It picked them up from the Real Estalker website, which says the Gores actually bought the property last year through their Tennessee-based trust and did not use their own names.
Montecito, located in Santa Barbara County about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, offers stunning hilltop views of the Pacific Ocean. It's one of the wealthiest communities in the United States, and many celebrities have homes there, including actors Michael Douglas and Chritopher Lloyd.
Can Gore make his Italian-style villa there energy efficient enough to stave off criticism? Has he hurt his own cause?
Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming, Monday told students at Cal State Monterey Bay to "learn about" the issue, reports the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The story adds:
Gore urged the young people, who greeted him with enthusiasm and attentiveness, to be "true to their values" as he spoke about his nearly decade-long commitment to fight and educate the public about climate change...
Gore was asked whether because of his work on climate change he's become a vegetarian. No, said Gore, but he has cut back on red meat.
My comments: I don't give a rip how "green" his house is. Even though his last mansion's swimming pool used more electricity than 100 average American families in a year *cough cough* I think it's interesting that he choose to get a house on Ocean front property. Aren't the skys going to burn. Isn't the sea going to rise? If the sea is going to rise then why in the world would you get OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY? He's just tempting fate at this point isn't he? Or does he know something that he doesn't profess....
Original Post: USA Today
How inconvenient is this news? Former vice president Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, bought a gated $8,875,000 ocean-view villa in Montecito, Calif., where Oprah Winfrey also owns a mansion, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Gore, author of the best seller An Inconvenient Truth about the dangers of global warming, received much criticism for the high electric use of his 10,000-square-foot historic home in Nashville. He says he's added 33 rooftop solar panels and seven geothermal wells and buys only renewable energy.
Does he plan to green the California villa, which reportedly has more than 6,500 square feet of living space, a swimming pool, spa and fountains?
Gore didn't respond to the Times' requests for comment, so its story is based on "real estate sources" familiar with the deal. The Times first reported the purchase last month, citing the Montecito Journal, but without further confirmation, Green House mentioned it only briefly.
The Huffington Post carries photos of the villa on 1.5 acres with wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms. It picked them up from the Real Estalker website, which says the Gores actually bought the property last year through their Tennessee-based trust and did not use their own names.
Montecito, located in Santa Barbara County about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, offers stunning hilltop views of the Pacific Ocean. It's one of the wealthiest communities in the United States, and many celebrities have homes there, including actors Michael Douglas and Chritopher Lloyd.
Can Gore make his Italian-style villa there energy efficient enough to stave off criticism? Has he hurt his own cause?
Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming, Monday told students at Cal State Monterey Bay to "learn about" the issue, reports the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The story adds:
Gore urged the young people, who greeted him with enthusiasm and attentiveness, to be "true to their values" as he spoke about his nearly decade-long commitment to fight and educate the public about climate change...
Gore was asked whether because of his work on climate change he's become a vegetarian. No, said Gore, but he has cut back on red meat.
My comments: I don't give a rip how "green" his house is. Even though his last mansion's swimming pool used more electricity than 100 average American families in a year *cough cough* I think it's interesting that he choose to get a house on Ocean front property. Aren't the skys going to burn. Isn't the sea going to rise? If the sea is going to rise then why in the world would you get OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY? He's just tempting fate at this point isn't he? Or does he know something that he doesn't profess....
Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan
Original Post: CNN
CNN's Reza Sayah and journalist Nasir Habib filed this report:
A Christian woman has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan, two police officials told CNN Thursday.
Asia Bibi was convicted of insulting Islam's prophet, Mohammed, while working in a field with several Muslim women in a village southwest of Lahore.
She told them the Quran was "fake" and made comments about one of Mohammed's wives and about his health in his final days, the police complaint against her said.
She said that "the Quran is fake and your prophet remained in bed for one month before his death because he had worms in his ears and mouth. He married Khadija just for money and after looting her kicked her out of the house," local police official Muhammad Ilyas told CNN.
The initial complaint against Bibi was filed on June 14, 2009, by a Muslim cleric, Ilyas said.
Police say the Muslim women reported the incident to Qari Muhammad Salim, who later filed the police report. The cleric claims Bibi confessed to him and apologized.
Muhammad Iqbal, a senior police official in the district of Nankana Sahib, said she also was fined the equivalent of $1,100.
Police say Bibi was charged with breaking section 295-C of Pakistan's penal code, which says: "Whoever ... defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
Former Pakistani Supreme Court Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid told CNN he doesn't recall a death sentence ever being carried against someone convicted of breaking Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws.
Death sentences in these cases are almost always overturned by higher courts on appeal, he said.
Death sentences are carried out by hanging in Pakistan.
CNN has not yet been able to contact Bibi or her family directly. It is not clear when the sentence was handed down.
Pakistan is more than 96 percent Muslim, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
CNN's Reza Sayah and journalist Nasir Habib filed this report:
A Christian woman has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan, two police officials told CNN Thursday.
Asia Bibi was convicted of insulting Islam's prophet, Mohammed, while working in a field with several Muslim women in a village southwest of Lahore.
She told them the Quran was "fake" and made comments about one of Mohammed's wives and about his health in his final days, the police complaint against her said.
She said that "the Quran is fake and your prophet remained in bed for one month before his death because he had worms in his ears and mouth. He married Khadija just for money and after looting her kicked her out of the house," local police official Muhammad Ilyas told CNN.
The initial complaint against Bibi was filed on June 14, 2009, by a Muslim cleric, Ilyas said.
Police say the Muslim women reported the incident to Qari Muhammad Salim, who later filed the police report. The cleric claims Bibi confessed to him and apologized.
Muhammad Iqbal, a senior police official in the district of Nankana Sahib, said she also was fined the equivalent of $1,100.
Police say Bibi was charged with breaking section 295-C of Pakistan's penal code, which says: "Whoever ... defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
Former Pakistani Supreme Court Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid told CNN he doesn't recall a death sentence ever being carried against someone convicted of breaking Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws.
Death sentences in these cases are almost always overturned by higher courts on appeal, he said.
Death sentences are carried out by hanging in Pakistan.
CNN has not yet been able to contact Bibi or her family directly. It is not clear when the sentence was handed down.
Pakistan is more than 96 percent Muslim, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Democrats spring Jeff Stone from jail to vote for them
Jeff Wood gets out of jail to vote in Assembly
Original Post: Isthmus
According to Channel 3000, Rep. Jeff Wood (I-Bloomer), will be released from jail today, where he is serving time for his 4th OWI offense, to vote in the Assembly.
It will be interesting to see if he votes to approve the state employee contracts, along with other Democrats. I expect he will.
Original Post: Isthmus
According to Channel 3000, Rep. Jeff Wood (I-Bloomer), will be released from jail today, where he is serving time for his 4th OWI offense, to vote in the Assembly.
It will be interesting to see if he votes to approve the state employee contracts, along with other Democrats. I expect he will.
Court says Scott Walker broke the law by talking about not having 40 hour work week...what?
Appeals court says Walker overstepped authority with shorter work weeks
Original Post: JS Online
By Steve Schultze of the Journal Sentinel
Dec. 21, 2010 12:04 p.m. |(73) Comments
The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that County Executive and Governor-elect Scott Walker's imposition of a 35-hour work week in 2009 as an emergency budget measure overstepped his authority.
Though the 35-hour week was never implemented, Walker instead imposed furloughs using his emergency authority as justification. That means the county might be held be liable for millions of dollars in back pay, said Richard Abelson, executive director of District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
The council is the county's largest union and initiated the lawsuit last year that led to the latest ruling.
The Appeals Court ruling, however, is silent on the furlough issue. County officials in the past have disputed Abelson's stance that the emergency furloughs were improperly implemented.
Walker couldn't be immediately reached for comment.
Abelson said he hoped that the Appeals Court decision might help at least leverage the county into reopening discussions on the stalemate over union contracts covering 2009 and this year.
"Hopefully this decision will compel" county officials to get back to the bargaining table, Abelson said.
The appeals ruling said that an arbitrator's decision favoring the union stance against the 35-hour week should be restored. It reversed Circuit Judge Dennis Flynn's June 2009 ruling against a arbitrator and siding with Walker.
The collective bargaining agreement in place between the county and District Council 48 gives an arbitrator the authority to decide whether "Walker's order may seek to lessen a budget shortfall by reducing the work week hours of the union's members," Tuesday's ruling said.
"It thus makes no difference if courts disagree with the arbitrator's analysis or even if that analysis is 'wrong,' " the appeals panel said.
The ruling was writing by Appeals Court Judge Ralph Adam Fine.
Original Post: JS Online
By Steve Schultze of the Journal Sentinel
Dec. 21, 2010 12:04 p.m. |(73) Comments
The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that County Executive and Governor-elect Scott Walker's imposition of a 35-hour work week in 2009 as an emergency budget measure overstepped his authority.
Though the 35-hour week was never implemented, Walker instead imposed furloughs using his emergency authority as justification. That means the county might be held be liable for millions of dollars in back pay, said Richard Abelson, executive director of District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
The council is the county's largest union and initiated the lawsuit last year that led to the latest ruling.
The Appeals Court ruling, however, is silent on the furlough issue. County officials in the past have disputed Abelson's stance that the emergency furloughs were improperly implemented.
Walker couldn't be immediately reached for comment.
Abelson said he hoped that the Appeals Court decision might help at least leverage the county into reopening discussions on the stalemate over union contracts covering 2009 and this year.
"Hopefully this decision will compel" county officials to get back to the bargaining table, Abelson said.
The appeals ruling said that an arbitrator's decision favoring the union stance against the 35-hour week should be restored. It reversed Circuit Judge Dennis Flynn's June 2009 ruling against a arbitrator and siding with Walker.
The collective bargaining agreement in place between the county and District Council 48 gives an arbitrator the authority to decide whether "Walker's order may seek to lessen a budget shortfall by reducing the work week hours of the union's members," Tuesday's ruling said.
"It thus makes no difference if courts disagree with the arbitrator's analysis or even if that analysis is 'wrong,' " the appeals panel said.
The ruling was writing by Appeals Court Judge Ralph Adam Fine.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law
Original Post: Yahoo
By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Melissa Nelson, Associated Press – Thu Dec 16, 6:26 pm ET
PENSACOLA, Fla. – Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways. The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson.
President Barack Obama's administration counters that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of the overhaul because everyone requires medical care. Government attorneys say the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.
Vinson, who was appointed to the bench almost 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, heard arguments Thursday but said he will rule later.
In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson earlier this week became the first federal judge to strike down a key portion of the law when he sided with the state of Virginia and ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.
In Florida, Vinson questioned how the government could halt the massive changes to the nation's health care system that have already begun. Rivkin told him the constitutional violations are more important.
The judge questioned the Obama administration attorneys about whether the government is reaching beyond its power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.
"A lot of people, myself included for years, have no health insurance," said Vinson, who described being a law student and paying cash to the doctor who delivered his first child.
"It amounted to about $100 a pound," he said, laughing.
Vinson also grilled government lawyers about their contention that people can be required to have health insurance because everyone needs medical care. Under that logic, he said, Americans could be forced to wear shoes or buy groceries or clothes.
But administration attorney Ian Heath Gershengorn said health insurance is different because it covers catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.
"Those costs, when they come, are unpredictable and substantial," he said.
Gershengorn also defended the administration against the states' claim that it was coercing them into participating in the health care overhaul. The states say the have no choice but to go along with the federal program because billions in Medicaid dollars are at stake.
Gershengorn said the states see huge benefits from Medicaid and the federal government is covering the bulk of the health care overhaul costs.
The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Melissa Nelson, Associated Press – Thu Dec 16, 6:26 pm ET
PENSACOLA, Fla. – Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways. The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson.
President Barack Obama's administration counters that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of the overhaul because everyone requires medical care. Government attorneys say the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.
Vinson, who was appointed to the bench almost 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, heard arguments Thursday but said he will rule later.
In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson earlier this week became the first federal judge to strike down a key portion of the law when he sided with the state of Virginia and ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.
In Florida, Vinson questioned how the government could halt the massive changes to the nation's health care system that have already begun. Rivkin told him the constitutional violations are more important.
The judge questioned the Obama administration attorneys about whether the government is reaching beyond its power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.
"A lot of people, myself included for years, have no health insurance," said Vinson, who described being a law student and paying cash to the doctor who delivered his first child.
"It amounted to about $100 a pound," he said, laughing.
Vinson also grilled government lawyers about their contention that people can be required to have health insurance because everyone needs medical care. Under that logic, he said, Americans could be forced to wear shoes or buy groceries or clothes.
But administration attorney Ian Heath Gershengorn said health insurance is different because it covers catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.
"Those costs, when they come, are unpredictable and substantial," he said.
Gershengorn also defended the administration against the states' claim that it was coercing them into participating in the health care overhaul. The states say the have no choice but to go along with the federal program because billions in Medicaid dollars are at stake.
Gershengorn said the states see huge benefits from Medicaid and the federal government is covering the bulk of the health care overhaul costs.
The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Michelle Obama on child nutrition: ‘We can’t just leave it up to the parents'
Original Post: Examiner
First Lady Michelle Obama is on a crusade to end child obesity - a worthwhile goal in and of itself. But in remarks at Monday's signing of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act", she seemed to denigrate the role of the parent.
In deciding what children ought to eat, she said, "We can’t just leave it up to the parents." We can't just leave it up to the parent's to raise a child, we need the federal government to do so. It it any wonder that some of us think the Obama's are authoritarians.
She added:
I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.
The bill signed by President Obama regulates what children can eat before, during, and after school. It also regulates diets during summer vacations in school programs funded by the federal government.
The bill passed the House 264 - 157 on December 2. Idaho's Walt Minnick voted for the measure, while Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) did not vote - along with 12 others.
For the first time, the federal government has the authority to regulate all food at schools - including food found in vending machines.
In her remarks, the First Lady even went so far as to tie childhood obesity to national security:
“And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well. These folks come at this issue from all different angles. But they’ve come together to support this bill because they know that it’s the right thing to do for our kids. And they know that in the long run, it won’t just save money, it will save lives.”
Politico reports that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee supports the measure. Frist reportedly said:
“I join President Obama and the first lady in celebrating the signing of ... this bipartisan legislation. ... As a physician, I know smart nutrition leads to healthy and productive lives."
Huckabee, who ran for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008 said:
“Reversing the childhood obesity epidemic in a single generation — as first lady Michelle Obama has called upon our nation to do — won’t be easy. ... The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act makes great strides toward eliminating this threat to our children's health.”
But the bill may not sit well with those who already see the government as being far too intrusive in individual's lives.
According to a report at CNS News, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called it the “nanny state run amok.”
The President joked that if he had not signed the bill, he would "be sleeping on the couch." Does anyone really think he was joking? Given Michelle's very dominant personality and Obama's willingness to bow before secretaries, I'm pretty darn sure that this is how our policies are being made. I'm sure Michelle told Barack to sign this bill and he cow toed to her.
First Lady Michelle Obama is on a crusade to end child obesity - a worthwhile goal in and of itself. But in remarks at Monday's signing of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act", she seemed to denigrate the role of the parent.
In deciding what children ought to eat, she said, "We can’t just leave it up to the parents." We can't just leave it up to the parent's to raise a child, we need the federal government to do so. It it any wonder that some of us think the Obama's are authoritarians.
She added:
I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.
The bill signed by President Obama regulates what children can eat before, during, and after school. It also regulates diets during summer vacations in school programs funded by the federal government.
The bill passed the House 264 - 157 on December 2. Idaho's Walt Minnick voted for the measure, while Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) did not vote - along with 12 others.
For the first time, the federal government has the authority to regulate all food at schools - including food found in vending machines.
In her remarks, the First Lady even went so far as to tie childhood obesity to national security:
“And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well. These folks come at this issue from all different angles. But they’ve come together to support this bill because they know that it’s the right thing to do for our kids. And they know that in the long run, it won’t just save money, it will save lives.”
Politico reports that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee supports the measure. Frist reportedly said:
“I join President Obama and the first lady in celebrating the signing of ... this bipartisan legislation. ... As a physician, I know smart nutrition leads to healthy and productive lives."
Huckabee, who ran for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008 said:
“Reversing the childhood obesity epidemic in a single generation — as first lady Michelle Obama has called upon our nation to do — won’t be easy. ... The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act makes great strides toward eliminating this threat to our children's health.”
But the bill may not sit well with those who already see the government as being far too intrusive in individual's lives.
According to a report at CNS News, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called it the “nanny state run amok.”
The President joked that if he had not signed the bill, he would "be sleeping on the couch." Does anyone really think he was joking? Given Michelle's very dominant personality and Obama's willingness to bow before secretaries, I'm pretty darn sure that this is how our policies are being made. I'm sure Michelle told Barack to sign this bill and he cow toed to her.
Chavez seeks power to rule by decree for 1 year
Original Post: Yahoo
By FABIOLA SANCHEZ, Associated Press Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press – Tue Dec 14, 10:16 pm ET
CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez asked congress Tuesday to grant him special powers to enact laws by decree for one year, just before a new legislature takes office with a larger contingent of opposition lawmakers.
The measure, which quickly received initial approval from the overwhelming majority of pro-Chavez lawmakers, would give the president the authority to bypass the National Assembly for the fourth time since he was first elected almost 12 years ago.
Vice President Elias Jaua made the request on Chavez's behalf, saying the president will use the authorization to ensure fast-track approval of laws aimed at helping the nation recover from severe flooding and mudslides that left thousands homeless and in government shelters.
"The measures we have to take are deep. Almost 40 percent of the country was affected" by the heavy rains, Jaua said.
Only five of the assembly's 165 lawmakers voted against the proposal Tuesday. I'm sure that was a totally legit vote with no coercion involved. The legislature, which is dominated by Chavez allies, is expected to give final approval to the measure before the end of the week.
Chavez's opponents accuse him of using the natural disaster to impose socialist-inspired measures and undermine the power of newly elected opposition lawmakers.
Hundreds of Chavez opponents protested outside the legislature Tuesday, saying Chavez is violating democratic principles and objecting to other planned laws that could impose regulations on the Internet and endanger Globovision, the country's last stridently anti-Chavez television channel.This sounds familiar doesn't it?
Decrees planned in the next two weeks include laws to speed construction of housing and roads and increase the value-added tax, Jaua said.
"The situation continues to be critical, and we need to tend to it with a set of laws," Chavez said while visiting a Caracas military base along with President Rafael Correa of Ecuador.
Chavez said he has yet to determine how much to raise the value-added tax, which is now 12 percent. He said the government estimates damage from the heavy rains at about $10 billion.
A draft of the law says Chavez is also seeking powers to issue decrees in areas including the country's "socio-economic system," telecommunications, the banking system, information technology, the military, rural and urban land use, and a "new geographical regionalization of the country."
"All of these laws will be within the framework of the constitution," Chavez said on state television.
Newly elected opposition lawmaker Julio Borges said the measures being taken up by the National Assembly in its final days go against the will of the voters.
"As elected deputies, we're asking for a meeting between the new assembly and the old one, so that people are respected — the voters and the constitution," Borges told reporters.
Chavez announced the plan to seek decree powers Friday, and some critics suggested he intended to push through controversial measures during the holidays while many Venezuelans are focusing on their families.
Opposition newspaper editor Teodoro Petkoff called it a "Christmas ambush," writing in his daily Tal Cual that Chavez is preparing totalitarian measures that amount to "a brutal attack ... against democratic life."
In his nearly 12 years in office, the leftist Chavez has been granted temporary decree powers three times by lawmakers, in 1999, 2001 and 2007.
The last time, he enjoyed special legislative powers for 18 months and used them to seize control of privately run oil fields, impose new taxes and nationalize telecommunications, electricity and cement companies.
Chavez supporters have dominated the National Assembly since the opposition boycotted 2005 elections, but the opposition gained ground in September elections.
Starting Jan. 5, Chavez will face 66 opponents among the 165 lawmakers, a group large enough to challenge some government measures and prevent him from holding a two-thirds majority — the threshold needed to approve some laws, such as granting the president decree powers.
By FABIOLA SANCHEZ, Associated Press Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press – Tue Dec 14, 10:16 pm ET
CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez asked congress Tuesday to grant him special powers to enact laws by decree for one year, just before a new legislature takes office with a larger contingent of opposition lawmakers.
The measure, which quickly received initial approval from the overwhelming majority of pro-Chavez lawmakers, would give the president the authority to bypass the National Assembly for the fourth time since he was first elected almost 12 years ago.
Vice President Elias Jaua made the request on Chavez's behalf, saying the president will use the authorization to ensure fast-track approval of laws aimed at helping the nation recover from severe flooding and mudslides that left thousands homeless and in government shelters.
"The measures we have to take are deep. Almost 40 percent of the country was affected" by the heavy rains, Jaua said.
Only five of the assembly's 165 lawmakers voted against the proposal Tuesday. I'm sure that was a totally legit vote with no coercion involved. The legislature, which is dominated by Chavez allies, is expected to give final approval to the measure before the end of the week.
Chavez's opponents accuse him of using the natural disaster to impose socialist-inspired measures and undermine the power of newly elected opposition lawmakers.
Hundreds of Chavez opponents protested outside the legislature Tuesday, saying Chavez is violating democratic principles and objecting to other planned laws that could impose regulations on the Internet and endanger Globovision, the country's last stridently anti-Chavez television channel.This sounds familiar doesn't it?
Decrees planned in the next two weeks include laws to speed construction of housing and roads and increase the value-added tax, Jaua said.
"The situation continues to be critical, and we need to tend to it with a set of laws," Chavez said while visiting a Caracas military base along with President Rafael Correa of Ecuador.
Chavez said he has yet to determine how much to raise the value-added tax, which is now 12 percent. He said the government estimates damage from the heavy rains at about $10 billion.
A draft of the law says Chavez is also seeking powers to issue decrees in areas including the country's "socio-economic system," telecommunications, the banking system, information technology, the military, rural and urban land use, and a "new geographical regionalization of the country."
"All of these laws will be within the framework of the constitution," Chavez said on state television.
Newly elected opposition lawmaker Julio Borges said the measures being taken up by the National Assembly in its final days go against the will of the voters.
"As elected deputies, we're asking for a meeting between the new assembly and the old one, so that people are respected — the voters and the constitution," Borges told reporters.
Chavez announced the plan to seek decree powers Friday, and some critics suggested he intended to push through controversial measures during the holidays while many Venezuelans are focusing on their families.
Opposition newspaper editor Teodoro Petkoff called it a "Christmas ambush," writing in his daily Tal Cual that Chavez is preparing totalitarian measures that amount to "a brutal attack ... against democratic life."
In his nearly 12 years in office, the leftist Chavez has been granted temporary decree powers three times by lawmakers, in 1999, 2001 and 2007.
The last time, he enjoyed special legislative powers for 18 months and used them to seize control of privately run oil fields, impose new taxes and nationalize telecommunications, electricity and cement companies.
Chavez supporters have dominated the National Assembly since the opposition boycotted 2005 elections, but the opposition gained ground in September elections.
Starting Jan. 5, Chavez will face 66 opponents among the 165 lawmakers, a group large enough to challenge some government measures and prevent him from holding a two-thirds majority — the threshold needed to approve some laws, such as granting the president decree powers.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Obamacare to deny sick children drugs (seriously)
Children’s Hospitals Lose Some Drug Discounts
Original Post: NY Times
WASHINGTON — In an unintended consequence of the new health care law, drug companies have begun notifying children’s hospitals around the country that they no longer qualify for large discounts on drugs used to treat rare medical conditions.
As a result, prices are going up for these specialized “orphan drugs,” some of which are also used to treat more common conditions.
Over the last 18 years, Congress has required drug manufacturers to provide discounts to a variety of health care providers, including community health centers, AIDS clinics and hospitals that care for large numbers of low-income people.
Several years ago, Congress broadened the program to include children’s hospitals. But this year Congress, in revising the drug discount program as part of the new health care law, blocked these hospitals from continuing to receive price cuts on orphan drugs intended for treatment of diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.
The reason behind the change is murky, though some drug makers had opposed expansion of the drug discount program. The discounts typically range from 30 percent to 50 percent, and children’s hospitals say the change is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars.
Under the new law, hundreds of rural hospitals became eligible for discounts for the first time, but the discounts are not available on orphan drugs, which account for a surprisingly large share of their outpatient pharmacy costs. At the same time, children’s hospitals lost access to discounts on the drugs.
In a typical letter to a children’s hospital, one company, Genentech, said that, because of the new law, it would not offer discounts on certain cancer medicines like Avastin, Herceptin, Rituxan and Tarceva, or on Activase, which is used to dissolve blood clots in heart attack and stroke patients.
Another drug maker, Allergan, cited the new law as a reason for denying discounts on Botox, which, besides removing wrinkles from the face, is used to reduce spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy and other neurological disorders.
Joshua D. Greenberg, vice president of Children’s Hospital Boston, said that loss of the discounts “jeopardizes our ability to care for some of the sickest children with the most complex health care needs.”
Robert A. Nordin, the pharmacy manager at Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare in St. Paul, said his hospital was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of discounts on drugs like Botox and Rituxan.
Christina M. Barnes, the pharmacy director at Galion Community Hospital in rural Galion, Ohio, said she was excited when her hospital qualified for the discount program earlier his year. But, she said, she was dismayed to learn that many drugs would be excluded.
“We were given an advantage with one hand, and it was taken away with the other hand,” Ms. Barnes said.
William A. Sarraille, a lawyer at Sidley Austin in Washington who represents drug makers, said, “The discounts are huge and can have a very significant, very negative impact on the ability of manufacturers to develop new, better products that meet patients’ needs.”
The Food and Drug Administration classifies more than 350 medicines as orphan drug products. Manufacturers said they could not recover the costs of developing such drugs if they were required to sell them at deeply discounted prices.
A House Democrat who worked on the health care law said the situation had resulted from “an honest mistake in drafting,” and he added, “No one intended to take away any of the drug discounts that children’s hospitals already had.”
The discount program is widely known as the 340B program, after the relevant section of the Public Health Service Act.
Mary K. Wakefield, the administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that manages the program, said she shared the concerns of children’s hospitals. “We support a technical correction by Congress that will preserve access to discounted medications for more vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Wakefield said.
The House has voted to restore discounts for children’s hospitals. Similar legislation has been bottled up in the Senate, despite support from Republicans like Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Democrats like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. A version of the proposal was included in bipartisan health care legislation unveiled Tuesday by Senate leaders.
When Congress created the drug discount program in 1992, it said the purpose was to enable clinics and hospitals to “stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.”
In a last-minute change sought by some drug manufacturers, Congress stipulated in the new health care law that rural hospitals, children’s hospitals and certain free-standing cancer centers could not get discounts on orphan drugs through the 340B program. Ms. Barnes, at Galion Hospital in Ohio, said: “The list of orphan drugs is small, but it involves big dollars. Many, perhaps most, of our cancer patients receive at least one orphan drug during their treatment.”
Leonard M. Gulino of Cape Elizabeth, Me., said the discount program had substantially reduced the cost of Botox treatments for his son, Gregory, who has had multiple strokes and severe tightening of leg muscles because of a rare disease.
Elimination of the discounts for orphan drugs at children’s hospitals came as a surprise to federal health officials who work on the program. They said they learned of it only after President Obama signed the legislation in March.
Terence J. Hurley, a spokesman for Genentech, said the company was waiting for guidance from federal officials because “there remains significant lack of clarity regarding the orphan drug provisions” of the new law. Allergan and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members produce many orphan drugs, declined to comment.
Drug companies said that the discount program was intended to help hospitals care for the uninsured, and that this need would diminish as millions of the uninsured gained coverage under Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul.
But Ted Slafsky, the executive director of Safety Net Hospitals for Pharmaceutical Access, a nonprofit group, said, “The exemption for orphan drugs undermines the mission and purpose of the drug discount program.”
Original Post: NY Times
WASHINGTON — In an unintended consequence of the new health care law, drug companies have begun notifying children’s hospitals around the country that they no longer qualify for large discounts on drugs used to treat rare medical conditions.
As a result, prices are going up for these specialized “orphan drugs,” some of which are also used to treat more common conditions.
Over the last 18 years, Congress has required drug manufacturers to provide discounts to a variety of health care providers, including community health centers, AIDS clinics and hospitals that care for large numbers of low-income people.
Several years ago, Congress broadened the program to include children’s hospitals. But this year Congress, in revising the drug discount program as part of the new health care law, blocked these hospitals from continuing to receive price cuts on orphan drugs intended for treatment of diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.
The reason behind the change is murky, though some drug makers had opposed expansion of the drug discount program. The discounts typically range from 30 percent to 50 percent, and children’s hospitals say the change is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars.
Under the new law, hundreds of rural hospitals became eligible for discounts for the first time, but the discounts are not available on orphan drugs, which account for a surprisingly large share of their outpatient pharmacy costs. At the same time, children’s hospitals lost access to discounts on the drugs.
In a typical letter to a children’s hospital, one company, Genentech, said that, because of the new law, it would not offer discounts on certain cancer medicines like Avastin, Herceptin, Rituxan and Tarceva, or on Activase, which is used to dissolve blood clots in heart attack and stroke patients.
Another drug maker, Allergan, cited the new law as a reason for denying discounts on Botox, which, besides removing wrinkles from the face, is used to reduce spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy and other neurological disorders.
Joshua D. Greenberg, vice president of Children’s Hospital Boston, said that loss of the discounts “jeopardizes our ability to care for some of the sickest children with the most complex health care needs.”
Robert A. Nordin, the pharmacy manager at Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare in St. Paul, said his hospital was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of discounts on drugs like Botox and Rituxan.
Christina M. Barnes, the pharmacy director at Galion Community Hospital in rural Galion, Ohio, said she was excited when her hospital qualified for the discount program earlier his year. But, she said, she was dismayed to learn that many drugs would be excluded.
“We were given an advantage with one hand, and it was taken away with the other hand,” Ms. Barnes said.
William A. Sarraille, a lawyer at Sidley Austin in Washington who represents drug makers, said, “The discounts are huge and can have a very significant, very negative impact on the ability of manufacturers to develop new, better products that meet patients’ needs.”
The Food and Drug Administration classifies more than 350 medicines as orphan drug products. Manufacturers said they could not recover the costs of developing such drugs if they were required to sell them at deeply discounted prices.
A House Democrat who worked on the health care law said the situation had resulted from “an honest mistake in drafting,” and he added, “No one intended to take away any of the drug discounts that children’s hospitals already had.”
The discount program is widely known as the 340B program, after the relevant section of the Public Health Service Act.
Mary K. Wakefield, the administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that manages the program, said she shared the concerns of children’s hospitals. “We support a technical correction by Congress that will preserve access to discounted medications for more vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Wakefield said.
The House has voted to restore discounts for children’s hospitals. Similar legislation has been bottled up in the Senate, despite support from Republicans like Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Democrats like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. A version of the proposal was included in bipartisan health care legislation unveiled Tuesday by Senate leaders.
When Congress created the drug discount program in 1992, it said the purpose was to enable clinics and hospitals to “stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.”
In a last-minute change sought by some drug manufacturers, Congress stipulated in the new health care law that rural hospitals, children’s hospitals and certain free-standing cancer centers could not get discounts on orphan drugs through the 340B program. Ms. Barnes, at Galion Hospital in Ohio, said: “The list of orphan drugs is small, but it involves big dollars. Many, perhaps most, of our cancer patients receive at least one orphan drug during their treatment.”
Leonard M. Gulino of Cape Elizabeth, Me., said the discount program had substantially reduced the cost of Botox treatments for his son, Gregory, who has had multiple strokes and severe tightening of leg muscles because of a rare disease.
Elimination of the discounts for orphan drugs at children’s hospitals came as a surprise to federal health officials who work on the program. They said they learned of it only after President Obama signed the legislation in March.
Terence J. Hurley, a spokesman for Genentech, said the company was waiting for guidance from federal officials because “there remains significant lack of clarity regarding the orphan drug provisions” of the new law. Allergan and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members produce many orphan drugs, declined to comment.
Drug companies said that the discount program was intended to help hospitals care for the uninsured, and that this need would diminish as millions of the uninsured gained coverage under Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul.
But Ted Slafsky, the executive director of Safety Net Hospitals for Pharmaceutical Access, a nonprofit group, said, “The exemption for orphan drugs undermines the mission and purpose of the drug discount program.”
Democrats want to control bake sales
Hold The Brownies! Bill Could Limit Bake Sales
Original Post: WITN
Don't touch my brownies!
A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.
Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.
"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."
The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
It wouldn't apply to after-hours events or concession stands at sports events.
Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The language is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write rules that decide how frequent is infrequent.
Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the bill is aimed at curbing daily or weekly bake sales or pizza fundraisers that become a regular part of kids' lunchtime routines. She says selling junk food can easily be substituted with nonfood fundraisers.
"These fundraisers are happening all the time," Wootan said. "It's a pizza sale one day, doughnuts the next... It's endless. This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."
Not all see it that way.
Palin mocked the efforts last month by bringing a plate of cookies to a school speech in Pennsylvania. Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the federal government "has really gone too far" when it is deciding when to hold bake sales.
Some parents say they are perplexed by what the new rules might allow.
In Seminole, Fla., the Seminole High Warhawks Marching Band's booster club held a bake sale to help send the band's 173 members to this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade in New York. One of the bake sale's specialties: New York-style cheesecake, an homage to the destination they'd pursued for 10 years.
"Limiting bake sales is so narrow-minded," said Laura Shortway, whose 17-year-old daughter, Mallory, is a drummer in the band. "Having bake sales keeps these fundraisers community based, which is very appealing to the person making the purchase."
Several school districts and state education departments already have policies suggesting or enforcing limits on bake sales, both for nutritional reasons and to keep the events from competing for dollars against school cafeterias. In Connecticut, for instance, about 70 percent of the state's school districts have signed on to the state education department's voluntary guidelines encouraging healthy foods in place of high-sugar, high-fat options.
Under those rules, bake sales cannot be held on school grounds unless the items meet nutrition standards that specifically limit portion sizes, fat content, sodium and sugars. That two-ounce, low-fat granola bar? Probably OK, depending what's in it. But grandma's homemade oversized brownie with cream cheese frosting and chocolate chips inside? Probably not.
One loophole in Connecticut: The nutritional standards apply if the food is being sold at a bake sale, but not if it's being given away free, such as by a parent for a child's birthday.
"If a mom wants to send in cupcakes to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, that would not be subject to the state guidelines," said Thomas Murphy, a spokesman for the state's education department.
In New York City, a rule enacted in 2009 allows bake sales only once a month, and they must comply with nutritional standards and be part of a parent group fundraiser.
Wootan says she hopes the rules will prompt schools to try different options for fundraising.
"Schools are so used to doing the same fundraisers every year that they need a strong nudge to do something new," she says. "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways — you don't have to harm kids health."
Original Post: WITN
Don't touch my brownies!
A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.
Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.
"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."
The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
It wouldn't apply to after-hours events or concession stands at sports events.
Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The language is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write rules that decide how frequent is infrequent.
Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the bill is aimed at curbing daily or weekly bake sales or pizza fundraisers that become a regular part of kids' lunchtime routines. She says selling junk food can easily be substituted with nonfood fundraisers.
"These fundraisers are happening all the time," Wootan said. "It's a pizza sale one day, doughnuts the next... It's endless. This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."
Not all see it that way.
Palin mocked the efforts last month by bringing a plate of cookies to a school speech in Pennsylvania. Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the federal government "has really gone too far" when it is deciding when to hold bake sales.
Some parents say they are perplexed by what the new rules might allow.
In Seminole, Fla., the Seminole High Warhawks Marching Band's booster club held a bake sale to help send the band's 173 members to this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade in New York. One of the bake sale's specialties: New York-style cheesecake, an homage to the destination they'd pursued for 10 years.
"Limiting bake sales is so narrow-minded," said Laura Shortway, whose 17-year-old daughter, Mallory, is a drummer in the band. "Having bake sales keeps these fundraisers community based, which is very appealing to the person making the purchase."
Several school districts and state education departments already have policies suggesting or enforcing limits on bake sales, both for nutritional reasons and to keep the events from competing for dollars against school cafeterias. In Connecticut, for instance, about 70 percent of the state's school districts have signed on to the state education department's voluntary guidelines encouraging healthy foods in place of high-sugar, high-fat options.
Under those rules, bake sales cannot be held on school grounds unless the items meet nutrition standards that specifically limit portion sizes, fat content, sodium and sugars. That two-ounce, low-fat granola bar? Probably OK, depending what's in it. But grandma's homemade oversized brownie with cream cheese frosting and chocolate chips inside? Probably not.
One loophole in Connecticut: The nutritional standards apply if the food is being sold at a bake sale, but not if it's being given away free, such as by a parent for a child's birthday.
"If a mom wants to send in cupcakes to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, that would not be subject to the state guidelines," said Thomas Murphy, a spokesman for the state's education department.
In New York City, a rule enacted in 2009 allows bake sales only once a month, and they must comply with nutritional standards and be part of a parent group fundraiser.
Wootan says she hopes the rules will prompt schools to try different options for fundraising.
"Schools are so used to doing the same fundraisers every year that they need a strong nudge to do something new," she says. "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways — you don't have to harm kids health."
Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law
Original Post: Yahoo
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press – 2 hrs 40 mins ago
RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insurance. The case is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that no court had expanded the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the government to regulate a person's decision not to buy a product.
"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," Hudson wrote.
In his order, he said he will allow the law to remain in effect while appeals are heard, meaning there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on other provisions that have already taken effect. The insurance coverage mandate is not scheduled to begin until 2014.
"The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications," Hudson wrote. "And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."
Even so, Republicans in Congress celebrated the ruling as validation of the arguments they had made for months while the law was pending. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., issued a statement urging the White House to agree to expedite a final ruling by appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first stopping at an appeals court.
Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down a key part of the law, which had been upheld by fellow federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and still others are pending, including one filed in Florida by 20 states.
White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.
"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe — as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found — that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
Hudson sided with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who argued the mandate overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.
"The ruling is extremely positive for anyone who believes in the system of Federalism created by our founding fathers," Cuccinelli said. "It underscores that the Constitution's limitations on federal power really do mean something."
Cuccinelli, a Republican, filed the lawsuit to defend a new state law passed in reaction to the federal overhaul that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance.
He argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.
"This lawsuit is not about health insurance, not about health care, it's about liberty," he said.
Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.
Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press – 2 hrs 40 mins ago
RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insurance. The case is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that no court had expanded the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the government to regulate a person's decision not to buy a product.
"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," Hudson wrote.
In his order, he said he will allow the law to remain in effect while appeals are heard, meaning there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on other provisions that have already taken effect. The insurance coverage mandate is not scheduled to begin until 2014.
"The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications," Hudson wrote. "And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."
Even so, Republicans in Congress celebrated the ruling as validation of the arguments they had made for months while the law was pending. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., issued a statement urging the White House to agree to expedite a final ruling by appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first stopping at an appeals court.
Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down a key part of the law, which had been upheld by fellow federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and still others are pending, including one filed in Florida by 20 states.
White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.
"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe — as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found — that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
Hudson sided with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who argued the mandate overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.
"The ruling is extremely positive for anyone who believes in the system of Federalism created by our founding fathers," Cuccinelli said. "It underscores that the Constitution's limitations on federal power really do mean something."
Cuccinelli, a Republican, filed the lawsuit to defend a new state law passed in reaction to the federal overhaul that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance.
He argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.
"This lawsuit is not about health insurance, not about health care, it's about liberty," he said.
Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.
Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq
Original Post: Hot Air
by Ed Morrissey
In this case, the surprise isn’t the data but the source. Wikileaks’ new release from purloined files of the Department of Defense may help remind people that, contrary to popular opinion and media memes, the US did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and in significant quantities. While the invasion of Iraq didn’t find huge stockpiles of new WMDs, it did uncover stockpiles that the UN had demanded destroyed as a condition of the 1991 truce that Saddam Hussein abrogated for twelve years (via Instapundit):
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base. …
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
Some of these discoveries have been known for years. To the extent that the media covered these at all, these finds were generally treated as long-forgotten leftovers that somehow never got addressed by the Iraqi military in twelve years of UN inspections. That, however, disregards completely the kind of totalitarian state that Hussein had imposed on Iraq, up to the minute that circumstances forced him into his spider hole in 2003. Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden. It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.
That would have had to have happened a number of times, not just once, organically arising in the ranks. And why create a vast conspiracy of defiance to save the weapons that Saddam Hussein liked the most while Hussein himself complied with the UN? Why not a conspiracy to just remove Hussein and his sons and let the military run the country instead? Obviously, Hussein wanted to keep enough WMDs to use as terror weapons, not against the US, but against Iran in the event of an invasion from the east.
This isn’t exactly vindication of one of the arguments the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq, which was that Hussein had already begun stockpiling new WMDs and was working on nuclear weapons, but it is another vindication of the primary reason for restarting the war: Hussein and Iraq had violated the truce and refused to comply even after 17 UN resolutions demanding compliance. Hussein never had any intention of abiding by the truce, for whatever motivations one wants to assign to him. After the invasion, the US proved (through an armed-version of Wikileaks in Iraq’s diplomatic files) that the UN had allowed Hussein to grab billions in personal wealth by perverting the embargo in the Oil-for-Food Program, which would have given Hussein the means to fuel another WMD program as soon as the West withdrew from Iraq, and to restart Hussein’s dreams of pan-Arab dominance through military adventurism. In the end, there were no good options.
by Ed Morrissey
In this case, the surprise isn’t the data but the source. Wikileaks’ new release from purloined files of the Department of Defense may help remind people that, contrary to popular opinion and media memes, the US did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and in significant quantities. While the invasion of Iraq didn’t find huge stockpiles of new WMDs, it did uncover stockpiles that the UN had demanded destroyed as a condition of the 1991 truce that Saddam Hussein abrogated for twelve years (via Instapundit):
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base. …
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
Some of these discoveries have been known for years. To the extent that the media covered these at all, these finds were generally treated as long-forgotten leftovers that somehow never got addressed by the Iraqi military in twelve years of UN inspections. That, however, disregards completely the kind of totalitarian state that Hussein had imposed on Iraq, up to the minute that circumstances forced him into his spider hole in 2003. Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden. It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.
That would have had to have happened a number of times, not just once, organically arising in the ranks. And why create a vast conspiracy of defiance to save the weapons that Saddam Hussein liked the most while Hussein himself complied with the UN? Why not a conspiracy to just remove Hussein and his sons and let the military run the country instead? Obviously, Hussein wanted to keep enough WMDs to use as terror weapons, not against the US, but against Iran in the event of an invasion from the east.
This isn’t exactly vindication of one of the arguments the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq, which was that Hussein had already begun stockpiling new WMDs and was working on nuclear weapons, but it is another vindication of the primary reason for restarting the war: Hussein and Iraq had violated the truce and refused to comply even after 17 UN resolutions demanding compliance. Hussein never had any intention of abiding by the truce, for whatever motivations one wants to assign to him. After the invasion, the US proved (through an armed-version of Wikileaks in Iraq’s diplomatic files) that the UN had allowed Hussein to grab billions in personal wealth by perverting the embargo in the Oil-for-Food Program, which would have given Hussein the means to fuel another WMD program as soon as the West withdrew from Iraq, and to restart Hussein’s dreams of pan-Arab dominance through military adventurism. In the end, there were no good options.
Obama calls Republicans 'hostage takers'
Original Post: American Thinker
Greg Halvorson
This guy doesn't get it. He, President Obama, cannot -- and never will -- understand that as the country's leader, his obligation isn't to polarized constituencies, but to every American regardless of skin color, immigration status, sexual orientation, or income bracket. True, there are a number of white, legal, straight and comfortably employed Republicans, just as there are Democrats in these categories, but President Obama ignores this, choosing instead to pander and divide. No longer an ACORN shill, and no longer feeding Alinsky to the wards, he fails nonetheless to embrace his position.
A leader doesn't whine about "millionaires and billionaires" receiving tax "cuts," when he knows that people making $200,000 aren't "rich." And no leader, as Obama did at his press conference, refers to the opposition as "hostage takers." Asked by NBC's Chuck Todd about "GOP obstruction," the president replied:
"We all know that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. It's tempting to not negotiate with ‘hostage takers,' unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage was the American people."
Really? That's the best we can get from the President of the United States? Hostage-takers seize people against their will, threatening to kill them if their demands aren't met. The president's word-choice is absurd. Moreover, his "American people" -- the one's being held hostage -- excludes citizens who oppose his philosophy. If you believe that workers can spend their money better than a bureaucrat, you don't factor. Obama's America is a parochial America defined by his hero. Obama himself.
Thomas Lifson adds:
The Obama hostage doctrine is alarming: "It's tempting to not negotiate with ‘hostage takers,' unless the hostage gets harmed."
This sends a message to terrorists that all they have to do is harm hostages and President Obama will come negotiating with them. In effect, the President has declared open season on Americans who may fall into the hands of terrorirsts all over the world. Just execute, torture, degrade, or otherwise harm a couple, and you will have the full attention of the President of the United States.
Frightening. This man is an amateur, way over his head.
Greg Halvorson
This guy doesn't get it. He, President Obama, cannot -- and never will -- understand that as the country's leader, his obligation isn't to polarized constituencies, but to every American regardless of skin color, immigration status, sexual orientation, or income bracket. True, there are a number of white, legal, straight and comfortably employed Republicans, just as there are Democrats in these categories, but President Obama ignores this, choosing instead to pander and divide. No longer an ACORN shill, and no longer feeding Alinsky to the wards, he fails nonetheless to embrace his position.
A leader doesn't whine about "millionaires and billionaires" receiving tax "cuts," when he knows that people making $200,000 aren't "rich." And no leader, as Obama did at his press conference, refers to the opposition as "hostage takers." Asked by NBC's Chuck Todd about "GOP obstruction," the president replied:
"We all know that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. It's tempting to not negotiate with ‘hostage takers,' unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage was the American people."
Really? That's the best we can get from the President of the United States? Hostage-takers seize people against their will, threatening to kill them if their demands aren't met. The president's word-choice is absurd. Moreover, his "American people" -- the one's being held hostage -- excludes citizens who oppose his philosophy. If you believe that workers can spend their money better than a bureaucrat, you don't factor. Obama's America is a parochial America defined by his hero. Obama himself.
Thomas Lifson adds:
The Obama hostage doctrine is alarming: "It's tempting to not negotiate with ‘hostage takers,' unless the hostage gets harmed."
This sends a message to terrorists that all they have to do is harm hostages and President Obama will come negotiating with them. In effect, the President has declared open season on Americans who may fall into the hands of terrorirsts all over the world. Just execute, torture, degrade, or otherwise harm a couple, and you will have the full attention of the President of the United States.
Frightening. This man is an amateur, way over his head.
Wikileaks: Saddam's WMD program existed in Iraq
Original Post: Examiner
he recent release by WikiLeaks of classified Pentagon documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction.
The latest WikiLeaks document dump reveals that as late as 2008, American troops continued to find WMD in the region.
There are numerous mentions of chemical and biological weapons in the WikiLeaks documents, however the U.S. media appear only interested in those portions of the leaked material that highlight actions that are viewed as embarrassing for the U.S. military such as the accusation that U.S. commanders were aware of abuse and "torture" of prisoners by Iraqi soldiers and police officers.
The U.S. Defense Department continues to demand that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange immediately return the stolen military documents in his possession, including recent documents that created another stir when published, according to Elaine Wilson of American Forces Press Service.
The department also wants the whistle-blowing web site to permanently delete all versions of these documents, which contain classified and sensitive information, from its web site, computers and records, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters during a Pentagon briefing.
WikiLeaks documents don't reveal evidence of a massive weapons program by Saddam Hussein — the Bush administration’s leading rationale for invading Iraq -- or some enormous stockpile of WMD, but do reveal that chemical weapons did vanish from the Iraqi battlefield.
According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.
During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
in 2004, for example, American special forces members secretly purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard which have been used since World War I. Following testing in a military lab, the chemical was then secured and transferred to a secret location.
Meanwhile, also in Iraq, U.S. recon soldiers inspected a suspected “chemical weapons” plant:
“One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interested in trying to get into the bunkers.”
During the a battle in Fallujah, American forces claim they discovered a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical[weapons] cache."
In addition, an armored vehicle came upon "155mm rounds filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.
he recent release by WikiLeaks of classified Pentagon documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction.
The latest WikiLeaks document dump reveals that as late as 2008, American troops continued to find WMD in the region.
There are numerous mentions of chemical and biological weapons in the WikiLeaks documents, however the U.S. media appear only interested in those portions of the leaked material that highlight actions that are viewed as embarrassing for the U.S. military such as the accusation that U.S. commanders were aware of abuse and "torture" of prisoners by Iraqi soldiers and police officers.
The U.S. Defense Department continues to demand that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange immediately return the stolen military documents in his possession, including recent documents that created another stir when published, according to Elaine Wilson of American Forces Press Service.
The department also wants the whistle-blowing web site to permanently delete all versions of these documents, which contain classified and sensitive information, from its web site, computers and records, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters during a Pentagon briefing.
WikiLeaks documents don't reveal evidence of a massive weapons program by Saddam Hussein — the Bush administration’s leading rationale for invading Iraq -- or some enormous stockpile of WMD, but do reveal that chemical weapons did vanish from the Iraqi battlefield.
According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.
During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
in 2004, for example, American special forces members secretly purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard which have been used since World War I. Following testing in a military lab, the chemical was then secured and transferred to a secret location.
Meanwhile, also in Iraq, U.S. recon soldiers inspected a suspected “chemical weapons” plant:
“One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interested in trying to get into the bunkers.”
During the a battle in Fallujah, American forces claim they discovered a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical[weapons] cache."
In addition, an armored vehicle came upon "155mm rounds filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Janet Napolitano Places Cameras in Wal-Mart
Original Post: Vision to America
More than 230 Walmart stores nationwide launched the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign today, with a total of 588 Walmart stores in 27 states joining in the coming weeks. A short video message, available here, will play at select checkout locations to remind shoppers to contact local law enforcement to report suspicious activity.
The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from DHS’ Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.
So while standing in line with your inflatable lawn Santa, tampons, dog food, and waiting for your tires to be rotated, you’ll be treated to a freakish video of Napolitano doing anything but actually stoppingterrorism, like securing the borders (9/11 began as an immigration issue with the hijackers here on expired visas), paying closer attention to the FBI watch list, and implementing effective security protocols at airports instead of get-lucky random searching.
More than 230 Walmart stores nationwide launched the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign today, with a total of 588 Walmart stores in 27 states joining in the coming weeks. A short video message, available here, will play at select checkout locations to remind shoppers to contact local law enforcement to report suspicious activity.
The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from DHS’ Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.
So while standing in line with your inflatable lawn Santa, tampons, dog food, and waiting for your tires to be rotated, you’ll be treated to a freakish video of Napolitano doing anything but actually stoppingterrorism, like securing the borders (9/11 began as an immigration issue with the hijackers here on expired visas), paying closer attention to the FBI watch list, and implementing effective security protocols at airports instead of get-lucky random searching.
Obama holds the aid hostage for carbon policy support
Bolivia, Ecuador denied climate funds
Original Post: Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
You can decide to boycott the Copenhagen Accord -- but that comes at a price. For Bolivia, that's $3 million; for Ecuador, it's $2.5 million.
Bolivia emerged as one of the most vociferous critics of the U.S.-brokered climate deal last December, arguing that the political deal aimed at establishing a global trading system for greenhouse gas emissions amounted to an assault by capitalist countries on poor ones. Bolivian president Evo Morales has organized his own climate conference, which will take place later this month.
Ecuador, for its part, submitted a letter on Jan. 31 stating that it "will not join" the agreement, unlike 122 other countries who have either signed on or have pledged to endorse it.
Both nations were in line for funding under the Obama administration's Global Climate Change initiative. The State Department's congressional budget justification for fiscal year 2010 included a request for $3 million for Bolivia and $2.5 million, according to administration officials, but Congress pared down the $373 million for U.S. AID climate change assistance programs to $305.7 million.
After reassessing the budget, State has decided to deny both Bolivia and Ecuador climate assistance. Since all these funding decisions are subject to congressional concurrence, the process is not complete, but it clearly reflects administration policy.
"There's funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen Accord, and as a general matter, the U.S. is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the Accord," said U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern in an interview. He added this policy test was "not categorical," so some nations that declined to sign on could still obtain circumstances.
But David Waskow, climate change program director for Oxfam America, challenged Stern's reasoning.
"No one can question that poor people in Bolivia and Ecuador are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. We should be making these decisions based on the merits of which communities need our support, not some other factors," Waskow said. "If you want to build confidence and trust among developing countries, this would not be the way to do it, especially in light of the fact that we haven't yet passed a climate change bill."
Original Post: Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
You can decide to boycott the Copenhagen Accord -- but that comes at a price. For Bolivia, that's $3 million; for Ecuador, it's $2.5 million.
Bolivia emerged as one of the most vociferous critics of the U.S.-brokered climate deal last December, arguing that the political deal aimed at establishing a global trading system for greenhouse gas emissions amounted to an assault by capitalist countries on poor ones. Bolivian president Evo Morales has organized his own climate conference, which will take place later this month.
Ecuador, for its part, submitted a letter on Jan. 31 stating that it "will not join" the agreement, unlike 122 other countries who have either signed on or have pledged to endorse it.
Both nations were in line for funding under the Obama administration's Global Climate Change initiative. The State Department's congressional budget justification for fiscal year 2010 included a request for $3 million for Bolivia and $2.5 million, according to administration officials, but Congress pared down the $373 million for U.S. AID climate change assistance programs to $305.7 million.
After reassessing the budget, State has decided to deny both Bolivia and Ecuador climate assistance. Since all these funding decisions are subject to congressional concurrence, the process is not complete, but it clearly reflects administration policy.
"There's funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen Accord, and as a general matter, the U.S. is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the Accord," said U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern in an interview. He added this policy test was "not categorical," so some nations that declined to sign on could still obtain circumstances.
But David Waskow, climate change program director for Oxfam America, challenged Stern's reasoning.
"No one can question that poor people in Bolivia and Ecuador are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. We should be making these decisions based on the merits of which communities need our support, not some other factors," Waskow said. "If you want to build confidence and trust among developing countries, this would not be the way to do it, especially in light of the fact that we haven't yet passed a climate change bill."
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The government can't even cause inflation correctly (but not in a good way)
Government can’t print money properly
Original Post: Yahoo
By Zachary Roth
As a metaphor for our troubled economic and financial era -- and the government's stumbling response -- this one's hard to beat. You can't stimulate the economy via the money supply, after all, if you can't print the money correctly.
Because of a problem with the presses, the federal government has shut down production of its flashy new $100 bills, and has quarantined more than 1 billion of them -- more than 10 percent of all existing U.S. cash -- in a vault in Fort Worth, Texas, reports CNBC.
"There is something drastically wrong here," one source told CNBC. "The frustration level is off the charts."
[Related: Money fair showcases $100,000 bill]
Officials with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve had touted the new bills' sophisticated security features that were 10 years in the making, including a 3-D security strip and a color-shifting image of a bell, designed to foil counterfeiters. But it turns out the bills are so high-tech that the presses can't handle the printing job.
More than 1 billion unusable bills have been printed. Some of the bills creased during production, creating a blank space on the paper, one official told CNBC. Because correctly printed bills are mixed in with the flawed ones, even the ones printed to the correct design specs can't be used until they 're sorted. It would take an estimated 20 to 30 years to weed out the defective bills by hand, but a mechanized system is expected to get the job done in about a year.
Combined, the quarantined bills add up to $110 billion -- more than 10 percent of the entire U.S. cash supply, which now stands at around $930 billion.
The flawed bills, which cost around $120 million to print, will have to be burned.
The new bills are the first to include Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's signature. In order to prevent a shortfall,the government has ordered production of the old design, which includes the signature of Bush administration Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. That, surely, is not the only respect in which the nation's lead economic officials would like to turn back the clock to sometime before the 2008 financial crisis.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The truth is global warming has halted
Original Post: Daily Mail
By David Rose
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010
A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'
Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.
Drivers and pedestrians battle through blizzards in Kent last week
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US Vice President Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialization of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.
According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.
Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.
The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?
By David Rose
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010
A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'
Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.
Drivers and pedestrians battle through blizzards in Kent last week
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US Vice President Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialization of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.
According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.
Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.
The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
In bra, panties and wheelchair, woman goes through Oklahoma City airport screening this morning
Original Post: Newsok
A woman who missed her flight at Will Rogers World Airport Tuesday when she showed up in a wheelchair, bra and panties, passed through the airport screening process this morning and has left the city.
In her bra, panties and wheelchair, woman passes through OKC airport screening
Tammy Banovac, clad in undergarments and sitting in a wheelchair, failed to pass the Transportation Security Administration screening process Tuesday when security officers detected traces of nitrates on her wheelchair.
Airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said the issue was resolved this morning and Banovac, 52, caught her flight out of the city at 7 a.m. after going through screening without incident.
Banovac did show up at the airport this morning in her wheelchair wearing her bra and panties again, Carney said. But Banovac had a change of clothes that she put on after being screened, Carney said.
She boarded her flight to Phoenix without incident. Carney said Banovac also had a dog with her, who left on the same flight.
Tuesday night Banovac said she chose to wear her underwear because of an unpleasant experience two weeks ago at airport security. She is typically hand-searched at airports because she uses a wheelchair, she said, and she felt violated by the more invasive searches employed at airports recently.
“If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault.”
Banovac said she was trying to board a flight to Phoenix on Tuesday when she was pulled aside at security for a more thorough search.
She said TSA employees told her equipment detected traces of nitrates, which are used in bombs, on her clothing and luggage. She said a TSA supervisor told her to leave the airport and “come back tomorrow” after more than an hour of hand searches and questioning.
My comments: Well thank god our crack TSA is on the job. This woman has a clear hatred for America and all her inhabitants in her eye. She dresses in the manner of an Islamic Jihadist. She is clearly a menace to our society and has suicide bomber written all over her luscious, creamy, soft...
A woman who missed her flight at Will Rogers World Airport Tuesday when she showed up in a wheelchair, bra and panties, passed through the airport screening process this morning and has left the city.
In her bra, panties and wheelchair, woman passes through OKC airport screening
Tammy Banovac, clad in undergarments and sitting in a wheelchair, failed to pass the Transportation Security Administration screening process Tuesday when security officers detected traces of nitrates on her wheelchair.
Airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said the issue was resolved this morning and Banovac, 52, caught her flight out of the city at 7 a.m. after going through screening without incident.
Banovac did show up at the airport this morning in her wheelchair wearing her bra and panties again, Carney said. But Banovac had a change of clothes that she put on after being screened, Carney said.
She boarded her flight to Phoenix without incident. Carney said Banovac also had a dog with her, who left on the same flight.
Tuesday night Banovac said she chose to wear her underwear because of an unpleasant experience two weeks ago at airport security. She is typically hand-searched at airports because she uses a wheelchair, she said, and she felt violated by the more invasive searches employed at airports recently.
“If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault.”
Banovac said she was trying to board a flight to Phoenix on Tuesday when she was pulled aside at security for a more thorough search.
She said TSA employees told her equipment detected traces of nitrates, which are used in bombs, on her clothing and luggage. She said a TSA supervisor told her to leave the airport and “come back tomorrow” after more than an hour of hand searches and questioning.
My comments: Well thank god our crack TSA is on the job. This woman has a clear hatred for America and all her inhabitants in her eye. She dresses in the manner of an Islamic Jihadist. She is clearly a menace to our society and has suicide bomber written all over her luscious, creamy, soft...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)