Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 21, 2017, 03:02:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
100370 Posts in 2360 Topics by 1085 Members
Latest Member: Why We Fight
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 134
3401  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: September 04, 2013, 10:52:52 AM
The more I have thought about it the more I conclude the Republicans should stand with the Dovish Dems and not authorize military action. 

Cite Obama's previous remarks.

Cite how our interventions in the Middle East have been more trouble than help.

Then campaign on stopping Iran from getting finished nuclear weapons.

One reason I conclude this is some experts opinions that we cannot eradicate sarin or other chemical agents from Syria without serious military intervention.

3402  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Syria on: September 03, 2013, 08:20:35 AM
Some Republicans criticized Obama for threatening to act alone.  OK so he now goes to Congress.  So Congressional Republicans should stand up and do the right thing - Americans don't want another war - do not authorize it.

Most Americans don't want to be the world's policemen.

Sure, the media, university, Democrat party socialist/fascist machine will spin it to their way of propaganda. 

Bottom line people will vote their pocket books.  Not for chemical weapons use in Syria.   
3403  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Best time for a nap is 1 to 4 PM on: September 02, 2013, 09:24:26 PM
Sounds like Latinos had it right all along.  I wouldn't mind a nap at that time.

****Siesta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the short nap. For other uses, see Siesta (disambiguation).

A siesta (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈsjesta]) is a short nap taken in the early afternoon, often after the midday meal. Such a period of sleep is a common tradition in some countries, particularly those where the weather is warm.

Because the siesta is the traditional daytime sleep of Spain and, through Spanish influence, of many Hispanic American countries and the Philippines, the word siesta also derives from Spanish, originally from the Latin hora sexta "sixth hour" (counting from dawn, hence "midday rest"). Siesta is also common in Italy (there called riposo), where museums, churches and shops close during siesta so that proprietors can go home for a long lunch and perhaps a snooze during the day’s hottest hours. Einhard's Life of Charlemagne recounts the emperor's summertime siesta: "In summer, after his midday meal, he would eat some fruit and take another drink; then he would remove his shoes and undress completely, just as he did at night, and rest for two or three hours."[1]

Main factors explaining the geographical distribution of the modern siesta are high temperatures and heavy intake of food at the midday meal. Combined, these two factors contribute to the feeling of post-lunch drowsiness. In many countries that observe the siesta, the heat can be unbearable in the early afternoon, making a midday break at home ideal. However, siesta is also practiced in some colder regions, such as Patagonia. This could indicate that the siesta has a stronger relation with culture than with climate.
Contents
  [hide] 1 Biological need for naps
2 Sleep cultures
3 Cardiovascular benefits
4 Further resources
5 References
6 External links
 
Biological need for naps[edit source]

Older, pre-teenage children are usually capable of napping, but others acquire the ability to nap as teenagers as well.[2]

The timing of sleep in humans depends upon a balance between homeostatic sleep propensity, the need for sleep as a function of the amount of time elapsed since the last adequate sleep episode, and circadian rhythms which determine the ideal timing of a correctly structured and restorative sleep episode. The homeostatic pressure to sleep starts growing upon awakening. The circadian signal for wakefulness starts building in the (late) afternoon. As Harvard professor of sleep medicine Charles A. Czeisler notes, "The circadian system is set up in a beautiful way to override the homeostatic drive for sleep."[3]

Thus, in many people, there is a dip when the drive for sleep has been building for hours and the drive for wakefulness has not yet started. This is, again quoting Czeisler, "a great time for a nap."[3] The drive for wakefulness intensifies through the evening, making it difficult to get to sleep 2–3 hours before one's usual bedtime when the wake maintenance zone ends.

Dentist and pharmacist sharing similar business hours in the island of Lipsi, Greece
Taking a midday nap is common in a number of tropical and subtropical countries, where the afternoon heat dramatically reduces work productivity. The Washington Post of February 13, 2007 reports at length on studies in Greece that indicate that those who nap have less risk of heart attack.[4]

In the United States, the United Kingdom, and a growing number of other countries, a short sleep has been referred to as a "power nap", a term coined by Cornell University social psychologist James Maas[5] and recognized by other research scientists such as Sara Mednick[6] as well as in the popular press.[7]

Cardiovascular benefits[edit source]

La Siesta, Ramon Martí Alsina (MNAC)
The siesta habit has recently been associated with a 37 percent reduction in coronary mortality, possibly due to reduced cardiovascular stress mediated by daytime sleep (Naska et al., 2007).

Nevertheless, epidemiological studies (see Naska et al, 2007; Zaregarizi et al, 2007; Zaregarizi, 2012) on the relations between cardiovascular health and siesta have led to conflicting conclusions, possibly because of poor control of moderator variables, such as physical activity. It is possible that people who take a siesta have different physical activity habits, for example waking earlier and scheduling more activity during the morning. Such differences in physical activity may mediate different 24-hour profiles in cardiovascular function. Even if such effects of physical activity can be discounted for explaining the relationship between siesta and cardiovascular health, it is still unknown whether it is the daytime nap itself, a supine posture or the expectancy of a nap that is the most important factor.

Naska, A., Oikonomou, E., Trichopoulou, A., Psaltopoulou, T. and Trichopoulos, D. (2007). Siesta in healthy adults and coronary mortality in the general population. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167, 296-301.
MohammadReza Zaregarizi, Ben Edwards, Keith George, Yvonne Harrison, Helen Jones and Greg Atkinson. (2007). Acute changes in cardiovascular function during the onset period of daytime sleep: Comparison to lying awake and standing. American J Appl Physiol 103:1332-1338.
MohammadReza Zaregarizi (Author). Effects of Exercise & Daytime Sleep on Human Haemodynamics: With Focus on Changes in Cardiovascular Function during Daytime Sleep Onset. BOOK, ISBN (978-3-8484-1726-1), March, 2012.

References

1.^ Einhard, Life of Charlemagne, §24.
2.^ Dement, William (1999). The Promise of Sleep. Dell Publishing. pp. 113–115. ISBN 0-440-50901-7.
3.^ a b Lambert, Craig, PhD (July–August 2005). "Deep into Sleep. While researchers probe sleep's functions, sleep itself is becoming a lost art". Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 2008-02-25.
4.^ Stein, Rob. "Midday Naps Found to Help Fend Off Heart Disease", Washington Post, 13 February 2007, p. A14.
5.^ Maas, James B. (1998) Miracle Sleep Cure: London: Thorsons
6.^ "The National Institute of Mental Health Power Nap Study". 2002-07-01. Retrieved 2002-07-01.
7.^ "Researchers: Power Nap Better than Caffeine to Fight Afternoon Fatigue". Fox News. 2007-09-04.****


3404  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Graphene, Carbyne? I need GG!!! on: September 02, 2013, 09:12:20 PM
I have been getting some email alerts about graphene having some sort of incredible characteristics.  Being single atom thin with incredible strength, more than any other material. Having something like twice the conducting properties of copper.  Being flexible.   And incredibly light.  Leave it to the geniuses at MIT to find something that may be even better, carbyne.  Could either of these replace silicon?  GG where are you?

http://graphiteinvestingnews.com/3222-move-over-graphene-carbyne-is-here/
3405  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Repbuclicans have to break through on: September 02, 2013, 09:00:20 PM
This could go under race etc but I feel it fits better here as a good argument that Blacks should strongly consider coming back to the party of opportunity (Lincoln) and leave the party of stagnation and serfdom (Obama).
Instead we here the usual race bating propaganda at the 50 anniversary of MLK>
****
Is Obama Good for Black Americans?

Mona Charen's column is released once a week.

Mona Charen August 23, 2013  SocietyBarack ObamaUnemployment

Buried in a New York Times story about the economy was this arresting statistic: Median family income for black Americans has declined a whopping 10.9 percent during the Obama administration. It has declined for other groups as well — 3.6 percent for non-Hispanic whites and 4.5 percent for Hispanics - but the figure for blacks is huge. This decline does not include losses suffered during the financial crisis and the recession that followed, but it instead measures declines since June 2009, when the recession officially ended.

That's not the only bad news for African-Americans. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8 percent. The black labor force participation rate, which rose throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has declined for the past decade and quite sharply under Obama to 61.4 percent. The black unemployment rate, according to Pew Research, stands at 13.4 percent. Among black, male, high school dropouts, PBS' Paul Salmon reports, the unemployment rate is a staggering 95 percent.

Does any of this affect the standing of the nation's first black president with black Americans? Not a whit, apparently. This is not to suggest that any president should gear his policies to one or another ethnic group. The president serves the nation as a whole, or should. But if unemployment, poverty and the black/white income gap had expanded under a different president to the degree is has under Obama (the income gap is now larger than it was under George W. Bush), it wouldn't go unreported and the president would not escape responsibility.

The advent of an African-American president surely brings psychic dividends to black Americans (and the rest of us, to a degree), but those intangibles may be pretty much all they get from his presidency. In terms of material prosperity, his leadership has delivered nothing but decline. He plays the psychological card very skillfully — showboating his identification with Trayvon Martin and sticking up for Henry Louis Gates — but more and more his gestures in this regard seem like substitutes for results.

Black poverty is up, employment is down and wealth is down. The dissolution of the black family continues unabated, with 72.3 percent of black children born to unmarried mothers. Black males constitute just 6 percent of the population yet comprise more than 40 percent of those incarcerated in state and federal prisons and jails. One-third of black men aged 20 to 29 are in the purview of the criminal justice system (incarcerated or on probation or parole).

The press resolutely ignores these figures, while the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party in Hollywood serves up distorted history to distract and pacify the public. The latest entry appears to be "The Butler," which misrepresents President Reagan (as I gather from those who've seen it) as, at best, insensitive to blacks, and at worst as racist. Eugene Allen, the actual White House butler on whom the film is supposedly based, kept signed photos of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in his living room (pictures of the other presidents he had served hung in the basement).

According to a 2008 Washington Post profile, Allen served eight presidents for 34 years until his retirement. He did not, as the movie portrays, resign to protest Reagan's policies on civil rights or South Africa. His wife happily reminisced to the Post about the time the couple were invited by the Reagans to attend a state dinner in honor of the West German chancellor. "Drank champagne that night," Mrs. Allen recalled with pleasure. The film apparently depicts the invitation as tokenism. The filmmakers also insert a horrific childhood "memory" for Allen — his mother being raped and his father shot by a white landlord. Didn't happen.

Would it interest black moviegoers to know that under Ronald Reagan's policies, median African American household incomes increased by 84 percent (compared with 68 percent for whites)? The poverty rate dropped during the 1980s from 14 percent down to 11.6 percent. The black unemployment rate dropped by 9 percentage points. The number of black-owned businesses increased by 38 percent and receipts more than doubled.

Obama's economic record is dismal because he is inflexibly attached to the wrong ideas. Hollywood is, of course, free to worship at his tattered shrine. But to smear Reagan — a man who deeply loathed bigotry in any form and actually improved the lives of all Americans including blacks — in an attempt to prop up the drooping Obama standard, is contemptible.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
3406  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Syria on: September 02, 2013, 08:35:45 PM
Some interesting thoughts.  I don't agree with all of them.

I do like this:

"Few concepts have polluted American strategic thought as badly as the “Powell doctrine,” a Cold War relic from Colin Powell’s days in uniform that never made much sense and has since been consistently misapplied in recent years. In its various forms and emendations by Powell, it basically says: Never fight unless you absolutely have to, and only fight wars you know you can win. Buy low, sell high. Rotate your tires. Never poke your sister in the eye with a stick. That sort of stuff"

Watching Colin Powell these last five years keeps provoking the question, "how in the world did this guy become Joint Chief of Staff?"
3407  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / More liberal hypocracy. Obama practices fidelity to the Consititution on: September 02, 2013, 09:06:36 AM
Talk about switch and bait.  From a shyster in the liberal media (white house propaganda).  Only could he turn Obama's self made mess in Syria into a "history -defying" decision.   I guess Shapiro was Rip Van Winkle during the Bush one and two years.

****Obama's history-defying decision to seek Congressional approval on Syria
US President Barack Obama speaks about Syria outside the White House in Washington, DC on August 31, 2013
Walter Shapiro
Walter Shapiro 23 hours ago 
 
President Barack Obama, according to background briefings by his aides, reached a fateful decision late Friday afternoon as he strolled along the White House lawn with his chief of staff Denis McDonough. Contrary to every expectation by his national security team, Obama concluded that he should ask Congress for authorization to bomb Syria.

The full reasoning behind the president’s turnabout remains murky. He may have wanted to share responsibility for a risky strategy to punish the barbarous regime of Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people. Obama may have recognized the political dangers of attacking another Middle Eastern country without popular support at home.

And the president, a former part-time constitutional law professor, may have also belatedly recalled the wording of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution that grants Congress the sole power “to declare war.”

But whatever Obama’s underlying motivations and however the Syrian vote plays out on Capitol Hill, the president’s decision to go to Congress represents an historic turning point. It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek their backing to launch the Korean war.

Just a few days ago, before Obama’s decision was known, legal scholars from both the right and the left were in agreement that waging war over Syria – no matter how briefly – without congressional approval would bend the Constitution beyond recognition.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who served as a Bush administration lawyer during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, wrote in the legal blog Lawfare, “The planned use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.” And liberal constitutional scholar Garrett Epps,  writing for the Atlantic  , concluded, “It’s pretty clear that an American attack would violate the Constitution.”

Virtually no one in politics, the press or the academic community expected Obama to go to Congress for approval. That isn’t the way the presidential power works in the modern era. It is a sad truth that whomever occupies the Oval Office invariably expands rather than trims back the Imperial Presidency. Obama himself has reflected this pattern with his aggressive enhancement of the National Security Agency’s efforts to monitor electronic communications.

For more than six decades, the war-making powers of Congress have been eviscerated by presidents of both parties.

Which brings us back to Truman, who in 1950 balked at asking a Congress weary after World War Two for approval to militarily respond to the Communist attack on South Korea. Dean Acheson, Truman’s secretary of state, claimed in his memoirs that a congressional debate over the Korean War “would hardly be calculated to support the shaken morale of the troops or the unity that, for the moment, prevailed at home.”

Acheson may not have remembered that military morale and national unity are not mentioned in the Constitution. But the war-marking powers of Congress are at the heart of the nation’s founding document. It was as if the sign on Truman’s desk read, “The Buck Stops Here – And This is Also Where the Constitution Is Twisted.”



..View gallery."
Syria - History of politics and conflict from 1920 …
March 8, 2005 - A Syrian soldier riding on top of a tank gestures after leaving his position, in Dah …

The plain-spoken Truman resorted to weaselly words to claim that Korea was a United Nations-sponsored “police action” rather than a war. No other American “police action” has ever led to 54,246 wartime deaths.

Truman’s assertion of vast executive power as Commander in Chief set a template for future presidents. Even when presidents have gone to Congress for approval of major military engagements, these blank-check authorizations have often been based on deceptive arguments.

Lyndon Johnson premised the entire Vietnam war on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was designed to permit a limited response to two minor and maybe mythical naval skirmishes with North Vietnam. Similarly hyperbolic were George W. Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more legally dubious were all the times a president sent troops and planes into combat without anything more than desultory briefings of the congressional leadership.

Ronald Reagan dispatched the Marines into Grenada in 1983 under the preposterous rationale that he was only protecting endangered American medial students. Bill Clinton skirted congressional approval for the 1999 airborne attacks to halt Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo on the shaky grounds that this was a NATO operation. And Obama himself was even on flimsier footing when he justified America’s participation in the 2011 bombing campaign over Libya based on a United Nations resolution.

But Syria did not provide Obama with any of these fig-leaf justifications.

No American lives are in danger and the national security threat is hard to identify. Not only is NATO not participating, but also neither are the Brits, the United State’s closest diplomatic ally. With Russia serving as Assad’s enabler, there will be no Security Council resolution or UN mandate.

Every time a president employs questionable legal arguments to wage war, it becomes a valuable tool for the next Commander in Chief impatient with the constitutional requirement to work through Congress. That’s why it would have been so dangerous for Obama to go forward in Syria without a congressional vote or the support of the UN or NATO. It is as much of a slippery slope argument as the contention that Iran, say, would be emboldened with its nuclear program if America did not punish Assad’s chemical attacks.

Assuming Obama wins congressional approval, America’s coming attack on Syria is designed to set a lasting precedent: No government can ever again use chemical, biological – let alone nuclear – weapons without facing devastating consequences. As Obama asked rhetorically in his Saturday Rose Garden statement, “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”

But Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval may prove to be an even more important precedent. Future presidents – as they consider unilateral military action without American security hanging in the balance – will have to answer, “Why didn’t you go to Congress like Obama did over Syria?”

Confronted with a series of wrenching choices over Syria, Obama chose the course that best reflects fidelity to the Constitution as written. Hopefully, in the days ahead, taking that less traveled road by presidents will make all the difference.****
3408  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / moved over from Israel thread on: September 02, 2013, 08:56:56 AM
I nominate this Dog Brothers Forum, not Biden for President in 2016.

Most here have been advocating we hit Iran nucs for *years*.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that will happen.  It appears the plan is containment.   

There is likely a back up offensive plan but only if shoved into it.

As for what to do in Syria.   In my most expert military, strategic, political, and in international affairs opinion I think we do as Doug suggested:  hit all WMD sites in Syria (though not yet convinced about NK).

I also agree with one Middle East analyst on CNN (I don't know his name) who said a more credible "red line" would have been the Syrian air force.  Thus we should destroy Assad's planes.

Congress should stand up.   Forget idiotic "shots across the bow".  The Congressional authorization should be to do the job and not half assed laughable crap.  Get rid of all known WMD and air force.

Or, do nothing.   Forget 'face'.  We are not Japanese.   Reagan pulled out of Lebanon.   He didn't worry about his face or his reputation.   He worried about America and our military.

Frankly I prefer do nothing or as we have suggested for many years now go after Iran.

As for NK, I haven't thought about it much.  But come to think of it suppose we just get rid of that monstrous family there.   It is not the middle east.     
3409  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 02, 2013, 08:55:47 AM
I nominate this Dog Brothers Forum, not Biden for President in 2016.

Most here have been advocating we hit Iran nucs for *years*.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that will happen.  It appears the plan is containment.   

There is likely a back up offensive plan but only if shoved into it.

As for what to do in Syria.   In my most expert military, strategic, political, and in international affairs opinion I think we do as Doug suggested:  hit all WMD sites in Syria (though not yet convinced about NK).

I also agree with one Middle East analyst on CNN (I don't know his name) who said a more credible "red line" would have been the Syrian air force.  Thus we should destroy Assad's planes.

Congress should stand up.   Forget idiotic "shots across the bow".  The Congressional authorization should be to do the job and not half assed laughable crap.  Get rid of all known WMD and air force.

Or, do nothing.   Forget 'face'.  We are not Japanese.   Reagan pulled out of Lebanon.   He didn't worry about his face or his reputation.   He worried about America and our military.

Frankly I prefer do nothing or as we have suggested for many years now go after Iran.

As for NK, I haven't thought about it much.  But come to think of it suppose we just get rid of that monstrous family there.   It is not the middle east.     
3410  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: September 01, 2013, 06:30:59 PM
I am familiar with Cato's strategy.  Rome went on offence against Hannibal by attacking Carthage and pulling him out of Italy.  They defeated Hannibal there and later burned the city to the ground.

Take out the serpent at its head is what he means I guess. 

The head is Iran and Syria its Hezbollah it's arms. 

I get it now.

Does Brock?
3411  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Funding the patent office with private money and having stellite offices? on: September 01, 2013, 12:30:36 PM
I understand the point of having those who use the government "service" pay for it (akin to those who drive over certain roads are the ones who pay the tolls for the upkeep) but this also means the government employees are all beholden to these companies.  A similar situation exists at the FDA with at least part of it's' budget being paid for by pharmaceutical/medical device companies.  Of course there is bias and conflict of interests.

Corruption will invariably be even worse than it already is.

*****Silicon Valley patent office shelved

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Silicon Valley's high-tech firms are fighting what they consider a deeply personal federal cut this summer that shelves a planned patent office in this innovation-fueled region.

While most of the country is feeling some pinch from the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, tech leaders say this one is unique and unfair, because the Commerce Department's promised satellite patent offices were never going to be funded by taxpayers. Instead, they're supported by the $2.8 billion in annual patent fees collected from inventors, entrepreneurs and companies.

"We were really upset," said Emily Lam, a director at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an association representing local high tech firms. "It makes absolutely no sense that an office funded almost entirely by fees would be subject to sequester."

But U.S. Patent and Trademark Office chief financial officer Tony Scardino said the government's across-the-board austerity policy doesn't make exceptions for fee-supported programs. And if there's a "continuing budgetary stalemate" this fall, he said that could cause further delays.

Silicon Valley firms seek more U.S. patents than any other region in the world, and San Jose is the nation's top patent-producing city, with 7,074 patents last year. And California is the nation's patent leader, with seven of the top 10 patent-producing cities.

The U.S. Patent Office currently has a backlog of 590,000 nationwide, and it can take more than two years to have an application reviewed.

Until two years ago, the only U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was in Arlington, Va. Silicon Valley companies often would have to send a chief scientist to Arlington for a few days to meet with examiners, losing valuable time and money.



..View gallery."
David P. Clark, CEO of Petzila, poses with Bella, the …
David P. Clark, CEO of Petzila, poses with Bella, the company's mascot, on Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013, …

Then a 2011 law raised patent fees in exchange for promises from officials to use those new revenues to speed up the patent process and establish four satellite offices for the first time in the agency's 200-plus year history.

But that's not exactly what happened.

With budget cuts came a federal decision that 8.6 percent of all patent fees are immediately diverted from the Patent Office into the U.S. Treasury; in total, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will lose between $120 million and $130 million in patent fees it collects this year.

There are three satellite office projects underway: the first opened in Detroit in July, 2012, and permanent locations for others were selected in Denver and Dallas before sequestration.

Last month, the General Services Administration — which owns and operates federal properties — said it was suspending its search for permanent patent office space in Silicon Valley, dashing hopes of local startups.

"It was terribly disappointing," said Dave Clark, who launched a high tech pet products startup called Petzila in San Jose this year with his business partner Simon Milner.

Eight months into the pet-friendly technology business, they say at least 20 percent of their energy has gone toward getting a patent. That's time they'd rather spend developing, manufacturing, marketing and financing their first product: a wall mounted system called PetziConnect that allows pet owners to remotely say hello to their dog and, at the click of an icon, give Fido a treat.



..View gallery."
David P. Clark, CEO of Petzila, poses with Bella, the …
David P. Clark, CEO of Petzila, poses with Bella, the company's mascot, on Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013, …

"It would be a godsend if we could meet with a patent examiner; It would cut our costs and time in half, and cut our anxiety by 60 percent," said Clark. "Nothing compares to a face-to-face conversation."

A local patent office staffed with as many as 150 new examiners would have provided entrepreneurs with nearby staff familiar with high tech, and a streamlined process, business leaders said.

"The more educated about the technology the examiners are, the better job they're going to be able to do in figuring out what applications are patent worthy and which should be rejected," said senior patent counsel Suzanne Michel at Google, which has tens of thousands of applications pending.

A local Congressional delegation is now seeking a sequestration exemption for the office.

Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., whose district includes Silicon Valley, said shelving the office "is going to set us back in terms of our own competitive edge, like trying to run a race with your ankles hobbled."

"It's too bad," said Jonah Probell, who writes semiconductor intellectual property patents for a small firm in Sunnyvale, Calif.

For now, Silicon Valley Patent Office Director Michelle Lee, a former Google patent law division head, is working out of a small, temporary space with just a handful of administrative judges in rooms borrowed from another government agency in Menlo Park, Calif. — not nearly enough to meet the needs of the region.

Meanwhile, lawmakers and bureaucrats on the East Coast will decide when they can release funds to open a permanent, fully staffed Silicon Valley Patent Office. To date, officials have said they plan to go ahead with it, but they have provided no timetable.

"Which, who knows, that might be never," said Probell.*****
3412  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: September 01, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
" My fellow Americans (and our good friends) what should we do in this moment? "

Best thing would be to impeach Obama.  That would be best for America.  (And keep out Hillary in 16).
3413  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I don't quite understand the last paragraph on: September 01, 2013, 11:55:59 AM
"Just like Cato the Elder, who insisted that "Carthage must be destroyed" over and over again, we must remind ourselves again and again: Syria is not the problem. The problem is the Iranian nuclear program, the source of Syria's and Hezbollah's power and the mother of all evils in the region. That is the real target that the coalition should have in its sights"

Rachel,

This comes in out of no where in the end of his article.   I would have liked him to clarify this logic.   So is he saying the root of all the problems is Iran's nuke program and Hezbollah?
3414  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: September 01, 2013, 11:15:32 AM
August 12, 2013


A Limit on Consumer Costs Is Delayed in Health Care Law

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

Please click here for the remainder of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?_r=2&utm_source=News+Now+08152013&utm_campaign=News+Now+8%2F15%2F2013&utm_medium=email&&pagewanted=print
3415  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Energy issues, energy technology on: September 01, 2013, 10:58:59 AM
I am wondering if Westport or Clean Energy could be decent investments.   There is nothing unique about Westport I don't think and I wouldn't think gas stations are such a good investment although I haven't spent too much time researching this. 

Some feel the nat gas producers are analogous to the bandwidth companies of the late go go late 90s.  Global crossing (was great investment for George H Bush, Colin Powell, and Terry McCullife who is another Democrat who appears ready to win in Va. more because the Republicans do not have a good enough of a candidate to oppose him), JDSU (If only I sold at the top...like the CEO is retired just in time...if that wasn't a tipoff I didn't heed than I don't know what is - in retrospect), and LVLT (with few exceptions like QCOM - wireless).

OTOH if only we can get rid of Obama.....I can't believe we have 3 + yrs of him left.   By the time he leaves the damage he and his onslaught legions in the government, media, university complex will have trampled this country to mediocrity.
3416  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Wolves, Dogs and other canines on: September 01, 2013, 10:44:05 AM
ah oh.  One of my dogs is dalmation mix and some have thought the other half might be pointer.  We just neutered him.....I wonder what he is thinking. shocked
3417  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Nat gas buildout on: August 31, 2013, 10:55:11 AM
What's Stopping Mass Adoption of Natural Gas Vehicles?

By Brendan Byrnes  | More Articles  | Save For Later     
August 31, 2013 | Comments (0) 


Join Motley Fool analyst Brendan Byrnes for a conversation with Ian Scott, the executive vice president of Westport Innovations' On-Road Systems segment, which works with OEM partners such as Ford, Volvo, Kenworth, and Peterbilt to produce natural gas-0powered vehicles in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In the following video, Scott describes the progress being made in natural gas infrastructure among companies such as Clean Energy Fuels and Royal Dutch Shell, with as many as 560 stations projected to be in place by the end of 2015.


The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for this year. Find out which stock it is in the special free report: "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2013." Just click here to access the report and find out the name of this under-the-radar company.
 
Brendan Byrnes: When you look at some of the big companies using natural gas vehicles -- Waste Management, UPS, FedEx -- UPS actually is going to increase their natural gas fleet to 800 by the end of 2014. That's up from 112 right now.

What do you think overall when you look at the landscape? What's the biggest barrier for companies embracing natural gas? Is it the infrastructure? Is it companies like these that need to come in and really take the lead and show that it's possible and the economics work? What do you think is the barrier?

Ian Scott: I think historically it's been infrastructure, has been the biggest one. But now we see -- and the UPS example is a great one -- we see where infrastructure is no longer an impediment. I think we're getting stronger infrastructure but we're not at critical mass yet, where we need to be in order to just see massive adoption of natural gas.

Companies such as Clean Energy and Shell and ENN, they're doing a great job in building out particularly liquid natural gas stations right now. I think that's really going to help.

Our product costs more. It costs more than a diesel or a gasoline product, so what you're doing is you're paying up-front capital cost, but more than making that back in the fuel savings. We have to do our job as well, in order to get the product cost down, and we're working aggressively to do that. That will come with volume, obviously, as well.

The stations are being built. We're going to sell more product. That will allow more stations to be built, and I think we're starting to see it really pick up right now.

Byrnes: Could you talk about infrastructure? We have America's natural gas highway being built out by Clean Energy. What's the improvement in infrastructure you've seen over a year or so, and where do you think this is going over the next couple of years?

Scott: It's amazing. We said in our recent Q-Call that, from announced LNG stations, we're looking at 560 by the end of 2015. The load that's available for trucking in particular is just tremendous.

We've seen other companies come in now; you mentioned Clean, but Shell just made a large announcement with respect to TravelCenters of America. We have -- ENN has made announcements, other companies are putting in fueling stations as well.

I think that we've gone from, "Is the infrastructure going to be built?" to "It's being built, being built rapidly, and now we need to continue to provide the products to the marketplace."
 


Brendan Byrnes has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Clean Energy Fuels, FedEx, UPS, Waste Management, and Westport Innovations and owns shares of Waste Management and Westport Innovations. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
3418  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rodham's 1969 Welleseley Commencement speech on: August 31, 2013, 10:41:56 AM
In the year of the mud soaked drug sex orgy Woodstock this is what the Hill had to say.  Not one kind word of America.
Whoever the Repubs pick should have some smart people pick this apart and formulate a PRO America plan going forward that America has been in theory the land of freedom, opportunity, pride, confidence, prosperity for all instead of demoralizing themes of limits, unfairness, hollow men of anger and bitterness, and self bountiful ladies of righteous degradation (aka stand by your man).   The Clintons are the face of the anti Vietnam war kids of the 60's who ARE now in power.   The only difference is they don't even believe in a newer America.  They no longer ever believe in America.  They believe in world wide government. 

****By  
 CBSNews /
  CBS/   February 11, 2009, 3:56 PM  
Hillary Rodham's 1969 Commencement Address
    
Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham
May 31, 1969
Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows:

In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior, and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham.



Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

I am very glad that Miss Adams made it clear that what I am speaking for today is all of us -- the 400 of us -- and I find myself in a familiar position, that of reacting, something that our generation has been doing for quite a while now. We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest and I find myself reacting just briefly to some of the things that Senator Brooke said. This has to be brief because I do have a little speech to give. Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities. But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18. It just inspired us to do something about that gap. What we did is often difficult for some people to understand. They ask us quite often: "Why, if you're dissatisfied, do you stay in a place?" Well, if you didn't care a lot about it you wouldn't stay. It's almost as though my mother used to say, "I'll always love you but there are times when I certainly won't like you." Our love for this place, this particular place, Wellesley College, coupled with our freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality allowed us to question basic assumptions underlying our education. Before the days of the media orchestrated demonstrations, we had our own gathering over in Founder's parking lot. We protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement. We worked for a pass-fail system. We worked for a say in some of the process of academic decision making. And luckily we were in a place where, when we questioned the meaning of a liberal arts education there were people with enough imagination to respond to that questioning. So we have made progress. We have achieved some of the things that initially saw as lacking in that gap between expectation and reality. Our concerns were not, of course, solely academic as all of us know. We worried about inside Wellesley questions of admissions, the kind of people that should be coming to Wellesley, the process for getting them here. We questioned about what responsibility we should have both for our lives as individuals and for our lives as members of a collective group.

Coupled with our concerns for the Wellesley inside here in the community were our concerns for what happened beyond Hathaway House. We wanted to know what relationship Wellesley was going to have to the outer world. We were lucky in that one of the first things Miss Adams did was to set up a cross-registration with MIT because everyone knows that education just can't have any parochial bounds any more. One of the other things that we did was the Upward Bound program. There are so many other things that we could talk about; so many attempts, at least the way we saw it, to pull ourselves into the world outside. And I think we've succeeded. There will be an Upward Bound program, just for one example, on the campus this summer.

Many of the issues that I've mentioned -- those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling. We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue. The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us. We have seen heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words -- integrity, trust, and respect -- in regard to institutions and leaders we're perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves.

Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness. Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs. There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere.

But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves. To be educated to freedom must be evidenced in action, and here again is where we ask ourselves, as we have asked our parents and our teachers, questions about integrity, trust, and respect. Those three words mean different things to all of us. Some of the things they can mean, for instance: Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. If the only tool we have ultimately to use is our lives, so we use it in the way we can by choosing a way to live that will demonstrate the way we feel and the way we know. Integrity -- a man like Paul Santmire. Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust." What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before.

And then respect. There's that mutuality of respect between people where you don't see people as percentage points. Where you don't manipulate people. Where you're not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. And the word "consequences" of course catapults us into the future. One of the most tragic things that happened yesterday, a beautiful day, was that I was talking to woman who said that she wouldn't want to be me for anything in the world. She wouldn't want to live today and look ahead to what it is she sees because she's afraid. Fear is always with us but we just don't have time for it. Not now.

There are two people that I would like to thank before concluding. That's Ellie Acheson, who is the spearhead for this, and also Nancy Scheibner who wrote this poem which is the last thing that I would like to read:

My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems"
Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all.
The hollow men of anger and bitterness
The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation
All must be left to a bygone age.
And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle
For all those myths and oddments
Which oddly we have acquired
And from which we would become unburdened
To create a newer world
To transform the future into the present.
We have no need of false revolutions
In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds
And hang our wills up on narrow pegs.
It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.
And once those limits are understood
To understand that limitations no longer exist.
Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free
Not to save the world in a glorious crusade
Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain
But to practice with all the skill of our being
The art of making possible.
 
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. ****
3419  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Astronomy on: August 31, 2013, 10:00:29 AM
The zoom effect was great!
3420  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: August 31, 2013, 09:58:17 AM
"Maybe if they fart a lot the methane will melt the ice, , ,"

Liberals don't even have to fart.  Just open their mouths.
3421  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: European matters on: August 31, 2013, 09:55:04 AM
Doug,
The USA raised their alert to "Our narcissist in chief put his big left foot in his mouth".   cry angry
3422  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Harvard: No correlation btw gun control and less violent crime on: August 29, 2013, 09:24:30 AM
Here ya go Bamster read this and LEARN:

****Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

by AWR Hawkins  28 Aug 2013 1545  post a comment 
 
A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."

And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."

In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. 

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.****



 





 
3423  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Archibald Carey's 1952 speech on: August 28, 2013, 09:42:09 PM
This is a remarkable sea change from what my generation is used to hearing from a Civil rights leader.   Martin Luther King (aka Michael) "borrowed" from this Archibald Carey speech for his I have a Dream speech (that his family has since copyrighted).

In this speech we can hear Carey CHAMPION the REPBULICAN party!   The party of the downtrodden and minorities.  The party of freedom for the entire world.   

I recall it was Dick Morris who pointed out that most Blacks were Republicans until Goldwater refused to push for Civil Rights.   I didn't know that that was the reason for the sea change in their voting.  I was only a couple years older than the ONE at the time of the '63 speech.   Amazing how the Blacks will vote as a block and change on a dime.  Recall when Bill Clinton was quoted as saying "you know a Black can't win" when referring to Bamster.  The very next day Hillary tanked in the polls.  Similar event occurred with Goldwater/Johnson I guess.

In any case the speech drags on a long time.  Indeed I couldn't listen to all of it.  I suggest listen to 10 or fifteen minutes:

https://soundcloud.com/wbez/archibald-carey-jrs-1952-gop
3424  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / MSM for Bamster on: August 28, 2013, 09:02:09 AM
Only a graduate from Columbia's school of journalism (propaganda) could come up with this contrast as a defense of her One.  Of course she now works for the very 'objective' out fit Time:

****6 Ways Syria 2013 Isn’t Iraq 2003

A ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to deal with WMDs may sound familiar, but these two plots are vastly different

By Jay Newton-Small @JNSmallAug. 28, 201319 Comments   

      Presidential Reunion: Scenes from the Opening of the Bush Library
Brooks Kraft / Corbis for TIME
President Barack Obama applauds former president George W. Bush at the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Follow @TIMEPolitics
       
An American president says a Middle Eastern country has weapons of mass destruction. He builds a “coalition of the willing” for a military strike against said country.

Sound familiar?

It could be President Barack Obama in 2013 or President George W. Bush in 2003, or so fear liberal Democrats leery of getting involved in yet another war in the Middle East.

“While the use of chemical weapons is deeply troubling and unacceptable, I believe there is no military solution to the complex Syrian crisis,” Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who famously was the only member to vote against authorizing the war in Afghanistan, said Tuesday in a statement on her Facebook page. “Congress needs to have a full debate before the United States commits to any military force in Syria — or elsewhere.”

But Obama, who ran on a platform in 2008 of ending Bush’s wars in the Middle East, isn’t Bush, and there are important distinctions between the two scenarios. Here are six ways Syria 2013 isn’t Iraq 2003:

Regime change

Bush made no secret that his plan was to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This time around, the Obama administration is taking pains to say that ousting Syrian strongman Bashar Assad is the last thing they want as it would only create a power vacuum the disorganized Syrian opposition isn’t ready to fill. “I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday. “They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.”

A limited engagement

U.S. officials are looking at a two-day, limited strike on Syria, which would not involve any American boots on the ground — compared to the 130,000 U.S. troops Bush had already mustered on Iraq’s borders by the time he declared his intentions to the public. The purpose in Syria is to punish Assad so that he knows he cannot use chemical weapons against his own people with impunity. Striking the weapons themselves could potentially create too much collateral damage, so Syrian military sites are being selected. Whereas Bush envisioned five months in Iraq — which turned into 10 years — Obama hopes his engagement will be counted in days, not weeks.

Arab support

Most of the Arab world opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The entire Arab League except Kuwait condemned the war. And Turkey denied the U.S. use of its military bases. This time around, most of the Arab world, with the exceptions of Iraq and Lebanon, supports strikes against Assad, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are in talks to potentially participate in the military operation.

European support

Remember Freedom Fries? France and much of Europe weren’t wild about going to war in Iraq. France is now spearheading the effort to oust Assad, although Germany and southern Europe remain skeptical of military involvement. Britain, of course, was as much on board with Iraq in 2003 as it is with Syria in 2013.

WMDs

This time, there’s next to no doubt they actually exist. The pretense for the war in Iraq was disproven: Hussein’s alleged WMD stockpiles were never found. In this case, the international community has, with the exception of Russia and Iran, accepted and condemned the use of chemical gas in Syria last week that killed as many as 1,300 people.

Congress

Bush asked for and received overwhelming permission and support from Congress to invade Iraq. When asked, Carney  on Tuesday said Syria poses a “significant challenge to or threat to the United States’ national security interests.” The language is important, as the president must seek permission from Congress to go to war unless the U.S. is imminently threatened. So, Carney’s careful categorization would seem to indicate that no matter what Lee wants — she sent a letter with 20 of her colleagues asking Obama seek permission from Congress to engage in Syria— he likely will go this alone as he did Libya.

Maybe Obama should allow the debate in Congress. It’d be a headache, for sure, and the posturing could last longer than the intervention itself, but it might also reassure nervous members like Lee who worry Obama is getting the U.S. into another decade-long war in the Middle East. And given U.S. polls showing huge opposition to engagement in Syria, it might help assuage the American public as well.


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/28/6-ways-syria-2013-isnt-iraq-2003/#ixzz2dGvrMUJU*****
3425  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: August 27, 2013, 10:02:21 PM
Obviously Wesbury is in the top 5%.
3426  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: August 25, 2013, 08:02:40 PM
BD wrote:

"Congress is not institutionally able to check the executive well in this policy space"

How so Big dog?  Doesn't Congress have people who are knowledgeable do the research them and prep them?

Lack of experience or insight in a specific policy area such as health care did not stop Democrats and Obama from passing a 2,000 page bill that none of them read or probably even really understand what was in it.

The bill was almost written surely by Ivy leagues elites over 20 years.

As for term limits I am not sure I am for them I was only siting Marc Levin's proposal.  I am not even sure he is committed to his proposals but has 'thrown' the ideas into the public domain for 'discussion'.  The concept of term limits has popped up multiple times over the last 40 years according to Wikipedia which has a decent (it seems to me) historical perspective on those who serve in American government from GW's two term Presidential precedent that seems to have set a standard for 140 yrs.  Apparently initially at least till the time of Andrew Jackson House members also limited themselves to two terms. 
3427  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Term limits are best option to limit power of ruling elite. on: August 24, 2013, 12:09:59 PM
BD,
I checked Levin's website.  There is no email contact info.  to ask him your supposition.  I would think he might answer that the longer one is in Congress the more they serve themselves and learn not to serve Americans from their districts better.

Is it not telling that your point suggests that we need career politicians to spend a lifetime learning how to navigate a political system?   

I would submit to you that the reason we need term limits is because there is so much money involved.  So much lobbying
 that has a corrupting influence not only on serving House members but the family members, their business colleagues, their friends who some how get sucked into the picture.  The fact that in order to run one needs lots of money and going against influential politicians who have decades to set up self serving organizations of staffers, contacts, etc. along with decades of name recognition explains why so few incumbents lose their seats.  What is it? 95% of incumbents win re-election.   How is this possible with an approval rating hovering around, what, 10 or 20%?

I don't think Levin necessarily wants to take away the power of the voters to decide who gets re elected or not.  But I think he realizes that with incombuncy comes a real danger of abuse of power, and corruption.

Don't you think corruption is rampant?  Revolving doors in and out of the private and public sector.  How else can we put some limit on this without term limits?  I think this is what Levin is proposing.  Term limits are better than allowing a small group of people to control 320 million without which there is almost no limit to their power.
3428  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Marc Levin's Suggestions for Constitutional Amerndments via Bozell on: August 23, 2013, 10:02:06 PM
****Levin to the Rescue

Published: 8/13/2013 10:08 PM ET

Subscribe to L. Brent Bozell III

By L. Brent Bozell III

Only those happily trampling on the last vestiges of freedom will deny that our federal government as a constitutional republic has ceased to function. The president can no longer control (nor does this one want to control) the enormous and ever-expanding bureaucracy functioning as a government by fiat. The legislative branch, so corrupted, so drunk by the allure of power, so disdainful of its constituents, is unable to  stop its bankrupting ways. The judiciary is perhaps the worst. The Supreme Court is openly rejecting the authority of the Constitution itself.

 If the federal government refuses to adhere to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what can the citizenry do about it? The events of the past five years (more, actually) prove this. It has become virtually impossible to stop the agenda of a radical Chief Executive who brazenly uses the federal government as his personal political machine. It is almost impossible to defeat an incumbent member of Congress with all the advantages it has awarded itself. For all intents it is impossible to replace a member of the Supreme Court.

The left is content with this terrible turn of events. By “transformation” they meant the transfer of power to the state. Conservatives are loath to declare American exceptionalism dead, yet are powerless to stop the statist steamroller. With every cycle the situation worsens. At some point the unthinkable -- tyranny -- is upon us. We are running out of time. Only radical surgery will save the patient now.

Enter Mark Levin, M.D., with his new book, "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic." Levin is a Constitutional scholar -- and he shines. He argues passionately that the federal government can be brought under control only if new limitations are thrust upon it by its citizenry. He proposes a Constitutional convention, not one called by Congress but one impaneled by two-thirds of state legislatures, and which would require a three-fourths margin to pass any new amendments. It is the lesser known of the two options provided by Article V of the Constitution.

 What should a Constitutional convention tackle? Levin offers eleven amendments for consideration, with appropriate subdivisions, each carefully researched and each designed to reduce the power of the state.

 Term limits for  Congress is the first liberty amendment Levin offers. It is my view also the most important.  Only when there are limits (12 years of service) will Congress be populated by men and women driven only by the call to service, not the siren song of power. The millions delivered by special interests for the re-election of incumbents who, in turn, reward said interests with billions in grants, contracts, tax shelters and the like -- will cease.

 Levin calls for other limitations on Congress. He proposes an amendment to limit federal spending and another to limit taxation, the combination which will restore fiscal sanity while devolving power from the state. He offers an amendment to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning to the Article 1 mandate that Senators be chosen by their state legislators.

 What about the Supreme Court? “hould five individuals be making  political and public policy decisions and imposing them on every corner of the nation...as they pursue even newer and more novel paths around the Constitution in exercising judicial review?” Levin points to the obvious: Sometimes mistakes are made (Roberts, anyone?) and America shouldn’t be punished for the rest of that jurist’s life. He proposes 12-year term limits for them as well.

 What can be done to control, even reduce the size and scope of the bureaucracy?  All federal departments and agencies must be re-authorized by Congress every three years or be terminated -- that’s what.

There’s a liberty amendment to protect and promote free enterprise, now under vicious assault. One to protect private property given the ability of the federal government suddenly to steal it. Amendments to increase the power of the States, and finally, an amendment to protect the voting process.

 Who would have thought any such amendments would ever be needed? And that’s the point. Such is the nature of the crisis.

 Levin quotes Tocqueville reflecting on the Constitutional Convention of 1776: “t is new in history of society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye upon itself when apprised by the legislature that the wheels of its government are stopped...”

It is time for our legislatures once more to issue the clarion call.
 
 Levin hopes “The Liberty Amendments” will launch a national discussion, and it will. Levin is a consequential man, and this is a consequential book. Some critics will dismiss the concept out of hand. It is they who should be dismissed -- unless they have bold new alternatives to propose. Nothing else is working, and nothing else will do. We have reached the tipping point.****
3429  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / automobile on: August 22, 2013, 10:12:35 AM
How can auto dealers keep out a company that wants to sell direct to consumer?   I don't get it.  I don't own Tesla stock although it has skyrocketed.  When someone comes out with an *inexpensive* hybrid then I am ready to invest.  That said dealers have the power to prevent Musk from selling direct to consumer in Texas?  Sounds like a form of union protectionism/favoritism to me.

****Why Texas Bans the Sale of Tesla Cars

When you’re about to compete in your first electric car race, brace yourself for the sound … of silence. But don’t let those quiet engines fool you because these days, quiet means fast.

With every major car company looking for a share of the booming electric car market, the competition to go faster and further for cheaper has become an all-out war. Detroit, Japan and Germany are all represented, but right now, an unlikely newcomer is getting top honors: the Tesla Model S.

It’s being hailed as a game changer. It’s the first electric car to win Motor Trend’s Car of the Year; an unprecedented 99 out of 100 rating from Consumer Reports; and now, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it’s also the safest car ever.

But if the Model S really is the car of the future, then why has Texas banned its sales in the state and why are lawmakers in several other states trying to do the same?

To answer that, first you need to meet Tesla CEO Elon Musk. He plans on opening 50 new Tesla stores in the next year. And taking a page from the Apple playbook, Musk is selling his product directly to consumers. No hard sell. No commission for employees. And uniform prices at every store.

“We actually train people to educate,” explained Musk. “We always wanted to be a really low-key kind of friendly environment, where we're not constantly trying to close deals.”

That’s a dig at the traditional middlemen in the car-buying experience: the car dealers. Musk wants to cut them out completely. He thinks customers don’t like them and that dealers are prejudiced against electric cars.

“It takes them at least twice as much effort to sell someone an electric car and to educate them as to why an electric car is good,” said Musk. “And so if we were to go through the traditional dealer path, the result would be a disaster.”

So Musk is declaring war on car dealers, but car dealers are also declaring war on Musk. They have already successfully booted him out of Texas and there is anti-Tesla legislation pending in North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia.

“This happens all the time,” said Bill Wolters, the president of the Texas Automobile Dealers Association. “Someone wants an exception to the franchise laws. If we made an exception for everybody that showed up in the legislature, before long the integrity of the entire franchise system is in peril.”

The outcome of the battle remains to be seen, but it’s just one of many standing in Musk’s way of the Model S becoming a mainstream success. For all the hype, only 20,000 have been sold.****
3430  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / It's about *time* from a leftist rag on: August 22, 2013, 09:43:17 AM
Coming from a Times writer.  Finally stating the obvious. shocked smiley

Race

Don’t Ignore Race in Christopher Lane’s Murder

The association of young black men with violence doesn't come out of thin air

By John McWhorter Aug. 22, 2013124 Comments   

Follow @TIMEIdeas
       
Australian Christopher Lane was killed on Monday in Oklahoma by three teens, one of whom has said they were just “bored.” The right is complaining that the media is making nothing of the fact that two of the teens were black whereas Lane was white, as opposed to the massive alarm sounded in cases such as white (or white-ish) George Zimmerman killing black Trayvon Martin. And again the cry was heard that there is more “black-on-black” or “black-on-white” crime than “white-on-black,” and that young black men are in fact more of a problem than people like Zimmerman.

The numbers don’t lie: young black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. We don’t yet know whether the attack on Lane was racially motivated, nor can we know whether the three black boys who attacked a white boy on a Florida school bus recently would not have done the same to a black kid. (Critics took Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to task for not condemning the violence.) But hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy” (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch “for Trayvon” (Mobile, Ala.).

So, it’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death ofIt’s not that black communities are in complete denial about these statistics — Stop the Violence events are a staple of high-crime areas. But let’s face it: black America isn’t nearly as indignant about black boys killing one another or whites as about the occasional white cop killing one black boy, even though the former wreaks much more havoc in black communities. There is no coordinated nationwide movement equivalent to the one Martin galvanized. There are no thoughtful films “exploring” black-on-black crime the way Fruitvale Station treats the death of Oscar Grant, a young black man who was killed by transit police in Oakland, Calif.

And recent example illustrates how many blacks feel about who is murdering whom. Two weeks ago, an NYPD cop killed 14-year-old Shaaliver Douse. Douse was in the process of shooting other people, and had been charged with shooting someone else in May — and yet his aunt compared him to Martin. In her mind, the main sin was the white cop’s.

Granted, it seems a lot easier to do something about the Zimmermans than the black thugs. Protest profiling and police departments institute new programs. But black thugs aren’t moved by protests, so it can seem like we’re just stuck with them.

But who’s to say what would happen if black America exerted even half of the emotional fervor and brainpower it does over cases like Martin’s to thinking about how to keep black boys from going wrong? Annette John-Hall had some wise words on this last year. What kind of self-image do we have to assume we can only change others, but not ourselves?

For the time being, though, it’s time for the media to stop proudly emblazoning the race of white cops who kill black boys while cagily describing black teens as, say, “from the grittier part of town,” as has been the case regarding Lane’s killers. The media needs to be as honest with black people as we need to be with ourselves. No group gets ahead by turning away from its real problems.

3431  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: August 21, 2013, 11:31:38 AM
I tried to post this under future of republican party but instead of reply all I see is "notify"

Someone said it best on radio the other day.  I can't remember but I think it was Hannity.  The Bush wing of the Republican party is all about "managing" the decline of conservative as opposed to the real right which is about standing for something.  If we don't stand now we will ultimately watch the liberal agenda win.


*****And they're on their way to losing the next presidential election, too
A new Gallup poll finds the summer has once again not been kind to President Obama, with his approval rate dipping yet again. In fact, August has historically been the worst month for his approval rating throughout his presidency.

But there's a big difference this year: Republicans have had a worse summer.

Halfway through the August recess, congressional Republicans are still fighting with each other over the direction of their party. While they're united in hating ObamaCare, they have no coherent strategy for confronting Democrats and the president. Some want to shut down the government in an attempt to defund ObamaCare, some want to use the debt ceiling as leverage, and some think both ideas are nuts.

Newt Gingrich even slammed Republicans for having "zero answer" when it comes to an alternative health care plan.

The battle highlights a huge divide in the Republican Party, which impacts nearly every issue before Congress. Ten months after a brutal loss in the 2012 election, the battle for the heart and soul of the party rages.

GOP strategist Mike Murphy elegantly summed up the problem: "The party is acting as if the entire world is a GOP primary. That is a very dangerous way to operate. We have massive image problems with the greater electorate, and the silly antics of the purist wing are making our dire problems even worse."*****
3432  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / three anectodes on: August 21, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
I spoke to three Egyptian doctor colleagues who are also I would call friends of mine.  One came here from Egypt with nothing became an excellent specialist from hard work, putting his head down and through sheer determination accomplished a very good reputation.  He is now disgusted at the piecemeal dismantling of his profession.  He also resents the immigrants who come here illegally and demand their rights.  He says, "no one gave me anything".  "I came here and worked for everything I have and asked for nothing" except that opportunity.  

Another is a Coptic.   He said what has Islam done for the world unlike Christianity?

A third is Muslim.  He was against Mubarak but also does not like the Muslim Brotherhood.  Everything is based on "hate" he says.

I like them all refer patients to them and would go to them myself for care if I needed it.

What a shame about what is going on in Egypt one of the world's most ancient places.  
3433  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Mosquitos are more abundant this year on: August 21, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
in "part of the US".  I am sure everyone who reads this board knows why I post in this thread.  I would have been completely totally shocked if I got through this article and there was no mention of "climate change".  Sure enough far down is the implication this is due to climate change.  And we are all being brainwashed to assume of course the change is due to man destroying his/her/gay/transgenders/gender neutral's environment.  (I am not sure which pronoun is correct so as not to offend I include a variety).

I recall my whole life that whenever we have more rain the mosquitoes have a field day.   So what's new?  NOTHING.  Just more propaganda.  The good part of this is now I remember how to spell mosquito.
Is it "mosquito"?  Is it "m*i*squito*e*" or "mosquitoe"?:


****Mosquitoes are worse this summer in parts of US

This undated handout photo provided by the Agriculture Department shows a female yellowfever mosquito probes a piece of Limburger cheese, one of few known mosquito attractants. Despite our size and technological advantages, we still can't seem to win our ancient blood battle with the pesky and lethal mosquito. In much of the nation this summer you can tell just by looking at the itchy bumps on our arms. A large section of the United States seems like it is getting eaten alive worse than usual this summer because of quirks in recent weather. It may be the worst in the Southeast, where after two years of drought when mosquito eggs laid dormant, there have been incredibly heavy rains much of the spring and summer. Rainfall in parts of North Carolina is more than two feet above normal this year. The rains have revived the dormant eggs, so the region is essentially getting three years' worth of mosquitoes in one summer. (AP Photo/Peggy Greb, USDA)

Associated Press
SETH BORENSTEIN 21 hours ago  Florida
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — The tiny mosquito all too often has man on the run. And this summer, it seems even worse than usual.

"You can't get from the car to inside our house without getting attacked, it's that bad," high school teacher Ryan Miller said from his home in Arlington, Va. Minutes earlier, he saw a mosquito circling his 4-month-old daughter — indoors.

Experts say it's been a buggier-than-normal summer in many places around the U.S. because of a combination of drought, heavy rain and heat.

It may be worst in the Southeast, which is getting hit with three years' worth of bugs in one summer, said Jonathan Day, who studies insects at the University of Florida.

Two years of drought were followed by incredibly heavy rain this year. During dry spells, mosquito eggs often didn't get wet enough to hatch. This year's rain revived those, along with the normal 2013 batch.

In parts of Connecticut this summer, mosquito traps had double the usual number of bugs. Minnesota traps in July had about triple the 10-year average. And in central California, traps had five times as many of one key species as the recent average.

Humans have been battling the blood-drinking bugs for thousands of years, and despite man's huge advantages in technology and size, people are not getting the upper hand. Just lots of bites on the hand.

"We have to keep fighting just to hold our own," said Tom Wilmot, past president of the Mosquito Control Association and a Michigan mosquito control district chief. And in some places, he said, the mosquitoes are winning.

In southwestern Florida around Fort Myers, Lee County mosquito control was getting more than 300 calls per day from residents at times this summer, a much higher count than usual. But the more impressive tally was the number of bugs landing on inspectors' unprotected legs: more than 100 a minute in some hotspots, said deputy director Shelly Radovan.

Across Florida near Vero Beach, Roxanne Connelly said there have been some days this month when she just wouldn't go in the backyard. It's been too bad even for her — and she's a mosquito researcher at the University of Florida and head of the mosquito association.

Many communities fight back by spraying pesticides, but mosquitoes are starting to win that battle, too, developing resistance to these chemicals. Soon many places could be out of effective weapons, Connelly and other mosquito-fighters said.

Miller, who teaches environmental sciences, said he normally would oppose spraying but has been lobbying for the county to break out the pesticides this year. The county told him there was no money in the budget and recommended he hire a private pest control business, he said.

The type that buzzed his daughter — the Asian tiger mosquito, named for its striped body — hit the U.S. a quarter-century ago in a batch of imported scrap tires in Houston and eventually spread to the Northeast, the Midwest and, in 2011, the Los Angeles area.

Climate change is also likely to worsen mosquito problems in general because the insects tend to do better in the hotter weather that experts forecast, said Chet Moore, a professor of medical entomology at Colorado State University.

Mosquitoes, of course, can be more than a nuisance: They can spread diseases. In the U.S., the biggest mosquito-borne threat is West Nile virus. Last year, there were a record 286 West Nile deaths, but this year appears to be milder.

Worldwide outside the United States, mosquito-borne diseases kill far more people than sharks, snakes and bears combined, with more than 600,000 deaths from malaria each year in poorer countries.

People should wear light-colored clothing — dark colors attract mosquitoes — long pants and long sleeves; get rid of standing water, where mosquitoes breed; and use repellents with the chemical DEET, experts said.

But even those substances may not work for long. Mosquitoes could be developing resistance to repellents as well as insecticides, said mosquito researcher James Logan at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

"It's an arms race," he said. "I always think they are one step ahead of us."****

___
3434  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: August 21, 2013, 10:30:28 AM
Good responses from       CD and DM.

I agree with their thoughts not Mort (except about OBama's ability to stab people in the back.)

To a large extent barak the terrible's main focus is ramming through the liberal agenda and not helping the economy.   
3435  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mort Zuckerman on Obama's rudeness to Bernanke on: August 20, 2013, 09:28:54 PM
The Brilliant Fed Chair and the Clueless President

Obama's cavalier treatment of Ben Bernanke is yet another indication of an administration clueless about how serious the country's economic condition is

By  Mortimer B. Zuckerman
August 9, 2013
 
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on , Wednesday, July 17, 2013, in Washington.

How good is your memory? Not many people today have personal memories of the Great Depression some 80 years ago, when thousands of banks closed. It would be natural, you'd think, to have a burning memory of what happened just five years ago when the U.S. banking system was on the brink of a similar collapse. The housing bubble burst. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Banks pulled back on lending, investors avoided new bonds and everyone seemed to be stockpiling cash. The economy started to contract by 5 percent to 6 percent annually. Trillions of dollars were knocked off the value of U.S. companies. The public and financial authorities had reason to believe nothing much could be done to avert a rerun of the Great Depression.

George Santayana (and before him the 18th century British philosopher and politician Edmund Burke) had history in mind when he observed that those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Five years hardly qualifies as "history," so it is unnerving that even supposedly well-informed people have forgotten how we got out of the mess. Last year, for example, the House of Representatives followed the lead of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul (now taken up by his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) in passing a motion for an audit of the Federal Reserve, as if the Fed had been a cause of our problems.

On the contrary, the Federal Reserve was quite simply our last hope. It was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke who came to the rescue. Bernanke, a former Princeton professor, was a scholar of the Great Depression, a background that proved critical. Right from his start in 2006, he demonstrated a tough independence. Unconvinced of inflation predictions in 2007, he refused to continue ratcheting up interest rates – and he was proved right. When the crisis hit in 2008, he went way beyond the standard response of a central banker, which would have been to lower interest rates and hope that cheaper credit would somehow work its way to more borrowing, more activity, more jobs.

It hadn't worked that way in the Great Depression. Nobody wanted to borrow because there was no demand for their products and services. Bernanke understood that the full faith and credit of the U.S. government was required for a bailout, so he devised a whole menu of unique liquidity facilities to restore credit and confidence. More than a trillion dollars in lending programs helped troubled financial firms, especially the banks. Debt from industrial corporations was bought up, and distressed mortgage assets were put onto the Fed's books. The Fed's policy sustained money market funds, commercial paper, consumer loans and more. His intervention was decisive in easing the panic.

Bernanke's boldness no doubt stemmed from his intricate understanding of the Great Depression. He literally transformed the Fed into a daring, financial first-responder and an active market participant, rather than limiting it to its traditional role of controlling the money supply. Simultaneously he joined Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on a visit to Capitol Hill to persuade terrified politicians to embrace the famously massive fiscal injection of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. That was a close call, for at that fragile moment financial experts worried that the banks might not open the next morning.

Bernanke rallied both the Treasury Department and other central bankers around the world. He pushed other central banks to pursue expansion. Miraculously, the clogged arteries of the global financial system opened up. He leveraged whatever assets the Congress authorized him to deploy, and almost single-handedly steered the global economy back from the brink. In so doing he was able to secure enough time for the U.S. to stabilize the financial system and begin to heal its economy.

His greatest strength came from the authority endowed by his insight and understanding of the magnitude of the crisis at a time when Washington was in turmoil and the Obama presidency did not enjoy congressional confidence. Not so with Bernanke. He got behind a series of imaginative but untested emergency funding procedures for the banks. He used the Fed's balance sheet both uniquely and aggressively to buy not only short-term Treasury bills but also long-term bonds and mortgages as a way of manipulating prices and forcing policy interest rates down to virtually zero for an unprecedented period. This lowered both short- and long-term interest rates. He also didn't hesitate to suggest that the Fed would do even more if these measures didn't work.

Through it all, Bernanke retained a unique candor. He spelled out the costs and risks of these unconventional policies. He made it clear that the more the Fed had to persist, the more difficult it would be to get the world back into a state of normal balance.

To this day, the Fed has not yet been able to wind down his innovative policies – for good reason. The U.S. economy in the four years since the recession ended has been growing at less than half the rate of any other recession since World War II. We are still living with a real unemployment rate of at least 14 percent, punishing millions of a new "lost generation." Some 37 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for over six months. And we have failed to attain "escape velocity" to return to steady growth.

That is the justification – the imperative in Bernanke's view – for continuing to purchase Treasury and mortgage-backed bonds at the level of $85 billion a month, or a trillion dollars a year. He has managed this "quantitative easing" through three different phases and remains committed to continuing it to keep short-term interest rates at record-low levels at least until the unemployment rate falls to 6.5 percent.

And what did he receive for this from the president of the United States? A back-of-the-hand comment in a recent PBS television interview with Charlie Rose that the Federal Reserve chairman had stayed longer than he wanted or was supposed to. This made it clear that Bernanke's days as Fed chairman were numbered despite his unpredicted triumph. This was all done with just seven months left in his appointed term, thus depriving the chairman of the dignity of making his own announcement and even precluding the decision that he might not want to re-up for another tour of duty after eight exhausting years of the worst economic and financial crisis since the 1930's.

The market naturally reacted to President Obama's statement. The equity market lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the next two days. It was not the send-off that Bernanke deserved. The best the president could muster by way of complimenting this brilliant and courageous man was to describe him as an "outstanding partner" with the White House. Partner? The White House was the critical player here only in the sense that its economic policies had drained the confidence of the business community. (By the way, since the Federal Reserve is an independent agency overseen by Congress, no Fed chairman reacts well to the description of "partner," for it undermines the integrity and independence of the Federal Reserve and its leader.) And the stab in the back was carried out while Bernanke was conducting an important Federal Open Market Committee meeting.

It could be argued that Bernanke has made mistakes. He was perhaps a little loose in implying that the Fed might soon cut back its stimulus efforts. But his remarks were intended to minimize speculative activity that relied on the Fed's buying of these bonds, and calm was soon restored.

History will marvel at the role that he played in his seven tumultuous years, intervening so bravely and boldly in Wall Street in ways never before contemplated. As the only operator in Washington who was capable of juicing up the economy in the short term, there is now a fear that when Bernanke quits there will be nobody in Washington capable of leading us out of the unemployment and underemployment that is devastating millions of Americans.

But he leaves a legacy: Buying bonds without limits to their quantity or duration is now an acceptable policy. The financial markets have also adjusted to having the Fed as a key participant, which is a dramatically different role than that of monetary policymaking.

Bernanke's Fed was quite simply our last hope, preventing an economy from sliding into a financial abyss. Our economy still has a way to go before it regains full strength, but the president's mean-spirited dismissal of perhaps the greatest central banker in our history is yet another indication of an administration that has no clue of how serious the country's current economic condition is. What a shame to have so cavalierly treated the very architect of the policies that saved America from another Great Depression.


3436  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Canadian and American on: August 19, 2013, 08:48:17 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-born-in-canada-ted-cruz-became-a-citizen-of-that-country-as-well-as-u.s..ece

Egads!  Born in Calgary 1970.  How can we argue this is ok after just arguing that Obama birthplace was an issue?   Both have (had) mother's who were American citizens.

At least he shows us his birth certificate unlike his highness.

I guess this means he is running in 2016.  It remains to be seen if he can win over enough voters to his strict conservative views.  Lets hope so.

3437  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Victor Davis Hanson on: August 18, 2013, 10:02:19 PM
A conservative we know, but a Democrat? huh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson
3438  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments on: August 18, 2013, 08:29:38 PM
"The 17 pages of this thread are dedicated to those of us who do get it and provoking awareness of just how serious this is.  That we have 50,000+ reads for this thread says some of us do get it."

Who are the 50,000 plus readers and how come so few post?   Are you sure it isn't the NSA, Google, organized crime, Chinese, Russians, Nigerians or Iranians just sparking hits while they troll the net?

I understand that some do get it yet we don't see general public outrage.   Is it because there is outrage or concern that is just not being heard?  Or because it still is so few of us who get it?

I listen to Savage and Levin who both view Snowden more positively than other Republicans such as McCain or the Bush crowd.  I agree with them too and view him more as a whistleblower than a traitor.    While they both express outrage over government surveillance of its own citizens neither to my knowledge says a peep about big corporations, doing the same thing.   

I don't get a sense at all that our law enforcement is interested in this either.   Unless one is a famous celebrity whose ipad is hacked.  All we here about is crime is down.   Well violent crime maybe.  But white collar is skyrocketing.   And it is bed with our politicians.
3439  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Water on: August 18, 2013, 01:02:46 PM
I've some are looking into using CO2 as a vehicle to pump into the ground to wedge open the rocks to release hydrocarbons.   Capture the CO2 emission of nat gas or coal then pump this into the ground to avoid release into the atmosphere and at the same time save water and get our fuel.
3440  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The left's war on plants on: August 18, 2013, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from Doug's post:

"...enhanced carbon dioxide has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants... So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system."

Yes liberal environmentalists almost ignore the benefit to plants of rising CO2.
The Greens are *waging war* on plants by trying to choke them to death by reducing CO2.   If only plants could vote......

The first time I read anything about plants doing better is this article that picks on a single plant only to further their agenda:

****Poison Ivy is Growing Out of Control, Thanks to Climate Change

Sean Breslin Published: Jul 24, 2013, 2:55 PM EDT weather.com

Poison ivy. (Flickr/Diego3336)

A rising carbon dioxide level is bad for many things on our planet, but there's one plant that eats it up like candy: poison ivy.

Higher levels of carbon dioxide benefit the growth of all plants, yet poison ivy seems to be enjoying it more than most, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Poison ivy's growth and potency has doubled since the 1960s, the newspaper reports. With CO2 rates expected to rise from 400 parts per million to 560 ppm in the next 30 to 50 years, it could double again.

If carbon dioxide levels reach 800 ppm by the end of the century, as the report suggests they could, poison ivy would become even more prevalent.

"Poison ivy and vines in general really, really benefit from higher atmospheric CO2," Jacqueline Mohan, assistant professor of biology at the University of Georgia, told the Post-Gazette.

According to Sustainable Business, poison ivy leaves have grown as big as pie pans in some parts of the country. Bears, deer and other animals that eat the plants won't experience a food shortage in the coming years.

The creatures' voracious appetite for the plant should lessen the chance of humans experiencing serious reactions to the ivy's oil, known as urushiol.

The enhanced poison ivy won't just threaten humans with its rash-creating oil, it could also kill trees at a faster pace. Sustainable Business also mentions that the plant can quickly crawl up trees and starve them, and when combined with the possibility that climate change could cause more intense wildfires, there could be more fuel for blazes if more dead trees are in the path.

A Grist article notes poison ivy is one of few plants thriving in the forests along the South Carolina coast. Then, to demonstrate the enhanced nature of a 21st-century attack, the piece concludes by documenting the trials of climate and energy blogger David Roberts, affected by a recent bout with poison ivy.

The frustration and likelihood of a brush with urushiol will only grow, affecting more people, until poison ivy's carbon dioxide food supply is slowed and eventually choked off.****
3441  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "It took me about an hour" on: August 18, 2013, 10:00:51 AM
To paint one of his works of art all sold out:

http://kieronwilliamson.com/
3442  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: August 17, 2013, 07:08:11 PM

Walmart Earnings Disaster Exposes a Collapsing Economy: Davidowitz


.By Jeff Macke | Breakout – Thu, Aug 15, 2013 10:24 AM EDT..

Walmart (WMT) reported earnings of $1.24 a share this morning on revenues of $116.2 billion. Analysts had been expecting $1.25 on $118.5 billion. Sales in stores open more than a year declined 0.3%. Walmart also guided lower for the full year citing a "challenging sales and operating environment." The stock is off sharply and at risk of going negative for the last 52 weeks.

Those are the numbers, but not the whole story. Walmart is the thermometer of the American economy. Disregard the government data. Jobs and GDP and all the rest are at best inaccurate measures of the economy and at worst flat out corrupt. Walmart is capitalism writ large. The entire organization is focused on nothing but selling goods and services to Americans. It may be an empire in decline, but Walmart sells more than $1 billion worth of merchandise per day in a bad quarter. When Walmart misses estimates, it can only mean one of two things: either Walmart or the American economy is weaker than anyone thought.

Related: 3 Signs Walmart's Best Days Are Behind It

"Walmart is a terrific operator... They didn't suddenly become stupid," says says Howard Davidowitz, one of the top retail minds in the country. "The economy is in collapse. That's what's going on."

Davidowitz points out that Walmart isn't just a store for the downtrodden. They have 150 million customers which collectively spent less in Walmart stores than in the same period last year. Davidowitz says another 50 million customers shop at Target (TGT), which he also expects to have negative comp stores sales when it reports next week.

Don't forget that Macy's (M) also missed expectations yesterday. Three makes a trend. The GDP data is positive and the employment data says things are improving gradually. Either the best merchants in America forgot how to sell, Americans stopped consuming beyond their means, or the economy is turning south, not getting better.

Related: Macy's Miss Another Sign Retail Isn't the Place to Be: Hoenig

"I don't think we're in a recession right now, but I think there's a 50 percent chance we'll be in one next year," Davidowitz shouts, and there's nothing the government is going to be able to do about it. "We've spent all the money, we've borrowed all the money, and we're in the tank."
3443  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jewish autonomy region on: August 17, 2013, 10:18:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast
3444  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science and Military Issues on: August 17, 2013, 03:52:12 AM
"“Perhaps it is time to take a hard look at what really makes a competent combat soldier and not rely on traditional notions of masculine brawn that celebrate strength over other qualities,” Col. Haring says in the current issue of Armed Forces Journal."

True.   It is not like the days when weapons were swords, shields, pickaxes, long bows, or bayonets.   How strong does one have to be to pull a trigger, or right click on a toggle switch that sends in a drone?  I guess one could have a dispenser for tampons inside the tank alongside the gov. paid for BCP.
3445  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: August 17, 2013, 03:46:27 AM
If we could be sure the vast majority of the people who renounce US citizenship for tax reasons were to vote Democrat Obama would be pushing to grant them all amnesty.

Isn't that what the amnesty for illegals is all about?

If one is living in India and investing in Britain then why should they have the privilege of being a US citizen without paying taxes?

What happens to someone from the US who goes to Costa Rica and retires.   Does that person still pay income tax to the US?   I would think so if they are still a US citizen.
3446  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments on: August 17, 2013, 03:33:32 AM
" The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship."

It already is this way with political "incorrect" speech.

"Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things—the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind—and the boundary between those things and the world outside."

"We talk about this now because of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency revelations, and new fears that we are operating, all of us, within what has become or is becoming a massive surveillance state."

Where is the beginning and end of privacy when a person uses electronic devices.  All devices are now wireless and can be intruded upon.  They are all made with ways to get into them.  By the companies that make the devices, the software, or intercepting wireless transmissions.  What about big data the private tech companies are hoarding about us?

One can't even "opt out".   Why no outrage over this?  Why is it Google's, or Microsoft's, or Apple's, or Amazon's business what I say, where I go, what I buy, or what I write?

Are people saying we must trust them yet not trust the government.   The invasion of privacy and our thoughts is coming from the private as well as the government sector.

Snowden called those who would not agree naïve.   I agree.   I  am living it so I understand.   Most people do not and appear cannot understand.   As I have said they will some day.  Maybe now people are waking up to it?
Some on the right (and left) are using the surveillance issues for political purposes..   I agree with this from either political point of view.   I also submit that we should all be very concerned about what private legal and illegal entities are also doing with  the power they wield with all the information they are gathering with and without our consent.

3447  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Clinton Foundation - looks like a lot of people getting rich behind this on: August 16, 2013, 07:34:30 PM
New York Times
   
Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.

The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.

Now those efforts are taking on new urgency. In the coming weeks, the foundation, long Mr. Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.

This fall, Mrs. Clinton and her staff will move into offices at the foundation’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, occupying two floors of the Time-Life Building. Amid speculation about her 2016 plans, Mrs. Clinton is adding major new initiatives on women, children and jobs to what has been renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting.

“We’re trying to institutionalize the foundation so that it will be here long after the lives of any of us,” Mr. Lindsey said. “That’s our challenge and that is what we are trying to address.”

But the changing of the guard has aggravated long-simmering tensions within the former first family’s inner circle as the foundation tries to juggle the political and philanthropic ambitions of a former president, a potential future president, and their increasingly visible daughter.

And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.

Powered by Celebrity

Last Thursday, Mr. Clinton arrived two hours late to an exuberant welcome at a health clinic about 60 miles north of Johannesburg. Children in zebra-striped loincloths sang as Mr. Clinton and Ms. Clinton made their entrance, and the former president enthusiastically explained how his foundation had helped the South African government negotiate large reductions in the price of drugs that halt the progress of HIV. Aaron Motsoaledi, South Africa’s minister of health, heaped praise on the effort. “Because of your help we are able to treat three and a half times more people than we used to,” he told the crowd.

The project is typical of the model pioneered by the Clinton Foundation, built around dozens of partnerships with private companies, governments, or other nonprofit groups. Instead of handing out grants, the foundation recruits donors and advises them on how best to deploy their money or resources, from helping Procter & Gamble donate advanced water-purification packets to developing countries to working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.

The foundation, which has 350 employees in 180 countries, remains largely powered by Mr. Clinton’s global celebrity and his ability to connect corporate executives, A-listers and government officials. On this month’s Africa trip, Mr. Clinton was accompanied by the actors Dakota Fanning and Jesse Eisenberg and the son of the New York City mayoral candidate John A. Catsimatidis, a longtime donor.

For most of the foundation’s existence, its leadership has been dominated by loyal veterans of the Clintons’ political lives. Ira C. Magaziner, who was a Rhodes scholar with Mr. Clinton and ran Mrs. Clinton’s failed attempt at a health care overhaul in the 1990s, is widely credited as the driving force behind the foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which, among other efforts, negotiates bulk purchasing agreements and price discounts on lifesaving medicines.

Mr. Band, who arrived at the White House in 1995 and worked his way up to become Mr. Clinton’s closest personal aide, standing behind the president on golf courses and the global stage, helped build the foundation’s fund-raising structure. He conceived of and for many years helped run the Clinton Global Initiative, the annual conference that draws hundreds of business leaders and heads of state to New York City where attendees are pushed to make specific philanthropic commitments.

Today, big-name companies vie to buy sponsorships at prices of $250,000 and up, money that has helped subsidize the foundation’s annual operating costs. Last year, the foundation and two subsidiaries had revenues of more than $214 million.

Yet the foundation’s expansion has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red.

Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees.

In interviews, foundation officials partly blamed the 2008 recession and difficulties in getting donors to provide operating support rather than restricted grants for specific programs for the deficits.

But others criticized Mr. Magaziner, who is widely seen within the foundation as impulsive and lacking organizational skills. On one occasion, Mr. Magaziner dispatched a team of employees to fly around the world for months gathering ideas for a climate change proposal that never got off the ground. Another time, he ignored a report — which was commissioned at significant expense from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company — on how the foundation could get involved in forestry initiatives.

Mr. Magaziner’s management style and difficulty keeping projects within budget were also raised in discussions that surrounded the 2011 Simpson Thacher review. (One person who attended a meeting with Mr. Magaziner recalled his lying on a conference room table in the middle of the meeting because of terrible back spasms, snapping at a staff member.)

Mr. Band repeatedly urged Mr. Clinton to fire Mr. Magaziner, according to people briefed on the matter. Mr. Clinton refused, confiding in aides that despite Mr. Magaziner’s managerial weaknesses, he was a visionary with good intentions. The former president, according to one person who knows them both, “thinks Ira is brilliant — and brilliant people get away with a lot in Clinton world.”

Indeed, by then, Mr. Magaziner had persuaded Mr. Clinton and the foundation to spin the health initiative off into a separate organization, with Mr. Magaziner as its chief executive and the Clinton Foundation appointing a majority of its board members. The financial problems continued. In 2010 and 2011, the first two years when the health initiative operated as a stand-alone organization, it ran annual shortfalls of more than $4 million. A new chief financial officer, hired in 2010, left eight months later.

A foundation official said the health initiative had only three chief financial officers in 10 years and that its financial problem was a common one in the nonprofit world: For all the grant money coming in — more than $160 million in 2011 — Mr. Magaziner had also had difficulty raising money for operating costs. But by the end of 2011, the health initiative had expanded its board, adding two seats. Chelsea Clinton took one.

Growing Ventures

As the foundation grew, so did the outside business ventures pursued by Mr. Clinton and several of his aides.

None have drawn more scrutiny in Clinton circles than Teneo, a firm co-founded in 2009 by Mr. Band, described by some as a kind of surrogate son to Mr. Clinton. Aspiring to merge corporate consulting, public relations and merchant banking in a single business, Mr. Band poached executives from Wall Street, recruited other Clinton aides to join as employees or advisers and set up shop in a Midtown office formerly belonging to one of the country’s top hedge funds.

By 2011, the firm had added a third partner, Declan Kelly, a former State Department envoy for Mrs. Clinton. And Mr. Clinton had signed up as a paid adviser to the firm.

Teneo worked on retainer, charging monthly fees as high as $250,000, according to current and former clients. The firm recruited clients who were also Clinton Foundation donors, while Mr. Band and Mr. Kelly encouraged others to become new foundation donors. Its marketing materials highlighted Mr. Band’s relationship with Mr. Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative, where Mr. Band sat on the board of directors through 2011 and remains an adviser. Some Clinton aides and foundation employees began to wonder where the foundation ended and Teneo began.

Those worries intensified after the collapse of MF Global, the international brokerage firm led by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey, in the fall of 2011. The firm had been among Teneo’s earliest clients, and its collapse over bad European investments — while paying $125,000 a month for the firm’s public relations and financial advice — drew Teneo and the Clintons unwanted publicity.

Mr. Clinton ended his advisory role with Teneo in March 2012, after an article appeared in The New York Post suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was angry over the MF Global controversy. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton denied the report. But in a statement released afterward, Mr. Clinton announced that he would no longer be paid by Teneo.

He also praised Mr. Band effusively, crediting him with keeping the foundation afloat and expressing hopes that Mr. Band would continue to advise the Global Initiative.

“I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without Doug Band,” Mr. Clinton said in the statement.

Even that news release was a source of controversy within the foundation, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Band helped edit the statement, which other people around the Clintons felt gave him too much credit for the foundation’s accomplishments. (The quotation now appears as part of Mr. Band’s biography on the Teneo Web site.)

Mr. Band left his paid position with the foundation in late 2010, but has remained involved with C.G.I., as have a number of Teneo clients, like Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and UBS Americas. Standard Chartered, a British financial services company that paid a $340 million fine to New York regulators last year to settle charges that it had laundered money from Iran, is a Teneo client and a sponsor of the 2012 global initiative.

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

Officials said the foundation has established clear guidelines for the Clinton Global Initiative to help prevent any favoritism or special treatment of particular donors or sponsors.

Teneo was not the only worry: other events thrust the foundation into internal turmoil. In 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff members departed, reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization. Around the time of the Simpson Thacher review, Mr. Lindsey suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House, stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.

While much attention has focused on Mrs. Clinton’s emerging role within the foundation, advisers to the family say her daughter’s growing involvement could prove more critical in the years ahead. After years of pursuing other career paths, including working at McKinsey & Company and a hedge fund, Ms. Clinton, 33, has begun to assert herself as a force within the foundation. Her perspective is shaped far more than her parents’ by her time in the world of business, and she is poised to play a significant role in shaping the foundation’s future, particularly if Mrs. Clinton chooses to run for president.

She formally joined the foundation’s board in 2011, marking her growing role there — and the start of intensifying tensions between her and Mr. Band. Several people close to the Clintons said that she became increasingly concerned with the negative impact Mr. Band’s outside business might have on her father’s work and that she cited concerns raised during the internal review about potential conflicts of interest involving Teneo.

It was Ms. Clinton who suggested that the newly installed chief executive, Eric Braverman, be considered for the job during a nearly two-year search. A friend and a former colleague from McKinsey, Mr. Braverman, 38, had helped the Clintons with philanthropic projects in Haiti after the earthquake there. And his hiring coincided with Ms. Clinton’s appointment as the vice chairwoman of the foundation board, where she will bear significant responsibility for steering her family’s philanthropy, both in the causes it tackles and in the potential political and financial conflicts it must avoid.

Ms. Clinton has also grown worried that the foundation she stood to inherit would collapse without her father, who turns 67 next week. Mr. Clinton, who had quadruple-bypass surgery in 2004 and no longer eats meat or dairy products, talks frequently about his own mortality.

Mr. Catsimatidis said Ms. Clinton “has to learn how to deal with the whole world because she wants to follow in the footsteps of her father and her mother.”

Shifting the Emphasis

Over the years, the foundation has dived into virtually any cause that sparked Mr. Clinton’s interest: childhood obesity in the United States, sustainable farming in South America, mentoring entrepreneurs, saving elephants from poaching, and more. That list will shift soon as Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea build their staffs to focus on issues including economically empowering women and combating infant mortality.

In the coming months, as Mrs. Clinton mulls a 2016 presidential bid, the foundation could also serve as a base for her to home in on issues and to build up a stable of trusted staff members who could form the core of a political campaign.

Mrs. Clinton’s staff at the foundation’s headquarters includes Maura Pally, a veteran aide who advised her 2008 presidential campaign and worked at the State Department, and Madhuri Kommareddi, a former policy aide to President Obama.

Dennis Cheng, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of protocol at the State Department and a finance director of her presidential campaign, will oversee the endowment drive, which some of the Clintons’ donors already describe as a dry run for 2016.

And Mrs. Clinton’s personal staff of roughly seven people — including Huma Abedin, wife of the New York mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner — will soon relocate from a cramped Washington office to the foundation’s headquarters. They will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer.
 
Lydia Polgreen contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 14, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions.
3448  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: August 15, 2013, 08:38:51 AM
How is it one day Drudge has report on the NYT article at corruption within the Clinton Foundation and the next day the NYT website crashes and one can barely find any other reports about it?

Amazing what money and power can do.
3449  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / This is a big deal screening CT approved by USPTF on: July 30, 2013, 07:54:37 AM
The article does not specify details but I can see the report in the journal.  Other organizations have already recommended this.  The pulmonary doctors and those who own CT scans are dancing in the streets now.   I don't necessarily agree with ding these but this endorsement will definitely give the green light to screening tests:

http://news.yahoo.com/panel-backs-lung-cancer-screening-210228577.html
3450  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: July 29, 2013, 09:07:11 PM
"Huma for mayor"   rolleyes

Must be the same crowd that keeps telling us how beautiful she is.  cheesy
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 134
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!