Who knew facebook could save you?
For Rodney Bradford, 19, updating his Facebook status with cryptic, insignificant details about his life saved him from years in the slammer. The Brooklyn teenager was exonerated from charges of armed robbery after it was found he updated his Facebook status one minute before the crime occurred.
Bradford was arrested and was subsequently held for 12 days on suspicion of robbing two people in the Farragut Houses, a Brooklyn public housing complex, where he lives on Oct 17.
Bradford and other witnesses attested that he was actually miles away at his father's apartment building in Harlem during the crime.
His defense attorney, Robert Reuland, pointed out to a Brooklyn assistant district attorney that Bradford wrote a message on Facebook asking his girlfriend where his pancakes were one minute before the robbery occurred. The Facebook message read: "ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK . . . . . WHERER MY I HOP"
The district attorney subpoenaed Facebook and the charges were then dropped once it was verified that the Facebook posting was made from a computer at the Harlem apartment complex at 71 West 118th Street in Manhattan, according to The New York Times.
Reuland, however, admitted to The Times that Bradford could have ostensibly had someone else log onto Facebook for him, but it seems unlikely, due to the fact that both his father and stepmother said he was in Harlem at the time.
Bradford was arrested and was subsequently held for 12 days on suspicion of robbing two people in the Farragut Houses, a Brooklyn public housing complex, where he lives on Oct 17.
Bradford and other witnesses attested that he was actually miles away at his father's apartment building in Harlem during the crime.
His defense attorney, Robert Reuland, pointed out to a Brooklyn assistant district attorney that Bradford wrote a message on Facebook asking his girlfriend where his pancakes were one minute before the robbery occurred. The Facebook message read: "ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK . . . . . WHERER MY I HOP"
The district attorney subpoenaed Facebook and the charges were then dropped once it was verified that the Facebook posting was made from a computer at the Harlem apartment complex at 71 West 118th Street in Manhattan, according to The New York Times.
Reuland, however, admitted to The Times that Bradford could have ostensibly had someone else log onto Facebook for him, but it seems unlikely, due to the fact that both his father and stepmother said he was in Harlem at the time.
Obama's Veterans Day: Honors Dead, Makes Surprise Visit To Graves
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visited Arlington National Cemetery on Wednesday, where they honored Veterans' Day and made a surprise visit to the area reserved for troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, walking among the grave sites and talking to mourners.
"To all of them -- to our veterans, to the fallen and to their families -- there is no tribute, no commemoration, no praise that can truly match the magnitude of your service and your sacrifice," he said.
Obama pledged he would do right by all veterans and families, saying: "America will not let you down."
Video of Obama laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns:
Video of Obama's speech:
2012 Prophecies Sparking Real Fears, Suicide Warnings
It's almost the end of the world, according to purported Maya predictions, and the 2012 apocalypse business is booming.
Survival kits, documentaries, and nearly 200 books presenting the "real" 2012 story are all on offer. And you could probably surf the Web from now until Armaggedon—tentatively slated for December 21, 2012—and still see just a fraction of the Web sites and products devoted to the topic.
But amid all the hype—including a viral marketing campaign for 2012, the disaster movie opening Friday—some people are developing honest "end times" anxiety that has experts seriously concerned.
Allies Uncover Half-Million Pounds Of Bomb-Making Materials In Afghanistan..
German Goalkeeper Dies In Apparent Suicide..
Blackwater Said To Approve Iraqi Payoffs After Shootings..
Executing Gitmo Detainees Will Endanger America, Report Says..
Obama Narrows Afghan Strategy To 4 Possible Options..
Radical Imam Based In Yemen Becomes New Focus In Fort Hood Killings Investigation..
'Guru' Accused Of Torturing French Aristocrats..
Fat In Japan? You Could Be Breaking The Law..
Politico: Is China Headed Toward Collapse? ..
Your request is being processed...
2012 Prophecies Sparking Real Fears, Suicide Warnings
digg Huffpost - 2012 Prophecies Sparking Real Fears, Suicide Warnings
stumble reddit del.ico.us
First Posted: 11-10-09 11:12 AM Updated: 11-10-09 12:36 PM
What's Your Reaction? .Important
Fascinating
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Infuriating
Beautiful
Read More: 2012, 2012 Doomsday, 2012 Prophecies, Doomsday, World News
Show your support.
Digg this article.
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
Share
Commentsby Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News
It's almost the end of the world, according to purported Maya predictions, and the 2012 apocalypse business is booming.
Survival kits, documentaries, and nearly 200 books presenting the "real" 2012 story are all on offer. And you could probably surf the Web from now until Armaggedon—tentatively slated for December 21, 2012—and still see just a fraction of the Web sites and products devoted to the topic.
But amid all the hype—including a viral marketing campaign for 2012, the disaster movie opening Friday—some people are developing honest "end times" anxiety that has experts seriously concerned.
SEE PHOTOS: Six End-of-the-World Myths Debunked
NASA's Ask an Astrobiologist Web site, for example, has received thousands of questions regarding the 2012 doomsday predictions—some of them disturbing, according to David Morrison, a senior scientist with the NASA Astrobiology Institute.
"A lot of [the submitters] are people who are genuinely frightened," said Morrison, who thinks movie marketers, authors, and others out to make a buck are feeding some of the fears.
"I've had two teenagers who were considering killing themselves, because they didn't want to be around when the world ends," he said. "Two women in the last two weeks said they were contemplating killing their children and themselves so they wouldn't have to suffer through the end of the world."
2012 Movie Just Entertainment
Part of the worry, Morrison says, is being fanned by a suite of Web sites created by 2012 distributor Sony Pictures Entertainment.
The sites appear to represent scientific organizations, press releases, and 2012 whistle-blowers all intent on telling the "truth" about our upcoming doom.
Now all the 2012 marketing sites display clear disclaimers that the contents are "Part of the 2012 Movie Experience."
But those labels weren't there from day one, adding to the suggestion that the doomsday scenarios might have some truth behind them, Morrison said.
Sony Pictures spokesperson Steve Elzer argues that it's clear the film's marketing materials are tied to the promotion of the movie.
"When moviegoers see trailers or visit Web sites linked to our film," he said, "they know this is an entertainment experience, just as those who see materials created for Transformers understand robot aliens have not really landed or those who attend Twilight: New Moon know vampires are not actually among us."
2012: Is This the Way the World Will End?
In general, fear over the 2012 doomsday prediction is just another example of a scenario that has been repeated over the centuries, said University of Wisconsin historian Paul Boyer.
Baptist preacher William Miller, for example, convinced as many as a hundred thousand Americans in the early 1800s that the second coming of Jesus Christ would happen in 1843. It didn't, much to the Millerites' "great disappointment."
And Hal Lindsey's 1970s national bestseller The Late, Great Planet Earth suggested that the end could come in the 1980s. We're still here and so is Lindsey, who has since revised his theories.
"The crucial date always seems to be within a decade or so of the present, so that you have a sense of imminence, that it's going to happen soon," said Boyer, author of When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture.
A healthy distrust for authority fuels the fire.
Conspiracy theorists often believe that world governments and those "in power" know all about some impending disaster but are doing nothing to save the rest of us.
Now, thanks to the Internet, such theories can gain traction quickly and spread more widely than ever before.
Yet something must account for the enduring appeal of an upcoming Armageddon. Perhaps it's knowing the future when others don't, or being one of the select few to solve impenetrable mysteries, Boyer said.
"For a lot of people I think it's almost kind of a parlor game. But there are also people who take it very seriously," he said.
"What strikes me is the total lack of historic awareness that people who get caught up in these things seem to exhibit. The most elementary look at history shows such a series of these episodes that are then proven false.
"Yet despite that, there always seems to be a market."
Maya 2012: Truth Better Than Fiction
Anthony Aveni, a Maya expert and archaeoastronomer at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, has also seen the effects of 2012 hysteria firsthand.
"I got into an email dialogue with a high school student who was quite seriously concerned that the world was going to end," he said. "This person thought we were all going to die. That motivated me to write about it."
His book, The End of Time: The Maya Mystery of 2012, is one of several attempts by experts to dispel the myths of the Maya apocalypse and instead focus attention on the facts about the ancient culture.
"It's a teaching moment," Aveni said. "If we allow people to fear 2012 and miss a great opportunity to learn about the Maya and their amazing culture, then we're not doing our job."
Beat It! and Eat It!
One of the most popular Wierd Al's of the day is Eat it! which doesn' t make a whole lot of sense till you have watched beat it.Beat It is one of the most popular music videos of michael Jackson watch beat it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqxo1SKB0z8
Then watch the Wierd Al
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyfcOriVKBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqxo1SKB0z8
Then watch the Wierd Al
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyfcOriVKBM
Windows 7 sales 234% higher than Vista
We wouldn't expect Microsoft to say anything other than positive things about Windows 7, but it's another thing when an independent company comes out an confirms that Windows 7 really is off to a good start. But one has to wonder--are sales of Win7doing well because people can't wait to rid themselves of Vista? Or are sales of Win7 doing well because of Win7's own merits?
Whatever the case, Microsoft's newest operating system is off to a fantastic start, with sales of the system up 234% (during its first week on the market) compared to Vista during its first week. Regardless of your opinion on things, that's a large percentage, particularly during a time period where people are pinching pennies and are more likely than ever to remain on their current OS for the time being.
Whatever the case, Microsoft's newest operating system is off to a fantastic start, with sales of the system up 234% (during its first week on the market) compared to Vista during its first week. Regardless of your opinion on things, that's a large percentage, particularly during a time period where people are pinching pennies and are more likely than ever to remain on their current OS for the time being.
"Microsoft's program of early low-cost pre-sales, high visibility marketing, and aggressive deals helped make the Windows 7 software launch successful," said NPD vice president of analysis Stephen Baker. "In a slow environment for packaged software Windows 7 brought a large number of customers into the software aisles," he said.
Microsoft's Head of Windows Experience, Julie Larson-Green says the OS development train isn't just stopping here obviously. Larson-Green notes: "Emerging trends, such as gesture-controlled interfaces, like that found on Microsoft’s prototype Project Natal gaming system, are also of particular interest. “There are things we’re learning about that weren’t there at the start of Windows 7.” (credit: Telegraph.co.uk)
Therapy prevents brain disease
The experiment marks the first time researchers have tried that long-contemplated step in people — and the first effective gene therapy against a severe brain disease, said lead researcher Dr. Patrick Aubourg of the University Paris-Descartes.
Although it's a small, first-step study, it has "exciting implications" for other blood and immune disorders that had been feared beyond gene therapy's reach, said Dr. Kenneth Cornetta, president of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy.
"This study shows the power of combining gene therapy and cell therapy," added Cornetta, whose own lab at Indiana University has long researched how to safely develop gene delivery using lentiviruses, HIV's family.
The research was published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
In 20 years of gene therapy research, there have been few home runs and some headline-making setbacks — including a risk of leukemia caused by otherwise successful gene therapy for another rare disorder, "bubble boy disease." That's a risk that specialists hope a lentivirus-based gene therapy will eliminate.
Best known from the movie "Lorenzo's Oil", adrenoleukodystrophy, or ALD, is a rare genetic disease that, in its most devastating form, destroys the coating of nerve fibers in boys' brains. Without that coating, called myelin, the neurological system breaks down. The disease typically strikes between the ages of four and 10, leading to blindness, deafness, dementia and loss of muscle control, and killing them within a few years.
Bone marrow transplants can halt ALD by letting new myelin-forming stem cells take root. But it's difficult to find a matching marrow donor, and the transplant itself is very risky.
So what if stem cells from the boys' own bone marrow could be genetically corrected, eliminating the ALD mutation? To do that, Aubourg's team had to overcome a technical hurdle: Gene therapy works when scientists harness deliver a healthy new gene by attaching to a virus that can harmlessly infect cells. But none of today's so-called gene therapy "vectors" could penetrate enough of the stem cells needed for an ALD treatment to work.
Unlike most viruses, HIV can penetrate stem cells, and it sticks permanently. So Aubourg's team removed the genetic parts of HIV that make it dangerous, leaving basically a scaffolding to carry the new therapeutic gene.
Then they culled stem cells from two 7-year-old boys in the early stages of ALD, and mixed in the healthy gene. The boys underwent bone marrow-destroying chemotherapy and then had their genetically corrected stem cells reinserted.
Two years later, the boys have shown no sign of worsening brain damage and are functioning well with 15 percent of their blood cells producing the healthy protein, said Aubourg, who plans to test the experimental procedure in more patients. An advocacy group, the Stop ALD Foundation, is working to raise money for a similar U.S. study.
--Courtesy of ScienceMag.org
Fox Gives Rush Limbaugh 30 Minutes To Tee Off On Obama
The Obama White House has, for the past few weeks, waged an informal war on Fox News, lashing out against the network for its conservative bias and blacklisting it from interviews with high-ranking administration officials.
So what type of counter-punch did Fox have to offer?
On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't.
Host Chris Wallace let Limbaugh tee off on all facets of the Obama agenda, domestic and foreign. The radio talk show accused the president of not caring about success in Afghanistan. "I know this is going to sound controversial but I don't think he cares," he said, before accusing Obama of "dithering" on whether or not to send more troops to the theater. "If he cared about it, Chris if he cared about it we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we are going to do."
Wallace let him go on, relatively uninterrupted. Limbaugh accused Obama of not wanting victory in Afghanistan, just, merely, a manageable situation. He said the president was trying to placate his base by taking his time before sending more troops. And he insisted that the president's visit to Dover air force base to see the returning coffins of U.S. soldiers was an opportunistic "photo-op." He concluded by questioning Obama's "commitment to national security" as well as the Democratic Party's " commitment to the U.S. military."
"They will put their political survival and their political power being gained over everything else," he bellowed. As evidence, Limbaugh insisted that throughout the Iraq War, "it was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military."
The Obama White House has, for the past few weeks, waged an informal war on Fox News, lashing out against the network for its conservative bias and blacklisting it from interviews with high-ranking administration officials.
So what type of counter-punch did Fox have to offer?
On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't.
Host Chris Wallace let Limbaugh tee off on all facets of the Obama agenda, domestic and foreign. The radio talk show accused the president of not caring about success in Afghanistan. "I know this is going to sound controversial but I don't think he cares," he said, before accusing Obama of "dithering" on whether or not to send more troops to the theater. "If he cared about it, Chris if he cared about it we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we are going to do."
Wallace let him go on, relatively uninterrupted. Limbaugh accused Obama of not wanting victory in Afghanistan, just, merely, a manageable situation. He said the president was trying to placate his base by taking his time before sending more troops. And he insisted that the president's visit to Dover air force base to see the returning coffins of U.S. soldiers was an opportunistic "photo-op." He concluded by questioning Obama's "commitment to national security" as well as the Democratic Party's " commitment to the U.S. military."
"They will put their political survival and their political power being gained over everything else," he bellowed. As evidence, Limbaugh insisted that throughout the Iraq War, "it was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military."
On the home front, the radio show host was equally caustic. He called the White House's economic agenda "a total attempt to remake the country" and accused various portions of Obama's health care proposal to be unconstitutional. In a reflection of just how soft the interview was at times, Wallace turned at one point to viewer questions.
The Obama White House has, for the past few weeks, waged an informal war on Fox News, lashing out against the network for its conservative bias and blacklisting it from interviews with high-ranking administration officials.
So what type of counter-punch did Fox have to offer?
On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't.
Host Chris Wallace let Limbaugh tee off on all facets of the Obama agenda, domestic and foreign. The radio talk show accused the president of not caring about success in Afghanistan. "I know this is going to sound controversial but I don't think he cares," he said, before accusing Obama of "dithering" on whether or not to send more troops to the theater. "If he cared about it, Chris if he cared about it we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we are going to do."
Wallace let him go on, relatively uninterrupted. Limbaugh accused Obama of not wanting victory in Afghanistan, just, merely, a manageable situation. He said the president was trying to placate his base by taking his time before sending more troops. And he insisted that the president's visit to Dover air force base to see the returning coffins of U.S. soldiers was an opportunistic "photo-op." He concluded by questioning Obama's "commitment to national security" as well as the Democratic Party's " commitment to the U.S. military."
"They will put their political survival and their political power being gained over everything else," he bellowed. As evidence, Limbaugh insisted that throughout the Iraq War, "it was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military."
On the home front, the radio show host was equally caustic. He called the White House's economic agenda "a total attempt to remake the country" and accused various portions of Obama's health care proposal to be unconstitutional. In a reflection of just how soft the interview was at times, Wallace turned at one point to viewer questions.
Story continues below
"If President Obama were to agree to a question what would you ask him," the question read.
"I love Fox viewers! I love them!" Limbaugh had chimed in right before.
The interview did, at one point, turn personal. Wallace managed to sneak in a few questions about Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers and allowed the talk show host to go off for a bit on the NFL (for denying his bid to purchase a football team). But for thirty minutes, it was an exercise in turning the White House a punching bag. What are your thoughts on Vice President Biden, Wallace asked at one point.
"Pompous, a bit of a windbag, and wrong," Limbaugh replied.
"About?" said Wallace, with the slightest of amused grins on his face.
"Pretty much everything," Limbaugh concluded.
So what type of counter-punch did Fox have to offer?
On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't.
Host Chris Wallace let Limbaugh tee off on all facets of the Obama agenda, domestic and foreign. The radio talk show accused the president of not caring about success in Afghanistan. "I know this is going to sound controversial but I don't think he cares," he said, before accusing Obama of "dithering" on whether or not to send more troops to the theater. "If he cared about it, Chris if he cared about it we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we are going to do."
Wallace let him go on, relatively uninterrupted. Limbaugh accused Obama of not wanting victory in Afghanistan, just, merely, a manageable situation. He said the president was trying to placate his base by taking his time before sending more troops. And he insisted that the president's visit to Dover air force base to see the returning coffins of U.S. soldiers was an opportunistic "photo-op." He concluded by questioning Obama's "commitment to national security" as well as the Democratic Party's " commitment to the U.S. military."
"They will put their political survival and their political power being gained over everything else," he bellowed. As evidence, Limbaugh insisted that throughout the Iraq War, "it was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military."
The Obama White House has, for the past few weeks, waged an informal war on Fox News, lashing out against the network for its conservative bias and blacklisting it from interviews with high-ranking administration officials.
So what type of counter-punch did Fox have to offer?
On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't.
Host Chris Wallace let Limbaugh tee off on all facets of the Obama agenda, domestic and foreign. The radio talk show accused the president of not caring about success in Afghanistan. "I know this is going to sound controversial but I don't think he cares," he said, before accusing Obama of "dithering" on whether or not to send more troops to the theater. "If he cared about it, Chris if he cared about it we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we are going to do."
Wallace let him go on, relatively uninterrupted. Limbaugh accused Obama of not wanting victory in Afghanistan, just, merely, a manageable situation. He said the president was trying to placate his base by taking his time before sending more troops. And he insisted that the president's visit to Dover air force base to see the returning coffins of U.S. soldiers was an opportunistic "photo-op." He concluded by questioning Obama's "commitment to national security" as well as the Democratic Party's " commitment to the U.S. military."
"They will put their political survival and their political power being gained over everything else," he bellowed. As evidence, Limbaugh insisted that throughout the Iraq War, "it was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military."
On the home front, the radio show host was equally caustic. He called the White House's economic agenda "a total attempt to remake the country" and accused various portions of Obama's health care proposal to be unconstitutional. In a reflection of just how soft the interview was at times, Wallace turned at one point to viewer questions.
The Obama White House has, for the past few weeks, waged an informal war on Fox News, lashing out against the network for its conservative bias and blacklisting it from interviews with high-ranking administration officials.
So what type of counter-punch did Fox have to offer?
On Sunday they handed over the first half of their hour-long Sunday show to an interview with bombastic radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
A hard-hitting interview it surely wasn't.
Host Chris Wallace let Limbaugh tee off on all facets of the Obama agenda, domestic and foreign. The radio talk show accused the president of not caring about success in Afghanistan. "I know this is going to sound controversial but I don't think he cares," he said, before accusing Obama of "dithering" on whether or not to send more troops to the theater. "If he cared about it, Chris if he cared about it we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we are going to do."
Wallace let him go on, relatively uninterrupted. Limbaugh accused Obama of not wanting victory in Afghanistan, just, merely, a manageable situation. He said the president was trying to placate his base by taking his time before sending more troops. And he insisted that the president's visit to Dover air force base to see the returning coffins of U.S. soldiers was an opportunistic "photo-op." He concluded by questioning Obama's "commitment to national security" as well as the Democratic Party's " commitment to the U.S. military."
"They will put their political survival and their political power being gained over everything else," he bellowed. As evidence, Limbaugh insisted that throughout the Iraq War, "it was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military."
On the home front, the radio show host was equally caustic. He called the White House's economic agenda "a total attempt to remake the country" and accused various portions of Obama's health care proposal to be unconstitutional. In a reflection of just how soft the interview was at times, Wallace turned at one point to viewer questions.
Story continues below
"If President Obama were to agree to a question what would you ask him," the question read.
"I love Fox viewers! I love them!" Limbaugh had chimed in right before.
The interview did, at one point, turn personal. Wallace managed to sneak in a few questions about Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers and allowed the talk show host to go off for a bit on the NFL (for denying his bid to purchase a football team). But for thirty minutes, it was an exercise in turning the White House a punching bag. What are your thoughts on Vice President Biden, Wallace asked at one point.
"Pompous, a bit of a windbag, and wrong," Limbaugh replied.
"About?" said Wallace, with the slightest of amused grins on his face.
"Pretty much everything," Limbaugh concluded.
Budget Monitor Says G.O.P. Bill Leaves Many Uninsured
The Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday that an alternative health care bill put forward by House Republicans would have little impact in extending health benefits to the roughly 30 million uninsured Americans, but would reduce average insurance premium costs for people who have coverage.
The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and would leave about 52 million people uninsured, the budget office said, meaning the proportion of non-elderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, at roughly 83 percent.
The budget office has said that the Democrats’ health care proposal would extend coverage to 36 million people, meaning that 96 percent of legal residents would have health benefits. The Democrats’ bill would cost $1.1 trillion, with the costs more than covered by revenues from new taxes or cuts in government spending, particularly on Medicare.
House Republicans, including their leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, have said that they did not intend for their legislation to expand insurance coverage, because they viewed that goal as unaffordable. Instead, they said the bill was tailored narrowly to reduce costs.
According to the report by nonpartisan budget office, the Republican bill would reduce future federal deficits by $68 billion over 10 years, compared to a reduction of $104 billion by the House Democrats’ legislation.
The findings by the budget office mostly seemed to confirm assertions by Democrats that the Republican bill, offered as an amendment to the Democrats’ measure, would do little to change the status quo.
But Republicans will certainly find aspects of the cost analysis to brag about. The budget office predicted savings for the federal government of $41 billion over 10 years as a result of provisions to limit costs related to medical malpractice lawsuits.
In addition, many Republicans have said the country cannot afford a hugely expensive health care bill at a time of staggering federal deficits, and the total cost of insurance provisions in the Republican bill would be just $61 billion compared to $1.1 trillion for the Democrats’ bill.
The budget office also said that the Republican bill would reduce average insurance premiums, though the budget office cautioned that its calculations in that regard were subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
The budget office said that in the Republican plan, premiums would be reduced the most for people who buy insurance in the individual or small-group market, but that people who get large-group insurance through their employers would also see some reduction in cost. “The combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law,” the budget office said.
It said premiums would be cut by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market; by 5 percent to 8 percent in the individual market; and by up to 3 percent in the large group market, which is where 80 percent of Americans get their coverage.
The budget office carefully hedged its findings, writing: “Some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by enrollees in some states relative to enrollees in other states. As a result, some individuals and families within each market would see reductions in premiums that would be larger or smaller than the estimated average reductions, and some people would see increases. The estimates of changes in average premiums are very preliminary and are subject to an unusually high degree of uncertainty.”
Republicans hailed the budget office findings as evidence that they had produced a superior bill, while Democrats ridiculed the same findings as evidence that the Republican bill would accomplish virtually nothing.
“Across the country the American people are calling on Washington to pass responsible reform that will lower health care costs,” Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican said in a statement late Wednesday. “Yesterday, House Republicans answered that call by putting forward common-sense health care legislation that reduces the deficit, lowers premiums, and ensures coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.”
But Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and one of the main architects of the Democrats’ bill, said the Republicans had come up short.
“Tonight CBO confirmed that the Republicans’ only solution for health reform is to preserve the status quo,” Mr. Miller said in a statement. “It will leave 52 million Americans literally out in the cold, does nothing to help low-income and middle-class families afford quality health care, and protects insurance companies’ power to deny claims and stand between patients and their doctors.”
courtesy of prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com
The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and would leave about 52 million people uninsured, the budget office said, meaning the proportion of non-elderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, at roughly 83 percent.
The budget office has said that the Democrats’ health care proposal would extend coverage to 36 million people, meaning that 96 percent of legal residents would have health benefits. The Democrats’ bill would cost $1.1 trillion, with the costs more than covered by revenues from new taxes or cuts in government spending, particularly on Medicare.
House Republicans, including their leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, have said that they did not intend for their legislation to expand insurance coverage, because they viewed that goal as unaffordable. Instead, they said the bill was tailored narrowly to reduce costs.
According to the report by nonpartisan budget office, the Republican bill would reduce future federal deficits by $68 billion over 10 years, compared to a reduction of $104 billion by the House Democrats’ legislation.
The findings by the budget office mostly seemed to confirm assertions by Democrats that the Republican bill, offered as an amendment to the Democrats’ measure, would do little to change the status quo.
But Republicans will certainly find aspects of the cost analysis to brag about. The budget office predicted savings for the federal government of $41 billion over 10 years as a result of provisions to limit costs related to medical malpractice lawsuits.
In addition, many Republicans have said the country cannot afford a hugely expensive health care bill at a time of staggering federal deficits, and the total cost of insurance provisions in the Republican bill would be just $61 billion compared to $1.1 trillion for the Democrats’ bill.
The budget office also said that the Republican bill would reduce average insurance premiums, though the budget office cautioned that its calculations in that regard were subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
The budget office said that in the Republican plan, premiums would be reduced the most for people who buy insurance in the individual or small-group market, but that people who get large-group insurance through their employers would also see some reduction in cost. “The combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law,” the budget office said.
It said premiums would be cut by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market; by 5 percent to 8 percent in the individual market; and by up to 3 percent in the large group market, which is where 80 percent of Americans get their coverage.
The budget office carefully hedged its findings, writing: “Some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by enrollees in some states relative to enrollees in other states. As a result, some individuals and families within each market would see reductions in premiums that would be larger or smaller than the estimated average reductions, and some people would see increases. The estimates of changes in average premiums are very preliminary and are subject to an unusually high degree of uncertainty.”
Republicans hailed the budget office findings as evidence that they had produced a superior bill, while Democrats ridiculed the same findings as evidence that the Republican bill would accomplish virtually nothing.
“Across the country the American people are calling on Washington to pass responsible reform that will lower health care costs,” Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican said in a statement late Wednesday. “Yesterday, House Republicans answered that call by putting forward common-sense health care legislation that reduces the deficit, lowers premiums, and ensures coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.”
But Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and one of the main architects of the Democrats’ bill, said the Republicans had come up short.
“Tonight CBO confirmed that the Republicans’ only solution for health reform is to preserve the status quo,” Mr. Miller said in a statement. “It will leave 52 million Americans literally out in the cold, does nothing to help low-income and middle-class families afford quality health care, and protects insurance companies’ power to deny claims and stand between patients and their doctors.”
courtesy of prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com
Your request is being processed... Food Lobby Mobilizes, As Soda Tax Bubbles Up
Washington lobbyists have been enjoying a multi-million-dollar sugar rush from the food industry.
Soft drink makers, supermarket companies, agriculture and the fast-food business have poured millions into campaigning against what they fear could be a burgeoning national movement to raise money for health care reform by taxing sweetened beverages.
During the first nine months of 2009, the industry groups stepped up their lobbying in Congress. They have spent more than $24 million on the issue of a national excise tax on sweetened beverages and on other legislative and regulatory issues, according to an examination of lobbying reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. The review shows that 21 companies and organizations reported that they lobbied specifically on the proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages - which among other things would include sodas, juice drinks and chocolate milk.
About $5 million of the money was spent on a national advertising campaign aimed at Capitol Hill lawmakers and promoting a newly formed coalition called Americans Against Food Taxes . The group bills itself on its website as a coalition of "responsible individuals, financially-strapped families, [and] small and large businesses" but its 400-plus membership list is dominated by industry heavyweights such as Burger King Corporation, Coca Cola, Pepsico and Domino's Pizza.
Many health officials and advocacy groups have argued for years that sugary drinks, particularly those with high-fructose corn syrup, have been key contributors to a rise in obesity rates in the United States, especially among children. Some argue that the time is right for a soda tax, which they say could not only cut consumption but also generate revenue to close state budget gaps and pay for new health care programs.
A proposal for a national excise tax on soft drinks surfaced in a May funding policy options paper during the Senate Finance Committee's deliberations on health care reform. Food lobbyists attacked then and continued their efforts in July when President Obama raised the possibility of a soda tax in an interview with Men's Health magazine. The proposal has not emerged in any of the health care reform bills still in play on Capitol Hill.
But the issue may be gaining traction in some key states. This week, California lawmakers are holding a high-profile hearing in Los Angeles to examine the link between childhood obesity and sugary drinks. In New York, Gov. David Paterson has revived the idea of a sugared beverage tax after a previous proposal was shot down by the legislature earlier this year in the face of industry opposition.
"We are reacting to the situation we find ourselves in," said Kevin Keane, senior vice president for the American Beverage Association, which alone spent more than $7.3 million on lobbying and advertising in the third quarter of 2009, more than six times what it spent in the previous quarter. "In the fourth quarter we are on target to do as much, if not more," Keane said. "We really don't know when the threat is over."
Lobbyists for the industry groups argue that soft drinks cannot be blamed for obesity. A beverage tax, they say, would unfairly single out one type of product and would be a particular burden on low-income people, who can least afford to pay a few cents more per can or bottle.
"To say soda is the only cause of obesity, that's not correct. Just walk down the street and count the number of White Castles or Burger Kings or Jack in the Box," said Nelson Eusebio, executive director of the National Supermarket Association. "If we eliminate soda, would people stay away from fried food, hot dogs and all the other junk out there?"
Supporters of a beverage tax make the comparison to tobacco, saying that it makes sense to impose a levy on sugary drinks to offset health care costs. Such beverages now account for 10 to 15 percent of the calories consumed by children and adolescents, according to an April 2009 report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"For each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child becoming obese increases by 60 percent," said the article, co-authored by Kelly D. Brownell, a professor of psychology at Yale University, and Thomas R. Frieden, a physician who was then New York City health commissioner and now heads the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Sugar-sweetened beverages ... may be the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic," wrote the authors, who argued for a federal or state tax.
In the Senate, a federal beverage tax was not perceived as a deep enough well of potential revenue, some congressional aides said in interviews. Others pointed out that the members of the Senate Finance Committee are especially sympathetic to the food industry: Democratic Chairman Max Baucus hails from Montana, a large producer of sugar beets. Iowa, the home state of ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, is the nation's largest producer of corn.
"It ran into a committee with a lot of farm members," said Chuck Marr, director of federal policy at the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington that examines fiscal policies. "Senate Finance is a farm-dominated committee."
The National Corn Growers Association spent $200,000 to lobby Congress against the tax and other issues through September, records show. Jon Doggett, an association spokesman, said other factions of the sugar lobby pushed hard on Congress, but didn't describe their work on public filings as specific to the sweetened beverage tax. "They have kind of kept their heads down a little bit," Doggett said. "Nobody plays politics better than the sugar guys."
In state capitals, the financial crisis has sparked more interest from officials scrambling to make up for lost tax revenue. Although 33 states have sales taxes that apply to soda, the taxes are not aimed at raising money for health care and generally are too low to affect consumption, according to another New England Journal of Medicine article. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group, released a study this October that estimated that states could generate as much as $10 billion a year by adding a seven-cent tax to a 12-ounce can.
This week's hearing in Los Angeles, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla, was prompted by a policy brief on soda consumption called "Bubbling Over," published in September by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy and UCLA. It found that 41 percent of the state's children between the ages of two and 11 drink at least one sweetened beverage a day.
One of the speakers will be Yale University's Brownell, co-founder and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. He said he expects to see the beverage tax adopted first by the states.
"It's just a matter of time," Brownell said. "If the tobacco tax is any precedent--and I think it is--it will happen first in the states. ... If politicians in other states see it happen in California, they will see it as a winning issue."
Keane, of the beverage association, agrees that the industry has never faced such a political challenge. He said he helped design the television ad campaign for Americans Against Food Taxes to focus on families and to point out how a new tax could squeeze the middle class. One scenario portrayed a family at a campsite as a narrator intoned: "This is no time for Congress to be adding taxes on the simple pleasures we all enjoy, like juice drinks and soda .... We all want to improve health care, but taxes never made anyone healthy."
In two other 30-second ads that played in prime time in the past few weeks, a young mother says: "They say it's only pennies. Well, those pennies add up when you're trying to feed a family. Washington, are you listening? What doesn't seem like much to you can be a lot to us."
Keane said the ads were aimed at lawmakers more than consumers. "We found that all the lawmakers in D.C. get their news on satellite, so we had to buy national cable ads to reach them," Keane said. "It directly targeted the policymakers and staff and those who are directly active and engaged in the process."
In addition to the producers of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and Snapple, Americans Against Food Taxes also counts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce among its many partners and has encouraged Hispanic and African-American interest groups to write letters and send e-mail blasts against the sugar tax as unfair to lower-income families.
Elena Rios, a physician who is president of the National Hispanic Medical Association, said she sided with the beverage industry because a tax on soda wouldn't be "a comprehensive approach" to health problems in her community.
"I'm not convinced that [a sugared beverage tax] is a positive incentive to make people aware of nutrition," Rios said. "So instead of sugar, what do they use? Sweetener? I think we have to step back and take a broad approach."
The National Supermarket Association's Eusebio, a leader in Americans Against Food Taxes, said his organization is providing grassroots manpower. When New York Gov. Paterson raised the possibility of a soda tax, Eusebio organized petition drives in neighborhoods that would feel the pinch of a few pennies on a can of Coke.
At Key Food Supermarket at 161st Street in New York, shoppers who wanted to protest the tax waited in a line that stretched a city block, Eusebio said.
He has since coordinated with grocer associations in South Florida, Massachusetts and Connecticut - all who see a nickel-a-can tax as prohibitive.
"Unfortunately, these days whenever a state or federal government needs money--and right now the state of New York needs money--this is what happens," Eusebio said. "They are trying to make this out as something else. This is just a way to raise money."
courtesy of huffington.com
Soft drink makers, supermarket companies, agriculture and the fast-food business have poured millions into campaigning against what they fear could be a burgeoning national movement to raise money for health care reform by taxing sweetened beverages.
During the first nine months of 2009, the industry groups stepped up their lobbying in Congress. They have spent more than $24 million on the issue of a national excise tax on sweetened beverages and on other legislative and regulatory issues, according to an examination of lobbying reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. The review shows that 21 companies and organizations reported that they lobbied specifically on the proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages - which among other things would include sodas, juice drinks and chocolate milk.
About $5 million of the money was spent on a national advertising campaign aimed at Capitol Hill lawmakers and promoting a newly formed coalition called Americans Against Food Taxes . The group bills itself on its website as a coalition of "responsible individuals, financially-strapped families, [and] small and large businesses" but its 400-plus membership list is dominated by industry heavyweights such as Burger King Corporation, Coca Cola, Pepsico and Domino's Pizza.
Many health officials and advocacy groups have argued for years that sugary drinks, particularly those with high-fructose corn syrup, have been key contributors to a rise in obesity rates in the United States, especially among children. Some argue that the time is right for a soda tax, which they say could not only cut consumption but also generate revenue to close state budget gaps and pay for new health care programs.
A proposal for a national excise tax on soft drinks surfaced in a May funding policy options paper during the Senate Finance Committee's deliberations on health care reform. Food lobbyists attacked then and continued their efforts in July when President Obama raised the possibility of a soda tax in an interview with Men's Health magazine. The proposal has not emerged in any of the health care reform bills still in play on Capitol Hill.
But the issue may be gaining traction in some key states. This week, California lawmakers are holding a high-profile hearing in Los Angeles to examine the link between childhood obesity and sugary drinks. In New York, Gov. David Paterson has revived the idea of a sugared beverage tax after a previous proposal was shot down by the legislature earlier this year in the face of industry opposition.
"We are reacting to the situation we find ourselves in," said Kevin Keane, senior vice president for the American Beverage Association, which alone spent more than $7.3 million on lobbying and advertising in the third quarter of 2009, more than six times what it spent in the previous quarter. "In the fourth quarter we are on target to do as much, if not more," Keane said. "We really don't know when the threat is over."
Lobbyists for the industry groups argue that soft drinks cannot be blamed for obesity. A beverage tax, they say, would unfairly single out one type of product and would be a particular burden on low-income people, who can least afford to pay a few cents more per can or bottle.
"To say soda is the only cause of obesity, that's not correct. Just walk down the street and count the number of White Castles or Burger Kings or Jack in the Box," said Nelson Eusebio, executive director of the National Supermarket Association. "If we eliminate soda, would people stay away from fried food, hot dogs and all the other junk out there?"
Supporters of a beverage tax make the comparison to tobacco, saying that it makes sense to impose a levy on sugary drinks to offset health care costs. Such beverages now account for 10 to 15 percent of the calories consumed by children and adolescents, according to an April 2009 report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"For each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child becoming obese increases by 60 percent," said the article, co-authored by Kelly D. Brownell, a professor of psychology at Yale University, and Thomas R. Frieden, a physician who was then New York City health commissioner and now heads the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Sugar-sweetened beverages ... may be the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic," wrote the authors, who argued for a federal or state tax.
In the Senate, a federal beverage tax was not perceived as a deep enough well of potential revenue, some congressional aides said in interviews. Others pointed out that the members of the Senate Finance Committee are especially sympathetic to the food industry: Democratic Chairman Max Baucus hails from Montana, a large producer of sugar beets. Iowa, the home state of ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, is the nation's largest producer of corn.
"It ran into a committee with a lot of farm members," said Chuck Marr, director of federal policy at the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington that examines fiscal policies. "Senate Finance is a farm-dominated committee."
The National Corn Growers Association spent $200,000 to lobby Congress against the tax and other issues through September, records show. Jon Doggett, an association spokesman, said other factions of the sugar lobby pushed hard on Congress, but didn't describe their work on public filings as specific to the sweetened beverage tax. "They have kind of kept their heads down a little bit," Doggett said. "Nobody plays politics better than the sugar guys."
In state capitals, the financial crisis has sparked more interest from officials scrambling to make up for lost tax revenue. Although 33 states have sales taxes that apply to soda, the taxes are not aimed at raising money for health care and generally are too low to affect consumption, according to another New England Journal of Medicine article. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group, released a study this October that estimated that states could generate as much as $10 billion a year by adding a seven-cent tax to a 12-ounce can.
This week's hearing in Los Angeles, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla, was prompted by a policy brief on soda consumption called "Bubbling Over," published in September by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy and UCLA. It found that 41 percent of the state's children between the ages of two and 11 drink at least one sweetened beverage a day.
One of the speakers will be Yale University's Brownell, co-founder and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. He said he expects to see the beverage tax adopted first by the states.
"It's just a matter of time," Brownell said. "If the tobacco tax is any precedent--and I think it is--it will happen first in the states. ... If politicians in other states see it happen in California, they will see it as a winning issue."
Keane, of the beverage association, agrees that the industry has never faced such a political challenge. He said he helped design the television ad campaign for Americans Against Food Taxes to focus on families and to point out how a new tax could squeeze the middle class. One scenario portrayed a family at a campsite as a narrator intoned: "This is no time for Congress to be adding taxes on the simple pleasures we all enjoy, like juice drinks and soda .... We all want to improve health care, but taxes never made anyone healthy."
In two other 30-second ads that played in prime time in the past few weeks, a young mother says: "They say it's only pennies. Well, those pennies add up when you're trying to feed a family. Washington, are you listening? What doesn't seem like much to you can be a lot to us."
Keane said the ads were aimed at lawmakers more than consumers. "We found that all the lawmakers in D.C. get their news on satellite, so we had to buy national cable ads to reach them," Keane said. "It directly targeted the policymakers and staff and those who are directly active and engaged in the process."
In addition to the producers of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and Snapple, Americans Against Food Taxes also counts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce among its many partners and has encouraged Hispanic and African-American interest groups to write letters and send e-mail blasts against the sugar tax as unfair to lower-income families.
Elena Rios, a physician who is president of the National Hispanic Medical Association, said she sided with the beverage industry because a tax on soda wouldn't be "a comprehensive approach" to health problems in her community.
"I'm not convinced that [a sugared beverage tax] is a positive incentive to make people aware of nutrition," Rios said. "So instead of sugar, what do they use? Sweetener? I think we have to step back and take a broad approach."
The National Supermarket Association's Eusebio, a leader in Americans Against Food Taxes, said his organization is providing grassroots manpower. When New York Gov. Paterson raised the possibility of a soda tax, Eusebio organized petition drives in neighborhoods that would feel the pinch of a few pennies on a can of Coke.
At Key Food Supermarket at 161st Street in New York, shoppers who wanted to protest the tax waited in a line that stretched a city block, Eusebio said.
He has since coordinated with grocer associations in South Florida, Massachusetts and Connecticut - all who see a nickel-a-can tax as prohibitive.
"Unfortunately, these days whenever a state or federal government needs money--and right now the state of New York needs money--this is what happens," Eusebio said. "They are trying to make this out as something else. This is just a way to raise money."
courtesy of huffington.com
Maine Voters Repeal Law Legalizing Gay Marriage
PORTLAND, Maine — Gay marriage was put to a vote in Maine on Tuesday in a closely watched referendum that gay-rights activists across the country hoped would prove for the first time that their cause can prevail at the ballot box.
Voters had to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.
Early returns showed a close contest, as forecast. With 229 of 608 precincts reporting, each side had 50 percent.
A vote to uphold the law would mark the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage. That could energize activists nationwide and blunt conservative claims that same-sex marriage is being foisted on states by judges or lawmakers over the will of the public.
However, repeal – in New England, the region of the country most supportive of gay couples – would be another heartbreaking defeat for the marriage-equality movement, following the vote against gay marriage in California a year ago.
It would also mark the first time voters had torpedoed a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians rejected same-sex marriage, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.
Maine's secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, said turnout seemed higher than expected for an off-year election and voter interest appeared intense. Even before Tuesday, more than 100,000 people – out of about 1 million registered voters – had voted by absentee ballot or early voting.
Five other states have legalized gay marriage – Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut – but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/maine-gay-marriage-vote-e_n_344688.html
"If we don't win, then Maine will have its place in infamy because no state has ever voted for homosexual marriage," said Chuck Schott of Portland, who stood near a polling place in Maine's biggest city with a pro-repeal campaign sign.
Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided – despite her conservative upbringing – to vote in favor of letting gays marry.
"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.
Hundreds of gay-marriage supporters gathered in a Portland hotel ballroom in the evening to await the results. On display was a three-tiered wedding cake topped with two grooms on one side, two brides on the other, and the words "We All Do."
In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' independent streak – a Yankee spirit of fairness and live-and-let-live.
The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims – disputed by state officials – that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.
Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state decided whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. And in Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Among other ballot items across the country:
_ Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth. A similar measure was on the ballot in Washington state.
_ Another measure in Maine, headed for approval, would allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.
_ In Ohio, partial results were too close to call on a measure that would allow casinos in four major cities: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/maine-gay-marriage-vote-e_n_344688.html
courtesy of huffingtonpost
Voters had to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.
Early returns showed a close contest, as forecast. With 229 of 608 precincts reporting, each side had 50 percent.
A vote to uphold the law would mark the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage. That could energize activists nationwide and blunt conservative claims that same-sex marriage is being foisted on states by judges or lawmakers over the will of the public.
However, repeal – in New England, the region of the country most supportive of gay couples – would be another heartbreaking defeat for the marriage-equality movement, following the vote against gay marriage in California a year ago.
It would also mark the first time voters had torpedoed a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians rejected same-sex marriage, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.
Maine's secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, said turnout seemed higher than expected for an off-year election and voter interest appeared intense. Even before Tuesday, more than 100,000 people – out of about 1 million registered voters – had voted by absentee ballot or early voting.
Five other states have legalized gay marriage – Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut – but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/maine-gay-marriage-vote-e_n_344688.html
"If we don't win, then Maine will have its place in infamy because no state has ever voted for homosexual marriage," said Chuck Schott of Portland, who stood near a polling place in Maine's biggest city with a pro-repeal campaign sign.
Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided – despite her conservative upbringing – to vote in favor of letting gays marry.
"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.
Hundreds of gay-marriage supporters gathered in a Portland hotel ballroom in the evening to await the results. On display was a three-tiered wedding cake topped with two grooms on one side, two brides on the other, and the words "We All Do."
In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' independent streak – a Yankee spirit of fairness and live-and-let-live.
The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims – disputed by state officials – that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.
Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state decided whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. And in Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Among other ballot items across the country:
_ Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth. A similar measure was on the ballot in Washington state.
_ Another measure in Maine, headed for approval, would allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.
_ In Ohio, partial results were too close to call on a measure that would allow casinos in four major cities: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/maine-gay-marriage-vote-e_n_344688.html
courtesy of huffingtonpost
'09 Exit Polls: Voters Approve of Obama, Wary of Economy
Vast economic discontent marked the mood of Tuesday's off-year voters, portending potential trouble for incumbents generally and Democrats in particular in 2010. Still the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey looked less like a referendum on Barack Obama than a reflection of their own candidates and issues.
New Jersey voting
An early voter signs in to cast her ballot at a polling station Nov. 3, 2009, in Hoboken, N.J. Democratic Governor Jon Corzine faces Republican Chris Christie and independent Chris Daggett in today's election.
(Hiroko Masuike/Getty Images)
The gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey looked less like a referendum on Barack Obama than a reflection of their own candidates and issues. Still, the two Republican victories, in predominantly Democratic New Jersey and in purple Virginia, had to smart.
Just under half the voters in Virginia, 48 percent, approved of the way Obama is handling his job, rising to 57 percent in New Jersey. Most in both states, in any case, said the president was not a factor in their vote.
Perhaps most striking were economic views: A vast 89 percent in New Jersey and 85 percent in Virginia said they were worried about the direction of the nation's economy in the next year; 56 percent and 53 percent, respectively, said they were "very" worried about it.
Voters who expressed the highest levels of economic discontent heavily favored the Republican candidates in both states – underscoring the challenge Obama and his party may face in 2010 if economic attitudes don't improve. The analogy is to 1994, when nearly six in 10 voters said the economy was in bad shape, and they favored the out-of-power Republicans by 26 points, helping the GOP to a 52-seat gain and control of Congress for the first time in 42 years.
In Virginia on Tuesday, voters who were "very" worried about the economy concern supported the Republican winner, Bob McDonnell by a wide margin, 77-23 percent. In New Jersey, while the gap wasn't quite so broad, voters who were most worried about the economy backed the Republican Chris Christie by 61-34 percent as he unseated incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.
McDonnell also won those who called the economy the single most important issue in their vote, by 15 points. Corzine won economy voters by a wide margin in New Jersey, suggesting some fight on the issue for Democrats in 2010. But Corzine badly lost voters who were focused on property taxes, and they were almost as numerous as economy voters in his state.
Another challenge for Corzine – and a sobering result for incumbents more broadly – was that the top candidate attribute selected by voters in his state was the desire for a candidate who "can bring needed change," the same mantra Obama rode to victory a year ago. This year, "change" voters favored Christie by 67-26 percent.
A key factor, as in most elections, was independents: Obama split Virginia independents with John McCain in 2008, en route to becoming the first Democratic presidential nominee to win the state since 1964. McDonnell, though, won independents by a thumping 66-33 percent.
Corzine, too, lost independents in New Jersey by a wide margin, 60-30 percent – the reason he lost a state where Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 10 points.
Twenty-four percent in Virginia said they'd cast their vote in part to show opposition to Obama, 17 percent to support him – a 7-point negative gap, although most, 56 percent, said he was not a factor in their vote. In New Jersey it was an even split: Nineteen percent said they cast their vote in part to express support for the president, an identical 19 percent to show opposition to him, while 60 percent said he wasn't a factor.
At the same time, substantial numbers in both states expressed a view that government "is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals," a measure of concern about activist government. And conservatives accounted for more voters in both states than they did in 2008 – their turnout was up by 7 points in Virginia and by 5 in New Jersey.
Also notable was the very sharp drop-off in voting by young adults: Voters under age 30 accounted for just 9 percent of voters in New Jersey (compared with 17 percent in 2008) and 10 percent in Virginia (down from 21 percent a year ago). Young voters were Obama's biggest supporters last year, but their uncertain turnout makes them a less reliable base. And while Corzine won them broadly Tuesday, under 30s in Virginia favored the Republican, McDonnell, by 10 points.
A summary of results in each state follows.
New Jersey voting
An early voter signs in to cast her ballot at a polling station Nov. 3, 2009, in Hoboken, N.J. Democratic Governor Jon Corzine faces Republican Chris Christie and independent Chris Daggett in today's election.
(Hiroko Masuike/Getty Images)
The gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey looked less like a referendum on Barack Obama than a reflection of their own candidates and issues. Still, the two Republican victories, in predominantly Democratic New Jersey and in purple Virginia, had to smart.
Just under half the voters in Virginia, 48 percent, approved of the way Obama is handling his job, rising to 57 percent in New Jersey. Most in both states, in any case, said the president was not a factor in their vote.
Perhaps most striking were economic views: A vast 89 percent in New Jersey and 85 percent in Virginia said they were worried about the direction of the nation's economy in the next year; 56 percent and 53 percent, respectively, said they were "very" worried about it.
Voters who expressed the highest levels of economic discontent heavily favored the Republican candidates in both states – underscoring the challenge Obama and his party may face in 2010 if economic attitudes don't improve. The analogy is to 1994, when nearly six in 10 voters said the economy was in bad shape, and they favored the out-of-power Republicans by 26 points, helping the GOP to a 52-seat gain and control of Congress for the first time in 42 years.
In Virginia on Tuesday, voters who were "very" worried about the economy concern supported the Republican winner, Bob McDonnell by a wide margin, 77-23 percent. In New Jersey, while the gap wasn't quite so broad, voters who were most worried about the economy backed the Republican Chris Christie by 61-34 percent as he unseated incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.
McDonnell also won those who called the economy the single most important issue in their vote, by 15 points. Corzine won economy voters by a wide margin in New Jersey, suggesting some fight on the issue for Democrats in 2010. But Corzine badly lost voters who were focused on property taxes, and they were almost as numerous as economy voters in his state.
Another challenge for Corzine – and a sobering result for incumbents more broadly – was that the top candidate attribute selected by voters in his state was the desire for a candidate who "can bring needed change," the same mantra Obama rode to victory a year ago. This year, "change" voters favored Christie by 67-26 percent.
A key factor, as in most elections, was independents: Obama split Virginia independents with John McCain in 2008, en route to becoming the first Democratic presidential nominee to win the state since 1964. McDonnell, though, won independents by a thumping 66-33 percent.
Corzine, too, lost independents in New Jersey by a wide margin, 60-30 percent – the reason he lost a state where Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 10 points.
Twenty-four percent in Virginia said they'd cast their vote in part to show opposition to Obama, 17 percent to support him – a 7-point negative gap, although most, 56 percent, said he was not a factor in their vote. In New Jersey it was an even split: Nineteen percent said they cast their vote in part to express support for the president, an identical 19 percent to show opposition to him, while 60 percent said he wasn't a factor.
At the same time, substantial numbers in both states expressed a view that government "is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals," a measure of concern about activist government. And conservatives accounted for more voters in both states than they did in 2008 – their turnout was up by 7 points in Virginia and by 5 in New Jersey.
Also notable was the very sharp drop-off in voting by young adults: Voters under age 30 accounted for just 9 percent of voters in New Jersey (compared with 17 percent in 2008) and 10 percent in Virginia (down from 21 percent a year ago). Young voters were Obama's biggest supporters last year, but their uncertain turnout makes them a less reliable base. And while Corzine won them broadly Tuesday, under 30s in Virginia favored the Republican, McDonnell, by 10 points.
A summary of results in each state follows.
Cable Modem Hacker Caught
A U.S. man is facing federal criminal charges for allegedly selling modified cable modems and software that enabled free Internet access at super-fast broadband speeds.
Ryan Harris, owner of TCNISO, ran a mail-order Web site and retail store in San Diego that sold software and modded cable modems. The products enabled "users to obtain faster, upgraded internet service without paying the premiums charged by the ISP," according to the indictment, which is dated Aug. 19 but was unsealed just last week.
Harris, who went by the name DerEngel, is charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud, according to the indictment, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Federal prosecutors allege Harris and TCNISO took in more than US$1 million in revenue between 2003 and this year.
Harris and three unindicted co-conspirators created software that modified a cable modem so that it could adopt the MAC (Media Access Control) address used by the ISP (Internet service provider) to identify a paying Internet subscriber's modem.
Those MAC addresses, however, were stolen from paying users using software Harris and his company created, the indictment alleges.
Harris allegedly also modified a configuration file in modems that would then enable broadband speeds up to 10 times faster without paying the ISP more. The modem hacking products went by the names "Sigma," "Blackcat" and "DreamOS," the indictment said.
A more sophisticated product, "SigmaX," was capable of blocking ISPs from "probing" a modem on its network to see if it had been modified.
In the indictment, prosecutors wrote they found that Harris was allegedly seeking MAC addresses and configuration files used in a major metropolitan area in a posting on TCNISO's forum in March 2007.
From 2006 to 2008, prosecutors also wrote they observed others trying to trade or sell stolen MAC addresses with others on TCNISO's forum.
About a year ago, TCNISO sold through its Web site two Motorola SB5100 BlackcatUSB cable modems, three Motorola SB4200 Sigma cable modems and one copy of Harris' book to an undercover FBI agent in Boston. The indictment alleges that Harris assisted the agent during the purchasing process in a subsequent phone call. The modem enabled free Internet access.
Harris was open about his modding, even writing a book called "Hacking the Cable Modem" that has a cover photo of a modem meshed with an unlocked padlock. He is scheduled for an arraignment in Boston on Dec. 17.
--Courtesy of PCWORLD.COM
Harris, who went by the name DerEngel, is charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud, according to the indictment, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Federal prosecutors allege Harris and TCNISO took in more than US$1 million in revenue between 2003 and this year.
Harris and three unindicted co-conspirators created software that modified a cable modem so that it could adopt the MAC (Media Access Control) address used by the ISP (Internet service provider) to identify a paying Internet subscriber's modem.
Those MAC addresses, however, were stolen from paying users using software Harris and his company created, the indictment alleges.
Harris allegedly also modified a configuration file in modems that would then enable broadband speeds up to 10 times faster without paying the ISP more. The modem hacking products went by the names "Sigma," "Blackcat" and "DreamOS," the indictment said.
A more sophisticated product, "SigmaX," was capable of blocking ISPs from "probing" a modem on its network to see if it had been modified.
In the indictment, prosecutors wrote they found that Harris was allegedly seeking MAC addresses and configuration files used in a major metropolitan area in a posting on TCNISO's forum in March 2007.
From 2006 to 2008, prosecutors also wrote they observed others trying to trade or sell stolen MAC addresses with others on TCNISO's forum.
About a year ago, TCNISO sold through its Web site two Motorola SB5100 BlackcatUSB cable modems, three Motorola SB4200 Sigma cable modems and one copy of Harris' book to an undercover FBI agent in Boston. The indictment alleges that Harris assisted the agent during the purchasing process in a subsequent phone call. The modem enabled free Internet access.
Harris was open about his modding, even writing a book called "Hacking the Cable Modem" that has a cover photo of a modem meshed with an unlocked padlock. He is scheduled for an arraignment in Boston on Dec. 17.
--Courtesy of PCWORLD.COM
Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA
"Vi sitter här i Venten och spelar lite DotA" (English "We're sitting in Ventrilo, playing DotA" and in some countries shortened to "DotA") is a song by Swedish dance DJ Basshunter. The lyrics, in Swedish, are about using the voice chat program Ventrilo while playing the Warcraft III Custom Map Defense of the Ancients.
white and nerdy
"White & Nerdy" is the second single from "Wierd Al" Yankovic's album Straight Outta Lynwood , which was released on September 26, 2006. It parodies the song "Ridin" by Chamillionaire and Krayzie Bone. One of the most popular parodies that has attracted audiences from many age groups. The link below leads to the video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
counter
| website hit counters |
Computer Tutorials
