text:
Transcript: Sens. Chuck Schumer and John Cornyn
Senate Judiciary Committee members on Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination.
May 31, 2009 -- ABC'S "THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS"
STEPHANOPOULOS (voice-over): Good morning and welcome to THIS WEEK.
Supreme Court history.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What you've shown is that no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama nominates the first Hispanic justice.
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I am an ordinary person who has been blessed.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And the confirmation battle begins.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW": She's a bigot. She's a racist.
OBAMA: She is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Should Judge Sotomayor be confirmed? What kind of justice will she be? That debate this morning with Democrat Chuck Schumer, the judge's guide through the Senate. And the Republican Senate campaign chair, John Cornyn of Texas.
Then, GM becomes "Government Motors." But is that good for America? That, the Sotomayor fight and the rest of the week's politics on a special expanded roundtable with George Will, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Gwen Ifill of PBS, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, and Bush White House veteran, Ed Gillespie. And as always, the "Sunday Funnies."
JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW": If confirmed, she would be the country's first Hispanic judge. In fact, her first order of business, deporting Lou Dobbs. That's what she said today.
ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, THIS WEEK with ABC News chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, live from the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hello again. The political spin cycles twirl faster than ever these days. It has been less than a week since President Obama made his choice for the Supreme Court, but it seems like Judge Sonia Sotomayor has already had public hearings.
Of course, the official proceedings are coming up. And for a preview of that debate, we're joined this morning by two key members of the Judiciary Committee, Republican John Cornyn of Texas, and Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.
And, gentlemen, welcome to both of you. Let me begin by putting up the words that have caused so much controversy already this week from Judge Sotomayor, from a 2001 law review article where she says: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
And, Senator Schumer, we saw Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich call it racist, but even President Obama said it was a poor choice of words. You're going to be guiding Judge Sotomayor through this process. How is she going to explain that statement to senators when she meets with them this week?
SCHUMER: Well, I think the first thing she'll say is read the whole speech, which was then published in a law review article. And she makes it clear that while, of course, people's personal experiences guide them, rule of law comes first.
And then, of course, we have what is really the gold standard in judging a judge, an extensive judicial record. She has been on the bench 17 years. More federal experience than -- more federal judicial experience than any judge in a hundred years. And what has been clear throughout her judicial experience is that she puts rule of law first.
And as long as you put rule of law first, of course, it's quite natural to understand that our experiences affect us. I don't think anybody wants nine justices on the Supreme Court who have ice water in their veins. But you can't let that experience supersede rule of law...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But did she...
SCHUMER: ... and she hasn't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But did she tell you this was a poor choice of words? Or will they stand by that statement?
SCHUMER: I think she'll stand by the entire speech. I think that she will show that the speech, when you read it, says rule of law comes above experience. And no one can ask for more than that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But what about the sentence?
SCHUMER: Well, the sentence -- you know, the specific sentence there is simply saying, that people's experiences matter, and we ought to have some diversity of experience on the court. And I think that's accurate.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Cornyn, what's your reaction to that?
CORNYN: Well, of course, George, the concern is that above the Supreme Court it says "Equal justice under law." And it's doesn't -- shouldn't make any difference what your ethnicity is, what your sex is, or the like.
We would also hope that judges would be, you know, umpires, impartial umpires. And, you know, the focus shouldn't be on the umpire and what their sex or gender is, or their ethnicity. It ought to be on the game. And here it's on the rule of law, I agree. But it's not just her statements. It's the New Haven firefighter case where she apparently ignored legitimate constitutional claims of a number of firefighters, including an Hispanic who claimed discrimination on -- because of the color of their skin. And now the Supreme Court, I think, is poised to perhaps even reverse that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let's take a look at that. Of course, in that case, Judge Sotomayor's court upheld a decision by the New Haven -- the City of New Haven to throw out an employment test which had been -- which a white a firefighter and others had passed, but they were denied the promotion because the City of New Haven threw out the test.
And, Senator Schumer, one of Judge Sotomayor's colleagues on the court, one of her mentors, really, Judge Cabranes, who was appointed by a Democrat, really scolded her in a dissent on that -- in that case.
He said that she didn't deal with the core issues in the case. And he went on to say: "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
Those are pretty stinging words.
SCHUMER: Well, bottom line is she was doing what Judge Roberts -- or Justice Roberts called be "judicially modest," which is what we want in judges. She was following the precedent of the Second Circuit.
There were two cases, the Hayden case, and the Bushie (ph) case, that made clear what the Second Circuit's opinion was, and she was following it.
And secondly, she was simply implementing, allowing to go forward what the elected officials in New Haven had chosen to do.
SCHUMER: You know, we hear all these claims we don't want judicial activists, and that is true. We don't. Here, she was being modest, following the precedent of her court, not overruling what (inaudible) had been done. It would be quite different if New Haven -- if she was overruling what New Haven had done. So I think she was doing what a judge should do.
You can't have people say we don't want judicial activists, but then when there is a case that they don't like, they say overrule it, even though you're going outside the precedent of the law.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring that to Senator Cornyn, because if you look -- you're talking about looking at her entire record, if you looked not only at that case, but the judge's entire record in race- related cases -- this has been done by SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein, a Supreme Court scholar and lawyer -- and he shows that she's ruled in about 100 race-related cases and rejected claims of discrimination and bias 80 percent of the time. Doesn't that show that she's not bringing personal feelings to bear in an improper way?
CORNYN: Well, George, what you'll see from our side of the aisle during these hearings is members of the Judiciary Committee and senators who are not willing to prejudge or pre-confirm any nominee, but are committed to a fair process, and one that allows Judge Sotomayor to explain what the context is for all this and what her true feelings are.
I might say that's in stark contrast to the way Miguel Estrada was treated, somebody who was on a path to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, and Clarence Thomas, somebody with a compelling story like Judge Sotomayor, but who was subjected, at least in his words, to a high-tech lynching.
So I think the most important thing that can happen here is, everybody take a deep breath, calm down. Let's take our time, let's review those 17 years of federal judicial history, and let's ask the nominee some questions in a dignified Senate process.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, let me bring this back to you because...
SCHUMER: I just want to say, George, that John Cornyn is right and deserves to be commended. When some, you know, sort of on the hard right started saying she was a racist, or this or that, John Cornyn said it was terrible. And our Republican senators, to their credit, have not prejudged. I think when they examine her long and extensive record, when they see that she puts rule of record first, almost inevitably, when they see that, yes, her experience is reflected, but Justice Thomas talked about his experiences; Justice Alito talked about his experiences -- I think she's going to be approved by a very large majority.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Schumer, how do you respond to this charge of hypocrisy and double standards? You led the charge against Miguel Estrada when he was trying to -- when he was nominated for the appeals court. There were internal memos among Democrats, citing as one possible reason the fact that he would be an Hispanic elevated to the appeals court. Are you using a different standard for Judge Sotomayor than you used for Mr. Estrada?
SCHUMER: Absolutely not, and let me explain why. First, Estrada was never a judge, so we had no way to judge what his record would be in the best way to judge it, cases that we had ruled on. And so when we asked him questions, he said absolutely nothing. He said, I cannot answer this question, I cannot answer that question. In fact, Judge Sotomayor has answered more questions on hearings already, because of her two confirmation hearings, than Estrada said. So we had totally nothing to do on with Estrada.
What we said about Miguel Estrada is, if he talked a little bit about his judicial philosophy, we could give him a fair hearing. He absolutely refused. He had no record as a judge. The two standards are like night and day.
Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, they answered questions far more extensively than Estrada did, and I think most commentators said they learned a lesson from Estrada, that you have to answer some questions about your judicial philosophy, particularly when you don't have a record as a judge.
CORNYN: Well, George, I think -- I take a contrary view, as you might imagine. I think this is pretext. I mean, Miguel Estrada immigrated from Honduras. He couldn't speak English, when he was 17 years old, came here, graduated from the two top schools in America, and rose to the very top of the legal profession. And yet, he was filibustered by Democrats who denied an up-or-down vote in the United States Senate.
Now, can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot today?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is filibuster on the table today?
CORNYN: Well, I think it's really premature to say that, or to speculate. That's why I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it's possible that Republicans will filibuster?
CORNYN: I'm not willing to judge one way or the other, George, because frankly, we need to not prejudge, not pre-confirm, and to give Judge Sotomayor the fair hearing that Miguel Estrada, and, indeed, Clarence Thomas were denied by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
SCHUMER: Let me say this, George. I think when my Republican colleagues -- and I think they have approached this in an open-minded way -- when they see her record of excellence -- she's legally excellent -- of moderation. She is not a far left-wing judge.
SCHUMER: Businessweek said her record on business was moderate. The Wall Street Journal called her mainstream. And then her compelling history, I think she's virtually filibuster-proof when people learn her record and her story.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me finish up with Senator Cornyn. Your colleague, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, has already said he believes that she will be confirmed. Do you see anything standing in the way of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation right now?
CORNYN: Well, there are a lot of important questions. We've talked about some of them this morning. We need to know, for example, whether she's going to be a justice for all of us, or just a justice for a few of us. And, you know, this promise of equal justice under the law is not just a motto emblazoned above the Supreme Court, this is the standard. And indeed, by ignoring a genuine constitutional issue about reverse discrimination in the New Haven firefighter case, you know, the comments she made about the quality of her decisions being better than those of a white male -- I mean, we need to go further into her record to see whether this is a trend, or whether these are isolated and explainable events.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we'll be doing that. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to go straight to the roundtable. So as our panelists take their seats, take a look at how two other Supreme Court firsts grappled with the question of how their personal experience affected their professional judgment.
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Looking back over time, I can't see that on the issues that we address at the court, that a wise old woman is going to decide a case differently than a wise old man. I just don't think that's the case.
CLARENCE THOMAS, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: There's so many people now who will make judgments based on what you look like. I'm black, so I'm supposed to think a certain way, I'm supposed to have certain opinions. I don't do that. You don't create a box and put people in and then make a lot of generalizations about them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And with that, let me bring in our roundtable. Joined, as always, by George Will; our Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg; Ed Gillespie, veteran of the Bush White House, where you helped both Justice Alito and Justice Roberts in their confirmation hearings; Paul Krugman of the New York Times, and Gwen Ifill of PBS.
And, George, it does seem like the central question right now, to what extent should and do personal experiences, feelings, instincts affect judgment in the court?
WILL: Hard to say. The question is not are they important, but is there a judicial obligation, is it part of the judicial temperament to keep those in the background? The question is, she seems to have affirmed what's called identity politics, which is a main proposition and a subproposition. The main proposition is, that an American is or should be thought of as his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, that that should define their political identity. And the subproposition is, called categorical representation. You can only be represented by someone of the same sexual, ethnic, racial group as you are, because only they can understand or empathize with you. That is of no relevance whatever to the court, however, because it's not a representative institution.
IFILL: I guess I see it differently. I mean, I've spent the past year talking to a lot of people, who got elected, elected -- black elected officials for a book, and all of them talked about identity politics and defined it differently. They defined it as being -- that being part of what you are, but not all of what you are. And I think that's what the defenders of Sonia Sotomayor are trying to say, which is that her point was, yes, what she is and what we all are shapes us, but it's not all that shapes you.
I always take arguments like this and try to turn them on their heads. And I never hear people say that for a white male, that it's identity politics if he is shaped by his white maleness and by the things that affected his life, and whether privilege affected his life. That's never considered to be a negative. It's only considered to be a negative when ethnicity is involved or race is involved or gender is involved.
GREENBURG: Well, the problem, though, I think, for Judge Sotomayor -- and obviously, we've seen this week in Justice Alito's confirmation hearings, when he talked about how his life experiences, being the son of an Italian immigrant, affected his thinking when he's taking up immigration cases or discrimination cases.
But with Judge Sotomayor in that speech, she also said a line before we got to the now famous line, and you played this clip from Justice O'Connor, when Justice O'Connor was saying that I think a wise old man and a wise woman judge will reach the same result. In that speech, Judge Sotomayor says, I don't think I agree with Justice O'Connor on that. So she's really going beyond life experience.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I actually think that's less controversial than the sentence that's gotten all the attention. I mean, has Judge Sotomayor said reach a different conclusion than a white male, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. But Ed Gillespie, let me bring you in on this. A lot of studies have shown that who you are does change. When you have more women on a panel, that does tend to change how panels of judges deal with discrimination cases.
GILLESPIE: We are all shaped by who we are. We all bring that to the table. I do think, though, the -- you know, the conscious injection that you see, in a lot of her comments, of gender and race is what is causing for concern. And not only -- a little different with politicians, I think, our identity, than with a judge, and with a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment.
I disagree with my friends on the Republican side, some who say, well, we should give her a pass because she's a Latina. I disagree with those who say, well, she's racist because of these comments. Neither of that is the right approach.
The fact is, you know, look, we can all, as Americans, be proud that the first African-American president just nominated the first Latina to the Supreme Court of the United States. But we need to ask the tough questions.
And frankly, I don't think those questions are so much revolving around race or gender as how did it end up that, seven of your cases that went to the Supreme Court, six of them were overturned. That's a legitimate question to ask. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, actually that was three out of six. But that's not that exceptional, is it, for cases on the Supreme Court?
KRUGMAN: Yes, you know, what amazes me about all this is that this was a speech, right? The famous line comes from a speech where she was trying to be entertaining.
And, you know, have I -- I was thinking about this -- have I, somewhere along the line, said something like, I like to think that bright Jewish kids from suburban New York make the best economists? I probably have, somewhere along the line. It doesn't mean anything, right?
She's trying to makes a little bit of who she is...
KRUGMAN: But the judicial record shows nothing of this. The judicial record shows a straight, mainstream careful judge. And this is just crazy to be making so much out of this line.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Jan, you studied her opinions. What does -- if you look broadly at her -- at her record, her judicial record, you know, you saw, going into this, a lot of liberals were hoping the president was going to appoint a firebrand. He was sending signals to both sides.
You heard Senator Schumer say he believes she's got a moderate record.
GREENBURG: Well, they're pretty -- you know, she's an appeals court judge, an experienced jump. They're pretty technical, a lot of them. You know, you don't get a lot of those hot-button issues on that New York-based federal appeals court, those social issues that you see, kind of, out in the heartland.
So, you know, there's not a lot out there for Republicans, at this point, to work with. We've seen a lot of discussion about a case that's now before the Supreme Court that she was involved in, involving these white firefighters...
STEPHANOPOULOS: The New Haven case we just talked about?
GREENBURG: New Haven -- and, so, you know, I think that one's going to be, obviously, pretty controversial. But her opinion in the -- her opinions that we've seen so far, there's not a lot in them that we saw from some of the other potential contenders.
WILL: In the New Haven fireman case, however, the accusation is not just that she came to a perverse conclusion or affirmed a perverse conclusion, which was that, because fire department promotions were denied equally to those who qualified for them and those who didn't qualify for them, somehow, equal protection and equality under the law was respected, but the accusation goes beyond that, which is that the three-judge panel on the second circuit that, in the most perfunctory, cursory, indeed unsigned way affirmed the lower court's judgment, did so in a perverse way, that seemed to be trying to slip one by a majority on the second circuit.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... Tom Goldstein has also looked at that question and says it's not that exceptional in these kinds of cases. I think he says 24 out of 28 times, there have been unsigned opinions.
But let me look, also, Gwen, at what Jan was talking about, these hot-button issues: not much of a record, at all, on abortion. In fact, the one time -- or the two times that the judge ruled on abortion, one time, she upheld President Bush's Mexico City family planning policy. One time she ruled in favor of anti-abortion protesters. And this raised some concern among...
IFILL: On the left.
STEPHANOPOULOS: On the left, pro-choice groups. Yet the White House comes out and says, "We're comfortable with where she is."
IFILL: "We're confident she shares the president's philosophy," is what they're saying.
Is anybody as surprised as I am that abortion has been so little an issue, when, for so many Supreme Court confirmations, it has been the main first thing out of the box.
It's almost as if whatever -- it's identity politics, whatever you want to call it, has taken its place as the litmus test issue.
I talked to people at the White House this week who said, you know, it doesn't bother me at all that she doesn't have much of a record on abortion.
They're perfectly happy to change the subject and have it move on to something else. And well they should be, I suppose, except they've got to be prepared to handle the something else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you -- you know, and they say the president is comfortable with her. But they say that he did not ask her directly...
IFILL: You know what, that was a very clever thing. They were asked whether he asked her and they said "he did not ask her in his conversation with her."
In fact, it would have been malpractice if someone didn't ask her. They had, maybe, 100 people working on vetting this woman. So somebody somewhere (inaudible) every thing she did.
WILL: ... the "something elses."
IFILL: Yes.
WILL: Let me tell you three "something elses" that are going to come up. She has said that campaign contributions are inherently, kind of, bribes. Now, that would overturn campaign finance regulation and -- and postulate whole new laws if she adhered to that.
Second, she has suggested that disenfranchisement of felons, which is a state option, and most states, to some degree or other, violates the Voting Rights Act. And the third, because of a subject we'll come to in a moment; that is, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, they're going to want to know if that is an equal protection question.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that what you think, Ed, that Republicans are going to go, here?
What kinds of questions do you think are going to draw the most attention?
GILLESPIE: Well, I think -- I actually think Bush will come up in the hearings, obviously. And I think, where the media's concentration has been, over the past week, and where the hearings goes could be two very different things.
And I do think they will probe, in terms of whether or not this notion of empathy, you know, is going to be brought in to bear. How much do you, you know, of your own personal feelings, do you bring into your judgment as a -- or would you, as a justice on the Supreme Court.
And I think the challenge for Republicans is going to be, at the end of the day, would they adopt the standard that Democrats apply to particularly Justice Alito and say, well, he may be qualified in terms of intellect and experience and judicial temperament, but we disagree with where we think you may rule, down the line, and 40 out of 44 voted against, breaking from, you know, kind of, an historic standard that, well, elections have consequences and presidents should be able to nominate, unless there's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... the fact that then-Senator Obama joined the filibuster of Alito.
GILLESPIE: Right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's how explained it back in 2006.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito in fact is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Paul, the Democrats really did change the standard, there, and that opens up, kind of, a free no vote for Republicans, if that's the way they want to go? KRUGMAN: Well, except, you know, the real story of this whole thing has been the sheer craziness displayed by a lot of the Republican Party. I think the Republicans have got a real problem here. Because, if they do go no, they're going to seem to be the party of Rush Limbaugh, the party of Newt Gingrich, the party of completely crazy accusations against someone who is, after all, a highly respectable, very smart, middle-of-the-road jurist.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You guess that's the way they're going to go?
GREENBURG: Well, yes, I think they're going to take the long view. They know this is not the last nomination that Barack Obama is, you know, going to be making to that Supreme Court. And this nomination's not going to change the Supreme Court. That's not why -- that's why we're not seeing, I think, abortion, at this point, being such a big issue.
But I think, at the end of the day, you know, when we look back on all this, and we're talking about the filibuster and the Democrats successfully filibustering during President Bush's tenure, all these nominees like you talked about, Miguel Estrada, Republicans have only themselves to blame -- not only for the Miguel Estrada filibuster, but for Sonia Sotomayor, because it was failures -- and I covered all this at the time -- complete failures of leadership in the Republican Senate, led by Bill Frist, that allowed Democrats to start off these historic filibusters in the first place, back in '02 and '03, which then led, of course, to, you know, as we saw, Miguel being -- Estrada being blocked. He would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice if Democrats hadn't prevailed.
GILLESPIE: That's an interesting take to blame Republicans for Democrats filibustering nominees for the first time...
... and especially when the memos came out that showed it was a conscious effort to block minority nominees, particularly in Miguel Estrada's case, for fear that President Bush would then make him the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, very crass political maneuver.
GREENBURG: But Democrats -- right. Democrats knew that. And they recognized it was a lot easier to block these guys when...
GILLESPIE: It's very much easier to block it, so I don't think it's fair to blame Republicans for Democrats blocking it.
And I do think, though, going back to the point, look -- to Paul's point -- 35 out of 44 Republicans in the Senate voted for Justice Breyer; 40 out of 43 who were present at the time voted for Justice Ginsburg.
The Democrats are the ones, if Republicans vote against this nominee on philosophical grounds, as President Obama, then Senator Obama laid out his rationale for opposing; he didn't agree with the values of that person -- not didn't agree with the temperament or the intellect or the experience. They have set that standard. And I think, unless -- if Republicans don't, we're sending up an inexorable move to the left on the Supreme Court, and I think that's a very serious consequence.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to have to end on that note, right now. We're going to come back in just a minute. We're going to have more roundtable after the break.
Big question: Is "Government Motors" good for America?
OBAMA: The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.
OBAMA: I know that if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same. So my job is to ask the auto industry, why is it you guys can't do this?
OBAMA: We want to get out of the business of helping auto companies as quickly as we can. I got more than enough to do without that.
OBAMA: Just last week, "Car and Driver" named me auto executive of the year.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Who knows, by next year, that may actually be true. Let me bring our roundtable back in. George Will, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Ed Gillespie, Paul Krugman, and Gwen Ifill.
And George, the president has said -- you saw the contradictions there. He wants to get out of the business as quickly as possible. He also wants to urge the auto industry to move in the direction that he thinks is good for the country. And as of tomorrow, most likely or in a couple of months, once it's all completed, the United States government, along with Canada, will be a 70 percent owner of General Motors.
WILL: Yes. $20 billion in so far, perhaps $50 billion more to come. The president will be long into collecting Social Security before General Motors pays all this back, if it ever does, which I sincerely doubt.
Why are we doing this? We're doing this because it is too big to fail. First, big. Harley-Davidson has a market capitalization eight times larger than that of General Motors. In what sense is it big anymore?
Fail? A year ago, in the second quarter of 2008, it was losing $118,000 a minute. It has failed. The question is what you do about it. It seems to me the point of capitalism, which is a profit and loss system, is to clear away things like Chrysler and General Motors.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The White House would argue that they had to step in, because even though the numbers you cite are correct, they would say if GM goes into liquidation, 65,000 jobs lost immediately, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in collateral damage.
WILL: That's partly assuming, partly assuming that Americans would stop buying American cars. They'd buy different cars, made in America, most of them, using American parts mostly, sold to America.
KRUGMAN: OK. I think it's kind of telling that you're talking about market cap. Of course, workers, not, you know, GM stock is essentially worthless, which we knew. But there are still a lot of workers there.
The thing is, we have a mechanism. Bankruptcy, Chapter 11. The problem is that the mechanism won't work in this case. That's been hashed over many, many times. The financial markets are still in disarray, so the kind of special financing that firms in bankruptcy get still won't be available unless the government stands behind it, and people won't buy durable goods -- automobiles -- from a company that they think has got only a few months to live.
So if you're going to do anything, you're going to have to have some kind of packaged bankruptcy that has a lot more English on the ball from the federal government than normal. That's what's happening here. This is not seizing the commanding heights. This is trying to sort of make bankruptcy work. Even odds that anything survives five years from now, but that seems like an option we're taking.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And even odds, let's dig into that a little bit more. The federal government drove a fairly hard bargain, we believe, with GM. The overall labor costs are down to about the prevailing labor costs in other parts of the industry. They've cut the number of brands down from eight to four. What will it take for GM to be a viable company in two years, as this plan envisions?
KRUGMAN: Well, first, auto sales have to come back up, which they probably will. Even if the economy has only a weak recovery, which is what most of us expect, the fact is, people are buying very few cars right now. At current takes, it would take something like 20 years...
KRUGMAN: Yes, it would take something like 20 years to replace the existing stock of autos at current rates of sale, right, so we know that that's not going to -- we know there's going to be some recovery. People will start buying more cars. That helps even if they can even, you know, partially maintain their share.
It needs some general revival. It's not that hard to tell a story where GM starts to have a positive cash flow. It's by no means guaranteed. This is a company that spent several decades ruining itself, so it's not easy. But it's not crazy to think that this might work.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And this is a decision that President Bush, Ed, in the White House in the final months, basically said he would allow President Obama to make, because he gave the bridge financing to GM.
GILLESPIE: He did a bridge. And I have always felt that had the -- you know, this come up in the first month of President Bush's second term, rather than the last month of his second term, he would have done something different. I think he would have made different decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let them go under?
GILLESPIE: I think he would have -- my personal view is, had it been a different time, he would have probably done a structured bankruptcy, a debtor-in-possession type financing arrangement. But didn't feel like it was fair to the institution of the presidency to hand off to a successor in the last month of his presidency to make a decision like that, and so he bridged this gap in a way that gave them time to come back with a plan of restructuring of their own and allow for the successor president to make his own policy decision. I think it was the responsible thing to do, probably one of the toughest decisions of his presidency.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead.
WILL: Well, two things. I mean, these things have ricochets after you start into this business. First of all, General Motors acceptance corporation gets itself declared a bank holding company, so it's eligible for TARP. Immediately does two things after it gets $6 billion of taxpayer money. It offers zero percent, five-year loans of products competing with Ford Motor Company products, thereby injuring the most healthy company out there.
Then, it further lowers the credit score that you have to have to get a GMAC loan. Now, what would we call this? I think we would call those subprime auto loans. So you can drive away from your foreclosed house that you bought with a subprime housing loan in a car you bought with a subprime auto loan.
GREENBURG: But George, I mean, that is exactly right when you think about these ricochet effects. I mean, you've got Ford now, the only one of the big three that is not going to be controlled by the government. So how then can you assure Ford is not made vulnerable by letting GM or Chrysler have, you know, access to capital at virtually lower...
IFILL: What does government control mean? I think that's the thing that's really dawned on everybody this week, that when people make jokes about Government Motors, but in fact, when the government controlled 72.5 percent of a privately owned company in kind of a shockingly -- shocking incursion into the private-sector company, does that mean that President Obama has to sign off on a new car that they decide they're going to build? (CROSSTALK)
KRUGMAN: AIG is 80 percent government-owned, and it doesn't seem to be any different, so I'm not sure...
GILLESPIE: It means it's better to be a union autoworker than it is to be a bondholder at these auto companies, for one thing.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's not that unusual. When the steel companies went under, the government didn't get involved in that and the unions were put at the front of the line there as well.
But, Gwen, I do think you raise an important question that they have to wrestle with right now. The government is now going to be the owner of General -- 70 percent owner of General Motors. But the question is, what kind of an owner are they going to be? And, Paul, everything we hear from Larry Summers and others are that the government is not going to be micromanaging these decisions, but...
KRUGMAN: But don't we (inaudible) them to?
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they do, then you're not going to get a lot of new investors who want to be in the middle of it all.
KRUGMAN: You could not have a more centrist economic team than this administration has, right? These people are -- are -- have no desire to control the commanding heights of the economy. Yes, there will be some pressures, but you know, this, in a way, if you are worried that the government is going to start, you know, micromanaging, they're going to start using all -- using GM to pursue all sorts of non-economic aims, the fact that the company is probably going to be losing money hand over fist for a long time is going to be a guarantee against that. They're going to be very eager to see this thing become commercially viable, or at least lose less money.
I think your fears that this is socialism, you know, it's just crazy. It's not going to happen, because they really don't want this albatross around their necks.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They want to get out?
KRUGMAN: They want to get out as fast as they can.
WILL: Let me give you another ricochet effect. The government is mandating smaller cars. The government wouldn't need to mandate smaller cars if the public wanted them, so the government is mandating cars the public hitherto has shown it does not want. That is an incentive for Americans to keep the cars they are driving longer, which will deprive Detroit of customers. Hence, we now have, to cope with that ricochet effect, there's a move on Capitol Hill to have something called cash for clunkers, where you will be bribed by the federal government to buy a new car.
KRUGMAN: You know, CAFE standards, which is what this is all about, mileage standards, fuel efficiency, that's about -- you know, there is a huge market failure. Actually, a couple of huge market failures, right? There is pollution, there's global warming, there is oil dependence. So to say, well, you're forcing the public to buy something it doesn't want -- well, you're forcing the public to actually recognize the real costs of some decisions that it makes, not taking those costs into account. There's nothing wrong with this.
IFILL: Why isn't that -- why isn't that nationalization? Why not just call it that?
KRUGMAN: It's not nationalization. Look, there's lots of things we would like to do. I'd like to burn coal in an open grate in my house, maybe, you know, and add to the smog over Princeton, but I'm not allowed to do that, because it does negative things to my neighbors, right? And so you know, there's lots of things that the government regulates, and this is one of them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But isn't what's different here now is the government's on both sides of the negotiating table? They have so much power because they have such a large share?
GILLESPIE: Look at the recent history. I mean, it hasn't in the past been very historically easy to get the auto companies to agree to an increase in the CAFE. We just went up to 39 miles per gallon. It was very easy this time for President Obama to bring the auto companies in, for them to agree to that, because there's no leverage here.
And I do worry, I think one of the broader threats to our economy is, if you're going to supplant profit motive with political motives, over time, we're going to have a much bigger drag on our economy. The government is not the most efficient allocator of resources in the American economy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's the biggest dilemma facing the administration, because you know, let's say GM has a plant in Cocomo, Indiana. They say they want to move it to Buenos Aires. They say they want to stay out of it. Will they be able to?
GREENBURG: Right, I mean, going back to your point and Gwen's point, you know, are you going to outsource your manufacturing or parts to South Korea or China, or are you going to mandate that it be kept here? How is the government, you know, when it's controlling these companies, is going to make those decisions, when it's kind of weighing now, I mean, very competing interests in a political fight.
WILL: One of the government's recent interventions in industrial policy is the ethanol industry. Now, the government, when it said we're going to put all this corn in our gas tanks, did not intend to cause food riots in Mexico, but it did.
KRUGMAN: This is a -- I've often said, if only the first caucuses were in New Jersey instead of in Iowa.
Then we'd have some -- someone would require you to put diners in your cars or something, but...
But, no, look, this -- but, you know, they're very aware of this. is -- none of this would be happening if it wasn't taking place in the middle of the worst economic funk since the Great Depression. Very exceptional things happened. They're not indicative of where policy is going to be for the next 20 years.
GILLESPIE: I -- think that's a -- that's a legitimate point relative to the auto industry and the intervention here, obviously. But, look, this is going on a number of different fronts: the health care debate that's going on, right now, and the public option, a huge intervention, again, into one of the biggest sectors of our economy.
KRUGMAN: The public option is about offering people a choice. I mean, if people who are opposed to...
GILLESPIE: In the same way that autos were offered a choice and the bond holders were offered a choice.
KRUGMAN: It's nothing like it. And it's...
WILL: Paul assumes that, once the political class gets a taste for using American capital, broadly speaking, as a slush fund to buy political advantage, it will forswear doing so in the future. I don't believe it. Paul, most of the -- most of the agriculture policies in this country are residues of those put in place for the Depression emergency. New York City lives under rent controls put in place for the emergency of the Second World War. The Japanese have surrendered. They go right on forever.
KRUGMAN: But this one is on budget. I think that makes all the difference in the world. This is going to be a drain on the federal budget at a time when this administration, because of its very activism, really wants those dollars for things it really wants like health care.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Which brings it back to health care. I want to bring Gwen in on this. Ed brought up this idea of the public option, where there's going to be a public plan to compete with the private plans. That's a dividing line between Republicans and Democrats.
But so far, as this begins to be debated, this week, in the House and the Senate, that is still a dividing line between Democrats and Democrats.
IFILL: I'm quite interested, actually, in the atmospherics of all of this. Because one of this things -- on health care, on GM, on nationalization -- boo -- or whatever you want to call it...
... or even on the Supreme Court nomination, what this administration has shown its ability to do is step up to it, say, oh, that doesn't work; let's try it this way.
The difference between something like the public option or something like rescuing a major American industry is you can't walk away as easily as they like to walk away if they see something's not working.
Politically, there's something to be said for them saying, oh -- you know, they look -- these guys look backwards as much as forwards. And they say, ah, the last Democratic administration made this mistake; let's do it this way.
Their problem is that the things that they prize now, the domestic policies are things that they can't step away from once they get what they've asked for.
So it's -- it's very complicated. It's one of the reasons why people in this administration don't talk about it like it's a public option. They try very, very carefully to define it differently.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think that's what -- I think the White House doesn't care whether they get it or not.
IFILL: They don't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They just want to get something done. The bigger question faced, George, is how to pay for it. The OMB director, Office of Management and Budget director said this is going to be deficit-neutral; we're going to pay for every penny.
So far in these three months of debate in the House and the Senate, they've rejected every idea, so far on the table, to pay for it?
WILL: That's right. And in the process, they've been losing revenue. It's been leaking. They had a certain number written in from cap-and-trade. But in order to buy off certain states that were going to be injured by cap-and-trade, they gave away things they were going to sell and the revenues have declined.
KRUGMAN: Well, yes, it's a little hard. I mean, they can make a very good case that, long-run, the thing saves money. But CBO won't score it that way. So they have to do...
STEPHANOPOULOS: After 10 years?
KRUGMAN: Right. So they're going to have to do -- but, you know, it's not actually all that much money. All of the studies I know say that the cost of actually insuring the uninsured as part of this -- the only place where this costs money is actually in providing supplement to help the uninsured pay.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's between $600 billion and $1.2 trillion.
KRUGMAN: Well, you think -- yes, but think about it this way. It's under 1 percent of GDP. It's not -- obviously, it's a big thing, in terms of the way budget debates are done. But it's actually not a big thing in terms of the larger picture on the budget.
There are questions about how -- you know, what's our debt outlook going to be, 10 years, 15 years from now, are really barely affected by -- by this.
It's just -- it's a big number if you look at it in the abstract. If you look at it in context, it's not really a big thing, because the uninsured are mostly relatively young and relatively healthy.
The expensive people have been under a single-payer system called Medicare all along.
GILLESPIE: The notion of the savings, though. I just -- we've never seen this before, and I don't think we're going to see it again. And I have to give them credit at this White House. They're very good at the stagecraft. And they bring in the health care industry and they say we're going to save $2 trillion on health care expenditures.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Over 10 years?
GILLESPIE: Over 10 years -- and not a single detail about it. It reminded me of the old Steve Martin routine. He said, I'm going to write a book, "How to be a Millionaire." First, get a million dollars.
First, you get $2 trillion.
GREENBURG: That was also, you know, I mean, in terms of what the White House, I think, has been very good at is really setting some of these priorities, you know, as Gwen was, kind of, starting off this discussion, too.
I mean, you know, think about what we've been discussing this morning, all the things that are on President Obama's plate. He's wanting to make health care reform, kind of, his crowning achievement this first year.
And that, of course, influenced, going back to the discussion earlier, why he selected Sonia Sotomayor in the first place. You know, his political...
GREENBURG: ... she was going to be almost impossible for Republicans to oppose, as we're certainly seeing now. They're falling all over themselves. So...
STEPHANOPOULOS: And it clears the path for health care.
GREENBURG: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One issue he wants to avoid is another one in the news this week, gay marriage -- again, Proposition 8 in California. The California Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage but allowed the existing marriages to be -- to stay in place.
And right after that, very strange bedfellows came out, David Boies and Ted Olson. These were the two lawyers, opposing lawyers in Bush v. Gore. They have joined together to challenge this ban. They want to take the issue of gay marriage to the Supreme Court.
OLSON: Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple.
BOIES: Our Constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law. There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love.
STEPHANOPOULOS: This was surprising. We've seen a lot of -- lot of news in the last several months about gay marriage. But this one probably surprised me the most, Ted Olson, long-term Republican lawyer joining David Boies. And it's also created some unrest in the -- among groups who support gay marriage, because they say, wait, we don't want this to go to the Supreme Court right now. GREENBURG: That's what's been the most extraordinary thing, I think. I mean, lawyers will take on a case. And obviously, they believe in this issue or they wouldn't have done it. And they're doing part of it, you know, at a cut rate.
But the groups on the left and the gay rights groups are incredibly upset about this. They're like, we don't want your help, Ted Olson and David Boies, because those groups recognize that they don't have the votes right now on the Supreme Court. And you can do real damage if you pursue a case and you lose.
The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that states could ban gay sex, criminalize it. It took 17 years for the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, which it did in 2003, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy. There's no evidence that Justice Kennedy, who's, kind of, that, you know, human jump ball up there...
... I mean, both sides are, you know, trying to get his vote on this -- no evidence that Justice Kennedy is going to vote that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage.
WILL: Thirty-six years ago, at a point when state after state was moving to liberalize abortion laws, including California, signed by Ronald Reagan, the Supreme Court yanked that issue out of democratic debate and embittered our politics down to this point by not letting a consensus emerge in the community.
And as we've seen by subsequent votes in California on gay marriage, the consensus is moving toward gay marriage if they would just let it alone. Let democracy work and settle this.
IFILL: Maybe this is the unity the president's been talking about, to have...
... to have David Boies and Ted Olson holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya. Who would have thunk it?
But I still don't know whether that -- whether their effort might do the president a favor in that it takes it out of his hands. The last thing he wants to do is talk about -- talk about looking back and not wanting to reliving old mistakes. This is one of them. They don't want to get back into that.
GILLESPIE: I -- I couldn't agree with George more. I mean, I think this is clearly aimed at taking this to the Supreme Court, where it's probably ultimately going to end up at some point, anyway.
But the fact is, this is being dealt with in a rather civil manner in the states where there are debates over this and legislators are voting on it or it's taking place in referenda. And if you take it -- if you take it out of the hands of the electorate and allow for -- don't allow for a civil discussion, and you impose it by fiat, I think we'll live with it for a long time.
KRUGMAN: Well, like I say, it's a shocking moment. I agree with George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's all we're going to have time -- we're going to have to end with Paul Krugman and George Will agreeing on something. You guys can continue this in the green room. And you can get political updates all week long from me on Facebook and Twitter.


text:
UHM departments or units need to follow Equal Employment Opportunity standards during the process of recruiting and hiring graduate assistants. In general, GA position vacancies shall be advertised through Work at UH and other suitable media. For positions restricted to students enrolled in a particular graduate program, it is sufficient to announce vacancies on the bulletin board or in the newsletter of the affiliated department. For positions restricted to incoming graduate students, it is sufficient to review and evaluate all admissions applicants who meet the stated eligibility, before making an official offer of appointment.
Upon Graduate Division approval where necessary, the department or unit makes an official offer of appointment to the student applicant via a formal letter. The letter shall provide the following information:
- exact dates of appointment
- estimated work load
- types of duties
- procedure for performance evaluation
- name of faculty supervisor
- amount of compensation
- tuition waiver and other benefits
- deadline for acceptance
Acceptance of Appointment
To accept an offer of an appointment, the student shall send a letter to the chair or director. The Graduate Division adheres to the following resolution approved by the Council of Graduate Schools regarding the acceptance of assistantships:
Acceptance of an offer of financial support (such as a graduate scholarship, fellowship, traineeship, or assistantship) for the next academic year by a prospective or enrolled graduate student completes an agreement that both student and graduate school expect to honor. In that context, the conditions affecting such offers and their acceptance must be defined carefully and understood by all parties.
Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of financial support prior to April 15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of such offers violate the intent of this Resolution. In those instances in which a student accepts an offer before April 15, and subsequently desires to withdraw that acceptance, the student may submit in writing a resignation of the appointment at any time through April 15. However, an acceptance given or left in force after April 15 commits the student not to accept another offer without first obtaining a written release from the institution to which a commitment has been made. Similarly, an offer by an institution after April 15 is conditional on presentation by the student of the written release from any previously accepted offer.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dissertations are listed in DiVA.
DisputationCalendar RSS Subscribe to calendar
Note that although the calendar currently is filtered, the calendar subscription will be unfiltered.
Please follow these instructions to subscribe to the calendar in Outlook on Windows:
- Copy the calendar link.
- Switch to the calendar view in Outlook.
- Right click My calendars (or Other calendars), select Add calendar, select From Internet.
- In the dialogue that pops up, paste the calendar link.
- Approve the subscription.
The calendar is now available in Outlook. Check the checkbox besides the new calendar to view it.
For Safari on Mac, read these instructions.
In other calendar applications, copy the link and then follow the appropriate procedure.
Public Defence: Adaptive resistance: Power struggles over gender quotas in Uruguay
Cecilia Josefsson defends her doctoral thesis.
Dissertation: EU Law and Religion - A Study of How the Court of Justice has Adjudicated on Religious Matters in Union Law
Emma Ahlm defends her thesis in European Law
Opponent: Prof Lucy Vickers, Oxford Brookes, UK
Chairperson of the public defence: Prof Petra Hertzfeld Olsson, Stockholm University
The defence will be held in English.
If you want to follow the dissertation via Zoom, please contact email@example.com.
Dissertation: Easement: a civil and public law right of use
Amelia Krzymowska defends her thesis in Private Law
Opponent: Prof Jori Munukka, Stockholm University
Chairperson of the public defence: Professor Margareta Brattström, Uppsala University
Defence of Gustaf Almkvist
Gustaf Almkvist defends his thesis in Criminal Law


text:
This Forum has been archivedVisit Discussions
| Forums: Index → Narutopedia Announcements
Narutopedia Discussion → A visual history of the Narutopedia
There was an interesting posting to the wikitech-l mailing list some time ago, and it got me into working on a small little thing.
For those that are interested, I've got a set of code_swarm generated videos on the Narutopedia's history. To understand what I mean, code_swarm creates an organic visual representation of the history of a version system and the interaction between the people that contribute.
I've got two at the moment, the normal one is a full representation of the entire history of the wiki, everyone included. And the filtered version is a user only representation excluding all automatic an anon users. I'd recommend watching both.
For the .avi you'll need xvid or divx, it's a bit low quality though, I'll attempt to generate a nice h264 in hd. ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jul 20, 2008 @ 21:51 (UTC)
|Normal (avi,xvid) 640x480
|Filtered (avi,xvid) 640x480


text:
This is my office in Riverside CA. My work is very unusual and at times exciting. I can say that there is never a boring moment here. As the V.P. I'm fortunate enough to do some traveling all over the world doing very important work on behalf of our Government as well as several others Our main office is staffed with about 11 of the best people in this industry with about 30 team members worldwide. Our duties are described on the company web site and also on my dedicated page.
(20 MB maximum file size)
Coming soon!
Have you ever been to Aberdeen?
Latest back yard video May 2008!
About 1 year ago I began a small repair project on my house. I figured it would maybe take an hour or two.
One thing led to another and I just kept on going. I've completely remodeled the outside and re-landscaped the front yard.
I'm now working on the back yard where I'm putting in two fish ponds, an in-ground spa and a tropical garden with all bamboo fencing.
Next I'm tearing out the entire kitchen and living room. Follow my progress at:
In the dictionary, next to the word friend there should be this photo of my best friend Midnight. This guy was everything that was ever said about man's best friend and would have made the best poster dog.
Thanks for many years of joy and unconditional friendship. This guy was one of those dogs that gave the family it's reputation and lived that every day. Truly the perfect friend. I can't think of one thing that I would have changed about him except his life span. Although he lived a long and healthy life, it wasn't long enough for me. I'll always miss him and think about him daily. He passed away peacefully at the ripe old age of 18 still managing to wag his tail whenever one of us came in his room. Our family pets have always been a major part of our life and all of them are special. They have their own place on my web site.
My Flickr page with over 5,000 photos
One reason I decided to go ahead and fix up the old house is because I realized that I'd gotten old and never managed to get that million bucks I had planned on many years ago. Therefore if I'm going to retire and not be forced to lower my standard of living, I'd have to do it without a mortgage.
I was 404 lbs 2 years ago and if I had stayed that way, I probably wouldn't have to worry about making ends meet during retirement. I would have died long before.
When you're that heavy, you've got some real serious problems and you better address them before it's to late. don't continue kidding yourself because that will just waste more time. The clock keeps on ticking while you are on those dead-end diets that you know won't work. So if you are already in your 40's or more, it's time for some drastic measures. Why? because look at how doing it your way has worked for you, another 29 lbs. and deeper in debt.
For me, it was simple. I loved to eat and was programmed to eat whenever I wasn't full, not when I was hungry. I was never hungry. I made sure of that!
I lost 160 lbs. in only 12 months and feel like a different person. I look like one too. If this sound familiar, you better check it out, I feel great!
My job affords me the opportunity to travel and visit many different countries. So of course I've got photos and slide shows and even some Media Player video clips. In addition to the photos and videos on this site, I've got close to 4,000 photos that can be viewed separately, in a slide show, and even downloaded from the web with excellent quality. You can even designate the size you want to download.
You can also go to my page dedicated only to my travel news and even more photos.
Frank Jensen- February 2007
255 lbs. and still fighting to keep it off.
Search Engine Optimization and SEO Tools
~~Video and Photo Galleries~~
The Bash at the Box'd Inn 2006' House remodel updated photos More photos from Denmark China China Wedding Video My Wife Cindi and her Puppies
The Oriental Hotel, Bangkok The Great Wall of China The Patio from Hell Vegas The forbidden City Beijing 2006 Taiwan 2006 Bangkok-2006
More Thailand Photos This old house Front Yard Makeover Ottawa Canada The Oriental Revisited My Spa and Deck The ATI Office Gang
[The link bar feature is not available in this web]
Counter Stats


text:
It looks like this page may be out of date.
Please visit NerdWallet's health hub for our latest content.
One in five American adults will struggle to pay medical bills this year. A sudden accident or frightening diagnosis can touch virtually anyone, unleashing mountains of bills even on the insured. In fact, medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, a last resort after millions of families have drained their savings, maxed their credit cards and even refinanced their homes.
To further understand the complexity of health costs, NerdWallet Health has compiled a series of estimates highlighting the strain of medical bills in 2014.
Summary of findings
NerdWallet estimates this year:
- 56M Americans under age 65 will have trouble paying medical bills
– Over 35M American adults (ages 19-64) will be contacted by collections agencies for unpaid medical bills
– Nearly 17M American adults (ages 19-64) will receive a lower credit rating on account of their high medical bills
– Over 15M American adults (ages 19-64) will use up all their savings to pay medical bills
– Over 11M American adults (ages 19-64) will take on credit card debt to pay off their hospital bills
– Nearly 10M American adults (ages 19-64) will be unable to pay for basic necessities like rent, food, and heat due to their medical bills
- Over 16M children live in households struggling with medical bills
- Despite having year-round insurance coverage, 10M insured Americans ages 19-64 will face bills they are unable to pay
- 1.7M Americans live in households that will declare bankruptcy due to their inability to pay their medical bills
– Three states will account for over one-quarter of those living in medical-related bankruptcy: California (248,002), Illinois (113,524), and Florida (99,780)
- To save costs, over 25M adults (ages 19-64) will not take their prescription drugs as indicated, including skipping doses, taking less medicine than prescribed or delaying a refill.
» COMPARE: Health insurance quotes
In 2013 over 20% of American adults were struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies in 2014 will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs in causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes.
Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. This can lead to even worse financial outcomes as patients avoid preventive care and instead use expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens.
Finally, many question whether President Obama's universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay.
Methodology and sources
Baseline estimate of US population in 2013: We estimated the population based on US census data for total population at the beginning of 2013 and the growth rate between 2012 and 2013, which we halved to reflect average population for calendar year 2013. All numbers were calculated off this figure.
Americans (adults & children) struggling with medical bills: There is significant variation in estimates offered by the US government, non-profits and think-tanks. We used the most conservative, government provided statistics released this month from the Center for Disease Control.
Bankruptcy: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors' 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts.
Behavior data (use of savings, credit cards, and prescription management): We used a 2013 Commonwealth Fund report that provided percentage estimates of affected adults and applied these figures to our base affected population numbers.
Prescription drug use: Here we used Center for Disease Control data from 2011 and scaled them to 2013 population figures.


text:
San Fermin Festival in Spain, 2010
San Fermin Festival, a nine-day festival held since 1591 in Spain, ended on Wednesday. Tens of thousands of foreign visitors descend on Pamplona, Spain each year for revelry, morning bull-runs and afternoon bullfights. Although the tradition of bullfighting remains strong in Pamplona, opposition from animal rights groups remains high, and the parliament of the nearby Spanish province of Catalonia will soon be voting on a motion to outlaw bullfighting altogether. One new recent restriction in Pamplona – no vuvuzelas allowed. Sale of the noisy horns has been banned by the local government.
We've collected several photos of this year's events in Pamplona, Spain and made a video and a PowerPoint slideshow, enjoy them!
|PowerPoint: San Fermin Festival in Spain, 2010
|Video: San Fermin Festival in Spain, 2010
|Download PowerPoint Presentation
|Watch on Youtube


text:
Not far away from it, the great stone on Bere Island is much more impressive as it presides, in local belief, on the exact physical centre of the island.
About three metres tall, it stands proudly in the middle of a field overlooking the bay, shaped like a worn spearhead, covered with millennia of flaky green sea fungus. It looks impassively east and west towards the sun's cyclical birth and death. On dawn on Easter Sunday those of us who have been on the contemplative Holy Week retreat join with islanders and visitors around the megalith. We have had some spectacular dawns on idyllic spring days over this entrance to Bantry Bay. But also, as was the case this year, we have gathered valiantly in wind and rain to sing an alleluia before rushing back to a warm heritage centre for meditation and porridge. Oddly, it is always a sacred, moment, both sacred and silly, whatever the weather – beautiful even when it isn't very pretty.
There's the other stone, about a metre high, standing, actually leaning, in another field. Like some personalities in any group, it attracts less attention to itself than its extrovert relative. And, as with them, it can be misunderstood and does not easily defend itself. From one angle it seems to lean at a forty-five degree angle, rubbed against by generations of itchy sheep and cattle. The reds and greens daubed on the sheep, making them look like ovine punks, have cheered the ancient grey. It leans drunkenly. But as you walk up the road beside it, it seems to straighten up and look almost self-confident. It emits a strong silent presence.
On a walk the other day, I met the present owner of the field, a teacher from Cork who comes down frequently to the family farm to look after his sheep. I checked with him about a story I had heard about the stone. According to the legend a previous owner was building a new house when the stone caught his eye as a good lintel for his front door. He dug up the stone and put it in his house. The next morning when he came to work on it, the stone was not there. He went to the field and found it back where it belonged exactly as it had been. No successor has dared to move it again.
I like the story because the stone, true to its modesty, did not take revenge on the presumptuous farmer who thought that what was on his land was his to do with as he liked. In another legend it could have produced a curse. In this one, it evokes a knowing shared smile, extended down the generations and uniting them. It suggests a resigned acceptance of the borderline between myth and reality, fact and super-fact. Of course it's only a story that could be deconstructed, like any story, even the story of the empty tomb and the appearances of a person who had died and yet, some claim, lives.
But there are some stories you have just to leave alone and not try to dissect. These work on your deeper imagination, illustrating what the English poet Coleridge called the distinction between Fancy and Imagination. Soap operas or thrillers feed our appetite for fantasy, fuel for Fancy, keeping us entertained and stimulated. One installment merely succeeds another. Through them we live episodically, in the moment – but not the truly present moment. Greater works of art and the stories of scripture nourish the Imagination, enriching our symbolic, sacramental ways of relating to the meaning of what happens in the story of our own lives and making us more creative in our response to them.
People at all levels of faith can relate to the story leading up to the Easter climax. It resonates psychologically with the knowledge, in our personal stories, of suffering, betrayal and death. But once the stone has been rolled away from the empty tomb we have crossed the subtle line between psychology and the spirit. Henceforth we need ritual to accompany us and make the apparently fantastical stories resonate in our creative Imagination.
It surprises me each year how the rituals of the Easter Vigil, especially the play of the mystical symbols of fire and water, speak so strongly even to those who, like many modern people, have been de-ritualised and disenchanted. Those of the islanders who come to church are at home with these rituals – sometimes, perhaps, as routines which they change very reluctantly. But like the ancient stones, big and small, these rituals stand still and are still standing. They are stronger than the scepticism that would reduce them to folktales. Saying nothing they communicate a truth that expands inner horizons and gently heals the broken-hearted.
Laurence Freeman OSB
Laurence Freeman is a Benedictine and the Director of The World Community for Christian Mediation. His daily readings for Lent are available online: www.wccm.org


text:
Waste management has one of the most direct impacts on the environment and your business operations. The most effective way to reduce waste is to NOT create it in the first place.
Think REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE. Benefits include:
Below is a quick guide. Questions? email: email@example.com
Click here for the Related 2018 Tenant Recycling Program Guidelines
Learn more:
In the U.S., as much as 3000 pounds of food is wasted every second. On average, organics comprise approximately 30% of the waste stream.
As organic material breaks down in the landfill, greenhouse gasses are released, contributing to climate change. By separating out these materials for processing, you can reduce the volume of trash filling up landfills, and additionally reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Organic materials can be processed in a variety of ways, including:
Materials accepted within the organics stream generally include all food waste and compostable cutlery and dining ware, with some exceptions regarding meat and bones. Your waste hauler will be able to provide more specific information on accepted contents.
Great Forest has capacity to track all waste metrics, including monthly tonnages of all waste streams. If you choose to implement an organics diversion program, all corresponding data will be available to you to track your progress over time, and for all reporting purposes.
Learn more:
Why flatten cardboard?
What type of paper can you recycle?
Answers to some of the most common questions we are asked. Read our Q&A archive.


text:
San Antonio
Sponsored By
Top Spooky Vacation Destinations For HalloweenMake plans this Halloween to take a vacation and visit some of the spookiest destinations in the country. Many of these areas have a tragic past, which adds to the chances of them being haunted and creating a spooky feeling among those who tour the area.
Rob Higgins is Tampa Bay Sport's Most Valuable Asset
San Antonio Spurs - Golden State Warriors Game 3 PreviewThe confident aura the Golden State Warriors are giving off right now might be the only thing brighter than those yellow shirts every home fan is expected to be wearing again for Game 3 against the San Antonio Spurs on Friday night at ear-piercing Oracle Arena.
The Unclean Truth: How Five Cities Stack Up On RecyclingFrom the East Coast to the West Coast, recycling is a big issue for local governments.
Thunder Push Past Spurs & Into NBA FinalsKevin Durant had 34 points and 14 rebounds while playing all of regulation for the first time all season, leading the Thunder past the Spurs 107-99 and into the NBA Finals.
Thunder Grab Game 3 Win Over SpursThabo Sefolosha set playoff career bests with 19 points and six steals, and the Thunder snapped San Antonio's winning streak by beating the Spurs 102-82 in Game 3 on Thursday.
Spurs Take 2-0 Series Lead Over ThunderParker had 34 points, Manu Ginobili added 20 points, and the Spurs stayed perfect in the playoffs with a 120-111 victory over the Thunder in Game 2 on Tuesday night.
Spurs Get "Nasty" To Top Thunder In Game 1Spurs coach Gregg Popovich's caught-on-camera "I want some nasty!" command is likely coming soon to shirts and memes after they beat the Thunder 101-98 on Sunday.


text:
Privacy policy
Collected data
The name and email address you submit to be registered on one of our mailing lists are processed by the Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (hereafter FPS), located at Rue des Petits Carmes 15, 1000 Brussels. The FPS complies with the law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy with respect to the processing of personal data and with the law of 11 December 1998 transposing Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
You yourself provide us with personal identifiable data such as your name, address, mobile phone number, gender, date and place of birth, telephone and fax numbers, identity card number and current e-mail address. Cookies are not used to collect personally identifiable data except for your language of preference when you visit the website.
Cookies are small information files that are automatically saved on your computer's hard drive to facilitate access to the site and make navigating easier, faster and more efficient, and to personalise this site in line with your personal preferences, e.g. your preferred language. A cookie cannot be read by a website other than the one that produced it. The configuration of most browsers allows you to either accept or reject cookies as well as to indicate whenever a cookie is used. Rejecting the use of cookies can lessen your optimal navigation of the site. For further information, please consult your browser's help function.
Use of your personal data
We neither make use of your personal data, nor pass them on to third parties.


text:
Computer Bits, Inc. (CBI) is a full-service, information technology (IT) consulting firm. CBI consultants have an extremely wide range of expertise. CBI staff members have almost 150 years of aggregate real-world IT experience, and have assisted many different types of organizations throughout Chicagoland with their IT needs.
Whether you are interested in network support or developing a new database solution, creating a website or seeking some assistance planning your long-term IT strategy, we can help. We provide everything from: simple to massively complex databases from SQL to MySQL to MS Access, IT outsourcing services, automated monthly credit card billing, custom solutions or 'off the shelf' install and configurations, and much more. We have installed and supported networks for many organizations throughout Chicagoland, and helped many others establish an effective presence on the web. In short, what we do is help your organization to utilize technology in as efficient and cost-effective a manner as possible in order to improve the effectiveness and profitability of your organization.
CBI is highly qualified to partner with your organization and help you address any IT challenges that you face, from the most straightforward to the most complex. We pride ourselves on our commitment to client satisfaction, and always strive to exceed client expectations. We think that our ever-expanding roster of highly-satisfied clients is proof of our commitment.


text:
Rubio: Won't fall back on Senate
Marco Rubio said that if he runs for president in 2016 he will likely not pursue reelection to the Senate.
Asked by radio host Huge Hewitt if he would consider a fallback Senate reelection run if a presidential campaign fizzles, Rubio indicated that he will only pursue one office in 2016 — when his Senate term is up.
"I haven't even thought that far ahead. I think by and large when you choose to do something as big as that you've really got to be focused on that, and not have a exit strategy," the Florida Republican said of a potential run for the White House.
( QUIZ: Do you know Marco Rubio?)
Rubio's stance on dueling Senate and presidential runs — which Florida law bars — is a sharp break from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who hopes for a change in Kentucky law that would allow Paul to appear on the ballot for both offices simultaneously. Kentucky's GOP state lawmakers are seeking a change to that state's laws that would allow Paul to run for both offices, but such a move has met opposition by state Democrats.
"We have a lot of ifs, ands or buts about ours," Paul said. "It's a long time before any of this goes on."
But Paul said it's hardly unusual to run for Congress and president, listing Paul Ryan's run for the House and vice presidency in 2012 and a run for Senate and vice president by Joe Lieberman in 2000.
"A lot of people have done it," Paul said. "So it wouldn't be anything, I think, that was extraordinary."
But Rubio said he would take no such step, and called Florida's barring of dual candidacies the "right law." The Floridian told Hewitt that he will decide on a presidential run by spring of next year.
"That's around the time I will have to make a decision about something. I mean, because I'll either have to run for reelection or not run for anything or run for another office," Rubio said. "Everybody has their own timetable, but around this time next year."
Rubio has been laying out a broad policy profile in the months since his immigration reform bill passed the Senate, giving a series of well-received addresses on fighting poverty, expanding innovation and foreign policy. He's also been building out some of the national infrastructure for presidential campaign, surrounding himself with seasoned strategists and pollsters and employing a sharp messaging operation.
Manu Raju contributed to this report.


text:
Heifer Foundation's mission is to raise and oversee financial assets to support the work of Heifer International. We offer a variety of planned giving instruments, such as trusts, annuities and bequests, that provide donors the ability to help themselves, their loved ones and a world in great need.
Our supporters make it possible for us to carry out the work of ending hunger and poverty while benefitting from the investments they've made in the foundation. Learn how others have made an impact through their acts of giving to Heifer.
Learn More
We remember those who have given the gift of love and support through their estate giving. The Book of Remembrance honors the lives and legacies of our donors who have so faithfully supported our mission.


text:
Rather than backdating a few belated posts, I thought I'd do a quick summary of the last week..
First of all. Michael Jackson, RIP. I heard about it on friday 26th that he'd died. It's hard to believe he's gone. I guess he's one of the last superstars there will ever be. Once Prince and Madonna are gone, that's it.
I talked to some Japanese people about it, and I was surprised by the lack of emotion. It looks like the negative media was more noticeable than the amazing talent and classic songs that will live forever. They have their J Pop and they can have it. Thank You MJ. Out of respect, today I played his hits on my iPod going to work.
I noticed there was a Floral Jem for sale in Shimo Kitazawa, not too far from Shibuya so I decided to catch a short train ride to check it out. It looked really beat up, but it didn't sound half bad. They wanted too much for it though.
The train was really packed on the way out there so I thought it'd be an "adventure" to walk back to Shibuya. It wasn't so bad. I mostly zigzagged the Keio line and got back in more or less 40 minutes. The walk gave me a lot of time to think.
I did the usual rounds of UFO catchers and music shops.
At Ishibashi I tried a used vintage-style Edwards E-LP98-LTC that was 47,800 yen. It's almost the same as the one I tried in Ochanomizu, looking a bit more relic'd, with yellowed binding, a matte nitro finish and a few "non-factory" blemishes.
I was playing through a nice Marshall stack, and I have to say this sounded more like my Les Paul back home. In fact some young J musos were admiring my playing and probably this guitar as well.
Last night we went to an izakaya here in Yotsuya that advertised 100 yen bottles of beer. We thought that was great, until we walked out with a 3,600 yen bill. We only had two beers! Looks like the food had a inflated markup to make up for the cheap booze. Note to self: Come here ONLY for alcohol next time.
I was still hungry so we watched "He's Just Not That Into You", while eating piping hot popcorn that I made for that "cinema" experience.
Just for the record, the movie was ok with lots of famous stars throughout. This should probably go without saying, but I must warn that this is seriously a CHICK FLICK. The guys get made out like they are the bad guys big time. No Fair!
I was considering going to the Tokyo Guitar Show on Sunday, but I realized that I see guitars plenty as it is, and to pay to get a headache from "Stairway To Heaven" or something along those lines, made me give it a miss.
So that's my week so far. Until next time JIJ signing off!
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Good Die Young
Rather than backdating a few belated posts, I thought I'd do a quick summary of the last week..
Posted by Jimmy In Japan at 12:59 pm 0 comments
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Summer Vacation? Booked!
You might remember a while back during Golden Week I saw some unbelievably cheap fares back to Australia that I missed out on?
Well Jetstar are having another sale which allows me to go back for about AU $500 return. Nice huh?
So, I'm really happy that I can get another chance to hopefully bring as much of my guitar stuff home as possible. It'll be a relief to hear some "real" English too, and get to drive my car again. I can also get re-acquainted with all my guitars that miss me so much.
It'll be Winter there but meh, I need it. I'll come back to Tokyo reinvigorated, shiny, super happy, and genki.
And that's a good thing, right?
Oops almost forgot.. I went to Ochanomizu and Akihabara today.
Apart from being overcast it was a good day without any rain. I didn't make my way out the door till 4pm, but it still gave enough time to visit both.
I tried an Edwards E-LP-92CD. The brand probably doesn't sound familiar, but maybe ESP does, which is the company that makes these.
For a Les Paul it looks great and has a nice feeling ebony fingerboard which felt very smooth. The neck slowed me down a little but it feels good.
As for the sound, it's totally useable but I didn't think it sounded exactly like a Les Paul. There was a noticeable lack of Gibson chunk on the bridge, and the neck pickup didn't have that Slash-like lead sound that I notice from a Gibson.
In Akihabara's Revole, I tried a Squier J5 telecaster.
Squier is the budget version of Fender. In a previous post I mentioned I tried one of the Fender signatures that I liked despite the weight of the damn thing.
Funnily enough this one is just as heavy being the same Alder body as that one. Sound-wise I liked it. It sounded more like a Les Paul than the Edwards! It has a nice chunky quality, and was quite a bit cheaper than the Fender version. It has dual volume controls which gives the opportunity to use the pickup selector as a kill switch. Nice touch that.
I guess there is only the stigma of buying Fender's budget line guitar, rather than the "real thing". If it had a Fender badge on top, I'd be tempted to spring for this baby. Actually I might still be tempted anyways. I don't have a telecaster to add to my collection yet.
Uh oh.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Sweet Miku-chan
Although I try to stay away from playing the UFO catchers, I still have been going regularly to check out what new goodies they put in to tempt me once more.
Luckily not so much lately, but today in Yokohama's Taito Station I saw the cute 'lil Miku Hatsune dolls, and after I watched a guy fail to drop one, I thought I'd try my luck to finally get one of my own.
Seems like she's quite a popular one among the otaku. If I see one in a shop, it usually carries a higher price like the more risque, hentai variety.
At what I thought was going to be the final shot, it was stuck in the hole. I thought she'd give it to me, but instead gave me the money shot to spend another 100 yen. Lucky it was 100 yen day. All up 1,000 yen.
Not bad, not great.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Please Explain
It seems like Japan never ceases to want to screw me over.
Today I went to a small guitar shop near where I live, and asked how much it'd cost to install that new pickup in my guitar. The guy told me 3,000 yen, a little bit more than Rock Inn. Later I went into Shinjuku and checked with Shimamura Music and they told me about 8,000 yen!
I basically know what to do. Are a few screws and some soldering really worth that? I don't think so. There are a mess of wires in a tiny space though.
I was actually going to go to Akihabara where I'm sure I'd find a soldering iron at a reasonable price to do the job, but I also wanted to find out why the pittance of that 12,000 yen "economy bonus refund" hasn't been given to me yet. So that meant I had to make a trip to Shinjuku instead.
I figured I'd be able to get one from Yodobashi or Bic but neither of them had it. Luckily I managed to get one from Rock Inn for 1,575 yen, which had solder and a handy stand as well.
Before we went home we had okonomiyaki to prepare me for the task ahead. I looked up as much information online regarding soldering, but I'm definitely not a natural at this. I only had two or three points to solder, but it was tricky to get the hang of it.
All screwed together and actually making a sound, I think I actually did it! I guess you can safely go by the ethos that if Jimmy can do it, anyone can. I'm glad that I saved a few bucks.
How does it sound? It sounds pretty good, although I was happy with the stock pickup anyway. Idle hands needed something to do. To my poor ears it doesn't sound all that different, but it sure looks nice with that chrome top doesn't it?
So what about that bonus refund? I should get it in my account next week. After I admired my handywork I opened up my health insurance payments. For some reason they're making me paying 18,700 yen each installment. WTF?? I guess I have to help all those old people stay healthy. Keep smoking f****ers!
Every year I'm making less. How depressing.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Shiny Pretty Things
I like things that twinkle.
Yesterday in Shinjuku I saw a flash in the corner of my eye.
I was mesmerized by the sparkle of a chrome top Dimarzio Paf Pro, sitting in the pickup box in the Rock Inn.
Of course I don't need it, so I was trying for an hour or so to justify spending the money for something I totally didn't need.
Although I'm finding new love with my Steinberger, it was criminally ignored by my recent devotion to all things Jem. Through my laptop it sounds quite sweet with it's neutral sound in software sims, but through my tube amp it left a little bit more wanting.
So trying really hard not to buy another guitar, an upgrade in a pickup seems a reasonable compromise. I'm even considering dropping in a sustainer in this one somewhere down the line.
Needless to say after all that consideration I went home empty-handed until today. I was researching as much information as I could online, and it seems to be a good replacement for the stock pickups. Before work I couldn't bear to think someone else may have bought it, so I quickly went back into Shinjuku and grabbed it.
The price was quite reasonable, and I'm sure I could re-sell it for a profit, but as soon as I left the music store I had a little bit of doubt. Maybe I should have got the higher powered Tone Zone? No, that looked boring. This would even look interesting on my mirror Jem. Too late to turn back now. They charge about 2,600 yen and a week to install it, so I'm considering this another DIY job.
Time to learn me some soldering!
Posted by Jimmy In Japan at 11:10 pm 0 comments
Monday, 8 June 2009
Kōhii O Kudasai
The Weetbix has run out. Although I was offered to get some more sent back from Australia, the real problem was.. we're out of coffee again!
I thought I had rectified the situation by heading down to YaMaYa on Sunday and buying amongst other things, (namely Snickers, corn chips and Don Simon mango juice), a 1kg bag of lovely ground Mocha coffee.
To my absolute horror on opening the coffee, I had bought BEANS instead of pre-ground coffee. I was about to toss the beans whole into the Moka pot in desperation, to stop myself from hyperventilating. I relented and decided to just get a coffee mill.
T'was hard facing kindergarten classes without my coffee fix, but like a super trooper I came through fine. Thanks big M!
Anyway, after work I was on a mission. I went to one of the 100 yen shops. For some reason I figured they have just about everything else, why not a coffee grinder?
Unfortunately not.
I have to give the 100 yen shop props though. Out of the 101 useless things I don't need, I picked up a "Made In China", Rubik's Cube.
Why? Why not, It's 105 yen! I could've got the Hello Kitty one, but instead got the "classic" standard pastels only.
We found two coffee grinders at Don Quijote. One was electric for about 3,000 yen, and a manual one for about 1,300 yen. Of course I took the cheap one. It has a cute, old vintage style that I liked, with a wooden drawer for the grinds.
We got hungry so it was "all you can eat" tabehodai at Mo Mo Paradise. For 90 minutes and under 2,000 yen, it's a satisfying feed.
While I haven't played the UFO catchers since around January, I relapsed today and played for a motorised Llama in Kabukicho.
The gf wanted it badly, though it was pretty hard to get, even with help from the reluctant staff person. She's happy and yes, it's kawaiiiiii!.
From one addiction to the next, I still get G.A.S. for guitars. I'm trying really hard not to buy any more guitars but it's so damn tempting in this place.
It doesn't help when the Rock Inn has just opened up a used store with quite a few desirable guitars I wouldn't mind adding to the "pile". I saw the same Mesa F-50 amp as mine too. They asked for double what I paid. My prediction is that it will be a classic amp like my missed JCM 800!
I looked at TC Gakki again just after work again too. There's some real nice gear here. I probably mentioned it before but there's also a vintage guitar shop right next door with "vintage" (ie. expensive) prices. We're talking guitars from the beginning of the time when Leo made his first Fenders. It's like a guitar museum in here. Well worth checking out for the "tour".
Arriving home I couldn't wait to try out the coffee mill. It's manual so it takes quite a few turns to make enough for the standard two cups. It was easier than I imagined. It's pretty much the same mechanism as a pepper grinder. The grinds came out really fine. I was surprised.
How does it taste? Oishii!
Posted by Jimmy In Japan at 10:55 pm 2 comments


text:
Your basket is empty
FREE shipping and returns!
Delivery within 2-5 days. Orders are being shipped with UPS using a fully trackable service.
14 day Return & Exhange policy. Read more here.
We use cookies to give you the best possible customer experience, which you accept by continuing
Learn More


text:
Browse Designs (Custom Envelopes)Back
Custom Keller Williams Envelopes
Design and print custom Keller Williams envelopes. Our online design center features a variety of free Keller Williams envelope templates to help you get your design started. Add company logos and images for free or choose from our free and premium stock libraries for inspiration. Add backgrounds, textures, icons, text with different fonts, and much more in just a few clicks. Save your design and build it over time. When you are satisfied with your completed design have your professional envelopes printed and shipped to your home or office at cheap prices.


text:
The majority of prevalent non-infectious diseases are associated with age, yet the mechanism by which these diseases dramatically increase with age is unclear. A number of intellectually attractive hypotheses to explain age-associated decline have been generated by studies in model organisms. While there is a general consensus that accumulation of cellular damage is the basis for this decline, a molecular mechanism for what actually causes aging in any organism remains elusive.
Our overarching goal is to identify the molecular changes that cause aging, as well as the downstream age-associated events that lead to cellular decline. The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a great model system for studying the aging process in eukaryotic cells. With each asymmetric cell division of this budding yeast, the vitality of a "mother" cell declines, and its limited replicative life span has been used as a model to identify and study conserved genetic and environmental processes that contribute to aging in metazoa. The use of budding yeast to study aging has not been fully exploited because of the difficulty in isolating replicatively aged cells. We recently overcame this limitation by developing a technique called the Mother Enrichment Program (MEP – Lindstrom & Gottschling, 2009) that allows us to isolate and examine large populations of synchronously aged cells.
Our approach to studying aging considers the process in light of a fundamental property of biological systems – interconnectivity. All levels of interaction contribute to the ultimate phenotype of an organism: interactions between tissues, cells, organelles, metabolic pathways, genes, and individual molecules. With the help of network analysis, the complexity of such interactions can be visualized to develop new ideas and hypotheses about the aging process. For instance, if we examine a network of interactions within a cell and consider each organelle as a subsystem within the network, then what happens to the other connected organelles when one becomes dysfunctional with age? If a subsystem decays with age and does indeed affect a connected organelle, which interactions are required for this to occur? This simple idea focuses upon connections that create interdependency between two subsystems – e.g. one organelle produces a molecule required for the proper function of another organelle. However, in considering a network of interactions it is likely that more than one subsystem is sensitive to aging, possibly through distinct routes. Dissecting how these types of events occur is critical to developing a better understanding of aging.
We also consider a second type of interaction in the aging process: the response of a biological system to change (i.e. the basis of homeostasis and biological anticipation). As an organism ages, what response or compensation occurs in a biological network? What is the consequence of the response? For instance, is compensation "successful" such that it helps to prevent dysfunction, or does compensation result in unintended negative consequences, and throw different, interconnected, subsystems into dysfunction?
Taking advantage of the MEP, we have begun to address these questions at the cellular level. To this end we have identified several cell biological subsystems that experience an age-associated decline. For example, we identified an age-associated mitochondrial change that is conserved throughout eukaryotes. We discovered a series of causal events that lead to this change and also impact overall life span of the cell. The earliest step in the aging process that we have defined so far is a reduction in vacuole acidity with age, which in turn leads to a loss of mitochondrial membrane potential (Hughes & Gottschling, 2012). The inability of the vacuole to store amino acids when vacuolar pH increases is responsible for the loss of mitochondrial membrane potential, though the molecular details of this link remain an area of investigation. Loss of mitochondrial membrane potential in turn causes dysfunction
of a number of mitochondrial processes. One of note is reduced biosynthesis of iron-sulfur complexes (ISC), an essential cofactor in a number of enzymes, including those involved in DNA replication and repair. In fact, we find that reduced ISC levels during mitochondrial dysfunction lead to nuclear genome instability – a relatively late age-associated phenotype (Veatch et al. 2009, McMurray & Gottschling, 2003).
By approaching the study of aging through the lens of interconnectivity, we have identified several linked causal events in the aging process. Of course, many of the questions posed above remain unanswered. But given our successes so far, we will continue to address them using the combination of approaches afforded by this wonderful model system.


text:
This site uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site you agree to these cookies being set. To find out more see our cookies policy
Order by phone: 0345 120 4776 | Mon - Fri 8am - 5:30pm
Coronavirus: We are working round the clock to support our customers. Click here for the latest information.