text:
Three questions for Clarence Thomas
CNN/Stylemagazine.com Newswire | 6/10/2013, 8:02 a.m.
By John Blake
He wore a black beret and army fatigues, warned people that a revolution was coming and memorized the speeches of Malcolm X.
"I now believed that the whole of American culture was irretrievably tainted by racism," he once said, describing his reaction to the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Soon, that same man is expected to help the U.S. Supreme Court bury two pillars of the civil rights movement: the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action.
There may seem to be a contradiction between the Clarence Thomas who was the angry campus radical in the 1960s and the conservative hero who sits on the Supreme Court today. But some legal observers say Thomas sees himself as a "prophetic civil rights leader" who is still fighting for the same cause -- a colorblind America.
Thomas is an American hero, says Henry Mark Holzer, author of "The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas."
"A lot of people who are what I call professional Negros have ridden white guilt and socialism to very lucrative lives," says Holzer, who uses the term "Negro" because he says he doesn't classify people by skin color.
"Thomas didn't," Holzer says. "He made a very deliberate and gutsy decision to go where his intellect and his study took him, and that's heroic."
One man's hero, though, is another man's sellout. During his 22 years on the nation's highest court, Thomas has been called a self-loathing "Uncle Thomas." His impact, though, cannot be ignored. His judicial opinions have transformed America. And no other contemporary Supreme Court justice has spoken with such raw emotion about race or has embodied the subject's complexities.
Yet he is still a mystery to many. There are questions about Thomas that have persisted even after two decades on the Supreme Court as its lone African-American justice.
Here are three of them:
Question 1: Why does Thomas condemn affirmative action if he benefited from it?
When the Supreme Court issues a ruling soon on the constitutionality of using race in college admissions, the impact could be momentous. The court will decide if the University of Texas violated the constitutional rights of some white applicants by considering race in the admissions process.
There seems to be little mystery about how Thomas will vote.
He consistently votes against affirmative action policies because he says they're divisive, unconstitutional and harmful to their recipients. He cites his own experience as an example.
Thomas was born in poverty in rural Georgia but managed to gain admittance to Yale Law School. He acknowledges that he made it to Yale because of affirmative action but says the stigma of preferential treatment made it difficult for him to find a job after college.
In his memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," Thomas says he felt "tricked" by paternalistic whites at Yale who recruited black students.
"I was bitter toward the white bigots whom I held responsible for the unjust treatment of blacks," he wrote, "but even more bitter toward those ostensibly unprejudiced whites who pretended to side with black people while using them to further their own political and social ends."
Some observers, though, counter with one question:
If affirmative action is so bad for its recipients, how come you've done so well?
"His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography," said Michael Fletcher, co-author of "Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas." "He's arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way."
For many blacks, affirmative action is "the contemporary equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation," Fletcher explains in his book. It's one of the most important legacies of the civil rights movement. The expansion of the black middle class was driven by affirmative action policies, he says.
Some blacks detest Thomas not because he's conservative, Fletcher says, but because he rules against affirmative action policies, closing the door that was opened for him.
The black community has accepted conservatives as varied as Booker T. Washington, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Many members of the community dislike Thomas for another reason.
"Some say he's a traitor and hypocritical," says Fletcher, an economics correspondent with The Washington Post.
Thomas first attracted public attention in the early 1980s when the late President Ronald Reagan asked him to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces federal discrimination laws. Thomas' opposition to affirmative action and criticisms of civil rights leaders during his tenure made headlines.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a traditional stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
Would Thomas have risen so far so quickly had he not been black?
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin doesn't think so. In a biting 2007 New Yorker magazine review of Thomas' memoir, Toobin wrote that Thomas had never tried a case or argued an appeal in any federal court and had never produced any scholarly work when he made the D.C. appeals court.
"Yale and Reagan treated him the same way, but he hates one and reveres the other," Toobin wrote. "Thomas never acknowledges, much less explains, the contradiction."
When Bush selected Thomas in 1991 to replace Thurgood Marshall, the court's first black justice, the questions about Thomas' qualifications intensified. Bush said he picked "the best qualified" nominee, but Thomas questioned that in his memoir, saying even he had doubts about Bush's "extravagant" claim.
"There was no way I could really know what the president and his aides had been thinking when they picked me," he wrote.
Thomas' defenders say his performance on the high court has removed any doubts about his qualifications. They call him the most consistent conservative on the court, a man who won't sacrifice his principles to eke out a short-term judicial victory.
Holzer, author of "The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas," says he doesn't think Thomas "benefited from affirmative action at all."
Thomas' legal acumen is well-known, says Holzer, a retired law professor from Brooklyn Law School. Thomas is the court's leading "originalist" -- he interprets the Constitution based on what the framers meant, not on any partisan policy preferences.
"This may be hard for Toobin to swallow -- Clarence Thomas would have been appointed were he white, yellow, brown, beige, even blue or green."
Scott Douglas Gerber, an Ohio Northern University law professor and author of "First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas," says Thomas is on the verge of cementing his judicial legacy with the two civil rights cases before the court.
Thomas' constitutional philosophy is simple, Gerber says: All Americans should be treated as individuals and not as members of a racial or ethnic group.
Gerber says Thomas has ruled against the Voting Rights Act in the past because he believes that laws based on the "proportional allocation of political powers according to race" should be overturned.
The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement. Its passage, which came about after King led a dramatic campaign in Selma, Alabama, is responsible for the expansion of black political power in the last 30 years.
The Supreme Court is considering abandoning Section 5 of the act, which requires states with a history of discrimination to "pre-clear" any changes in voting law with the U.S. Justice Department first.
Thomas isn't the only Supreme Court justice whose life has been shaped by affirmative action. One of his colleagues is grateful for the role it played in her life.
Sonia Sotomayor recently told "60 Minutes" that affirmative action helped her gain admittance to Princeton University. (She also graduated from Yale Law School.) She is the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court.
"It was a door-opener that changed the course of my life," Sotomayor said in the January interview.
Question 2: How does Thomas embrace an "originalist" view of the Constitution when the framers would have considered him a slave?
A lot of originalist judges rhapsodize about the wisdom of the Constitution's framers, but Thomas approaches the Constitution with a different racial history. Blacks were enslaved by many of the founding fathers who talked about liberty and freedom.
How does a black judge become an originalist when the "original intent" of the Constitution was to preserve slavery and classify slaves as three-fifths of a human being?
Thomas addressed that question in part in one of his most cited opinions, a 2007 school integration case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.
Thomas joined a conservative majority that ruled 5-4 that race cannot be a factor in assigning children to public schools. In a concurring opinion, Thomas cited one of the Supreme Court's greatest judges, John Marshall Harlan, known as the "great dissenter."
Harlan issued a thunderous dissent in the notorious 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, which sanctioned the separate but equal doctrine that provided the legal foundation for the brutal Jim Crow era. Plessy is considered one of the high court's lowest moments.
Thomas invoked another landmark Supreme Court decision, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which declared segregated schools and the separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy unconstitutional.
Thomas wrote in the Seattle decision:
"My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.' And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown."
Thomas embraces an originalism that is rooted in the principles of the founders rather than their practices, wrote Hannah L. Weiner, author of an article in the Duke Law Journal on Thomas entitled "The Next Great Dissenter."
Weiner said Thomas believes that history will hail him as a "prophetic leader of civil rights" who honored the civil rights movement by fighting for its ultimate goal: a colorblind America.
"He says the same framers who saw him as three-fifths of a man wrote the Declaration of Independence that allowed us to dream of having a President Obama in the White House," says the Post's Fletcher.
Marcia Coyle, author of the "The Roberts Court," a look at the contemporary court's battle over the Constitution, says Thomas believes that Reconstruction -- a brief period after the Civil War when the federal government strove to make full citizens of freed slaves -- purified the Constitution.
"He believes the Reconstruction amendments purged the Constitution of the taint of slavery and rendered the Constitution colorblind," says Coyle, who provides Supreme Court analysis for the "PBS NewsHour."
The Reconstruction amendments are the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. They abolish slavery, empower newly freed slaves and protect their right to vote.
For anyone who follows matters of race in America, the 14th Amendment is vital. The amendment, with its emphasis on equality, has become the epicenter of a fierce legal battle over what the Constitution says about race.
Thomas and other conservative judges believe the 14th Amendment bans any preferential treatment of minorities because the Constitution is colorblind. It doesn't matter if a person is white, black or green, they say, dividing people up by race is unconstitutional. They cite Harlan's "colorblind" dissent in Plessy in which he invoked the 14th Amendment.
Others say judges like Thomas are engaging in clever semantics, commandeering language that was originally used to help racial minorities to argue for policies that now exclude them.
Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington, says Thomas is a "faux" originalist who ignores the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment framers who were trying to create laws to address the legacy of slavery.
"They were the first proponents of affirmative action," Kendall says of the Reconstruction amendment lawmakers. "They passed a whole series of laws that were designed to help the freed slaves realize the promise of being a full and equal citizen in the U.S."
But Gerber, the Ohio Northern University law professor, says Thomas bases his originalist vision in the Declaration of Independence.
"He knows that most of the framers were racists," says Gerber. "He rejects those personal practices but as (Abraham) Lincoln pointed out, the framers committed the nation to the idea of equality that is articulated in the Declaration."
Question 3: Why doesn't Thomas follow his own advice about not playing the victim?
When he worked for the Reagan administration, Thomas once told a reporter that all civil rights leaders did was "bitch, bitch, bitch, moan and moan, whine and whine."
Thomas has long preached that blacks should be self-reliant and stop complaining about racism. He traces that philosophy to his childhood in Georgia, where he was raised by a stern grandfather who told him he had to "play the hand" fate dealt him.
"I'd long believed that the best thing to do was to stop government-sanctioned segregation, then concentrate on education and equal employment opportunities," he wrote in his memoir. "The rest I thought would take care of itself."
Yet critics say Thomas doesn't follow his own advice. They say he regularly portrays himself as a victim even though he sits on the nation's highest court.
Fletcher called him "the most successful victim in America."
He says Thomas holds grudges against old college classmates, black critics and "elites." He often equates his plight to that of slaves when he compares critics to "overseers" and talks about blacks who expect him to be an "intellectual slave."
"He has a lot of slights that he catalogs carefully throughout his life," Fletcher says.
Slights against the U.S. Supreme Court also affect Thomas. While speaking to a bar association in rural Georgia in 2011, Thomas said critics of the Supreme Court's decisions were illiterate or lazy.
"You don't just keep nagging and nagging and nagging," he told the Augusta Bar Association. "Sometimes, too much is too much."
Thomas recently used an occasion of great joy for the black community -- the election of the nation's first black president -- to complain about persecution. When he was asked if he was surprised that a black man became president, he criticized the "elites" and "the media."
"The thing that I always knew is that it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites and the media, because anybody they didn't agree with, they would take apart," Thomas said during a C-SPAN interview at a Pittsburgh law school in April.
Thomas' behavior at his confirmation hearing in 1991 soured some critics as well. When he was accused of sexual harassment, Thomas publicly told a Senate panel that he was the victim of a "high-tech lynching" reserved for uppity blacks.
Thomas flashed the race card to get on the Supreme Court, says George Curry, a commentator, media coach and speaker who once placed Thomas on the cover of a now-defunct black political magazine called Emerge with the title, "Uncle Thomas."
"He used race when it was convenient to him," Curry says. "That was designed to put an all-white panel on the defensive."
Thomas, though, says it's not persecution if it's real.
In his memoir, he wrote about his confirmation hearing:
"As a child in the Deep South, I'd grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I'd been afraid of the wrong white people all along. My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony."
Horace Cooper, an attorney and commentator, says Thomas was only telling the truth when he invoked a "high-tech lynching."
He says many people haven't accepted that Thomas isn't the liberal crusader they think the successor to Marshall, the court's first black justice, should be.
"The law isn't about helping oppressed and downtrodden people get justice in a system tilted against them," says Cooper, whose columns appear on Townhall.com, a conservative online magazine. "Justice Thomas has been reminding people that it is not the role of the court to undo unfairness but to literally use the rules: Call a strike a strike and a foul a foul."
Thomas' pugnacious public image doesn't jibe with his personality, others say. He is the warmest and most accessible Supreme Court justice, they say, a man with a booming laugh who mentors young people.
In a 1998 address to a group of predominantly African-American lawyers, Thomas showed a more vulnerable side.
"It pains me deeply -- more deeply than any of you can imagine -- to be perceived by so many members of my race as doing them harm," he told the National Bar Association, the nation's largest group of lawyers, during a meeting in Memphis, Tennessee.
"All the sacrifice, all the long hours of preparation were to help, not to hurt," he said. "I have come here today not in anger or to anger."
Thomas' speech was greeted with scattered boos and little applause, news reports say.
Thomas' latest decisions may receive the same hostile reaction from his own community. But that won't stop Thomas from issuing his fiery opinions on race, in court and out of it, some say.
"It seems as if he's accepted the fact that he's out there alone and he's writing for the future, not today," says Coyle, author of "The Roberts Court."
The goals of that future aren't that much different from those of the past, Thomas suggests in his memoir. At the end of his book, Thomas wrote that he was visited by Marshall, now considered a civil rights icon, in 1991 shortly after Thomas was confirmed to the court.
Thomas tells him he would have marched with civil rights demonstrators if he had the courage.
"I did in my time what I had to," Thomas says Marshall told him. "You have to do in your time what you have to do."
Whether people agree with Thomas or not, one thing is apparent from the direction of this Supreme Court: Thomas is not so alone anymore.
This is his time.


text:
At Legal Advocates for Seniors and People with Disabilities (LASPD), we help provide seniors and people with disabilities the opportunity to live without constant harassment from creditors and debt collectors. We know that anyone can experience a financial hardship and struggling to pay bills is hard enough without being bothered and threatened.
The law protects income from Social Security, disability, veterans` benefits, and certain pensions. If these are your or your loved one`s main source of income, we may be able to stop the calls and letters.
In these situations, our lawyers will explain to creditors and debt collectors that the law protects your income and possibly your assets. Usually, we can get them to leave you alone so that you can have peace of mind.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
KFC vs Lee's: Finding the Real Kentucky Fried Chicken
"I think that the Colonel would agree that Lee's has made the family proud."
Growing up there were two fried chicken places in my hometown: Lee's Famous Recipe (known over the years as Famous Recipe and later just Lee's) and KFC (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken). KFC was Coca Cola while Lee's was RC Cola in that KFC had way better marketing and national distribution.
Partly due to this, the Colonel's chicken always had more status in my mind, and better real estate. It was the first business you hit when coming into town from the Tennessee side, which is usually the way you were headed for trips to the metropolis of Knoxville, Tennessee, our closest city. Lee's sat secluded on the highway in a scooped out section of the mountainside. It reminded me of an outcrop from an "old west" ghost town, an association that was furthered by the lack of cars in the parking lot.
And then there's the packaging—that red and white KFC bucket was pretty classy for fast food packaging. The Lee's yellow, brown, and red was 70s city, too dated for a modern 80s kid.
Clearly these childhood biases were formed on everything except the food. On a recent trip home, it was time to go beyond my superficial rankings and take a true Kentucky fried chicken challenge.
First, a Little Backstory
As it turned out, these two chicken slingers have more in common than locations in Middlesboro, Kentucky, and a couple of name changes over the years. I knew the KFC story pretty well, mainly because I had heard how my grandfather had passed up the opportunity to go into business with "Colonel" Harland Sanders when he was trying to get his little Corbin, Kentucky restaurant to go big pre-WWI.
Instead of begrudging the fried chicken empire that could have been mine to inherit, I was captivated by the story of my family's brush with fried chicken fame. (This may have also informed my restaurant bias.) But what I didn't know was that the Harland Sanders story, which was intertwined with my own family's history, was also a big part of the Lee's Famous Recipe story. In fact, the two restaurateurs were kin.
Lee Cummings was the Colonel's nephew. They were both born in the same Indiana town of Henryville, Indiana (not even Kentuckians!). When the success of the Colonel's Corbin restaurant, Sanders Court and Café, was threatened in the early 1950s by the travel thruway outside his door, which was being replaced by an Interstate bypass, he took little Lee on the road with him to sell fried chicken franchises.
According to Lee's, in three years they opened over 800 KFC restaurants together. After their franchise tear across the country, the Colonel, then in his 70s, sold the company to John Y Brown (future governor of Kentucky) in 1962. Just four years later, Lee, equipped with his Uncle Harland's trade secrets and his own "Famous Recipe" started a new chicken franchise.
The Menu Similarities
Upon learning the Lee's story, I suddenly felt justified in my long-held view of the place as a KFC knockoff—a budget version. Growing up, before fast food gimmicks like the Double Down and Fiery Grilled Wings, the Lee's and KFC menus were basically identical. And not just the items listed on the menu, but the items themselves.
The slaw was cut the same, the potatoes had the same smooth-as-wallpaper-paste texture, the gravy was identical in hue. Was nephew Lee riding the Colonel's white coattails, or maybe the integrity of the Original Recipe®was preserved in the newly established family business? The only way to uncover the truth was in the chicken.
The Chicken
Both Lee's and KFC fry under pressure, the Colonel's own creation. Cutting frying time by a third is what revolutionized his restaurant concept and made him a fast food pioneer. In addition to speed, the method is credited with producing moist-on-the-inside, crispy-on-the-outside pieces of chicken.
In terms of recipe deviation, we know all about the 11 herbs and spices at KFC. At Lee's, their birds are honey-dipped, hand-breaded, and fresh, never frozen. (This does not pertain specifically to Lee's, but if you've never had honey-dipped chicken, get some! The best restaurant fried chicken I've ever eaten was at the now closed Virginia House in Lexington, Virginia. They honey-dipped.)
Both places offer an "original" and crispy version of chicken. For this side-by-side, combination meals with both styles and mixed white and dark meat seemed the only way to go.
Side-by-Side Tasting
I remember only ever wanting the Original Recipe from KFC because the Extra Crispy was just too crunchy. That is no longer the case.
The Famous Recipe chicken from Lee's out-crunched the crispy batch at KFC. Lee's "Original" was a good exemplar of pressure fryer chicken because it held its juices and was covered in a crispy, but not overly crunchy batter.
I imagine the Colonel would rather have been hung up by his black string tie than to see how his Original Recipe® has devolved. The skin sagged off of stringy, slick meat and there wasn't one particle of coating that could be called crispy.
As for the KFC Extra Crispy™, it was a little better, but also simultaneously dry and greasy, a pressure-frying marvel that the Colonel would never have dreamed of. And while the texture was better, the flavor turned bland.
Lee's Crispy + Spicy, however, had a good kick and some legit heat, making it the best of the bunch. The breast meat at both places gets the stick-to-your-teeth chew quality that often plagues over-cooked white meat. But dark meat at KFC just translated to extra greasy meat.
So at KFC, the white was definitely the lesser of two evils whereas at Lee's, I would go all dark.
The Sides
The sides at both places remain nearly identical. Lee's sides were slightly better across the board. Lee's should get some additional props for keeping livers and gizzards on their menu, which is pretty badass by mainstream America fast food standards.
Price Comparison
Finally, Lee's is a better bargain. The three-piece meal at Lee's was $6.89 (pre-tax). At KFC, the same three-piece meal was $6.79, seemingly cheaper, but with an undisclosed $1.59 upcharge for the breast, bringing the subtotal up to $8.38. For inferior chicken.
The Winner?
KFC seems to have gone downhill while Lee's has maintained the status quo. If I am right, I can preserve the KFC I favored in my childhood, but recognize that it has veered from greatness. I think that the Colonel would agree that Lee's has made the family proud.
All products linked here have been independently selected by our editors. We may earn a commission on purchases, as described in our affiliate policy.


text:
In Shakespeare's most famous play, Hamlet, one of the characters, Laertes, is about to embark for Paris and receives from his father some wise advice:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Had our rulers heeded this sound advice proffered by the Bard half a millennium ago we would have been spared the disastrous budget crisis which many countries are suffering from. So many pixels have bounced on our screens on this topic that I feel I must bring my own contribution to the debate.
There's something wrong when people's livelihood is directly decided upon by the financial markets' diktats: cut people's wages and pensions so that you can repay us, bankers and bondholders tell our governments who fall over themselves to accommodate their (and our) true masters. Aren't these modern-day Shylocks (another Shakespearean reference) fat enough? or are they so greedy that they won't stop until they have sucked us dry?
If the weight of debt has become so intolerable that governments can't pay their loans back, well, then don't. I can hear some of my detractors shriek that debts are sacred and should be honored. This is disingenuous and pure hogwash (if hogwash can ever be considered as pure.) Every day companies and people go bankrupt and their creditors don't get paid, why should government be different? After all, the interest rates charged by bondholders reflect the risk they may not be paid: a country deemed solvent (such as Germany) can borrow at a low interest rate, a very risky one such as the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) have to pay much higher rates because they are deemed a riskier investment. So, investors have already been largely repaid by the bigger amounts they extract from governments. Isn't that enough? If I decide to invest in a bakery and customers don't show up, I lose my investment, right? Will anybody come and rescue me? Certainly not the government. That's the purest expression of the market, and I have no problem with that. Why then should bankers and bondholders, who are much wealthier than I, be spared this basic tenet of capitalism? They made a bad investment and should suffer the consequences remembering Shakespeare's words: "loan oft loses itself."
Of course, the consequence for governments is that after they default they will be unable to borrow money in the future. Well, that doesn't strike me as a bad thing at all. After all, wasn't the crisis precipitated by borrowing in the first place? I would argue that we should remove the cause of the problem, and the problem will be solved. As any household knows it's never a good idea to borrow, at least for a long period of time. Sure, when you face an emergency (an unexpected health bill, or a house renovation or student fees for your children) I can understand that you should borrow on an exceptional basis and pay back as soon as you can. But keep on borrowing and pay your debt through even more borrowing and we all know how it will end: in tears. "Never a borrower be," said the man from Stratford.
Now, in my first paragraphs I've been very critical of the financial markets, especially bankers and bondholders, and their responsibility in the current crisis. But intellectual honesty dictates that a big mitigating factor be acknowledged: they have not forced governments to borrow. Criticizing bankers for being leeches and greedy is like badmouthing Dracula for hanging around the blood bank. What else do you expect? But the point is that they haven't held a gun to government's head in order to force them to borrow. Governments have willingly thrown themselves into this vicious cycle which, like its private-consumer variety, is now ending in tears.
Why do governments borrow? If for exceptional reasons, such as a war, a natural disaster, or economic crisis such as a recession, that would be fine. But look at France, a country that has been blessed with no natural disaster in living memory, nor a war for 60 years, and just a few mild recessions. Why then has the French government been unable to balance the books for over 30 years? Yes, you've read right: the French government has been spending more than it's earned since the 1970's, and tears time has come: wage freezes, longer retirement date, cuts in valuable public services such as education, health (I still cannot understand why we are spending €60 billion in defense with no threat from any of our neighbors.) Look around you and most other governments in Europe are in a similar situation (at least, Germany had to pay for the huge one-off cost of Reunification; what has the French government to show for its big debt?)
They say that one should not waste a good crisis. Let's hope that our rulers finally heed the great Will's words that "borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry" and enforce a very simple and common-sense principle: if you cannot have the means of your ambitions, then have the ambitions of your means. If this precept is good for my family, it should be good for the government.


text:
2010 Acura ZDX Pricing Announed
Do you like this Story?
Acura Announces Pricing and On-Sale Information for 2010 ZDX
Provocative four-door sports coupe goes on-sale December 15
11/20/2009 – TORRANCE, Calif. -The all-new 2010 ZDX four-door sports coupe is set to go on-sale at Acura dealerships on December 15 with a manufacturers suggested retail price (MSRP) starting at $45,495, plus a destination and handling charge* of $810, Acura announced today.
Designed, developed and manufactured in North America, the ZDX has already generated a tremendous amount of excitement since its world debut at the New York Auto Show in April, thanks to its stunning coupe-like styling combined with flexible utility, a commanding presence and outstanding performance.
"Acura dealers are seeing strong interest from customers for the ZDX well before its official on-sale date,"
said Jeff Conrad, vice president of Acura sales.
"The ZDX is like nothing you have ever seen before from Acura."
The ZDX will be available in three trim packages, the well-equipped ZDX; ZDX with Technology Package; and the ZDX with Advance Package. Highlights of standard features on the ZDX include the world's longest panoramic glass roof, concealed rear door handles, and a hand-stitched leather dash, center console and door panels. Powering every ZDX is a 3.7-liter VTEC® V-6 that generates 300 horsepower and 270 lb-ft of torque while achieving a class-leading EPA-rated city/highway fuel economy of 16/23 mpg**. Standard on every ZDX is Acura's exclusive Super Handling All-Wheel Drive™ (SH-AWD®) system that provides outstanding handling as well as excellent all-season capability.
The ZDX with Technology Package adds an Acura Navigation System with Voice Recognition™, AcuraLink Real-Time Traffic™ with Traffic Rerouting™, AcuraLink Real-Time Weather™ with radar image maps, a full VGA display screen and an innovative new multi-view rear camera. Additionally, the Technology Package includes an upgraded Acura/ELS Surround® 415-watt Premium Audio System with a built-in 15-gigabyte hard disk drive (HDD) media storage system (that allows the ZDX owner to download and store up to 3,500 songs***), a GPS-linked, solar-sensing, dual-zone automatic climate control system and Keyless Access System (with Smart Entry and push button ignition).
In addition to the features found in the Technology Package, the Advance Package adds several premium technologies including a new blind spot information system (BSI), Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Collision Mitigating Braking System™ (CMBS™), an Integrated Dynamic System (IDS) active damper system, heated and ventilated front seats with Perforated Milano Premium Leather seating surfaces, premium brushed tricot headliner material and a sport steering wheel.
2010 Acura ZDX – Hi-res. Images
|ZDX with Technology Package
|ZDX with Advance Package
*MSRP excluding tax, license, registration, $810.00 destination charge and options. Dealer prices may vary.
**Based on 2010 EPA mileage estimates, reflecting new EPA fuel economy methods beginning with 2008 models. Use for comparison purposes only. Do not compare to models before 2008. Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.
***Approximate capacity based on an average size of 4.2 MB per song at a 128kbps bitrate


text:
While on our weekend away Gabe and I wondered into a few antique shops before stumbling on the find of the day. A Canon A1 circa 1980 with a 50 mm 1.4 for $40.
Today I saw my first roll of film from this camera. My expectations were low as the camera tech warned us that the lens was not functioning beyond f1.4. This, was told to us after I shot an entire roll.
We anticipated each frame to be drastically over-exposed. As you can see here, that is not the case. Maybe they had some magic machine that managed to save my film. Whatever the case, I'm happy.
Gabe is to blame for my rekindling love of film. Last year he picked up his Pentax and shot a few rolls. The images that came from that camera remain to be my favorite pictures of our kids – as you can imagine we have a few (hundred thousand) pictures of those three so that is saying quite a lot. Digital photography, in my opinion, has yet to capture the depth of color that is visible in film.
Wednesday we talked endive. I shot identical shots, one digital and one film. Compare.
film (scan, processing done by Panda Lab in Seattle. Besides some very minor cropping, I did no retouching)
Now granted I need to work on the manual focus of my new camera but don't you see the difference?
While I'm not planning on making the jump to film I do really love to have the option. Digital and film both have pros and cons and I get giddy shooting with either.
So I thought it might be fun to regularly share a few film shots with you. If you've been around here for awhile you may have noticed that I'm not so good at keeping up with blog series' that I start. So while I'd love to assure you there will be a film photo every Friday I wouldn't hold your breath. Especially since said camera is now in the shop for 3-5 days while she gets a full inspection. And also, said film camera requires film and processing that requires cash.
Regardless, I hope you enjoy them and most likely, there will be more – I just don't know when.
Happy Weekend!


text:
incl. 16% VAT, plus shipping fee
For the purchase of this item you'll receive 76 Blasts!
Find more LACUNA COIL
LACUNA COIL official women's V-neck Tee in black cotton, featuring "Mirror" design motif. This quality garment is available in a wide range of sizes from small through xx-large. 100% cotton.
NIGHTWISH, PARADISE LOST, EPICA, BLACKMORE'S NIGHT, SIRENIA, THE 69 EYES, CD Massaker, DANZIG, WITHIN TEMPTATION, AMORPHIS, ASP, OPETH, DRACONIAN, THERION, LEAVES' EYES, SUBWAY TO SALLY, TIAMAT, TARJA, SHADOWGARDEN, ANATHEMA
In order to provide you with an optimal website and so that we can continually improve it, we use cookies. By continuing
to use this website, you consent to our use of cookies. More information about cookies is available in our
privacy policy
/ Imprint.


text:
Second life styling by Keely Mistwood
Pain goes in, love comes out.
Second Life, virtual worlds and virtual reality
Discount Sales Event
SL Fashion, Things & Stuff
Second Life Stylings by SadyCat Littlepaws
Secondlife, Modeling, Mesh, Fashion
Just another SL fashion weblog
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood"
Male Second Life style, decor for the home, and my travels along the way
Life is short, make it sweet
I'm simply nothing more than what my name implies. Welcome to my world.
Insert Saralee jingle here..
I created this blog to share the wonderful world Second Life can be. Fashion, events, new sims..you name it and i write about it
a little bit of something on everything about Second Life® by Rival Destiny
Loooking in SL every day for the best things to show!
Take a peek inside my closet


text:
Financial Plans
We all need some sort of financial plan to achieve overall financial security.
Current and former public sector employees with ICMA-RC have access to two types of financial plans for step-by-step help with saving, investing, insurance, estate planning, and other financial goals.
Financial Plans – Goal-Specific | Comprehensive
Choose the plan that best matches your needs
- Goal-Specific – focuses in-depth on one or two financial goals.
- Comprehensive – suited for those who are approaching retirement or have complex financial situations.
Get Started
- Learn more about the available plans and how to sign up.
- Email firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Guitarist Domingo DeGrazia & violinist Beth Daunis create music that is distinctly Southwestern, even as they embrace influences from around the world.
Domingo DeGrazia's music
DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun events calendar
As the youngest son of the acclaimed artist Ted DeGrazia, Domino DeGrazia grew up being encouraged to explore his creative gifts. Beth Daunis found herself drawn to music, and the violin, from a very early age. As their conversation with Luis Carrion reveals, both come to the Southwestern desert from different places, but both connect with it in a vital way that is clearly expressed through their music.
Domingo and Beth visited the KUAZ Studios in March, 2010 to record a few of the tunes that are also featured on their new CD release, The Bluest Sky.


text:
This item is no longer available.
It's Time To Wake Up
Mystical Oneness and the Nine Aspects of Being is a step-by-step guide to enlightenment and beyond.
Amazon - Barnes and Noble - iTunes- Google Play - Kobo
It's Time To Be Happy
We live in divisive times.
It's Time Let Go
Imagine I have only seven days left to live.


text:
Colin Campbell
January 19, 2013
At the end of December, the Journal News published a detailed map cataloging all of the handgun permit owners in Westchester and Rockland counties, a move that caused much controversy among both gun rights and privacy advocates who felt the map placed figurative targets on the highlighted households. This evening, the publication announced it was was pulling the map, but claimed it was due to New York State's new gun control law, passed at the start of the week, rather than a response to criticism.
"Today The Journal News has removed the permit data from lohud.com. Our decision to do so is not a concession to critics that no value was served by the posting of the map in the first place," Journal News publisher Janet Hasson explained. "On the contrary, we've heard from too many grateful community members to consider our decision to post information contained in the public record to have been a mistake. Nor is our decision made because we were intimidated by those who threatened the safety of our staffers. We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower."
Because handgun permit information is now classified as private information, not subject to Freedom of Information Law requests, Ms. Hasson said that the map simply lost value to the newspaper's readers.
The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!


text:
An American flag is waved during the Opening Ceremony of the Atlanta 1996 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia.
Finally, a U.S. Olympic bid process that, from the outset, takes the long, strong view.
It only makes sense.
The two people in charge of the U.S. Olympic Committee — chairman Larry Probst and chief executive officer Scott Blackmun — are themselves typically calm and deliberate. But also thoroughly in charge. So it only makes logical sense to see them working this way through the early stages of what might be an American bid for the 2024 summer Games.
The USOC on Tuesday sent out a letter to the mayors of 35 cities that purports to gauge interest in each and any of their towns in making a 2024 bid.
The letter is a triple play.
It is, on one level, genuinely what it purports to be.
It's also a clever marketing and public-relations device that simultaneously buys time.
It keeps the notion alive in places like Tulsa or Minneapolis that the summer Olympics might, just might, happen there in 2024. Which makes the USOC look really, really good in places like Tulsa or Minneapolis and everywhere else around the United States, which is really, really good for the USOC.
Never say never but — let's be honest. The odds are long indeed of the summer Games happening in Tulsa, Minneapolis or anywhere on that list but a handful of cities — most likely San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York.
Chicago, the U.S. bid city in 2009 for 2016, would make anyone's short list as well, of course. But Chicago is not interested, the mayor's spokeswoman said Tuesday, according to the Chicago Tribune.
To win the summer Games, it takes a combination of factors. It takes, for instance, name value. It takes resource. It takes the story that will convince the International Olympic Committee.
The USOC doesn't have to decide anything right now. The International Olympic Committee's deadline for applying isn't until 2015; the 2020 vote isn't until 2017. More to the point, the IOC vote for 2020 is this September, and that gives the USOC time enough to graciously let the good people in Indianapolis, Baltimore, Rochester, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Columbus and more down gently.
New Orleans — which just hosted the Super Bowl — is not on the list of 35. The USOC made it plain, however, the list is not exclusive nor exhaustive; officials said they would be glad to talk 2024 with any reasonable party in the 50 states.
Note that while the USOC had previously expressed interest in exploring opportunities for both the 2024 summer and 2026 Winter Games, and that while those more interested in the 2026 Winter Games might say this letter merely is going out now because the 2024 deadlines are first — that is probably not the case.
The better bet is 2024. That has been clear since the USOC and IOC last year resolved their differences over a longstanding revenue dispute over marketing and broadcast shares, a deal that essentially cleared the way for the USOC to again begin considering Olympic bids.
The USOC letter inviting 2024 interest spells out some of the basic requirements for hosting a Games: 45,000 hotel rooms, an international airport, an Olympic village that sleeps 16,500 and has a 5,000-person dining hall, a workforce of up to 200,000 and more.
It does not — repeat, not — touch on the sensitive issue of the government guarantee the IOC demands from all bidders, a huge challenge for any U.S. bid given the complexities of the American local-state-federal private-public way. That's for way down the road.
Instead, it does broadly sketch out, albeit unmistakably and unequivocally, and to the USOC's credit, that the USOC is in charge.
"Our objective in this process," the letter says, "is to identify a partner city that can work with us to present a compelling bid to the IOC and that has the right alignment of political, business and community leadership.
"We are seeking a partner that understands the value of the Olympic Games and the legacy that can be created not only for their community, but for our country."
The USOC is seeking a partner that understands, fully and completely, that this is an Olympic bid campaign. This is not a campaign for school board, City Hall or even the U.S. Senate. There is nothing remotely like it in American politics.
In this niche, the USOC is the Olympic entity — by order of Congress — in the United States. If you, Mr. or Ms. Mayor, would like to play in the Olympic space, be crystal clear going in you will do so as the junior partner.
Politicians like credit and glory. There will be lots of credit and glory to go around if the bid wins. It may seem elemental but a bid wins by swaying votes within the IOC. There, success or failure truly rests with the USOC.
Also understand this: the United States has never put forward a truly national Olympic bid.
Such a bid holds the potential to be enormously powerful.
It's why, among other reasons, the USOC is taking its time now for 2024. Because it can.
"Now more than ever, we need to use the power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to encourage our youth to be active and engaged in sport," the letter says.
That right there is a tagline, and it would be shocking, indeed, if that line, in some form, doesn't show up in one of the bid-city videos in the summer of 2017. Whatever city it is.
Below are the 35 cities who received the letter from the U.S. Olympic Committee:
Phoenix, Arizona
Los Angeles, California
Sacramento, California
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Denver, Colorado
Washington, D.C.
Jacksonville, Florida
Miami, Florida
Orlando, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Indianapolis, Indiana
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan
Minneapolis, Minnesota
St. Louis, Missouri
Las Vegas, Nevada
New York, New York
Rochester, New York
Charlotte, North Carolina
Columbus, Ohio
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Portland, Oregon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Memphis, Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Austin, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Houston, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Seattle, Washington


text:
Making her first start of 2012, Turbulent Descent remained undefeated
at Betfair Hollywood Park with a victory in the $72,570 Desert Stormer
Handicap Sunday.
Idle since a poor performance in the Grade I La Brea Stakes last New
Year's Eve at Santa Anita, the 4-year-old daughter of Congrats took
charge late for her fourth win over Cushion Track.
Several lengths off the quick pace set by Izzy Rules, Turbulent
Descent raced in the clear after breaking from the outside, cruised up
under jockey David Flores to get within range of the leader at the
quarter pole and received a bit of left handed encouragement while
overtaking Izzy Rules with about a sixteenth of a mile to run.
Turbulent Descent, who earned the first Grade I of her career in the
2010 Hollywood Starlet, won for the seventh time in 11 starts.
Completing the six furlongs in 1:09.25, the 3-2 favorite paid $5, $3.40
and $2.60 while winning by 1 ¼ lengths.
Owned by a partnership that includes Blinkers On Racing Stable,
Robert Butler and William Strauss and trained by Mike Puype, Turbulent
Descent, who is out of the Forestry mare Roger's Sue, has earned
$901,640. She was bred in Florida by Ocala Stud.
"You want to see her come back to form because she's a brilliant
filly,'' said Puype. "Her campaign (in 2011) took its toll with four
travel trips. She's very partial to synthetic tracks and I'm just happy
to have her back in form.''
Flores, who also won the 2007 Desert Stormer with Selvatica, also
referred to Turbulent Descent's affinity for synthetic surfaces. In
addition to her four wins over Cushion Track, she won the Grade II
Beaumont by five lengths April 17, 2011 on Keeneland's Polytrack.
"The outside post worked out very well for her,'' said Flores. "She showed what she's made of today. I'm so confident in her.
"The main thing with her is the track. I can't say thanks enough to (Puype) and the owners.''
Izzy Rules, a winner of four in a row for owners George and Mary
Clare Schmitt and trainer Jeff Bonde while moving up the ladder –
between Dec. 4, 2011 and March 11 – paid $6 and $4.80 as the 6-1 fourth
She improved off her two previous starts –fifth place finishes in the Grade III Count Fleet Handicap April 14 at Oaklawn Park and Time To Leave Stakes May 6 at Betfair Hollywood Park.
The Peace Rules mare wound up 4 ½ lengths clear of 11-1 shot Mildly Offensive. The show price on Mildly Offensive was $4.40.
The two other Grade I winners in the Desert Stormer failed to fire.
Switch, who captured the 2010 La Brea and 2011 Santa Monica, was fourth,
a nose behind Mildly Offensive, while Teddy's Promise, the 2011 La Brea
upsetter, was fifth, defeating only Grade II winner Great Hot.
The off-the-board finish was the first for Switch in six attempts
over Cushion Track. Teddy's Promise had won four of her previous six
over the surface, including the Time To Leave.
In the day's second race, jockey Saul Arias guided 35-1 shot Magic Mama to a come-from-behind win. The longest price in the field of seven fillies and mares, the 4-year-old Successful Appeal filly provided Arias, 33, with his first win at Betfair Hollywood Park since he took the eighth race Nov. 18, 2007 with 18-1 outsider Steelin.


text:
Mortgage applications increase 7% for the week ending May 3By Brent Nyitray, CFA, MBA
Mortgage applications, as reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, rose 7% for the week ending May 3rd in spite of a five basis point increase in mortgage rates
Mortgage applications are primarily interest-rate driven. Applications typically increase as rates fall because home owners take advantage of the drop in rates to refinance. Conversely, they fall as rates rise. They also exhibit a seasonal pattern, correlating with purchase activity during the Summer selling season. This year, we are seeing strong origination volume growth, even as we see prepayment burnout. Prepayment burnout was not evident this week in the refinance index, which was up 8% even though the 30-year fixed rate mortgage rose 5 basis points to 3.48% last week. Prepayment burnout happens when interest rates oscillate in a narrow range for an extended period of time; each time rates return to a lower range, the number of prepayments (or refinances) drops. The mix of purchase activity versus refinance activity is tilting more towards purchases as the economy improves and refinance activity slows. This favors mortgage bankers who have a strong retail branching system, and works against lenders who go direct to the consumer.
Rates remain steady after falling in early April
The first week in April saw a big decline in interest rates as the March jobs report disappointed and the Bank of Japan launched its own version of quantitative easing (QE). During the week of April 26th, the 10-year government bond yield dropped another 4 basis points. In spite of a macro environment that is more favorable for purchases over refinances, both purchases and refis drove the volume increase last week.
Mortgage bankers had an extremely profitable 2012 as rates fell and real estate prices bottomed. Much of the activity over the past five years has been the "serial refinancer," or someone who has equity in their home and has taken advantage of refinance opportunities as rates have fallen. These borrowers are highly price-sensitive and tend to go with consumer direct lenders who offer low rates and reduced application fees. These consumer direct lenders will struggle in a purchase environment, and have been laying off staff in anticipation of a drop in volume.
The purchase market is much more relationship-driven. This market requires a branch system of local professionals who have a large network of realtors, real estate attorneys, etc. These bankers compete on the basis of price and service. It also means that there is competition for independent brokers and bankers. A mortgage banker can grow very quickly through M&A activity.
Big opportunities ahead for the mortgage REITs who focus on origination
The mortgage market is undergoing a massive transformation as the private label mortgage market returns. The House Financial Services Committee had a hearing this morning discussing how to revive the private label market. Ever since the bubble burst, mortgage origination has been almost exclusively government-driven. 50% of the credit risk of the entire U.S. mortgage market is borne by the U.S. Government. Originators typically do not hold their mortgages. They either sell them to the big banks or securitize them. Since the securitization market was dead, they had no outlet for non-agency mortgages. Redwood Trust (RWT) has been the only issuer of private label (securities backed by mortgages that are not government guaranteed) mortgage backed securities, and they have focused exclusively on high quality jumbo loans. Pennymac (PMT) noted on their conference call that they recently launched a jumbo product and are targeting a first securitization in Q3.
In the past month, we have seen private label deals from JP Morgan (JPM) and Everbank (EVER). We've also seen the first sub-prime deal since the bubble burst. The private label market was a $1.1 trillion per year market prior to 2008. Since then, approximately $1.5 billion has been issued in total. The return of the private label market opens the door for borrowers of all stripes who have been shut out because they do not qualify for an agency or government mortgage. This particularly helps out the REITs that focus on origination, but it also helps out those that invest in non-agency mortgage backed securities.


text:
Daily explosions in Iraq, massacres in Sudan, the Koreas staring at each other through artillery barrels, a Hobbesian war of all against all in eastern Congo--combat plagues human society as it has, perhaps, since our distant forebears realized that a tree limb could be used as a club. But here is something you would never guess from watching the news: War has entered a cycle of decline. Combat in Iraq and in a few other places is an exception to a significant global trend that has gone nearly unnoticed--namely that, for about 15 years, there have been steadily fewer armed conflicts worldwide. In fact, it is possible that a person's chance of dying because of war has, in the last decade or more, become the lowest in human history.
Five years ago, two academics--Monty Marshall, research director at the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University, and Ted Robert Gurr, a professor of government at the University of Maryland--spent months compiling all available data on the frequency and death toll of twentieth-century combat, expecting to find an ever-worsening ledger of blood and destruction. Instead, they found, after the terrible years of World Wars I and II, a global increase in war from the 1960s through the mid-'80s. But this was followed by a steady, nearly uninterrupted decline beginning in 1991. They also found a steady global rise since the mid-'80s in factors that reduce armed conflict--economic prosperity, free elections, stable central governments, better communication, more "peacemaking institutions," and increased international engagement. Marshall and Gurr, along with Deepa Khosla, published their results as a 2001 report, Peace and Conflict, for the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland. At the time, I remember reading that report and thinking, "Wow, this is one of the hottest things I have ever held in my hands." I expected that evidence of a decline in war would trigger a sensation. Instead it received almost no notice.
"After the first report came out, we wanted to brief some United Nations officials, but everyone at the United Nations just laughed at us. They could not believe war was declining, because this went against political expectations," Marshall says. Of course, 2001 was the year of September 11. But, despite the battles in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere that were ignited by Islamist terrorism and the West's response, a second edition of Peace and Conflict, published in 2003, showed the total number of wars and armed conflicts continued to decline. A third edition of the study, published last week, shows that, despite the invasion of Iraq and other outbreaks of fighting, the overall decline of war continues. This even as the global population keeps rising, which might be expected to lead to more war, not less.
In his prescient 1989 book, Retreat from Doomsday, Ohio State University political scientist John Mueller, in addition to predicting that the Soviet Union was about to collapse--the Berlin Wall fell just after the book was published--declared that great-nation war had become "obsolete" and might never occur again. One reason the Soviet Union was about to collapse, Mueller wrote, was that its leaders had structured Soviet society around the eighteenth-century assumption of endless great-power fighting, but great-power war had become archaic, and no society with war as its organizing principle can endure any longer. So far, this theory has been right on the money. It is worth noting that the first emerging great power of the new century, China, though prone to making threatening statements about Taiwan, spends relatively little on its military.
Last year Mueller published a follow-up book, The Remnants of War, which argues that fighting below the level of great-power conflict--small-state wars, civil wars, ethnic combat, and clashes among private armies--is also waning. Retreat from Doomsday and The Remnants of War are brilliantly original and urgent books. Combat is not an inevitable result of international discord and human malevolence, Mueller believes. War, rather, is "merely an idea"--and a really bad idea, like dueling or slavery. This bad idea "has been grafted onto human existence" and can be excised. Yes, the end of war has been predicted before, prominently by H.G. Wells in 1915, and horrible bloodshed followed. But could the predictions be right this time?
First, the numbers. The University of Maryland studies find the number of wars and armed conflicts worldwide peaked in 1991 at 51, which may represent the most wars happening simultaneously at any point in history. Since 1991, the number has fallen steadily. There were 26 armed conflicts in 2000 and 25 in 2002, even after the Al Qaeda attack on the United States and the U.S. counterattack against Afghanistan. By 2004, Marshall and Gurr's latest study shows, the number of armed conflicts in the world had declined to 20, even after the invasion of Iraq. All told, there were less than half as many wars in 2004 as there were in 1991.
Marshall and Gurr also have a second ranking, gauging the magnitude of fighting. This section of the report is more subjective. Everyone agrees that the worst moment for human conflict was World War II; but how to rank, say, the current separatist fighting in Indonesia versus, say, the Algerian war of independence is more speculative. Nevertheless, the Peace and Conflict studies name 1991 as the peak post-World War II year for totality of global fighting, giving that year a ranking of 179 on a scale that rates the extent and destructiveness of combat. By 2000, in spite of war in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda, the number had fallen to 97; by 2002 to 81; and, at the end of 2004, it stood at 65. This suggests the extent and intensity of global combat is now less than half what it was 15 years ago.
How can war be in such decline when evening newscasts are filled with images of carnage? One reason fighting seems to be everywhere is that, with the ubiquity of 24-hour cable news and the Internet, we see many more images of conflict than before. A mere decade ago, the rebellion in Eritrea occurred with almost no world notice; the tirelessly globe-trotting Robert Kaplan wrote of meeting with Eritrean rebels who told him they hoped that at least spy satellites were trained on their region so that someone, somewhere, would know of their struggle. Today, fighting in Iraq, Sudan, and other places is elaborately reported on, with a wealth of visual details supplied by minicams and even camera-enabled cell phones. News organizations must prominently report fighting, of course. But the fact that we now see so many visuals of combat and conflict creates the impression that these problems are increasing: Actually, it is the reporting of the problems that is increasing, while the problems themselves are in decline. Television, especially, likes to emphasize war because pictures of fighting, soldiers, and military hardware are inherently more compelling to viewers than images of, say, water-purification projects. Reports of violence and destruction are rarely balanced with reports about the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population not being harmed.
Mueller calculates that about 200 million people were killed in the twentieth century by warfare, other violent conflicts, and government actions associated with war, such as the Holocaust. About twelve billion people lived during that century, meaning that a person of the twentieth century had a 1 to 2 percent chance of dying as the result of international war, ethnic fighting, or government-run genocide. A 1 to 2 percent chance, Mueller notes, is also an American's lifetime chance of dying in an automobile accident. The risk varies depending on where you live and who you are, of course; Mueller notes that, during the twentieth century, Armenians, Cambodians, Jews, kulaks, and some others had a far higher chance of death by war or government persecution than the global average. Yet, with war now in decline, for the moment men and women worldwide stand in more danger from cars and highways than from war and combat. World Health Organization statistics back this: In 2000, for example, 300,000 people died in combat or for war-related reasons (such as disease or malnutrition caused by war), while 1.2 million worldwide died in traffic accidents. That 300,000 people perished because of war in 2000 is a terrible toll, but it represents just .005 percent of those alive in that year.
This low global risk of death from war probably differs greatly from most of the world's past. In prehistory, tribal and small-group violence may have been endemic. Steven LeBlanc, a Harvard University archeologist, asserts in his 2003 book about the human past, Constant Battles, that warfare was a steady feature of primordial society. LeBlanc notes that, when the aboriginal societies of New Guinea were first observed by Europeans in the 1930s, one male in four died by violence; traditional New Guinean society was organized around endless tribal combat. Unremitting warfare characterized much of the history of Europe, the Middle East, and other regions; perhaps one-fifth of the German population died during the Thirty Years War, for instance. Now the world is in a period in which less than one ten-thousandth of its population dies from fighting in a year. The sheer number of people who are not being harmed by warfare is without precedent.
Next consider a wonderful fact: Global military spending is also in decline. Stated in current dollars, annual global military spending peaked in 1985, at $1.3 trillion, and has been falling since, to slightly over $1 trillion in 2004, according to the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan Washington research organization. Since the global population has risen by one-fifth during this period, military spending might have been expected to rise. Instead, relative to population growth, military spending has declined by a full third. In current dollars, the world spent $260 per capita on arms in 1985 and $167 in 2004.
The striking decline in global military spending has also received no attention from the press, which continues to promote the notion of a world staggering under the weight of instruments of destruction. Only a few nations, most prominently the United States, have increased their defense spending in the last decade. Today, the United States accounts for 44 percent of world military spending; if current trends continue, with many nations reducing defense spending while the United States continues to increase such spending as its military is restructured for new global anti-terrorism and peacekeeping roles, it is not out of the question that, in the future, the United States will spend more on arms and soldiers than the rest of the world combined.
Declining global military spending is exactly what one would expect to find if war itself were in decline. The peak year in global military spending came only shortly before the peak year for wars, 1991. There's an obvious chicken-or-egg question, whether military spending has fallen because wars are rarer or whether wars are rarer because military spending has fallen. Either way, both trend lines point in the right direction. This is an extremely favorable development, particularly for the world's poor--the less developing nations squander on arms, the more they can invest in improving daily lives of their citizens.
What is causing war to decline? The most powerful factor must be the end of the cold war, which has both lowered international tensions and withdrawn U.S. and Soviet support from proxy armies in the developing world. Fighting in poor nations is sustained by outside supplies of arms. To be sure, there remain significant stocks of small arms in the developing world--particularly millions of assault rifles. But, with international arms shipments waning and heavy weapons, such as artillery, becoming harder to obtain in many developing nations, factions in developing-world conflicts are more likely to sue for peace. For example, the long, violent conflict in Angola was sustained by a weird mix of Soviet, American, Cuban, and South African arms shipments to a potpourri of factions. When all these nations stopped supplying arms to the Angolan combatants, the leaders of the factions grudgingly came to the conference table.
During the cold war, Marshall notes, it was common for Westerners to say there was peace because no fighting affected the West. Actually, global conflict rose steadily during the cold war, but could be observed only in the developing world. After the cold war ended, many in the West wrung their hands about a supposed outbreak of "disorder" and ethnic hostilities. Actually, both problems went into decline following the cold war, but only then began to be noticed in the West, with confrontation with the Soviet empire no longer an issue.
Another reason for less war is the rise of peacekeeping. The world spends more every year on peacekeeping, and peacekeeping is turning out to be an excellent investment. Many thousands of U.N., NATO, American, and other soldiers and peacekeeping units now walk the streets in troubled parts of the world, at a cost of at least $3 billion annually. Peacekeeping has not been without its problems; peacekeepers have been accused of paying very young girls for sex in Bosnia and Africa, and NATO bears collective shame for refusing support to the Dutch peacekeeping unit that might have prevented the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. But, overall, peacekeeping is working. Dollar for dollar, it is far more effective at preventing fighting than purchasing complex weapons systems. A recent study from the notoriously gloomy RAND Corporation found that most U.N. peacekeeping efforts have been successful.
Peacekeeping is just one way in which the United Nations has made a significant contribution to the decline of war. American commentators love to disparage the organization in that big cereal-box building on the East River, and, of course, the United Nations has manifold faults. Yet we should not lose track of the fact that the global security system envisioned by the U.N. charter appears to be taking effect. Great-power military tensions are at the lowest level in centuries; wealthy nations are increasingly pressured by international diplomacy not to encourage war by client states; and much of the world respects U.N. guidance. Related to this, the rise in "international engagement," or the involvement of the world community in local disputes, increasingly mitigates against war.
The spread of democracy has made another significant contribution to the decline of war. In 1975, only one-third of the world's nations held true multiparty elections; today two-thirds do, and the proportion continues to rise. In the last two decades, some 80 countries have joined the democratic column, while hardly any moved in the opposite direction. Increasingly, developing-world leaders observe the simple fact that the free nations are the strongest and richest ones, and this creates a powerful argument for the expansion of freedom. Theorists at least as far back as Immanuel Kant have posited that democratic societies would be much less likely to make war than other kinds of states. So far, this has proved true: Democracy-against-democracy fighting has been extremely rare. Prosperity and democracy tend to be mutually reinforcing. Now prosperity is rising in most of the world, amplifying the trend toward freedom. As ever-more nations become democracies, ever-less war can be expected, which is exactly what is being observed.
For the great-power nations, the arrival of nuclear deterrence is an obvious factor in the decline of war. The atomic bomb debuted in 1945, and the last great-power fighting, between the United States and China, concluded not long after, in 1953. From 1871 to 1914, Europe enjoyed nearly half a century without war; the current 52-year great-power peace is the longest period without great-power war since the modern state system emerged. Of course, it is possible that nuclear deterrence will backfire and lead to a conflagration beyond imagination in its horrors. But, even at the height of the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union never seriously contemplated a nuclear exchange. If it didn't happen then, it seems unlikely for the future.
In turn, lack of war among great nations sets an example for the developing world. When the leading nations routinely attacked neighbors or rivals, governments of emerging states dreamed of the day when they, too, could issue orders to armies of conquest. Now that the leading nations rarely use military force--and instead emphasize economic competition--developing countries imitate that model. This makes the global economy more turbulent, but reduces war.
In The Remnants of War, Mueller argues that most fighting in the world today happens because many developing nations lack "capable government" that can contain ethnic conflict or prevent terrorist groups, militias, and criminal gangs from operating. Through around 1500, he reminds us, Europe, too, lacked capable government: Criminal gangs and private armies roamed the countryside. As European governments became competent, and as police and courts grew more respected, legitimate government gradually vanquished thug elements from most of European life. Mueller thinks this same progression of events is beginning in much of the developing world. Government and civil institutions in India, for example, are becoming more professional and less corrupt--one reason why that highly populous nation is not falling apart, as so many predicted it would. Interstate war is in substantial decline; if civil wars, ethnic strife, and private army fighting also go into decline, war may be ungrafted from the human experience.
Is it possible to believe that war is declining, owing to the spread of enlightenment? This seems the riskiest claim. Human nature has let us down many times before. Some have argued that militarism as a philosophy was destroyed in World War II, when the states that were utterly dedicated to martial organization and violent conquest were not only beaten but reduced to rubble by free nations that initially wanted no part of the fight. World War II did represent the triumph of freedom over militarism. But memories are short: It is unrealistic to suppose that no nation will ever be seduced by militarism again.
Yet the last half-century has seen an increase in great nations acting in an enlightened manner toward one another. Prior to this period, the losing sides in wars were usually punished; consider the Versailles Treaty, whose punitive terms helped set in motion the Nazi takeover of Germany. After World War II, the victors did not punish Germany and Japan, which made reasonably smooth returns to prosperity and acceptance by the family of nations. Following the end of the cold war, the losers--the former Soviet Union and China--have seen their national conditions improve, if fitfully; their reentry into the family of nations has gone reasonably well and has been encouraged, if not actively aided, by their former adversaries. Not punishing the vanquished should diminish the odds of future war, since there are no generations who suffer from the victor's terms, become bitter, and want vengeance.
Antiwar sentiment is only about a century old in Western culture, and Mueller thinks its rise has not been given sufficient due. As recently as the Civil War in the United States and World War I in Europe, it was common to view war as inevitable and to be fatalistic about the power of government to order men to march to their deaths. A spooky number of thinkers even adulated war as a desirable condition. Kant, who loved democracy, nevertheless wrote that war is "sublime" and that "prolonged peace favors the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice and effeminacy." Alexis De Tocqueville said that war "enlarges the mind of a people." Igor Stravinsky called war "necessary for human progress." In 1895, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. told the graduating class of Harvard that one of the highest expressions of honor was "the faith … which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
Around the turn of the twentieth century, a counter-view arose--that war is usually absurd. One of the bestselling books of late-nineteenth-century Europe, Lay Down Your Arms!, was an antiwar novel. Organized draft resistance in the United Kingdom during World War I was a new force in European politics. England slept during the '30s in part because public antiwar sentiment was intense. By the time the U.S. government abolished the draft at the end of the Vietnam War, there was strong feeling in the United States that families would no longer tolerate being compelled to give up their children for war. Today, that feeling has spread even to Russia, such a short time ago a totalitarian, militaristic state. As average family size has decreased across the Western world, families have invested more in each child; this should discourage militarism. Family size has started to decrease in the developing world, too, so the same dynamic may take effect in poor nations.
There is even a chance that the ascent of economics to its pinnacle position in modern life reduces war. Nations interconnected by trade may be less willing to fight each other: If China and the United States ever fought, both nations might see their economies collapse. It is true that, in the decades leading up to World War I, some thought rising trade would prevent war. But today's circumstances are very different from those of the fin de siècle. Before World War I, great powers still maintained the grand illusion that there could be war without general devastation; World Wars I and II were started by governments that thought they could come out ahead by fighting. Today, no major government appears to believe that war is the best path to nationalistic or monetary profit; trade seems much more promising.
The late economist Julian Simon proposed that, in a knowledge-based economy, people and their brainpower are more important than physical resources, and thus the lives of a country's citizens are worth more than any object that might be seized in war. Simon's was a highly optimistic view--he assumed governments are grounded in reason--and yet there is a chance this vision will be realized. Already, most Western nations have achieved a condition in which citizens' lives possess greater economic value than any place or thing an army might gain by combat. As knowledge-based economics spreads throughout the world, physical resources may mean steadily less, while life means steadily more. That's, well, enlightenment.
In his 1993 book, A History of Warfare, the military historian John Keegan recognized the early signs that combat and armed conflict had entered a cycle of decline. War "may well be ceasing to commend itself to human beings as a desirable or productive, let alone rational, means of reconciling their discontents," Keegan wrote. Now there are 15 years of positive developments supporting the idea. Fifteen years is not all that long. Many things could still go badly wrong; there could be ghastly surprises in store. But, for the moment, the trends have never been more auspicious: Swords really are being beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. The world ought to take notice.


text:
Recipe No. 8
Hot Wing Stromboli
Hot Wing Stromboli
The taste is one-of-kind, an original interpretation of the classic buffalo wing flavor, perfectly blended. With over 20-years in the restaurant industry, the Cosgrove sisters, Peggy & Kathleen have finally perfected a mouth-watering hot sauce that has earned them accolades from adoring customers. Now, the unique and delicious flavor that has been captured and bottled is here for you to enjoy at home. Peggy's Marinade & Dipping Sauce is ready to use right out of the bottle. Be bold, discover new uses for buffalo flavor and turn your favorite recipes into something special.


text:
Defeat a wake up call, says Osieck
SOCCEROOS coach Holger Osieck says defeat by Scotland might prove to be a good thing ahead of the crucial World Cup qualifiers to come.
The German was not happy with the team's performance in the 3-1 defeat in Edinburgh, but said it could just be the kick up the backside his players needed.
"I consider it a wake-up call and we have to improve a lot in order to be ready for the upcoming qualifiers," Osieck said. "It's never good to lose but maybe it's come at the right time."
Yesterday morning's defeat means the Socceroos have not won in four internationals' - their worst run since 2000.
"Our display today was very, very... basic, let's call it that," Osieck said after the match.
"Even during half-time when we talked about it we didn't actually change.
"I don't know the reason but the bottom line is we played very poorly today."
Scotland's goals came from Jordan Rhodes in the first half, an unfortunate own goal from debutant Jason Davidson and a third from Ross McCormack, both in the second half.


text:
This site uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. To continue and to comply with the new e-Privacy directive, we need your consent to set the cookies. Learn more.
Evo Glass
iPhone 6 / 6S
Evo Glass
iPhone 6 / 6S
Tempered glass with built-in scratch resistance, designed to reach every little bit of your screen, banish marks and provide the best protection yet. Plus, precise alignment guides will ensure the perfect fit.
- Scratch resistant
- Clear and responsive
- Precise alignment applicator included
Remove custom case
Tech Spec
Artikelnummer:Barcode:Measurements:Tiefe: (mm) / (inches)Breite: (mm) / (inches)Höhe: (mm) / (inches)Weight: (g) / (lbs)Material:
Schreiben Sie Ihre eigene Kundenmeinung
Choose a different device


text:
Twitter's View of the Boston Marathon Bombings (Video)
These days, when events occur in the world, they also occur on Twitter. That was certainly the case Monday, as news of the devastating Boston Marathon bombing broke, and the microblogging service was flooded with information about it. Onstage at D: Dive Into Mobile Tuesday afternoon, Twitter's VP of product Michael Sippey talked about the spike in Boston-related tweets following the tragedy, and how Twitter's community parses good information from bad.


text:
Hearty Research on Concord Grape Juice
Studies Highlight Concord Grape Juice as Beneficial to Heart Health and Possibly More
CONCORD, Mass.,November 15, 2010 - According to recent scientific papers published in Nutrition Reviews1 and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,2 consumers can take steps to support heart health by incorporating grape-based products into their diets.
The Heart of America
More than half of Americans cite heart health as their top health concern.3 Because of this, Americans continually seek ways to promote a healthy heart, often through dietary choices. New studies reveal that grapes and grape products, most notably Concord grape juice, may play a beneficial role in heart health as part of an overall nutritious diet.
Concord Grapes and Heart Health
In a review recently published by Nutrition Reviews, Lisa Vislocky and Maria Fernandez reviewed several studies exploring the role of Concord grapes on health. In particular, the authors highlighted research supporting the beneficial role of grapes on maintaining healthy, flexible arteries (endothelial function) and managing the effects of "bad" cholesterol to help keep arteries clear of plaque (LDL oxidation).
Additionally, in a clinical study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mustali Dohadwala and team examined the role of Concord grape juice in blood pressure regulation. Study participants included 64 adult men and women with an early stage of high blood pressure classified as either pre-hypertension or stage 1 hypertension. This study showed that drinking Concord grape juice helped lower nocturnal or night-time blood pressure (an indicator of healthy blood pressure regulation), and had a beneficial impact on blood sugar levels compared to a calorie-matched, grape-flavored drink. While this is exciting, it is important to note that more science is needed to confirm these findings, and that the researchers found no significant effect on blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period.
In addition to the growing body of evidence suggesting that 100% Concord grape juice contributes to heart health, the review by Vislocky and Fernandez also outlined emerging areas of grape research, including cognitive function. As the brain ages, it becomes more vulnerable to free radicals which can hinder cognitive function. Recent studies have suggested that polyphenol-containing Concord grape juice may help support cognitive function in older adults with age-related memory decline.4 While early research in this area appears promising, the science is preliminary and further exploration is needed to determine if Concord grape juice can have an effect on cognitive health.
Expert Outlook
Maria Fernandez, of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Connecticut, Storrs said that "Grape products can be a wise choice for a healthy lifestyle. Grapes and grape juice are easy ways to take a proactive step in maintaining health."
- Vislocky LM and Fernandez ML. Biomedical Effects of Grape Products. Nutr Rev. 2010. 68(11):656-670.
- Dohadwala MM, Hamburg NM, Holbrook M, Kim BH, Duess M-A, Levit A, Titas M, Chung WB, Vincent FB, Caiano TL, Frame AA, Kearney Jr. JF and Vita JA. Effect of Grape Juice on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Pre-hypertension and Stage 1 Hypertension. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010. 92(5):1052-1059.
- International Food Information Council. Consumer Attitudes Toward Functional Foods/Foods for Health. Washington, DC. 2007. www.foodinsight.org/Content/6/IFICExecSumSINGLE_vF2.pdf
- Krikorian R, Nash TA, Shidler MD, Shukitt-Hale B and Joseph JA. Concord grape juice supplementation improves memory function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Br J Nutr. 2010. 103(5):730-734.


text:
Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures - Randomized Trial (SUPeR)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802281
Recruitment Status : Active, not recruiting
First Posted : March 1, 2013
Last Update Posted : May 1, 2019
- Study Details
- Tabular View
- No Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
The primary purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of two transvaginal apical suspension strategies for uterovaginal prolapse: a mesh augmented hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS). The primary aim is to determine whether treatment success in women who undergo the above strategies differ at time points through 3 years.
A supplemental study investigates anterior vaginal wall movement resulting from descent or rotation of the vaginal apex and/or anterior vaginal elongation, in women in both of the study arms of SUPeR.
|Condition or disease
|Uterovaginal Prolapse
|Procedure: Uterosacral ligament suspension Procedure: Uphold® LITE
|Not Applicable
The study population will be adult women (>21 years of age) with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse at or beyond the hymen who desire vaginal surgical management. This study is intended to be done only on women who have completed child-bearing and have an inactive uterus, defined as amenorrhea for 1 year. Therefore women will be postmenopausal or will have amenorrhea from an endometrial ablation. Amenorrhea caused from exogenous steroids, or hypothalamic disorders will not allow inclusion.
Participants will be obtained from the clinic population of each of the eight Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) sites. Participants will be randomly assigned to have either vaginal hysterectomy and USLS or mesh hysteropexy suspension for treatment of their uterovaginal prolapse. The surgical assignment will be revealed in the operating room, after the participant is under anesthesia.
Participants will be followed for at least 36-months (3-years) post surgery and up to a maximum of 60-months (5-years). Follow-up data will be obtained during in-person clinic visits, and study staff who are masked to the surgical assignment will be the primary person who obtain follow-up data. Although the primary study outcome does not depend on masked participants and blinded evaluators, several important participant reported secondary aims are subject to reporting bias if the participant is aware of her study assignment. Therefore, study participants, coordinators, and nurses will be masked to the study assignment. Study surgeons and anatomic evaluators will be unmasked. Evaluators conducting the POPQ exam will be a co-investigator, fellow or other qualified nurse who did not perform the study surgery.
Surgical failure rates will be compared using survival analysis approaches appropriate for interval censored data (classic log-rank tests and survival models using a generalized linear model approach with a complementary log-log link) and secondary outcomes will be reported as rates in each group or as group means and evaluated with the appropriate parametric or nonparametric statistical tests.
Throughout the study, the PFDN Data Safety and Monitoring Committee (DSMB) will review study data and decide if the study can or cannot continue. Additionally, this study will adhere to the CONSORT guidelines for performing and reporting randomized controlled trials (Begg et al 1996). Women who are eligible but decline enrollment will be characterized in a manner consistent with CONSORT requirements.
|Study Type :
|Interventional (Clinical Trial)
|Actual Enrollment :
|183 participants
|Intervention Model:
|Parallel Assignment
|Double (Participant, Care Provider)
|Primary Purpose:
|Official Title:
|A Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension vs. Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension
|Study Start Date :
|April 2013
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :
|April 2020
|Estimated Study Completion Date :
|April 2020
Active Comparator: Hysteropexy
Uphold® LITE
Procedure: Uphold® LITE
The Uphold® procedure used in this protocol is a modification of the technique described by Vu and Goldberg.
Active Comparator: Hysterectomy and USLS
Vaginal hysterectomy and uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS)
Procedure: Uterosacral ligament suspension
The USLS procedure used in this protocol is a modification of the technique described by Shull.
- Time to treatment failure. Treatment failure is defined as any one of: Report of bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms (definition below), Re-treatment for prolapse (surgery or pessary), or Any prolapse measure (Ba, C, Bp) is beyond the hymen (i.e. >0cm) [ Time Frame: Baseline and then every six months post-surgery up to a maximum of 60 months. (i.e. 6mo, 12mo, 18mo, 24mo, 30mo, 36mo, 42mo, 48mo, 54mo, 60mo) ]
Bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms = positive response to Question 3 of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory - 20 (PFDI-20): Do you usually have a bulge or something falling out that you can see or feel in your vaginal area? AND any degree of bother.
Participants not considered a treatment failure for the primary outcome will be considered a treatment success.
- Efficacy Outcomes [ Time Frame: Baseline and then every six months post-surgery up to a maximum of 60 months (i.e. 6 mo, 12 mo, 18 mo, 24 mo, 30 mo, 36 mo, 42 mo, 48 mo, 54 mo, 60 mo) ]
The efficacy of the study surgeries will be determined via collecting anatomic and functional data on participants, at the above mentioned time periods. Anatomic data will be obtained via the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POPQ) exam. Functional data will be obtained via a number of participant-completed measures. Specific secondary outcome measures are:
- Patient perceived improvement in prolapse - PGI-I
- Prolapse change - prolapse symptoms score from POPDI-6 of the PFDI-20
- Urinary function post-operatively - UDI-6 of the PFDI-20
- Recovery of urinary function post-operatively - duration of catheterization
- Urinary function post-operatively - the Hunskaar Incontinence Severity Index
- Sexual function post-operatively - the PISQ-IR
- Post-operative bowel function-Colorectal - CRADI-8 of the PFDI-20
- General quality of life - SF-12
- Pelvic-organ related quality of life - PFIQ -7
- Functional activity - Functional Activity Assessment Scale
- Safety [ Time Frame: Baseline and then every six months post-surgery up to a maximum of 60 months (i.e. 6 mo, 12 mo, 18 mo, 24 mo, 30 mo, 36 mo, 42 mo, 48 mo, 54 mo, 60 mo) ]The safety of the study surgeries will be determined via collection of data on adverse events, such as mesh related complications (mesh exposure in the vagina, mesh erosion in the viscera, and suture exposure in the vagina and in the viscera), occurrence of additional surgery, and categorization of intra- and post-operative complications using a modification of the Dindo Classification.
- Predictors of poor outcomes [ Time Frame: Baseline and then every six months post-surgery up to a maximum of 60 months (i.e. 6 mo, 12 mo, 18 mo, 24 mo, 30 mo, 36 mo, 42 mo, 48 mo, 54 mo, 60 mo) ]Covariates of advance prolapse, age, obesity, smoking, menopausal status, estrogens, primary versus recurrent prolapse, and physical and functional activity as measured by the Functional Activity Scale will be evaluated to determine if they predict higher treatment failure.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis [ Time Frame: Baseline and then every six months post-surgery up to a maximum of 60 months (i.e. 6 mo, 12 mo, 18 mo, 24 mo, 30 mo, 36 mo, 42 mo, 48 mo, 54 mo, 60 mo) ]The cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from a payer perspective and will be expressed as incremental cost required to produce one additional unit of quality-adjusted life year (QALY). At the above time points, data will be collected on: 1) each participant's use of medical and non-medical resources related to urologic or gynecologic conditions, 2) direct and indirect costs of the treatment of each of the study surgeries, and 3) participants preference for health states for improvement in pelvic organ prolapse will be estimated.
- Body Image [ Time Frame: Baseline and then every six months post-surgery up to a maximum of 60 months (i.e. 6 mo, 12 mo, 18 mo, 24 mo, 30 mo, 36 mo, 42 mo, 48 mo, 54 mo, 60 mo) ]Comparison of body image scores between participants who receive each type of study surgery will be conducted. This comparison will be made from data collected via the body image scale (BIS).
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|21 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
|Sexes Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Inclusion Criteria:
- Women aged 21 or older who have completed child -bearing
- Prolapse beyond the hymen (defined as Ba, Bp, or C > 0 cm)
- Uterine descent into at least the lower half of the vagina (defined as point C> -TVL/2) )
- Bothersome bulge symptoms as indicated on question 3 of the PFDI-20 form relating to 'sensation of bulging' or 'something falling out'
- Desires vaginal surgical treatment for uterovaginal prolapse
- Available for up to 60 month follow-up
- Amenorrhea for the past 12 months from either menopause or endometrial ablation
- Not pregnant, not at risk for pregnancy or agree to contraception if at risk for pregnancy (only applicable to the rare endometrial ablation patient)
- Eligible for no cervical cancer screening for at least 3 years
Exclusion Criteria:
- Previous synthetic material (placed vaginally or abdominally) to augment POP repair
- Known previous uterosacral or sacrospinous uterine suspension
- Known adverse reaction to synthetic mesh or biological grafts; these complications include but are not limited to erosion, fistula, or abscess
- Chronic pelvic pain
- Pelvic radiation
- Cervical elongation- defined as an expectation that the C point would be Stage 2 or greater postoperatively if a hysteropexy was performed. (Note: cervical shortening or trachelectomy is not an allowed intraoperative procedure within the hysteropexy treatment group).
- Women at increased risk of cervical dysplasia requiring cervical cancer screening more often than every 3 years (e.g. HIV+ status, immunosuppression because of transplant related medications, Diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure in utero, or previous treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2, CIN3, or cancer)
- Uterine abnormalities (symptomatic uterine fibroids, polyps, endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial cancer, or any uterine disease that precluded prolapse repair with uterine preservation in the opinion of the surgeon
- Indication for ovarian removal (adnexal mass, BRCA 1/2 positivity, family history of ovarian cancer)
- Current condition of amenorrhea caused by exogenous sex steroids or hypothalamic conditions.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01802281
|United States, Alabama
|University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
|Birmingham, Alabama, United States, 35249
|United States, California
|University of California at San Diego, UCSD Women's Pelvic Medicine Center
|La Jolla, California, United States, 92037-0974
|United States, New Mexico
|University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
|Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States, 87131
|United States, North Carolina
|Duke University, Duke Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery
|Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27707
|United States, Ohio
|Cleveland Clinic, Department OB/GYN
|Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44195
|United States, Pennsylvania
|University of Pennsylvania
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19104
|Magee-Women's Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
|Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15213
|United States, Rhode Island
|Brown/ Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Center for Women's Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery
|Providence, Rhode Island, United States, 02903
|Principal Investigator:
|Charles W Nager, MD
|University of California at San Diego, UCSD Women's Pelvic Medicine Center
|Principal Investigator:
|Anthony G Visco, MD
|Duke University, Duke Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery
|Principal Investigator:
|Heidi Harvie, MD
|University of Pennsylvania
|Principal Investigator:
|Marie Paraiso, MD
|Cleveland Clinic, Department OB/GYN
|Principal Investigator:
|Charles R Rardin, MD
|Brown/ Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Center for Women's Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery
|Principal Investigator:
|Holly E Richter, PhD, MD
|University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
|Principal Investigator:
|Yuko Komesu, MD
|University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
|Principal Investigator:
|Halina M Zyczynski, MD
|Magee-Women's Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
|Principal Investigator:
|Sonia Thomas, DrPH
|RTI International
|Responsible Party:
|Marie Gantz, Principal Investigator, RTI International
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|First Posted:
|March 1, 2013 Key Record Dates
|Last Update Posted:
|May 1, 2019
|Last Verified:
|April 2019
|Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
|Plan to Share IPD:
Pathological Conditions, Anatomical