text:
You must be a subscriber of Panther247 to post. 7-Day Free Trial
You have no favorite boards.
Saw this posted on TOS. I'm not sure how precise his data is regarding fan support, but I think the overall premise is correct, which is why this stuff doesn't worry me. I also found it interesting that Pitt comes in at 37th nationally in fan support.
The first question about that article is, who does a google search for "college football"?
"First, I estimated the number of college football fans in each of the United States' 210 media markets, multiplying their populations by a factor based on the number of people who conducted Google searches for the term "college football" in each area."
Yeah, I found that to be a little suspect as well, but apparently this guy is pretty good when it comes to statistical analysis and correctly predicted the presidential election most recently.
The overall message I took from it is this, adding Rutgers does nothing for the Big Ten unless they can get the cable provider to pick up their network on their basic package. Well if his analysis is in the ball park, and Rutgers only has a 3% market share in New York, then this could end up being a swing and a miss. Rutgers will bring in little to no revenue, but get a 1/14 share. If this continues for any length of time, it's not too difficult to imagine some other programs, like Penn State for example, getting disgruntled.
This post was edited by Vedderman87 on 11/21/2012 at 9:25 AM
Here is another interesting article.
The lies of conference expansion and the sad truth of college football.
www.grantland.com247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports


text:
The recent renovation of the Musashino University Library in Tokyo strips the idea of the library down to its most basic element–the bookshelf. That is, the library is constructed as one giant bookshelf, filling every inch of wall-space with more than 100,000 accessible volumes (there are another 100,000 volumes stored in closed-stacks in the basement). As you can see from the images below, the current collection only fills part of the shelves, so there is plenty of room to grow the collection.
The Bookshelf Library
Pingback: The Bookshelf Library, Mushashino University Library, Tokyo | SocialLibrary | Scoop.it
Pingback: Rak Buku Raksaksa di Perpustakaan Musashino University di Tokyo « AkuBuku
Pingback: Book Links 10-4-12 « Loose Leaf Bound
Pingback: The Week's Most Popular Posts: September 29 – October 5, 2012 | BOOK RIOT
Pingback: Una biblioteca en una estantería « Vincenzo Sastre
Pingback: Aracely Warrior

subset: commoncrawl


text:
CBRNE Terrorism Prevention Programme
CBRNE terrorism poses a clear threat to public health and safety, national security and economic and political stability on a global level. Accordingly, the prevention of such incidents is of the highest priority.
The threat of CBRNE terrorism is evolving and, with it, the risk of incidents intended to maximize the number of victims on a global scale. We know that terrorist groups are working hard to acquire CBRNE materials and the expertise to use them in their operations.
At INTERPOL, our CBRNE Terrorism Prevention Programme specializes in the prevention of the different aspects of CBRNE.
About the programme
The INTERPOL methodology for countering the CBRNE terrorist threat consists of three main pillars:
- Intelligence analysis for police services;
- Programmes preventing the illegal dispersal of CBRNE materials;
- Responding to and investigating CBRNE threats and malicious incidents.
We produce a monthly intelligence report covering all aspects of CBRNE terrorism, shared with our member countries. The reports provide information about incidents involving CBRNE materials, emerging threats, trends, trafficking routes and methods.
Our activities follow established practices and processes for intelligence research, analysis and production, in line with those used in the international community. We continually strive to improve our reports, making them increasingly useful and relevant for the law enforcement community.
Given the gravity of a CBRNE terrorist attack and its consequences, prevention constitutes an essential element in both national and international strategies.
In order to help prevent such attacks, we carry out the following activities:
- Conduct threat assessments and analysis;
- Work to increase the level of awareness of all national law enforcement agencies;
- Deliver training sessions in order to increase law enforcement capabilities;
- Provide prevention methodologies for use by member countries.
INTERPOL launched Operation Fail Safe – an initiative to counter nuclear smuggling – at the Nuclear Security Summit in 2012.
Operation Fail Safe supports the international law enforcement community in tracking the transnational movement of individuals involved in the illicit trafficking of radioactive or nuclear materials.
In the event of a terrorist attack, members of the programme can serve as part of an Incident Response Team deployed by INTERPOL to assist a member country's authorities in investigations.
Working in partnership
Due to the complex nature of CBRNE prevention and response, a multi-disciplinary approach is essential. Action needs to be coordinated at a national governmental level, ensuring close cooperation and information exchange between the various ministries, agencies and institutions involved: from those specialized in CBRNE materials regulation and security, to public health and law enforcement.
This inter-agency approach needs to be extended on an international level. At INTERPOL, we work in the global arena, connecting our worldwide network of member countries and maintaining close partnerships with other international agencies that are specialized in the CBRNE field.
One of INTERPOL's key partners in its efforts to combat CBRNE Terrorism is the European Police Agency, EUROPOL.
INTERPOL's CBRNE Terrorism Prevention Programme, located at its General Secretariat in Lyon, works in close collaboration with the EUROPOL CBRN Unit, located in The Hague, on all CBRN issues pertaining to the European Union.
INTERPOL is an observing international organization at the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction which is an initiative by 26 countries to prevent terrorists from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction.
INTERPOL also supports the EU CBRN Centres of Excellence Initiative as well as the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540.
United Nations
Since its initiation in late 2010, INTERPOL's CBRNE Terrorism Prevention Programme has been working closely with both the 1540 Committee and the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs in order to actively support the implementation of the Resolution's guidelines.
UNSC Resolution 1540 was conceived as the legal cornerstone of the international mechanism established to prevent non-state actors and terrorists from accessing CBRNE materials in order to use them in perpetrating their malicious acts. INTERPOL's support for this goal is highly focused on the implementation of real and pragmatic tools across law enforcement agencies around the world.
Coordination between activities led by INTERPOL's CBRNE Programme and those of the 1540 Committee is achieved through bilateral communication, but also larger international frameworks.
Useful Links
Fiche pratique
Investigating and preventing chemical and explosives terrorism focus of INTERPOL training in Georgia
INTERPOL exercise boosts radiological and nuclear terrorism response capacity in Ukraine and Belarus
Améliorer l'efficacité des enquêtes menées au niveau régional sur le terrorisme radiologique et nucléaire au centre d'une conférence INTERPOL à Panama
La visite de l'Ambassadrice américaine Jenkins à INTERPOL axée sur la coopération en vue de réduire les menaces mondiales
INTERPOL apporte son soutien à la réunion du réseau européen spécialisé dans le domaine CBRNE, organisée à Chypre
INTERPOL crée une nouvelle unité pour aider les pays membres à lutter contre les actes de terrorisme commis au moyen d'armes chimiques ou d'explosifs
Le rôle d'INTERPOL dans la lutte contre le trafic de matières nucléaires reconnu par le Sommet sur la sécurité nucléaire
Responding to biological incidents focus of INTERPOL pilot training course in Singapore
Une conférence internationale pour renforcer la coopération dans la lutte contre le trafic de matières nucléaires
International table top exercise to prevent chemical weapon terror attacks hosted by the Netherlands
Subvention de la Fondation Sloan : un coup d'accélérateur à l'initiative mondiale d'INTERPOL contre le terrorisme radiologique et nucléaire
INTERPOL organise en Pologne une formation aux enquêtes sur les incidents radiologiques et nucléaires afin de promouvoir un plan d'action commun
Un sommet mondial INTERPOL fixe le cap de la collaboration et de la prévention dans la lutte contre le terrorisme radiologique et nucléaire
Project Geiger Report Form for National Central Bureaus
Authorized users can report a nuclear or radiological incident or event, such as a theft, loss, detection or seizure in two ways:
- Via the online form. This will be sent directly to the INTERPOL General Secretariat.
- Via the offline form. This can be downloaded and emailed to other agencies and organizations as necessary, as well as the INTERPOL General Secretariat.
All reports must be either copied to or sent by the National Central Bureau.


text:
WHAT are you on?
WHAT are you on?
They call me "Nana"
Yes what are you on??????????
My DeviantArt Page
Jeez yall ask like you want some!
I'm telling you... I hear it like 2-3 times a day.
now if you'll excuse me..
uuummmmmm.... uuuuummmmm.....
man that's creepy.
I think he is off his meds
You just worry about your treadmill, I'll worry about the meds.
Last edited by Tampa; 06-11-2005 at 05:38 PM.
or just read and don't answer.
They call me "Nana"
or insult me, it's cool
are we aloud to insult now?
Tampa, sometimes you have me rolling on the floor is stitches. And sometimes I just want to smack you.
They call me "Nana"
sometimes I want to call the men in the little white coats for you....you are one strange dude..funny usually but still strange
btw ....what medium is that odd picture made out of...interesting technique
It's a Disney thing. If you understood, your only question would be "can I go?"
FOR MORE INFO CLICK THIS LINK http://inside.unicefusa.org/goto/Meghyn
I'm still waiting for an answer.
I answered you dear. I said, "Nobody."
They call me "Nana"
© 2012 WDWRadio™ and Second Star Media™
Please note that WDW Radio, Lou Mongello, and Second Star Media are in no way part of, endorsed or authorized by, or affiliated with the Walt Disney Company or its affiliates. Visit Disney's official web site at Disney.com - As to Disney artwork/properties: © Disney - Disclosure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2


text:
recipe reviews for:
"A tropical tart with pineapple and coconut. These are pretty and delicious."
My Profile | Cooks I Like Reviews | Photos | Recipes | Menus | Blog
Everything you need to party like a leprechaun.
New for spring! Good-for-you food you'll love to eat.
Delicious recipes, party ideas, and helpful cooking tips! Get a year of Allrecipes magazine for just $9.99!
See how to make tender and sweet grilled chicken kabobs.
This 600-calorie meal is full of tropical and Asian-infused delights.
See how to make deliciously decadent no-bake treats.


text:
Develop your Mindfulness meditation practice to be more present, focused, calm, and joyful, through individual or group training.
Welcome to MindSpace, a center for psychotherapy, mindfulness meditation, and coaching based in Montreal. Psychologist Dr. Joe Flanders founded Mindspace to provide evidence-based tools for lifting mood, reducing stress and anxiety, and promoting health, well-being, and performance.
The MindSpace approach is firmly grounded in the science of well-being: it uniquely combines scientifically-validated techniques such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). These techniques develop relaxation and focus in the now, helping to produce positive results in the short-term and life management skills for the long-term.
Mindspace's team of experts, including doctoral-level clinical psychologists, come from a variety of backgrounds in psychology and come together in their commitment to supporting meaningful life changes using the best scientifically-validated tools available. They bring their unique know-how, experience, and understanding to the one-on-one and group programs MindSpace offers. In addition, MindSpace is plugged into a rich network of health professionals around Montreal, who share a similar approach.


text:
Price: $0.75
Product ID : pbl_4322-01125-40B
Purchase |
Extended-length replacement black "acorn head" (rounded top) leg bolts for Williams, Bally, Data East, Sega, and Stern pinball machines.
These bolts are 1/4" (3 threads) longer than the standard leg bolt to accommodate the extra length needed for leg protectors, drink caddies, and leg plates with pim nuts.
Wms/Bally reference #4322-01125-40B, Data East/Sega/Stern reference #231-5001-01B.


text:
Forums >General Running>RWOL Refugees --
Muddling through
Joining the dark side... Too lonely over at RW with everyone gone. So I'm here... I need a hug.
Welcome Roy. The action is in the user groups. You'll find your RW BF friends and others in
Beginners and Beyond
Beginners and Beyond Miles Game
Also browse the other user groups. There are lots of interesting ones.
2014 Goals: Run first trail ultra, first 100K, and see what I can do in a 24-Hour race
just a simple cat
{{Roy White}}
© 2014 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved. | Terms of Service | Privacy


text:
Country Camping & Canoe Outfitters on Rum River
- 27437 Palm St NW, Isanti, MN 55040-5301 | Get Directions
- Phone: 763-444-9626
- email@example.com
- Visit Website
Add to my trip
Error. Submission of this item to your trip planner may have timed out. Please try again or check your trip planner to make sure it has been added.
Tubing - $12/person, includes shuttle. Canoeing - prices start at $12/person. Please call for reservations.- Tubing - $12/person, includes shuttle. Canoeing - prices start at $12/person. Please call for reservations.
May 1, 2014 - Oct 1, 2014One hour from Mpls St Paul, Country Camping Tent & R V Park provides canoeing & tubing on the scenic Rum River. We offer 1-4 hour, 8 hour daily trips or customize a longer vacation. Prices start as low as $12/person. Shuttle is included in the fee. Relaxing 2 mile tube trips last approximately 3 hours. Tubing is $12/person. Shuttle service is included in the fee. Trips may be cancelled due to the weather. Please call ahead to make your reservation. Groups welcome for camping, canoeing or tubing.
Other Date Information
- Additional Date Information: May - Oct. Daily 10am-4pm by reservation, weather permitting. Rum River Flag Canoe Race in May. $5 off during May, Sept & weekdays. Planned weekend activities! Family Fun! Check our web site "country-camping.com" See you soon!
Green Practices
- Desc of Green Practices in Place: Come enjoy our beautiful camp. Country setting utilizes local plantings. Guests are encouraged to recycle. Our facility uses a tankless gas water heater. Our Store offers local produce in season. Think Green!
- Waste Reduction/Reuse/Recycling
- Eco-Friendly Landscape/Facility Design
- Organic or Local Food & Beverage Choices
Attraction Attributes
- Can Accommodate Groups of 45 or more
What's Nearby
At the stoplight of US Hwy 65 & Cty 5 in Isanti, go West on Cty 5, 1.5 miles to the T (Cty 10), go South (left). Go .5 miles to the Y in the road (Cty 68), put left blinker on & continue South on Cty 68, for 1.3 miles. Left at Country Camping sign.


text:
HomeZZ Waterford I Love Lismore "Red" 8" Vase
The I Love Lismore "Red" 8" Vase is perfect for displaying flowers; and features a vivid red hue to make it an instant conversation piece.
Now: $206.50
Out of Stock
For over 60 years, Lismore has been one of the most recognizable and celebrated patterns in the Waterford archive. The I Love Lismore collection is made exclusively in Ireland, and pays tribute to the pattern with brilliant crystal giftware featuring the distinctive diamond and wedge cuts that have made this pattern famous the world over. The I Love Lismore "Red" 8" Vase is perfect for displaying flowers; and features a vivid red accent that makes this glassware an instant conversation piece.
Material | Crystal |
Height | 20.0 cm / 7.9 in |
Length | 12.7cm / 5 in |
Width | - |
Microwave Safe | N/A |
Oven Safe | N/A |
Signature Required
For SOME ORDERS, the carrier may require a Signature for delivery.
Order Turnaround
Standard delivery orders received by 11am EST are typically processed and shipped within 1-2 business days. Two-Day, Overnight and Saturday delivery orders received by 11am EST will be processed and shipped the same business day (weekends and holidays excluded).
Personalized Products
Personalized/engraved products can take up to 7 additional business days to create and ship. Accordingly, they can typically ship separately from any non-personalized products in your order.
Delivery Restrictions
Orders placed at the U.S. version of na.wwrd.com can ONLY be shipped to the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington, D.C. Orders CAN NOT be shipped to PO BOX, APO or FPO addresses.
Gift Message
Sorry, a gift message can not be included with this product.
Gift Wrap
Sorry, gift wrap is not available for this product.
Whether it's a "Thank You" gift for your customers or clients or an employee recognition award, our online Business Gifting Program is perfect for companies and organizations looking for memorable and meaningful gifts.
Qualifying business orders of $1000 or more are eligible to receive special corporate pricing, gift services, free engraving and free ground shipping.
Call 1-877-900-9973
(Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm EST) for details or to place your business order.


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
Filter Results |
Must Own TitleThis review is from: Uncharted 1 & 2 Double Pack Playstation3 Game SONY Pros: Excellent games, uncharted 1 was short but sweet. Uncharted 2 had a story that was just as or more compelling and game play that only improved on its predecessors. Cons: bought the game and didn't open it for months and found that the DLC vouchers inside has a time limit which were well over expired. Other Thoughts: Still a great deal to grab if you missed out on the uncharted series. Bought Uncharted 3 within 24 hours of beating the second game for less than 20 bucks. Thanks newegg. Did you find this review helpful? |


text:
This is terrific!
Cheese Ravioli with Toasted Walnuts
Photo: Hector Manuel Sanchez
Enhance the flavor of store-bought cheese ravioli by topping with toasted walnuts, lemon juice, parsley, and Parmesan cheese. Pair with a bagged green salad for a super-quick supper.
Yield: Makes 4 servings
More From Real Simple
Recipe Time
Prep Time:
Nutritional Information
Amount per serving
- Calories: 491
- Calories from fat: 66%
- Fat: 36g
- Saturated fat: 8g
- Cholesterol: 55mg
- Sodium: 595mg
- Carbohydrate: 29g
- Fiber: 2g
- Sugars: 2g
- Protein: 15g
- 1 14- to 16-ounce package cheese ravioli (frozen or fresh)
- 1/3 cup olive oil
- 1 clove garlic, sliced
- 1 cup (2 ounces) walnuts, roughly chopped
- 2 teaspoons lemon juice
- Kosher salt and pepper
- 1/2 cup fresh flat-leaf parsley, chopped
- 1/4 cup grated Parmesan
- Cook the ravioli according to the package directions. Drain, reserving 3 tablespoons of the cooking water.
Heat the oil in a medium skillet over medium heat. Add the garlic and walnuts. Cook, stirring, until the nuts are lightly toasted and fragrant, about 5 minutes. Stir in the lemon juice, 1/2 teaspoon salt, 1/4 teaspoon pepper, the parsley, and the reserved cooking water. Add the ravioli and toss to coat. Divide among individual plates and sprinkle with the Parmesan.
Substitution: For a hit of vegetables and a change of pace, use pumpkin or butternut-squash ravioli instead of cheese-filled. You can also replace the walnuts with pecans or almonds.
Cheese Ravioli with Toasted Walnuts Recipe at a Glance
- COURSE: Main Dishes
- CONVENIENCE: Quick/Easy
- CUISINE: Italian
- MAIN INGREDIENT: Nuts, Pasta
- DIETARY CONSIDERATION: Meatless
- PUBLICATION: Real Simple
More Recipes for Main Dishes
Cherry Brown Butter Ravioli
Sunset -
Creamy Butternut, Blue Cheese, and Walnut Cavatappi
Cooking Light -
Butternut Squash Ravioli with Spinach Pesto
Cooking Light
Find out what we've got cooking...
Get our Free Weekly Specials Newsletter filled with our favorite recipes, seasonal menus, and special features.
We Respect Your Privacy. Privacy Policy


text:
Basic Essentials
lanya bermuda shorts
$11.99 $32.00
The Lanya Bermuda Shorts features:
- U.S. sizing
- Bermuda length shorts
- Button and zipper closure
- 5 pocket design
- Detailed logo hardware
- True to size fit
Model is wearing size 3
Tell a Friend
Copy and paste the following address to tell your friends:
Email a Friend
Sign Up!
Sign up for special offers, exclusive sales and discounts!
We recommend
Other customers also liked these...


text:
2010 10 Euro Silver Proof - Pablo Picasso
We provide all our customers with a refund, return and/or exchange policy on everything we sell including all bullion and certified coins. If for any reason you have a problem, please feel free to call our offices. We will always do our best to accommodate you.
Product Description
Mintage of only 20,000 coins!
Pablo Picasso was often called "bigger than life" by art critics and historians, so it is fitting that the Monnaie de Paris chose to honor him. This rectangular-shaped Silver coin has a face value of 10 euros.
The obverse features a portrait of Picasso, his signature and a set of paint brushes. Listed on the obverse are the date of minting, the dates of Picasso's birth and death, the face value and "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite," France's national motto which translates to "liberty, equality, fraternity." The reverse of this interesting Silver coin depicts his drawing "Affiche Vallauris faune" along with the date of the work, 1948. Also inscribed is Picasso's signature and RF for Republique Francaise.
Pablo Picasso (1881-1973), Spanish painter, draftsman and sculptor, was without a doubt the greatest painter of the 20th century due to his determination to always question various styles. He, along with French painter and sculptor Georges Braque, developed the style known as Cubism.
Unsure how to buy Silver? APMEX makes buying Silver online easy with a wide selection of Silver for sale. Call our Account Managers today to get started buying Silver!
APMEX stands behind every product it sells with a satisfaction guarantee.
Product Specifications
Product ID: | 69766 |
Year: | 2010 |
Grade: | Proof |
Denomination: | 10 Euro |
Diameter: | 30x21mm mm |


text:
Tell us about your fabulous Teen Tech Week plans by RSVPing on our Facebook Events page and adding your events in the comments and on the TTW12 Google Map.
View TTW12: Geek Out at Your Library in a larger map
I am planning a Mars program. Our main activity will involve making an edible Mars Rover. My kids love to eat! We will also create a mission plan about how we might go about finding water on Mars. I also have some Mars travel brochures I will be handing out for fun.
Celebrate technology for teens at your library this March with YALSA! #ttw14
By joining this site, you're eligible for these benefits & resources:
Started by YALSA in Sample Title. Last reply by Tiffany Williams yesterday. 4 Replies 0 Likes
In what ways are people leveraging TTW as an opportunity to do some advocating for library services for/with teens? Inviting an elected official to attend a TTW event? Recruiting a library advocate…Continue
Started by Karen Lemmons in Sample Title. Last reply by Karen Lemmons on Sunday. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Digital Citizenship, in addition to learning cool technology tools, is important to share with our teens. Some of the award recipients are modeling appropriate digital citizenship behaviors in their…Continue
Started by Karen Lemmons in Uncategorized on Sunday. 0 Replies 0 Likes
According to a Forbes article, …Continue
Started by Christie Gibrich in Uncategorized. Last reply by Jane Matthews on Sunday. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Hi!What wondering things are you doing for 2014 that are low cost/no cost?I'm planning a self/directed (passive program) around a display of guess how many Legos or keyboard keys (if I can get the…Continue
© 2014 Created by YALSA. Powered by


text:
March 11, 2014 – The Miller School rises to No. 46 in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.
March 07, 2014 – Study involving UM scientists provides new information about the sea turtle 'lost years.'
February 26, 2014 – UM researchers determine tooth is from an extinct relative of a great white shark.
February 18, 2014 – University of Miami physicist and his collaborators describe a novel approach to switch on and off magnetism, which can lead to a new generation of better-performing electronic devices.
February 17, 2014 – UM biologist finds that social wasps are accepted more frequently into unfamiliar colonies when both the individual and the group are young.
February 11, 2014 – Research led by UM scientists examines how coastal sharks deal with the stress from catch-and-release fishing.
February 07, 2014 – Couple's giving benefits schools of medicine, music, and education as well as athletics.
January 30, 2014 – UM researchers find a large magma chamber under the world's most active volcano.
January 17, 2014 – Time chasers preserve and share the history of South Florida's Black communities.
January 16, 2014 – UM marine researcher studies the curious and mysterious tiger shark, which resides at the top of the food chain.
January 14, 2014 – Dr. Juliana Fernandes of the University of Miami earned the award in the Listener Choice category for her description of the downside of negative political ads.
January 14, 2014 – Dr. Francisco Beron-Vera discusses vortices that transport bodies of water around the globe.
January 14, 2014 – A study by UM researchers shows a form of mental training called mindfulness training can improve focus and learning.
January 10, 2014 – A search-and-rescue organization that saved thousands of Cuban rafters adrift in the Florida Straits has donated its extensive archives to the University of Miami's Cuban Heritage Collection.
January 08, 2014 – UM and Cal. Institute of Technology researchers show how the brain considers visual cues and taste when making everyday food choices.
January 08, 2014 – A UM researcher and experts from across the globe form the Global Invertebrate Genomic Alliance to network and share information.
January 06, 2014 – The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science adds a high-tech helicopter to its fleet of research vessels.
January 04, 2014 – UM president opposes actions of American Studies Association and Modern Language Association.
December 22, 2013 – A few words to describe the past year at UM would include transformative, engaging, inspirational, innovative and community-focused.
December 13, 2013 – University of Miami physicist and his collaborators discover a mathematical law that explains a variety of human confrontations.
December 10, 2013 – Consumers sometimes experience "choice overload" when shopping online, research by a UM professor finds.
December 09, 2013 – UM researchers leading study of how oil and pollutants migrate in offshore Gulf ocean currents.
December 05, 2013 – UM president comments on the death of former South African president and champion for equality.
November 18, 2013 – UM architecture students are researching how to modify residences to incorporate sustainability and deal with climate change.
November 15, 2013 – Oceanographer Andrew Bakun is awarded the Prince of Monaco's Lifetime Achievement Award.
November 11, 2013 – University of Miami hurricane researcher Brian McNoldy talks about Super Typhoon Haiyan in an interview with Popular Mechanics.
November 07, 2013 – UM-NSU CARD to hold Town Hall Meeting for small business owners to discuss hiring adults on the autism spectrum.
November 06, 2013 – A new study by a UM researcher and others shows meditation therapies can help incarcerated youth.
October 31, 2013 – Philanthropist R. Kirk Landon establishes a matching gift challenge to benefit the School of Nursing and Health Studies project.
October 23, 2013 – Noted physical anthropologist Cynthia Beall discusses her research into ways people living at extreme altitudes adapt and cope.
October 21, 2013 – Miami Project researcher known for her work on the Schwann cell, a key to repairing damaged spinal cords.
October 15, 2013 –
October 14, 2013 – Designed by students at MAST Academy High School, 13 ocean drifters in a variety of shapes and sizes could help UM researchers learn how oil spilled at sea reaches our shores.
October 01, 2013 – 28th Annual Great Sports Legends Dinner benefits The Buoniconti Fund to Cure Paralysis
October 01, 2013 – Study brings to 110 known risk factors and provides important insight into disease mechanism
September 27, 2013 – Songs and sounds that can help amputees walk better, safer, stronger? Frost School of Music researchers are blending music, engineering, and medical disciplines to make sure there's an app for that.
September 23, 2013 – A UM researcher explains how dust storms in Africa affect air quality in the U.S. and Caribbean.
September 19, 2013 – The University Libraries exhibit celebrates Hispanic culture during Hispanic Heritage Month.
September 18, 2013 – A new "Plankton Portal" uses crowd-sourcing to help classify more than a million images of strange oceanic creatures.
September 10, 2013 – Researchers analyzed cases of more than 1,000 children from 98 centers in the U.S. and Canada enrolled in the Pediatric Cardiomyopathy Registry.
September 10, 2013 – UM scientist and his collaborators explain how Twitter is useful in sharing ideas.
September 10, 2013 – University ranked No. 47; remains No. 1 ranked school in Florida.
August 28, 2013 – Computer simulation reveals the ocean-spanning journeys travelled by millimeter-sized coral larvae.
August 28, 2013 – Award recognizes excellence in children's health research.
August 26, 2013 – A Coral Imperative: A look at how marine scientists at UM are leading the race to restore endangered reefs—and why they say failure is not an option.
August 13, 2013 – Researchers get $2 million grant to test obesity intervention for Hispanic youths.
August 01, 2013 – Results of the NIH-funded study could help plan new roads, parks, neighborhoods, and schools.
July 31, 2013 – Study opens door to potential treatments for mitochondrial diseases.
July 29, 2013 – Clinical trial involving deep brain electrical stimulation set to begin this fall.
July 16, 2013 – Bascom Palmer tops U.S. News & World Report's annual "Best Hospitals" rankings.
July 08, 2013 – Study on acute myeloid leukemia reported in the journal 'Nature.'
June 25, 2013 – One-week training course uses a series of simulations to teach students the value of working together.
June 25, 2013 – Miami Law alumna establishes scholarship in memory of former classmate.
June 18, 2013 – New short film featuring UM scientist Lisa Beal highlights increasing role of women in oceanography.
June 17, 2013 – Study reveals how infant lobsters get around in their first few months of life.
June 12, 2013 – UM linguist establishes link between geographical elevation and language.
June 11, 2013 – Miller School researchers discover genetic link related to fear expression.
June 11, 2013 – Hospital ranked in six specialties in U.S. News & World Report's Best Children's Hospitals rankings
June 03, 2013 – MIller School, Miami VA selected as site for study on diabetes drug effectiveness.
June 03, 2013 – UM augments its reputation as a bike-friendly campus.
May 29, 2013 – Scholars will study, teach, and conduct research in eight different countries.
May 22, 2013 – Compound in the allspice berry significantly slows the growth of prostate cancer tumors.
May 06, 2013 – Miller School gets $3.7 million grant to launch initiative aimed at reducing stroke disparities.
April 16, 2013 – The forum featured poster presentations on research in the arts, engineering, humanities, and the biological, physical, and social sciences.
April 15, 2013 – Neurosurgeon uses innovative laser technique to eradicate brain tumor.
April 15, 2013 – Great white sharks display unique behavior while scavenging on whales.
April 10, 2013 – Discovery could lead to more effective therapies and drugs for patients.
April 09, 2013 – Study could lead to better understanding of the mechanism involved in the two disorders
April 09, 2013 – Study could lead to better understanding of the mechanism involved in the two disorders
March 21, 2013 – Contract will allow CSTARS to continue collecting, processing, and disseminating satellite data.
March 19, 2013 – Researcher's study marks significant advance in HIV research and prevention.
March 12, 2013 – Researcher gets $3.1 million NIH grant to study genes that cause deafness.
March 12, 2013 – Climate models depict potential worldwide coral bleaching
March 04, 2013 – CaneSearch research forum focuses on obesity, collaboration.
February 25, 2013 – The Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) will hold its first major, University-wide initiative, "CaneSearch," on Wednesday, February 27.
February 06, 2013 – School joins NIH-funded Women's Interagency HIV Study.
January 23, 2013 – Doctors perform first Schwann cell transplant, giving new hope to people with spinal cord injuries.
January 22, 2013 – Erica Staaterman produced a 90-second video showing how her research could help shape the future.
January 08, 2013 – The film explores the legacy of the Barnacle, the house built on Biscayne Bay by the American yacht designer and early resident of Coconut Grove.
January 08, 2013 – Rate at which people seek preventive cancer screenings has fallen over the last ten years.
January 07, 2013 – Lawyers will bring expertise to students from 18 universities around the world.
January 07, 2013 – Findings could help reverse or prevent vision loss in demyelinating disease.
December 10, 2012 – No. 38 national ranking reflects University's growing prominence as a major research institution.
December 06, 2012 – Research also predicts which sectors are likely to falter.
November 27, 2012 – Gift will establish center dedicated to eradicating blinding injuries and lethal orbital malignancies.
November 27, 2012 – Six-session course is believed to be the world's first initiative of its kind.
November 13, 2012 – With an aircraft themed after the smartphone video game Angry Birds, a team of College of Engineering students won the People's Choice Award at this year's Red Bull Flugtag Miami.
November 13, 2012 – Multicenter study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
November 13, 2012 – Scientists discover evidence that volcanoes "inflate" prior to eruptions due to rise of magma.
November 06, 2012 – Gift expands upon existing programs and creates additional resources.
October 23, 2012 – Signaling protein Akt can impair growth of blood-forming stem cells that can develop into cancers.
October 23, 2012 – UM Collaboration Leads to Publication of Major Guide to Behavioral Medicine
October 22, 2012 – Televised political advertising takes up a large portion of campaign budgets, much of which are spent on negative political ads. But do these negative…
October 22, 2012 – A new study by scientists at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science shows that corals may be more severely impacted…
October 22, 2012 – Independent study shows that University is a major economic engine in the local and tri-county region.
October 18, 2012 – The College of Arts & Sciences, along with more than 100 international archaeological organizations will present a series of programs and activities…
October 08, 2012 – Miller School researcher pinpoints mechanism that controls AIDS in rare cases.
September 10, 2012 – $20 million NIH grant establishes the Miami Clinical Translational Science Institute.
September 10, 2012 – Nation's top official on health disparities speaks at opening session of nursing research conference organized and hosted by UM.
September 10, 2012 – Watch the Miami Today Achiever Interview with Dean James M. Tien


text:
Welcome to Mon General Hospital
Patients & Visitors
Hospital Safety
Infection Control
Infection Control
The most important thing you can do to avoid contagious diseases such as the common cold, strep throat, or even the flu, is to wash your hands. By frequently washing your hands, you wash away germs that you have picked up from people or contaminated surfaces. There are several ways you can prevent the spread of infection, such as:
Clean your hands.
Spend at least 15 seconds working up a good lather with soap and warm water, or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Pay special attention to your wrists, the backs of your hands, between your fingers, and under your fingernails. Be sure to clean your hands before touching or eating food and after you use the bathroom, take out the trash, change a diaper, or visit someone who is ill.
Make sure healthcare providers wash their hands or wear gloves.
Before your healthcare provider treats you, ask them if they've washed their hands. Don't be afraid to ask them if they should be wearing gloves.
Cover your mouth and nose
Many diseases are spread through sneezing and coughing. when you sneeze or cough, germs can travel three feet or more. Cover your mouth and nose to prevent the spread of infection to others. Keep a tissue handy and be sure to throw it away after coughing or sneezing into it. If you don't have a tissue, cough or sneeze into the bend of your elbow. If you must cough or sneeze into your hands, immediately clean your hands, as described above.
If you are sick, avoid close contact with others.
Keep your vaccinations current to avoid diseases nd fight the spread of infection.
Do not visit a patient if you are not well.
1200 J.D. Anderson Drive.
Morgantown, WV 26505
Ph: (304) 598-1200
Mon Health System © 2014
Find a Doctor
News & Events
Patients & Visitors
Pay a Bill
About Us
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Practices
Secure Login
Medical Staff
Patient Care Services
Make a Difference
About Us
Medical Staff
News & Events
Patient Care
Patients & Visitors
Auxiliary of Mon General Hospital
Contact Us - Mon General Hospital
Community Outreach
The Foundation of Mon General
HealthSouth Mountainview Rehabilitation Hospital
HealthWorks Rehab and Fitness
Mon General Hospital
Mon HealthCare & Fairmont Home Medical
Preston Memorial Hospital
The Village at Heritage Point
Volunteers of Mon General
-- Disclaimers
-- Join Our Team
-- Make a Difference
Contact Us - Birth Center
Phone Numbers - Mon General Hospital
Choose Health
Diabetes Management
Mon General's Volunteer Program
Student Volunteer Application
Junior Scholarship
Junior Volunteer Application
Adult Volunteer Application
Website Privacy Practices
Website Terms of Use
Doctor Secure Login
Find a Doctor
Lakeside Family Medicine
Specialty Focus -Hospitalists
Media Library
News - Mon General
Our Events
Birth Center, Hazel Ruby McQuain
Cancer Care / Oncology
Diabetes Care
Emergency / Trauma Care
Heart Care / Cardiac Care
Home Care
Pulmonary Care
Surgical Services
Women's Services
Diagnostic Services
Treatment Services
Birthing and Lactation Classes
Lung Cancer Screening
Diabetes Education, Inpatient
Diabetes Learning Center
Diabetes Community Outreach
Diabetes Education Courses
Outpatient Medical Nutrition Therapy
Mon General Hospital Emergency Department
Mon EMS
Cardiac Care Unit
Cardio-Thoracic Surgery / Open Heart Surgery
Richard Rosenbaum Cardiac Rehab Center
Mon HealthCare
HealthSouth Mountainview Regional Rehabilitation Hospital
Inpatient & Outpatient Rehab- HealthWorks
Orthopedic Center of Mon General Hospital
Less Pain
Pumonary Rehab Center
Orthopedic Center
Endoscopy Center
SurgiCare Center
Open Heart Surgery
Preparing for Surgery
Day of Surgery
Frequently Asked Questions
Women's Health Library
Radiology Imaging Services
Sleep Center of Mon General Hospital
Vein Center of Mon General Hospital
Women's Imaging
CT Procedure
Diagnostic Exam
Nuclear Medicine Exam
Ultrasound Exam
Bone Densitometry
Mammogram Q & A
Cardiac Rehab
Pulmonary Rehab
Vein Center of Mon General Hospital
Wound Healing Center of Mon General Hospital
Wound Healing Center - How to Prepare
Care Cards
Financial Considerations
Gift Shop
Hospital Safety
MyMonGen Patient Portal
Parking & Accessibility
Pastoral & Spiritual Care
Patient & Visitor Services
Patient Services
Smoking Policy
Traveling to Mon General
Visitor Guidelines
Wireless Internet Access
Financial Assistance
Provider Based Billing
Healthcare Team
Infection Control
Patient Rights
Patient Responsibilities
Rapid Response
Cell Phone Use
Patient Advocate
Lost and Found
Mail, Packages and Flowers
Health Care Advance Directives
Notary Public
Organ Donation
Patient Pain Management
Patient Dining
Patient Privacy Practices
Social Work Services
Discharge Instructions
Food Service & Safety
General Courtesy
Overnight Visitation
Public Dining Services


text:
After paddling my son's shiny new Ocean Kayak, my old, often-repaired Indian River canoe felt like paddling a waterlogged door. So in the interest of chasing fish along the Florida Gulf Coast's oysters and islands, I decided to add a sail. The rules of the project were that I spend a minimal amount of money and that I use what's already around the house as much as possible (it's summer and I'm a teacher).
Traditional sailing is all about performance, but performance is a relative term. My goals were to maintain my normal paddling speed (about 2.5 mph, according to Garmin) without paddling, to keep things simple, and to not ever bail out a swamped canoe.
I did some sailing when I was young, so I sort of knew what to do, and I had some old sailing odds and ends in the attic, but everything I added could be made with materials from the hardware store.
Sailing is all about the balance between the sail's center of effort and the boat's lateral resistance (imagine holding a sign at a windy protest rally - if the stick is in the center of the sign, it's balanced, if it's off to one side, the sign wants to swing downwind like a weathervane). More pressure in front of the leeboards=swing downwind, more pressure behind=swing upwind, so all the rigging needs to be as adjustable as possible for the first few attempts. I ordered the steps by how difficult they would be to change.
1. mast placement
2. sail rig
3. leeboards
4. a way to steer (technically you can steer with the COE/LR balance but the COE changes as the wind speed changes - grrr)
Many thanks to Tim Anderson and thousands of other online canoe sailors and boat tinkerers!
When I look at that Hobie tri with the roller furling, drool actually falls out of my mouth. I made this rig to sail where I need to be - which is the slimy, but beautiful Big Bend (armpit, for the geographically metaphorica) of FL. So I need to switch from sail to canoe effortlessly and often. Still waiting for that instructable about the $7 pvc roller furling rig. Is that your next?
Just in case anyone's trying to replicate my first steps, there have been/needs to be a few modifications:
Even well designed sailboats often need three hands. This thing needs a genuine rudder with a push/pull tiller that can be quickly and blindly locked down temporarily (wow, that's a lot of adverbs). The paddle blade has too many dynamics for my taste: twist, rake backwards, the combination of the two, switching sides to adjust for weather / lee helm (which seem to change by its own volition), it make my English teacher head ache - and it takes two hands just to steer!
The term "blindly" is important. Keeping point and adjusting whatever is critical and needs to be by feel - In preparation for a nice beaching, I can't lock up the leeboards in their little cut-wedge-in-alluminum jam cleats if I have to look at them.
More to come.
My hero Tim Anderson posted this awesome picture of simple clamp-on leebboards, and this article by E.F. Knight, from the early 20th century really was my inspiration, and just a great adventure story.
So maybe the traditional marconi (like mine) is best, because - like jelly toast always landing jelly down, sailors ALWAYS need to be going upwind.
Assuming the goal is not simply "sailing" but "sailing somewhere."
Not to be all you-shoudda, but you have to see those gusts coming by the change in the water's surface texture, and to not ever have the sheet so locked-in that the sail has a chance to take control.
I considered outriggers, but they were just too far down the Frankenstein road for an old-school canoe (the leeboards are weird enough!).
Maybe go sailing on a good swiming day and let the thing tip just to find the edge. A lot of work bailing, but perhaps worth it.
My son liked it so much, he has one now, but that's another instructable...


text:
Which Lease Agreement Could Preclude the ITC?
Thursday, November 18th, 2010Question:
In a previous post you discuss how solar providers can set up lease arrangements with nonprofits, which will allow the solar provider to take advantage of the federal investment tax credit. However our accountant has advised us that the type of lease arrangement you discuss – with an option to purchase after five years – would be considered a capital lease and as such the tax credits would flow not to the solar provider but the nonprofit entity (who, of course, could not use them). This is backed up with definitions from the following website. Any thoughts?


text:
< Return To Hearing
The Honorable Patrick LeahyMarch 27, 2003
Opening Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy A number of Senators who are members of this Committee and of the Senate Appropriations Committee have informed the Chair that we will not be able to be present this morning in light of the Appropriations Committee hearing with members of the President's Cabinet on the President's request for $75 billion in emergency appropriations for military operations in Iraq. Wanting to participate fully in the proceedings of this Committee and its debate, we suggested that this meeting be rescheduled for another time. I will have to leave after only a few minutes this morning to hear from Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Ridge and others on the emergency appropriations request. Today in this Committee much of the debate will center on a most unfortunate development when the Chairman on February 27 chose to override our Committee Rule IV and insisted on unilaterally terminating Committee debate on two controversial judicial nominations. The modest protection provided by our Committee Rule IV had been accorded Republican and Democratic minorities over the last 24 years on this Committee under all Democratic and Republican Chairmen. It has been honored by Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Thurmond, Chairman Biden, Chairman Hatch previously, and by me. I will have more to say about this as our debate ensues today. I continue to urge the Chairman to reconsider and join us in confirming the modest protection of the minority that our rules have included since 1979. Legislation Senator Schumer and I urged greater budget authority for first responders in the Senate's consideration this week of the budget resolution. Unfortunately, with every Republican voting against the first responder amendments, we were unsuccessful. My amendment, for example, would have amended the budget resolution to ensure that there was adequate budget authority for first responders in fiscal year 2004, which begins this fall. Without a single Republican vote, that amendment failed. We now have a situation in which the President is sending the Congress an emergency supplemental appropriations request that includes a few billion dollars for first responders this year, but we will then effectively cut their budget authority come October because we failed to provide for them in the budget. That is wrong. What this Committee can do to improve matters is to move ahead expeditiously with the First Responders Partnership Grant Act, work for its Senate consideration and passage, and help improve our readiness and our homeland security. Acting promptly would help facilitate the budget and funding decisions that the Congress will be making in the weeks ahead. Instead of proceeding with the First Responders Partnership Grant Act, the Committee has chosen to list S.274, a class action bill. When the Chairman mentioned last week in response to my request that he was thinking about class action legislation, a number of us wrote to him asking for a hearing. I ask that a copy of the March 25 letter sent by Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Feingold, Senator Durbin, Senator Edwards and myself be included in the record. We noted that the class action bill has far-reaching impact and that it would be useful to hold hearings "to help the Committee develop consensus reforms to better serve defendants and plaintiffs before the Committee proceeds to a markup." Our request apparently has been rejected. Just yesterday the Chairman received a letter from the Judicial Conference on S.274, in which the Conference notes that it "continues to oppose class action legislation that contains jurisdictional provisions that are similar to those in the bills introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses." The Judicial Conference bases its opposition on principles of federalism and workload concerns. The Judicial Conference goes on to indicate that any effort to increase federal court jurisdiction over class actions that are truly nationwide class actions "should be encouraged to include sufficient limitations and threshold requirements so that federal courts are not unduly burdened and States' jurisdiction over in-state class actions is left undisturbed." Given the significant opposition and reservations of the Judicial Conference of the United States -- a body that is headed by the Chief Justice and which represents the federal judges to whom S.274 would send class action cases -- we would have been wise to have held a hearing. We should consider their legitimate concerns as well as those of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the many others who oppose this legislation. The priority of this Committee is to force confrontation on controversial class action legislation rather than develop a broader consensus. Most importantly, I regret that this class action matter is being treated as a higher priority than homeland security and efforts better to provide the assistance needed by our local and state police, fire and medical personnel. Oversight Nominations This year we have had a rocky beginning with a hearing that has caused a great many problems we might have avoided. Holding one hearing for three controversial circuit court nominees broke the agreement struck back in 1985 between Democratic and Republican members on this Committee and in the Senate. The Chairman's insistence on terminating debate on the Cook and Roberts nominations in contravention of Rule IV is another serious problem. I will return to it in our discussion of the recent violations of Rule IV. The Chairman apparently intends to reverse another practice that he followed without exception when he previously chaired the Committee, at a time when a Democratic president occupied the White House. He intends to proceed on a judicial nominee who does not have the support of a home-state Senator. He never proceeded over the opposition of a home-state Republican Senator. Now that the objection come from a Democratic Senator, that practice is being changed, as well. Then there are the continuing problems caused by the Administration's refusal to work with Democratic Senators to select consensus judicial nominees who could be confirmed relatively quickly by the Senate. In spite of the President's lack of cooperation, the Senate, in the 17 months of the most recent period of Democratic control of the Judiciary Committee, was able to confirm100 judges and vastly reduce the judicial vacancies that had built up and were prevented by the Republican Senate majority from being filled by President Clinton. Last year alone the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 72 judicial nominees, more than in any of the prior six years of Republican control. Not once did the Republican-controlled Committee consider that many of President Clinton's district and circuit court nominees. In our efforts to repair damage done to the process in the previous six years of Republican control of the Senate, we initiated many good-faith steps to treat this President's nominees better than his predecessor's had fared. We confirmed 100 judges in 17 months. Yet not a single elected Republican has acknowledged our bipartisanship and fairness. When Chief Justice Rehnquist thanked the Committee for confirming 100 judicial nominees, this was the first time this accomplishment had been acknowledged by anyone from a Republican background. I thanked him last week when I appeared before the Judicial Conference. Almost all of the judges confirmed are conservatives, many of them quite to the right of the mainstream, and many have pro-life beliefs and records. Many of these nominees have been active in conservative political causes or groups, but we moved fairly and expeditiously on as many as we could. We cut the number of vacancies on the courts from 110 to 54, despite an additional 60 new vacancies that had arisen. I recall that Senator Hatch said in September of 1997 that 103 vacancies (during the Clinton Administration) did not constitute a "vacancy crisis." He also repeatedly stated that 67 vacancies meant "full employment" on the federal courts. Even with the vacancies that have arisen since we adjourned last year, we remain below the "full employment" level that Senator Hatch used to draw for the federal courts. With additional confirmations this week, we could move below 50 vacancies. The Senate has proceeded to confirm 111 of President Bush's judicial nominees, so far, including 11 this year alone. The Senate recently confirmed the controversial nomination of Jay Bybee to the 9th Circuit, another pro-life judicial nominee. Already this year the Senate has confirmed more circuit court judges than Republicans allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session. It was not until late July in 1999 that 11 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were confirmed in the first session of the last Congress in which Republicans controlled the Senate majority. I expect that the Senate will soon proceed to confirm the California and Indiana District Court nominees the Committee reported out last week. The California nominees come from the bipartisan selection commissions Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer have established in California and the Indiana nominees have the bipartisan support of their Senators. They will bring the Senate's total this year to15. The Senate did not confirm15 of President Clinton's judicial nominees in 1999 until September of that year. Thus, we are already 6 months ahead of the pace Republicans maintained when considering President Clinton's judicial nominees. The rushed processing of nominees in these past few weeks has led to editorial cartoons showing conveyor belts and assembly lines with Senators just rubber-stamping these important, lifetime appointments without sufficient inquiry or understanding. What we are ending up with is a pile-up of nominees at the end of this rapidly-moving conveyer belt. There is no way that we can meaningfully keep up with our constitutional duty to determine the fitness of these nominees. The quality of our work must suffer, and slippage in the quality of justice will necessarily follow. I hope we will do all we can to prevent more of these "I Love Lucy" moments. Also on the agenda today are nominations to the Court of Federal Claims and U.S. Sentencing Commission. These raise fairness concerns. This President continues to proceed unilaterally on what have traditionally been bipartisan boards and commissions. That is unfortunate and problematic. Senate Democrats would appreciate this White House beginning to work with us rather than dictate to us. We look forward to hearing from the White House that it intends to work with the Senate Democratic leader and us in filling such vacancies. # # # # # Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy Two weeks ago today, this Committee met in an extraordinary, unprecedented session to reconsider the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Never before has a President resubmitted a circuit court nominee already rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, for the same vacancy. And until two weeks ago, never before had the Judiciary Committee rejected its own decision on such a nominee and granted a second hearing. But, having decided not to give even one hearing to President Clinton's nominees to the Fifth Circuit from Texas -- Enrique Moreno and Judge Jorge Rangel -- and having decided not to give satisfactory hearings to President Bush's nominees to the D.C. and Sixth Circuits -- John Roberts and Deborah Cook -- the Committee nonetheless proceeded with another hearing for Justice Owen. And what did we learn in that second hearing? We learned that given some time, Justice Owen was able to enlist the help of the talented lawyers working at the White House and the Department of Justice to come up with some new justifications for her activism. And we learned that given six months to reconsider the severe criticism directed at her by her Republican colleagues, she still admits no error. Mostly, I think we learned that the objections expressed last September were sincerely held then and sincerely held now. Nothing Justice Owen amplified about her record -- indeed, nothing anyone else tried to explain about her record - actually changed her record. In September, when we considered this nomination in Committee the first time, I said that I was proud that Democrats and some Republicans had kept to the merits of the nomination, and chose not to vilify, castigate, unfairly characterize and condemn without basis Senators working conscientiously to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. After hearing some of the ugly things that were subsequently said at that business meeting, some of the accusations made against my colleagues and those interested citizens who expressed opposition to Justice Owen's nomination, I was sorely disappointed that not everyone kept to the merits. I continue to believe that what Senator Feinstein said that day is true: by doing its job on the Owen nomination, by exercising due diligence, examining records, and not just rubber stamping every nominee that the President sent to us, this Committee showed itself to be alive and well. We confirmed the overwhelming majority of the President's judicial nominees, 100 out of 103 considered while I was Chairman, but we took the time to look at their records, and gave each person nominated to a lifetime seat on the federal bench the scrutiny he or she deserved. We did not have an assembly line like that which has been in overdrive since the beginning of this Congress. The rush to judgment on so many of the nominees before us does not change the fact that we fully and fairly considered the nomination of Priscilla Owen fairly last year. The record was sufficient when we voted last year. It needed no "setting straight." So, I will submit for the record the reasons I articulated for voting "no" the last time this nomination was before us. I have read her written answers, many newly formulated, that attempt to explain away her very disturbing opinions in the Texas parental notification cases. Her record is still her record, and the record is clear. She still does not satisfactorily explain why she infuses the words of the Texas legislature with so much more meaning than she can be sure they intended. She adequately describes the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States, to be sure, but she simply does not justify the leaps in logic and plain meaning she attempted in those decisions. I have read her responses to Senator Hatch's "testimony" of two weeks ago, at her second hearing, where he attempted to explain away cases about which I had expressed concern last year. For example, I know what the Chairman explained to her the opinion she wrote in a case called F.M. Properties v. City of Austin. I read how he recharacterized the dispute in an effort to make it sound innocuous, just a struggle between two jurisdictions over some unimportant regulations. I know how, through a choreography of leading questions and short answers, they tried to respond to my question from last July, which was never really answered, about why Justice Owen thought it was proper for the legislature to grant large corporate landowners the power to regulate themselves. Again, I am unconvinced. The majority in this case, which invalidated a state statute favoring corporations, does not describe the case or the issues as the Chairman and the nominee have. A fair reading of the case shows no evidence of a struggle between governments. This is all an attempt at after-the-fact justification where there really is none to be found. Justice Owen and Chairman Hatch's explanation of the case also lacked even the weakest effort at rebutting the criticism of her by the F.M. Properties majority. In its opinion, the six justice majority said, and I am quoting, that Justice Owen's dissent was, "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric." They explained why her legal objections were mistaken, saying that no matter what the state legislature had the power to do on its own, it was simply unconstitutional to give the big landowners the power they were given. No talk of the City of Austin v. the State of Texas. Just the facts. Likewise, the few explanations offered for the many other examples of the times her Republican colleagues criticized her were unavailing. The tortured reading of Justice Gonzales' remarks in the Doe case were unconvincing. He clearly said that to construe the law in the way that Justice Owen's dissent construed the law would be activism. Any other interpretation is just not credible. And no reasons were offered for why her then-colleague, now ours, Justice Cornyn, thought it necessary to explain the principle of stare decisis to her in his opinion in Weiner v. Wasson. Or why in Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, the majority criticized her for her disregard for legislative language, saying that, "the dissenting opinion misconceives the hearing examiner's role in the . . . process," which it said stemmed from, "its disregard of the procedural elements the Legislature established . . . to ensure that the hearing-examiner process is fair and efficient for both teachers and school boards." Or why, in Collins v. Ison-Newsome, a dissent joined by Justice Owen was so roundly criticized by the Republican majority, which said the dissent agrees with one proposition but then "argues for the exact opposite proposition . . . [defying] the Legislature's clear and express limits on our jurisdiction." I have said it before, but I am forced to say it again. These examples, together with the unusually harsh language directed at Justice Owen's position by the majority in the Doe cases, show a judge out of step with the conservative Republican majority of the Texas Supreme Court, a majority not afraid to explain the danger of her activist views. No good explanation was offered for these critical statements last year, and no good explanation was offered two weeks ago. Politically motivated rationalizations do not negate the plain language used to describe her activism at the time. Conclusion I know my Republican colleagues will unfairly castigate us again today. Indeed, at her hearing two weeks ago, the Chairman was very dismissive of our concerns and our efforts to evaluate this nomination on the merits. She has now been before the Committee two times and neither time did the explanations change the facts we have before us. Priscilla Owen's record, as I have described it today, as we described it in September, does not qualify her for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. As I have demonstrated many times, I am ready to consent to the confirmation of consensus, mainstream judges, and I have on hundreds of occasions. But the President has resent the Senate a nominee who raises serious and significant concerns. In his selection of Priscilla Owen for the Fifth Circuit, the President and his advisors are trying to do to the Fifth Circuit what they did to the Texas Supreme Court. Plucked from a law firm by political consultant Karl Rove, Justice Owen ran as a conservative, pro-business candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, and she received ample support from the business community. She fulfilled her promise, becoming the most conservative judge on a conservative court, standing out for her ends-oriented, extremist decision making. Now, on a bigger stage, the President and Mr. Rove want a repeat performance on a court one step below the Supreme Court of the United States. I oppose this nomination. # # # # # Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy It should concern all members of the Committee, of both parties, that during the course of the February 27 business meeting, the Committee's current majority repeatedly violated our longstanding Committee rules and unilaterally declared the termination of debate on two controversial circuit court nominations. This is no small matter. It is of significant importance not only for now, but also for the future, and my detailed statement this morning is offered so the record will be clear for audiences now, and later. Senator Daschle termed this breach of the rules deeply troubling and a "reckless exercise of raw power by a Chairman," and he is right. He observed that the work of this Senate has for over 200 years operated on the principle of civil debate, which includes protection of the minority. When a Chairman can on his own whim choose to ignore our rules that protect the minority, not only is that protection lost, but so is an irreplaceable piece of our integrity and credibility. The Democratic Leader noted that faithful adherence to rule is especially important for the Senate and for its Judiciary Committee. He noted "how ironic that in the Judiciary Committee, a Committee which passes judgment on those who will interpret the rule of law," that it acted in conscious disregard of the rules that were established to apply to its proceedings. If this is what those who pontificate about "strict construction" mean by that term, it translates to winning by any means necessary. If this is how the judges of the judicial nominees act, how can we expect the nominees they support as "strict constructionists" to behave any better? Given this action in disrespect of the rights of the minority, how can we expect the Judiciary Committee to place individuals on the bench that respect the rule of law? In my 29 years in the Senate and in my reading of Senate history, I cannot think of so clear a violation of Senators' rights. As Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Appropriations Committee and as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I strove always to protect the rights of the minority. I did not always agree with what they were saying or doing, I did not always find it convenient, but I protected their rights. It was not always as efficient as I might have liked, but I protected their rights. That is basic to this democracy and fundamental to the Senate of the United States. Senators respect other Senators' rights and hear them out. There is no question that the Senate majority is in charge and responsible for how we proceed. I understand that and always have - I only wish that some on the other side of the aisle had shared that view when I chaired the Judiciary Committee last year. But in the Senate the majority's power is circumscribed by our rules and traditional practices. We protect and respect the rights of the minority in this democratic institution for the same reason we steadfastly adhere to the Bill of Rights. I am concerned about this abuse of power and breach of our Committee rules. When the Judiciary Committee cannot be counted upon to follow its own rules for handling important lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary, everyone should be concerned. In violation of the rules that have governed that Committee's proceedings since 1979, the Chairman chose to ignore our longstanding Committee Rules and short-circuit Committee consideration of the nominations of John Roberts and Deborah Cook. Senator Daschle spoke to that matter that day. Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin and Senator Feingold have also spoken to this breach of our rules as well as a number of other liberties that Republicans have been taking with the rules. Since 1979 the Judiciary Committee has had this Committee rule, Rule VI, to bring debate on a matter to a close while protecting the rights of the minority. It may have been my first meeting as a Senator on the Judiciary Committee in 1979 that Chairman Kennedy, Senator Thurmond, Senator Dole, Senator Cochran and others discussed adding this rule to those of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch and the Republican minority at that time took a position against adding the rule and argued in favor of any individual Senator having a right to unlimited debate- so that even one Senator could filibuster a matter. Senator Hatch said that he would be "personally upset" were unlimited debate ended. He explained: It was Senator Dole who drew upon his Finance Committee experience to suggest in 1979 that the Committee rule be that "at least you could require the vote of one minority member to terminate debate." Senator Cochran likewise supported having a "requirement that there be an extraordinary majority to shut off debate in our Committee." The Judiciary Committee proceeded to adopt Rule IV and it has been maintained ever since. It struck the balance that Republicans had suggested by requiring the agreement of one member of the minority before allowing the Chairman to cut off debate. That protection for the minority has been maintained by the Judiciary Committee for the last 24 years under five different chairmen - Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Thurmond, Chairman Biden, under Chairman Hatch previously and during my tenure as chairman. Rule IV of the Judiciary Committee provides the minority with a right not to have debate terminated and not to be forced to a vote without at least one member of the minority agreeing. That rule and practice had until last month always been observed by the Committee, even as we have dealt with the most contentious social issues and nominations that come before the Senate. Until last month, Democratic and Republican Chairmen had always acted to protect the rights of the Senate minority. The rule has been the Committee's equivalent to the Senate's cloture rule in Rule 22. It had been honored by all five Democratic and Republican chairman, including Senator Hatch - until last month. It was rarely utilized, but Rule IV set the ground rules and the backdrop against which rank partisanship was required to give way, in the best tradition of the Senate, to a measure of bipartisanship in order to make progress. That is the other important function of the rule. Besides protecting minority rights, it enforced a certain level of cooperation between the majority and minority in order to get anything accomplished. That, too, has been lost as the level of partisanship on the Judiciary Committee and within the Senate reached a new low when Republicans chose to override our governing rules of conduct and proceed as if the Senate Judiciary Committee were a minor committee of the House of Representatives. That this was a premeditated act is apparent from the debate in the Committee. Senator Hatch indicated that he had checked with the parliamentarians in advance, and he apparently concluded that since he had the raw power to ignore our Committee rule so long as all Republicans on the Committee stuck with him, he would do so. I understand that the parliamentarians advised Senator Hatch that there is no enforcement mechanism for a violation of Committee rules and that the parliamentarians view Senate Committees as "autonomous." I do not believe that they advised Senator Hatch he should violate our Committee rules or that they interpreted our Committee rules. I cannot remember a time when Senator Kennedy or Senator Thurmond or Senator Biden were chairing the Committee when any of them would have even considered violating their responsibility to the Senate and to the Committee and to our rules. Accordingly, we have never been faced with a need for an "enforcement mechanism" or penalty for violation of a fundamental Committee rule. In fact, the only occasion I recall Senator Hatch was previously faced with implementing Committee Rule IV, he did so. In 1997 Democrats on the Committee were seeking a Senate floor vote on President Clinton's nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. Republicans were intent on killing the nomination in Committee. The Committee rule came into play when in response to an alternative proposal by Chairman Hatch, I outlined the tradition of our Committee. I said: I intend to insist that the rules be followed. A vote that is done contrary to the rules is not a valid one." Immediately after my comment, Chairman Hatch abandoned his earlier plan and said: With respect to the nomination in 1997, Chairman Hatch acknowledged: "Absent the consent of a minority member of the Committee, a matter may not be brought to a vote. However, Rule IV also permits the Chairman of the Committee to entertain a non-debatable motion to bring any matter to a vote.
Thereafter, given the objection, the Committee proceeded to a roll call vote whether to end the debate. That was consistent with our longstanding rule. In that case, Chairman Hatch followed the rules of the Committee. At the beginning of our meeting on February 27, I referenced the Committee's rules and during the course of the debate on nominations both Senator Kennedy and I sought to have the Committee follow them. We were overridden. Last month the bipartisan tradition and respect for the rights of the minority ended when Chairman Hatch decided to override the rule rather than follow it. He did so expressly and intentionally, declaring: "[Y]ou have no right to continue a filibuster in this committee." He decided, unilaterally, to declare the debate over even though all members of the minority were prepared to continue the debate and it was, in fact, terminated prematurely. I had yet to speak to any of the circuit nominees and other Democratic Senators had more to say. Senator Hatch completely reversed his own position from the Bill Lann Lee nomination and took a step unprecedented in the history of the Committee. Contrast the statements of Senator Hatch in 1979 when he supported unlimited debate for a single Senator - with Republicans in the minority - with his action overriding the rights of the Democratic minority and his recent letter to Senator Daschle in which, now that Republicans hold the Senate majority, he says that he "does not believe the Committee filibuster should be allowed and [he] thinks it is a good and healthy thing for the Committee to have a rule that forces a vote." But our Committee rule, while providing a mechanism for terminating debate and reaching a vote on a matter, does so while providing a minimum of protection for the minority. It is even that minimum protection that Chairman Hatch will no longer countenance. Contrast Senator Hatch's recognition in 1997 that Rule IV establishes a Judiciary Committee "filibuster right" and that "[a]bsent the consent of a minority member of the Committee, a matter may not be brought to a vote," with his declaration last month that there is no right to filibuster in committee. In his recent letter to Senator Daschle he declared that he "does not believe that Committee filibusters should be allowed." It is Senator Hatch who "turned Rule 4 on its head" last month, after 24 years of consistent interpretation and implementation by five chairmen. Never before his letter to Senator Daschle has anyone since the adoption of the rule in 1979 ever suggested that its purpose was to be narrowed and redirected to thwart "an obstreperous Chairman who refuses to allow a vote on an item on the Agenda." After all, as Senator Hatch recognizes in his letter, it is the chairman's prerogative to set the agenda for the markup. This revisionist reading of the rule is not justified by its adoption or its prior use and appears to be nothing other than an after the fact attempt to justify the obvious breaches of the longstanding Committee rule and practice that occurred last month. It was not even articulated contemporaneously at the business meeting. I appreciate the frustrations that accompany chairing the Judiciary Committee. I know the record we achieved during my 17 months of chairing the Committee, when we proceeded with hearings on more than 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees and scores of his executive nominees, including extremely controversial nominations, when we proceeded fairly and in accordance with our rules and Committee traditions and practices to achieve almost twice as many confirmation for President Bush as the Republicans had allowed for President Clinton, and I know how that record was mischaracterized by partisans. Those 100 favorably reported nominations included Michael McConnell, Dennis Shedd, D. Brooks Smith, John Rogers, Michael Melloy and many others. I know that sometimes a chairman must make difficult decisions about what to include on an agenda and what not to include, what hearings to hold and when. In my time as chairman I tried to maintain the integrity of the Committee process and to be bipartisan. I noticed hearings at the request of Republican Senators and allowed Republican Senators to chair hearings. I made sure the Committee moved forward fairly on the President's nominees in spite of the Administration's unwillingness to work with us to fill judicial vacancies with consensus nominees and thereby fill those vacancies more quickly. But I cannot remember a time when Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Thurmond, Chairman Biden, Chairman Hatch previously, or I, ever overrode by fiat the right of the minority to debate a matter in accordance with our longstanding Committee rules and practices. The Committee and the Senate have crossed a threshold of partisan overreaching that should never have been crossed. I urge the Republican leadership to recommit the nominations of Deborah Cook and John Roberts to the Judiciary Committee so that they can be considered in accordance with the Committee's rules. The action taken last month should be vitiated and order restored to the Senate and to the Judiciary Committee. I urge this Committee to rethink the misstep taken last month and urge the Chairman and the Committee to disavow the violations of Rule IV that occurred. Since January 24, the Democratic minority on this Committee has debated and voted upon a number of controversial circuit court nominees. The Senate has moved forward to confirm Jay Bybee to the 9th Circuit and by so doing has already confirmed more circuit judges this year than the Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session. The Senate has voted to confirm 111 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including 11 this year alone. In 1999, the Republican leadership of the Senate did not move forward to confirm 11 of President Clinton's nominees until July. We have also worked hard to report a number of important executive nominations in spite of the continued partisanship by the White House and Senate Republicans. As Senator Feinstein has recently noted, we have cooperated by not insisting on our rights to seven days' notice or seven days' holdover on various matters and we have not insisted on three days' notice of items on the agenda. We have proceeded to debate with less than a quorum present and Democrats have been responsible for making quorum after quorum so that this Committee could conduct business. Ironically, we did so even last month while our rights were being violated. Order and comity need to be restored to this Committee. An essential step in that process is the restoration of our rights under Rule IV and recognition of our rights thereunder. All of the Democratic Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee have asked the Chairman to reconvene the hearing with Judge Cook and Mr. Roberts because of the circumstances under which it was held and not satisfactorily completed. We have also taken the White House up on its offer to make the nominees available with a joint letter seeking an opportunity to make further inquiries of them. Regrettably, the White House withdrew its offer and now refuses to proceed. That change of position by the White House on top of the inadequate hearing on these important nominations has created another unnecessary complication. That is why the minority, while prepared to debate and vote on the Bybee nomination to the 9th Circuit and nine other presidential nominations on February 27, wished to continue the debate on the Cook and Roberts nominations. Let me be specific: On January 29, the Judiciary Committee met in an extraordinary session to consider six important nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, including three controversial nominees to circuit courts, Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook and John Roberts. Several Senators only officially learned the names of the nominees on the agenda for that hearing at 4:45 p.m. on the January 28, the day before. On learning that the Chairman did indeed intend to include three controversial circuit court nominees on one hearing -- something virtually unprecedented in the history of the Committee, and absolutely unprecedented in this Chairman's tenure - Democrats on the Committee wrote to the Chairman to protest. We explained that since 1985, when Chairman Thurmond and Ranking Member Biden signed an agreement about the pace of hearings and the number of controversial nominees per hearing, there has been a consensus on the Committee that Members ought to be given ample time to question nominees, and that controversial nominees in particular deserve more time. We explained that we were surprised by the Chairman's rush to consider these three nominees at the same time, considering the pace at which President Clinton's nominees were scheduled for hearings. During the time Republicans controlled the Senate and Bill Clinton was president, there was never a hearing held to consider three circuit court nominees at once. Never. Finally, we explained the importance of giving Senators sufficient time to consider each nominee and properly exercise their Constitutional duty to give advice and consent to the President's lifetime appointments to the federal bench. But our request went unanswered, and we were expected to question three nominees in the space of a single day. That proved impossible, as was evident throughout that long day. My colleagues and I asked several rounds of questions of Mr. Sutton, and were only able to ask a very few questions of the other two nominees. We asked, during the hearing itself, that the Chairman reconsider and ask the other two nominees to return the next day or the next week, and to give them the time they deserved in front of the Committee, but he refused. We asked the same thing after the hearing, and were told that indeed the nominees would make themselves available to meet with each of us, so we wrote to accept those offers, although as we explained, we would have preferred to meet with them altogether, and in a public session. But again, we were rebuffed. I wonder if they were available for one sort of meeting, why were they not available for another. I regret that the White House refused our request to bring closure to those matters. During the last four years of the Clinton Administration, his entire second term in office after being reelected by the American people, the Judiciary Committee refused to hold hearings and Committee votes on his qualified nominees to the D.C. Circuit and the Sixth Circuit. Last month, in sharp contrast, this Committee was required to proceed on two controversial nominations to those circuit courts in contravention of the rules and practices of the Committee. This can only be seen as part of a concerted and partisan effort to pack the courts and tilt them sharply out of balance. Unfortunately, the violations of Rule IV are now part of that effort, as well. # # # # # |


text:
Genre: Reality, Cooking
Premise: A sweet lineup of 13 rising pastry chefs enters the kitchen in the third season of this competition series to see if they can bake their way into the heart -- and taste buds -- of the ``Cake Boss'' himself, Buddy Valastro. Over the course of 10 episodes, Buddy and his family whittle down the baker's dozen of contestants through a series of increasingly difficult challenges that test their business sense and cake artistry, until the ``Next Great Baker'' emerges and wins a prize package featuring $100,000 and a chance to work with Buddy at Carlo's Bakery. Special guest judges this season include Mario Lopez, Courtney Mazza, Lou Ferrigno, Peter Billingsley and Joey Fatone, among others.
S03, E12 | Vegas Baby! | ||
S03, E10 | Momma Knows Best | ||
S03, E09 | Happy Birthday Kelly | ||
S03, E08 | Battle of the Sexes | ||
S03, E07 | Cakes Al Dente |
Top TV Shows |
All TV Shows |
Your Favorite Movies |
Privacy Policy |
License Our Content | Media Kit | About Us | © 2013 TMS | Zap2it TV Listings |


text:
Primary season blues4 hours ago in The Phytophactor
Life and lemons: The Memory Addition3 days ago in Angry by Choice
Pompeii – a Geological Movie-Review : Introducing the Main Character2 weeks ago in History of Geology
Can you patent a fraudulent stem cell method? Yes!2 weeks ago in Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience
New Neopterygian Fishes from the Chinle Formation of Utah2 weeks ago in Chinleana
Doing your homework4 weeks ago in Games with Words
China's exceptionally well-preserved fossils may have been the result of a volcanic eruption4 weeks ago in The Allotrope
TMI Friday: When you've literrally had your Chips1 month ago in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
AMRC guest blog - the opening of the MND DNA Bank5 months ago in The View from a Microbiologist
Live coverage of Big Protist Conference (ICOP) in Vancouver, 28 Jul -- 02 Aug7 months ago in Skeptic Wonder
The Lure of the Obscure? Guest Post by Frank Stahl1 year ago in Sex, Genes & Evolution
Finding a new translation factor, and verifying it with help from my experimental friends1 year ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
The Large Picture Blog Has Moved2 years ago in The Large Picture Blog
Lab Rat Moving House2 years ago in Life of a Lab Rat
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs2 years ago in Disease Prone
Branson getting into microbial diversity in the deep sea2 years ago in The Greenhouse
Get out and vote "Yes to AV" in the UK referendum
In fact, it's not even about science and religion. I almost never deviate from the regular fare on this blog, but this is a topic that's really dear to my heart - the UK referendum on 5th May on changing the the voting system.
If you're a typical reader, then you're an educated liberal, and so you probably already support the AV system, at least in vague terms. But what you might not know is that it's going to be very close.
That means that every vote counts - which means you! This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the UK electoral system fairer. AV is not perfect, but it's a damned sight better than first past the post, and we won't get another chance in the foreseeable future!
So do me a favour and get out and vote on May 5th! And get all your friends to go and vote too. If you don't, we're going to be stuck with the same god-awful system we've got now.
The No campaign has a huge slush fund, donated by a handful of the super-rich. The Yes campaign can't compete, and there's a real danger that money, rather than ideas, will win out. But the Yes campaign advantage lies in the large groundswell of popular support - and it's networking and word of mouth that will win the day.
They have a website, Yes to Fairer Votes, where you can sign up to help out. Do what you can!
For any non-UK people still with us, the UK is holding a referendum on whether to change the current system (where you put an X next to a single candidate) - to the so-called 'alternative voting system' (where you rank candidates in order of preference).
The current system is deeply flawed, because most candidates get elected without the support of the majority of the electorate (because there are usually many candidates for each seat). Even worse, people often vote tactically - for the candidate they think has a chance of winning, rather than the candidate they actually want.
The result is an artificial two-party government. It's impossible to challenge the incumbent in most seats. If the party bureaucracy puts a monkey in as your local candidate, then you have to vote for him (or her). If you vote for an unofficial candidate, then all that happens is that the vote is split and neither of the candidates you want gets in.
It's a truly awful system, and the UK needs a better one! AV has been described as a 'miserable compromise' but actually it's just about the best voting system if you want to keep the 'constituency' organization that is so deeply ingrained in the British heritage.
Here's a couple of my favourite videos to explain it. They're a bit nerdy but hey, this is a kinda nerdy blog! Talking of which, here's a longish post by Tim Gower, a mathematician at Cambridge, explaining the benefits of AV.
The first video is a straight up explanation of why AV tends to give fairer results:
And this second one is a bit more partisan - explaining why the UK in particular will benefit.
Here endeth the partly-political broadcast. Normal service resumes in the next post. Just get out and vote "Yes to AV", OK?
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.
10 comments:
Wow, I have been telling folks about that here in the USA for decades. I am so proud it is an option in England. Great post. I loved the videos -- even the partisan one didn't cross the line. All 5 reasons are spot on!
I have often been either a "tactical" voter or a "throw-away" voter here in the USA -- it is a huge shame.
Best wishes U.K. !Tom, I'm spreading this to every Canadian I know. We are in our fourth general election since 2003 because the Conservative Party has won a minority government each time. The majority of Canadians don't want a Conservative govt and yet they continue to get in because of our "first past the gate" voting system." AV could be the solution.
ReplyDeleteIn California we call it "Ranked Choice Voting", and it seems to work o.k. We did get a couple of unexpected results in the previous elections where underdog candidates came from way behind to win (Oakland's Mayor for example). Mostly it avoids the costly run-off elections we always got stuck with in a close election year.
ReplyDeleteHeh, looks like we've got North America wrapped up at least :)
William, the official campaign reasons against it are all just nonsense - design to play off fear and ignorance.
There are some more nuanced reasons against it. This editorial in the Financial Times gives a fair overview (they come out in favour in balance).
Academic polling experts also have some concerns, but they are quite technical (it is not necessarily concordant - meaning the result is not always perfect). There are 'constituency-based' systems out there that are preferred by some experts - but pretty much all experts think that AV is superior to FPTP. If you're interested in the technical nitty gritty, there was a recent workshop on the topic at the London School of Economics.Brit here, and I like this post :) I like the blog post you linked too, as well. A more non-nerd-friendly article about it is here, which I would also recommend: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-if-you-get-the-x-factor-youll-get-av-2271058.html
(that's the one I'm getting my family to read)- AnonymousWednesday, April 27, 2011 6:46:00 pm
The No campaign has a huge slush fund, donated by a handful of the super-rich
And you say that this had nothing to to with religion.
Right-wing politicians will always prefer voting system which benefit compact minorities, such as FPTP. If you're backed by lots of money and the church, than it easy to set up a small minority. People who vote for these RW parties, cannot risk eternal damnation for protecting their worldly interests; this explains because stopping abortion is major goal of the right. Plus, religious type is aganist left-wing economic policies.
Further, if a party is backed by few deep pockets, then internal democracy can be easily sidestepped. If a party is backed by lots of small pockets, then internal democracy become an issue. This is way left-wing parties are usally more divided than their right-wing cunterparts. Canadian here.
Ever since reading this article, I've been pushing the idea of ranked voting on all my friends.
I'm hoping we can get a fairer voting system set up on my side of the pond. Sadly, both the Liberals and the Cons are against fair voting because it benefits the smaller parties at the expense of the larger ones.
Best of luck getting the AV in place on your side.
Markup Key:
- bold = bold
- italic = italic
- FoS = FoS


text:
Europe has a huge stock of tangible equity. How much would China pay Greece for the Parthenon ? They could put it on a platform built above the ruins of the Old Summer Palace.
TODAY'S recommended economics writing:
• How to do more (Adam Posen)
• CBO: Spend money now! (Wonkblog)
• Saving Europe with sovereign equity (Steve Waldman)
• U.S. motorists may spend a record amount on gasoline this year (Los Angeles Times)


text:
Strength Training (cont.) Medical Author:
Richard Weil, MEd, CDE
Richard Weil, MEd, CDERichard Weil, MEd, CDE, is an exercise physiologist and Certified Diabetes Educator, and is director of the New York Obesity Research Center Weight Loss Program at St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center in Medical Editor:
Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, Chief Medical Editor
Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, Chief Medical EditorMelissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, is a U.S. board-certified Anatomic Pathologist with subspecialty training in the fields of Experimental and Molecular Pathology. Dr. Stöppler's educational background includes a BA with Highest Distinction from the University of Virginia and an MD from the University of North Carolina. She completed residency training in Anatomic Pathology at Georgetown University followed by subspecialty fellowship training in molecular diagnostics and experimental pathology. IN THIS ARTICLE
What's a Good Beginner Plan?Below is a three-day per week beginner program broken up by muscle group. Day one: chest (bench press with bar or dumbbell press, flyes, push-ups), triceps (bench dips, kickbacks), legs (squats or leg press, leg extension, leg curl) Day two: back (bent-over rows or seated cable rows), biceps (curls, standing or seated) Day three: shoulders (lateral raises, front raises), legs (squats or leg press, leg extension, leg curl) Work the abs at each workout. Crunches are a good way to start, and below are some excellent advanced abdominal exercises. Make sure to stretch your lower back before and after doing them.
You can experiment with different splits. For instance, you could try the following Day one: chest (bench press with bar or dumbbell press, flyes, push-ups), back (bent over rows, seated cable rows, pull-downs), Day two: biceps (curls, standing or seated), triceps (bench dips, kickbacks) Day three: shoulders (lateral raises, front raises), legs (squats, leg extensions, leg curls) Resistance exercise is a great way to round out your workout if you're already doing cardio. It will help you build strength and improve tone, preserve muscle as you lose weight, and will help you feel good about your physique and yourself. I encourage you to give it a try! Next Page: Must Read Articles Related to Strength Training
Aerobic Exercise
Aerobic exercise is moderate physical activity that's sustained for a few minutes with the goal of improving health. Walking, biking, swimming, dancing, and jog...learn more >>
Patient Comments & ReviewsThe eMedicineHealth doctors ask about Resistance Training: |
Living Better
Find the secrets to longer life.
From WebMD
Fitness Resources
Featured Centers
Health Solutions From Our Sponsors
Read What Your Physician is Reading on Medscape
Therapeutic Exercise »
DeLateur defined therapeutic exercise as the prescription of bodily movement to correct an impairment, improve musculoskeletal function, or maintain a state of well-being