text:
What rides on the rider
John Schwenkler February 13, 2012 - 11:40am
In their statement on the revised version of the HHS regulations, the U.S. bishops write that under the new terms, the mandate "would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage [of sterilization and contraception]. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider."This redfaced point, which as far as I know has not been contested in any of the descriptions of the regulations that are out there, seems to me to matter quite a bit. For in order for there to be a meaningful sense in which the HHS mandate doesn't require employers to provide insurance coverage for sterilization and the purchase of contraceptives, there needs to be a meaningful sense in which the insurance policy provided by the employer is different from the one that covers these things. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where, while an employer-sponsored policy may not cover sterilization and contraception at the moment that it is issued by the employer, once the employee requests the insurer to add such coverage that same (employer-sponsored) policy now does cover these things, and such coverage is integrated seamlessly with the rest of what the policy covers. It may be true that the default employer-sponsored policy does not pay for anything that the employer finds morally objectionable, but if the modified policy is also an employer-sponsored one, and coverage for sterilization and contraception is a part of it, then the employer has sponsored a policy that covers sterilization and contraception. And surely it will not matter that the employer did not have to tell the employee that there was an employer-sponsored plan available that covered these things, or that the insurer happens to be making it available to the employer at a reduced rate.By contrast, if coverage for these things is on the books as an additional rider that the employee is offered the opportunity to add for free, then -- so long as it really is free for the employer -- the force of this worry diminishes significantly. For then it strikes me the most accurate way to describe the situation would be as one where it must be in the terms of the employer-sponsored policy that it includes an option to add some separate policy that would bring with it some additional coverage, albeit of a sort the employer would rather not provide. I do not expect that everyone who is worried about the mandate's effects on religious liberty would be persuaded by this, but I think I might (though I would still oppose the mandate on other grounds). In any case it would go some way to addressing the concern about the "seamlessness" of employer-sponsored coverage as described in the paragraph above.I will now be shouted at in the comboxes. Please be charitable, as I am not in anyone's pocket here, and I have been thinking a lot about these questions and working hard to set my thoughts straight.
Commenting Guidelines
For any given day or week or year there will be all sorts of cross-subsidies in insurance payouts. On Monday NARAL may subidize the Little Sisters of the Poor Nursing Home and on Tuesday the resuls may be reversed. But over longer periods (which is the proper insurance perspective), if the pricing actuaries are doing their job the magnitude of cross-subsidies will be minimized. The plan sponsors will tailor their plans for a given set of benefits and the premium will closely correspond to that set and not the benefits chosen by others. Over time they will get roughly what they paid for and not a random lottery-like result characteristic of daily payouts. If NARAL ends up susidizing the Little Sisters Nursing Home for more than a year they should get a different consultant to help them find more appropriate coverage and vice-versa. Religious employers should not throw up their hands in the belief that since we can't monitor the movements of every dollar on a daily basis it's useless to distinguish between degrees of cooperation over longer periods. They should maintain their rights to choose a set of benefits fitting their mission.
When you pay Aetna a premium for your coverage that does not include abortion, its pooled with premiums from enrollees whose policies cover abortion.And the relevance of this is what? You're still not paying to get abortion coverage for anyone -- they're having to pay extra for that themselves, if they want it.
Even though we are already exempting houses of worship, parishes, and chanceries, we wont make you include contraception coverage in the health plans of your hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations. We will have insurers do that separately.This is a distinction with any moral difference. Mere semantics.
Sandra, no one on this thread is going to pay any attention to you, so I, also a woman, will step up. If you notice here and if you check back on similar threads over the past few days, you will see that the posters are overwhelming male. They just seem to love those angels dancing on the head of a pin arguments. The more abstract the better. It is more than offensive. And you are correct. People are fed up, especially women and those men who love and respect women. And yes, it is a misuse of power by the bishops, those crazy old uncles up in the attic. We can't get rid of them because they're part of the family. We just have to take them out of the attic occasionally for ceremonial occasions and hope they don't embarrass the rest of the family.
Grant said: If employers are not contracting and paying for contraception, then the cooperation is quite remote, and, given the great good of health coverage, licit. And John responded: It may be that the level of cooperation would be remote enough to make it licit if there is no other way to provide health coverage. But that doesnt mean the state should force employers into that position, which is what is at issue here.John is exactly right, and it's a point Grant refuses to address. Even if Grant's view of cooperation is one legitimate view among Catholics (something John's questions are poking holes in), the point is that there are organizations out there, Catholic and otherwise, who don't agree with grant and who object to levels and balances of material cooperation that Grant does not object to. Why should everyone have to agree with Grant or be fined by the government? Even if Grant's view is one legitimate one, that does not even begin to get Grant to the conclusion that his view justifies mandating every other Catholic, Christian, Jew and Muslim (especially ones running businesses) that their consciences can be violated because they don't adopt Grant's moral calculus. That is insane from a Catholic perspective, from a liberal perspective, and also from the perspective of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act which prohibits any such burden (which Obama's rule simply says he is in compliance with, without offering any explanation of why, because no explanation is possible for the simple fact that the government could give away contraception free ITSELF instead of forcing others to do so). And this gets us back to John's question: the fact that the government could provide contraception coverage itself, to any comer, shows why the Mandate is NOT independent of the employer's plan. Not any woman can walk into the Insurance Office and say give me my free coverage. It can only be a woman whose employer already pays that company. There's nothing separate about it, when you consider the alternative of the government offering it regardless of where the heck you work. The contingency of the employer's plan being paid for for that employee is a necessary and direct condition of the woman getting her extra coverage under the President's proposal even according to Grant's interpretation of it. But the point isn't whether there is or is not a way to make Grant correct that the cooperation can be mollified even in those circumstances. The point is that Grant has offered absolutely no excuse why every religious person affected by this mandate must agree with Grant on this question--why dissent from Grant's moral view can legitimately be squashed by the federal government.
Politics had entered the Church.
Yes, Sandra, but it came from outside, not inside. Before August of last year (as I recall) this issue did not exist. Then the White House created it. Would you have had the Church simply accept the change without protest, and start paying for insurance policies that covered contraception and sterilization? Or did you object to the original dictum but feel that the second version solved the problems presented by the first?
I do think it is important that premiums be shown not to go up as a result of the policy.
John, that's impossible, no? How could such a thing ever be proved? There must hundreds of thousands of interrelating factors figured into rate increases. It would simply be buried in the noise.
Bernard,I agree with you that the state has a legitimate interest to make sure that the employment of its citizens takes place under terms that protects the employees'. Unfortunately, its subordinate to the constitution. The administration's carve out for religious institutions demonstrates that they agree and the recent Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC decided on Jan 11, 2012 by a unanimous vote demonstrates that the court agrees as well. You can read the entire decision here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf One pertinent part on pg 21 says The interest of society in the enforcement of employ- ment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.Your position while well argued just doesnt hold water.
Ed, I think your example about Dignity just demonstrates the validity of my argument, no matter how esoteric you consider it. And if that means being ignored and mocked, so be it. I'll happily change my mind given a well-reasoned and Truthful argument, but mocking and ignoring are neither.
The USCCB said it was wrong for the government to require it to pay for (thats the language they kept using) contraception coverage. Obama said, all right. Even though we are already exempting houses of worship, parishes, and chanceries, we wont make you include contraception coverage in the health plans of your hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations. We will have insurers do that separately.
Grant, don't you have even a tiny nagging doubt about the ethics or possibly the legality of the President's simply ordering insurance companies to suck up the cost of contraception and sterilization coverage (yes, of course there's a cost) just to give him political cover with enough Catholics?
David Nickol, thanks for the link.Bruce,I don't think the fact that an employee could elect not to participate in health insurance offered by their employer makes it any less of a form of compensation. Money left on the table is still money. The idea of employees being merely "beneficiareis," gives me a connotation of employees benefiting from their employer's generosity, rather than the employees being independent actors in a business relationship who are receiving payment for services rendered. I love capitalism.John Schwenkler,You bring up intentionality. This is how I understand your refutation of Grant's arguments about pooled insurance money: the Church isn't funding BC when it pays into a health insurance plan because even if that money goes into the pot that funds BC for people on other plans, the Church isn't intending to pay for BC and so its conscience remains clear. If this is true, then couldn't the same argument be made in support of the revised rules? If you still feel Church money is being used to fund BC, then isn't the Church's conscience in the clear because it isn't intending its money to be used this way?
Ann, You posited the following:The ins. co. decision to offer free contraceptives is just a cost of doing business for them. The Catholic employer asks the ins. co. for something simple: will you sell us a contract for an ins. policy that doesnt include contraceptives, etc. coverage?Since the insurance will know that it must provide 'free contraceptives' as part of a policy with a religious employer, even if that policy on its face does not include contraceptives, wont it just figure those into the cost of the policy? There is no way to force a demarkation. Everybody knows the policy must include 'free contraceptives' and thats the fundamental problem. I believe its a Hobson's choice: a free choice but with only one choice. In my book, thats not a free choice.
Matt,I love capitalism too. And I agree money left on the table is still money. By beneficiaries, I dont mean to imply that its not fair deal mutually negotiated between the employer and the employee. I only mean that the only way the employees can access the compensation is by accessing medical benefits. Those benefits are funded, in part, by the employers cash. And if they include contraception et al, then the employers cash is purchasing those benefits on behalf of the employee and voila, we have the bishops problem. They are different from wages because the employee cant do whatever they want with them.
Matthew Yglesias, a leftist commentator, after making the obligatory sneer at Catholic "obscurantism," points out how how the HHS mandate actually operates (he might also say that there's quite a bit of progressive obscurantism involved in the HHS scheme):"Another point worth making is that this is one of these issues where the actual incidence of the costs of a policy and the legislative incidence are going to be quite different. Liberals often like making "employers" pay for things as an alternative to taxing people. But in practice, employers are making a tradeoff between health care spending and wages. If your employer shifts from not subsidizing contraceptives to subsidizing them, what happens is that the workers who don't use contraceptives are providing cross-subsidy to those who do."http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/10/the_economics_of_birth_co... some good comments on the post - about the less than impressive record of preventive measures.
Bruce, I think that's a better argument: they're different from wages because the employee can't do whatever they want with them. They can only buy health care with this particular form of compensation. But even if it's a payment that can only be spent on health care, shouldn't the employee be allowed to spend it on health care as they decide? Must my employer add additional limitations on what this particular form of compensation is allowed to be spent on?
John S: "I do think it is important that premiums be shown not to go up as a result of the policy."If only. My premium went up significantly a year after AFC passed Congress. I'd think the only way to stop insurance companies from raising premiums for whatever purpose they like would be federal regulation. But how far can that go? If premiums don't go up one year, they'll go up the next. I think it's a given insurance companies will raise premiums whether they need to or not, and when they do, those opposed to the HHS mandate are going to claim that just proves -- again -- that the President's "so-called" accomodation was a scam.It seems to me the USCCB distrusts everything that comes out of this White House. They seem perfectly willing to put the worst possible spin on virtually anything Obama does. Now, some have gone as far as to accuse him of intentionally attacking religious liberty. Who else speaks of the President this way? Three guesses. It's hard not to think somebody's throwing partisan wrenches into the works, if not the bishops themselves, those advising them.
Having read this exhausting discussion I am starting to wonder why the government needs to spell out in detail what must be covered by health insurance. I think one could easily devise some more flexible system of incentives to motivate employers to buy decent coverage for their employees, without all this micro-managing.
I'm not endorsing Fox News here. This interview with Cardinal Wuerl is posted on the Archdiocese of Washington's website: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/index.html#/v/1450080861...
Cardinal Wuerl raises one good point: the administration has to work with institutions that self-fund their employee health plans to figure out how to keep them from funding contraception coverage. The notion that the proposed revision violates Catholic institutions' religious freedom is a canard.
Grant,I'm not sure how your first and second sentences work together.
Bishop Lynch, in the Diocese of St Petersburg, says his diocese is self-insured, so the fix actually leaves him in a worse position. Bishop Lynch seemed pretty reasonable on health care reform generally, so I would give his concerns some weight. http://dosp.co/2012/02/little-more-than-a-nod/
Matt,You asked: Must my employer add additional limitations on what this particular form of compensation is allowed to be spent on?Almost all of our entire health care system is based on the employer deciding what will be covered and to what extent, except when the government steps in with its mandates. I'm guessing employers try to balance cost against employee happiness (or maximize utility in economic speak) but as the sponsor its the employer's decision. And I dont think its an easy fix because as soon as you move to individual policies, and away from groups, you get the problem of adverse selection where only sick people enroll or the individual mandate. But because the employers sponsor health care coverage for their employees, and the church is an employer, you get the current issue.
Grant,I think you are way to quick to dismiss Cardinal Wuerl's religious freedom issue. The administrations recent revision is a formulaic response but as this long thread demonstrates there is substantial disagreement about whether it has any substance. In our world of employer sponsored health care its virtually impossible to separate the employer from the health care provided. Its impossible for any self-insured entity, and the notion that the triangle of Employer-Insurer-Employee that the administration envisions somehow gives independence to the employer when all three know the endgame is at best a fig leaf and at worst laughable.
Re Bruec and Josh:Both of you cite the Supreme Court ruling to refute what I said. Note that the Supreme Court is a branch of the government. Nothing in the decision you cite suggests that the Supreme Court takes it that the bishops are entitled to determine the meaning of the Constitution. The bishops are entitled to raise a LEGAL challenge to any law that they see fit. They are not legally entitled to determine the validity of that challenge. That is a governmental function, sometimes to be performed by the Supreme court and sometimes to be determined by either the executive or the legislative branches.None of this means that the legal trumps the moral in every respect. Sometimes the moral issue is so important that the legal norm must be violated whatever the legal cost. Sometimes the moral issue is not so important. In either case, it makes no sense to suggest that the bishops can or ought to be the ultimate determiners of the legal. That they are not so does not mean that their moral claim to freedom of conscience has been infringed upon. Rather it means that exercising it may have a legal price to pay.
"Since the insurance will know that it must provide free contraceptives as part of a policy with a religious employer, even if that policy on its face does not include contraceptives, wont it just figure those into the cost of the policy? There is no way to force a demarkation."We expect that, if the insurance company is rational, it will try to make up the loss on the 'free contraceptives' somehow. It is not a given that it will do so by raising the premium to the Catholic employer. For one thing, the market may not permit it; if United Healthcare tries to jack up the rate, the Catholic employer may be able to switch its business to Aetna or Blue Cross/Blue Shield and get the same or a lower price.Perhaps the insurance company will make up the loss by charging its non-Catholic-institution clientele a higher rate for their 'free contraceptives'. Or perhaps it will do so by imposing higher co-pays on actual healthcare meds across the board on the employees of all its clients. Or, for all we know, there could be a tax write-off benefit to just sucking up the loss on the 'free contraceptives'.
Grant, I agree with Bruce: you are dismissing these concerns way too quickly, especially given the lack of any written document or other official statement from the administration that confirms your interpretation of the law.
John and Bruce: Only if you believe Obama was lying or crazy would you think that he had no intention of codifying the proposal he made on Friday in a nationally televised press conference. The regulations themselves promise to work out something along those lines. If the ultimate final regulations actually require Catholic employers to contract and pay for contraception services, I will criticize the Obama administration again -- as I did many, many times before the revision was announced last Friday.
Grant: Nothing Obama said in his televised press conference is sufficient to clarify the issue I am raising here. Nor is it clarified in the document released by the WH press office, which looked like it had been written up in about five minutes. Nor is it clarified in the version of the regulations posted to the Federal Register, which as I understand it do not include the accommodating language at all. So no, I don't have to think anyone is lying or crazy to want something more than the word of an unnamed administration official who said some things in a conference call about a policy that he or she may not wholly have understood, and indeed that may not really have been worked out in detail at the time, especially given that those descriptions of the policy are contradicted by ones that other parties seem to have come away with.
John Schwenkler, I don't understand your comment "Nor is it clarified in the version of the regulations posted to the Federal Register, which as I understand it do not include the accommodating language at all."The Federal Register includes the "deal points." As in any business negotiation, these have to be developed in a second step to describe he exact methods by which the points will be accomplished. As explained in the document, that development will go though the normal federal rulemaking process, which provides for input and comment on drafts by stakeholders. That rulemaking process will happen during the coming year and final rules will be published before the hospital, universities, etc. have to comply.Here are the "deal points" (my emphasis)
With respect to certain non-exempted, non-profit organizations with religious objections to covering contraceptive services whose group health plans are not grandfathered health plans, guidance is being issued contemporaneous with these final regulations that provides a one-year safe harbor from enforcement by the Departments.Before the end of the temporary enforcement safe harbor, the Departments will work with stakeholders to develop alternative ways of providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing with respect to non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to such coverage. Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employers plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage. Actuaries and experts have found that coverage of contraceptives is at least cost neutral when taking into account all costs and benefits in the health Plan. The Departments intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self-insured group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.A future rulemaking would be informed by the existing practices of some issuers and religious organizations in the 28 States where contraception coverage requirements already exist, including Hawaii. There, State health insurance law requires issuers to offer plan participants in group health plans sponsored by religious employers that are exempt from the State contraception coverage requirement the option to purchase this coverage in a way that religious employers are not obligated to fund it. It is our understanding that, in practice, rather than charging employees a separate fee, some issuers in Hawaii offer this coverage to plan participants at no charge. The Departments will work with stakeholders to propose and finalize this policy before the end of the temporary enforcement safe harbor.Nothing in these final regulations precludes employers or others from expressing their opposition, if any, to the use of contraceptives, requires anyone to use contraceptives, or requires health care providers to prescribe contraceptives if doing so is against their religious beliefs. These final regulations do not undermine the important protections that exist under conscience clauses and other religious exemptions in other areas of Federal law. Conscience protections will continue to be respected and strongly enforced.
John Hayes: I don't think the second boldfaced sentence (which is the crucial one) settles anything. For my worry hinges on the relation that the contraceptive coverage offered by the issuer, if accepted by a plan participant, will bear to the employer-sponsored policy. If it's not a separate policy from it (which language is not included in the regulation), then the policy doesn't meet my standard.
A lot of discussion has assumed that today's health insurance companies are like Ben Frankln's fire insurance company where a group of homeowners pooled the risk that some of their homes would burn down and agreeed that those people would be reimbursed out of a pool of money that they had all subscribed. That arrangement is what is called a mutual insurance company and the policyholders are the owners of the company.if the company makes a profit, some of the profit goes to a reserve against future losses and the policyholders get the rest either as a dividend or as a reduction in future premiums. But companies like Aetna and United Healthcare are not mutual companies. They are businesses with investor shareholders. They make a contract with you that you give them a certain amount of money and they will take the risk of paying all the claims that fall within the terms of the policy. You are not involved in any pool. If claims are high, they bear the loss; if claims are low, they make a profit. You do not share in their profits or losses unless the contract has some special provision for that. I think this has a bearing on some of the moral issues that have been discussed.
Officials. As in senior administration officials who were involved in crafting the policy. The revision of which was reported by every major media outlet in the country. I certainly won't try to force you to take the word of people who can't meet your standards of press-release composition, but I would ask that you consider how politically daft it would be for Obama to do what what those advancing the other "interpretation" claim he will. Namely, nothing. If Obama was planning all along to force Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities to pay for contraception coverage for their employees, then last week's press conference and press briefings were an elaborate ruse. Why would he do that unless he wanted to offer his political opponents another cudgel with which to beat him?Also, it's not quite accurate to say that the regulations codified Friday do not include the accommodating language "at all":
Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employers plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.
There would be no point in describing two offers of insurance, one without contraception coverage, and one offering just contraception coverage, if the original "final" ruling was going to stand, forcing religious employers to purchase contraception coverage for employees.
John Hayes-- this language which you bolded is of no legal significance whatsoever:
Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employers plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing.
Grant is wrong to say that "the regulations promise" anything. What's written above isn't a regulation at all. The regulation is what comes at the end. What's written above is just fluff, as far as the law is concerned. It doesn't bind anyone, and if the Department doesn't initiate such a rulemaking, or if this (currently hypothetical) rulemaking doesn't turn out as promised, no one will have any recourse.
John Schwenkler, I guess you'll have to wait to see how it develops in detail during the next year. However, note that the FR language " Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor"Does not support the bishops' statement:"the coverage would be provided as a part of the employers policy, not as a separate rider.
John Hayes and Grant,To me, this is the critical piece: the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employers plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. But of course, just writing rules cannot force this to happen. As virtually everyone agrees, this is impossible to make happen in a self insured plan making this sentence completely worthless:The Departments intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self-insured group health plansJust standing up and giving a speech, or printing up deal points does not mean the deal actually works. Many times, working out the all details of a deal shows the initial agreement is unworkable.
Grant, you keep moving the target. E.g. you write:
If Obama was planning all along to force Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities to pay for contraception coverage for their employees, then last weeks press conference and press briefings were an elaborate ruse.
But I am not saying that there is any such plan. Rather my suggestion is that employers may end up being forced to sponsor a single plan that includes coverage for contraception. And that possibility is entirely compatible with the letter of what you quote.Look, here is another way to put the difficulty. I think it has come out in this discussion that the question of what does or doesn't count as sponsoring an insurance plan that includes coverage for X is pretty hotly contested. I have tried to fix a criterion that would settle this. Why should I be confident that the officials you talked to had this strict sort of criterion in mind rather than some looser one, or even that they were attuned to the importance of this strictness? Does the administration employ a fleet of moral philosophers and theologians?And John Hayes, it is simply not the case that the line you quote is in any sort of tension with the bishops' description of the policy. The employer can be offered a plan without coverage for contraception that is then changed into one that does have such coverage, at the employee's request. Grant himself has insisted that the coverage for contraception won't take the form of a rider.
Stuart is wrong to claim the codified regulations don't promise anything. They say that a rule will be issued that will allow religious objectors to offer contraception-free coverage to employees and that employees will be able to obtain contraception coverage from insurers with no cost-sharing.He is not wrong to say that if the rulemaking described in the code never happens, then nothing will have changed. At which point I will happily criticize the Obama administration for trying to force religious employers to pay for coverage that violates their religious values. Again.
John: Of course, I can't predict the future. It's possible that the administration will screw this up, just as it screwed up the original regulations. But is it likely? We have reason to believe they heard the message of offended Catholics and are serious about codifying a policy that responds to that criticism. Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, believes the plan does just that. She consulted with the administration before Friday's announcement. I have no doubt that she pointed out why the original regulations were unacceptable. It doesn't take a fleet of moral philosophers, or moral theologians, to get that point across.
Again, Grant, this just shows that you have a lot more confidence in the administration's ability to engage in careful moral reasoning, not to mention its good will, than do many of the rest of us. And given the seriousness of these issues, it seems fair for those of us who weren't privy to the private conversations to wish for a written statement from the administration that clarifies these issues.I hope I will not be regarded as a cynic if I also point out that if the administration does mess this up, it will be post-2012, and so too late for there to be any real political consequences.
John Schwenkler, speculating about language that doesn't exist yet isn't very useful. Your post started from the bishop's statement that:the coverage would be provided as a part of the employers policy, not as a separate rider.I don't see anything in the Federal Register that suggests that. So let's wait to see what the draft language actually says when it is released for public comments.
But, John, you need not be privy to private conversations to see my point that the politics of the matter weigh heavily against the USCCB's theory that nothing is really going to change. And you need not be privy to those conversations to read the many news reports about the plan.Just because the grace period goes to 2013 doesn't mean the revision won't be codified before then.I understand why people are skeptical of the administration, and I would never caution unfounded trust. it just happens that you and I differ on the likelihood of the administration keeping its word. Something a skeptic might keep in mind as he weighs these matters: During the health-care-reform debate, the USCCB sent out a stream of missives predicting that the executive order promising no federal dollars would pay for elective abortions as a result of the new law was not good enough, and that abortions would be federally funded. Yet, when New Mexico and Pennsylvania tried to cover abortions with Affordable Care Act subsidies, HHS (under Sebelius) issues orders forbidding them from using federal dollars to pay for abortions, citing the president's executive order. Sometimes politicians keep their word.
"But companies like Aetna and United Healthcare are not mutual companies. They are businesses with investor shareholders. They make a contract with you that you give them a certain amount of money and they will take the risk of paying all the claims that fall within the terms of the policy. You are not involved in any pool. If claims are high, they bear the loss; if claims are low, they make a profit. You do not share in their profits or losses unless the contract has some special provision for that."John Hayes --This cannot be repeated often enough. There is NO problem of the monies of the premium payers being pooled and then used to buy other people contraceptives, for the very simple reason that the money they give the ins. co. is no longer theirs. What they now have in exchange for the monies are their rights to have the ins. co. pay the medical bills that they contracted for.Treating a nothing ("my" premiums in the ins. co's pool) as a something always leads to ridiculous implications. In this case it leads to saying that the employees of the Catholic NGOs, etc. are paying for other people's contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortions.
Bernard,First, the Supreme Court is the body tasked with determining Constitutional limits. The Legislative and Executive do not have that authority. Second, I quoted you both the recent Supreme Court decision and the Administrations original carve out for religious institutions to show you that both these arms of the government have acted recently in a way that shows they see a first amendment argument which belies your absolute 'if you have employees then the government sets all rules' position.Finally, governments exist to serve the governed. As Lincoln said, our is '...of the people, by the people, and for the people...' And the Declaration of Independence notes '...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...'One of the unalienable rights is Freedom of conscience and worship and as such it preexists and stands above any law, including the constitution. And the law must recognize and defend that freedom to have any claim at legitimacy.
The question has been asked, many times now, why the Administration doesn't just give contraceptives directly to consumers, if it is that important a health policy. My question is, can the Presidency promulgate what is in effect a brand-new federal entitlement without Congress' consent? If not, that may explain why the President keeps ordering that someone, anyone other than the federal government, pay for contraceptives.
Jim,I hope the obvious answer to your question is the correct one: he cant. And he cant get Congress to appropriate funds.I recommend this article as well worth reading. President Obama, the Right Not to Do Wrong, and the Politics of Ruse and Delayby Matthew J. Franckhttp://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4716
Jim Pauwels, I suppose because 85% of employees already have contraception included in their health benefit plans.No reason for the government to take that cost off of the hands of employers who are already paying it. Congress did require the mandatory inclusion of women's preventative services in health benefit plans when they passed the Affordable Care Act. They left the definition of specific preventitive services to be established by HHS regulations. Contraception is only one of a list of items. I haven't heard any objections to any of the other items.
The other reason for the government not to give away contraceptives is that the insurance company can make money by giving them away free.The insurance company has already signed a contract that it requires it to pay for all pregnancies of employees of St. Joseph's Hospital. The amount of oney it will get is fixed, regardless of no much it spends. It's actuaries say that if the insurance company gives away free contraception, it will save more money on pregnancy costs thn it will lend on contraception. Right now, it can't do that because the bishop won't allow them to solicit the hospital employees. The new regulations will require them to do it, so the bishop can no longer prevent it. Please notice that the insurance company is using its own money to do this. As Ann Olivier has explained, once the hospital paid the premium, it became the insurance company's money. The proposition that contraception is cheaper than pregnancy care has been put forward by the government and they have provided some data for that. I don't think we I'll really know until the insurance companies get into the discussion.
Typos"The amount of money it will get is fixed, regardless of how much it spends".Lend = spend
Right now, it cant do that because the bishop wont allow them to solicit the hospital employees. The new regulations will require them to do it, so the bishop can no longer prevent it.Richard Doerflinger objects to that:
These organizations may voice an objection to the coverage that violates Catholic moral teaching, but insurers will ignore this objection and offer that coverage to the organizations employees anyway, without a rider or extra payment. In short, the federal government will insert itself between the religious organization and its own employees to make sure that, in President Obamas words, womens health coverage includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. Obviously this proposal raises grave moral concerns for anyone who thinks religious organizations have a right to conduct their internal life consistent with the teachings of their faith. We hope this approach will ultimately be rejected by lawmakers in favor of a policy that truly respects the religious freedom of these organizations.http://americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4930
What the USCCB wants:
If President Obama wishes to respect religious institutions that serve the poor, he will recognize them as authentically religious and give them an exemption. Then we can move on to discuss the religious freedom rights of insurers, other employers, and individuals who want a plan that does not violate their beliefs.
Mr. Gallico believes the administration may issue a final rule explaining the unacceptably unanswered questions about this hypothetical compromise before election day. Fine--the question for Mr. Gallico is simple: what month and day will be accept that the President has not kept that promise and not acted before election day. What is Mr. Gallico's deadline for when the President has waited so long that he can avoid ANY ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES for breaking his promise, a promise that is already is unacceptable (to the self-insured, to religious groups that must not be forced to accept Mr. Gallico's moral theology calculus, and for other reasons). What is your deadline? Remember that the rulemaking process allows the President unlimited discretion to change the rule until the very final day--so even if he begins rulemaking to do x (he literally has not done so), and lets the public comment on it, there is absolutely no requirement, none at all, that the final rule say x. If the final rule is not out by election day, there is zero requirement that it ever become law, or in any particular form. So what is your deadline? If your answer is, you don't mind if the process runs after the election, when the President is no longer accountable, then stop telling John that the President may keep his word before the election, because you are defending support of the President even if he runs the process out until he has no accountability, none whatsoever. If your answer is that the President must finish the process by October 15, fine. But if you state no position on that, your present status is support of the President, which necessarily means supporting him even if he does not finalize any rule before the November election. Until you set a pre-election deadline that's what you are asking people to do, write the government a blank check to force everyone to agree with the moral cooperation analysis of Grant Gallico or be fined and punished.
About the Author
John Schwenkler is an assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at Florida State University.


text:
- Home
- News
- Sports
- Obituaries
- Place Classified Ad
- Special Sections
- Community Links
- Games
With the New Year just around the corner and resolutions being made, I wanted to urge you to make one that is worthwhile this year. Instead of the typical resolutions (like to loose weight or to stop smoking or drinking, not that those are not important but they usually don't last past January), I would like you to think about making the resolution to help stop bullying.
For those of you who's reaction to this was, "Well that is just part of being a kid" or "Kids just need to toughen up because there have and always will be bullies and there is nothing we can do about it," please continue to read and hopefully you will realize there are things we can do and bullying isn't a joke or something to just shrug off.
Bullying takes place everywhere! It doesn't matter what size town or city you live in, what community, what culture or what part of the world, bullying is still a massive problem. You or your children have more than likely been involved in bullying, as most of us have, either as the victim, a bystander or even the bully.
Bullying has many forms and with the growth in technology it has actually gotten worse! Now not only can bullying happen face-to-face, with rumors and socially, but it is now happenings by text messages and on the internet. For those of you who are saying to yourselves "Well we don't have a problem with it in Antlers (Rattan, Clayton, Moyers and so on)," yes we do! You just need to open your eye and you will see that bullying is very much a part of our community and impacts our children, and some adults, on a daily basis.
Bullying is not limited by age, gender, race or education level. It is not a phase and it is certainly not a joke. Bullying can cause lasting harm and in extreme cases, the life of someone who thinks no one cares and feels that they are nothing more than a joke. Throughout the month of January I will be writing about bullying and the affects it can have and will also be covering how to spot it and how to stop it!
If everyone decides to take a stand together against bullying, we can make our communities, schools and nation a bully free place to live. If you see a child being bullied, or another adult for that matter, speak up! Even if you don't think it is your place, it is! We are all responsible for allowing bullying to take place and together we can stop it!
If you would like to know more about how to stop bullying please visit www.stopbullyingnow.com, stopbullying.gov, kidpower.org or talk to you guidance councilor, friend or family members!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
SOMERSET — U.S. Congressman Harold "Hal" Rogers is scheduled to be the special guest speaker at the 2012 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Awards program on Monday, Sept. 10, at The Center for Rural Development in Somerset.
Rogers has been invited to deliver the keynote address at the regional awards program and luncheon, set to begin at 11:30 a.m., which will celebrate the success and accomplishments of some of the region's top small business owners, entrepreneurs, and nonprofit organizations in Eastern and Southern Kentucky.
The top three finalists in each of the five EIEA award categories will be publicly recognized with a short video profile that will air during the luncheon. The program will culminate with the announcement of the award recipients and on-stage award presentations by EIEA sponsoring partners.
The deadline to register for the EIEA awards program and luncheon is Sept. 4. For more information or to register, call The Center for Rural Development at (606) 677-6000 or register online at http://crdev.us/eiea2012.
The 2012 EIEA award finalists and their respective business categories are:
For-Profit Business: Bob and Tom Hutchison, McDonald's of East Kentucky, Paintsville; Anthony and Julie Roberts, Owners, Servpro of Pulaski and Laurel counties, London; and Masato Sugimura, Lincoln Manufacturing USA, LLC, Stanford.
For-Profit Small Business: Jeff Parmelee PT and Terry Randall PT, Total Rehab Center, Somerset; Shane Baker and Dr. Patrick Heist, Owners, Ferm Solutions, Inc., Danville; and Sarah Culbreth and Jeff Enge, Owners/Potters, Tater Knob Pottery, Berea.
Start-Up Business: Nick Noble and Nate Noble, Park Mammoth Resort, Park City; Scott Maddux and Shane Richmond, Wildcat Harley-Davidson, London; and Troy Lay, Daniel Tolson, and Michael Carpenter, Owners, Alternative Energies Kentucky, LLC, Danville.
Not-For-Profit Entity: Bobby W. Grant, President and CVO, Twin Lakes Family Wellness Center, Albany; Jeff Rubin, Executive Director, and Jerry K. Palmer, PhD., Board Secretary, Body Recall Inc., Berea; and Grace Community Health Center, Gray.
Young Entrepreneur: Jared Sizemore, Owner, Juggling Jared, Pineville.; Todd Duff, Owner, LowGap Outfitters, LLC, Hindman; and Hong R. Zhang Durandal, Owner, and Peter H. Hackbert, Mentor, Energy Hunters LLC, Berea.
Other honorees to be recognized at the EIEA awards luncheon are 2012 Entrepreneurial Leadership Institute (ELI) first-place winning team members and high school students Savanna Noe, Lee County; Ra chyl Harmon, Clay County; Ethan Call, Pulaski County; Madison Lee, Casey County; and Kimberly Brown, of Knox County; and 2012 Collegiate Business Concept Challenge winner and Eastern Kentucky University student Betitala Sinda Mbala and her business advisor Dr. Weiling Zhuang.
The EIEA program—celebrating excellence since 2001 — is sponsored by Eastern Kentucky University's (EKU) College of Business and Technology, Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation, Southeast Kentucky Economic Development Corporation (SKED), and The Center for Rural Development.
Contributing partners include A T & T, Forcht Bank of Kentucky, and Forcht Group of Kentucky, Gold Level Sponsors; Outdoor Venture Corp., Silver Level Sponsor; EKU ICC, Schafer's Catering, and Somerset-Pulaski County Chamber of Commerce, Bronze Level Sponsors; and Appalachian Development Alliance, Citizens Guaranty Bank, EKU Master of Business Administration (MBA) program, Five Talents Financial Group, Richmond Chamber of Commerce, and Rockcastle County Chamber of Commerce, Friends Level Sponsors.


text:
It's made all the difference for Bill Runnels. If you don't think that being an organ donor recipient can't improve the quality of someone's life, you may want to talk to the retired U.S. Marine, who is now enjoying the freedom associated with not having to go to dialysis because he received a new kidney.
A flag ceremony was held Friday afternoon at Aiken Regional Medical Centers to recognize organ and tissue donors and their families and the organ and tissue donor recipients.
Every 11 minutes, another person is added to the national transplant waiting list, said Ivy Harmon, Aiken Regional Medical Centers director of critical care.
"There are approximately 1,000 people in the state of South Carolina who are waiting for organs," said Harmon. "That's more than 117,000 people across the United States waiting on an organ transplant. Each year, 6,000 people die because they didn't get an organ despite the fact they were on that list."
People benefit every day from organ donation as it provides recipients with another opportunity at living a heathier life, said Tracie Amrhein, Life Link hospital development liaison.
The family of Aiken Department of Public Safety Cpl. Sandy Rogers was at the ceremony. Rogers, who gave her life in the line of duty, was an organ donor.
Runnels and Jack Rogers Jr., Sandy Rogers brother, raised the Donate for Life flag.
To learn more about organ donation, visit www.organdonor.gov.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.
We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click the X that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. This will send the comment to Facebook for review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.


text:
PSN Flash Sale Discounts Need for Speed, Burnout, MotorStorm, and More
A variety of racing games for PS3, Vita, and PSP (plus one for PS4) are all on sale this weekend.
A variety of racing games for PS3, Vita, and PSP (plus one for PS4) are all on sale this weekend.
The arcade racing game featuring Sonic and other Sega characters is out now on mobile devices.
Sega to release racing game for iOS and Android this winter; Sonic The Hedgehog 2, Demon Tribe, and Rhythm & Thief also coming to mobiles
Sega posts 54 percent increase in profits for the year, with Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed the publisher's best-selling title.
Avengers assemble! The Marvel and Disney universes are yours to explore in this week's new releases. Who will you assist?
Looking for details on the Wii U console? We've got all the information for the Aussie GameSpot launch!
The Wii U launches in Australia this week! Find out what software will be available on day one.
What titles are out in Australia this week? Whether you prefer waving a wand or a gun in your games, there is something for all ages!
Australian fans will have a chance to get hands on with the Wii U at this year's EB Expo.
Former Blur, Project Gotham Racing developer says it's difficult to push racing games at end of console cycle; new systems will help generate interest.
Sequel to Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing arrives on Xbox 360, PS3, 3DS, PS Vita, and PC late this year; Golden Axe, Skies of Arcadia karts added to roster.
The follow-up to Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing brings new drivers, new tracks, and two new vehicle types.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment


text:
Gay has been on the heart transplant list for six weeks and waits for the call that a match is available. He said he has been having heart problems for five years, and the doctors hope he will not have to wait long.
Donnie Brown organized the Nov. 9 poker run. The ride will start and end at the Jones County Lions Club Fairgrounds and the proceeds will be used for the transplant recipient's expenses after the operation.
Gay has both a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted in his chest because he suffers from cardiomyopathy, which is a disease that weakens and enlarges the heart muscle.
His status on the transplant list requires him to stay within four hours of Emory University Hospital in Atlanta at all times.
Gay met his wife Christy at the heart center of the Coliseum Medical Center in Macon where she is a nurse. They have been married a month.
For the full story, pick up a copy of this week's newspaper or subscribe to our e-Edition at http://ee.jcnews.com.


text:
Are these iPhone HD/iPhone 4G video call settings?
Could these be shots of iPhone HD/iPhone 4G iChat video call settings screens taken off field test units? Who knows, they don't look 960x640 to our pixel peepers but with WWDC 2010 and the supposed unveiling only a few weeks away, anything is possible.
So let us know, real, fake, or really fake?
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
Are these iPhone HD/iPhone 4G video call settings?
@Cobra5mil WOW xD
and @dexter same here :D
we'll just have to wait and see whatthewwdcwill_bring to us.
2 weeks and one beta to go.. cmon -.-"
This is legit.
It would definitely be 960x640 if it were actually real. I have designed apps already in 960x640, I could've made a better fake than this.
Photoshop i say.....maybe GIMP
why do you guys still call it iPhone HD/iPhone 4G. it's NOT going to be called that. if Apple made their new phone called iPhone HD they would be copying HTC HD2 too much. and it's not going to be called iPhone 4G. the name of the iPhone being released this summer is going to simply be called "iPhone 4". in 2011 when AT&T starts rolling out 4G towers, Apple will make the "iPhone 4G". followed by maybe..."iPhone 4GS"!
I think this real. Out of all the iPhone launches I would say that this one has put out the most correct info.
Im sure they're real and they're spectacular :lol:
Is it by implication fake because of low resolution?
Probably not.
OS 4 will run on the G and GS. It is reasonable that either will should be able to receive video calls. G and GS will initially be most of the installed base.
Also... Who says Apple, who does everything better, won't also enable using the back camera during a video call! This is to say, I could talk about and describe something I'm look at that way.
wowwwwwwwww. i LOVVVVE how TiPB makes a huge deal for the looongest time about people calling the next iphone the "iphone 4G". every single post they used to put on here made sure to iterate that it WONT be called 4G and now thats the exact name they adopted. so annoying. i used to enjoy reading this blog but slowly and surely it is becoming a waste of time
I love people who comment to bash TiPB. Some useful constructive comments would help them to be a better blog, but what do I know? this is the Internet, event horizon of douchebaggery.
But I digress. What with all the things that have been leaking over the past few months, video calls are but a hair's breadth away.
I hope it's real but I guess we will know one way or the other in a few weeks!
I'm curious by what magic is Apple going to make this work. Upstream bandwidth on 3G is something like 300 kbit/s. My ATT DSL upstream is about 450 kbit/s. 320x240 highly compressed Skype video is ok on my DSL and likely ok on 3G.
If it's 960x640, I can't imagine that working out that well. At best they have to stick with 640x480, half of the purported next gen iPhone screen res. Still 640x480 at 30 fps would seem an awesome technical achievment over 3G and most ADSL broadband.
I do think that video call will be in the 4th Generation iPhone, but this view does not seam very "Apple-like". Think about it, Apple always markets and produces under the impression that everything they make is perfect (right or wrong, just being honest as I see it). It strikes me as odd that Mr. Jobs would put in a Debugging feature if Apple always advertises that everything "just works".
Allowing the 3Gs to video-chat with the rear facing camera also does not sound very "Apple-like". They did not enable video-recording or voice command on the 2G or 3G, even though they could have. I would bet you my house that only the 4th Generation will have video-chat (just an expression, I am not legally obligated to give you my house if I am wrong lol).
I'm curious by what magic is Apple going to make this work.
I doubt they will attempt 960x640, or even half of that. There would be no need to attempt full resolution unless BOTH ends were on wifi. And forget that 30 FPS, in the 3G world in will be less than half that.
If they rely heavily on some of the compression schemes like skype uses they can get the bandwidth requirements down quite a bit, but it is still not likely going to be as good as YouTube over 3G, due to the fact they have bidirectional traffic.
A hand held device is going to be much harder to compress than a web-cam on a laptop or desktop. Handheld devices move, which means the background moves, which means you have to transmit the whole frame, not just the central area (the head). Many compression schemes send non changing screen portions (background) only every few frames.
A bandwidth adaptive solution (like youtube) would put Apple in good position for both 3G, WiFi, and (someday) 4G. But still I predict way less than full screen image size. Even over wifi.
The magic could simply be some custom compression hardware, a good accelerate framework implementation using the Neon SIMD unit or an OpenCL implementation using the PowerVR SGX GPU.
I think they'll support 30 or maybe 24 fps at 640x480 on WIFI, they degrade to 320x240 on 3G. They probably do 640x480 if it has HSUPA or they've taken the upstream limiter off. They can make it work as long as it gets consistent 300 to 400 kbit per second and can do the compression.
The magic will be in the compression implementation. They definitely need some special hardware or software for that. Who knows maybe it has something unique in the SoC.
I'm pretty sure that Apple will not settle for 15 fps. They'll want an absolute minimum of 24 fps, at degraded resolution before they'd drop to 15 fps.


text:
The International Society of Primerus Law Firms brings together the world's finest law firms that share a commitment to providing quality service for reasonable fees. Meeting our rigorous standards isn't easy, so you can have the confidence in any of our 3,000 attorneys from nearly 200 member law firms. With firms in over 40 countries and 130 cities around the world, we are a truly global legal team - offering seamless and efficient service, wherever your legal needs may be.
The International Society of Primerus Law Firms offers the highest quality US Virgin Islands Law Firms. Speak directly with a trusted US Virgin Islands law firm. Also, with local US Virgin Islands Counsel and independent law firms servicing US Virgin Islands, all fifty states and over 40 countries around the world, Primerus is sure to have the attorney you are looking for.
To contact a trusted US Virgin Islands lawyer, use the contact form on the right,
or call Primerus at: 1.800.968.2211
Find Top Lawyers in US Virgin Islands Including:
To Contact a Trusted US Virgin Islands Lawyer Use The Contact Form on the right,
or call Primerus at: 1.800.968.2211
To contact a trusted US Virgin Islands lawyer, use the contact form on the right,
or call Primerus at: 1.800.968.2211
The Highest Quality Legal Services in US Virgin Islands at Affordable Fees. When we formed Primerus in 1992, we set out to restore honor and dignity to the legal profession and to help rebuild the public's trust in lawyers and the judicial system. In doing so, the Primerus name has become synonymous with high quality legal services for reasonable fees.
It has been our mission from the beginning to seek out, accept and retain only the best firms for membership. Each US Virgin Islands law firm is screened to ensure its commitment to excellence as embodied in the Six Pillars including integrity, excellent work product and reasonable fees. After over 20 years, in which Primerus has experienced tremendous growth in membership and expansion of services, we have never wavered from this commitment, and we never will.
That means you can choose a Primerus US Virgin Islands attorney with confidence. With nearly 3,000 US Virgin Islands lawyers, Primerus is the size of some of America's largest law firms. Our US Virgin Islands lawyers have depth of knowledge and expertise in hundreds of specialties and subspecialties. But Primerus US Virgin Islands law firms are completely independent and autonomous. And they tend to be small or medium-size law firms with less than 50 lawyers. The result is more personalized attention, excellent communications and enduring relationships. Finding these excellent law firms located in US Virgin Islands and all across the world used to be difficult. Not anymore. Now you have Primerus working for you.
Standing on Principle:
The Primerus Seal has become "the lawyer's equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath." If you're looking for a US Virgin Islands lawyer, you are probably looking for experience. Primerus screens each US Virgin Islands law firm and its members carefully to ensure that our rigorous standards are met and upheld. The process begins with a series of questions.We ask US Virgin Islands judges:
Toll Free: 800.968.2211
Local: 616.454.9939
Fax: 616.458.7099
171 Monroe, N.W. Suite 750
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Contact Primerus Today!
Legal Disclaimer: Primerus and our member law firms welcome your emails, contact forms, phone calls and written letters. Contacting us or our members does not create an attorney-client relationship. The general information you find on this website is not intended to be legal advice and you should consult legal counsel regarding your individual circumstances. Although we strive to provide a website with accurate and current information, Primerus and its members shall not be responsible or held liable for errors or ommissions on our website. Please do not send any confidential information to Primerus or its member law firms until an attorney-client relationship has been established.


text:
Bald Eagle Trolley Tours (Mon/Wed/Sat/Sun) in January & February
Phone: 815-220-7386
Offered: January & February only
Mondays & Wednesdays: 11:00am (Tour begins with lunch at 11:00am)
Saturdays: 9:00am (Tour begins with Trolley followed by lunch at 11:30am)
11:00am (Tour begins with lunch at 11:00am)
Sundays: 10:30am (Tour begins with brunch buffet at 10:30am)
Ticket Price:
Monday, Wednesday & Saturday (includes Lunch): $25 Adults / $20 children (10 and under)
Sunday (includes Brunch): $32.00 Adult / $27.00 Children (10 and under)
Be mesmerized by the beautiful bald eagles at Starved Rock. Ride the trolley to the Illinois Waterway Visitor Center for eagle viewing and an educational program. This also includes your selection from our Special Lunch Menu during the week and brunch on Sunday in the Main Dining Room. Dress warmly, bring binoculars, spotting scopes, and cameras.
For more information and to book your reservation call 815-220-7386.
Click links to below to book:


text:
DUI and crash bring jail timeApril 06,2013DUI and crash
bring prison time
BENNINGTON A Pownal man will serve eight days in jail after pleading guilty Friday to drunken driving and leaving the scene of a crash in separate October incidents.
Jeremy M. Wilson, 34, pleaded guilty in Bennington criminal court to a felony DUI count and a misdemeanor count of leaving the scene of a crash which caused property damage.
The state dismissed three other pending felony counts of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Wilson was arraigned on two felony counts of drunk driving Oct. 29 and two more felony counts of the same charge, plus the misdemeanor count of leaving the scene of an accident, Oct. 31.
Police said in the first case Wilson was legally inebriated when he was stopped on Route 7 in Pownal on Oct. 13.
In the second case, police said Wilson fled from a crash near a horse farm on Middle Pownal Road on Oct. 21. He was found hiding in a horse pasture, police said.
A breath test indicated Wilsons blood-alcohol content was more than three times the legal limit for driving, police said.
Wilson was sentenced Friday to serve one to two years in prison, but all of it was suspended except for eight days.MORE IN This Just InNEW YORK Yes, your mutual fund may own some Greek stocks. No, most likely not a lot. Full StoryWHITE RIVER JUNCTION A Springfield man who was captured Friday evening after he took off... Full StoryLoan program launched for owners of flood damaged apartment houses Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day 1739, 'Richard Palmer' identified in prison at York Castle as the notorious outlaw DICK TURPIN; IN 1836, Battle of the Alamo begins near San Antonio de Bexar, Texas; 1896, the Tootsie Roll invented by LEO HIRSCHFELD.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1472, Orkney, Shetland islands put up as collateral by Norway to Scotland in lieu of dowry for MARGARET OF DENMARK on her marriage with JAMES III, king of Scotland; 1962, JOHN GLENN first American to orbit Earth.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: City mayoral candidates debate campaign issues; Hartford, Conn., woman still missing; Neal Goswami reports attempts to legislate suicide; local woman loses 100 pounds through TOPS program.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1878, JOHN TUNSTALL murdered near Lincoln, New Mexico, by the outlaw JESSE EVANS; in 1930, ELM FARM OLLIE first cow to fly in aircraft, first to be milked airborne; 1955, nuke test WASP; '79, snow in Sahara.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Rutland Herald News Editor Alan J. Keays and staff writer Gordon Dritschilo discuss stories planned for the February 18, 2015, edition of the newspaper: Winter budgets maxed, legal marijuana, Springfield bank job, USPS slowdown
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1249 AD, ANDRE of LONGJUMEAU is dispatched by LOUIS IX of France to meet the KHAGAN, ruler of the Mongol Empire; in 1804, during 1st Barbary War, STEPHEN DECATUR scuttles the pirate-held USS Philadelphia in Tripoli.


text:
Nets Tickets
The Nets shift from New Jersey to Brooklyn has their fans excited to see what's in store for the future. The Barclays Center is truly one of the most beautiful new venues in all of sports. Don't miss your chance to check out the Nets hit the court in Brooklyn, order your Nets tickets today with GoTickets.
Brooklyn Nets Schedule
Saturday, 3:00 PM
Nets Ticket Info
The Brooklyn Nets surprised many when they hired Jason Kidd as their head coach prior to the '13-14 season. It was his first year after retiring from the NBA and he had no previous coaching experience. Many doubted the hire of Kidd but he proved to be very effective. Despite a rough start the Nets finished 6th in the Eastern Conference with a record of 44-38. The team also completed a regular season sweep of the Miami Heat which led many to believe that they could take down the reigning champs in the playoffs. That was not to be as LeBron James and the Heat took care of the Nets in 5 games.
Catch all of the action at Barclays Center by ordering your Brooklyn Nets tickets today from GoTickets. Whether you want to sit on the floor or prefer something a bit more economical we have the seats for any fan's budget. So what are you waiting for? Order your Brooklyn Nets tickets today!
GoTickets.com has you covered with tickets to every NBA game this year, as well as the 2015 NBA Finals, and NBA All Star Game.
|Eastern Division
|Boston Celtics
|Chicago Bulls
|Atlanta Hawks
|Brooklyn Nets
|Cleveland Cavaliers
|Charlotte Hornets
|New York Knicks
|Detroit Pistons
|Miami Heat
|Philadelphia 76ers
|Indiana Pacers
|Orlando Magic
|Toronto Raptors
|Milwaukee Bucks
|Washington Wizards


text:
Fill a medium saucepan with 2 inches of water, and fit with a steamer insert. Bring to a boil. Add spinach. Reduce to a simmer. Cover, and steam until spinach has wilted, about 2 minutes.
Transfer to a serving bowl. Toss with oil, lemon juice, and salt. Garnish with lemon. Serve immediately.


text:
Venice Fringe Clutch
Style # 220844
Nothing like fringe to give an outfit boho glamour. This bebe clutch features suede fringe, a structured design and metal handle trim. Looks great with anything from party dresses to a sexy pair of jeans.
- Leatherette, leather
- Height: 7? (18 cm), width: 14" (36 cm), depth: 2? (5 cm)
- Includes chain strap
- Fabric lined interior
- Imported


text:
The Morisoli vineyard is located a mile west of Preston vineyard, at the foot of Mt. St. John, commonly known as the Rutherford Bench.
*WineFest (DOUBLE GOLD)
*Finger Lakes Wine Competition
*San Francisco Int'l Wine Comp (DOUBLE GOLD)
*San Diego Wine Competition
Ranked among the TOP 25 CABERNET SAUVIGNONS of the Napa Valley


text:
Jobs and Opportunities
Why work for the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts?
To make a difference.
We are a growing organisation employing committed and professional people from across the world all of whom are working together to make a difference to the lives of 10 million Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. WAGGGS is the largest voluntary movement dedicated to girls and young women in the world and our common goal is to support those girls and young women to develop to their full potential by improving their life skills and their opportunity through innovative global non-formal education, community and advocacy programmes and leadership development.
We employ over 100 people from a wide range of backgrounds and circumstances and welcome the benefits that this diversity brings to the organisation. Our people are based around the world: in our World Bureau in London, our European office in Brussels, Worldwide in a variety of Regional roles or in our residential centres in the UK, Mexico, Switzerland and India. So there could be a job now just for you at any one of those locations. Check out our current job opportunities.
WAGGGS offers a wide range of staff benefits including a generous pension contribution, great holiday allowance, season-ticket loans, combined with a flexible approach to working hours.
Unless stated otherwise, applications should be made by completing our WAGGGS application form and should be sent to:
Rita Kimmet


text:
McFARLANE AT 2004 COMIC-CON INTERNATIONAL
Come Check Out our Booth July 22-25 in San Diego
Friday, June 18, 2004
Yes, friends and neighbors and Con veterans, the McFarlane Companies will be at the 2004 Comic-Con International in San Diego. This year's event will be July 22-25 at the San Diego Convention Center.
McFarlane will have a booth displaying many of our latest action figures and two-up prototypes of upcoming figures. The booth will be staffed with spawn.com'ers ready to answer all your questions and show off our products.
Be on the lookout for a special announcement to be made during Comic-Con, as well as portfolio reviews for sculptors and comic artists. Once again this year, we will host the ever-popular "How to Make Toys the McFarlane Way" discussion panel.
We won't, however, be offering a Comic-Con exclusive for sale this year. We already have a full slate of exclusives through our online Collector's Club and other events; and, more importantly, we wanted to have an event with time to actually interact with many of our core long-time fans.
We'll have an updated story with our booth number as well as more specifics on the portfolio reviews and panel time as soon as that info is available. For more information on the Con, go to www.comic-con.org.


text:
INTERVIEW: Inhabitat Discusses the RIO+20 Conference with Thani Al Zayoudi, Directorate of Energy and Climate Change at UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs
INHABITAT: The start of the Rio+20 conference is upon us now. What is the UAE hoping to achieve whilst there?
Thani Al-Zeyoudi: The UAE's ultimate goal in Rio is to ensure the success of the summit. We don't want the summit to end without producing a clear path forward on sustainable development and I'm confident that the Rio Summit will conclude with a good outcome. We also want to show the world that a young country like ours, unified only 41 years ago, is capable of tackling the three pillars of sustainable development.
Rio also presents an opportunity outside of the negotiations with side events that promote the international exchange of ideas and information. We're co-hosting an official event with Norway, called "Black Gold and the Green Economy" to discuss sustainability rationale within hydrocarbon-exporting countries like ours. Our high-level panel will also examine how the Rio agenda should accommodate surging hydrocarbon demand.
INHABITAT: One of the main topics of the conference is Sustainable Cities. The UAE is currently constructing Masdar City, the first "Zero-carbon metropolis." How is progress going on the city and do you expect it to be the first of many?
Thani Al-Zeyoudi: Masdar City is among the most visible examples of how our country is addressing the global challenges of sustainable urban planning. It's a low-carbon, low-waste city that's pioneering best practices in sustainable urban planning, design, development and operation. We want to create a sustainable blueprint for the entire world to follow.
Progress is also going quite well. We're scheduled to complete Phase 2 of Masdar Institute campus this year. Among the buildings currently under construction is the Siemens Middle East Headquarters, which is slotted for completion next year. Once the entire project is completed around 2025, the city will have about 50,000 residents drawing all of its energy from renewable resources. Energy and water efficiency is also a paramount feature. So far, Masdar City's power and water demand is 50% less than conventional buildings in Abu Dhabi.
The UAE has also initiated and is leading the Global Sustainable Cities Network. This initiative underscores our active participation in developing world-class sustainable cities and partnering with like-minded countries to drive innovation and develop best practices.
INHABITAT: The UAE is quite diverse in terms of energy. Abu Dhabi has oil, while Dubai doesn't. How does this affect energy policy overall?
Thani Al-Zeyoudi: This has far less of an effect on our energy policy than it does on our national economy. While we're blessed with tremendous energy reserves, our founding father Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan instilled upon us the responsibility of preserving our natural resources.
Our UAE Vision 2021 is guiding us in this and we are implementing a long-term approach to ensure sustainable national development. Yes, the UAE is a major oil-producing nation, but we do not have an endless supply. We want to meet the world's energy needs over the next several decades, so we are actively working to better diversify our energy resources.
As a leader in the energy sector, the UAE has a responsibility to contribute to the energy sector's evolution. We're leveraging our natural energy resources, oil and natural gas, to bring about the additional resources the world will need to meet that future demand. And to ensure our country's lasting economic competitiveness, we're looking beyond traditional economic models.
INHABITAT: What are your greatest concerns about the current climate change debate and how do you feel they could be addressed?
Thani Al-Zeyoudi: The UAE wants to ensure positive results in the international negotiations process. As a coastal, low-lying country, we're especially susceptible to the effects of sea-level rise and more prolonged droughts.
Our country is working hard to mitigate the effects of climate change. We're using our longtime energy expertise as a foundation for innovating and advancing clean technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And with our sister country Qatar hosting the COP-18 talks later this year, the first ever held in a Gulf country, we see an opportunity to showcase the many mitigation efforts that are already taking shape in the UAE.
INHABITAT: The UAE is quite a wealthy region. Do you feel large-scale alternative energy projects are only viable for more prosperous regions?
Thani Al-Zeyoudi: Not at all. Clean energy development isn't about wealth. It's about a willingness to innovate. But prosperous nations do have a responsibility to help.
Through the UN Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All initiative, the UAE is helping developing countries tap these innovations. As a result of our clean energy aid, a solar project in Tonga will supply 13% of that country's electricity demand. And a rooftop solar project in Afghanistan is providing off-grid power to remote villages.
Also, through our leadership in the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development is providing even more funding for renewable energy projects in developing countries. We'll be opening the application process for this renewable energy funding at the Rio Summit.
Related Posts
Read Inhabitat
Search Categories
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Browse by Keyword


text:
Find hotels & motels in Alliston using the list below. Search for cheap and discounted hotel and motel rates in or close to Alliston, ON for your corporate or personal leisure travel. We list the best Alliston, Ontario motel and hotel rooms. Browse the Alliston area hotels to find the perfect lodging! Please use the provided map of the Alliston hotels.
Alliston Hotels & Accommodations
Next 20 Alliston Hotels > [1 - 20 of 50]
Next: See My Alliston Hotels with Pricing >


text:
The cooking of India
Time-Life Books, 1969 - Cooking - 208 pages
An illustrated guide to the cuisine of India together with a spiral-bound kitchen recipe book
From inside the book
21 pages matching potatoes in this book
Page 200
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 21
What people are saying - Write a review
Review: The Cooking of India (Time-Life Foods of the World)User Review - D - Goodreads
a delightful but incomplete reference to indian cooking in the 1960s. of particular interest was seeing the setup and appliances of the average indian kitchen. Read full review
Review: The Cooking of India (Time-Life Foods of the World)User Review - Avis Black - Goodreads
Part of the Time-Life series. Although an older book, this volume is still the best introduction to Indian cookery that I know of, and the prose is both excellent and evocative. Read full review
Common terms and phrases
baking banana batter black pepper blend bread cardamom casserole chapatis chick-pea flour chicken chopped fresh coriander chopped fresh ginger chutney cilantro cinnamon cloves color coriander cumin cumin seeds cup finely chopped curry deep-frying dishes dough dried festival finely chopped fresh finely chopped onions fish flavor fresh coriander cilantro fresh ginger root fried garam masala garlic ghee ghee page 54 ginger root golden brown green chilies ground hot red Hindu hot red pepper inches Indian cooking ingredients jalebis kabab koftas lamb lemon juice lentils meal meat minutes mixture moderate heat Muslim nuts Onam onions oven pakoras Parsi potatoes rayta Recipe Index red chilies red pepper reduce the heat rice roast serve skillet slices soak spices spoon sprinkle stirring constantly sugar sweet tablespoons tablespoons finely chopped tandoori taste teaspoon teaspoon ground hot teaspoon salt thali tightly tomatoes turmeric V2 cup V2 teaspoon vegetable oil vegetarian water flicked yoghurt


text:
Almost a year ago, I wrote a post here on Forbes, The Results Are In: Women Are Better Leaders. I was astonished at the flurry of anti-female (and anti-me) comments it evoked.
In the article, I was citing a study of over 7,000 leaders done by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman. One quote from them, regarding their study: "…at every level, more women were rated by their peers, their bosses, their direct reports, and their other associates as better overall leaders than their male counterparts — and the higher the level, the wider that gap grows."
The title of my post was intentionally provocative – I'm not actually convinced that women are better leaders than men. But I do believe that women are at least as capable of leading as men, and if that's so, I wanted to explore why there are still so few women in senior leadership positions in business and government.
So here we are, a year later, and the statistics are pretty much the same: women hold about 15% of executive positions at Fortune 500 companies; about 18% 0f US congressional representatives are women; full-time women workers still earn, on average in the US, 82¢ for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. I still want to figure out why this is so and what we can do about it.
Most of the negative comments on my earlier post were attempts to discredit Zenger and Folkman's data. Here's a great little video someone sent me last week offering even more data from some very reputable sources:
But I suspect that anyone who feels compelled to respond to this post negatively won't accept this data either.
And, actually, I'm not writing this post for them. With any issue having to do with unfair treatment of a group of people, points of view exist along a bell curve. That is, at any given moment, there are people at the top of the curve who are completely convinced that the group (women, blacks, gays and lesbians, the disabled, etc.) should receive both equal treatment under the law and equal treatment in terms of others' expectations and and assumptions. At the other end of the curve, there are people who are completely convinced that the group (whoever they may be) is not entitled to equal treatment and in fact, is "less than" and should stop whining about their treatment and acknowledge that this is the way things should be. (Most of my commenters on the previous post fell into this group.)
However, most people exist somewhere along the middle of the curve: they may not even be aware there's an issue, or they may have inaccurate information. (For example, many people are surprised to hear that there is still a wage gap between men and women, or that only 12 of the Fortune 500 are run by women.)
I'm writing this post for them – for you, if you're in that group. I'm assuming that you may have daughters, sisters, or wives whose success you support, or that you may be in a position to hire new employees for your company, or to promote existing employees. I'm hoping that by increasing your awareness of women's abilities, and of the ongoing inequalities in the workplace relative to women, and by giving you some information to support that awareness, it might help you better support the success of all the women around you, including those most dear to you.
Information is power…and I want to be generous with the information that will help current and future generations of women achieve their potential.
Check out Erika Andersen's latest book, Leading So People Will Follow, and discover how to be a followable leader. Booklist called it "a book to read more than once and to consult many times."
Want to know what Erika and her colleagues at Proteus do? Find out here.


text:
Among the many issues that face foster children who will soon age out of the system is how to live on their own if they are not attending college and must make their own lives after graduating from high school and turning 18. At the KidsPeace Raleigh, NC, Foster Care Office, Avis Dublin and Carla Daniels wanted to give some older teens a glimpse into the challenges they will be facing after entering the real world. A group of a dozen 15-19 year old teens has been participating in a 16-week Independent Living Group to help prepare them for living on their own. Topics have included money management, interviewing, study skills and relationship building. The Real World exercise took place on April 13 at the foster care office and provided a group of the oldest teens with a scenarios that they may soon be facing.
Each teen was given a task card upon arrival and had to accomplish the assignments listed on the card. The teens had to be interviewed for jobs, fill out applications to rent apartments, connect utilities, open bank accounts and face at least one unexpected occurrence. They would apply for an apartment and be told they needed a job first so have to go to the job application station and then go back once they had obtained jobs. Community volunteers from Progress Energy and CapTrust spoke earnestly with the teens and drove home the fact that saving money and spending wisely were imperative parts of independent living. Unexpected occurrences would include such scenarios as getting a $200 ticket, having their cars break down and need costly repairs and receiving a surprise visit from a sister and her four kids who want to stay at your apartment for a few weeks. There were intense discussions about how to deal with the surprises in life that can eat away at savings and make it impossible to pay the rent or electric bill.
All of the Raleigh staff members participated, and the teens learned a lot and received wonderful tips on how unpredictable independent living can be. They shared lunch afterwards, and all participants were happy with the outcome. Carla would like to thank the teens, foster care staff and the volunteers from Progress Energy and CapTrust for participating in this educational and fun morning.


text:
Updated: 01/18/2013 2:07 PM KSTP.com
(AP) NEW YORK - With hockey set to return after a four-month lockout, the NHL is apologizing again.
Echoing last week's remarks by Commissioner Gary Bettman, the NHL is using full-page newspaper ads Thursday to tell fans it's sorry for the lockout that delayed the season and trimmed the schedule from 82 games to 48. The season starts Saturday.
The ad says: "Like you, we've missed NHL hockey."
The league is thanking fans for their patience and apologizing for the lost games. The ad says the league is "committed to earning back your trust and support" with "hard work and unwavering dedication."
The ad is running in about 40 newspapers across the United States and Canada. It appears in at least one newspaper in each of the NHL's 30 team markets as well as a handful of national papers in the two countries.
(Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


text:
There are currently no items in your cart.
Intermediate Light in the Piazza Sheet Music: 1 items found
The Light in the Piazza
Piano/Vocal/Guitar - Difficulty: medium-difficult
2005 Tony! Award Winner for 6 Awards, including Best Original Score. Composed by Adam Guettel. Vocal Selections. Broadway. Songbook. Vocal melody, lyrics, piano accompaniment, color photos, introductory text and performance edition. 95 pages. Published by Hal Leonard (HL.313307).
Usually leaves our warehouse: Within 24 hours
Light in the Piazza


text:
Designed for the young and the young at heart… Come explore the basics of electricity, electronics and programming to build your own working gadget. Participants will get a hands-on experience learning how to create a simple electronic game out of LED's, resistors, buttons and microcontrollers and be able to take their creation home with them. Take family game night to a whole new level and learn something new together!
Program Instructors: Matthew Faerber and Walt Gurley, Coordinators of the Visual World Investigate Lab
Registration information: Registration required. Fill out online, print and mail the Museum's Registration Form [2] with payment. Registration deadline is one week prior to program date.
For more information contact Debbie Huston [3], scheduling coordinator, at 919.707.9840.


text:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Roper Berkeley Hospital just brought Moncks Corner a half-hour closer to downtown Charleston.
With the installation of its new helipad Roper reduced what has been a 45-minute ambulance ride to 10 to 15 minutes, critical time saved in the event of a heart attack or stroke.
Lifenet SC, a division of Air Methods Corporation, owns and operates the Eurocopter EC-135, a state of the art aircraft with onboard weather radar, accident avoidance systems and night vision goggle capability.
Currently the helicopter is onsite at Roper Berkeley Hospital on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Since the helipad became operational in late February, all flights to date have involved acute cardiac patients. Two originated in from Hampton County, five from either Roper Berkeley or Roper Mount Pleasant Hospitals.
If a patient coming from Roper Berkeley Hospital requires helicopter transportation, the hospital notifies Lifelink dispatch which relays the patient information to the aircraft team and begins the process of transitioning the patient to Roper Hospital in downtown Charleston.
"If the patient is being sent by Berkeley County EMS then their dispatchers handle the process," said Richard Barge, the operations manager at Roper Lifelink-MICU, "The helicopter team then calls the Roper Hospital ER when they are coming in just like the ambulances do."
Flight time from Roper Berkeley Hospital to downtown Charleston takes 10 to 15 minutes depending on wind.
"It takes three-to-five minutes to load a patient onto the helicopter," Barge said.
Once the hospital touches down at the Roper Hospital helipad the patient can be on a cardiac catheter table in the event of a heart attack in three to four minutes, Barge added.
Before the helipad was erected on Roper Hospital's south tower, helicopters were required to land on a downtown parking garage, then be moved from the helicopter landing pad to an ambulance, through traffic, to Roper Hospital and into the emergency room or Heart and Vascular Center.
Dan Brown can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.
The Berkeley Independent is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Berkeley Independent.
If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.
© 2015 The Berkeley Independent an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.


text:
- $4.99 Flat Rate Shipping. Any Size Order! -
- Easy 365-Day Returns -
HOME New York Giants Gear New York Giants Kids New York Giants Kids Sweatshirts & Fleece $20 to $40 (29 items) Product ID: 1379133
Main Content
Let your young New York fanatic show how much Giants spirit he possesses with this cool Logo pullover hoodie. It features an embroidered team logo on the chest, a front pouch pocket and a contrast-colored lining hood for extra style. Let him cheer on the Giants to victory with the comfort of this team-inspired hoodie.
- 100% Cotton lining
- 80% Cotton/20% Polyester shell
- Contrast-colored hood lining
- Front right pocket
- Hood without drawstring
- Imported
- Midweight hoodie suitable for moderate temperatures
- Officially licensed NFL product
- Quality embroidery
- Rib-knit cuffs & waist
Giants Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Print Detail Page |
Request a Quote |
I'm Interested
Xtreme Performance The 2012 RANGER XP® 800 EPS is built for Xtreme Performance. It's the most powerful, fully featured SxS for working and hunting in extreme conditions. Electronic Power Steering with Variable Assist provides easier steering at lower speeds . You'll ride all day with less fatigue.
Have a question about the 2012 Polaris Rangers Full-Size Ranger XP 800 EPS Browning LE?


text:
|« Back to Article
Cityscape: Stuemke Barn
By John MacCormack : September 8, 2012 : Updated: September 9, 2012 12:51am
Photo By John MacCormack
The Stuemke Barn at 107 King William in San Antonio, Texas on Thursday, September 6, 2012.
Photo By Courtesy of the San Antonio Conservation Society
In 1982, the Stuemke Barn was moved from 215 N. Flores St. to 107 King William after the Conservation Society acquired the building.
More Information
107 King William
Style: Limestone block
Size: Two stories
Date Built: 1910
Tucked behind the stately headquarters of the San Antonio Conservation Society, the Stuemke barn has its own history. Built at the corner of North Flores and Travis Street, in 1982 it was dismantled stone by stone and reconstructed here. Shrouded by a huge live oak, it is now used for offices. An oversized side door big enough for livestock, however, gives it away.
Cityscape is a weekly look at a building or place that makes San Antonio distinct. Comments or suggestions are welcome at email@example.com.


text:
Buddhism is often likened to a lotus plant. One of the characteristics of the lotus is that it throws off many seeds from which new plants grow. Following are web links to Zen centers closely related to San Francisco Zen Center. If your group is not listed and you believe it should be, please e-mail us at .
* Indicates a member of Branching Streams, an affiliate sangha of San Francisco Zen Center


text:
- Flat Rate Shipping. Any Size Order! -
- A Portion of Proceeds Benefit Miami Athletics -
Main Content
You still get surprised whenever your young Miami fan is able to list stats and team info that only a veteran fan would know. Show him how impressed you are with his 'Canes brain by getting him the Top of the World Mesh Trucker hat that has a unique throwback style to make him stand out among other UM loyalists. It boasts an embroidered twill team logo on the crown, mesh back panels and a bright team-colored crown. His Hurricanes devotion can only escalate from here, so get him the gear that will show it off!
- 100% Cotton
- Adjustable plastic snap strap
- Imported
- Mesh back panels
- Officially licensed
- One size fits most
- Quality embroidery
- Twill applique
- Unstructured hat
Hurricanes Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Find hotels in Graham using the list and search tools below. Find cheap and discounted hotel/motel rates in or nearby Graham, NC for your upcoming personal or group travel. We provide the best Graham, North Carolina motel and hotel rooms. Browse the Graham area hotels to find the perfect lodging! Please use the provided map of the Graham hotels. Booking 5+ Rooms? Find Graham Group Hotel DealsThe Graham center is around 5 miles from Burlington Amtrak Station and 6 miles from Tanger Outlet Mall.
Graham Hotels & Accommodations
Next 20 Graham Hotels > [1 - 20 of 50]
Next: See My Graham Hotels with Pricing >