text:
You're watching...
The New Options for Your 401(k)
Wealth Health Managing Director Rich Coppa on what to consider when converting your 401(k) to Roth 401(k).
Feb 19, 2013
You're watching...
Wealth Health Managing Director Rich Coppa on what to consider when converting your 401(k) to Roth 401(k).
Feb 19, 2013
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advanceThis transcript is automatically generated
Hard to match.
Meanwhile -- new options on the books for you and your nest egg in 2013 but should you take advantage of them.
Well help managing director rich -- joins me now with the latest are so what we're talking about here.
Is conversion of 401K.
Is not.
Not not the hiring -- -- -- 401K.
Writing the taxes up fried you say.
The option is on the table today should you take it.
Well I think that's that's a loaded question is a lot of factors to consider of course when -- when converting a 401K.
To a -- 401K this is new news because this is part of the tax relief access act that just came in January 1 this year coming just a as an aside getting going to be tax relief let me tell you gonna pay a huge tax up for a while that's the issue and in the issue is whether or not you wanna pay the tax on the conversion so.
You know in the past you had to be 59 half for or leaving your job before you can convert a 401K to a Roth but now.
Anyone regardless of your -- can convert your 401K balance to a Roth 401K.
The key issue is that your employer has to offer the Roth 401K and they have that provision and a plan.
Allowing an in plan conversion.
Our rates -- -- Europe -- clients aren't necessarily taking advantage of this why.
You know my clients whether it was a Roth IRA conversion -- -- 401K conversion a lot of people just don't want apartment the money and in -- one of these things you pay now or you pay later but.
Many people -- humidity and higher tax bracket in the future but look no one really knows so we do know for certain as you -- the tax today.
So and it's a lump sum vs taking distributions -- 401K.
It's -- -- be a big head and I think a lot of people.
Worry that you know why would I do that today when I don't know what's gonna happen down the road but let me tell you about my fear -- -- fear is that the government is gonna decide.
You know all that money acute accumulating in those retirement accounts we have some of that and we -- apply to the national debt is that it is that something we should really be worried about.
-- you know it's hard to know what's gonna happen in the future I think a lot of people do say that but what the government's doing by allowing us now remember it.
There's about 3.5 trillion dollars and 41 K plan so by allowing this they're estimating twelve billion dollars in taxes generated over the next ten years that's a lot of dough for the government right now.
And so.
You know that is one of the issues that the government would like to see the revenues increased as a result of this but the taxpayer has to.
Understand that they -- attacks on the conversion the good news is it ought to do full -- to do partial conversion are I says it used say that before doing this consider your tax bracket.
Absolutely and you have to forecast what bracket will you be in the future if you're gonna be a lower bracket in the future may be your you know your source of income and just gonna be investment income.
Then it's not a good idea if you're going to be -- higher tax -- in the future.
That's when you might say okay this makes cents -- -- high income -- now and you can't take advantage of Roth IRAs because of that income tax limitations.
This gives you an opportunity to have an asset that's grown tax rate because you might be able to convert your 401K.
To a Roth.
41 -- out of pocket costs.
Out of pocket costs look you don't want to take money out of the 401K plan for the taxes so you have to look at.
You know look at your your income tax you know -- projection what do you deductions what are your credits.
You might have to go out of pocket depending on the size of the conversion for that.
Tax bill so you have to make sure you have that tax ready if it's too much -- may -- split the baby in about what to do half.
And KeePass partial conversion partial conversion something that think about yet two main things I think are super important here that just compared to the -- higher because I think they'll be confusion.
You don't have the opportunity to pay the tax over two years remember back in 2010.
This is the final year for those who converted their raw ended -- is now all at once and the other big issue no -- characterization so there's no.
-- doing this you know no second chance once you do it.
It's done you -- the tax bill -- the market falls in value you leave your job.
Whatever their issues are you of the tax -- -- thanks for explaining that really appreciate it great job as always back up the --
Filter by section


text:
5 Meetup Groups match "Documentary Films" near Chapel Hill, NC
Join fellow film fans in support of independent cinema in Chapel Hill, Durham, Cary, and Raleigh. We get together to watch films at local indie film friendly venues, and then discuss them over drinks or dinner afterward. Join us!
There are no upcoming Meetups.
This group is for people who are seriously interested in film and cinema, not just a meetup to go see the latest hit. Budd Wilkins, Staff Critic for Slant Magazine, and collector of art house, foreign, obscure and cult films and his wife Tina will moderate meetups on film literacy, history, and we will watch some truly interesting films! If you want to learn about film and cinema, share your own knowledge and see some fascinating films and discuss, please join us!
There are no upcoming Meetups.
CommuniFilm is an innovative community-cenered approach to a sustainable film industry in North Carolina. Our focus is on making quality short films and documentaries that matter, get seen, and get their creators professional experience in filmmaking. If you want to be involved in our film projects, join the group and RSVP for projects that interest you.
There are no upcoming Meetups.
We have been hosting an IONS group in Raleigh for the past 12 years. Until now, we have not been associated with Meet Up. IONS was started by Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut who walked on the moon. When he looked back at Earth, he had a noetic experience (an experience of inner knowing that everything in the universe is connected.) Returning home, he started IONS -a way for those interested in the exploration and shifts in consciousness as well as cutting edge research to connect with like-minded i …
Meetup details are available only to members.
Tired of Triangle meetup groups focusing mainly on Raleigh, Cary, and other locations? This meetup will be Durham-centric. A variety of activities is envisioned, such as gathering for coffee and discussion, attending festivals and cultural events, visiting local museums, galleries and parks, going to plays and music performances, or whatever else comes to mind. Meetings should be quite casual. Members are welcome to send ideas and suggestions for activities. Most activities are FREE or cheap!
Get an alert email when new Meetup Groups like this start near you.
You'll get advice, help finding members, and tools to make running a Meetup Group easier.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Overview
London in a Bag
Don't let Boris Johnson have all the fun. Create your own version of London with our colourful wooden play set depicting the capital's best known landmarks. The wooden toys in London in a Bag include 10 Downing Street, the London Eye and Tower Bridge.
Handpicked because: Ideal present for children who have moved from the big city.
Give it to: Kids who know that London rocks.
More details: Comes with 18 wooden pieces. Age 3+.
- Delivery
- Ask Us
- Reviews
Great quick service unusual quality product.So cute. My niece will love it!Thi s is for my grandaughters birthday ,she will just love it.Product was what I expectedMy daughter loves this set. It has about 25 individual pieces, some of which join together. Simple but beautifully made.A wondeful idea for people who visit London often. (I chose this present because its distinctive and gave it to a Fench couple who often visit London with their small child). Very nicely presented with landmarks wrapped individually with tissue paper!I am very pleased with the item I purchased, I'm sending it to my great grandson in the states.it's a fabulous site, with a lovely range of unusual, affordable gifts - for the people that have everything!Very good and stylishsmaller than i had imagined but seem reasonable quality
Read more over at Feefo


text:
You're watching...
Class warfare cartoon
Union's controversial characterization of the rich and taxes
Dec 5, 2012
You're watching...
Union's controversial characterization of the rich and taxes
Dec 5, 2012
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advanceThis transcript is automatically generated
So I left wing brain washing can be more brain washing is the California federation of teachers or -- As -- dictated a video advocating taxing the hell out of the rich the eight minute indoctrination animation.
Is aimed at kids narrated by Ed Asner I believe he played Rhoda.
And smears that 1% as surprised evil.
Roll tape roll tapers.
But -- -- rich people decided they weren't rich enough so they came up with ways to get richer.
The first where it was through tax cuts they did mine has -- and services for everyone.
-- -- why should I care about other non rich people.
I can hire teachers safety waste disposal people who work for me for less money and taxes.
And then I can -- the rest of my taxes -- -- I mean yeah.
Adorable but here's where things get delightful.
Schools public safety the roads parks libraries public transportation.
All went into decline and the rich people didn't care makes it very -- -- very deserved ordinary people wondered why reach people needed so much money.
The 1% said don't -- every.
This is good for you do because it will trickle down Hamas do you.
Yes is there any better lesson for your case and saying the rich he on the -- I guess that covers agrarian economics.
Who would expect from a 9/11 truth -- nut case like Ed.
You know things are bad -- Shanghai has more in common with traditional American values than California does.
And so we have -- in house training film for up Occupy Wall Street guaranteeing another generation of angry disturb class warriors in ten years.
-- this video really shows is how bitter and ugly progresses can be for a moment I thought it was a parity but it's real.
It is accurate depiction of the NB driven left you'll ever see and it's all brought to you from California's teachers.
The people who want to put their grimy greedy paws all -- your kids' minds.
Among other things.
Should I not have said that shut out of smeared the California federation of teachers I wonder where I picked up that bad habit.
Maybe perhaps -- The unions.
Bob do you I think they should -- every classroom because you agree with it.
-- personal -- there's no indication -- in any classroom number one of rightwing bloc that our researchers came up with -- might be -- Out there there the the fact is that I think the the used to that.
The your nation was very bad taste in the should have been done.
The point though is very clear that people in the top 1% have twenty times more income than the average American does and they haven't paid their fair share they should.
-- blob -- like you OK let's.
Let's look at it let's -- let's take.
Think what Bob said a lot of continue to press these -- why don't they don't -- what not defend whom Bob I don't know if it wasn't just the country this news about the -- -- put together that a video that shows rich people urinating on port Michael just said there's -- as you want the numbers teachers' union -- talking about the stimulus package going to wealthy bankers and bailing out wealthy bankers.
Fifty billion dollars went to education services all of the stimulus 35 billion dollars went to increase unemployment compensation health care coverage under -- 25 billion dollars 250 billion dollars that went directly towards programs that they supposedly represent idol you hello there going to pet reverend -- selection would -- the other ones -- -- your -- huge urination that are meeting on port that is disgusting it's wrong it's -- They should be -- in what.
Pull the funding Poehler pulled up for about what they thought themselves OK all the stalling.
Here definitely February all the that you ought to pull funding for the rich people of the -- pulled from underneath the -- -- -- -- -- about it it's DNA is that in need video by the -- they show the steep declining into this kind of arts -- poverty.
That's because that -- because by the rich is the rich are leaving it's caused by the union pension.
It's right bite not there -- last week and Forbes have been Forbes dot com there was an article called the ten or eleven death spiral states is in the states where you don't wanna have a house and don't.
He won't be able to get a job.
But also the ones that are saddled with pension debt from public sector unions we had the big fight in Wisconsin exactly -- -- What -- we dealing with two months ago at the start of school.
Chicago at about the -- not let that they teachers union that decided to strike at school was starting that would ever happen to schoolhouse rock.
Those kind of video that you could actually learn some you still watch it don't you I love how I fixing all the -- CNN once -- Halloween I went as bill on Capitol Hill.
-- -- -- That ended -- day any day you know it didn't work out.
Super planet Janet you think galaxy pair.
Yeah that's is that a -- -- into -- I'm -- he acted on these -- we had teachers union -- through most impressed.
Employees in the -- Hamas but she's my friend is that below what it does regimented downtrend -- went live on that talking about -- -- -- I want is a teacher my mother was a teacher I'm very well.
The rolled the function you don't think it should I think that the -- to -- -- I gave me took organized I think it is shameful should have evening there and it's -- CNN they wonder why these stations and how they're ungodly.
That's an -- segment Bob that's not an anti -- no.
-- -- that we're gonna.
And teachers should show a video that they put together of rich people -- -- poor people California teachers 69500.
Dollars on average salary alone.
Not including benefit and -- are great although the national average average of -- Is it -- the Pentagon and south side at all.
Those making this all -- how come all of those different programs for mentoring and all the other things after school programs aren't saying who you think funds those that doesn't come from the government that -- from wealthy people who are philanthropists who give of their own time and their money to be able to fund programs for these kids who will be -- a job and -- -- -- -- graduate -- -- on the net effect on the web at a California.
All that's significant portion -- absolutely you know it's -- That doesn't come from the government who do you think it comes from like just a comfortable with people in the states and -- -- -- -- and most importantly -- -- again with Ed -- Yes size in a movie called happily even have to -- that judge -- the defense attorney is chili -- sorry he's also the uncle aunt my ex husband well it.
Was this -- businesses and -- that let me.
Now that -- that -- about a private ballot if everybody.
-- -- outside -- that but -- about -- yeah song from the yeah.
Think -- and about the fact that yeah -- aspect it's that.
It was that truth there are working with fewer teachers that's the freaky -- these people know history and they're working with the truth there that.
It's even -- -- more alarming -- that these kids that are in the hands of these wackos.
Makes me sick to my stomach right now.
-- there and let it rest of their lives are not done much with theirs -- lives.
Filter by section


text:
Expanding the text here will generate a large amount of data for your browser to display |
1. To make relevant information available to researchers, students, investors etc. in the various fields of knowledge all over the country.
2. To contribute towards formulating and developing a national documentation service and information system to the benefit of Sudan and other countries.
3. To set up national nodes and encourage use of existing mechanism for accessing and exchanging information.
4. To improve provision of equipment and facilities to the documentation centres, coupled with staff training to ensure their effective use
5. To organize symposia, seminars, workshops etc. for the mutual exchange of experience by Librarians, documentalists and information Scientists in different institutions.
6. To institutionalize information functions within the national development system so as to ensure that the information services are sustainable together with development projects and plans.


text:
Print Artist Platinum 24
The Print Shop Software that Lets You Create a Variety of Print Projects for Home, School or Business
- 27,000+ Professionally-Designed Templates
- 375,000+ Sensational Graphics
- 1,000+ Premium Fonts
- NEW! User Interface. Now Even Easier to Use
- NEW! Easily Upload Projects to Facebook & YouTube
- NEW! Photo Card Projects & Photo Clip Art
- Enhanced! Photo Editor Makes Your Pictures Shine
- Enhanced! Create CD Slideshows You Can Watch on TV
For Windows XP, Vista®, 7 or 8
Dream It. Create It. Print It! - From banners to brochures, calendars to certificates, greeting cards to gift items and so much more!
Print Artist® Platinum 24 is unlike any print software you've ever used - its unparalleled quality combined with unprecedented ease of use lets you produce amazing print projects for home, school or business - with no downloading or club memberships required! Impress friends, family, clients and associates with the creative edge that only Print Artist Platinum can offer – 27,000+ professionally-designed templates, 375,000+ sensational graphics and more right inside the box!
Print Artist® Platinum 24 is state-of-the-art software on DVD. It's compatible with Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. With its powerful, yet easy-to-use design, text and drawing customization tools, advanced photo editor, special text effects gallery and more, you'll be creating expert, eye-popping print projects with a professional, custom look that truly raises the bar!
Professionally-Designed Templates
Simply stated, Print Artist designs are a cut above.You'll notice the difference immediately!
Exclusive Projects
You won't find these projects in The Print Shop® or PrintMaster.®
All Templates and Graphics Inside
the Box
Unlike other print software products, no downloading or memberships are required.
Compatible with Windows XP, Vista
and 7
Print Artist is state-of-the-art software on DVD, designed exclusively for Windows XP, Vista and 7.
Print Artist Platinum 24 is the print software you've been waiting for – unparalleled quality and unprecedented ease of use, together for the very first time.
Print Artist is ideal for creating sensational print projects for home, school or office. You'll love the unique selection of professionally-designed projects and limitless creative tools from the #1 publisher of home graphics software.
Delight family and friends with innovative print projects!
Print Artist Platinum 24 makes it easy to share your projects digitally with family and friends. Just choose the Export command to create PDF documents or HTML pages that you can upload the Web.
No other software makes print projects for business more fun!
Burn CD Photo Slideshows You Can Watch on TV
Commemorate a special event or preserve a family getaway with a custom CD photo slideshow you can play on most DVD players. Print Artist slideshows can even include titles, music and animated transitions.
375,000+ Spectacular Graphics
Only Print Artist gives you the creative edge with a higher-quality and better organized graphics library - a complete collection of vector drawings, ilustrations, water colors, photographs, fine art and more.
Powerful Text Tools
- Text effects with complete control over color and text shape
- Tilted, staggered and wacky lettering
- Link one text box to another - ideal for newsletters!
- Spellcheck with customizable dictionary
To run Print Artist Platinum 24 you'll need:
- Windows XP®, Vista®, 7 or 8
- DVD Drive
- 1024 x 768 color display or higher
- Recordable or rewritable CD drive required to burn CD slideshows


text:
White Paper: Deliver efficient business-critical cloud apps in one software suite using SAP Business ByDesign* optimized for Intel® processors.
Intel® vPro™ technology embeds hardware-based security and manageability into PCs with 2nd generation Intel® Core™ vPro™ processors.
Intel® Servers and Server Refresh - IO
Intel® Xeon® processor 5600 series adapts performance to meet server workloads, conserving energy during low-use periods.
Compares TPC Benchmark* E performance between the Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2600 product family and the Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2600 v2 platform.
Compares Oracle E-Business Suite* performance between the Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2600 and the Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2600 v2 platforms.
The Intel® Xeon® processor E5 family delivers significant throughput improvements in high performance servers across a range of EDA applications.
Converged IT infrastructures based on Intel's industry-standard x86 architecture are described in this report from Pund-IT's Charles King.
Case Study: Danish Crown deploys virtualized Dell PowerEdge* servers and EqualLogic* storage, reducing maintenance and expanding IT and production.
Case Study: Mindspeed Technologies consolidates using Dell and Intel® Xeon® processor 5600-based servers to reduce costs and provide scalability.


text:
Whiskey Junction
Located inside a historic 1886 building, Whiskey Junction is a fun spot to enjoy a great concert. The venue features a variety of musical acts, from blues artists to Van Morrison and Ozzy Osbourne tribute bands. The atmosphere is decidedly relaxed and fun, channeling the familiar neighborhood bar vibe. The cover charge is always affordable, and Whiskey Junction features a menu of inexpensive appetizers, salads, sandwiches, pizzas and burgers. Check the schedule and plan to stop by for an evening of live music and fun.
- No businesses where found within a 5 mile radius.
Have an Appetite?
Discover the possibilities Bloomington restaurants offer. Search the many options.
The Big Ticket Savings
Visit 6 top Twin Cities attractions, including Nickelodeon Universe, within 3 days and save.
Bloomington Hotels
Whether traveling for business or pleasure, Bloomington offers you the best selection around.


text:
Movie: "Twittamentary"
Thursday, October 4
This new documentary looks at how lives connect and intersect within the Twitter community. Leveraging the power of the micro-blogging phenomenon, director Tan Siok Siok used Twitter to crowdsource the stories and videos presented in the film. Siok will join the audience via Skype for a post-screening Q&A. Tweet about the film (#TT9) prior to the screening and be entered in a drawing (must be present to win). Space is limited.
$5 Members
$6 College students and youth 17 and under
$8 Nonmembers
Purchase tickets now, at the Museum Admission Desk, or by calling 916.808.1182. Limited tickets may be available at the Admission Desk the day of the film.
This film is part of the program series Thursdays 'til 9.


text:
recipe reviews for:
"A whole chicken is stewed and then the meat is simmered with celery, onions, beef bouillon and chicken noodle soup mix in this soup seasoned with thyme, poultry seasoning, pepper and basil."
My Profile | Cooks I Like Reviews | Photos | Recipes | Menus | Blog
Cooking Level: Intermediate
Cooking Level: Expert
Get the season's best recipes for holiday feasting.
Holiday cookies, cakes, pies, and breads. Get recipes and inspiration.
Get time-saving recipes to save your busy life.
Watch Chef John make a simple, soothing chicken noodle soup.
This classic chicken and noodle soup is simple and so satisfying.
See how to make homemade chicken soup.


text:
"I Am Interested in the Views of the Opposition"
Over the weekend, while doing research for an essay, I re-read Catherine Drinker Bowen's wonderful book Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention from May to September 1787. In it she quotes George Washington (a strong Federalist) on the value of the opposition.
"Upon the whole," Washington wrote, "I doubt whether the opposition to the Constitution will not ultimately be productive of more good than evil; it has called forth, in its defence, abilities which would not perhaps have been otherwise exerted that have thrown new light upon the science of Government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible a manner, as cannot fail to make a lasting impression."
Two centuries later the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin echoed these observations in an interview in which he was asked about critics of the Enlightenment (which Berlin was a great admirer of).
"I am interested in the views of the opposition because I think that understanding it can sharpen one's own vision," Berlin said. "Clever and gifted enemies often pinpoint fallacies or shallow analyses in the thought of the Enlightenment. I am more interested in critical attacks which lead to knowledge than simply in repeating and defending the commonplaces of and about the Enlightenment."
I cite both Washington and Berlin because what they are saying doesn't come naturally to most of us and, in fact, runs deeply against our grain. Many of us have settled views on politics, on philosophy, on theology; we're far more interested in refuting our critics than learning from them. Our moral intuitions and dispositions, our experiences and intellectual vanity can prevent us from appreciating the "new light" that can be cast by those with whom we disagree.
From the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up department:
Last week, TSA agents at the St. Louis airport confiscated a gun–from a sock monkey!
The monkey, Rooster Monkburn (homage to John Wayne in True Grit), was traveling from St. Louis to Washington in the company of his creator, doll-maker Phyllis May. Actually, he was traveling in Ms. May's carry-on bag, along with some sewing supplies. A keen-eyed TSA agent spotted the dual threat, pulled the bag from the conveyor belt, and called Ms. May over. Removing Rooster's pistol from its holster she informed Ms. May that, "This is a gun." The sewing supplies were confiscated, as was the gun. All two-inches of it (check out the photo). Ms. May got her needles and thread back, but the sock-monkey cowboy had to make the trip unarmed.
Dan Rather's Obsession
Dan Rather was once among the most powerful figures in American media. Which is why watching him today is a particularly poignant and painful thing.
Consider Mr. Rather's appearance with CNN's Piers Morgan Monday night. When asked about the recent, erroneous Benghazi report on 60 Minutes that led to a leave of absence for reporter Lara Logan, Rather compared that story to the one that ruined his career:
"With our story, the one that led to our difficulty, no question the story was true. What the complaint… was 'Okay, your story was true, but the way you got to the truth was flawed. The process was flawed.' That's not the case with the Benghazi story. Unfortunately, and there's no joy in saying this, they were taken in by a man who was a fraud."
Now for some context.
The Tikvah Programs for 2014
Our friends at the Tikvah Fund have been engaging for years in a splendid effort to offer deeper education to adults in the bonds between Western civilization and the United States and the history of Judaism. Now the Fund is announcing a series of exciting seminars for 2014, and soliciting applications for attendees.
Tikvah programs bring exceptional individuals from America, Israel, and around the world to New York City to study economics, war and grand strategy, and Jewish thought. Our extraordinary faculty includes Peter Berkowitz, Frederick W. Kagan, William Kristol, Meir Soloveichik, Ruth Wisse, and Dara Horn, among many more.
Programs run 1 to 3 weeks starting next spring. All participants receive generous stipends to cover their travel, lodging, and investment of time.
A Disingenuous Defense of Hate Speech
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the disturbing decision of the influential New America Foundation to host and promote Max Blumenthal's new book calling for Israel's destruction. As I wrote then, and in a previous post noting the civil war that has broken out on the left about it, any discussion of this piece of trash need not detain us long. It is an ignorant piece of agitprop the purpose of which is to depict the State of Israel as comparable to Nazi Germany. His goal is not to add to the debate about West Bank settlements or the critique of liberal foes of the Netanyahu government but also, as leftist writer Eric Alterman noted, to question the legitimacy of Zionism and the whole idea of Jewish sovereignty over a single inch of territory on either side of the 1967 lines. This is a theme Blumenthal has addressed with refreshing candor during some of his book tour appearances when he has pondered the question of whether Jews should be allowed to live in the territory of what is now Israel after his wishes are fulfilled. It is as devoid of any intellectual integrity as any screed produced by those who support Hamas and its vision of a new Middle East without Israel. However, the issue isn't a book that engages in hate speech but what a respectable and well-connected think tank like the NAF was doing promoting it.
That issue has now been addressed by the group's founding director James Fallows, who not only defended the book and its author but seemed to think my piece and another that inspired it by historian Ron Radosh was a campaign aimed at suppressing free speech. This is nonsense. As Radosh has noted in a response, no one is stopping Blumenthal from writing a book and speaking about it. But we do have a right to ask why the New America Foundation thinks it is worthy of being given their imprimatur. The problem with engaging Fallows's argument is that he is being completely disingenuous. In order to defend Blumenthal and his book he has to completely misrepresent it and the discussion that he says is worth having about it.
Elizabeth Warren Sells Out
The raft of stories over the last week, the latest being today's piece in Business Insider, about Democratic Party infighting has nicely illustrated something conservatives have known for a while. Complaints over the last few years about the GOP being pulled to the right by conservatives were not about liberals' desire to meet in the middle and compromise, no matter how much they might decry the supposed extremist drift of the right. What they wanted was their very own Tea Party.
It was the same with Occupy Wall Street: the pseudoanarchist gatherings were far more violent than Tea Party protests (that is to say, containing any violence at all), and Democrats' support for them contrasted quite sharply with those same Democrats' condemnation of anti-ObamaCare protesters as "un-American." What bothered them was not the existence of ideological crusaders on the right but the marginalization of same on the left.
That is not to say that the Democratic Party doesn't espouse modern American left-liberalism. It's that modern American liberalism is soulless–it is the ideology of power. That's why the rumors of a possible Elizabeth Warren run for president stoked such passions on the left. It rejuvenated talk of a liberalism that stood for something besides accruing power to the state and letting bureaucrats run the show: the dilution of self-government to a ludicrous, and intellectually impoverished, degree.
But as I've tried to explain, Elizabeth Warren the politician is not Elizabeth Warren the writer and activist and educator. So the question remained: would Warren be a dynamic force for a liberalism of ideas, or would she use her new station in the Senate to practice the ideology of power? Warren has answered that question: it's about power. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:
ACA? ObamaCare Not So Affordable
As some pollsters and late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel have proved, ordinary Americans don't like ObamaCare but they like the idea of an Affordable Care Act, especially if they don't know the two are the same thing. That's led the White House and Democrats to try to train the voters to call the president's signature health-care legislation the ACA rather than the more popular handle that links the increasingly unpopular incumbent to the issue. But like the attempt to minimize the problems of the ObamaCare rollout as a merely the fault of a glitchy website, the notion that ObamaCare really is about affordable health care turns out to be as false as the president's promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it. As the New York Times reports this morning, the premiums being offered via the ObamaCare insurance exchanges may be low, but the deductibles and the other out-of-pocket costs associated with actually using the plans are actually far more expensive than those being offered elsewhere in the market.
Apparently it was no accident that until last week, the healthcare.gov website didn't offer consumers (or at least those who can successfully log in to it) the ability to discover what the deductibles on the plans being offered cost. That the premiums on these plans are often cheap is not in dispute, though many of those who were forced off existing plans that they liked have now found themselves saddled with much more expensive plans. But the point about insurance is not just what it costs to have it, but what it will cost you when you have to use it. If, as the Times reports, the deductible on some of these plans is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a couple, then as far as many Americans are concerned, pretty much everything short of a hospital stay or surgery is going to mean that they are going to have to pay all medical costs out of their own pockets. Which means, as far as most of the Americans who are being forced onto the state exchanges are concerned, short of a catastrophic event, ObamaCare is the moral equivalent of having no insurance at all.
When Friends Turn Anti-Semitic
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is the NGO of the Society of Friends, or Quakers. While it seeks to wear a moral mantle it claims from its 1947 Nobel Prize, in recent decades it has eschewed its values of peace and nonviolence and embraced unapologetically the world's worst dictators and terrorist movements bent on genocide. One of the first pieces I wrote for this website almost three years ago was an examination of the AFSC's work in North Korea and, previously, I had also co-written a piece with a fellow Quaker school alum looking at the AFSC's conflation of pacifism with hard-left politics. It might seem strange to preach non-violence and work with a government that both runs concentration camps and summarily executes children, but after having shilled for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as that monstrous group massacred millions of Cambodians, such skewed values shouldn't surprise.
Of course, most COMMENTARY readers know the AFSC better for its work among Palestinians. Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander Joffe have an important article in the Tower magazine this month asking aptly, "When did the Quakers Stop Being Friends?" They note the 2008 gala dinner co-hosted by the AFSC for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never mind Ahmadinejad's threats to eradicate Israel and his Holocaust denial, and they also examined the AFSC's recent indoctrination and training summer camps for new generations of boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) activists. But the real value of Romirowsky and Joffe's work is its extensive examination of the AFSC attitudes toward Zionism and the notion of Jewish attachment toward Israel, and its close ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the height of that group's terror campaign against Israel and Jews. In one 1977 session, the AFSC instructed Jewish participants at a workshop to "tolerate some anti-Semitic remarks."
China Spikes the Ball in Iran
Perhaps the worst thing about Secretary of State John Kerry is that he is both completely aloof to how both adversaries and allies perceive the United States, and he genuinely does not understand how America's competitors seek neither peace nor conflict resolution but rather to further their position vis-à-vis America in a zero-sum game of power rivalry.
For Kerry, the Iran nuclear talks may have been about curtailing Iran's nuclear program, but for China, they were about curtailing the United States. Speaking yesterday to reporters in Tehran after meeting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Chinese State Councilor (and former foreign minister) Yang Jiechi, declared:
Iran defended its rights in the [Vienna nuclear] negotiations and defeated the Western side. This result was achieved by Iran's new government and through wisdom and prudence used in the talks. We respect Iran's right to nuclear energy and uranium enrichment… Iran has started moving on the path of progress and development with your [Ruhani's] appointment [victory in presidential elections]. And China considers Iran as a close friend and a good and strategic partner.
What Does Iran's Demographic Precipice Mean?
When Iran's supreme leader speaks, Iranians listen. Deference is less a sign of respect than fear but, regardless, Iranians understand that the supreme leader runs the show. He sets the tone for the regime and is the only figure who can affect policy. One should expect nothing less from the self-declared "deputy of the Messiah on Earth."
American policymakers notoriously focus on short-term issues. Within the State Department, Pentagon, and even the Central Intelligence Agency, the majority of staff are focused on the next week's events and petty bureaucratic tasks rather than long-term strategy. Hence, in 2009, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to support the Iranian people rising up against Khamenei's repression, because they feared that to do so would make less likely a response to the letter Obama had penned to the supreme leader. (In a subsequent November 3, 2009 speech, Khamenei mocked Obama's letters.) Likewise, in recent weeks, the Obama administration in various briefings to Congress has argued that the Iran nuclear deal will make a nuclear breakout less likely in the next six months, even if the same deal might hasten Tehran's breakout ability in the period that follows.
There is little U.S. consideration, however, about what Iran might or could be like in the coming decades. In short, however, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, in recent months, increased his focus on demography. For example, in a speech earlier this autumn, Khamenei declared:
Another Journalist Murdered in Kurdistan
Iraqi Kurdistan is often described as Iraq's bright spot, a region enjoying both security and democracy. Certainly, the region is more secure than Baghdad since, with only occasional exceptions, al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have given it a pass. Praise for Kurdish democracy has also been highly exaggerated. Opposition parties are more active and there have been more successive political transitions in southern and central Iraq, especially in provincial elections, than in Kurdistan.
The real blight on Iraqi Kurdistan, however, has been its treatment of the press. Corruption is rife in Iraqi Kurdistan, as it is in Iraq itself. In both portions of Iraq, the press has sought to tackle the problem. In Kurdistan, however, that is often a fatal task. On the evening of December 5, Kawar Germyani was gunned down outside his home in Kalar. Germyani was the editor-in-chief of Rayal, and a contributor to Awene (a journal for which, full disclosure, I occasionally contribute). He becomes the third journalist murdered in five years. Despite the Kurdish Regional Government's rhetoric of security, none of the killers have been brought to justice. Germyani had previously sued Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) politburo member Mahmud Sangawy for threatening the writer's life after a corruption expose. When Sangawy refused to obey the court summons, he suffered no consequences.
Why Should Anyone Believe Kerry?
Secretary of State John Kerry was back in Israel today with a three-part task. One was to reassure the Israeli government that the weak nuclear deal the administration cut with Iran is not threat to the Jewish state's security. The second was, as I wrote on Wednesday, to present the Israelis with a detailed plan about the future of the West Bank after a peace deal with the Palestinians is achieved. The third was to convince the Palestinian Authority to play along and to accept the scheme that theoretically guarantees Israel's security by the stationing of U.S. or other foreign troops along the Jordan River.
Kerry may be still riding the rush he got from succeeding in persuading the Iranians to sign a deal that he has tried to represent as a diplomatic triumph, but he's likely to strike out on all three counts in the Middle East–and for reasons that are not unrelated to his diplomatic coup. The Israelis now have even less reason to trust Kerry and the U.S. than they did before. And having watched how the Iranians were, despite the enormous economic and military leverage the U.S. had over them, able to hold out and retain all of their nuclear infrastructure and stockpile, there is absolutely no reason for the Palestinians not to be just as patient with Kerry, confident that they need never give up their demands for territory, Jerusalem, lack of security guarantees for Israel, and even right of return for refugees. Though he can pretend that he has made the world safer with his Iran deal and contend that the peace negotiations he has promoted will also solve the region's problems, the parties involved no longer believe a word he says.
The Real Benghazi Scandal
On the list of scandals that plagued the Obama administration this past year, Benghazi has been the one the White House, Democrats, and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media dismissed with the greatest of ease. Unlike the IRS scandal, which though it has faded from the news had obvious constitutional and political implications, or the various spying scandals involving news organizations and the National Security Agency, which outraged large numbers of ordinary Americans, Benghazi was put down as a manufactured story that had little traction. Part of it was due to the obsessive, though understandable, focus of Republicans on the lies about the 9/11/12 terror attack by members of the administration in the immediate aftermath of the incident. The claim that it was merely a spontaneous demonstration of movie critics that ran amok was outrageous and almost certainly motivated by the administration's fears that the attack would hurt the president's reelection campaign. But it didn't speak to specific wrongdoing that led to the deaths of four Americans or how similar problems might be avoided in the future.
But 15 months after those four Americans died while waiting in vain for rescue that never came, there is a real Benghazi scandal that calls for more than lip service from the White House or quotes like former Secretary of State Clinton's infamous "What difference does it make?" As the Washington Post reports today:
U.S. officials say efforts have stalled to capture about a dozen people secretly charged in the 2012 attack on the American compound in Benghazi that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The individuals have been charged in sealed criminal complaints filed in federal court by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. They include one of the suspected ringleaders of the attack, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a militia leader with ties to al-Qaeda, said several U.S officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.
So far, none have been brought to trial and the lack of progress in capturing Khattala has frustrated U.S. intelligence officials and lawmakers who want to see him and the others prosecuted. One official said that Khattala continues to operate in eastern Libya with impunity.
"He's as free as a bird," the official said.
This is, to put it mildly, outrageous. And it is all the more outrageous since the suspects are apparently living large in a country that was supposedly no longer a safe haven for terror after the Western-backed overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. If the administration hasn't allocated sufficient forces to deal with this situation, Congress and the American people have a right to ask why.
The Nanny State's Bad Medicine
Two years ago the BBC ran a story about health and the government whose headline perfectly captured the promise and peril of the scientific breakthroughs in genetics: "NHS must prepare for the genetic revolution, report says." Describing the developments in genetic testing and research as revolutionary is apt. The illumination of ancestry and the possibility of preparing for and preventing a range of diseases and conditions–cancer among them–could not come soon enough.
But the other part of that headline that was important was the focus of the story: how the government-run health bureaucracy wasn't ready for the revolution, and the danger such unpreparedness posed. Those glancing across the pond at the BBC's reporting might have expected what transpired in the U.S. recently, culminating yesterday in a setback for public health, scientific breakthrough, and individual rights, all brought to you by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has been standing athwart medical history yelling stop, and for now history has agreed to stop–or at least slow down.
The basic story is this: a biotech startup called 23andMe sells spit kits–saliva collection tubes, essentially–for $99 a piece and runs genetic tests on the samples. The near-term benefits are obvious: users have an affordable way to screen for genetic predispositions. The long-term benefits stem from the (if successful and popular enough) database of genetic health and ancestral information. When Time magazine lauded the product in 2008 (it was more expensive and still finding its place), it noted:


text:
Non-Network Provider Application
Includes the F248-036-000 Statewide Payee Registration and W-9 form. For providers to complete that do not want to become a Labor and Industries network provider, or for a specialty that L&I is not accepting network applications for at this time. If you are applying to be a Labor and Industries network provider, please complete application process at www.ProviderNetwork.Lni.wa.gov |
Form | F248-011-000 |
Master Level Counselor Provider Account Application for Crime Victims
Master Level Counselor Provider Account Application for Crime Victims |
Form | F800-053-000 |
Please take this survey to help improve the L&I website.
Take survey
(About 3 minutes)
© Washington State Dept. of Labor & Industries. Use of this site is subject to the laws of the state of Washington.
Do you plan to access the Labor and Industries website from a mobile device? (such as a phone or tablet)


text:
We were attending a wedding last weekend and reception was in Tullyglass Hotel. We were unable to get booked into the hotel but managed to get accommodation in Pinegrove Lodge. We got a really warm welcome from George and Heather and felt at home straight away. They could not have done more to make our stay comfortable. The bedrooms are... More
- Also Known As:
- Pinegrove Lodge Ballymena, Northern Ireland
- Official Description (provided by the hotel):
- Pinegrove Lodge B&B Ballymena, recently awarded 4 star classification by the NI Tourist Board, is situated in a quiet residential area just off the Grove Road in Ballymena. It is within easy walking distance from the town centre shops and malls and an ideal base for visiting the North Antrim Causeway Coast, Glens of Antrim, Belfast and all the recent new visitor attractions.The ground floor accommodation comprises a double room and a large family room with a single room and bathroom en-suite. We offer safe private parking, and the very popular Countryman Inn and supermarket complex is just 200 metres away. Bedrooms are equipped with televisions, DVDs, and fridges. Each room has also tea and coffee making facilities with cake or cookies for afternoon tea. Wi-fi is freely available. Pick-up and return to the airports and ferries can be arranged. Pinegrove Lodge is also conveniently situated for guests attending weddings at Galgorm Resort & Spa, Tullyglass House and all the local hotels. ... more less


text:
J Brand
Slim Fit Vest
J Brand proves that the denim movement toward straight and skinny is hardly a trend. With an absolutely clean, anonymous back pocket and sophisticated lines, these jeans are already a classic set for the ages.
- 92% cotton 7% poly 1% elastane
- Button front closure
- Front flap pockets with button closure
- Raw cut armholes
- Styled with T by Alexander Wang Classic Tank with Pocket in White.
- Styled with Mackage Ibbie Distressed Leather Shorts in Black.
- Styled with gorjana Kaia Ring in Gold.
- Styled with gorjana Delaney Wave Ring in Rosegold.
- Styled with gorjana Infinity II Ring in Rosegold.
- Styled with Low Luv x Erin Wasson Rising Sun Cuff in Gold.
- Modeled in size S. See fit guide for model's dimensions.
- Revolve Style No. JBRA-WO12
- Manufacturer Style No. 304C073


text:
Consumers Businesses
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 requires that nearly all children's products:
a) comply with all applicable children's product safety rules;
b) are tested for compliance by a CPSC-accepted laboratory;
c) have a written Children's Product Certificate (issued by the manufacturer or importer) that provides evidence of the product's compliance; and
d) have permanent tracking information affixed to the product and its packaging.
The CPSIA also requires domestic manufacturers or importers of non-children's products (cpsc.gov/generaluse) for which a consumer product safety rule, or any similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any law enforced by the CPSC is in effect, to issue a "General Certificate of Conformity" (cpsc.gov/gcc). The GCC must be based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program.
Is Your Product a Children's Product?This important question determines which set of regulatory requirements applies to your product
Age Grade Your ProductEven if you know your product is a children's product, you still need to "age grade" the product to determine the specific requirements that apply to your children's product.
The following key requirements generally apply to nearly every children's product, although some are limited to specific product categories. You must ensure that your children's product is in compliance with each of these applicable children's product safety rules.
Total Lead Content:
Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings:
Ban on Small Parts:(Ban on products for children less than 3 years old; warning labels apply for products intended for children between 3 and less than 6 years old)
Toy Safety Standard (Toys):
Ban on Phthalates (Certain toys and child care articles):
Durable Infant or Nursery Products:The CPSC has developed and continues to develop new safety rules for cribs, bassinets, strollers, baby carriers, high chairs, and other items with a longer period of expected use.
Product Registration Card Requirement:
All durable infant or nursery products must have a product registration card affixed to the product.
Children's Clothing and Children's Sleepwear:
The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) bans hazardous substances in children's products. Information on the FHSA, and other additional regulations for children's products that are not listed above, may be found in this table.
Third Party Testing; Component Part Testing
Children's products must be tested by a CPSC-accepted third party laboratory and, beginning in February 2013, samples of continuing production must be retested periodically to ensure ongoing compliance. Manufacturers may be able to rely on testing performed by other suppliers of component parts if certain requirements are met.
Children's Product Certificates (CPC)For nearly all children's products, manufacturers (or importers) must issue a CPC based on third party testing by a CPSC-accepted laboratory showing that their children's product complies with the applicable children's product safety rule(s).
Locate a CPSC accepted laboratory:
Children's products must be third party tested by a CPSC accepted laboratory. Your children's product may be subject to multiple regulations and you may need to conduct multiple searches to find a laboratory that meets your particular needs.
Tracking Labels:
Table of Regulated Products:
Some, but not all, non-children's products are regulated. This table will assist you in determining if your product is subject to federal consumer product safety regulations.
Mandatory Reporting Requirements:
Whether your product is or is not subject to a specific product safety regulation, nearly all consumer products are under the jurisdiction of the CPSC. Therefore, all consumer product companies must report potentially unsafe, hazardous, or non-compliant products to the CPSC or face substantial civil penalties. See "Step 3: Additional Business Obligations" below.
Information on General Certificate of Conformity (GCC):
If your non-children's product is subject to a consumer product safety regulation, you must issue a GCC showing that your product complies with the applicable consumer product safety rule for your product.
Information on Testing and Reasonable Testing Programs:
If your non-children's product is subject to a consumer product safety regulation, you must also ensure that your product is subjected to testing on each product or to a reasonable testing program to ensure compliance.
Mandatory Reporting Obligations:Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers have an obligation to report the following information to the CPSC:(i) a defective product that could create a substantial risk of injury to consumers or a product that is otherwise unreasonably hazardous or dangerous for consumers;(ii) a product fails to comply with an applicable consumer product safety rule or with any other rule, regulation, standard, or ban under the CPSA or any other statute enforced by the CPSC; (iii) a product that a child (regardless of age) choked on, such as a marble, small ball, balloon, or small part; and that, as a result of the incident, the child died, suffered serious injury, ceased breathing for any length of time, or was treated by a medical professional; or (iv) certain types of lawsuits (manufacturers and importers only).
Register with SaferProducts.gov, the online publicly searchable database containing reports of harm or risk of harm relating to the use of consumer products.
Businesses have rights under the law to respond to consumer claims. Businesses also have responsibilities to monitor consumer reports of harm and report them to the CPSC. Registration ensures that businesses have a secure, digital portal to access information about their products to make informed decisions about product safety.
Regulated Products Handbook
Retailers: Product Safety and Your Responsibilities
Develop a Recall Plan
Safety by Design
Does your business have total gross revenues of $1 million or less a year? Then you may qualify for special third party testing requirements as a "small batch manufacturer." To learn all of the details, go to:
Small Business Ombudsman:
Participate in Voluntary Standards Activities
Participate in Public Rulemaking on New Consumer Product Safety Regulations
Contact the Office of Education and Global Outreach
Contact the Small Business Ombudsman
View the complete CPSIA law
View other laws enforced by the CPSC
View business guidance for select products and laws enforced by the CPSC
View a table of regulated products regulated by the CPSC under all of its authorities
View the CPSC Arts and Craft Materials Safety Guide
All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)
Crib Safety
Pool Safety
Register as a third party laboratory
View a list of accredited testing laboratories
Periodic testing requirement went into effect on February 8th, 2013. Learn more and take the necessary steps to comply today!
View the Periodic Testing FAQ
Stay up to date with the latest information from the CPSC by signing up for one of our business e-mail services.
We have CPSC accepted laboratories around the world. For children's products, it is a requirement that your product is tested by a CPSC accepted laboratory. Search for a lab near you.
Print and post this handy guide for businesses on key requirements and responsibilities.
Download the Desktop Reference Guide (PDF)
Model Children's Product Certificate
Model General Certificate of Conformity
Find final consumer product safety rules - table or searchable database. Also find CPSC Federal Register Notices, Briefing Packages, and other information pertaining to various CPSIA sections.
If you have additional questions, please contact the CPSC's Office of Education, Global Outreach, and Small Business Ombudsman.
You may qualify for alternative requirements to reduce your third party testing costs. Find out more information and contact our Small Business Ombudsman with additional questions.
Businesses should be aware that consumers may file reports of a potential health or safety problem with a consumer product at SaferProducts.gov, a publicly searchable database.
Businesses are urged to register with SaferProducts.gov. Registration ensures that businesses have a secure, digital portal to access information about their products to make informed decisions about product safety. Registration also ensures that businesses have the full amount of time to respond to consumer reports under the law. The CPSC urges you to register now .
The link you selected is for a destination outside of the Federal Government. CPSC does not control this external site or its privacy policy and cannot attest to the accuracy of the information it contains. You may wish to review the privacy policy of the external site as its information collection practices may differ from ours. Linking to this external site does not constitute an endorsement of the site or the information it contains by CPSC or any of its employees.
Click Ok if you wish to continue to the website; otherwise, click Cancel to return to our site.


text:
What are genes?
Genes carry information in the form of DNA within each cell of the human body. Researchers estimate that there are 30,000 different genes in each cell. Genes are packaged onto chromosomes. There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell. One chromosome of each pair is inherited from the person's father and one from the person's mother.
Genes control how a cell functions, including how quickly it grows, how often it divides, and how long it lives. To control these functions, genes produce proteins that perform specific tasks and act as messengers for the cell. Therefore, it is essential that each gene have the correct instructions or "code" for making its protein so that the protein can perform the proper function for the cell.
What role do genes play in melanoma?
Many cancers begin when one or more genes in a cell are mutated (changed), creating an abnormal protein or no protein at all. The information provided by an abnormal protein is different from that of a normal protein, which can cause cells to multiply uncontrollably and become cancerous.
A person may either be born with a genetic mutation in all of their cells (germline mutation) or acquire a genetic mutation in a single cell during his or her lifetime. An acquired mutation is passed on to all cells that develop from that single cell (called a somatic mutation). Somatic mutations can sometimes be caused by environmental factors, such as cigarette smoke. Most melanomas (about 90%) are considered sporadic, meaning that the damage to the genes occurs by chance after a person is born, and there is no risk of passing on the gene to a person's children. An increased risk of melanoma occurs when specific gene mutations are passed within a family from generation to generation. Keep in mind that melanoma itself is not inherited; it is the increased risk of developing melanoma that is inherited. Many people who have an increased risk of melanoma never develop the disease; only 10% of melanoma is familial (runs in the family).
What are the chances a mutated gene is inherited?
Every cell usually has two copies of each gene: one inherited from a person's mother and one inherited from a person's father. Hereditary melanoma follows an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, in which a mutation needs to happen in only one copy of the gene for the person to have an increased risk of getting the disease. This means that a parent with a gene mutation may pass on a copy of the normal gene or a copy of the gene with a mutation. Therefore, a child who has a parent with a mutation has a 50% chance of inheriting that mutation. A brother, sister, or parent of a person who has a gene mutation also has a 50% chance of having the same mutation.
What is a person's average risk for melanoma?
A person with an average risk of melanoma has about a 2% chance of developing melanoma during his or her lifetime.
How can a person know if he or she has inherited a genetic mutation that increases his or her risk of melanoma?
Only genetic testing can determine whether a person has a genetic mutation. Genetic testing for melanoma risk is available on a limited basis. Doctors suggest that families with more than one person who has been diagnosed with melanoma consider participating in genetic research studies, so that more can be learned about how genetic mutations influence the melanoma risk. Even in families with several people who have melanoma, a changed gene is often not found.
How does a person know if melanoma runs in the family?
An inherited risk of melanoma is suspected if two or more first-degree relatives (parents, brothers, sisters, children) are diagnosed with melanoma. Inherited melanoma is sometimes called familial melanoma. For people living in the southern United States or other parts of the world where they are exposed to intense sunlight, familial melanoma is suspected if three or more first-degree relatives develop melanoma.
There are other important signs that suggest that melanoma may run in a family, including:
- More than one melanoma diagnosis in the same person
- Melanoma diagnosed in early adulthood. Inherited melanoma in American families often develops around 35. Most women develop melanoma before age 50.
- More than one atypical or dysplastic nevi, which are more common for people who have an increased risk of melanoma.
Most experts strongly recommend that people concerned about their family history of melanoma consult a genetic counselor. Genetic counselors are trained to assess the potential for hereditary cancer risk in a family and can identify appropriate genetic testing or research studies.
What is a person's risk if melanoma runs in the family?
If a person has a first-degree relative with melanoma, his or her risk of developing melanoma is two to three times greater than the average risk. The risk is higher if several family members that live in different locations have been diagnosed with melanoma.
Which inherited genetic mutations raise the risk of melanoma?
There are several genes thought to be associated with an increased risk of melanoma. However, research to better understand how these genes affect the risk of melanoma is ongoing.
Familial malignant melanoma. There are at least three different genes have been linked to hereditary melanoma. Families with mutations in these genes may have multiple dysplastic nevi (flat moles that are irregular in shape or color). Although dysplastic nevi are likely to be related to altered genes, the specific genes involved have not been identified. The association of familial melanoma and multiple dysplastic nevi is also sometimes called familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM) or atypical nevus syndrome. Families with inherited melanoma may also have an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer and possibly other cancers.
Melanoma-astrocytoma syndrome. People with this rare condition have an increased risk of melanoma and astrocytoma (a type of brain tumor). The specific gene for this condition is thought to be located on chromosome 9. Families with both melanoma and astrocytoma have been shown to have changes in a gene called CDKN2A gene, which affects tumor growth.
Are there other genetic conditions associated with an increased risk of melanoma?
Other genetic conditions that are associated with an increased risk of melanoma are described below.
Xeroderma pigmentosum. Xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) is a group of rare conditions that makes a person's cells unable to repair DNA damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) light exposure, such as sunshine. Signs of XP are caused by the increased sensitivity to UV light, and include dry skin, abnormal pigmentation, severe freckling, and blistering after minimal sun exposure. People with this condition have a high risk of skin cancer, including melanoma (more than a thousand times more likely than the general population), and noncancerous skin abnormalities. People with XP also have an increased risk of other types of cancers including leukemia, brain tumors, stomach cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, uterine cancer, and testicular cancer.
Retinoblastoma. Retinoblastoma is a childhood eye tumor. Children with hereditary retinoblastoma have an increased risk of developing other cancers as they grow older, especially melanoma (50 times more likely than the general population). They also have a higher risk for osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer), other sarcomas, leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, lung cancer, and bladder cancer.
Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). LFS is a rare condition associated with a specific genetic mutation. People with LFS have a higher risk of developing osteosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, leukemia, breast cancer, brain cancer, and adrenal cortical tumors. People with LFS have developed melanoma, but the risk of developing melanoma is not known.
Werner syndrome. Werner syndrome is a rare condition that causes premature aging and an increased risk of cancer, specifically osteosarcoma, other sarcomas, melanoma, and thyroid cancer.
Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. HBOC is associated with mutations in the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA stands for BReast CAncer). Women with HBOC have an increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Men with HBOC have an increased risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer. People with HBOC also have an increased risk of melanoma, specifically people who have a mutation on the BRCA2 gene.
Cowden syndrome (CS). CS is a rare genetic condition caused by a specific genetic mutation. People with CS have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and noncancerous breast changes and noncancerous and cancerous tumors of the thyroid cancer and endometrium (lining of the uterus). People with CS have developed melanoma; however, it is not known whether having CS increases a person's risk of developing melanoma.
What is your risk level?
In addition to family history, other environmental and lifestyle factors may increase your risk of melanoma. Discussing your family history and personal risk factors, especially the type and number of moles (such as dysplastic nevi), complexion, and extensive freckling with a doctor helps you better understand your risk. People with risk factors for melanoma are encouraged to see their doctor at least once a year for skin examinations. The ABCDE (Asymmetry, Border, Color, Dimension, Evolution) criteria are most commonly used in the diagnosis of early melanoma. People with a higher than average risk may benefit from sun-protective behavior and early detection strategies.
A risk factor is anything that increases a person's risk of developing cancer. Having a particular genetic mutation linked to melanoma cannot predict that a person will develop cancer. Controllable risk factors also play a large role in the development of melanoma. Sun or other types of ultraviolet light exposure (such as tanning beds) are the most important controllable risk factors for melanoma. To prevent melanoma, it is recommended that people limit sun exposure, particularly at mid-day, seek shade when outdoors, wear protective clothing, and use sunscreens as directed. Tanning parlors and sun beds should not be used. Talk with a doctor for more information about melanoma risk factors, screening, and prevention.
More Information


text:
I'm getting tired of having to spoonfeed this to some of you people individually. As it turns out though, thankfully, I can edit the OP so at least read this. I am not arguing against love, relationships or commitment, or anything the like. Quite the opposite, I'm saying they're good enough on their own without the need for the legal paperwork, money-waste and label of marriage. I welcome any opinion whether I like it or not, but not when you're missing all of the actual points like a little boy splashing the rim and substitute your own. No one's forcing you to read the whole thread, but at least read the damn OP of the thread next time or don't bother. It's getting frustrating having to read through your condescending tones just to find out you just didn't pay attention.
Hey. I'm not sure if I made a thread before but I'd like to put some of my thoughts on marriage here and see what all of you guys think. I see many of you as much smarter than me, and I think I can learn some. This got a little long, and I don't know if I should post it as a blog instead, but since my objective is to get some sort of exchange/discussion going a thread is more fitting. This is my opinion only. I'm not going to talk about gay-marriage or things like that, we all already know enough about that. I want to talk about marriage itself.
My stance on marriage is not that everybody should be allowed to have one, including gays. My stance is that nobody should get married, including straight people. And I'm often confused as to why atheists, secular intelligent people, would want to engage in this antiquated, forcefully contrived and often religious social construct.
I've said this in one form or another before. People like to think about marriage as this magical bond between two people in love, but for the bigger part of its history marriage wasn't about love at all. We know that in the past ages marriage was only used as a form of sales-contract, a political relationship building tool between two parties, and a way for the rulers to keep tabs on their subjects, while making sure they don't run amok fucking and raping each other aimlessly. It was an easy social structure to introduce into a primitive society that would otherwise kill each other over women to rape (which they did, and still do regardless). As a religious construct, it has been solely used for the above mentioned purposes, plus turn women into property. We need only look at some religious men and their harem of wives, to see that in that marriage women have become nothing more than a commodity. In marriage, even today, women are often nothing more than merchandise. Why do you think religious men always emphasize the importance of staying pure and staying away from sex until marriage? Because some men have very small penises. And some men with small penises are willing to pay high prices for a certain commodity: virginity. They want sex with virgins, because the small-dicked man knows the virgin doesn't know any better, so he has a confidence boost. Same reason they marry old geezers to little children, under the ruse of "our prophet did it." It's all about keeping the business running. Tell girls not to fuck. Slut-shame them should they dare to have sex outside of marriage. Call them whores, sluts, whatever. Put peer-pressure on them. Because if they do, the market will run dry.
There are a some popular arguments for/about marriage that I'd like to take on.
- It's a public declaration of loyalty. / It shows commitment.
This is a common error. Marriage doesn't make someone any more loyal then s/he would've been anyway, and if it does it's either because of peer-pressure (look up countries with the lowest divorce rates) or simple disingenuity. If you are in a relationship (which is not open), then you should be able to stay loyal and make it clear you're committed all by yourself, without a ring on your finger to vouch for you. Saying marriage ads to the commitment and shows loyalty is really no different than, for example, saying the bible gives us strength and hope. We should be able to have those things by ourselves, and those who cling to it show only a lack of those traits in themselves; just as someone who can not be as loyal without marriage shows a lack of confidence in their loyalty to begin with.
Now there also many people who say that they want a marriage to make sure their partner is committed. To me, a person who says they cannot expect loyalty and commitment unless their partner agrees to marry them is a person who displays a severe lack of trust, confidence and faith in their partner. A crucial flaw which wouldn't work out too well for a relationship to begin with.
I'm quoting the next point from a post from another member, MikeLong, here. I originally wanted to answer you in that thread, but the lack of a reply button was getting on my nerves, sorry.
- If shit goes south, marriage makes us try harder to preserve the relationship, rather than simply cast it aside as just another failed relationship.
Again, I think this should go without having to be married. If the relationship is worth it you should put all effort in, but not because you think "Oh well, we're married now. And it's kinda too much work to get divorced anyway." If marriage is your only incentive to keep a relationship alive, it's not a relationship of love as it is a cold iron chain locking you together.
More importantly though, just because a relationship is over doesn't mean it's failed. We fall in love, and then often we get jaded, and it's over. But that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile, that it was a waste of time, or that it failed. We experience something nice, and then it's time to move on. What marriage does is hold you trapped, after you've had enough. And I believe that the idea of an ended relationship being a "failed" relationship is something, more often than not, pushed into our culture by clergy. They are mostly the ones we hear bitching about divorce rates in secular countries and how it's somehow directly related to the moral decline in that country. That's bullshit. The only thing a divorce means is that two people no longer want to be together. What does the reason matter? Clergy often pretend like it's because people turn gay and the men divorce their wives because they want to go to a gay bar and have wild gay sex out of wedlock (ironically the solution would be to allow same-sex marriage, but I digress). But even if it were so, so what? How would it make those two people any more happy if they were continuously trapped in a marriage? Even when, at first, only one of the two partners wants a divorce, to me it would be much more horrible to force the other person to stay married. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want me anymore. Platonic love doesn't end well for either party.
So what I'm rambling on about it that ending a relationship is not always a bad thing. Call me a cynic, but I believe that it's a good time even most of the time. Something sucks, you work at it. But at some point you have to stop and accept that it might just not be worth it to try and pick up all the pieces off of the floor so you can glue them together and hope it sticks for just a little while longer. At some point you just have to leave the pieces lie and move the fuck on.
- marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman
Obviously, this is an argument that comes from the theist camp. Now I'm not going to argue about how retarded it is to suggest that gays have any less of a right to a marriage, we already know that, but instead tell you why I think religion loves pairing different genders so much. It's because man + woman = baby. Baby = another unit in the army. That's it. Nothing profound to it. Sacred bond my ass. It's about growing numbers like a virus. Rulers in all ages understood that if you want to build a powerful nation, what you need are people. Many many people. As many as possible. Living conditions, quality of life - doesn't matter. If he can hold a weapon and become cannon-fodder he's good enough. Same reason religion values men more than women. They're physically stronger. Same reason clergy are against abortion, it kills potential units and dwindles their numbers. (It also kills off all the pussy in the age range they like.)
- We do it for the civil / legal / financial rights.
I actually don't know enough about this to be able to fairly comment, so I'd love some input. Obviously I still don't like it. I know people who have been together for years but have no intentions of getting married for any benefits, my own sister included, and they seem to lead happy lives. But are the benefits worth compromising your integrity?Is there no other way to achieve those rights? Would it be at all possible for us to change this? I'm aware that gays fight for marriage because they want the rights that come with it. Now I remember Strega saying in a different thread that if they made some other civil construct which would allow her, as a gay person, to have all the benefits of a usual marriage provides, she'd do it right away. Even if it wasn't called a marriage. Do you agree with this, or do you think that, if anything, both straight people and gays should get the exact same thing? In which case it cannot be a religious union, because all major religions are homophobic. And so...I'm tired.
That's it for now. I actually have much more to say, but I kinda already wrote more than usual and I'm getting bored and I'm sure I've bored most of you by now too. I might add some later. Cut me some slack!
Tags: commitment, divorce, gays, i hate children, loyalty, marriage, relationships, rights, scam
@Korsan this was realy opening Pandoras box my friend, every person has his own idea of what marriage means.You get the ones that have been maried for 46 years and all they do is bitch about each other. You get the ones that is happy for 40 + years. The divorced person will have his own idea,ect. Some people believe in the commitment of the wedding vows, and some believe that they can commit without them. Almost like religion they all feel thier idea is the right idea. All the best with this discussion. And you have some good points
Sooo you have a degree in relationships, then? You spent 8+ years studying before even entering the "field" (i.e. marriage)? This is a terrible analogy. You're not the equivalent of a surgeon on relationship matters... not unless you have a Doctorate. Yours is still merely a personal experience; the evidence you give is purely anecdotal.
That still doesn't make a comparison of your experience in relationships equivalent to that of a surgeon's experience in surgery/medicine. Maybe you should've used those guys as examples of people that are listened to even though they have no qualifications. And, regardless of their success, they're not right about everything, or most things. They also give their opinions which we're all free to disregard.
At this point I'm not sure if anyone even bothered reading my OP,
I read all 200+ comments, then re-read the OP. I have been following this closely, but as happens in these forums the thread meanders, so I might have fallen a little off the path. Metaphors are sticky things.
or if I'm j I wasn't arguing about commitment being wrong. I wasn't arguing about whether we need commitment or not. I was arguing whether we need to label, the legal paperwork of marriage. I was arguing that two people who love each other do not need that to be in a committed relationship,
The succinct version of your OP. When two things are similar, but have a marginal difference, the margin IS the difference. If a white duck and a mallard duck pass you by, you would be unlikely to think they are the same. They might be the same species, the difference might be that one is male and one is female, who knows? (I don't know anything about ducks) Regardless, just the difference in color might be significant. Since it might be; it is. At least to the casual observer, like me, someone who doesn't want to bother googling the difference between duck colors. So if there is little difference between a real committed relationship and a marriage, that piece of paper might be significant, it is significant, at least to some in the population.
You seem to think in general on the short term, but this is a long term world in terms of human lifespan. A lock on the door might save someone from getting a venereal disease, which has the possibility of a lifetime consequence.
This is insulting. So people who don't get married have promiscuous sex and get STDs? I hope I only missunderstood you here because otherwise you sound like clergy. If a piece of paper is the only thing that keeps you from cheating on your partner it doesn't mean much. And that was one of my points in the OP as well. But never mind.
Insulting? Lighten up buttercup. VD is just one of a billion things that could go wrong when delving outside of your relationship, I was just reaching for one of them that had life changing consequences. Take your pick of others, including a mate finding someone they like better, or who is just different enough to be interesting. Or likes their friends, or thousands of other meaningless differences that in the end might be avoided by the reminder of a single piece of paper, and/or a ring on the correct finger of their hand.
a piece of paper is the only thing
Not the only thing, but a thing-- a non-nothing if you will. A marginal difference.
Aging doesn't mean you learned anything. At the most, age can tell us that a person hadmore opportunity to learn than someone younger than himself. That's all you can safely assume, and nothing else. Not that they know anything.
The "opportunity to learn" ---I'm speechless, so I'll use your vernacular to continue: Life hands you a mix of assholes, dipshits, and brainless drone units to be your bosses and co-workers, throw in a general malaise, rampant misogyny and total disrespect for the basic human rights. Don't get all weepy 'cause grandma died, she was old anyway and didn't amount to much her whole useless, hollow so-called life. You are born into this shitstorm and then get your own chance to fuck it up...........
Ok, I'm back, whew!. In short, virtually every year of your life, something bad is going to go down, sometimes lots of things. I mean your life, my life, everyone's lives. Sometimes as a result of decisions you've made, sometimes because of others, some of it will come just as a matter of time. Life forces you to learn each time something like that happens. There are a few of us who choose to learn other things in between the crap life throws at us, but sooner or later, crap will be thrown at you, or Blaine, or Bill Gates or whoever. You won't have a choice, for much of it is learn or die. Each successive year each of us lives we are a collection of the lessons learned, and much more often than not, it is forced learning. This is why, as a rule of thumb, age kinda equals experience.
Look at some of the people like Cara or Jenny. They're younger than the others, but clearly ahead of the game wisdom wise.
I agree, excellent intellects, but also a product of those around them, including the religious nutbags. Separating the wheat from the chaff is great, but the chaff exists, and existed and is part of our shared pasts. Yin and Yang are tied together.
I am currently reading How the Scots Invented the Modern World. It outlines how a nearly stone aged people--Scotland in the early 1700's was poorer than the Plains Indians in America-- eventually developed the basis for much of what we take for granted today, including the spread of atheism. In your eyes they would be a worthless, conquered, horribly religious people. The Calvinist Church thought them so unruly that they would have to teach them English so that they could at least keep them tamed. In 50 years they became the first mostly literate country on earth. Besides English they learned philosophy, math, science, and the basics for a civil life, and spread the same to the world.
Korsan, don't write off the unwashed masses, even the ones deluded by religion, even the ones that get married for stupid insipid reasons.
Insulting? Lighten up buttercup. VD is just one of a billion things that could go wrong when delving outside of your relationship, I was just reaching for one of them that had life changing consequences. Take your pick of others, including a mate finding someone they like better, or who is just different enough to be interesting. Or likes their friends, or thousands of other meaningless differences that in the end might be avoided by the reminder of a single piece of paper, and/or a ring on the correct finger of their hand.
Once again you missed the point. I was merely going off your own example of a disease. my problem was with you, like some conservative church-hound, saying that people who aren't married are automatically less loyal, more likely to do something bad and/or get infected. What next, "they might conceive children out of wedlock?" It's your own weakness and lack of self-control that got you a disease, not the lack of a piece of paper that says you're married. If that's all that keeps you from cheating, don't bother at all and just live the way you want. Else you're just cheating your nature.
Don't get all weepy 'cause grandma died, she was old anyway and didn't amount to much her whole useless, hollow so-called life.
I like how you took the word "most" and thought it meant "all."
If your grandma didn't know anything, she didn't. If she did, she did. Her being your grandma, or being old doesn't change anything.
Each successive year each of us lives we are a collection of the lessons learned, and much more often than not, it is forced learning. This is why, as a rule of thumb, age kinda equals experience.
Are you playing word games out of purpose? I didn't say age didn't bring some experience. I was talking about knowledge. Tell me you know the difference. Praying for rain, and then seeing rain may give someone experience regarding prayer. Makes is utterly worthless "knowledge" though. I tried to show you that experiencing doesn't mean learning and that learning doesn't mean learning the right thing. You leaped straight from aging to experiencing meaning the same thing as learning the right thing. They say that coma patients experience what's going on around them too, doesn't mean they take anything away from it.
I am currently reading How the Scots Invented the Modern World. It outlines how a nearly stone aged people--Scotland in the early 1700's was poorer th
Nice anecdote and I'm sure it's a good book, but utterly irrelevant. I'm talking about ageism and individual aging here, not the development of entire cultures.
I agree, excellent intellects, but also a product of those around them, including the religious nutbags.
As are we all. We're all the total sum of any variable in our lives. Doesn't have much to do with what I was saying about ageism again. You're going off on tangents.
It's your own weakness and lack of self-control
Since we are all weak, and lets face it, we are, perhaps it is these silly, insignificant pieces of paper that keep all of us together. Weak Forces keep the sun burning.
Are you playing word games out of purpose?
You advocate a world without defined borders of conduct, mixed with a solid sense of responsibility to yourselves, the earth, and others. That's ok, and there are places where that is the guiding principle. It's been a while since I've been there, but the communes that you might have heard about that were started in the '60's, some of them still exist, at least they did about 12 years ago in Upstate New York near Woodstock.
Since we are all weak, and lets face it, we are, perhaps it is these silly, insignificant pieces of paper that keep all of us together
Must suck to think so little of yourself. I'm sure married people appreciate being told that it's just a piece of paper standing between their partners and them cheating. So, let me guess. We also need the bible to be moral? Do we have original sin too? We are powerless until we give our lives over to a higher power? That's where your road is leading, be careful. I'm sure you're better than that.
You advocate a world without defined borders of conduct,
I advocate a world with as clearly defined borders as possible. You don't. Love is not an emotion you can clearly define. I love my girlfriend. I love my brother. I love animals. I love chocolate. It's an extremely ambiguous word, and what marriage does is put it into a legal binding contract. Signing a document promising you'll always be in love with someone, is like signing a document promising to be lucky. I promise to be lucky or else you can sue me for half my stuff. Brilliant.
mixed with a solid sense of responsibility to yourselves, the earth, and others.
We have a responsibility to those we commit to willingly. Either tell your girlfriend you're going to cheat on her, or don't cheat on her. Either way, don't jeopardize your honor. And of course we also have a responsibility to ourselves, what else is possible? You can't blame the absence of a piece of paper for thinking with your dick. It's your own fault.
And now what gave you the idea I care about the earth?
It's been a while since I've been there, but the communes that you might have heard about that were started in the '60's, some of them still exist, at least they did about 12 years ago in Upstate New York near Woodstock.
Where's "there" supposed to mean, and what communes are you even talking about? I live in Turkey. Where are you pulling all of this out of?
Oh he thinks marriage doesn't add anything to a relationship? He things age doesn't make right? He must be part of some anarchist hippie commune!
You'd make a brilliant apologist I must admit. You have this natural talent of going off on tangents. I talk about automatic knowledge, you talk about Scottish peasants. I talk about self-control, you talk about Woodstock.
I've been saying that marriage isn't important except when children are involved and that the evidence tends to show that children don't thrive as well when raised in other situations. I heard about this study on the news today:
A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, released today, suggests a gap between children from single-parent and married families that will continue to widen as they grow.
Family studies researcher Ruth Weston said love and affection was shown by all families in the study of 5000 children, but twice as many women in wedded couples had a university degree and were more likely to be employed.
"The study shows 31 per cent of the married mothers had a university degree or higher-level education compared with 15 per cent of single or cohabiting mothers," Ms Weston said.
"A family's financial circumstances are clearly very important for the wellbeing of children."
But Victorian president of Parents without Partners, Rhonda McHugh, slammed the taxpayer-funded study, describing it as "detrimental".
"It is unfair assuming children of single parents are not going to do well. A lot of our kids are doing well in sports and going to university," Ms McHugh said.
Typically, the response by the Parents without Partners is anecdotal ("I know exceptions") and I remind you that statistical truths can't be refuted by stories of exceptions. We all know a smoker who died of old age without contracting lung cancer, yet the statistics show us there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
It's understandable that we don't want single parents to feel bad, especially since they are often in that situation due to circumstances beyond their control or out of necessity. However, it's necessary to set those feelings aside if we are to understand best how to deal with the single-parent situation.
"The study shows 31 per cent of the married mothers had a university degree or higher-level education compared with 15 per cent of single or cohabiting mothers," Ms Weston said.
I don't know if it's just the phrasing, but they didn't get a higher-level education because they were married, so how is it related? At most we can say that people with a lower-level education tend to end up single more often, while people with more education end up picking better partners and relationships. And obviously the better educated ones are more likely to be better parents anyway. We all can agree on that, right?
Unseen I'm confused, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think the opposite of marriage is being a single parent. I don't remember anybody making the point that being single is better than being in a relationship, though I have not read every reply in this thread so I may have missed it. But I think those same educated people could've been in plain relationships, not single parents, but not married either, and done just as well with their kids, could they not?
@ kOrsan,
I think that the term "marriage" is the main culprit of the whole confusion. You can have all the legal obligations to your partner without being married (at least in my country) and the same applies to the care for children.
The added value of marriage is therefor precisely "zilch".
Apparently (??) in some countries you can't disconnect commitment from marriage, that's why people in those countries get married young and divorce often. I was highly surprised the first time I went to the states and found out that most of the people of my age that were in a relationship were already married, even after being together only shortly people married one another as if it was obligatory, very odd.
It reminds me a bit of the people of my grandparents' generation, they also married young as to them it was an auto-include. You find a guy/girl, you stick with them and you marry first and then get kids. I'm not saying that this is not what people should do, please by all means if you're comfortable do so.
But, for those (like me) who do not roll that way, marriage is completely unnecessary and the baggage that it comes with is not appealing to us. This does not mean that we're afraid of commitment (legal or not) or that we don't want the best for our children, it's just that we don't see the concept of marriage (NOT (LEGAL) COMMITMENT!!) as useful.
I don't remember anybody making the point that being single is better than being in a relationship
To clarify, by "single" I meant "single parent."
There are plenty people who prefer to be single, me included.
I agree. I see marriage as a tool designed to control people's behavior, much like taxes or the criminal justice system. It is used to opress outsiders (i.e. Gays transgenderd people), it was even used to enforce social ideas about race division. Unlike taxes and the criminal justice system though, marriage is unnecessary and built on a foundation of wrong headed traditions about societys right to drag us around by our genitals.
December 23, 2013 from 7pm to 11:45pm – Spartanburg Event Center Cleveland Park
0 Comments 1 LikeStarted by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Biology and Medicine. Last reply by SteveInCO 50 minutes ago. 97 Replies 1 Like
Posted by Owen Hayes on December 10, 2013 at 12:20am 5 Comments 0 Likes
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.