After long fight, Roche to release all Tamiflu drug data

LONDON, April 4 (Reuters) - After a lengthy fight, Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG said it had agreed to hand over data from all clinical trials of its best-selling flu drug Tamiflu to a group of outside researchers.

Tamiflu has been approved by regulators worldwide and stockpiled by many governments in case of a pandemic, but some scientists claim there is little evidence it works and have lobbied since 2009 for Roche to release all its trial data.

Sales of the drug hit close to $3 billion in 2009 due to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, although they have since declined.

In an email to the Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that reviews trial data to assess the value of drugs, Roche said it would provide clinical study reports on all the 74 studies into its medicine, over the next few months.

A copy of the April 2 email was supplied to Reuters on Thursday.

Roche said it would edit the study reports to ensure patient confidentiality and protect legitimate commercial interests, adding that handing over the information would take time since some of the reports ran to thousands of pages.

Campaigners who have been pushing pharmaceutical companies to be more open said they were pleased Roche had finally done the right thing, although they argued it should not have delayed access to the data in the first place.

"It shouldn't have taken the researchers years of persistence and publicity to get these Tamiflu results," said Sile Lane, director of campaigns at Sense about Science.

The Cochrane group gave Roche's move a cautious welcome but its researchers said they were still concerned that editing of the data and other problems might make analysis and interpretation difficult.

View the original article here

Osama Bin Laden

(Difference between revisions)===Presidential approval polls======Presidential approval polls===Two weeks after bin Laden was killed about half of President Obama’s approval rating bounce has disappeared. The [[Gallup poll]] put his job-approval rating at 48 percent, higher than the 43-to-44 percent weekly averages he had before the Abbottobad raid but lower than the 51 percent he scored in the week immediately after. Pollsters Glen Bolger and Jim Hobart noted “bin Laden’s death was not the game-changer some predicted it would be. The killing of bin Laden resulted in a small approval bump for the president but had little (if any) impact on his chances of being reelected." They also noted “There is no telling the impact of the White House messing up the narrative.” Pollster Charlie Cook observed news organizations focused on the actual story, rather than "the administration’s preferred message."http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/why-no-bounce-for-obama--20110519Two weeks after bin Laden was killed around half of President Obama’s approval rating bounce had disappeared. The [[Gallup poll]] put his job-approval rating at 48 percent, higher than the 43-to-44 percent weekly averages he had before the Abbottobad raid but lower than the 51 percent he scored in the week immediately after. Pollsters Glen Bolger and Jim Hobart noted “bin Laden’s death was not the game-changer some predicted it would be. The killing of bin Laden resulted in a small approval bump for the president but had little (if any) impact on his chances of being reelected." They also noted “There is no telling the impact of the White House messing up the narrative.” Pollster Charlie Cook observed news organizations focused on the actual story, rather than "the administration’s preferred message."http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/why-no-bounce-for-obama--20110519

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????, Usamah bin Mu?ammad bin ‘Awa? bin Ladin; (born March 10, 1957 - died May 2, 2011.), commonly known as Osama bin Laden (Arabic: ????? ?? ????), was a Jihadist Sunni Muslim, and the leader of al Qaeda, a worldwide Jihadist terrorist group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s, and other attacks on innocent civilians in Europe, Asia, and Africa. He was executed by a covert operation ordered by President Barack Obama on May 2, 2011.[1]

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Bin Laden`s father Muhammad Bin Laden was a Yemen, who lived in Saudi-Arabia. His family made a fortune in construction in Saudi Arabia. It disowned bin Laden in 1994 and the Saudi Arabian government revoked both his passport and citizenship. He went to Afghanistan with his network of Arab allies to fight against the Soviets in the Soviet-Afghan War. He was never aided or funded by the U.S. or the CIA.

In bin Laden's declarations and writings, he asserts that American attacks against Muslims justify reciprocation by Muslims, including the killing of innocents as a part of militaristic jihad. He refers to Islamic states headed by individuals friendly to the United States as usurper states which are disloyal to Islam.

Bin Laden and his followers were based in war-torn Sudan for most of the 1990s at the invitation of Hassan al-Turabi, a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. In the late 1990s bin Laden issued two fatahs (declarations of holy war) against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by Saddam Hussein and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.[2]

In 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the Islamic Brotherhood, announced the joining of al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood to form the World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders[3]. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both bin Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States launched cruise missiles, however, both terrorist leaders escaped. They then fled to Afghanistan, where al Qaeda set up camps that were protected by the Taliban government. When the Taliban refused to turn al Qaeda terrorists over to justice, NATO invaded and liberated Afghanistan in Oct. 2001. He was almost captured but escaped to Pakistan, where local warlords continued to harbor him. Occasionally he released a recording giving new threats.

In the 1990s, bin Laden also gave funding to Chechen terrorists fighting against Russia[4]. These terrorists were later responsible for the Beslan school siege of 2004. Chechens also fought in Afghanistan against U.S. forces on behalf of the Taliban[5]. Bin Laden was cited by the United States government as the most wanted terrorist.

Main article: Abbottabad raid Bin Laden was killed in a mansion outside Abbottabad, a highland town 110 km. north of Islamabad, capital of Pakistan. According to news reports, the White House, and the US Military, facial recognition, and DNA evidence confirmed the identity of the man killed as Osama bin Laden. Initial reports said the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attack did not have the opportunity to surrender:

"In the room with Bin Laden, a woman, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed." CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an interview on PBS television Tuesday that he did not believe Bin Laden had a chance to speak before he was shot in the face and killed. "To be frank, I don't think he had a lot of time to say anything," Panetta said. [3]

which was disputed by Safia, bin Laden's 13 year old daughter who witnessed the events.[9]

Safia bin Laden, one of the terrorist leader's daughters, allegedly told Pakistani interrogators that a special team of U.S. military personnel captured her father alive. She added that he was initially taken alive but executed at point-blank range on the ground floor of his compound, London's pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat reports. [4]

Initial White House reports also stated that one of his wives who was captured in the raid identified the body as well.[10] Three men besides Bin Laden and a woman were killed.[11] Osama was later buried at sea in the Arabian Sea, less than a day after his death; a burial at sea leaves no marked grave (no definitive location). Several pundits have pointed out that this would prevent Islamic extremists from creating a shrine of his grave site.

President Obama was the first senior U.S. official to disclose the operation announcing, "After a firefight, they killed Usama bin Laden and took custody of his body." In a conference call with reporters less than twenty minutes later, a trio of “senior administration officials” were asked if bin Laden was "involved in firing [a weapon] himself or defending himself," one of the briefers replied: "He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight." Elsewhere in the conference National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor stated: “As the President said this evening, bin Laden was killed in a firefight as our operators came onto the compound.” One of the briefers added “One woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant.”

Monday morning Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell convened a briefing featuring “senior Defense officials” and “senior intelligence officials.” One of the senior Pentagon officers said, “The American team engaged in a firefight, and as indicated last night, Usama bin Laden did resist.” The same official elaborated on the statement about a woman having been killed. The number involved had at least tripled, from solely bin Laden to “[bin Laden] and some other male combatants” and “appeared to use…women as shields” to “certainly did use women as shields.” One of the intelligence briefers said, “[bin Laden] died during a firefight.” A Pentagon official volunteered that “two women were wounded” in addition to the one killed. Finally, a Department of Defense briefer provided the first estimate of how long the gunfire lasted. “[T]hrough most of the 40 minutes during which U.S. special operators were on the compound,” he said, “they were engaged in a firefight.”

Two hours later, the president’s Assistant for Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism, John Brennan, joined White House Press Secretary Jay Carney in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. Brennan described how he, Obama, and the rest of the national security team had kept tabs on the action. “We were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates and to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation,” Brennan said. “I'm not going to go into details about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was -- it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis.” The Al Qaeda chief, he said, “was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house,” and “was killed in that firefight.” Brennan also added the late terrorist was “hiding behind women who were put in front of him as shields” – evidence, to the White House’s eyes, of “how false [bin Laden’s] narrative has been over the years.”

The storyline came under attack the next day. “So Brennan in his briefing yesterday made a couple of, I guess, misstatements – or statements that later appeared to be somewhat incorrect,” began the first question at Carney’s televised press briefing. The reporter listed as false both the idea that bin Laden’s wife had been used as a shield – that anyone at all had been used as a shield – and also that bin Laden had been armed, and a participant in the firefight. “Are you guys in a fog of war in this,” Carney was asked, “or what gives?”

Carney admitted that key parts of of the administrations story had been wrong.

“[W]hat is true is that we provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you and, through you, the American public about the operation and how it transpired…And obviously some of the information was -- came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on.” Then Carney retreated to a prepared statement, drafted by officials at the Department of Defense, beyond which he would spend the rest of the briefing refusing to stray. “I have a narrative that I can provide to you on the raid itself,” he said. (Precisely because it emerged in such tangled form, the record of the bin Laden killing is replete with uses, by both officials and reporters alike, of the word “narrative.”)

What followed was an account of the mission, 349 words long (including Carney’s momentary stumbles), that comprised the most extensive chronicle of the raid Abbottabad which contained the crucial new detail: bin Laden was “not armed.”

“[I]f he didn’t have his hand on a gun, how was he resisting?” asked one member of the press corps. “I think resistance does not require a firearm,” Carney shot back. “But the information I gave you is what I can tell you about it. I’m sure more details will be provided as they come available.” Carney clung to the notion that the “volatile” firefight, which he said had comprised “a great deal of resistance,” had persisted “throughout the operation.” Reporters bore in on the discrepancies in “the narrative.” Carney told reporters, “Even I’m getting confused.” “Bin Laden’s wife was unarmed as well?” a reporter asked. “That is my understanding,” Carney replied. The Department of Defense account had not mentioned whether Mrs. Bin Laden was armed or not. Was anyone else in the room with bin Laden and his wife? “I don’t know that,” Carney admitted.

“In the narrative,” a reporter continued, “which of those women was being used a human shield, as Mr. Brennan suggested yesterday?” Here, at last, Carney acknowledged the haziness of “the narrative.” “[W]hat I would say about that is…to use your phrase, fog of war, fog of combat,” Carney said. “[T]here was a lot of information coming in. It is still unclear. The woman I believe you’re talking about might have been the one on the first floor who was caught in the crossfire [and killed]. Whether or not she was being used as a shield or trying to use herself as a shield or simply caught in crossfire is unclear. And we’re working on getting the details that we can.”

President Obama had earlier addressed a bipartisan dinner with congressional leaders in the East Room on Monday evening and spoke of "the capture and death" of bin Laden. The president let slip the fact that bin Laden had been subjected not only to death but also to “capture.” One of bin Laden’s daughters, Safia, breathed further life into this notion when she told Al-Arabiya that U.S. forces had indeed captured her father, and shot him dead within the first few minutes of the raid. CIA officials soon waved reporters off the claim, dismissing Obama’s remark to the lawmakers as a simple misstatement.

On May 4, 2011, Obama announced that the post-mortem photographs of bin Laden would not be released.[12] One of the reasons for this was to protect American troops still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from possible riots that might be incited by Muslims after they saw the pictures. According to CNN, the most recognizable photo of Bin Laden was taken in a hangar after the operation was complete. However, there is a massive open head wound across both eyes, and it is considered gruesome and mangled enough that it would not be appropriate to print on the front page of a newspaper.[13]

Republican senator and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Republican senator and member of the armed services committee Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire claimed to have seen the post-mortem photographs of bin Laden[12], however the photos they viewed were actually fake.[14]

In the US, news of Bin Laden's death was generally met with a mixture of relief and joy, ranging from spontaneous public gatherings to celebrate the news, to more sober reactions by victims of the September 11 attacks.

Some have withheld judgment on whether or not they believe Osama was killed, including one mother of a 9/11 victim.

But for Stella Olender of Chicago, her questions aren’t politically-motivated conspiracy theories, but rather the still-fresh wounds of losing a daughter, 39-year-old Christine, who died at the World Trade Center in the Sept. 11 attacks. “Is it true or false? I don’t know,” Olender said in a phone interview while working at her tailoring and cleaning business in the city’s Hanson Park neighborhood. Olender said she’s particularly concerned because U.S. officials have said bin Laden’s body was buried at sea but haven’t offered any photographic proof that he was killed. “To me, that seems strange, that they disposed of it and no one (besides) whoever was right there knows what happened, if it’s true or false, you know?” Olender said. [5]

About the compound in Abbottabad where Osama was killed, a neighboring resident said,

“That house is in an army area. What kind of standards does the Pakistan army have — they’re fools? If you think they’re fools, okay, Osama’s here,” said ur-Rehman. He said that he and others in the area have concluded that bin Laden was not there and that the United States staged a “drama.” [6]

Two weeks after bin Laden was killed around half of President Obama’s approval rating bounce had disappeared. The Gallup poll put his job-approval rating at 48 percent, higher than the 43-to-44 percent weekly averages he had before the Abbottobad raid but lower than the 51 percent he scored in the week immediately after. Pollsters Glen Bolger and Jim Hobart noted “bin Laden’s death was not the game-changer some predicted it would be. The killing of bin Laden resulted in a small approval bump for the president but had little (if any) impact on his chances of being reelected." They also noted “There is no telling the impact of the White House messing up the narrative.” Pollster Charlie Cook observed news organizations focused on the actual story, rather than "the administration’s preferred message."[15]

Randal, Jonathan. Osama: The Making of a Terrorist (2004). 339 pp. ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13256791? bin Laden's Declaration of War, 1998.? http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml? [1]? [2]? http://washingtonindependent.com/20009/is-john-brennan-really-a-torture-advocate? http://www.newsweek.com/2009/04/02/holy-hell-over-torture-memos.html? http://www.democrats.com/node/20938? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/05/05/Bin-Laden-family-narrative-surfaces/UPI-30131304608664/? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-and-assistant-president-homela? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-compound? 12.0 12.1 Obama: I won't release bin Laden death photos CBS News, 05/04/2011? Even more details on the OBL photos CNN, 05/03/2011? Fake out: Senators confused over bin Laden photos MSNBC, 05/04/2011? http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/why-no-bounce-for-obama--20110519

View the original article here

AG Holder: ‘We Will Not Sit By’ While Republicans Rig The Electoral College

Attorney General Eric Holder has a solid record on voting rights, and he’s criticized Republican state lawmaker’s efforts to restrict the franchise in the past — at one point comparing voter ID laws to an unconstitutional poll tax. At a speech in New York yesterday, Holder added a new line to his previous attacks on voter suppression, suggesting that DOJ will respond with legal action if any Republican state lawmakers move forward with their proposals to rig the Electoral College:

Long lines are unnecessary. Shortened voting periods are unwise and inconsistent with the historic ideal of expanded participation in the process. Recent proposed changes in how electoral votes are apportioned in specific states are blatantly partisan, unfair, divisive, and not worthy of our nation. Let me be clear again: we will not sit by and allow the slow unraveling of an electoral system that so many sacrificed so much to construct.

There are two versions of the GOP’s election rigging plans, both of which Republicans want to enact exclusively in blue states. One version would allocate electoral votes in several targeted blue states by Congressional district, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. The other version, which is currently being pushed by Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R), would allocate electoral votes proportionally — so that Mitt Romney would have won a significant chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral voters even though President Obama carried the state. As with the congressional districts plan, Pileggi’s election-rigging plan would give away electoral votes to Republicans in his blue state, while still keeping all red state electors in GOP hands:

Holder’s suggestion that he would bring the full weight of the Department of Justice down upon any state that tried to steal the White House is certainly welcome, although it alone will not be enough to stop these election-rigging plans. Ultimately, the Justice Department’s ability to protect voting rights depends on a Supreme Court that is not openly hostile to the franchise — and the Roberts Court’s contempt for voting rights pervades their decisions. If the GOP election-rigging plans are to be defeated, it will require citizens in states like Pennsylvania raising their voice in outrage at this blatant attempt to steal American democracy.

View the original article here

It’s Time To Delay Obamacare

As the implementation of the major provisions of Obamacare approaches, it is increasingly clear that no one involved is prepared, and that the unintended consequences of the law’s conflicting objectives will be painfully compounded by a rushed and poorly managed effort to put it into effect.

Opponents of the law should not relish the coming chaos because the damage it will do to our underlying health-care system will be lasting and significant. And supporters should not underestimate the damage that the coming fiasco will do to their credibility. This mutual dread at the law’s 2014 rollout should point to a mutually appealing response: Congress should delay the law’s implementation by at least a year.

Everyone should now understand that, if there is not a delay, next year will be the scene of an epic disaster for American health care. The trouble started, as it often does, at the top. The president insisted on passing a reform with only Democratic support. That guaranteed large-scale public opposition, which has persisted. It also left the nation’s Republican governors less than enthusiastic about becoming the law’s enablers.

The president compounded the problem by stalling on key implementation decisions in 2011 and 2012 to avoid controversy before the election. States could not get answers to basic questions about what the law’s “exchanges” would involve or what their options were for Medicaid. And insurers even now remain unclear about the regulatory environment they will confront. With so much uncertainty, states, employers, and insurers all delayed their decision-making as long as possible too. The result is that implementation of the largest social-welfare policy change in a generation is far behind schedule.

As of now, only seventeen states and the District of Columbia have committed to building exchanges, though news reports indicate that the actual number of states ready to enroll people on October 1 of this year will be even lower. The federal government is supposed to operate the exchanges in the other states, but the prospects for that fallback, shrouded in administration-imposed secrecy, appear no better. Recently, a top administration official overseeing the process suggested that the best he was hoping for at this point was avoiding making the exchanges “a third world experience” for Americans.

The latest evidence that the exchanges are not ready for prime time came in the form of an administration announcement that a key feature of the exchanges – multiple insurance options for workers in small businesses – has been postponed for at least a year due to “operational” difficulties.  This is no small matter.  In 2010, some key votes in support of the law were based on the supposed benefits of it for small businesses.  Now the administration is admitting that, with three and half years available to them, they still can’t get it done.

The problems of implementation are further compounded by the law’s contradictory design. It imposes regulations on insurance premiums that will dramatically increase prices for younger, healthier Americans. Oliver Wyman estimates that existing policyholders between the ages of 21 and 29 will see premium increases next year averaging 42 percent. Many of them will likely opt out of insurance, driving up premiums further for those who remain.

Supporters are counting on the “individual mandate” to force the young and healthy to buy insurance despite the jump in premiums. But last summer’s Supreme Court decision transformed the requirement to buy coverage into a mere tax for failing to do so. And since the tax is exceedingly low – just $95 per adult in 2014 – many will pay it instead of thousands of dollars in premiums, especially since, under the new rules, they can opt back into insurance later without a penalty. But if mostly the sick and old enter the exchanges, then the premiums will be so high they will further discourage younger and healthier Americans from joining. Everyone understands such a system cannot survive.

It is simply clear, in other words, that Obamacare’s launch will be a slow-motion train wreck. Conservatives argue this is because the law is terribly designed and based on unsound economics. Liberals argue it is at least in part because GOP governors are purposefully undermining it and there is not enough time to build a proper work-around.  Regardless, both parties should see value in delay.  Democrats have a strong interest in avoiding an epic fiasco of their doing in a congressional election year.  Republicans, meanwhile, should see that a delay will give them more time to build the broader argument against the law and to advance their alternatives.

Delaying the implementation of the law’s exchanges and Medicaid expansion would also cut federal deficits substantially. Starting the exchanges in 2015 instead of 2014 would reduce federal spending by about $160 billion over the 10-year budget window, based on the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Obama administration will resist a move to delay the law’s key provisions, of course, but the states, employers, Americans who about to face large premium increases, and even some congressional Democrats would welcome it.

Delay is far from an ideal option for anyone, but it’s far better than just letting a perfectly foreseeable debacle befall us next year. If we can’t agree about how to fix American health care, perhaps we can at least agree about how not to make the situation needlessly worse.

James C. Capretta is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Yuval Levin is editor of National Affairs and the Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

View the original article here

Vacuum

(Difference between revisions)A '''vacuum''' is a region in space devoid of all types of [[matter]], such as [[atom]]s and [[molecule]]s.  Such a region does not transmit sound waves or conduct heat, although heat can travel through it via [[radiation]]. Vacuums have important uses for science and technology.A '''vacuum''' (''Latin:'' empty space, emptiness) is a region in space devoid of all types of [[matter]], such as [[atom]]s and [[molecule]]s.  Such a region does not transmit sound waves or conduct heat, although heat can travel through it via [[radiation]]. Vacuums have important uses for science and technology.While a perfect vacuum is theoretically possible, it has never been replicated in the lab.  [[Blaise Pascal|Pascal]] was the first person to prove the existence of a vacuum.While a perfect vacuum is theoretically possible, it has never been replicated in the lab.  [[Blaise Pascal|Pascal]] was the first person to prove the existence of a vacuum.

A vacuum (Latin: empty space, emptiness) is a region in space devoid of all types of matter, such as atoms and molecules. Such a region does not transmit sound waves or conduct heat, although heat can travel through it via radiation. Vacuums have important uses for science and technology.

While a perfect vacuum is theoretically possible, it has never been replicated in the lab. Pascal was the first person to prove the existence of a vacuum.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

In the 17th century air pumps were developed and used by travelling scientists who commonly demonstarted formation of vacuum by withdrawing air from flask (glass bell jar) containing an animal such as bird which then deprived of oxygen started to suffocate as reflected in famous painting by J.Wright of Derby.[1] Later the air pumps were used to demonstrate that sound does not travel in an airless space. The first molecular pump to be used for creating a vacuum in experimental chambers based on Knudsen's investigation on flow of gases through long and narrow tubes was introduced by Gaede in 1912 at the meeting of German Physical Society.[2]

According to K.Jousten et al., there is no doubt that there are macroscopic areas between galaxies where there is no single molecule. For such volume contemporary physics introduced a term absolute vacuum. However, even such absolute vacuum is expected not to be void in terms of energy if it should be in accordance with natural laws. The energy of vacuum with still unknown nature is believed to be possibly related to cosmological constant introduced by Einstein and permitting particles to be generated spontaneously by fluctuating quantum fields for short time intervals, even in absolute vacuum. From this perspective, there is supposed to be no place in the world that is truly empty.[2] According to 2011 Nobel Laureate in Physics, Brian P. Schmidt, it is a big mystery why space should have energy at all, "people around the world are scratching their heads to figure out but as of today there has not been lot progress yet".[3] YEC creationist physicist J.Hartnett however declares that in the new theory introduced by M.Carmeli the physics of the cosmos including the energy of the vacuum is defined by correct choice of metric that is a solution to Einstein's field equations.[4]

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

? Joseph Wright of Derby (1768). An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. The National Gallery. “A travelling scientist is shown demonstrating the formation of a vacuum by withdrawing air from a flask containing a white cockatoo, though common birds like sparrows would normally have been used. Air pumps were developed in the 17th century and were relatively familiar by Wright's day. The artist's subject is not scientific invention, but a human drama in a night-time setting. The bird will die if the demonstrator continues to deprive it of oxygen, and Wright leaves us in doubt as to whether or not the cockatoo will be reprieved. The painting reveals a wide range of individual reactions, from the frightened children, through the reflective philosopher, the excited interest of the youth on the left, to the indifferent young lovers concerned only with each other.”? 2.0 2.1 Karl Jousten et al. (2008). Handbook of Vacuum Technology. John Wiley & Sons, 1040. ISBN 978-3-527-40723-1. ? Nobel Laureates 2011. nobelprize.org. Retrieved on 4.10.2012.? Hartnett, John (2007). Starlight, Time and the New Physics. Creation Ministries International, 132. ISBN 978-0-949-906687. “In the CGR theory this is the energy of the vacuum, the stuff the space is made of. The physics of the cosmos is defined by correct choice of the metric that is a solution of Einstein's field equations.” 

View the original article here

Most Individual Health Insurance Isn't Good Enough for Obamacare

If you buy your own health insurance now, you'll be in for a big change when you sign up for coverage in 2014.

Just over half of the individual plans currently on the market do not meet the standards to be sold next year, when many key provisions of President Obama's Affordable Care Act kick in, according to a University of Chicago study. That's because the law sets new minimums for the basic coverage every individual health care plan must provide.

"They will offer a lot more financial protection," Jon Gabel, the report's lead author, said of the individual plans that will be available next year. His team drew its conclusions from 2010 data supplied by health insurers.

Some 15 million Americans, or about 6% of non-elderly adults, currently buy coverage on the individual market. Starting this fall, they'll be able to shop for and enroll in health insurance through state-based exchanges, with coverage taking effect in January. By 2016, some 24 million people will get insurance through the exchanges, while another 12 million will continue to get individual coverage outside of them, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Both groups will be affected by the new Obamacare rules. Starting next year, nearly all individual plans -- both in and out of the exchanges -- will be required to cover an array of "essential" services, including medication, maternity and mental health care. Many plans don't currently offer those benefits.

So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet: Members have to have been enrolled in the plan before the ACA passed in 2010, and the plan has to have maintained fairly steady co-pay, deductible and coverage rates until now.

The insurers in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are major players in the individual market. They are readying new product lineups for 2014, according to Kim Holland, the trade group's executive director of state affairs. She expects most existing Blue Cross individual plans to be discontinued.

"They are going by the wayside," she said. "Plans will have to conform to the higher level of benefits."

Consumers buying individual plans will be able to choose between four levels of coverage next year: platinum, gold, silver and bronze.

Platinum plans will carry the highest premiums but offer the lowest out-of-pocket expenses, with enrollees paying no more than 10%, on average. At the other end of the spectrum are bronze plans, which will have the lowest monthly premiums but higher deductibles and co-payments totaling up to 40% of out-of-pocket costs, on average. Starting in 2014, all Americans will be required to carry coverage or face fines. Those penalties start at $95 per adult or 1% of adjusted family income, whichever is greater, and escalate in later years.

People with annual income of up to 400% of the poverty line -- or roughly $45,000 for an individual and about $92,000 for a family of four -- will get federal subsidies to help defray the premium costs.

Most individual plans sold next year, even the lowest-level "bronze" plans, are likely to charge higher premiums than today's most bare-bones individual insurance. For many customers, though, those costs will be offset by lower out-of-pocket costs and more comprehensive coverage, said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"Now, they buy a policy and when they get sick, they may go broke anyway because the policy leaves them with so much to pay," she said, noting that deductibles of $10,000 are not uncommon.

The insurance industry's trade group counters that some people may wind up with more coverage -- and higher monthly costs -- than they want. Some individuals may choose to simply pay the fine instead, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans.

"Now, people can choose the plan that best meets their needs," Zirkelback said. Next year, "they may choose not to buy any coverage."

View this article on CNNMoney

More From CNNMoney.com

View the original article here

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on the Removal of Highly Enriched Uranium from the Czech Republic

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on the Removal of Highly Enriched Uranium from the Czech Republic | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Rural Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 05, 2013 Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on the Removal of Highly Enriched Uranium from the Czech Republic

Today we can announce that the United States, with the cooperation of our international partners, successfully removed 68 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) – enough material for two nuclear weapons - from the Czech Republic. The HEU was securely transported to Russia, where it will be downblended into low enriched uranium (LEU) for use in nuclear power reactors. Unlike highly enriched uranium, low enriched uranium cannot be used to make a nuclear weapon. With this shipment, the Czech Republic becomes the tenth country from which all HEU has been removed since President Obama announced the international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world.

This achievement comes on the anniversary of President Obama’s remarks in Prague on April 5, 2009, where he stated that nuclear terrorism remains our greatest threat. The President called on the world to act with a sense of purpose and without delay to secure vulnerable nuclear material.  The United States and the global community have responded with an unprecedented effort that has secured thousands of kilograms of HEU and plutonium, enough for dozens of nuclear weapons.

The removal of highly enriched uranium from the Czech Republic was the culmination of a multi-year effort by the United States’ National Nuclear Security Administration, the Czech Republic’s Nuclear Research Institute, Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  The United States is grateful to these partners and to the Czech and Russian governments for their outstanding cooperation.

Blog posts on this issue April 06, 2013 5:30 AM EDTWeekly Address: The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

April 05, 2013 4:42 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “We Have Not Forgotten”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

April 05, 2013 4:00 PM EDTPresident Obama Marks the End of Easter Season at Prayer Breakfast

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Rural Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Conservapedia:Community Portal

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Conservapedia:Community Portal" (Diff: 0, 1055201).

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.

If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.

View the original article here

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013 | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Rural Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 03, 2013 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013

 

Aboard Air Force OneEn Route Denver, Colorado  2:14 P.M. EDT MR. CARNEY:  Thanks for joining us today on our flight to Denver, where, as you know, the President will be meeting with law enforcement officials and others at the Denver Police Academy where he will discuss the need for Congress to act on common-sense measures to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.   I think you can expect that he will note that the legislation he supports that has been moving through Congress represents real, sensible, middle-of-the-road attempts to address this problem; that nothing he supports would in any way violate the Second Amendment rights of the American people, the Second Amendment rights that the President strongly supports. One provision that he supports -- the effort to close loopholes in our background check system -- is supported by over 90 percent of the American people, by vast majorities of Republicans and Democrats and independents, by a substantial majority of gun owners, and a substantial majority of members of the NRA.   He has made clear in his effort, his concerted effort, to move forward with these measures since the Newtown tragedy; that it is imperative the elected officials of the American people allow all of these measures to come to a vote -- and, in his view, to vote for them -- but at the very least, to allow them to come to a vote.  Because if you disagree with 90 percent of the American people on background checks, you ought to vote no, and not oppose -- not use parliamentary maneuvers to prevent a vote.  That’s the President’s view.   In any case, he looks forward to this event.  As you know, he will be going to Connecticut on Monday to continue this conversation.   Q    When the President insists on these votes, particularly on assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines, is it because he thinks that there is a price to pay for voting no?  And isn’t there just as well a price to pay by some members of Congress, some Democrats, for voting yes on those issues? MR. CARNEY:  Jim, there are definitely political issues involved in this.  This has always been the case.  But the President doesn’t look at this through a political lens.  He’s not asking for a vote for political reasons, he’s asking for a vote because the victims of Newtown and of Aurora and Virginia Tech, and the countless lesser-known victims of gun violence across America deserve at least a vote.  And the kids who were killed -- the 20 children who were killed in Newtown, they weren’t Republicans or Democrats; they didn’t care, and their parents don’t care about the political implications of voting yes or no on these bills.  They want things done that give other children more protection from this kind of violence, and that includes every measure that the President supports.  Q    Any reaction to reports that current and former cops think that today’s Denver venue is not the right place to have a speech? MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, obviously people have a variety of views on these issues across America.  I think it’s irrefutable that a majority of law enforcement professionals in America support common-sense measures that are at issue now and subject to votes in Congress.  I don't think anybody would argue with that. I think most law enforcement officials agree that closing loopholes in our background check system assists them in their job to protect the American people from gun violence.  If you're opposed to taking measures to prevent criminals from getting weapons, vote no and explain why.  Most police officers, law enforcement officers support the idea that we ought to take measures to ensure that the system that already exists is actually effective so that those who by law should not have weapons cannot obtain them.  It’s a pretty simple proposition. Q    How do you fight the perception, though, that these measures are losing steam in Congress?  MR. CARNEY:  I think perceptions are one thing, reality is another.  And the fact is we are moving forward with Congress and are in regular conversation with members and staff from both parties about how to move forward.  And the President is committed to pressing this agenda because it’s the right thing to do for our children and all the potential victims of gun violence in the country.  I think that as I said the other day and the President has made clear, he never believed and we never suggested that any of this would be easy.  There’s a reason why these kinds of actions have not succeeded for many years now.  There are a variety of reasons why.  But it is incumbent upon every elected official sent to Washington to address this challenge, this scourge, and to -- he believes -- do the common-sense things that can help save the lives of our children in the future. Q    But there’s a difference, isn’t there, between saying this isn’t going to be easy and counting votes.  And the votes for a lot of these things aren’t there. MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, the votes haven’t happened, first of all.  Secondly, if the votes were there, Jeff, they would have been voted and done and signed into law a long time ago.  That's why a process like this exists.  That’s why negotiations are ongoing on a variety of pieces of this proposal in an effort to try to find the votes necessary.  And, unfortunately, it is, as we've said many times, a feature of our system now that everything in the Senate is subject to a filibuster.  And what the President has said I think very clearly is that it would be shameful to not allow any one of these measures to come up to a vote.   Q    You talked about parliamentary procedures.  Would you consider a filibuster an illegitimate procedure?  I mean, it is part of the rules. MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t say it wasn't part of the rules.  I said that the victims of Newtown -- the 20 kids and the 6 educators who lost their lives -- deserve a vote.  And that if you want to vote no, vote no.  Don’t block a vote.  That’s not doing service to the memory of these kids.   Q    You said that -- you have emphasized that the President doesn’t mean to impinge on anyone's Second Amendment rights, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that he does.  And if I'm not mistaken, Saturday is the five-year anniversary of his speech in San Francisco where he talked about small-town Americans clinging to guns and religion.  What about the optics of going there right after this event in Denver to call attention to his views on guns? MR. CARNEY:  As you know, and as everyone who is an expert on this issue can attest, there is not a single thing that the President has proposed that would take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America.  This President supports our Second Amendment rights.  The proposals he put forward -- like banning military-style assault weapons, like limiting high-capacity ammunition clips -- these are proposals that in no way infringe upon Second Amendment rights, and, again, would not take any firearm away from any law enforcement -- law-abiding citizen. When it comes to straw purchases -- I mean, again, this is about enforcing the law.  If you have individuals who are routinely buying weapons as straw purchasers on behalf of criminals who cannot buy weapons themselves because of their criminal record, that’s a violation of the law, and we ought to take action to ensure that the law is enforced.  That seems like a very common-sense, conservative principle to me, as does the idea that the background check system that already exists should be improved so that loopholes are closed that make sure that it does what it was intended to do, and that is ensure that those with criminal records and others who by law should not be allowed to, or are not allowed to purchase weapons cannot circumvent the law because of the loopholes in the system. Q    Does the President see Colorado as a model for other states after the legislation that they passed here? MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that actions in Colorado, the actions underway in Connecticut do represent important progress on these issues, and I think are useful models to look at as we undertake efforts in Washington. Q    Do you know which lawmakers are going to be at the event? MR. CARNEY:  I don’t.  I can try -- if I can find out, I’ll get that for you. Q    There’s a report that Senator Bennet would be there, but the other senator wouldn’t. MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t know.  I’ll have to find out, or we may find out when we get there. Q    On a different subject.  The President and Mrs. Obama are going to Dallas for the Bush Library opening.  Can you tell me how that decision came about, how excited he is about going to Dallas to do this?  What will be on his mind? MR. CARNEY:  He’s very pleased to be going, and looks forward to it.  The office of the President of the United States is a pretty rare position to hold, and only those who have held it can fully appreciate what it means to be President of the United States.  And he shares in common with President George W. Bush a love, a deep love for his country, and appreciates President Bush’s service, and looks forward to being there with him as well as President George H. W. Bush and Presidents Clinton and Carter. Q    Jay, on Keystone pipeline.  One of his hosts today at the fundraiser in San Francisco is an active opponent of the Keystone pipeline -- Tom Steyer.  There are also going to be protests planned outside the Getty mansion tonight.  I guess I’ll try a third time on the Arkansas spill:  Have you had a chance to talk to the President about that spill?  And how does it affect -- how does the Utah spill affect his thinking on the Keystone pipeline, and what would he tell his hosts today if that issue comes up? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to preview hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions.  What I will say is that there are procedures in place -- Q    The answers wouldn’t be hypothetical, the questions would be.  The answers would be answers to the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the whole thing would be hypothetical, Hans, but thank you for your -- Q    I’m just clarifying. MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re muddying, actually, but thanks. Q    No, you hide behind this hypothetical thing all the time. MR. CARNEY:  He asked me, if he’s asked, what would he say? Q    Right, but what he’d say would be his answer.  The “if” is the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, the question hasn’t been asked.  He’s not here to give the answer to the hypothetical. Q    -- to the question is the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for your assistance in the briefing, Hans.  As you know, when an incident like what has happened in Arkansas occurs, there are procedures in place.  The EPA takes the lead; the responsible party is held responsible, as is the case in this situation.  When it comes to Keystone, that is a process, as we’ve discussed many times, that is evaluated at the State Department, as has been the case for many, many years under multiple presidencies, and as is appropriate given the fact that it is a pipeline that crosses international borders.  And that process is underway, as you know. Q    But do incidents such as Arkansas, such as the spill in Utah, inform the decision-making? MR. CARNEY:  Again, the evaluation of these proposals is made at the State Department.  You can certainly ask the State Department about whether any incidents, present or past, what those incidents have in terms of an impact on their evaluation process.  I think there are standards that are followed in this evaluation process that are being followed today at the State Department, but the State Department is the location where this process takes place. Q    Is the decision of the administration at all influenced by people like Mr. Steyer, who is hosting the President today?  Is it at all influenced by the protest and demonstrators that the President sees? MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think we’ve seen over time that there are strongly held views on this issue, on both sides.  And the President is following a process that has been in place for quite some time, through multiple administrations of both parties, and that is the way it should be.  As you know, the process was delayed because of a political action by Congress, but the -- nevertheless, the process is underway and being undertaken by the State Department. Q    Are there any updates, Jay, on North Korea and monitoring of the North Korea situation? MR. CARNEY:  Well, we continue to monitor the situation.  The provocative actions and bellicose rhetoric that we see from North Korea is obviously of concern, and we take -- are taking the necessary precautionary measures, many of which have been reported on.  It is also the case that the behavior of the regime in Pyongyang that we are seeing now has a -- represents a familiar pattern, and as I think we’ve seen over the past several administrations.   So we are taking the necessary precautionary measures, but it is important to view this within the context of the kind of behavior that we’ve seen out of North Korea in the past.  And it’s important to say that, in every instance, this refusal to abide by its international obligations and to engage in threats and provocative rhetoric and behavior only serves to isolate North Korea further, to make it more and more difficult for the North Korean economy to develop, and imposes more and more hardships on the North Korean people.   North Korea knows the path that's available to it -- the regime does -- and that is a path towards greater integration in the international community, stronger economic development, and better prospects for the North Korean people if they take substantive steps towards denuclearization and abide by the series of international obligations that they are currently flouting. Q    Jay, I don’t know if you were asked this in the past few days.  But on immigration, Senator Leahy is saying he is calling for, once a bill is introduced by the Gang of Eight, that he wants to accelerate the process, to mark it up, and then advance it to the Senate floor.  Marco Rubio is calling for regular order -- wants hearings, wants more hearings.  He says we need to make sure that we really understand this bill.  What is the administration's view?  Do you believe that, like Senator Leahy, you have to move as fast as possible on this thing, because otherwise it could just die in the Senate because of it just being drawn out, and that we shouldn't go through regular order just because we've already had enough hearings over the past several years? MR. CARNEY:  I think the characterization of regular order here has to be understood within the context of the fact that this legislation in essence has been on the table and subject to debate in the United States Congress for many years now.  The basic outlines of what has been under consideration and is being worked on by the Gang of Eight and has been proposed by the President reflects legislation that was considered in Congress, in 2006, 2007, I believe.   Senator Leahy, as I understand it -- and I would refer you to him and his statements -- has held multiple hearings on this issue.  And the Gang of Eight and all of its members are the ones writing the legislation, which the President obviously believes is a good thing.  And the progress that they have made thus far is also a good thing.   So I leave it to and we leave it to the Chairman and other leaders in the Senate to decide on the process they want to follow.  But the President has made clear that he believes there is no reason to delay this process.  There is no reason to postpone it.  And he has been encouraged by the progress thus far, and hopes and expects that that progress will continue, and that it will result in the production of a bill and the consideration of the bill and a vote on the bill. Q    Now Rubio and other Republicans are saying, wait a minute, why rush it -- if it's good legislation, doesn't it deserve the test of scrutiny, of talking -- it is a new Congress.  The country has changed in the past six years; don't we want to talk it over and look at it more, possibly offer other amendments, make it better.  Do you fear that it would just get killed if it's going to be dragged out?  Is that the problem?  Or is it that people are being deported and you need to get this on the books and end the deportations that the administration is carrying out? MR. CARNEY:  Again, as veterans of the Senate know, this issue has been under consideration at very serious levels periodically for a long time now.  There is a great need to act on comprehensive immigration reform and a great opportunity to do it now, as the President has made clear.  It has been in the past, and seems to be now, a bipartisan priority.  And that is as it should be, in the President's view.   And he has been encouraged by and welcomes the progress being made by the bipartisan Group of Eight.  He has contributed to this process through the blueprint that has been available publicly for a long time now that outlines his principles when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, and again, looks forward to further progress by the Senate, and action -- and consideration of the bill and action on the bill. Q    Jay, on another -- one last thing.  There’s a new independent report today -- among its leaders are Senator Sam Nunn -- and it says that the U.S. and Russia need to gradually take their nuclear weapons off ready-to-launch status.  I was wondering if you were familiar with that, if the President is familiar with it.  Does he endorse that idea?   MR. CARNEY:  I am not familiar with it.  I am obviously familiar with the very important work that former Senator Nunn and former Senator Lugar have done on the issues of proliferation and reduction of nuclear arsenals, but I’m not familiar with this report.   END2:35 P.M. EDT

Blog posts on this issue April 06, 2013 5:30 AM EDTWeekly Address: The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

April 05, 2013 4:42 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “We Have Not Forgotten”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

April 05, 2013 4:00 PM EDTPresident Obama Marks the End of Easter Season at Prayer Breakfast

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Rural Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Horror vacui

(Difference between revisions)

Horror vacui (nature's fear of vacuum) was expression related to the belief of Aristotle's followers denying the possible existence of empty space in nature on the grounds that where there is nothing, space cannot be defined. Wherever a vacuum would be on the threshold to develop, the nature would not allow for it and took its place immediately. This philosofical concept stems from Aristotle's book Physica where he maintained that the nature consisted of water, earth, air and fire. The lightest element, fire, woould be directed upwards whereas the heaviest element, earth, downwards. On the other hand, the vacuum would not allow for any definition of "up" and "down" and therefore nature must abhor it.[1]

? Karl Jousten et al. (2008). "The History Of Vacuum Science and Vacuum Technology", Handbook of Vacuum Technology. John Wiley & Sons, 2. ISBN 978-3-527-40723-1. 

View the original article here

Is Jobs Report Just a Blip?

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoFri 05 Apr 13 | 05:00 PM ET The Fast Money traders reveal their plays on today's pullback. And, Joe LaVorgna, Deutsche Bank, explains why today's weak employment number is only "one data point" in the economic recovery and he is still optimistic about the economy. Also, the FM crew provides a look at the health care trade of the week.

View the original article here

Roger Ebert On Climate Change

Ebert: “I have watched with a kind of petrified fascination in recent years as the world creeps closer to what looks to me like disastrous climate change.”

Roger Ebert, the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, died yesterday from cancer at the age of 70. He had remained astonishingly prolific even after complications from surgery in 2006 left him unable to speak.

Ebert had become the most famous and perhaps most influential film critic in the country thanks to the popular TV series, Sneak Previews, originally launched with rival critic Gene Siskel.

You may not be aware that Ebert was also a strong progressive voice, as Think Progress relates in its piece, “The Five Best Things Roger Ebert Said About Politics.”

Shortly before he died, Ebert posted a piece about global warming, “New seasons with new names.”  Here is an extended excerpt from that piece, with the image that accompanied it:

I have watched with a kind of petrified fascination in recent years as the world creeps closer to what looks to me like disastrous climate change. The poles are melting. Ocean levels are rising. The face of the planet is torn by unprecedented natural disasters. States of emergency have become so routine that governors always seem to be proclaiming one. Do they have drafts of proclamations on file?
The political responses to this condition seem to fall along party lines. Democrats think legislation is needed Republicans don’t want the feds interfering with private enterprise. Vested interests weigh in. Pork barrel projects are protected by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Washington fiddles. Earth burns.

I get stirred up more than many people, because I see so many documentaries. Yes, they’re “biased.” There’s much less motivation for an “unbiased” documentary. Docs are usually made by people who have something they think you should know. There is little motivation for objectivity, something people forget when yet another doc comes along. And there are so many causes! Genetically modified crops! Chemical fertilizers! Trademarked genomes! The downside to wind power! An explosive-blowing doc like Chasing Ice comes along, and hardly causes a stir.

I write an entry. It rounds up the usual comments. We’re stuck. Just today, however, a glimmer of hope shone on the political front. I read on Bloomberg:

“President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.”

“Consider.” Not the most electrifying word I can imagine. Yet consider the response. I read on: “It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Southern Co. The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

“Freaked out.” You know what has me freaked out? I consider it a real possibility that millions now living will die as a result of the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers and its 11,000 members….

This time the enemy, if we can use the word in this context, is an American lobbyist group. They seem focused on maximizing profits and shareholder benefits, at the cost of any environmental conscience. It seems possible that their policies will lead to a different kind of seasonal calendar. Instead of Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall, this new generation will know Blizzard, Flood, Heat and Fire. Month follows month as the seasons tear themselves apart.

Roger Ebert will be missed.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here