R.I.P. Robert Moorman

Roman Colosseum lit to protest an execution

Arizona executed Robert Moorman on February 29, 2012, for the 1984 murder and dismemberment of his adoptive mother, Roberta Mormann, a woman who sexually abused Moorman throughout his childhood and into adulthood.

Moorman was born to a 15-year-old girl who drank heavily and engaged in prostitution. His father abandoned him and his mother died at age 17.  He then went to live with his maternal grandparents until he was put up for adoption because of his grandfather’s alcohol abuse.  The clemency board rejected the plea that it would be "unconscionable" to execute Moorman for killing his adoptive mother who subjected him to years of sexual abuse.

Also rejected was Moorman's claim that he should not be executed because of his mental disabilities.   Moorman was diagnosed with mental retardation and attended special education classes while in school.  His first stay at a mental institution occurred when he was 13. The state argued that that Moormann's mental capacity at the time of the killing was just above the legal requirement for mental impairment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed the execution to go forward despite expressing serious concerns about the state's execution procedures, which permitted last minute changes after it was discovered that one of the drugs to be used had expired and was no longer available. 

This is the fifth execution in the United States this year, the first in Arizona.

A look at the history of U.S. health care and health insurance

Health insurance in the U.S. has some of its roots in the World War II shipyards of Henry J. Kaiser, who built 747 vessels for the Navy. The war made workers scarce, so Kaiser needed a way to attract them and, once there, keep them healthy. He couldn't pay them more because wages were frozen, so he offered them health care, which was provided by doctors at company clinics and hospitals. In turn, he asked employees to kick in 50 cents a week for the benefit. (Photo: Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, Calif., courtesy of SanPedro.com/Permanente Metals Corporation)

"The war ended, the workers quit the shipyards, leaving behind hospitals and doctors but no patients," Bob Rosenblatt reports for the Los Angeles Times. "So the company decided to open the system to the public — and that's how generations of Californians who never heard of Kaiser shipyards have since gotten medical care."

Kaiser's story is just one example of how America's health insurance system developed, Rosenblatt writes. As at the shipyards, most people still get coverage through their jobs and, unlike the rest of the industrialized world, not from the government.

In fact, there has long been a fight against having the government in charge of providing care, Rosenblatt contends. In 1918, when California proposed a constitutional amendment that would have organized a state-run program, doctors said "compulsory social health insurance" was "a dangerous device invented in Germany." The amendment lost, but many presidents pursued the issue. Franklin D. Roosevelt "flirted with the idea but never threw political muscle behind it," Rosenblatt reports. Harry S. Truman asked Congress to provide national health insurance, but could not bring it to a vote.

It was the model exemplified in the shipyards that was adopted, and "health insurance became a standard feature in labor contracts," Rosenblatt writes.

Things changed in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through a heavily Democratic Congress what Rosenblatt calls "a legislative three-layer cake:" Medicare Part A, Medicare Part B, and the federal-state Medicaid program. The legislation was controversial, with fears that doctors would refuse to see Medicare patients and hospitals would refuse to dismantle segregated wards. "The doctors didn't strike," Rosenblatt writes. "And the hospitals were immediately integrated without protest."

In 1993, President Bill Clinton wanted to extend national health insurance to everyone, but Rosenblatt says "Congress felt excluded and insulted, and the plan never came to a floor vote in the House or Senate."

President Obama did the opposite and relied on the congressional process. "Key to the plan was a mandate that everyone buy into the system; it was the best way to spread out the costs of illness," Rosenblatt writes. It's that mandate up for debate in the Supreme Court next month, but even if the Affordable Care Act is subsequently thrown out, "people already enjoy some benefits and won't want to give them up," Rosenblatt writes.

"It seems a safe bet that some provisions in the Affordable Care Act will stay on the law books," Rosenblatt concludes. "This places a few more patches on the national healthcare quilt. That's the American way." (Read more)

Crispy Baked Beet Chips

You know the phrase "needle in a haystack"?  Do people still say this when they can't find something?  I think it's time we changed this up.  I mean, who has a haystack anymore?  Heck, people barely have needles nowadays, right? 

I bought a needle this week to use in a beading project.  This is how I learned that the phrase "needle in a haystack" is out-of-date.  Really, the phrase should be "needle in a bed."  Because, let me tell you, it is an urgent matter when you lose one in there.  Who cares if you lose your needle in a haystack?  Are you sleeping in the haystack?  No, you're sleeping in the bed.  With the needle.

It's been 24 hours and I still haven't found it. I suppose this is why one should never work on a beading project in dim light just before going to sleep.  Live and learn.

Speaking of learning, I also learned an important lesson this week involving beets: they make dang good chips.

Have I caught your eye with kale chips before?  This is a similar tasty snack involving thin slices of beets baked in the oven.  They are so simple and incredibly delicious. 

Start by slicing your beets very thin.  The thinner your beet is, the quicker it will cook and the crispier it will be.  Since I don't have a mandoline, I tried using a vegetable peeler and also slicing by hand.  A vegetable peeler would have worked perfectly, except that my beets were very small and it was hard to use the peeler on such a small surface.  Slicing them by hand didn't get them quite as thin so some batches had to be cooked longer than others.

Once your beets are sliced, toss them with a little oil and then lay them flat on a baking sheet.  After 10 - 20 minutes (depending on how thin your slices are), you'll have crispy little bites of root vegetable goodness.

Crispy Baked Beet Chips

Serves 6

3 medium beets (or 6 small beets), sliced thinly
1 tablespoon olive oil or coconut oil
Sea salt to taste

Preheat oven to 350 degrees.  Toss beets with oil and lay flat in a single-layer on a sheet pan (baking multiple batches if necessary).  Bake for 10 - 20 minutes, until chips are crispy.  Remove from oven and top with sea salt.  Serve.

Irregular Periods, With PCOS Treatment?

Teen girls get irregular periods for many different reasons, including health conditions - like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) - that cause changes in hormones. When a girl has PCOS, her ovaries produce higher than normal amounts of hormones called androgens. These androgens can interfere with the egg development and release that are part of a girl's normal menstrual cycle.

There are several ways to treat PCOS. If a girl is overweight, weight loss can sometimes restore hormone levels to normal. Doctors also might prescribe medications that reduce androgen levels.

How PCOS is treated all depends on the individual and her unique body chemistry. Sometimes doctors may try out different treatments before landing on the right one. So work with your doctor and go to follow-up appointments. That way you can keep your doc informed about how you're feeling, how well a medication is working, and what your cycle is doing.

Reviewed by: Steven Dowshen, MD

Apes And Taxes

"It's a mad house.  A mad house"  -- Planet of the Apes

There are times when the Daily Show lays bare the complete and utter absurdity of right wing positions that no amount of reasoned analysis, much less the pathologically balanced approach of the mainstream media, can do.  Case in point is Samantha Bee's interview of anti-tax crusader, Grover Norquist, who has gotten most Republicans to sign the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," a commitment to oppose all tax increases.

Norquist, who admitted to Bee that he came up with the no tax pledge when he was twelve years old (causing Bee to mutter, "the entire federal government is paralyzed because of a document, written by a twelve year old, in 1968), could not imagine any scenario in which it would be appropriate to raise taxes -- not war, not natural disasters, not beard flu.  He would not even approve of a tax increase to combat the rise of the apes.  I bet even Charlton Heston would have gone for that one.

State and companies were unprepared for quick move to managed care, state auditor concludes

Kentucky officials and the companies in charge were unprepared for the switch to Medicaid managed care, State Auditor Adam Edelen said Wednesday. He sent the Cabinet for Health and Family Services 10 recommendations to improve the system, which provides health care for 560,000 Kentuckians who are poor, disabled or elderly.

Since the legislative session began, providers and patients have bitterly complained that the three new managed-care companies are "too slow to reimburse providers" and have "cumbersome pre-authorization processes to allow treatment," reports Beth Musgrave for the Lexington Herald-Leader. The state moved to managed care Nov. 1, a move meant to save the state $1.3 billion in three years.

In addition to the recommendations, Edelen said he will form a Medicaid auditing unit designed to improve the system. He recommended: hiring more managed-care staff to fix backed up claims payments and treatment authorizations, developing a system to measure whether providers are receiving payments in a timely way, and considering removing mental health services from the contracts. Kelly Gunning of the National Alliance on Mental Illness told lawmakers last week that she had asked mental health to be removed from the contracts in January, saying it had not worked in other states either. The companies are reportedly asking psychiatric patients to switch medications, even if the ones they are already on are working. The move has "meant that more people with serious mental illness have had to return to state psychiatric treatment centers," Musgrave reports.

Edelen said Kentucky officials "did not learn from the 1997 launch of Kentucky's first managed care contract — Passport in the Louisville area — and seemed ill-prepared to monitor and enforce the three new managed care contracts," Musgrave reports. Under managed care, the companies are paid a predetermined per-patient, per-month amount regardless of what care is needed. Because they won't be paid using a fee-for-service model — believed to be more costly — and will try to streamline care, managed care is meant to save money. (Read more)

House Judiciary Committee approves two bills to curb synthetic, Rx drug abuse

Cracking down on drugs is one of the most pressing topics of the 2012 General Assembly, and lawmakers showed they were serious about it this afternoon. (Associated Press photo by Ed Reinke of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville)

In an effort to get a handle on prescription drug abuse — and so-called pill mills that supply the addictive medications — the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that will place controls on pain management clinics, reports Jack Brammer of the Lexington Herald-Leader. House Bill 4 also puts the power to police the problem into the hands of the attorney general; cracks down on prescribers who have had trouble with the law for drug-related crime; requires that the clinics be owned by people who have a medical background; and will get a detailed look at how many deaths are occurring by having coroners report any death caused from the use of drugs or drug overdoses.

"We don't really know how bad (the problem) is," said House Speaker Greg Stumbo, the Prestonsburg Democrat who filed the bill. "I think it will astound us when we get the results in because I think it might double what we think the numbers are."

The committee also approved House Bill 482, which prohibits trafficking and possession of synthetic drugs that are sold as bath salts or incense in convenience stores and other places. The measure, sponsored by committee chairman John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville, was passed unanimously.

Both bills will now go to the full House for consideration. (Read more)

Capital Punishment Is A Dying Institution

The traditional arguments against the death penalty are familiar:  It is morally wrong; it is uncivilized and inhumane as reflected by its disuse by every other western nation; it is all too fallible resulting in the execution of the innocent; it is a legacy of the more shameful aspects of our nation's past (e.g., slavery and lynching); and it is applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

But what about the reasons for maintaining it?  As David Garland explains in his remarkable book, Peculiar Institution, capital punishment was initially seen as an essential instrument of state power by emerging, fragile governments and used ritualistically and brutally against perceived enemies of the state.  Once nations achieved more legitimacy and stability, executions were used primarily as a means of crime control due in large part to the absence of an established prison system or extensive police force.  With the development in the 19th Century and early 20th Century of a criminal justice apparatus, including police, courts and penitentiaries, the death penalty was no longer penalogically necessary either.

By the 1970s, it was clear, as Garland points out, that the death penalty was not an effective crime-fighting tool and its deterrent effect was uncertain at best.  (It has long been true that the states with capital punishment also have the most crimes of violence.)   Nevertheless, in 1976, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, it cited deterrence as well as retribution as the penalty's two worthy social goals.  Whether these were ever legitimate bases for imposing the death penalty, however, they surely have become meaningless in today's system in which crime and ultimate punishment are so far removed from each other.

In California, there are over 720 men and women on death row.  No executions have taken place since 2006, and there have been a total of 13 executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.  It takes over five years for a condemned inmate to get a lawyer to handle his appeal, and cases take up to thirty years to be resolved.  As the California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice concluded after its extensive review in 2008 of the state's death penalty system, death sentences are unlikely ever to be carried out (with extremely rare exceptions) because of a process “plagued with excessive delay” in the appointment of post-conviction counsel and a “severe backlog” in the California Supreme Court's review of death judgments.  According to CCFAJ's report, the lapse of time from sentence of death to execution constitutes the longest delay of any death penalty state.

With such long delays plaguing a dysfunctional system, any retributive or deterrent effect certainly loses its force.  In a case the U.S. Supreme Court did not take up, involving the constitutionality of executing someone who had been on death row for 17 years, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a memorandum in which he noted that "after such an extended time, the acceptable state interest in retribution has arguably been satisfied by the severe punishment already inflicted," and that "the additional deterrent effect from an actual execution now, on the one hand, as compared to 17 years on death row followed by the prisoner's continued incarceration for life, on the other, seems minimal." 



But despite the passage of time, aren't there some crimes that are so grievous that only the death penalty is an adequate response?  Unfortunately, the system is not able to meaningfully distinguish who among capital defendants are most deserving of the death penalty.  California's statute was specifically designed to encompass virtually every kind of murder -- including felony-murder (i.e. when someone dies during the course of a robbery, burglary or certain other specified felonies; intent to kill is not required).  As a result, we have the largest death row in the country, which includes hundreds of condemned inmates who may be responsible for causing the deaths of others and who should be punished but who cannot be categorized as "the worst-of-the-worst."

Furthermore, the death penalty is so arbitrarily applied that the location of the murder, race, gender and ethnicity, the proclivities of the individual prosecutor and/or the skill of defense counsel are far more likely indicators of who will get death than the circumstances of the crime.  (As legendary capital defender Steve Bright has said, the death penalty is often reserved for the case with the worst lawyer not the worst crime.)

What about closure for the victims' families?  It is hard to imagine that families would not be better served if the killer of their loved ones was given a life sentence rather than being dragged through decades of appeals and hearings while they wait for an execution that is unlikely to take place.  Members of California Crime Victims for Alternative to the Death Penalty, a coalition of families, friends, and loved ones of murder victims, supports alternatives to the death penalty and understand that, as one of its members, Judy Kerr wrote, "the death penalty is a failed policy which strips away funding from solving cold cases, victims services and crime prevention."

Which brings us back to crime fighting and public safety.  Jeanne Woodford, the former warden of San Quentin State Prison, who presided over four executions, and is now executive director of Death Penalty Focus, says that after each execution someone on the staff would ask, "Is the world safer because of what we did tonight?"  As she writes, "We knew the answer: No."

An extensive study by Arthur Alarcon, long-time judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, who, together with law professor Paula Mitchell, determined that California's death penalty system is currently costing the state about $184 million per year.  Further, "since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions."  Meanwhile, 46% of murders and 56% of rapes go unsolved in California every year.

Prosecutors argue that having the death penalty is a critical plea bargaining chip that they use to secure life without parole sentences. Putting aside the morality of using the threat of death to extort a lesser sentence, this argument has nothing more than facial appeal.  The data does not support the oft-repeated proposition that the threat of a death sentence has resulted in more pleas to life without parole.  There have been cases, however, where the fear of a death sentence has led otherwise innocent defendants to give up their rights to trial and plead guilty to obtain a lesser punishment. 

Thus, not only are the historical justifications for the death penalty obsolete, but it has become increasingly clear that none of the contemporary pro-death arguments stand up to scrutiny either.  Capital punishment is not a productive tool for fighting crime and, indeed, undermines public safety by draining needed resources for more effective methods.  Even the more visceral needs such as revenge and retribution, as well as the desire for closure, are not satisfied by a broken system in which those sentenced to death will most likely never be executed.

Over the last several decades the death penalty has served no useful purpose except to provide politicians with a potent symbol to prove their "tough on crime" bona fides (although as the last election demonstrated, even that old trope no longer works).  Replacing it with life without parole would far better address many of the issues commonly raised by death penalty proponents, including fiscal concerns, safety, and victims' rights.  

The SAFE California Act will soon qualify to be on the November 2012 ballot.  If it passes it would replace California's multi‑billion dollar death penalty with life imprisonment without parole and require those convicted of murder to work and pay restitution to victim families through the victim compensation fund.  It would also set aside $100 million in budget saving for local law enforcement for the investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases.

Many people who have devoted their lives and careers to law enforcement, public safety and victims' rights support this measure, including former warden Jeanne Woodford, former Los Angeles D.A. Gil Garcetti, Supervisor Ron Briggs whose family created the current death penalty law, and Don Heller, who wrote it.  They have come to realize that the death penalty is counterproductive, that the old arguments in favor of its continued use no longer apply, and that the time has come to replace it.

Click here for more information on the SAFE California campaign and on how you can join the effort to replace the death penalty and enhance our personal and public safety.

EVENT: Blog for International Women's Day

Get ready feministas! 

The online event will run on March 8, 2012.
This year, Gender Across Borders and CARE will host the Third Annual Blog for International Women’s Day, a day where bloggers, writers, and humanitarian organizations are asked to write about the International Women’s Day theme on March 8. This year’s theme is “Connecting Girls, Inspiring Futures” and they are asking bloggers to address one or both of the following points:

• How can we, as a culture and as members of the global community, involve, educate, and inspire girls in a positive way?
• Describe a particular organization, person, group or moment in history that helped to inspire a positive future and impact the minds and aspirations for girls.

Throughout the day of March 8, they will have an ongoing live blog of what you have to say about “Connecting Girls, Inspiring Futures” at GenderAcrossBorders.com. They will also feature articles from staff writers about issues that girls around the world face today. Click over to add your blog to the long & growing list of bloggers taking part!

Democrats Must Take The Offensive On Women's Reproductive Rights

Democrats See Electoral Gold in Birth Control Fight, But Do They See Women's Health?

By Joan McCarter, cross-posted from Daily Kos

The Senate is going to be voting on Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment repealing the administration's birth control mandate and with it much of the health insurance coverage the Affordable Care Act extended. Though the primary focus of the Blunt amendment has been on birth control, the actual language of the bill would allow employers to dictate all kind of coverage exemptions for their employees, under the guise of "moral convictions." That's a proposal, by the way, which is hugely unpopular.

Which is why Democrats in the Senate are anxious to take the vote.

Democrats see the vote as a way to embarrass Republicans — especially those up for re-election in moderate states like Maine and Massachusetts — and believe that the battle may alienate women and moderates from the Republican Party. Republicans need to pick up a number of seats to take back the Senate. “They’ve gone way overboard in the mind of independents,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, in a conference call with reporters, referring to Republicans generally. The fight over contraception, he said, “is going to do lasting damage” to the Republican Party.

Lasting damage to the Republicans is all well and good. The GOP's overreach on social issues has to come to an end at some point through a good electoral stomping, and it might as well be now.

But, Democrats, how about a little effort to take the bull by the horns and start making up for the huge ground lost to the zealots in the past few decades in women's reproductive health rights? Now that the nation has a crystal clear view of exactly what Republicans intend to do with the freedoms of 51 percent of the nation's population, it's the perfect time to be proactive with a coherent message to America's women that you'll start fighting for us again.

That goes for the White House, too, which seems a little hesitant to make this a real fight.

One White House official cautioned that should the debate devolve into shrill arguments, the net result would be the alienation of the independent or moderate voters whom Mr. Obama is trying to woo in his reelection bid. “Look, we don’t want to overplay this either, so we’ll be cautious,” another White House official said.

Just look, again, at the polling. There's no time like the present for getting just a little bit shrill. That's the least the nation's women deserve.

Codename: Luningning

Image courtesy of www.tattmight.com

In a recent event, a staff of a production wanted to get the opinion of the singer-actress on the show that was being staged. The catch is that the singer-actress and the staff were of rival networks. When the staff was cleared by the network to interview the singer-actress, he was surprised that she gave a positive response.

After the show, together with a friend, the singer-actress agreed to be interviewed. Her friend said there should be one condition and that was: “No asking about Luningning.” The singer-actress giggled and reiterated, “Yes, no Luningning.” Then, they both laughed and gestured a “shhhh.”

The staff pretended not to hear and went on with the interview. The staff even ignored what seemed to be a different behavior of the singer-actress that night. However, what we could not ignore is figuring out the identity of Luningning. Do you know who goes with the codename Luningning?

Let's Watch Fuerza Bruta

Celebrated by audiences across the world, Fuerza Bruta is a non-stop collision of dynamic music, visceral emotion, and kinetic aerial imagery.

Audiences are urged not just to watch, but also shout, spin, touch and even help the cast smash things—an interactive live event that makes the usual night out dull in comparison.

The Fuerza Bruta Lounge also offers an extraordinary clubbing experience for those who think they’ve seen it all.

Fuerza Bruta will run at the Manila Hotel Tent until March 26, 2012. Pls call 5270011 or visit www.manila-hotel.com.ph for more details. For ticket inquiries and Fuerza Bruta Lounge table reservations, call Hoopla Inc at (+632) 320 1111 between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Mondays to Saturdays. The Fuerza Bruta Lounge is open from February 14 to March 26, Monday to Thursday from 9pm to 3am, and Friday to Saturday from 12am to 5am. 

American Eye Center All Laser LASIK Raffle

In celebration of Fashion PULIS' 1st Anniversary, American Eye Center is giving away a bilateral ALL LASER LASIK (Laser Assisted In-situ Keratomileusis) procedure equivalent to 90,000 PhP. To join, simply answer the question: 

"In which 2 malls can we find the branches of American Eye Center?" 

Email your name, mobile number and answer to micsylim@gmail.com with American Eye Center as the subject line. Each email address is entitled to one entry. The deadline of submission is on March 2, 2012 at 11:59pm (Manila time).

Note: Valid only for LASIK-eligible candidates. This does not cover Cataract Surgery, Glaucoma Surgery, Retina Surgery and other procedures. Transferable to relatives with the same middle/last name only. 

The Winners of the Belo Medical Group GC Giveaway

Congratulations to the winners of the Belo Medical Group GC Giveaway:

Name: Judy Ann Zarate
Mobile Number: 0922 - xxxx373
Answer: Power Peel 

Name: Daniel M. Bernardo Jr.
Mobile #: 0915 - xxxx301
Answer: Power Peel 

Name: Haidee De Guzman
Mobile: 0917 - xxxx323
Answer: Power Peel

You will each receive a Belo Power Peel GC. Please email your mailing address to: michaelsylim@gmail.com.

Meds-for-meth compromise bill introduced

Lawmakers said they would compromise on the idea of making pseudoephedrine available only by prescription, and they have. Senate Bill 3 would only require a prescription for medicines containing the drug after a patient has bought 3.6 grams of it per month and a maximum of 15 grams per year. Gelcaps and liquid forms of the drug would still be excluded. (Associated Press photo by John Flavell of recovering addict Melanda Adams and Senate Majority Floor Leader Robert Stivers, who introduced the bill)

Now, people are limited to buying 9 grams per month and 120 grams per year of cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine, which is the key ingredient to make meth. The bill would also prevent anyone who has been convicted of a meth-related crime from buying the drug without a prescription for five years.

Last week, Sen. Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, withdrew a bill that would have required a prescription for any purchases of the drug. Stivers introduced this new bill yesterday and told The Courier-Journal it gives people who use the medicines "adequate opportunity without incurring medical expenses or the cost of a prescription to access these on a monthly basis and an annual basis."

Opponents to the bill still feel it is too restrictive, with the Consumer Healthcare Products Association continuing "to oppose burdensome restrictions to over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines that thousands of law-abiding Kentuckians rely upon for relief," Elizabeth Funderburk, senior director of communications for the group that represents makers of over-the-counter medicine and dietary supplements, told the Louisville newspaper.

Opponent Pat Davis, mother of six and wife of 4th District U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, railed against the new proposal. "I'm not sure why they're calling it a compromise bill because I'm not sure who they compromised with," she said. She pointed out if four members of her family were to get sick with a cold, and took Sudafed to treat it for seven days, that would amount to 13.44 grams of the medicine — nearly the annual limit. "Really what this bill is is the same bill," she said. "They're throwing out a few crumbs, which they're calling 15 grams."

Jackie Steele, commonwealth's attorney for Laurel and Knox counties, told the paper that the lower limits could lead to a reduction in meth labs, but not for long. "I hope this cures it," he said of the meth-lab problem. "I don't think it will."

In London, whose Walgreens has the highest sales of pseudoephedrine in the state, Police Chief Stewart Walker agreed with Steele. "The bad guy is always going to figure a way around this," he said. "(With the compromise) you probably leave the door partly open and there's so much more room for added work."

The Senate Judiciary Committee could consider the new bill Thursday, and the entire Senate could vote on it this week, Stivers told the Lexington Herald-Leader. (Read more) For The Courier-Journal's story, by Jessie Halladay and Tom Loftus, click here.

The Ongoing Housing Crisis And The End Of An Era

By Robert Reich, cross-posted from his website

Economic cheerleaders on Wall Street and in the White House are taking heart. The US has had three straight months of faster job growth. The number of Americans each week filing new claims for unemployment benefits is down by more than 50,000 since early January. Corporate profits are healthy. The S&P 500 on Friday closed at a post-financial crisis high.

Has the American recovery finally entered the sweet virtuous cycle in which more spending generates more jobs, more jobs make consumers more confident, and the confidence creates more spending? > On the surface it would appear so.

American consumers in recent months have let loose their pent-up demand for cars and appliances. Businesses have been replacing low inventories and worn equipment. The richest 10 per cent, owners of approximately 90 per cent of the nation’s financial capital, have felt freer to splurge. Consumer confidence is at a one-year high, according to data released on Friday.

The U.S. government has not succumbed entirely to the lunacy of austerity. Republicans in Congress have just agreed to extend both a payroll tax cut and extra unemployment benefits, and the US Federal Reserve is resolutely keeping interest rates near zero.

Yet the US economy has been down so long that it needs substantial growth to get back on track – far faster than the 2.2 - 2.7 per cent projected by the Federal Reserve for this year (a projection which itself is likely to be far too optimistic).

A strong recovery can’t rely on pent-up demand for replacements or on the spending of the richest 10 per cent. Consumer spending is 70 per cent of the US economy, so a buoyant recovery must involve the vast middle class.

But America’s middle class is still hobbled by net job losses and shrinking wages and benefits. Although the US population is much larger than it was 10 years ago, the total number of jobs today is no more than it was then. A significant portion of the working population has been sidelined – many for good. And the median wage continues to drop, adjusted for inflation. On top of all that, rising gas prices are squeezing home budgets even more.

Yet the biggest continuing problem for most Americans is their homes.

Purchases of new homes are down 77 per cent from their 2005 peak. They dropped another 0.9 per cent in January. Home sales overall are still dropping, and prices are still falling – despite already being down by a third from their 2006 peak. January’s average sale price was $154,700, down from $162,210 in December. Houses are the major assets of the American middle class. Most Americans are therefore far poorer than they were six years ago. Almost one out of three homeowners with a mortgage is now “underwater”, owing more to the banks than their homes are worth on the market.

Optimists point to declining home inventories in relation to sales, but they’re looking at an illusion. Those supposed inventories don’t include about 5 million housing units with delinquent mortgages or those in foreclosure, which will soon be added to the pile. Nor do they include approximately 3 million housing units that stand vacant – foreclosed upon but not yet listed for sale, or vacant homes that owners have pulled off the market because they can’t get a decent price for them. Vacancies are up 1m from 2006.

What we’re witnessing is a fundamental change in the consciousness of Americans about their homes. Starting at the end of the second world war, houses were seen as good and safe investments because home values continuously rose. In the late 1960s and 1970s, early baby boomers got the largest mortgages they could afford, and watched their nest eggs grow into ostrich eggs.

Trading up became the norm. Homes morphed into automatic teller machines, as baby boomers used them as collateral for additional loans. By the rip-roaring 2000s, it was not unusual for the middle class to buy second and third homes on speculation. Most assumed their homes would become their retirement savings. When the time came, they’d trade them in for a smaller unit, and live off the capital gains.

The plunge in home values has changed all this. Young couples are no longer buying homes; they’re renting because they’re not confident they can get or hold jobs that will reliably allow them to pay a mortgage. Middle-aged couples are underwater or unable to sell their homes at prices that allow them to recover their initial investments. They can’t relocate to find employment. They can’t retire.

The negative wealth effect of home values, combined with declining wages, makes it highly unlikely the US will enjoy a robust recovery any time soon.

Under these circumstances it’s not enough to rely on low interest rates and make it easier for homeowners who have kept up with their mortgage payments to refinance their underwater homes. The Administration should also push to alter the federal bankruptcy law, so homeowners can use the protection of bankruptcy to reorganize their mortgage loans. (Few will actually do so, but the change would give homeowners more bargaining power to get lenders to voluntarily alter the terms.) A second possibility if for the Federal Housing Administration to offer to take on a portion of a household’s mortgage debt in exchange for an equitable interest in the home, of the same proportion, when it is sold. Such debt-for-equity swaps could help homeowners now struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments, while not adding to the federal budget in future years when housing prices are expected to rise.

But whatever is done will not affect the fundamental change that’s come over Americans with regard to their homes. It’s not clear what will take the place of houses as the major investments of the American middle class.

Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.  He writes a blog at www.robertreich.org.  His most recent book is Aftershock.

Webinar on local food projects is set for 2 p.m. Wednesday

An online tool that features the local and regional food projects in the works across the country, as well as case studies that show successful partnerships between producers, businesses and communities, will be unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a webinar at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" compass is an interactive document and map. During the webinar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan will discuss the instrument, as well as how local and regional food systems make money for local farmers, ranchers and food entrepreneurs. They will also discuss how responsible food systems increase the number of farms in the country and expand access to healthy food.

Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food was launched in September 2009. The initiative is meant to coordinate USDA resources and expertise on locally grown food.

To watch the webinar via live streaming, click here. Participate live by asking questions on Twitter to @usda and using the hash tag #KYF2. (Read more)

Video systems like Wii Fit not working against child obesity: study

Video games designed to encourage children to exercise don't do anything to prevent obesity, a study has concluded. It found that children either find a way to trick the games "into thinking they are moving around, or they make up for exercise by vegging out more later," reports Maggie Fox for the National Journal.

"It doesn't appear that there's any public-health value to having active video games available in stores — simply having those active video games available on the shelf or at home doesn't automatically lead to increased levels of physical activity in children," said Dr. Tom Baranowski.

Baranowski and his Baylor College of Medicine team studied 78 children, whom they gave the video system Wii to play with. "It's not clear whether those in the study group were more active as a result of the video games but compensated by being less active later, or if they found a way to manipulate the instruments to minimize the amount of physical activity," he said.

Other studies have shown the video systems are beneficial to some age groups, including seniors, Fox reports. The study is published in the journal Pediatrics. (Read more)

First lady didn't donate to breast cancer fund; Gov. Beshear announces collaboration to fight many cancers

Though First Lady Jane Beshear made headlines Monday when it was discovered neither she nor Gov. Steve Beshear had checked off a donation box to support breast cancer research on their state income tax returns — something the first lady has encouraged taxpayers to do — the governor announced Tuesday the formation of a foundation exclusively committed to reducing the rates of several types of cancer.

Gov. Beshear, who was treated for prostate cancer in 1994, joined members of the newly-formed Kentucky Cancer Foundation to announce their plans

to reduce lung, colon, breast and cervical cancer rates. To do so, foundation members will raise private funds and pursue grants to pay for services like mammograms, pap smears, smoking cessation programs and colon cancer screenings.

The public-private collaboration would focus first on screening 4,000 uninsured Kentuckians for colon cancer. Beshear has put $1 million for the screenings in his current budget proposal.

"Our most recent information shows more than 24,000 new cases of cancer in Kentucky each year and of those, more than 9,500 Kentuckians die from these cancers," Beshear said. "This is a real problem in our state that is affecting the lives of every family. As a cancer survivor, I know firsthand that screenings and an early diagnosis will help save our citizens from this horrible disease." (Read more)

As for the tax gaff, the Lexington Herald-Leader's Jack Brammer reports the 2010 returns show the Beshears did opt to check the box to donate at least $2 of their taxes to the Kentucky Democratic Party.

Diane L. Brumback, a Northern Kentucky breast-cancer survivor and Democrat who participated in a news conference with Beshear in January to promote the state-run Breast Cancer Research and Education Trust Fund, said Monday the first lady should stop promoting the cause "if she is not going to do as she says."

A Beshear spokeswoman underscored that the governor and first lady are very charitable. "On their 2010 tax return, you'll see they donated nearly $19,000 of their gross income — that's more than 11 percent of their before-tax income," said spokeswoman Kerri Richardson. "Not only do they donate money to many worthy causes, including those that support breast-cancer research, but they give their time and energy to promoting those charities and non-profit organizations." (Read more)

Republican Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

Being self reflective, expressing remorse, apologizing for causing harm.  These are characteristics of an evolved, mature person.  Right?  We certainly would want our political leaders to have the strength and confidence to be able to admit their own and the nation's mistakes, shoulder blame when warranted, and change course when necessary.  Wouldn't we?  Unfortunately, these qualities are not a part of the Republican DNA.  For them they are signs of weakness, hewing too close to what Jeanne Kirkpatrick criticized as the unforgivable sin of "blaming America first."

The last Republican Administration lied and manipulated us into a war based on grounds that proved illusory, approved torture and other human rights abuses, unnecessarily cost our country billions of dollars, caused untold numbers of casualties, and undermined their own avowed goal of thwarting the terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks.  Did they ever admit their mistakes much less apologize for their monumentally destructive conduct?

On the contrary, since leaving office Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice have bragged and boasted about their policies, and have tried to take credit for whatever success President Obama has had.  And when they were still in power we were treated to this, um, awkward moment:



It doesn't get any better with the current crop of Republican leaders.  Mitt Romney's book is actually called "No Apology," in which he falsely accuses President Obama of going around the world apologizing for America, a dubious claim he repeats often on the campaign trail.  ("Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined.")

President Obama did apologize for the burning of copies of the Koran by American personnel at a NATO military base in Afghanistan.  In the wake of increasing violence over the incident, Obama  expressed "deep regret," extended his "sincere apologies" to Hamid Karzai and the Afghan people, and promised "to take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

This was too much for the GOP. 

Newt Gingrich is not one to apologize for anything.  (Recall his rationalization for an extra-marital affair -- that it was due to his excessive patriotism.)  He said Obama's apology was an “outrage,” and  later gave this advice to the Afghans, “You know, you’re going to have to figure out how to live your own miserable life… Because you clearly don’t want to learn from me how to be unmiserable."

Mitt Romney was also troubled, saying that for many people the apology "sticks in their throat."  According to Romney, since we have done so much for the Afghan people in helping them "achieve freedom," to "apologize at a time like this is something which is very difficult for the American people to countenance."

And then there was Rick Santorum, spewing his typically illogical and sanctimonious claptrap

I don’t think the president should apologize for something that was clearly inadvertent. What you should lay out is the president saying this was inadvertent. This was a mistake and there was no deliberate act, there was no meant to disrespect. This was something that, that occurred that, that should not have occurred, but it was an accident and leave it at that. I think you highlight it when you, when you apologize for it. You, you make it sound like it was something that you should apologize for. And there is not—there was no act that needed an apology. It was an inadvertent act and it should be left at that and I think the response has—needs to be apologized for by, by Karzai and the Afghan people of, of attacking and killing our men and women in uniform and, and overreacting to this, to this inadvertent mistake. That, that is, that is the real crime here, not what our soldiers did.

I'll leave it to Amy Davidson to expound:

Maybe Santorum and his fellow-candidates have been trapped in the kindergarten-delinquent classroom of the Republican primaries for so long that they think the same rules, and illogic, that help decide who the not-Romney of the week is apply everywhere. But Afghanistan is a real and dangerous place; more than two dozen people have died in the violence, including two Americans, who were assassinated in the Interior Ministry. (The Afghan government reportedly did apologize for that.) The senselessness of the response does not take away from the necessity of an apology, or from its grace.

U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, stated what should be obvious:  "We admit our mistake, we ask for forgiveness, we seek to move on."  And, as Amy Davidson concludes:  

In apologizing, we remind ourselves who we are. We also learn more about where we are, who we are talking to, and our circumstances. Having done so—done the right thing—we may reasonably conclude that we can make our apologies, and leave.

Extensive series focuses on the many faces of mental illness

Mental illness in Rowan County is the subject of an eight-part series of stories written by Noelle Hunter for The Morehead News.

With Part 1 largely an introduction to the project, Part 2 gets into the facts and figures of the disorders that fall under the mental-illness umbrella. According to the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 45.9 million American adults — one in five — experienced some mental illness in the past year. In Kentucky, 180,000 people live with a serious mental illness, which includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Thomas Insell, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, described mental illnesses as "real brain disorders that result from complex genetic risks plus environmental factors." Neither prevalence nor mortality rates associated with mental illness have decreased over time. And though there have been advancements in treatments these disorders, most in the way of medication and therapy, there is still much that is unknown, Hunter reports.

That comes with larger cultural ramifications. In 2008, about 5,100 adults who have a mental illness were incarcerated in Kentucky prisons and almost 700 adults committed suicide, "almost always a result of untreated mental illness," Hunter reports.

The series is running on Tuesdays in the twice-a-week paper. Part 3 profiles a woman living with bipolar disorder; Part 4 will report on the views of clinicians and therapists; Part 5 will profile a man living with bipolar disorder; Part 6 will profile a person living with schizophrenia; Part 7 will focus on the effects on families; and Part 8 will look at treatment options and recovery. The website of the newspaper, part of Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., is here.

Castigating the Witness

Image courtesy of www.werram.deviantart.com

This ordinary worker, who came out in an interview to reveal the story behind the kissing of a controversial couple, was recently fired. The come-backing actress-singer (CB) demanded that the administration of the building fire the poor worker for squealing about her tryst with the hunky personality (HP). Now, the worker is jobless and looking for ways to support his children.

Incidentally, more people have seen the couple together contrary to their denial. [Note: HP continues to deny CB. Sometime ago, HP even claimed his ex (X) was the first to stray and after a few hours, issued a retraction.] There are the people at the restaurants where CB and HP often have lunch together. There are people who see HP often entering the elevator of the building where CB lives. Will CB demand the “firing” of these people, too?

Meanwhile, now that her relationship with HP is over, X should be free to date anyone she pleases with no questions asked, right?

One Lost Mobile

Image courtesy of www.hardwareinsight.com

A boy band member lost his mobile in the TV studio of a show where he and his fellow singers guested. For the rest of the day, he was not tweeting. Some of his twitter fans were a bit impatient because he was not responding. The next day, which was concert day, he was back on twitter. His tweets hinted about losing his mobile and his worry over his passkey being figured out. Later, the band member tweeted that they were looking forward to doing another gig in the country.

To keep the story of the lost phone hushed up, the management of the show issued a news blackout on the embarrassing incident and replaced the lost phone of the foreign guest.

Avoiding immunizations on religious grounds is risky: Bill Moyers

The movie "Contagion" has veteran journalist and commentator Bill Moyers thinking about how fast a deadly disease outbreak can spread, something that can be further propagated by children whose parents have declined to get them immunized on religious grounds.

All states require children to receive some vaccinations, but almost all, including Kentucky, grant religious exemptions. "Now seven states are considering legislation to make it even easier for mothers and fathers to spare their children from vaccinations, especially on religious grounds," Moyers writes.

In some places, that is affecting vaccination rates. In Oregon, the number of children in kindergarten with religious exemptions is up from 3.7 percent to 5.6 percent in the past four years. When the number of people who are not vaccinated increases, that can affect the whole population, since "a certain number of any population group needs to have been vaccinated to maintain the ability of the whole population — 'the herd' — to resist the spread of a disease," Moyers explains. In a class of 25 students, it just takes five who are unvaccinated "for the herd immunity to break down," he writes.

Recently, several outbreaks have been linked to children who have not received their vaccinations. Reuters reported 13 cases of measles in central Indiana, including two whop attended the Super Bowl in Indianapolis. "Patriot and Giants fans back East have been alerted," writes the New York-based Moyers. "So far, no news is good news."

Moyers calls the vaccination gaps "serious business," and reminds readers about serious disease outbreaks of the past, including measles, flu, small pox, polio, and whooping cough. While it's easy to be unconcerned, he says "our human herd moves on a conveyor belt of constant mobility, so that a virus can travel as swiftly as a voice from one cell phone to another. When and if a contagion strikes, we can't count on divine intervention to spare us. That's when you want a darn good scientist in a research lab." (Read more)

"The comments from vaccination skeptics on Bill's column show there are science-deniers on the left just as there are on the right," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues.

Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook, starts at $999

If you were speedy enough to grab those spilled docs for Dell's new ultra machine, we've got great news -- you won't have to wait much longer to put 'em to good use. Just as promised, the Round Rock, Texas crew's taken the locks off the virtual shelves in which its slim XPS 13 sits. Weighing in at just under three pounds, this mighty 13.3-inch Ultrabook will set you back $999 for the entry level model, which packs Intel's Core i5-2467M CPU and HD 3000 graphics, along with 4GB of RAM and a 128GB SSD. If you do, however, decide to take the pricier ($1,499), better-specced road, you'll be walking out with a Core i7-2637M processor as well as a 256GB Solid State Drive. Regardless of which route you end up taking, be sure to check out our hands-on before you add it to your cart.
By Edgar Alvarez

SOURCE: Dell

Can Corporations Violate Human Rights?

By John Knox, cross-posted from Center for Progressive Reform

On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case with far-reaching implications for efforts to hold corporations accountable when they commit or are complicit in abuses of human rights.

For over fifty years, Shell has extracted oil from Nigeria, causing great harm to the environment and people of the Niger delta.  The Ogoni people living in the delta protested Shell’s operations, and in response the Nigerian government harshly oppressed them.  Most infamously, in 1995 it executed the author Ken Saro-Wiwa, together with eight other leaders of the protests.  

Esther Kiobel, the widow of one of the executed men, as well as other affected Ogoni, sued Shell in U.S. federal court, claiming that it aided and abetted the Nigerian government in its violations of human rights law.  The plaintiffs relied on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law enacted by the First Congress, in 1789, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims by aliens arising from torts committed in violation of international law.  In 2004, in Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court affirmed that the ATS still provides jurisdiction for international tort claims, but it cautioned federal courts not to recognize claims “for violations of any international law norm with less definite content and acceptance among civilized nations than the historical paradigms” familiar when the law was enacted.  As an example of such a historical paradigm, the Court cited the long-standing prohibition against piracy.

Foreign plaintiffs have used the ATS to accuse corporations of committing grave human rights abuses, including genocide, war crimes, and forced labor.  A few of the suits have resulted in payments, including a 2009 settlement by Shell of another claim arising from its Nigerian operations.  In 2010, however, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Esther Kiobel’s claim on the sweeping ground that corporations could never be liable for violations of customary international law, because customary international law never imposes any obligations on corporations.  In short order, the Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits rejected the Second Circuit decision, holding that plaintiffs can sue corporations under the Alien Tort Statute.

Last fall, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit decision.  Its ruling will be its first ATS decision since Sosa, and it will determine whether the many other pending ATS suits against corporations may continue.  It’s possible that the Court will decide the case on grounds that allow it to avoid addressing corporate duties under international law.  But if the Supreme Court does take on international law, as seems likely, what should it decide?  Is the Second Circuit correct that international norms do not prohibit corporate abuses of human rights?


The Second Circuit is wrong, but it isn’t completely wrong.  Most obligations under human rights treaties are explicitly placed on states, not individuals or corporations.  That doesn’t mean that human rights law has nothing to say about non-state actors, though.  On the contrary, one of the main obligations it imposes on states is to protect against human rights abuses committed by non-state actors, including corporations.  In that sense, human rights law clearly imposes indirect duties on individuals and corporations.  They include, for example, obligations not to engage in slavery.

Although the Supreme Court might conclude that these indirect duties are enough to satisfy the language of the ATS, it seems more likely that it will look for evidence that international law may impose direct duties on corporations.  No one doubts that international law imposes direct duties on individuals not to commit certain particularly heinous abuses, including genocide and war crimes.  The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals tried and convicted individuals of violating international law, and today individuals who commit genocide, war crimes, and other international crimes are subject to prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

The Second Circuit based much of its decision on the fact that these criminal tribunals were not given the authority to try corporations.  Nuremberg tried officials of I.G. Farben, but not the company itself, for using slave labor.  But the decisions not to try corporations for committing international crimes were reached not because corporations were thought to be exempt from international norms, but because many countries don’t impose criminal liability on corporations.  Civil liability, as under the ATS, is a different matter.  I.G. Farben wasn’t off the hook just because it wasn’t sentenced at Nuremberg.  On the contrary, as Judge Richard Posner explained for the Seventh Circuit:  “At the end of the Second World War the allied powers dissolved German corporations that had assisted the Nazi war effort, along with Nazi government and party organizations – and did so on the authority of customary international law.”  I.G. Farben was declared to have “knowingly and prominently engaged in building up and maintaining the German war potential” and its assets were seized.

The application of human rights law to corporations has become clearer in recent years, thanks in large part to the efforts of Harvard Professor John Ruggie, who in 2005 was appointed Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights.  After years of consultations with governments, corporations, and human rights groups, he proposed Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which the UN Human Rights Council unanimously adopted last summer.  The Guiding Principles emphasize that corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights, and that states have a legal duty under international law to protect against corporate human rights abuses and to provide remedies for such abuses when they do occur.

By providing such remedies, the ATS can provide critical support to the Guiding Principles and other efforts to bring human rights law to bear on corporations.  Its threat of civil liability helps to encourage corporations to support and implement their responsibility to respect, as many corporations around the world already have. 

The most defensible result for the Supreme Court in Kiobel would be a decision that legal persons are just as subject to human rights law as natural persons are.  A decision affirming the Second Circuit’s position that corporations – unlike governments or individuals – are uniquely free from any duty to abide by human rights norms would be a step backwards legally as well as morally.


John Knox is a law professor at Wake Forest University School of Law and a member scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform.

Kentucky ranks next to last, Fifth Congressional District dead last in national healthiness and happiness survey

(Click on images for larger versions)

Kentucky was again next to last among the states in happiness and healthiness of its residents in 2011, ranking above only West Virginia, though precise rankings are uncertain. Eastern Kentucky's Fifth Congressional District ranked at the very bottom of the 436 districts — falling in last place in the categories of life evaluation, emotional health and physical health.

The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index is based on a continuing national survey that asks respondents about their overall sense of well-being, physical health, happiness, job satisfaction and other factors related to quality of life.

Of the 190 cities ranked, Lexington was 95th and Louisville 152nd. Kentucky's well-being score was 63.3 out of a possible 100 points. Hawaii again ranked first, at 70.2. West Virginia's score was 62.3. Because there were fewer than 10 points between first and last place, the rankings are not precise. Kentucky ranked lowest in the country in emotional health, which is based on feelings of happiness and sadness. Respondents were also asked about "physical health (chronic health conditions, obesity); lifestyle behaviors (smoking, diet and exercise); emotional health (feelings of happiness, sadness); work environment (relationship with supervisors); basic access (health care, food); and life evaluation (how they rate their lives)," reports Nanci Hellmich of USA Today.

Results were based on telephone interviews conducted between Jan. 2 and Dec. 29, 2011, producing a random sample of 353,492 adults. The margin of sampling error for most states is plus or minus 1 to 2 percentage points, but as high as plus or minus 4 points for states with small populations such as Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware and Hawaii. (Read more)

Will birth-control mandate cost more or less? Yet to be seen

Will requiring insurance companies to provide contraception be cost-neutral, as the Obama administration claims? It is unclear, and so is whether insurance companies will make Catholic institutions pay more. These were the findings of FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer-advocate project funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

In support of its claim, the administration cites data from Hawaii's birth-control mandate, which shows health insurance premiums "did not appear" to increase. The study also found the number of pregnancies increased after contraception coverage was required.

But when Pennsylvania considered imposing a similar mandate, a state agency found "the amount of possible savings relative to the cost of the legislation is unclear." Findings were also unclear in Connecticut when officials there looked at whether or not insurance plans saved enough because there were fewer pregnancies to offset the cost of providing coverage. A Texas study found insurance companies would not save enough because women would buy contraception on their own.

A recent survey of 15 insurance companies found six thought costs would increase and another three felt the move would be neutral in cost. None felt they would save money because of the mandate.

"Until better data are available, we're unable to conclude whether the Obama birth-control mandate is likely to result in a net cost increase or not," FactCheck reports.

Covering Up the Separation

Image courtesy of www.awardannals.com

It seems everyone is buying the story of why a famous entertainer (E) is living away from her mother. E publicly acknowledges her mother as the person responsible for bringing her to where she is now. Yet, they are not together. The local press has been playing the story that the mother has prioritized love over her E and most people think that is quite acceptable.

However, the hush-hush story is that, sometime last year, E and her mother had an argument. The mother confronted E regarding her clubbing and drinking. In the heat of the argument, the mother threw something at E. Someone saw what happened and reported the incident to the authorities. Up to now, they have yet to lift the ban on the mother. Well, E is living independently but loyal FP readers know that E is not alone.

Do you know who this famous entertainer is? Please abide by the RULES in writing comments if you want me to post them. Initials and comments that are too explicit will not be accepted.

Follow micsylim on Twitter for the latest update. Please continue to send your juicy stories to michaelsylim@gmail.com. Thank you very much for loving Fashion PULIS.