MLM Directory

Why has the American Bar Association allowed too many law schools? It's obvious that the job market/economy is saturated with way too many Legal Professionals. WHY doesn't the American Bar Association do something? WHY does the American Bar Association allow law schools to start up and/or exist on every corner?

I want to get US legal work in India where should I apply? I AM AN INDIAN LAWYER. wants to start up business service in india mentioning the best business entity, equity structure, exit strategy, tax benefit services, market research projects, obtaining necessary government approval, products launch & strategic marketing services legal help guide for NRIs like offering bank accounts for NRIs, baggage rules for NRIs, income tax for NRIs, rights of citizenship for NRIs, customs act of NRIs and customs rules for NRIs alternative dispute resolutions, consumer law consultants, family law advisors, corporate law and securities, contract consultants, banking & recovery services, foreign collaboration advisors company matters consultancy services and consultancy services for company acts and laws, drafting of memorandum and article of association for companies, payment of dividend by companies, amalgamation, merger and acquisition of companies Excellent Written and Verbal Communication Skills/ Document Preparation, Word Processing, Proofreading, Data Entry, Paralegal, Research (Legal and Non-Legal), Customer Support, Message Service, Virtual Assistant Service,

Another Home Owner Association question? What do you think about the President of the HOA Board pooling funds with his adult children to buy one of the condos here that was foreclosed in by the HOA/Board for non-payment of HOA fees? It seems the HOA attorney worked quickly to seal the deal, and they got the unit for tens of thousands below market value. Legal, unethical, illegal or just one of the HOA "perks" (In California- and you know what housing costs are like here! Let's say he got the condo in 2006 for a 1996 price.)

English to Spanish translation please - too hard!? Bruce is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Direct Marketing Association of Washington and currently serves as a member of the Executive Committee of the Free Speech Foundation, an association that champions the rights of nonprofit organizations through legislative and legal action. In addition to his professional responsibilities, Bruce serves as a Trustee of Joe Gibbs' Youth For Tomorrow New Life Foundation, as a board member of the CHARIS Institute and as Vice President of Time of Grace ministry. He also served four terms on the Board of Regents of Wisconsin Lutheran College. He has previously served as President of God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. Bruce gave the 1994 commencement address at Wisconsin Lutheran College and was given the 1994 Pro Gloria Dei Award at the commencement ceremony. In 2000 he received the Nehemiah award from Youth for Tomorrow. A graduate of the University of Missouri, and a veteran, Bruce and his wife Kathi have two children, Elizabeth and Matthew.

Is this legal? I found this employment ad in the newspaper, is it legal for them to specify a christian male for this job? Notice it says HE will. This is just the highlights of this ad. POSITION SUMMARY: The Director of Strategic Outreach holds the primary responsibility for building relationships and securing speaking opportunities in the most desired markets, churches and high profile associations across the county. He will hold responsibility for meeting all assigned revenue targets for the operation. Please submit the following items for possible employment: Resume, cover letter, & Salvation testimony ATTRIBUTES, SKILLS AND ABILITIES NEEDED: 1. Commitment to Christ Minimum of 2 years successful outside sales experience preferred Solid experience in and understanding of marketing Work experience within church or Christian business environments

My Condo Association is delinquent on the water bill. We also have owner who are currently delinquent.? My Condo Association having major financial problems. I received a letter from the local water Company indicating our water bill behind 60 days in payment if payment not received are payment arrangement are made a lien will be placed on my property along with all the other owners in the building. The problem is the board member and management co handling of delinquent owners who are not paying their condo fee. I am in the process of trying to move and need to sale my condo because of the delinquency problem, possible lien being place on my unit for none payment of water bill I can not put my unit on the market.. My condo fee's are current and paid as agree, I need to know my legal recourse's. My condo in Washington DC. Thank you

Homeowner's Association not allowing me to rent my Condo? I own a condo in City. few months back i had to move out of city bcoz of my new job and i purchased a new home there.Since the market was very hot during summer months and bcoz of the location of my condo i thought it would sell easily. But its 4th month and i have no luck. Now i have to pay mortgages of both the homes. Seeing this problem i contacted the HOME OWNER'S association if i can rent my condo to someone else. They said that it is strictly prohibited to rent the condos. Now i feel so helpless. I literally begged them and explained them my situation but it was of no use. they said its against their rules to rent. Now apart from foreclosure or bankruptcy i see no other option thanks to the great HOA rules. . Everywhere there are foreclosures and people are suffering. i wished they cud help me by allowing to rent the condo and prevent a foreclosure. Did such thing happened to any of you or do you think i can take a legal course (court,etc) against this action?

What are a writer's legal rights if a product they wrote for a book doesn't get used, but the writer was paid? OK, I contributed 100+ page chapter to a nonfiction wellness reference book commissioned by a professional association. I was paid a (very) basic commission, but there was also the understanding of a share of royalties once the book was on the market. Now over 3 years later, they have yet to publish the book. My contract says I cannot use anything out of that work... which I put a LOT of time and effort into... that it is the association's property. If they never publish the book (or continue to delay it for the foreseeable future), do I have any legal recourse in using that material since I'm not getting complete reimbursement for my work? Thanks for your thoughts.

Which of the following policies will definitely increase the budget deficit, while achieving greater fiscal? 1.)Which of the following policies will definitely increase the budget deficit, while achieving greater fiscal stimulus? a.greater gov. expenditure and lower taxes b.greater gov. expenditure and higher taxes c.lower gov. expenditure and lower taxes d.lower gov. expenditure and higher taxes 2.)Which is an argument against balancing the federal budget? a.the fed gov. spends and interferes with the economy too much b.doing so may prevent the gov. from paying off its debts c.doing so may prevent the gov. from pulling the economy out of recession d.an increase in gov. spending and taxes by the same amount does not affect income 3.which is not considered to be depositiory institution a.federal reserve b.mutual savings banks c.savings and loan association d.commercial banks 4.)Which of the following sets the legal minimum reserve ratio? a.the commercial banks b.the u.s. treasury c.the federal reserve d.congress 5.)if the banking system has a required reserve ratio of 10 percent, the the money multiplier is a. 0.1 b. 0.9 c. 1.11 d. 10.0 6.)Monetary policy is set by the a. federal open market committee b. regional federal reserve banks c. federal advisory council d. board of govenors Please help me! Thankyou

The four outside groups that exert important direct influences on an organization consist of:? A)Politicans, regulators, minority goups, and consumer monitoring groups B)Competitors, industry trade associations, non-profit organizations, and governmental agencies, such as the EPA and FTC C) Senior management, the legal department, the marketing department, and other employees of the organization D) Other organizations, suppliers, shareholders (owners), and customers E)Owners, employees, regulatory group, and competitors

Where can I find a job Audio Recording industry in Australia? I am a 53 year old male with an excellent voice and oral reading skils. I am good at reading poetry, verse,prose, stories,plays,narations, and also legal and scientific script. i could even try radio and t.v voice overs. Unfortunately I have very poor life skills and I ido not know how to market myself. I am also willing to do oral reading on voluntary basis for a few months. Please tell me are there associations, companies , and agents I should talk to. Anywhere in Australia.

Could you find 3 rhetorical questions in this essay? please? As economies around the world continue to shrink, how many people will start thinking about selling their bodies? Two years ago, the global market in human flesh looked like a humanitarian issue. It was a problem for those poor people in developing countries , not for us. But global capitalism doesn't care what color your skin is, as long as you've got some to sell and you need the cash. And, increasingly, people need the cash. Harmless, right? So let's move around to the back of the head. Thirty people have hired themselves out to Air New Zealand as "cranial billboards," the Times reports. "For shaving their noggins and displaying the ad copy for two weeks in November, they received either a round-trip ticket to New Zealand (worth about $1,200) or $777 in cash." A bit tacky, but who are we to judge? They need the money. And if people are willing to wear temporary tattoos for pay, why not permanent ones? Since 2005, Dunlop Tires has hired tattoo artists to work at its booth at the annual Specialty Equipment Market Association show in Las Vegas, geared to motorists who modify cars. Volunteers who agree to be permanently tattooed—either with Dunlop's logo or its trademarked tire tread—while onlookers gawk receive a set of tires worth $500 to $1,000, said Jim Davis, a Dunlop spokesman. About 200 people have been tattooed so far. If it's OK to sell permanent advertising on your skin, it's hard to see why we outlaw temporary prostitution, especially in view of current financial pressures : Signs of the economic free fall have cropped up in many of Nevada's 25 or so legal brothels. The Mustang Ranch, for example, has a steady stream of customers, but the number of women vying for work has soared. Should women who resort to this line of work in other states continue to be arrested? Do you have some other employment opportunity to offer them? And if extra cash to women who need it is a good thing, what about the increasing use of undeveloped countries as testings grounds for drugs not yet approved in the west. So, the standards overseas are lower, and the people recruited to test the drugs have fewer choices. But isn't that how capitalism works? Aren't these people getting value in exchange for supplying their bodies at lower cost? As Ezekiel Emanuel, chairman of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, puts it : "More places outside the United States are participating in research—is that a bad thing?" And what about the sale of human eggs, sperm, and surrogacy? Driven by the recession, women are lining up to sell their eggs and rent out their wombs . It's fully legal. Do you want to stop them or their clients? Do you think you can? If it's OK to sell your eggs and skin—and to rent out your body for pregnancy or drug testing—why not let people sell expendable organs ? Thanks to the progress and spread of transplant technology, every healthy person with two good kidneys or a splittable liver now has a fungible asset. Earlier this month, for instance, the Asahi Shimbun reported : Amid the serious shortage of available organs in Japan, a nonprofit organization admitted to helping 17 Japanese receive transplants in China even after Beijing banned such operations for foreigners in 2007. A deputy chief of the NPO [said] the group paid doctors in China, in addition to treatment costs, for the kidney and liver transplants there. ... Cases have already emerged of Japanese traveling to Southeast Asia for new organs. I'm not saying all of these practices are acceptable or unacceptable. Some are more worrisome than others. But they're all happening, and they're all being driven by money. And as the recession takes away the external assets of more and more people, we're going to face increasingly difficult questions about letting them sell what's left. help me please anyone please take the time to help me

Where can I find a job Audio Recording industry? I am a 53 year old male with an excellent voice and oral reading skils. I am good at reading poetry, verse,prose, stories,plays,narations, and also legal and scientific script. i could even try radio and t.v voice overs. Unfortunately I have very poor life skills and I ido not know how to market myself. I am also willing to do oral reading on voluntary basis for a few months. Please tell me are there associations, companies , and agents I should talk to.

Job title in Legal firm? I saw some lawyer in parter, some in associate...what is the difference? I heard every year, the bar association control the amounts of new lawyer into the market, let 50% pass the exam, is it true? how is other 50% doing? they don't pass it and can't practise, how can they pay the huge debts? one of intersting article in NYT,(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/nyregion/13bigcity.html?em )and readers are upset by some lawyers pay.

Did the creators of the Nasonex Bee really just RIP OFF Looney Tunes in their creation of Pepe LePew? The Nasonex Bee is an animated character that empasizes sniffing everything...Here is a video clip if you don't know who this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrUF3JzD9P4 But he is in several key ways, much like Pepe LePew, the skunk who cannot detect how bad his own smell is. Pepe LePew has a French accent and the French are known for romance, thus leading to the comedy and juxtaposition of a malodious skunk wanting to cuddle and kiss a black cat with an inadvertant paint stripe on it's back. "MWA-MWA-MWA! Come weef mee to zee CAZBAH!, Mon Cherie!" For a fun refresher on Pepe's antics, fast forward about 3:20 seconds into this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqAJ8De7T-U So then some marketing genius a couple or more years ago decided to create a TV personality that emphasized how smelling things -- like FLOWERS -- will not be met with disappointment because Nasonex has cleared it's nasal passageways. And what do they use? An ANIMATED CHARACTER -- like Pepe. But to further the association, they give it a foreign accent too -- but not FRENCH (as that may be TOO similar or invite character copywrite or licensing issues). No. They use a SPANISH accent via hiring ANTONIO BANDERAS to do the voice over -- although the two accents sound quite similar, at least when Antonio performs it. So did Naxonex Rip Off the Looney Tunes Pepe Le Pew character idea? And were you even aware that the Nasonex Bee had a Spanish versus French accent? CLEVER! Those guys in marketing and legal, no? Please tell me if you did not subconsciously associate the fun memories of Pepe Le Pew when you first saw the Nasonex Bee. It is obvious what Nasonex has been doing, correct? Why else would a bee need a Continental accent?

Why do righties always go ape over George Soros? What has he done? Certainly not all of this. The Koch brothers’ influence empire A list of right-wing action groups and think tanks This list of organizations is long but they have one common thread: promoting an antitax, antiregulatory ideology that will ultimately gut government’s ability to ensure markets functioning properly for everyone and protect consumers against abuses in the system. In addition to promoting this right-wing ideology, some of the groups on this list, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, seek to undermine the science behind climate change. Indeed, many of the policies these organizations promote not only further a right-wing ideology but they also increase profits for Koch Industries. Cato Institute—$13,887,640 Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research—$300,000 Citizens for a Sound Economy2—$12,356,712 Environmental Literacy Council—$287,516 George Mason’s Mercatus Center—$9,674,500 Property and Environment Research Center—$258,144 Americans for Prosperity Foundation—$5,610,781 Center for Equal Opportunity—$240,000 Heritage Foundation—$4,115,571 Institute for Energy Research—$237,000 Institute for Humane Studies—$3,630,091 Atlas Economic Research Foundation—$221,100 Bill of Rights Institute—$3,070,909 Ethics and Public Policy Center—$190,000 Youth Entrepreneurs of Kansas—$2,617,842 Citizens for Congressional Reform Foundation—$175,000 Institute for Justice—$2,615,000 Frontiers of Freedom Institute—$175,000 Reason Foundation—$2,516,521 Texas Public Policy Foundation—$174,500 National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship—$2,481,786 The Phillips Foundation—$165,000 Federalist Society—$2,058,999 John Locke Foundation—$134,472 Institute for the Study of Human Origins—$2,035,912 Fund for American Studies—$133,650 American Enterprise Institute & Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies—$1,979,400 James Madison Institute—$121,924 Manhattan Institute—$1,575,000 John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy—$120,086 Washington Legal Foundation—$1,457,500 Young America’s Foundation—$107,500 Foundation for Individual Rights in Education—$1,400,000 Leadership Institute—$101,500 Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment—$1,385,500 American Council on Science & Health—$101,000 Competitive Enterprise Institute—$700,499 Laffer Center for Global Economic Growth—$100,000 National Center for Policy Analysis—$672,000 Association of Private Enterprise Education—$98,500 American Legislative Exchange Council—$668,858 Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives—$93,903 Capital Research Center—$665,000 Center for Independent Thought—$92,500 Tax Foundation—$637,369 National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Legal Foundation—$88,000 Independent Women’s Forum—$485,000 Carbon Dioxide & Global Change Center—$85,000 International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics—$440,000 Mackinac Center for Public Policy—$84,151 Acton Institute—$416,250 Market Based Management Institute—$82,500 Fraser Institute—$373,721 Media Institute—$80,000 Pacific Research Institute—$370,000 Heartland Institute—$77,578 American Council for Capital Formation—$325,000 Goldwater Institute—$75,000 George C. Marshall Institute—$310,000 Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation—$65,000 10 Center for American Progress Action Fund | The Koch Brothers The Koch brothers’ political-influence empire A list of right-wing action groups and think tanks Libertarian Review Foundation—$60,000 Americans for Tax Reform—$60,000 Students in Free Enterprise—$30,000 Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions—$55,946 Center for Excellence in Education—$27,500 Center for Freedom & Prosperity Foundation—$54,266 Ayn Rand Institute—$25,000 National Tax Limitation Foundation—$50,000 International Policy Network—$25,000 North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law—$50,000 Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—$20,538 Free Enterprise Education Institute—$45,000 Atlantic Legal Foundation—$20,000 South Carolina Policy Council—$45,000 Institute for Political Economy—$20,000 Center for Individual Rights—$40,000 Media Research Center—$15,005 Texas Justice Foundation—$40,000 Future of Freedom Foundation—$10,000 Foundation for Economic Education—$38,267 Pacific Legal Foundation—$10,000 National Taxpayers Union Foundation—$37,500 Foundation for Human Development—$5,000 Institute for Policy Innovation—$35,000 American Spectator—$4,500 Critical Review Foundation—$33,000 Galen Institute—$3,590 Hudson Institute—$32,650 So I guess I'm saying you really have no right to bring Soros up. Oh please, who are you referring to and yes the Koch's have their influence peddlers permeating everything.

HOA Board Membership Ethics in California? In California, can an HOA condominium board member, that is also a non-owner occupied owner leasing their unit, market and broker sales and lease properties as an agent for other owners in the community? Basically, we have a Real Estate Broker that purchased a property within our association for the opportunity to market property for personal gain. He does not live within the community but has been recently placed as President of our HOA Board, against many oppositions, and is causing a lot of problems with some owners that he believes to interfere with his business of selling and leasing other condos within our association. Can a non-resident association member become a board member? Can a real estate broker that has been appointed as president use his position to encourage sales and leases for his personal gain? This individual now posts signs in many rental units as well as condos for sale that should not be posted in the windows and stating he is the community specialist and representing himself as the HOA President in addition to being the property manager and sales agent. I see this as a conflict of interest being on an HOA board that is supposedly non-profit, a non-resident and marketing real estate utilizing his membership for personal gain. Any information will be helpful as a few other owners are looking into this matter and some tenants are being harrassed as well. In addition, a neighbor that is a renter, was recently required to write out post-dated checks for 12 months in advance before being allowed to move into a unit represented by this same person/broker/HOA board member/president. Is it legal for a real estate broker to require and retain 12 months of post-dated checks in advance? I thought this was illegal. Thank you for all answers in advance.

PROJECT HELP! (POLITICAL SCIENCE)? I am in my first year at college and I need to choose one of the following topics for my project. I need to follow this topic in the media so it should be something that is going on today. I don't know very much about any of them so I NEED help. 1. Aboriginal Sovereignty (Chapter 2 or 13) a. Is Canadian aboriginal sovereignty desirable? (chapter 2) b. Is Canadian aboriginal sovereignty compatible with the Constitution? (chapter 13) c. Consider the role of: i. Indian Act and Dept. of Indian Affairs ii. Assembly of First Nations (AFN) iii. Issues of land claims, poverty, assimilation and aboriginal systems of justice and governance 2. Canadian Nationalism (Chapter 2) a. Is Canada a nation-state? b. Can Canadian nationalism be reconciled with Canadian multiculturalism? c. Can different nations and nationalist projects coexist? How? 3. Globalization (Chapter 2) a. Is globalization a positive force? b. Consider the role of: i. Legal, economic, and cultural globalization ii. International economic, governing, and legal institutions 4. Free-Market Capitalist System v. Socialist Economic System (Chapter 3) a. Which one serves the ‘common good’ to the greater extent? b. Consider the role of: i. Equality and equality of opportunity ii. Freedom 5. Gender Inequality (Chapter 3, pp.67-71 and Chapter pp.125-132) a. To what extent does it exist? b. What are its political causes and solutions? c. Are affirmative action programs needed? 6. Quebec Sovereignty Referendum, 1995 (chapter 2) a. What were the short and long-term causes? b. What were the short and long-term consequences? 7. Democracy Promotion Abroad (chapter 19) a. Should Canada promote and/or enforce democracy abroad, using military force? b. Consider Canada’s role in: i. NATO and the UN ii. War in Afghanistan 8. Canadian Political Culture (Chapter 7) a. How can we describe Canadian political culture and Canadian values? b. Has it changed in the last 15 years? How? 9. Environment, Politics and the Economy (Chapter 3, pp.54-62 and Chapter 6, pp.132-140) a. Do we have a sustainable society in Canada? i. If so, what role politics played to achieve it? ii. If not, what are the obstacles brought by our economic and political systems? 10. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Chapter 13) a. Is the Charter democratic? b. Consider the role of: i. Written and unwritten declarations of rights ii. Judicial activism 11. Minority and Coalition Governments in Parliamentary Systems (Chapter 15) a. Are they effective ways to take decisions? To govern? To represent the will of the people? b. Consider both Canadian and foreign parliamentary systems 12. Executive Powers in the Canadian Parliamentary System (Chapter 15) a. Too much or too few? b. Consider the role of: i. Prime Minister and Governor General ii. Legislative process in House of Commons iii. Cabinet secrecy and accountability 13. Canadian Parliamentary System v. U.S. Presidential System (Chapter 16) a. Is the U.S. Presidential System more democratic? b. Similarities and differences of Executive Power c. Select a case study and compare how it was dealt by both systems. d. Consider the role of: i. Senate ii. U.S. ‘checks and balances’ 14. Political Party Financing in Canada (Chapter 9) a. Is it in need of reform? b. To what extent does party financing effect democracy? c. Consider: i. Election and political party leadership campaigns ii. The cost of running for elected office 15. Interests Groups and Social Movements: What impacts? (Chapter 11) a. What impacts do social movements or interests groups have on politics and democracy? b. Do they positively or negatively affect democracy? c. Select a social movement (Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, etc.) 16. Political Party Systems: Two-party v. Multi-Party Systems (Chapter 9) a. How representative are both party systems? b. Consider: i. strength and weakness of both systems ii. rates of party membership iii. effect on political executive 17. Electoral Systems: Single-Member Plurality v. Proportional Representation (Chapter 10) a. Is Canada in need of federal electoral reform? b. Should Canada change to a proportional representation system? c. Consider the role of: i. Democratic representation ii. Minority and coalition government 18. ‘Free and Fair’ Democratic Election (chapter 4 or 10) a. On what criteria should a ‘free and fair’ election be measured? i. Comparison with the democratic ideal? (Chapter 4) ii. Democratic principles? (Chapter 10) 19. Voter Turnout in Canada and Abroad (Chapter 10) a. Are levels of voter turnout in Canada worrisome? Why? b. Consider: i. Youth and political engagement ii. Different kind of electoral systems and their influence on voter turnout iii. State(s) with mandatory voting requirements (i.e. Australia) 20. ‘New Technologies’ in Politics

Quiz? Due Date March 28, 2009? 1Conversion of raw material into finished goods is the example of_____________ A.Industry B.Commerce C.Foreign trade D.Finance 2Fishing and poultry is an example of _______ A.Genetic industry B.Extractive industry C.Constructive industry D.Manufacturing industry 3Roads and buildings are examples of _______ A.Genetic industry B.Extractive industry C.Constructive industry D.Manufacturing industry 4The second stage in Evolution of business is__________ A.Industrial revolution B.Marketing Era C.Entrepreneurship D.Globalization 5Inflation rate is included in__________ A.Economic factors B.Legal factors C.Demographic factors D.Technological factors 6Which of the following is excluded from factors that can affect the business? A.Demographic Factors B.Economic and social factors C.Natural factors D.None of the given options 7Which of the following would generally have unlimited liability? A.A limited partner in a partnership B.A shareholder in a corporation C.The owner of a sole proprietorship D.A member in a limited liability company 8Which of the following statements is correct for a sole proprietorship? A.The sole proprietor has limited liability. B.The sole proprietor can easily dispose of their ownership position relative to a shareholder in a corporation. C.The sole proprietorship can be created more quickly than a corporation. D.The owner of a sole proprietorship faces double taxation unlike the partners in a partnership. 9The formation of ___________does not requires any legal formality like registration. A.Company B.Cooperative society C.Partnership D.Sole proprietorship 10The limited partners in a limited partnership: A.Are not taxed as if the partnership was a general partnership. B.Have limited liability C.Must be involved in the day to day management of the firm D.None of the given options 11The formation of __________does not requires any legal formality like registration. A.Company B.Cooperative society C.Partnership D.Sole proprietorship 12The limited partners in a limited partnership A.Are not taxed as if the partnership was a general partnership. B.Have limited liability C.Must be involved in the day to day management of the firm D.None of the given options 13Which legal form of business organization offers the greatest protection to all of the owners of the firm in the event that the firm has a legal judgment against it? A.Sole proprietorship B.Limited partnership C.Corporation D.All of the given options 14Which of the following is NOT a benefit of partnership? A.Distribution of work B.Unlimited Liability C.Tax facility D.Minority protection 15A major disadvantage of the corporate form of organization is the __________ A.Double taxation of dividends B.Inability of the firm to raise large sums of additional capital C.Limited liability of shareholders D.Limited life of the corporate form 16The powers of the Board of Directors to borrow from the bank are mentioned in______ A.Article of Association B.Memorandum of Association C.Special Resolution D.None of the given options 17The liability of each member in cooperative society is________ A.Limited to the share capital B.Limited to total property of the society C.Unlimited D.None of the given options 18Which of the following is not the advantage of cooperative society? A.Limited liability B.Mutual cooperation C.Economic democracy D.Lack of secrecy 19Where a firm sells a brand owned by another firm this is called a__________ A.Consortium B.Joint venture C.Franchise D.Licensing agreement 20Which of the following statements about franchising is true? A.Franchising is a type of corporate system. B.Franchising is used to achieve coordination at successive stages of production C.Franchising is a type of administered vertical marketing system. D.Franchising is the most visible variation of contractual systems

Pharmacy *Law & Ethics* True or False Questions *Help*? 1)A prescription for 2 items that are the same drug but are in different forms will attract one prescription charge 2)A retail pharmacy business whose owner has died may be carried on by a representattive for a maximum period of 5 years 3)A dentist may prescribe any POMs on an NHS prescription 4] The 'appropriate date' on a prescription for a POM is the date on which the presciption is dispensed 5]A prescriber may indicate instalment dispensing on an FP10D 6]optometrists are regulated by the health professions council 7]The SLS lists products that might either be a food or cosmetic but that can be classed as a medicine for certain indications 8]Maximum dose of a medicinal product is the max quantity of that product to be taken in 24hrs daily 9]A POM register entry will be good pratice but not legally required for a private prescription for an oral contraceptive 10]The company chemists association represents the owners of all community pharmacies that are limited companies 11]A magistral product prepared in a pharmacy is exempt from the requirement to have a marketing authorization 12]before making an emergency supply of POM at the request of a patient the pharmacist must interview the patient in person 13]NHS prescriptions for liquid preparations attracts an additional containerallowance compared with a prescription for a product in tablet form 14]GSL for humans use may be sold from market stalls 15]The marketing authroziation number must appear on the label of a medicinal product that is packaged 16]pharmacists working as supplementary prescribers may prescribe any POM on NHS prescriptions 17]The drug tariff gives the most current info about the legal category of a medicinal product 18]Induction of anesthesia is a medicinal purpose as defined in the medicines act 1968 19]a general medical practitioner may sell or supply POM to a patient under their care 20]Before 1841 the pahrmaceutical society was known as the society of apothecaries 21]there is a definitive list of GSL medicine (BTW - what does 'definitive mean in pharmacy terms?') 22]a change of law by statuory instrument requires a positive vote in the house of commons 23]a patient with a private repeat prescription must return to the same pharmacy for repeat supplies as first supply 24]Provision of advice about counter medicine is an essential service under the pharmaceutical services regulations 2005 25] it is a legal requirement that the age of the patient is given on all prescriptions POMs Which statements are True & which is False?

Poll> Are they jolly well serrious? Sunday October 26, 02:55 PM Storm in a pint glass in Britain **************************** Geez I hope they dont do that to me Single Malt ********************************************* LONDON (AFP) - British officials are looking at allowing pubs to serve two-thirds of a pint of beer as well as pints and half-pints, tinkering with a national icon in a break with centuries of tradition. The National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) is contemplating proposals aimed at giving consumers greater choice over the measures of food and drink they can buy. Facing a downturn in profits due to the credit crunch, the smoking ban and rising alcohol taxes, pubs are keen to try out anything that may boost trade, in particular by tempting women who do not fancy drinking a whole pint (568 millilitres). The new measure could also be more suitable for popular European lagers, which are stronger than traditional British ales. Currently, draught beer and cider is served in Britain in pints or half pints. A third of a pint remains a legal measure, though it is rarely seen outside hardcore beer festivals. Any threat of fiddling with traditional imperial measurements -- especially beer -- and any change to pub rules usually gets Britons spluttering the froth off their pints. "Time could be called on more than 300 years of pub history in Britain," said The Daily Telegraph newspaper. "It would be the first time since William of Orange was on the throne (1650-1702) that pub goers would be able to drink such an unusual measure." Commentator Tim Jones, writing in The Times newspaper, said the measure "represents yet another insult to the judgment, intelligence and integrity of the drinking classes". If it was adopted "because of demand from girls who would only order one a night while taking up valuable drinking space or by callow youths better suited to model making, another nail would be driven into what used to be the great British pub," he said. NWML's public consultation, which runs until January 1, asks "whether a new two-thirds of a pint measure should be available to drinkers alongside the current legal measures. "This has been proposed by the beer and pub trade to allow greater flexibility in the service of draught beers, especially those with a higher alcohol content." The measure is commonly served in Australia, where a "schooner" stops cold lager turning warm in the hot climate before drinkers have finished their glass. The British Beer and Pub Association, whose members account for 98 percent of beer brewed in Britain and more than half Britain's 58,000 pubs, feels the two-thirds measure could be a way of reviving pubs, which it said were closing at an alarming rate of five per week. "There's no doubt pubs are facing major challenges so every little helps and this is one way of doing it," a BBPA spokesman told AFP. "It would give consumers more choice -- you can already have wine in different sizes, why not beer? And it would encourage women to try it." Alcohol Concern, the national agency on alcohol misuse, said the plan was part of a worrying trend. "We have seen a move from brewers to move away from a men-only market, to open the market up to women," said a spokeswoman. "It may be that this two-thirds of a pint measure will allow pubs and producers to start marketing beers for women, so there is a possibility they would be attracted to beers." "It is possible that introducing yet another measure will confuse people even further," she added. "It might make people think they're drinking less when they would actually be drinking as much or even more. Two-thirds of a pint of a much stronger lager can contain more units of alcohol than a full pint." England's Ale Measures Act 1698 stated that beer should be sold in pints or quarts (two pints) -- anyone selling short measures being "of evil consequence" and guilty of "a great wrong and prejudice to wayfaring men, travellers, manufacturers, labourers". The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), meanwhile, felt that rather than smaller glasses, pubs should first of all be filling up the ones they are already using, with one in four pints short by more than five percent. Printable If you have the attention span of a dead knat maybe you should reconsider answering

Are they jolly well serrious? Sunday October 26, 02:55 PM Storm in a pint glass in Britain **************************** Geez I hope they dont do that to me Single Malt **************************************... LONDON (AFP) - British officials are looking at allowing pubs to serve two-thirds of a pint of beer as well as pints and half-pints, tinkering with a national icon in a break with centuries of tradition. The National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) is contemplating proposals aimed at giving consumers greater choice over the measures of food and drink they can buy. Facing a downturn in profits due to the credit crunch, the smoking ban and rising alcohol taxes, pubs are keen to try out anything that may boost trade, in particular by tempting women who do not fancy drinking a whole pint (568 millilitres). The new measure could also be more suitable for popular European lagers, which are stronger than traditional British ales. Currently, draught beer and cider is served in Britain in pints or half pints. A third of a pint remains a legal measure, though it is rarely seen outside hardcore beer festivals. Any threat of fiddling with traditional imperial measurements -- especially beer -- and any change to pub rules usually gets Britons spluttering the froth off their pints. "Time could be called on more than 300 years of pub history in Britain," said The Daily Telegraph newspaper. "It would be the first time since William of Orange was on the throne (1650-1702) that pub goers would be able to drink such an unusual measure." Commentator Tim Jones, writing in The Times newspaper, said the measure "represents yet another insult to the judgment, intelligence and integrity of the drinking classes". If it was adopted "because of demand from girls who would only order one a night while taking up valuable drinking space or by callow youths better suited to model making, another nail would be driven into what used to be the great British pub," he said. NWML's public consultation, which runs until January 1, asks "whether a new two-thirds of a pint measure should be available to drinkers alongside the current legal measures. "This has been proposed by the beer and pub trade to allow greater flexibility in the service of draught beers, especially those with a higher alcohol content." The measure is commonly served in Australia, where a "schooner" stops cold lager turning warm in the hot climate before drinkers have finished their glass. The British Beer and Pub Association, whose members account for 98 percent of beer brewed in Britain and more than half Britain's 58,000 pubs, feels the two-thirds measure could be a way of reviving pubs, which it said were closing at an alarming rate of five per week. "There's no doubt pubs are facing major challenges so every little helps and this is one way of doing it," a BBPA spokesman told AFP. "It would give consumers more choice -- you can already have wine in different sizes, why not beer? And it would encourage women to try it." Alcohol Concern, the national agency on alcohol misuse, said the plan was part of a worrying trend. "We have seen a move from brewers to move away from a men-only market, to open the market up to women," said a spokeswoman. "It may be that this two-thirds of a pint measure will allow pubs and producers to start marketing beers for women, so there is a possibility they would be attracted to beers." "It is possible that introducing yet another measure will confuse people even further," she added. "It might make people think they're drinking less when they would actually be drinking as much or even more. Two-thirds of a pint of a much stronger lager can contain more units of alcohol than a full pint." England's Ale Measures Act 1698 stated that beer should be sold in pints or quarts (two pints) -- anyone selling short measures being "of evil consequence" and guilty of "a great wrong and prejudice to wayfaring men, travellers, manufacturers, labourers". The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), meanwhile, felt that rather than smaller glasses, pubs should first of all be filling up the ones they are already using, with one in four pints short by more than five percent.

Why does the Liberal media NOT report about Cain's accusers checkered past? Bialek’s resume and a trail of public records indicates that changing jobs has been a regular occurrence for the Chicagoan. She has worked for at least nine different employers over the past 17 years and appears to have struggled financially. The public record on Bialek begins in 1991 when she filed personal bankruptcy for the first time while living in Des Plaines. Between 1993 and 1996 Bialek worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions. In 1996, and part of 1997, Bialek was at the National Restaurant Association. After being let go from that job in mid-1997, she says that she went to Washington, D.C., to meet with Cain, president of the association, because she needed a job. Ms. Bialek was unemployed and living in Chicago. But she had the time and money to go to Washington, DC, rent a hotel room two blocks from the White House, to approach the CEO of the NRA for a job? She had been employed by the NRA for less than eight months in a low level position, and she thought the CEO would help her? In 1999, Bialek’s son Nicholas was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father, a media executive. A media executive who reportedly works for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. In 2001 came Bialek’s second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizable legal bills. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=8422203

SmokerSurveys.com claims "By participating in our Promotion, $100 Visa® Gift Card will be yours to keep."? Is this a scam or not?! If it is, how is this even legal? How do sites likes these get away with it? I don't understand... How can they get away with LIES?! It's disgusting, brainless, dull, and pathetic. I always get e-mails "Take our National Tobacco Survey get $100 just for voting!; Vote for better brand..." So bored I was, I took it... And I'm questioning it. After "voting" it said "THANK YOU! By participating in our Promotion, the $100 Visa® Gift Card will be yours to keep" and the policy junk at the bottom: "SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. To receive the reward you must: 1) be a U.S. resident at least 18 years of age or older; 2) Register with valid information; 3) Complete the user survey; 4) Complete at least .1 Silver, 1 Gold, and 2 Platinum offers (Available reward offers will vary. Some reward offers require a purchase. Credit card offers may require you to activate the card by making a purchase, transferring a balance or taking a cash advance. Click on the following links to go directly to the reward offer pages: Silver, Gold, Platinum); 5) Follow the redemption instructions. All program requirements must be completed within 120 days of the date of registration. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery. Limit of one (1) gift per household. No cash redemption value. Please read the Terms and Conditions for complete program details. Your information will be shared with our marketing partners. Please read the Privacy Policy for more details. SmokerSurveys is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Visa Inc. or any other merchant listed above. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners, who have no association with or make any endorsement of the products or services provided by SmokerSurveys." Thanks in advance!

Did you see Ron Paul on Keynesianism and Free markets on Morning Joe today? http://libertymaven.com/2009/05/15/ron-paul-attacks-keynesian-economics-on-msnbc/5755/ Ron Paul had a great appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this morning. Scarborough and the other host praised Ron Paul for being one of the only people to predict our economic crisis. Joe reads Ron Paul’s own words in 2003 in amazement and asks how he knew what was going to happen when the others did not. The answer is quite simple really, two words: Austrian Economics. Paul then cites Keynes as the one person responsible for our current woes. Watch the appearance below. [video] Here is the full article they are discussing in the video: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department's views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee. I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board. One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices. Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans. Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts. No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today's hearing sheds light on how special p Here's the rest: I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today's hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. What do you think?

Why do Australian ugg-boot companies allow an American company to proprietize this generic Australian name? Your Question Why do Australian ugg companies allow the name Ugg or UGG to be proprietized by an American company? Uggly price for 'our' boots By JENNIFER MELOCCO, Style Writer Courtesy: Daily Telegraph, Sydney May 19, 2005 IF IT wasn't enough that a US footwear giant stopped Australian producers using the name "ugg'', now it is charging hundreds of dollars for the humble boots. Deckers Corporation has made a major step to take out the local ugg boot market. The company, which took legal action against local firms, is selling its boots for $240 in Sydney. "We have had them [ugg boots] in Australia for over 100 years, but they haven't been very fashionable to wear,'' Ugg Australia brand manager Paul Karis said yesterday. The move to bring the US boots on to Australian turf has angered local producers. Blue Mountains ugg boot producer Brian Iverson, who was affected by the Ugg ban, believes the original Aussie product can stand up to the US competition. "They may charge roughly double the price as us, but we still use quality Australian sheepskin,'' Mr Iverson said. "It just depends if you want to buy a Commodore or a Rolls-Royce - in the end they both do the same job.'' The Westhaven Association at Dubbo was another company forced by Deckers to stop using the term "ugg''. It has been producing boots for 30 years, but had to change its name from the Westhaven Ugg Boot Shop to the Westhaven Sheepskin Warehouse. General manager Gordon Tindall called on buyers to support Australian companies. "People are astounded how an Aussie icon can be taken over,'' he said. "It's up to local buyers if they want to deal with an Australian company or a multinational.'' Stephanie Mortel, of the Maitland-based Mortel Sheepskin Factory, said her family company was forced to stop using the term "ugg'' on eBay. Local producers claim "ugg'' is a generic term and never should have been sold off to the US company. Footnote to the above story: All ugg boots sold by Uggs Down Under are genuine Australian made uggs and we have no connection with the US owned and based company, 'Ugg Australia'.

Why do Australian ugg companies allow the name Ugg or UGG to be proprietized by an American company? Uggly price for 'our' boots By JENNIFER MELOCCO, Style Writer Courtesy: Daily Telegraph, Sydney May 19, 2005 IF IT wasn't enough that a US footwear giant stopped Australian producers using the name "ugg'', now it is charging hundreds of dollars for the humble boots. Deckers Corporation has made a major step to take out the local ugg boot market. The company, which took legal action against local firms, is selling its boots for $240 in Sydney. "We have had them [ugg boots] in Australia for over 100 years, but they haven't been very fashionable to wear,'' Ugg Australia brand manager Paul Karis said yesterday. The move to bring the US boots on to Australian turf has angered local producers. Blue Mountains ugg boot producer Brian Iverson, who was affected by the Ugg ban, believes the original Aussie product can stand up to the US competition. "They may charge roughly double the price as us, but we still use quality Australian sheepskin,'' Mr Iverson said. "It just depends if you want to buy a Commodore or a Rolls-Royce - in the end they both do the same job.'' The Westhaven Association at Dubbo was another company forced by Deckers to stop using the term "ugg''. It has been producing boots for 30 years, but had to change its name from the Westhaven Ugg Boot Shop to the Westhaven Sheepskin Warehouse. General manager Gordon Tindall called on buyers to support Australian companies. "People are astounded how an Aussie icon can be taken over,'' he said. "It's up to local buyers if they want to deal with an Australian company or a multinational.'' Stephanie Mortel, of the Maitland-based Mortel Sheepskin Factory, said her family company was forced to stop using the term "ugg'' on eBay. Local producers claim "ugg'' is a generic term and never should have been sold off to the US company. Footnote to the above story: All ugg boots sold by Uggs Down Under are genuine Australian made uggs and we have no connection with the US owned and based company, 'Ugg Australia'.

sick fuck, how could u?? evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? my topic is "animal testing does not benefits humans" can u give me a summary? heres my topic Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans. And human trials are still necessary. Those who say we test on animals to avoid testing on people are wrong. Once animal studies are complete, all new medications are evaluated on humans. The first people to take a new substance are being experimented on as surely as if they were guinea pigs locked in a laboratory. The other, even more obvious, problem with the animal model is that animals cannot communicate about their well-being. They cannot say, "I have a stomachache" or "my head hurts," or even "I ache all over." Hence, until animals manifest grand scale malaise in a lab, observations are all guesswork. Or as experts in toxicity write, The only universal model for a human—that is, one which would best predict what would happen at a given endpoint across the full range of chemical structures, concentrations, etc.—is other humans. Is it possible that we are not only receiving inaccurate data about the side effects of medications, but also not receiving access to certain drugs that do not produce those side effects that animal models claim? Are we missing good medications because of animalUshering drugs to market through animal testing is treacherous. Legal drugs kill more people per year than all illegal drugs combined. An article from an April 1998 Journal of the America Medical Association described a study that concluded that deaths from adverse reactions to medications are the fourth leading killer of Americans. (This study's findings are controversial and should not be misinterpreted as condemning all medications, but suffice it to say that medications are killing many patients. testing? Logic suggests that the answer to these questions is yes.How did scientists learn that these drugs were murderous? Not through animal testing. Epidemiology, clinical observation, and autopsy proved these medications were deleterious. The ill effects of using diethylene glycol as an ingredient in medications were found by autopsy and epidemiology

Microeconomics homework help PLEASE? 1. Which of the following is a positive statement? a. an increase in college tuition is not fair to students b. a recession causes enrollments at universities to increase. c. university book store prices are too high d. parking tickets on campus impose an excessive fee 2.Huey has eaten two hamburgers and is considering a third. The marginal benefit in his decision is the pleasure from consuming... a. the two previous hamburgers b. all three hamburgers c. just the third hamburger d. just the second hamburger 3. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) campaigned to increase the legal penalties of drunk driving. The successful campaign ______ of drunk driving. a. increased the marginal benefit b. decreased the marginal benefit c. increased the marginal cost d. decreased the marginal cost 4. According to the circular flow model, a. dollars flow from households into the factor markets b. dollars flow from the firms into the factor markets c. goods flow from households into the goods markets d. goods flow from firms into the factor markets 5. While moving along a production possibilities frontier, the amount of a. labor and technology is fixed, but capital varies b. capital varies and the amount of labor varies c. labor varies but the level of technology is fixed d. labor, capital and technology are fixed 6. Assume that an association of young workers has lobbied congress to require that all workers retire once they reach the age of fifty. what impact would this law have on the nation's production possibilities frontier? a. no impact at all b. the level of unemployment would decrease so the production possibilities frontier would shift outward c. the nation would move to a new position on its production possibilities frontier but the frontier itself would not shift d. the production possibilities frontier would shift inward. 7.in the 1930’s, the U.S. economy suffered severely, with unemployment rates of 20 percent. During World War II in the early 1940’s, Americans found that their living standards improved relative to what it had been in the recent past because a.production became more efficient in the war. b.the federal government forced Americans to produce more of both guns and butter. c.the economy put unemployed resources to work during the war. d.There is no way to explain this occurrence. thanks<3

Why are Repubs always screaming about the "free Market" regarding health in companies? Health insurance does not practice in the "free market"! They have been protected Monopolies for 64 years. Post subject: Senate May Revoke Insurance Companies' Legal Monopoly Posted: 15 Oct 2009 03:19 am Democrats to health insurers: "Nice little antitrust exemption you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it." By Timothy Noah Now they've done it. After the health-insurance lobby released a report trashing the Senate finance committee's health care bill and started airing granny-scaring TV ads, the Democrats decided playing defense isn't enough. Time to go after the insurance industry's antitrust exemption. By happy coincidence, the Senate judiciary committee already had scheduled an Oct. 14 hearing to consider a bill sponsored by Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., that would partly repeal the antitrust exemption by outlawing insurance-industry price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocations. (Previously Leahy tried and failed to repeal the exemption altogether.) "There is no reason why the insurance companies should have exemption from antitrust laws," testified Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of both the finance and judiciary committees, pledged to amend the health reform bill on the Senate floor to incorporate Leahy's bill, and made clear this was payback for the insurers' assault on health reform. Perhaps you're wondering how the insurance industry got itself exempted from antitrust law in the first place. Historically, insurance companies were regulated by the states. Back in the 19th century, insurers considered this a nuisance. (They have since changed their tune.) But their bid to supplant a patchwork of state regulations with federal regulation was rejected by the Supreme Court, which ruled in Paul v. Virginia (1869) that insurance was not an activity governed by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the right to regulate trade between the states. Twenty-one years later, when the Sherman Act invented antitrust law, Paul v. Virginia shielded the insurance industry from it. But during the 1930s and 1940s the Supreme Court came to embrace a more expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and eventually it reversed Paul v. Virginia in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1944), which explicitly placed the insurance industry under Sherman Act jurisdiction. http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7740092 Too be a part of the "non-socialistic system" of the "Free Market" you have to participate in it! Contrary to what Republicans say Health Insurance Companies are protected from competition by law. "And who represents us while our President is stealing from us?" I didn't know he was? Have any documentation. I am wondering, did you ask the same question during Bush's long 8 years. Obama's 1st budget has been in effect since July 1. Bush doubled the national debt, not Obama!

Should we have listened to Ron Paul back in 2003? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department's views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee. I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board. One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices. Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans. Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts. No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today's hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. Yes, I knew before I asked that some will divert from the fact that Ron Paul is right with things like "It's a cut and paste", or "he's a nutjob", etc. Why do you people bother answering at all?

Mexico Works to Bar Non-Natives From Jobs someone else said they dont well read this? this article was taken from todays yahoo news MEXICO CITY - If Arnold Schwarzenegger had migrated to Mexico instead of the United States, he couldn't be a governor. If Argentina native Sergio Villanueva, firefighter hero of the Sept. 11 attacks, had moved to Tecate instead of New York, he wouldn't have been allowed on the force. ADVERTISEMENT Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory. In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born. In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens. Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans." Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges. Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts. After being contacted by The Associated Press about the issue, officials changed the wording in two statutes to delete the "native-born" requirements, although they said the modifications had nothing to do with AP's inquiries. "These statutes have been under review for some time, and they have, or are about to be, changed," said an Interior Department official, who was not authorized to be quoted by name. But because the "model" statues are fill-in-the-blanks guides for framing local legislation, many cities across Mexico have already enacted such bans. They have done so even though foreigners constitute a tiny percentage of the population and pose little threat to Mexico's job market. The foreign-born make up just 0.5 percent of Mexico's 105 million people, compared with about 13 percent in the United States, which has a total population of 299 million. Mexico grants citizenship to about 3,000 people a year, compared to the U.S. average of almost a half million. "There is a need for a little more openness, both at the policy level and in business affairs," said David Kim, president of the Mexico-Korea Association, which represents the estimated 20,000 South Koreans in Mexico, many of them naturalized citizens. "The immigration laws are very difficult ... and they put obstacles in the way that make it more difficult to compete," Kim said, although most foreigners don't come to Mexico seeking government posts. J. Michael Waller, of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, was more blunt. "If American policy-makers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution," he said in a recent article on immigration.

Social Studies Help?!?!? 1. What was one perspective of African-Americans that was reflected in the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)? a. The hope of encouraging widespread emigration to Africa b. The belief that racial segregation was justified in all circumstances c. The goal of forming a new political party to represent African-Americans d. The desire to bring about legal and social equality for African-Americans 2. In 1923, Adolf Hitler, the future leader of Germany, declared: The day must come when a German government shall summon up the courage to declare to the foreign powers: "The Treaty of Versailles is founded on a monstrous lie." We fulfill nothing more. Do what you will! If you want battle, look for it! This excerpt would help support which thesis? a. Hitler believed the League of Nations would help Germany. b. Hitler believed Germany was responsible for starting Worl War I. c. Hitler used German resentment toward the Treaty of Versailles to gain power. d. Hitler wanted World War I Allies to live up to what they promised in the Treaty of Versailles. 3. During World War II, Japanese troops occupied much of China. This weakened the Chinese government and in 1949, communist forces overthrew the government and established a communist state. What effect did the Chinese Communist Revolution have on the development of the Cold War? a. It decreased tensions becase it led to the formating of the Warsaw Pact. b. It increased tensions, because it strengthened the independence movement in Indie. c. It increased tentions, because it increased Western fears of the communist expansion. d. It decreased tensions, because it led to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. 4. In a certain country, all decisions concerning the production of goods and services are made by the government. However, following a political revolution, a new economic system is set up in which some decisions regarding production of goods and services are made by the government and others are made by individuals and privatee companies. How had the economy of this country changed? a. from a mixed economy to a market economy. b. from a command economy to a mixed economy. c. from a market economy to a traditional economy. d. from a traditional economy to a command economy. Please and thank youuuu!!

Accounting???? TRUE OR FALSE (15 points) 1.A major advantage of the partnership form of organization is that the partners have unlimited liability. 2.The partnership agreement between partners must be in writing. 3.If a partner invests noncash assets in a partnership, they should be recorded by the partnership at their fair market value. 4.Unless stated otherwise in the partnership contract, profits and losses are shared among the partners in the ratio of their capital equity balances. 5.The partners' drawing accounts are closed each period into the Income Summary account. 6.Salary allowances to partners are a major expense on most partnership income statements. 7.The financial statements of a partnership are similar to those of a proprietorship. 8.The function of the Partners' Capital Statement is to explain the changes in partners' capital account balances during a period. 9.The distribution of cash to partners in a partnership liquidation is always made based on the partners' income sharing ratio. 10.The admission of a new partner results in the legal dissolution of the existing partnership and the beginning of a new partnership. 11.If a new partner is admitted into a partnership by investment, the total assets and total capital will change. 12.If a new partner invests in a partnership at book value and acquires a 1/4 interest in total partnership capital, it indicates that a bonus was paid to the original partners. 13.A partnership is an association of no more than two persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit. 14.Once assets have been invested in the partnership, they are owned jointly by all partners. 15.In an admission of a partner by investment of assets, the total net assets and total capital of the partnership do not change.

Can I get a mortgage to buy my shared ownership flat outright? I own 60%, the housing association the other 40%. I bought the flat at a full market value of £150,000 in Feb 2007. Through my existing mortgage I have paid off about £13,000 of the £90,000 borrowed. I'm 3 years into a 5yr fixed rate deal with Santander. I'd like to buy the remaining 40% as my income has increased to £41k. The value of the flat is probably £145,000 to £150,000 so I'd need an extra mortgage of £58,000 to £60,000. The question is, can I get an additinal mortgage through lenders other than Santander? e.g. HSBC or somehwere else? Or do I have to have the two mortgages through the same lender? Would HSBC insist on having a 10% deposit even though I would have the deposit through another lender? I have about £5,000 I can put towards the purchase, e.g. £1,000 legal fees, £2,000 to give me an overall 10% deposit (£15k of say £150,000), and £2k for arrangement fees and survey. Any mortgage advisors out there?

When a levy is put on your property inside your house, and taken, does that satisfy the levy? What if the property they took does not equal the balance owed, do they come back for more property? And when they tell you they are going to have a sheriff sale with your property, and give you a date, does that mean they are going to bring all the people in the county over to your house and have a flea market? OR, does that mean the list of items will be posted on the board that day at that time down at the county courthouse? And, if I recently made a substantial payment (1,000 dollars towards the balance of 5,000 dollars) shouldn't they cancel the sheriff sale? I am a 59 year old woman living on disability, is there any legal help for me out there? (Poconos, PA). Should I expose the homeowners association and let the people know how shabby I'm being treated by the homeowners association?

Who really caused the sub-prime crises Democrats? The Subprime Debacle by Dr. Kuni Michael Beasley 30 Years in Gestation The Democrats are doing a lot to try to pin the subprime debacle on the Republicans and the Bush administration. However, there is a long tail to this problem that just happened to pop at this time. Now, for the rest of the story. Definitions first. Fannie Mae is the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), founded in 1938 as a publically traded government sponsored enterprise (GSE) that is stockholder owned that makes loans and issue loan guarantees. Its cousin is Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), founded in 1970 as another GSE created to expand the secondary market for mortgages. Freddie Mac buys individual mortgages on the secondary market, pooled them into packages, and sold them to investors on the open market. The secondary market packaged mortgages as collateral and issues securities called collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), to reduce the risk of individual loans. CMOs are a separate entity that is the actual legal owner of the mortgages it has in a "pool." CMOs sell bonds to investors based on the value of the mortgages. Investors receive payments based on the increased value of the loans in the pool. The collateral for the bonds are the actual mortgages. CDOs are a separate entity like CMOs, but are more focused on fixed income assets such as, but not limited to mortgages (and can include commercial mortgages and corporate loans). The focus is cash flow and slices (tranches) of these cash flows are sold to investors. The subprime mortgage crisis surfaced first in 2007, but it had been incubating for years, indeed, decades. Though roots can be traced back to the New Deal legislation in the 1930's, the current crisis actually draws its source from the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) [1977] during the Carter administration that forced banks to lend money to less credit worthy clients. Lending institutions were evaluated to determine if it met the "credit needs of the community" and this was factored into regulatory decisions of the federal government such as applications for facilities, mergers, and acquisitions. Interest in the CRA resurfaced in the Clinton administration when regulations in the CRA (which could be manipulated without any participation of congress) essentially forced institutions to offer loans to higher risk individuals and businesses. The term "Ninja" loans emerged describing high risk loans made to people with No Income, No Job, and no Assets, but completed a particular bank's portfolio sufficient to keep federal regulators off their backs. As access to easy money for high risk borrowers increased, certain institutions began to take advantage of these new opportunities to score fed points and make easy money. Name dropping here: Countrywide began to process, package, and offer investment instruments (CMOs) based on these loans. Revisions to the CRA by the Clinton administration allowed mortgage companies to offer loans without the relative reserve of deposits normally required of banks and other financial institutions. In addition, this allowed for securitization of sub prime mortgages based on the pooling and packaging of cash-flow producing assets into securities that could be sold to investors - with the asset value not tagged to actual value of the property, but to the value of the cash flow produced by the asset held (sounds weird). The first public securitization of CRA loans was started in 1997 by (familiar name) Bear Stearns! Now, let's understand sub-prime loans for a moment. A sub-prime loan is a mortgage offered at a deep discount on interest the first year or two so the borrower could qualify for a larger loan and more expensive house, betting that their economic profile would get better and they could afford large payments later. Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) are a form of this where the entry rate is low and rises based on certain criteria such as the rates for government securities. Simply put, lenders (not necessarily banks, but more often mortgage companies) offered low cost, low entry rate mortgages to people who would not normally qualify for that amount of debt. These loans were "warehoused" by financial institutions, where a financial institution like Merrill Lynch would set up a separate, but wholly owned mortgage company (First Franklin) to attract loans. Merrill Lynch would retain control of the loans as a "trustee" or "servicer," and derive benefits from fees for "managing" the loans and increase assets by keeping escrow deposits. In turn, these loans would be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (who were assumed to guarantee the loans), who, in turn, repackaged them for the secondary market. In 2003 the Bush administration tried to head-off what they saw as a potential crisis by moving the supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency

Should We Expect a Rise in Co-Op Based Personal Economics? The alternatives would seem to be trying to fix a broken system, that is on fire, and totally dysfunctional, and utterly unable to receive any information from outside it's broken self. or We can just do nothing and slide down the drain as the whole US economy and all US power in the world slides down the drain, so at least we didn't waste any effort trying to do anything to save ourselves .. or We could start building personal networks of Co-Op based economics. There are 1000 kinds of Co-Ops (food, clothing, toys, books, tools, fuel, vitamins, whatever). A sovereign individual who is in some way productive could join one or several co-operatives and make it a policy "I never buy anything from anybody that doesn't buy anything from me." These would all be considered restraints of trade, under the Sheman Act, the Clayton Act, the Robinson Patman Act etc, but with the government collapsing under its own weight and into it own corruption and filth, it is very unlikely that they will send a team of DOJ lawyers to your house to monitor and convict you of the crime of economic survival. Remember you have a right to a jury trial. The other folks on the jury might be doing the same thing or getting ready to. So, the sovereign individual, by necessity, operates maybe not so much in accordance with each and every rule that was popular in 1940. Necessity is often a legal excuse, and sometimes even a justification. Trading communes could link up, so many specialized communes can trade through hubs. This is on a members only basis. Membership is protected by freedom of association guarantees in the First Amendment, that's why some country clubs still get to pick and choose their members. Trading communes are like clubs not like public markets. They are more like intra-nets or LANs than they are like the Internet. To stay viable they need two things -- They need legacies -- fairly large ones -- help defray their very frugal but unavoidable administrative and legal expenses. There are tons of rich people in USA. Some believe in the sovereign inidividual concept. They want to see more of it, instead of a sluide into socialism and finally into anarchy. So legacies are a possibility. If PBS and NPR can get them, why not Economic Self-Reliance Communes? The other thing that's needed is exports. But not exports to China. Just to outside the Commune. Stuff has to be created within the commune and sold to outsiders for gold, or cash that is immediately converted into gold. This is called Merchantilism -- and it was the entire basis of the economic success of USA during the period 1787 till 1887. It does work. And the exporting is easy -- just take the stuff down the block, sell it at a farmer's market, sell it on Ebay, or Craig's list. It's exporting because it is merchantilist trading with an outside economic actor. Hard cash is needed even by sovereign individuals because they can't make their own patent pharmaceuticals. They have to trade with the world for that. They can't do their own surgical operations. They can't build their own computer chips. So, for some things there has to be disposable hard cash. That means the Commune must have a source -- Legacies and Exports. Three basic choices (1) fix an unfiaxable system (2) passively go down the drain with it or (3) unplug from it and start an alternative economics -- a new reality, when the old one won't do. In management this third option would be an example of the Blue Ocean Strategy, first made popular by the Boston Consulting Group. It's for smart people. So thank goodness for the First Amendment -- not every highway has to be a public highway. Networks of Trading Communes linked together by quality control, well designed goods, and free flow of information -- everybody in the system gives good weight -- liike Bob Dylan said -- when you live outside the law you MUST be honest. This does not bring down capitalism. It does not bring down socialism. It bypasses both with harm to neither. It's inherently convivial -- live and let live. Exercise your liberty or you don't merit its continuance!

Why are Most National Christian Leaders endorsing huge new increases in permanent work permits for? Why are Most National Christian Leaders endorsing huge new increases in permanent work permits for foreign workers ? believe the last significant-sized churches not on the amnesty bandwagon are the Southern Baptists, Mormons and Church of Christ (not the United Church of Christ). Otherwise, all the country's substantial Mainline Protestant, Catholic and Evangelical denominations are endorsing huge new increases in permanent work permits for foreign workers. (Read my blog on the National Association of Evangelicals' latest dive into the pro-amnesty coalition.) I believe the federal "U-6 Unemployment Rate" shows the injustice the church leaders are promoting -- the injustice of a society that continues to crush the spirits of our society's most vulnerable under the boot of federal immigration policies that favor unscrupulous business interests. Accepted by progressives and conservatives alike as the best measure of suffering, the U-6 Unemployment Rate for everybody in the U.S. had risen to nearly 17% by mid-summer! It counts not only those actively looking for a job but discouraged workers who have recently given up looking as well as people involuntarily forced into part-time work. (All percentages in this blog are from the June 2009 Current Population Survey by the federal government. It appears that most rates have worsened since then.) DENOMINATIONAL LEADERS PREFER ILLEGAL ALIENS OVER IMMIGRANTS ALREADY HERE Even though the church leaders constantly talk about being kinder to the immigrants already living among us, their constant push for more and more new foreign workers to compete is harming the existing community which has a U-6 Unemployment Rate of 20%. Legal immigrants already here are likely the group that would benefit most from opening up the jobs currently held by illegal aliens. In the world of denominational leaders, nobody has higher priority than the illegal aliens, not even legal immigrants. And as much as the church leaders want more legal foreign workers this year, they will work next year for another wave of foreign workers that will make it exceedingly difficult for this year's crop to economically improve. CHURCH LEADERS PREFER FOREIGN WORKERS OVER U.S. HIGH SCHOOL GRADS (all ages) The U-6 Unemployment rate for U.S.-born high school graduates without college is 19%. These are the Americans who predominate in the construction, service and manufacturing jobs that are most sought by immigrant workers. Our current level of immigration is keeping millions of people out of jobs. But denominational leaders are lobbying Congress for immigration policies that will throw even more out of work -- -- and prolong how long they will stay jobless even when the recession is over. The people in this high school graduate category who are hurt most by church leaders' lobbying are (with unemployment rate in parentheses): •U.S.-born Hispanics (23%) •Black Americans (26%) CHURCH LEADERS PREFER FOREIGN WORKERS OVER YOUNG LESS-EDUCATED AMERICANS The effect of church leaders' high-immigration advocacy is even worse for young adults trying to enter the labor market. These are the people most likely to be starting families. Hurting them means especially being just plain mean to young struggling families. The U-6 Unemployment Rate for U.S.-born high school graduates who are between 18 and 29 is an incredible 30%. Almost one of every three young adults with a high school degree who wants to work CAN"T FIND A FULL-TIME JOB! But the church bishops and presidents and executive directors want millions more permanent work permits for citizens of other countries -- including illegal aliens. The inability to get a job, to hold a job or to earn a decent wage and benefits contributes heavily to low marriage rates, high rates of children without fathers in the home, to the joining of gangs and to other criminal and dependency pathologies during these formative years. But our national church leaders ignore the mounting hardship of our young, non-college adults, lobbying for more foreign workers to compete in their occupations. The people in this high school graduate category who are hurt most by church leaders' lobbying are: •U.S.-born Hispanics (33%) •Black Americans (37%) CHURCH LEADERS PREFER FOREIGN WORKERS OVER AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS College-educated Americans in general tend to take rather judgmental view of our fellow citizens who did not finish high school. But it is sad to see our national church leaders so willingly dismiss the needs of high-school dropouts. If we had not been importing low-skilled foreign workers the last 30 years, there would be plenty of jobs for hard-working high school drop-outs to live lives of modest dignity. The denominational immigration stances do not take into account in any way their effect on by far the most vulnerable in our national community. The U-6 Unemployment rate for U.S.-b

What is this email telling me about Madden and what should I do? I'm probably not the only one who got it, but I don't understand lawyer talk so will someone dumb this down for me? From: EA Sports Litigation GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.) Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW If You Purchased Certain Electronic Arts Brand Football Video Games Between January 1, 2005 to the Present You May Be a Class Member. Membership as a class member in the Electronic Arts Litigation is the result of a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division (Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW). What Is This Class Action About? The class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's antitrust and consumer protection laws in connection with the sale of certain football video games. Plaintiffs, purchasers of Electronic Arts' football video games, claim that Defendant Electronic Arts entered into a series of exclusive licenses with the National Football League (NFL), National Football League Players' Association (NFLPA), National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), and Arena Football League (AFL), which Plaintiffs claim foreclosed competition in an alleged football video game market. Plaintiffs allege that this series of exclusive licenses caused customers who purchased certain football video games to be overcharged. Defendant Electronic Arts has denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct. The Court has not decided whether the Defendants did anything wrong, and this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party to this litigation. Who Are Class Members? The Class includes all persons who, during the period January 1, 2005 to the present, purchased the Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football League brand video games published by Electronic Arts with a release date of January 1, 2005 to the present. Excluded from the class are purchasers of software for mobile devices, persons purchasing directly from Electronic Arts, persons purchasing used copies of the relevant football video games, and Electronic Arts' employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies. What Should I Do? (Getting Further Information) If you believe that you may be a class member (see above "Who Are Class Members"), you should get more detailed information about the class action and its potential effect on you and your rights. Further information can be obtained by going to the following website: www.easportslitigation.com. Additional information about the lawsuit may be obtained from Plaintiffs' Counsel website at www.hbsslaw.com, or by calling Plaintiffs' Counsel at 1-206-623-7292. To Remain a Class Member If you are a class member and you do nothing, you will be bound by the court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final Settlement or Judgment. To Exclude Yourself from the Class (Deadline to Request Exclusion: June 25, 2011) If you are a class member and you want to exclude yourself from the class and keep your right to sue Defendant, you must take further action before June 25, 2011. By that date, you must request exclusion in writing to this address: Electronic Arts Litigation Exclusion P.O. Box 8090 San Rafael CA 94912-8090 Or submit a request for exclusion electronically at the following website: www.easportslitigation.com For further information about excluding yourself from the class go to the following website: www.easportslitigation.com Please do not telephone or address inquiries to the Court. April 6, 2011. By Order of the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.).

Isn't there a law that says a lien cannot be for items that are disputed and defective? The HOA has put a lien on my condo for items they forced me to change at my expense. I found the exact items the condo put in and their price and found that they put in the cheapest items on the market which are worth 1/10th of our original items. This was done to 4 condo owners only. The HOA & property manager went against 3 bylaws by doing this job as no vote was taken of a quorum, the items were not replaced with equal or better ones, and the association is not supposed to do anything to our condos that is not an emergency if it will cause the condo owners to have an assessment.and we had $1000 assessment. The property manager went against her word also as she wrote we would get $900 items & we would pay $450 for them. We received $200 items and we all got billed $450 each for them. You would think the PM, the board members involved, and the condo attorney were going to win a gold medal if they changed the items in our 4 condos. They used every excuse to have our items changed but the Dept. of Community Affairs got involved and found them to be wrong about the first 2 excuses. Then the condo attorney wrote to the DCA and lied in writing about the credentials of the expert who was supposed to be an engineer. That so called engineer never went to engineering school and was not an engineer.. Instead of the HOA helping to have the new items replaced with the proper ones according to our bylaws, the want to get away without doing anything and this happens easily when the PM and the HOA are together doing this conflict of interest job. Our condos are run down with the price lowered because of the cheap replacement items that lawyers made bylaws to protect the us from but our HOA & PM didn't follow any bylaws. The sad thing is that the items that didn't need to have replaced cost the association $40,000 and not the $20,000 that the contractor bid.. Because of the lien on my condo, I cannot use any of the amenities in our community and a great deal of our maintenance fee goes toward the pool, gym, clubhouse, & library. I am sure if you didn't live through what I have been put through you would never believe what has been done to me and my daughter. I questioned this PM about why she replaced a very good 10 year old sidewalk when I asked her to lift one stone that sunk in and water froze there. That question gave me my first fine after living here for 10 years. I was fined for burned out light bulbs twice and I still have that 10 yr. light bulb working today. Others here get warnings if their light bulb is burned out and I got 2 fines for good light bulbs.This PM gave me a fine for my dogs going out for 30 seconds in back of my condo because my door knob was rusted by the sprinkler hitting it. This PM makes nice doggie to other dogs here that are out without a leash but I get fined for 30 seconds. The same PM also gave me 2 fines because someone told her my dogs didn't have a leash on when they were out behind my condo. I don't believe this is even legal and the police do not fine people because others told them something...they have to catch the person doing it. Our condos are in worse condition today than before this job was done. People wanted to buy here because of the great quality items the builder used but now we have economy items that do not belong in our upscale condos. We didn't have any problems with the items that were replaced and we never complained to the HOA or PM about these items. One of the items changed was still under warranty for 9 more years. The property manager allowed the contractor to change the color on the outside of our condos so 4 of us are now a different color than the other 96 condos here. Because of the way the PM, the management company, & the board members involved handled this by lying to get it approved & many different excuses that were found to be untrue by the Dept. of Community Affairs, I believe this whole project was done for a conflict of interest. I believe any honest president of a board would not allow this to be done to 4 condo owners & make them pay $4,000 for cheap replacement items when our items were 10 times better. I am positive this lien was put on my condo to scare me into paying for it and just moving which could have been a lot easier; but I have a real passion about making this world better for our future generations and I believe there was a crime committed here to extort money by padding the bill and they needed to change those items for an excuse to pad the bill more.

Help me with these expenses and tax questions cuz i have no clue how to answer.? 2.Earl Entertains several of his clients on January 1 of the current year. Expenses are as follows: Cab Fare $50 Cover Charge at supper club $120 Dinner at club$420 Tips to waiter$ 100 a.$310 b.$345 c.$370 d.$430 e.None of the above 3.Iris, a calendar year cash basis taxpayer, owns and operates several TV rental outlets in Florida, and wants to expand to other states. During 2009, she spends $14,000 to investigate TV rental stores in South Carolina and $9,000 to investigate TV rental stores in Georgia. She acquires the South Carolina operations, but not the outlets in Georgia, As to these expenses, Iris should: a.Expense $23,000 for 2009 b.Capitalize $14,000 and not deduct $9,000 c.Expense $9,000 for 2009 and capitalize $14,000 d.Capitalize $23,000 e.None of the above 4.In 2010, rick had the following insured personal casualty losses ( all arising from one casualty). Rick aslo had $18,000 AGI for the year Fair Market Value Insurance Asset Adjusted BasisBefore AfterRecovery A$1,200$1,100 $300$100 B$3,000$2,000 -0- $500C$700 $900 -0- $200 Rick’s casualty loss deduction is: a.$400 b.$600 c.$800 d.$1000 E. $1,400 5.Which of the following items would be an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040 not subject to the 2%-of-AGI floor? a.Professional dues paid by an accountant (employed by Ford Motor Co.) to the National Association of Accountants. b.Gambling Losses to the extent of gambling winnings c.Job hunting costs d.Tax Return preparation fees e.None of the above 6.Phil is advised by his family physician that his dependent son, Tony, needs surgery for a benign tumor in his leg, Phil and his son travel to Rochester, Minnesota, for in-patient treatment at the Mayo Clinic, which specializes in this type of surgery. Phil incurred the following costs: -Round-trip airfare ($375 each)$750 -Phil’s hotel in Rochester for four nights ($105 per night)$420 -Phil’s meals while in Rochester$150 -Tony’s medical treatment$1,500 -Tony’s Presciption medicine$300 Compute Phil’s medical expenses for the trip 9 before the 7.5% floor) a.$2,525 b.$2,545 c.$2,825 d.$2,900 e.None of the above 7.A participant, who is age 38, in a cash or deferred arrangement plan [401k] may contribute up to what amount in 2009? a.$12,000 b.$15,500 c.$16,500 d.$20,500 e.None of the above 8.Which, if any, of the following expenses is subject to the 2%-of-AGI floor? a.Union dues of an employed machinist b.Moving expenses (not reimbursed by employer) c.Teaching supplies (up to 250) purchased by a fifth grade teacher d.Gambling losses ( to the extent of gambling gains) e.None of the above 9.Harry divorced Wanda during the year. He incurred the following legal expenses as itemized on the bill from his attorney -Fees related to property division$500 -Fees related to the determination of dependency exemption $150 -General legal fees incident to divorce$900 How much can Harry deduct? a.$0 b.$150 c.$650 d.$1,550 e.None of the above 10.Which of the following is not relevant in deciding whether an activity is profit-seeking of a hobby? a.The time and effort expended b.The expertise of the taxpayers or their advisers c.The history of income or losses from the activity d.The tax benefits of the activity to the taxpayer e.All of the above factors are to be considered 11.During the current year, Hugh, a self-employed individual, paid the following amounts: -Real estate Tax on Iowa Residence $3,800 -State income Tax$1,750 -Real estate taxes on land in Puerto Rico (held as an investment)$1,100 -Gift Tax paid on gift to daughter$1,200 -State Occupational license fee$300 -Property tax on value of his automobile (used 100% for business) $475 What is the Max amount Hugh can claim as taxes in itemizing deductions from AGI? a.$6,600 b.$6,650 c.$7,850 d.$8,625 e.None of the above 12.Trade and business expenses should be treated as: a.A Deduction from AGI subject to the 2%-of-AGI floor b.A deduction from AGI not subject to the 2%-of-AGI floor c.Deductible for AGI d.An itemized deduction if not reimbursed e.None of the above

EQUITY ISSUE QUESTION - PLEASE HELP!!!? Investment Bankers Association (IBA) has an agreement with Northern Airlines to underwrite an equity issue with a market value equal to $11 million. a) If IBA's underwriting fee is 5 percent and its out-of-pocket expenses associated with the issue are $125,000, what is the net amount hat IBA will receive under its agreement with Northern? b) Assuming that the information in part a does not change and Northern incurs out-of-pocket expenses equal to $240,000 for items such as printing, legal fees, and so on, what will be the net proceeds from the equity issue for Northern? Please show any work you can so I can learn from this, thank you!!! :)

General Psychology questions? I am having some problems with my General Psychology class i was given this as a study guide but she doesn't give any answers with it i just want to make sure i get all of them right so i dont go to take the test with the wrong information anything you can do to help me would be much appreciated Question1 Seeing the police car farther down the road, Ron thought it might be a speed trap and slowed down to the legal limit of 65. Ron's behavior clearly demonstrates Choose one answer. a. avoidance learning. b. escape learning. c. insight learning. d. observational learning. Question2 A slot machine is set to pay out on a pre-determined pattern of numbers of inputted quarters. Which type of reinforcement schedule is that? Choose one answer. a. Fixed-interval b. Fixed-ratio c. Variable-interval d. Variable-ratio Question3 Extinction erases the previously learned association from memory. Answer: true false Question 4 John passes the house where his first girlfriend used to live. When he was dating her, his heart would beat faster whenever he passed her house. But after she moved away and their relationship ended, he no longer experienced a fluttering heart when passing her house. John then also moved away, but had the opportunity to visit his old neighborhood on a return trip years later. He was surprised to find that his heart beat rapidly again as it once did. In classical conditioning terms, John was experiencing ________. correct Answer(s):_____________________________________________________________ Question 5 Positive reinforcement involves rewarding behavior that result in removal of unpleasant stimuli. Answer: true false Question 6 Tammy's cat only comes out of hiding when he smells his cat food. Tammy wants to teach her cat to pay attention and come to her whenever she claps her hands. At first, the cat ignores her clapping her hands. But for the following two weeks, she claps her hands just before setting out his cat food. Soon the clapping attracts the cat’s attention and she quickly comes out of hiding. What is the neutral stimulus at the beginning of the experiment? Choose one answer. a. the cat b. the cat food c. the clapping d. the cat coming out of hiding when he smells his food Question7 It would be easiest to extinguish a behavior that was rewarded on the basis of which of the following schedules? Choose one answer. a. a continuous reinforcement schedule b. a partial reinforcement schedule c. a variable-interval schedule d. a variable-ratio schedule Question8 Michael is in the market for a new car. He leafs through car magazines looking at various ads. One manufacturer always presents his cars next to voluptuous, scantily clad models. Michael has pleasurable sensations when he looks at the women. Soon Michael begins to have the same pleasurable sensations when he sees that particular car on the road. Michael has been classically conditioned by the ads. The car is the Choose one answer. a. conditioned response. b. conditioned stimulus. c. unconditioned response. d. unconditioned stimulus. Question9 Carol used praise effectively when she told her daughter, Choose one answer. a. “You’re the best daughter any mother could ask for.” b. “I’m so proud of you for being chosen to star in the class play.” c. “I love the way you studied hard for your spelling test. Maybe next time you could do even better than a B+.” d. “It was nice of you to try to help me carry that heavy grocery bag.” Question10 Miss Randolph, Ms. Owens and Mrs. Penn all teach in the same elementary school. Miss Randolph rewards her students with silver stars for good performance. Ms. Owens rewards her students with compliments when they perform well. Mrs. Penn rewards her students with pretzels. Which one(s), if any, of the teachers use(s) secondary reinforcement? Choose one answer. a. both Miss Randolph and Ms. Owens b. each one of them c. none of the three d. only Miss Randolph

Would you classify as a Democrat or a Republican? On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities On The War on Terrorism -Believes we must win the war on terror -Stay the course in Iraq -Believes that international terrorism continues to be a threat to America -Supports waterboarding, said "These people wern't worried about our rights when they were killing inncocent Americans." -Opposes the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay -Believes in spreading democracy around the world, the U.S. should act as a liberator of people living under opressive governments around the world On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues I know I dont have to pick a side but I do want an idea of who my views match with more Yes Sarah Palin is amazing I love her

Would you classify me as more Democrat or Republican? On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient -Staunchly opposes the President's socialized medicine plans On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities -Opposes teaching homosexuality to children before they begin sex ed, and we should have an opt-out policy for students and parents will moral objections On The War on Terrorism -Believes we must win the war on terror -Stay the course in Iraq -Believes that international terrorism continues to be a threat to America -Supports waterboarding, said "These people wern't worried about our rights when they were killing inncocent Americans." -Opposes the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay -Believes in spreading democracy around the world, the U.S. should act as a liberator of people living under opressive governments around the world On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues

For Obama supporters, read and tell me what you think? September 30, 2008 12:00 AM Guilty Party ACORN, Obama, and the mortgage mess. By Mona Charen The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and “direct action” that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn’t get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we’re in. ACORN does many things under the umbrella of “community organizing.” They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare workers (that is, those welfare recipients who are obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts (always for Democrats, of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren’t especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the “worst case of election fraud in our state’s history.” As Fox News reported: “The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms.” ACORN explained that this was an “isolated” incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado — all swing states, by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com.) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead. ACORN recognized very early the opportunity presented by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted “affirmative action” lending and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of “dragging banks kicking and screaming” into dubious loans. And, as Sol Stern reported in City Journal, ACORN also found a remunerative niche as an “advisor” to banks seeking regulatory approval. “Thus we have J.P. Morgan & Co., the legatee of the man who once symbolized for many all that was supposedly evil about American capitalism, suddenly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN.” Is this a great country or what? As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, “The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN.” ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler. Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non-credit-worthy borrowers could lead to. But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare “the party is over” for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass. If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire For Julie, I did bother to read it and McCain didn't receive any money from that and Keating went to jail. McCain admits it was wrong and is now a big reformer for doing the right thing. Obama is a part of this FM, and FM deal and you don't want to see the truth. Will the press admit that Obama is in the scandal, probably not because they are so stuck on him being "the Messiah" that they are wearing blinders.

Would you classify me as a Democrat or a Republican? On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities On The War on Terrorism -Believes we must win the war on terror -Stay the course in Iraq -Believes that international terrorism continues to be a threat to America -Supports waterboarding, said "These people wern't worried about our rights when they were killing inncocent Americans." -Opposes the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay -Believes in spreading democracy around the world, the U.S. should act as a liberator of people living under opressive governments around the world On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues What do u mean not an American? I'm a homphobe? Apparently you didn't read my civil rights policies? I voted McCain/Palin

LGBT: Do you like my political beliefs (R-California)? On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues To Andy: Welcome, fellow Log Cabin Republican! To Lovehigh: I believe in small government, low taxes, oppose infanticide, and expansion of individual liberties.

Would you say I'm a Democrat or a Republican? If you've already answered this question for me before then refrain from stating so I'm looking for new opinions. On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposes attempts to "spread the wealth around" -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities On The War on Terrorism -Believes we must win the war on terror -Stay the course in Iraq -Believes that international terrorism continues to be a threat to America -Supports waterboarding, said "These people wern't worried about our rights when they were killing inncocent Americans." -Opposes the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay -Believes in spreading democracy around the world, the U.S. should act as a liberator of people living under opressive governments around the world On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues 1 day ago - 3 days left to answer

what would you classify me as? 1 I believe marriage is between any loving couple 2 I believe the Free market is good but think it should be regulated to protect the interests of the Lower classes 3 I support price controls on all energy companies as I believe they cannot be trusted 4 I support Tariffs to protect local business 5 I believe Health care and Education is a Right and should not be treated as some sort of business 6 Immigration should be kept to a minimum and we should only allow in people that would be a benefit to our country 7 I believe all immigrants should Embrace our culture 8 I support trade Unions 9 I believe that we should show no mercy to those who try to harm our nation 10 I support the death penalty 11 i support harsh punishment as a deterrent against crime 12 I support a strong defence force 13 it wouldn't bother me one bit if the Military ran the nation as I believe that they are more trust worthy and would probably do a better job then most politicians 14 cannabis should be legal but only as a prescribed medicine 15 I believe that all that happens in a multiparty system is that the two main faction of the elite argue with each other and never really get anything done 16 and lastly I support freedom of speech,movement,association, the right to protest, freedom of dissent, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms ,freedom of expression,the right to a political contentious, the right to be a member of parliament, the right to vote and what ever other freedoms I forgot to ad I got Economic Left/Right: -6.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77

Do you know any Obama History before the Senate? Have you seen some of what he was doing before he was voted into the Senate? For educational purposes for non-believers: ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess By Mona Charen The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and "direct action" that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we're in. ACORN does many things under the umbrella of "community organizing." They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare workers (that is, those welfare recipients who are obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts (always for Democrats, of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history." As Fox News reported: "The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms." ACORN explained that this was an "isolated" incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado -- all swing states, by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See <file:///\\www.rottenacorn.com> www.rottenacorn.com .) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead. ACORN recognized very early the opportunity presented by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted "affirmative action" lending and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of "dragging banks kicking and screaming" into dubious loans. And, as Sol Stern reported in City Journal, ACORN also found a remunerative niche as an "advisor" to banks seeking regulatory approval. "Thus we have J.P. Morgan & Co., the legatee of the man who once symbolized for many all that was supposedly evil about American capitalism, suddenly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN." Is this a great country or what? As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, "The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN." ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff -- the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic -- he was an ACORN fellow traveler. Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non-credit-worthy borrowers could lead to. But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare "the party is over" for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass. If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire.

Can you believe that anyone would write a letter like this to the Speaker of the House? Ms. Nancy Pelosi Office of the Speaker H-232, US Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Dear Ms. Pelosi: I write to you out of utter disdain! You are as despicable and un-American as the traitor Jane Fonda. I am a soon to be 65 year-old who has voted in every state and local election since 1966. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats alike. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, white and black. I served the country that I love in Vietnam, as my son did in the Middle East. I was awarded two bronze stars. I have been involved in politics since age 6 when my father was campaign manager for a truly great American Congressman, Charles Raper Jonas, who worked for his constituents and his country, and was to be admired, unlike you. You obviously haven’t read the Constitution recently, if ever, the Federalist Papers, or even David McCullough’s book on John Adams. You ought to take the time while riding around in your government provided luxury executive jet to do just that. You represent Socialistic and even Marxist principals that our founding fathers tried to avoid when setting out the capitalistic republican form of government represented by our Constitution. I find it interesting that you and your husband are multi-millionaires with much of your fortune being made as a result of your “public service”. You have controlled legislation that has enhanced your husband’s investments both on and off shore. At the same time you redistributed the wealth of others. Our system of a free market economy is being destroyed by the likes of you, Harry Reid, and now our President. You ride around in a Gulfstream airplane at the tax payer’s expense while criticizing the presidents of companies who produced something for the economy. You add nothing to the economy of the United States; you only subtract therefrom. I would like to suggest that you return to the city of fruitcakes and nuts and eat your husband’s canned tuna and pineapple produced by illegal immigrants and by workers who have been excluded from the protection that 90% of the legal workers in the United States have. I await your defeat in the next election with glee. Don’t ever use the term “un-American” again for protesters who love this country and are exercising their rights upon which this country was founded. By the way, while I served in the Army, I was spit on by the same type of lunatics who support you and who you probably supported in the 60’s and 70’s. You are an embarrassment to all of us who served so that you would have the protected right of free speech to call us un-American. But at the same time, I have the right to write you to notify you that I consider you to be un-American, as do the majority of the people of this formerly great country. You are a true disgrace to most of the people who served this country by offering themselves for public service in the United States Congress. I feel certain your aides will not share this letter with you, but I intend to share it with many. Sincerely, Dennis L. Guthrie This is a legitimate Lawyer and his Law Firm. Check his web site at: www.gdhs.com/index.htm http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2324850/posts http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/guthrie.asp http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/guthrie-to-pelosi.htm Check his credentials. Then read his letter to Pelosi by clicking on snopes above! Born St. Louis , Missouri , August 21, 1944 Bar Admissions: North Carolina , 1969 U.S. District Court, Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of North Carolina , 1969 U.S. Tax Court Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Education: Woodford College , 1966 A.B. Mercer University , 1969 J.D. Phi Alpha Delta Vice-Justice, District XIV, 1968 - 1969 Professional Associations and Memberships: North Carolina and American Bar Associations (Member, Sections on: Administrative Law; General Practice; Litigation) 26th Judicial District and North Carolina State Bar Mecklenburg County Bar Association American Association of Justice North Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Captain, U.S. Army, 1969-1971, Vietnam National Defense Medal, 1969 Republic of Viet Nam Service Medal, 1970 Bronze Star Medals (2), 1971 Assistant District Attorney, Mecklenburg County , 1971 - 1974 Charlotte Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Board of Trustees Providence United Methodist Church Board of Directors, Alexander Children's Home Board of Directors, Charlotte Culinary Institute Wofford Alumni Executive Council Scoutmaster, Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors, Boy Scouts of America of Mecklenburg County Board of Directors, Girl Scout Council Life Member, National Eagle Scout Association Life Member, Girl Scouts of America

Would a paralegal answer a few questions for me for a paper I'm writing? I just need a few questions answered from a paralegal about your work environment and employer. This would really help me out and I would be forever grateful for any/all help. If you do not feel comfortable answering the questions on here, you can email me. Also, any questions you do not want to answer obviously that is okay. Thank you so much for any/all help!! I will do best answer for whoever helps the most! Questions: --Type of law office, bank, insurance company, corporation, etc. in which the paralegal is employed --Did the paralegal have any formal education, or was he/she trained on the job? --If the paralegal has a formal education, was it from a 2yr., 4yr., Certificate program? --Was the paralegal training program approved by the ABA? Does the paralegal feel that ABA approved programs are necessary? --Does the paralegal feel that his/her education prepared them for their first entry-level job? --How long has the paralegal been working in the profession? --Does the paralegal feel that his/her employer gives him/her enough responsibility? --Does the paralegal have his/her own office? --Is the paralegal treated with respect by his/her employer? --Does the paralegal have his/her own secretary? Does the paralegal share a secretary? --How computer literate is the paralegal? Does he/she utilize that knowledge? --Has the paralegal attended a trial with his/her employer? Was he/she permitted to sit at counsel table with the attorney supervisor. --How ethical does the paralegal think that his/her employer is? --What type of benefits does the paralegal receive? Health Insurance? Paid vacation? Life Insurance? Etc.??? --Does the paralegal receive compensation for overtime? --Does the paralegal feel that he/she should be compensated for overtime? --What is the salary range for paralegals in the market and specialty that the interviewee works in? (Some paralegals are reluctant to answer questions relating to pay and others are very open). --Does the paralegal have the freedom to come and go from the office without reporting to his/her supervisor? --Does the paralegal specialize in one particular area of law. --Does the paralegal know anything about National Paralegal Associations? --How does the paralegal feel about possible licensing of paralegals? --Does the paralegal do any pro-bono work for attorneys or other law-related organizations? If so, How much time is devoted (weekly, monthly or yearly)? --Does the paralegal participate in any continuing legal education courses? --Is the paralegal satisfied with her/his job? If they had the chance, would they choose paralegal as a career again??

Pharmacy *Law & Ethics* True or False Questions *Help*? 1)A prescription for 2 items that are the same drug but are in different forms will attract one prescription charge 2)A retail pharmacy business whose owner has died may be carried on by a representattive for a maximum period of 5 years 3)A dentist may prescribe any POMs on an NHS prescription 4] The 'appropriate date' on a prescription for a POM is the date on which the presciption is dispensed 5]A prescriber may indicate instalment dispensing on an FP10D 6]optometrists are regulated by the health professions council 7]The SLS lists products that might either be a food or cosmetic but that can be classed as a medicine for certain indications 8]Maximum dose of a medicinal product is the max quantity of that product to be taken in 24hrs daily 9]A POM register entry will be good pratice but not legally required for a private prescription for an oral contraceptive 10]The company chemists association represents the owners of all community pharmacies that are limited companies 11]A magistral product prepared in a pharmacy is exempt from the requirement to have a marketing authorization 12]before making an emergency supply of POM at the request of a patient the pharmacist must interview the patient in person 13]NHS prescriptions for liquid preparations attracts an additional containerallowance compared with a prescription for a product in tablet form 14]GSL for humans use may be sold from market stalls 15]The marketing authroziation number must appear on the label of a medicinal product that is packaged 16]pharmacists working as supplementary prescribers may prescribe any POM on NHS prescriptions 17]The drug tariff gives the most current info about the legal category of a medicinal product 18]Induction of anesthesia is a medicinal purpose as defined in the medicines act 1968 19]a general medical practitioner may sell or supply POM to a patient under their care 20]Before 1841 the pahrmaceutical society was known as the society of apothecaries 21]there is a definitive list of GSL medicine (BTW - what does 'definitive mean in pharmacy terms?') 22]a change of law by statuory instrument requires a positive vote in the house of commons 23]a patient with a private repeat prescription must return to the same pharmacy for repeat supplies as first supply 24]Provision of advice about counter medicine is an essential service under the pharmaceutical services regulations 2005 25] it is a legal requirement that the age of the patient is given on all prescriptions POMs Which statements are True & which is False?

Why do Australian ugg-boot companies allow an American company to proprietize this generic Australian name? Your Question Why do Australian ugg-boot companies allow an American company to proprietize this generic Australian name? For Americans that's like proprietizing "hot dog" or "hamburger" or "milkshake" or "apple pie" >>Uggly price for 'our' boots By JENNIFER MELOCCO, Style Writer Courtesy: Daily Telegraph, Sydney May 19, 2005 IF IT wasn't enough that a US footwear giant stopped Australian producers using the name "ugg'', now it is charging hundreds of dollars for the humble boots. Deckers Corporation has made a major step to take out the local ugg boot market. The company, which took legal action against local firms, is selling its boots for $240 in Sydney. "We have had them [ugg boots] in Australia for over 100 years, but they haven't been very fashionable to wear,'' Ugg Australia brand manager Paul Karis said yesterday. The move to bring the US boots on to Australian turf has angered local producers. Blue Mountains ugg boot producer Brian Iverson, who was affected by the Ugg ban, believes the original Aussie product can stand up to the US competition. "They may charge roughly double the price as us, but we still use quality Australian sheepskin,'' Mr Iverson said. "It just depends if you want to buy a Commodore or a Rolls-Royce - in the end they both do the same job.'' The Westhaven Association at Dubbo was another company forced by Deckers to stop using the term "ugg''. It has been producing boots for 30 years, but had to change its name from the Westhaven Ugg Boot Shop to the Westhaven Sheepskin Warehouse. General manager Gordon Tindall called on buyers to support Australian companies. "People are astounded how an Aussie icon can be taken over,'' he said. "It's up to local buyers if they want to deal with an Australian company or a multinational.'' Stephanie Mortel, of the Maitland-based Mortel Sheepskin Factory, said her family company was forced to stop using the term "ugg'' on eBay. Local producers claim "ugg'' is a generic term and never should have been sold off to the US company. << Footnote to the above story: All ugg boots sold by Uggs Down Under are genuine Australian made uggs and we have no connection with the US owned and based company, 'Ugg Australia'.<<

SmokerSurveys.com claims "By participating in our Promotion, $100 Visa® Gift Card will be yours to keep."? Is this a scam or not?! If it is, how is this even legal? How do sites likes these get away with it? I don't understand... How can they get away with LIES?! It's disgusting, brainless, dull, and pathetic. I always get e-mails "Take our National Tobacco Survey get $100 just for voting!; Vote for better brand..." So bored I was, I took it... And I'm questioning it. After "voting" it said "THANK YOU! By participating in our Promotion, the $100 Visa® Gift Card will be yours to keep" and the policy junk at the bottom: "SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. To receive the reward you must: 1) be a U.S. resident at least 18 years of age or older; 2) Register with valid information; 3) Complete the user survey; 4) Complete at least .1 Silver, 1 Gold, and 2 Platinum offers (Available reward offers will vary. Some reward offers require a purchase. Credit card offers may require you to activate the card by making a purchase, transferring a balance or taking a cash advance. Click on the following links to go directly to the reward offer pages: Silver, Gold, Platinum); 5) Follow the redemption instructions. All program requirements must be completed within 120 days of the date of registration. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery. Limit of one (1) gift per household. No cash redemption value. Please read the Terms and Conditions for complete program details. Your information will be shared with our marketing partners. Please read the Privacy Policy for more details. SmokerSurveys is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Visa Inc. or any other merchant listed above. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners, who have no association with or make any endorsement of the products or services provided by SmokerSurveys." Thanks in advance!

Would you classify me as a Democrat or a Republican? On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities On The War on Terrorism -Believes we must win the war on terror -Stay the course in Iraq -Believes that international terrorism continues to be a threat to America -Supports waterboarding, said "These people wern't worried about our rights when they were killing inncocent Americans." -Opposes the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay -Believes in spreading democracy around the world, the U.S. should act as a liberator of people living under opressive governments around the world On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues

Would you classify me as a Democrat or a Republican? IF YOU ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION FOR ME B4 I DONT NEED YOUR IGNORANT COMMENTS NEW PEOPLE ONLY On Abortion -Supports overturning Roe v. Wade -Opposes all abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving an minor girl, or when delivering the child would endanger the life of the mother -Voted Yes on Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor could have an abortion -Rated 98% by The National Right to Life Commitee and 2% by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Pro-Life stance On Economics -Supports the free market capitalist system -Oppose over-regulation of business -Supports lowering taxes for all income brackets -Supports a flat income tax rate -Opposes tax and spend methods -Opposes the California raise on the sales tax rate -Opposes President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan -Opposed welfare without an incentive to get an education and find work, but other wise supports it for those who qualify and show initiative to become self-sufficient On Education -Supports the use of school vouchers -Supports teaching abstinecnce alongside other contraceptive methods -Supports teaching intelligent design alongside evolution -Supports optional prayer in schools -Supports imcreasing funding for private school vouchers and federal and state financial aid for post-secondary eduaction -Supports the right to home school -Supports funding for charter schools and magnet schools -Supports aid to private schools even religous schools if the public funds are used for secular purposes only -Supporst aiding students with disabilities On The War on Terrorism -Believes we must win the war on terror -Stay the course in Iraq -Believes that international terrorism continues to be a threat to America -Supports waterboarding, said "These people wern't worried about our rights when they were killing inncocent Americans." -Opposes the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay -Believes in spreading democracy around the world, the U.S. should act as a liberator of people living under opressive governments around the world On Crime -Opposed legalization of marijuana, but advoates reform in how drug laws are enforced -Supports rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders -Supports the use of the death penalty but only in 1st degree murder cases -Opposes hate crime legislation -Opposes police racial profiling and misconduct, but supports the actions of fair peace officers who serve their community -Voted Yes on Proposition 5 (2008) which would have expanded treatment programs for non-violent drug offenders -Voted Yes on Proposition 6 (2008) which would have cracked down harder on gang violence On Civil Liberties and Rights -Rated 97% by the National Rifle Association, a Pro-Gun stance -Supports same-sex marriage rights -Supports including LGBT Americans in anti-discrimination laws -Voted No on Proposition 8 (2008) which would have retained the right of same-sex couples to marry in California if the measure had failed -Opposes the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -Opposes affirmative action -Said he opposes judges who "legislate from the bench" -Opposes legislation that limits a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendmet right to purchase and own a firearm -Opposes hate crime legislation -Supports equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender -Supports extending insurance healthcare benefits to same-sex couples who are married where it is legal and/or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership -Supports gay adoption, but gives preference to married heterosexual couples -Considers himself a populist, opposes "elitism" -Rated 78% by the ACLU, a mostly Pro-Civil Rights stance -Most points off from the ACLU rating were due to his Pro-Life stance and opposition to judicial activism, most positive points were due to his Pro-Gay stance on most issues

Why are Republicans leading in the POLES? on MISLEADING TV ADDS AND LIES? MISLEADING Camapaign Funders The Worst Tea Party Express = Conservative, Sal Russo, Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee, Ross Perot Jr., Joe Miller, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle violated campaign finance laws coordinating with O’Donnell accepting contributions from the Tea Party Express in excess of legal limits U.S. Chamber of Commerce = Conservative, Thomas J. Donohue, Pfizer, AEGON Insurance, CVS/Caremark, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club and Foreign Chinse and Indian Corp contibutions of $650 million for lobbying & TV adds, skirting campaign finance laws with 160 U.S. Corp tax cuts based overseas Republican 60 Plus Association = Conservative/Republican,James L. Martin, a "front" for big pharmaceutical companies. American Action Network = GOP/Right-center,Rob Collins,Eric Cantor,New York bankers,Home Depot, Jeb Bush, American Crossroads = GOP/Conservative, Mike Duncan,Public Storage, Chief Oil and Gas, Swift Boat Veterans, Omni Hotels, Gold’s Gym American Future Fund = Sandra Greiner, Mitt Romney, Hawkeye ethanol Energy, Nick Ryan Rastetter Foundation Americans for Job Security = Free-market/Republican,Stephen DeMaura, Scott Brown, Blanche Lincoln, tea party Ken Buck, violated federal election law failing to register TV spots Americans for Prosperity = GOP/Conservative, David H. Koch, Cato Institute, Tim Phillips, Georgia-Pacific, Quilted Northern,Brawny,Angel Soft,Sparkle,Vanity Fair,Lotus,Mardi Gras, abused tax-deductible status with radio and TV ads Senate races Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity = Republican, lawyers,lobbyist, CHGO William B. Canfield, Democratic Walt Minnick, failing to file public reports Committee for Truth in Politics = Republican, James Bopp, the Supreme Court to overturn restrictions on corporate and union funding, TV ads falsley attacking Obama, bank bailouts, abortion, convicted sexual abusers, cap-and-trade, jobs overseas MN Forward = Republican, Target Corp, same-sex marriages Public Notice = Republican, Gretchen Hamel, Sen Tom Coburn and John McCain, Kantar Media, false Tv adds of stimulus package not creating jobs. Revere America = Republican, George Pataki, Insurance Corp, repealing Obamacare Super PAC for America = Dick Morris, Fox News Democrat AFL-CIO = Democratic/Liberal, a voluntary federation of 56 labor unions Alliance for a Better Minnesota = Tom Emme, funded primarily by labor unions AFSCME = Municipal Employees = Liberal, Larry Scanlon Americans United for Change = Democratic/Liberal,MoveOn.org,Teamsters, Tom McMahon,Nancy Pelosi MoveOn.org = Liberal, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, Huffington Post, George Soros SEIU Service Employees Union = Jon Youngdahl http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/whoppers-of-campaign-2010/ Stripper Poles

If elected leader may not be scrutinised for eligibility for leadership & found ineligible must be removed:ok? 5.28.2009 los angeles ,USA : law may hound_be honest Member since: May 28, 2009 Total points: 93 (Level 1) Add to My Contacts Block User Open Question Show me another » A member of we the people may turn popular & national leader, but the person is subject to laws for violation? Re: 5.28. 2009 :world news for democracies are in peril, i e including U S A mr BH OBAMA's BIRTH RECORDS were DEFECTIVE ,ALLEGED THE REV DR KAMAL KARN ROY US PRES CANDIDATE& HOPEFUL YET@ 5 28 09? 5.28 .2009 LONDON U K: The rev dr kamal karna k roy moved the u s d court in e d of pennsyvania at 601 market st , Philadelphia pa 19106 & at u s d court for northern district of new york, albany, n y 12207 for a declaratory judgements at thje judicial districts in usa , for prorata damages for democratic violations resulting in damages to dr kamal roy & his associations out source u sa & in usa , pursuant to u s constitution and other statutes of usa ; & to order to void appointment of Mr b h obama in the district jurisdiction of law ,as u s president wef 1.20. 2009 and as except obama all resigned except dr roy, the hope of being u s president wef 1.20 2009, the rev roy filed 229+ civil actions to void election of obama as he was no us born citizen or that he he never produced his authentic and duly & timely recorded birth records & he went on claiming citizenship of Indonesia when dual citizenships were not permitted by laws of usa & Indonesia; That the president us if obama had had lost his right to be u s citizen, if any and ineligible t be president usa ; Prayers, misc was made to court including prayer to remove him from Presidency , usa, and declare the rev roy, he later. the only eligible candidate left to be u s president & he may be sworn in as president and/or he be paid lost wages for 4 yrs wef 1.20. 2009 as us president for lost opportunity and wages. Misc other reliefs were demanded in petition file on 5.26.2009 the prayer also included for court ordered suggestion to u s attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to civil and criminal investigations on obama citizenhip at birth and how he maintained u s citizenship without break and aquiring u s citizenship again without official grant of recorded permissions of U S A, so obama lost his u s citizenship if earlier acquired by him, but he was not.::::: why mr b h obama ignored public grievances in usa & that of the rev dr kamal k k roy a legal candidate: nov 4 2008 election of u s president nov 4, 2008 election ignored 228+ election petitions for obama's violations at election to hijack u s presidency , court petitions and trial for truth on obma may continue beyond modern history ground obama election should be voided , though a pwerful section of u s govt, u s judiciary, some public of we the people were legally or illegally or as a choice were trying truth of obama birth & itizenship @ birth on mother earth alike hindu black god viz KRISHNA who never tried to resolve issue of his birth in a jai house of epic era of mahabharata, & krishna so far in centuries, to his followers, but obama a krishna equivalent of human god may fail to hide his birth datas and citizenship with african citizen fatherplus us mom of 18 yrs , and facts do not make us citizen ship automatic for Obama b h, what dr roy told public and govt of usa, many times. Battle in court in usa & i c j at hague by warrior dr roy continued, see below: & misc issues ::FROM DESK OF THE REV HON'BLE PAROMITA ROY BAIDYA, SRATEGIST::MUMBAI , INDIA & AS DT IN new york city, USA :: kOLKATA, India:: ET AL:::::visit web pages with search words viz"kamal karna roy" et al Flag this message5.28. 2009 : BH OBAMA BIRTH RECORDS DEFECTIVE ALLEGED THE REV DR KAMAL KARN ROY US PRES CANDIDATE& HOPEFUL YET@ 5 28 09? 5.28 .2009 LONDON U K: The rev dr kamal karna k roy moved the u s d court in e d of pennsyvania at 601 market st , Philadelphia pa 19106 & at u s d court for northern district of new york, albany, n y 12207 for a declaratory judgements at thje judicial districts in usa , for prorata damages for democratic violations resulting in damages to dr kamal roy & his associations out source u sa & in usa , pursuant to u s constitution and other statutes of usa ; & to order to void appointment of Mr b h obama in the district jurisdiction of law ,as u s president wef 1.20. 2009 and as except obama all resigned except dr roy, the hope of being u s president wef 1.20 2009, the rev roy filed 229+ civil actions to void election of obama as he was no us born citizen or that he he never produced his authentic and duly & timely recorded birth records & he went on claiming citizenship of Indonesia when dual citizenships were not permitted by laws of usa & Indonesia; That the president us if obama had had lost his right to be u s citizen, if any and ineligible t be president usa ; Prayers, misc was made to court including prayer to remove him from Presidency , usa, and declare the rev roy,

you may not blindfold everybody not to see events,wrong,there R ways: act & protest against powerful/even god? iyaresThai Astrological Calculator Contact Us Home Books Blogs News Questions Video Links Home > Questions > kamal karna roy Open Question: world news @ democracy those u s news media & conglomerates of powerfulsUS may love void, weaker people read? London U K : 5.29. 2009 & all empire of cyberspace around Globe: --- On Thu, 5/28/09, vishwa dharma wrote: From: vishwa dharma Subject: Re: 5.29. 2009: kolkata, india: as dt in other parts of globe including usa and cyberspace of internet system ,::Democratic world news for democracies are in peril, i e including U S A mr BH OBAMA's BIRTH RECORDS were DEFECTIVE ,ALLEGED THE REV DR KAMAL KARN ROY US PRES CANDIDATE& HOPEFUL YET@ 5 28 09? 5.28 .2009 LONDON U K: The rev dr kamal karna k roy moved the u s d court in e d of pennsyvania at 601 market st , Philadelphia pa 19106 & at u s d court for northern district of new york, albany, n y 12207 for a declaratory judgements at thje judicial districts in usa , for prorata damages for democratic violations resulting in damages to dr kamal roy & his associations out source u sa & in usa , pursuant to u s constitution and other statutes of usa ; & to order to void appointment of Mr b h obama in the district jurisdiction of law ,as u s president wef 1.20. 2009 and as except obama all resigned except dr roy, the hope of being u s president wef 1.20 2009, the rev roy filed 229+ civil actions to void election of obama as he was no us born citizen or that he he never produced his authentic and duly & timely recorded birth records & he went on claiming citizenship of Indonesia when dual citizenships were not permitted by laws of usa & Indonesia; That the president us if obama had had lost his right to be u s citizen, if any and ineligible t be president usa ; Prayers, misc was made to court including prayer to remove him from Presidency , usa, and declare the rev roy, he later. the only eligible candidate left to be u s president & he may be sworn in as president and/or he be paid lost wages for 4 yrs wef 1.20. 2009 as us president for lost opportunity and wages. Misc other reliefs were demanded in petition file on 5.26.2009 the prayer also included for court ordered suggestion to u s attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to civil and criminal investigations on obama citizenhip at birth and how he maintained u s citizenship without break and aquiring u s citizenship again without official grant of recorded permissions of U S A, so obama lost his u s citizenship if earlier acquired by him, but he was not.::::: why mr b h obama ignored public grievances in usa & that of the rev dr kamal k k roy a legal candidate: nov 4 2008 election of u s president nov 4, 2008 election ignored 228+ election petitions for obama's violations at election to hijack u s presidency , court petitions and trial for truth on obma may continue beyond modern history ground obama election should be voided , though a pwerful section of u s govt, u s judiciary, some public of we the people were legally or illegally or as a choice were trying truth of obama birth & itizenship @ birth on mother earth alike hindu black god viz KRISHNA who never tried to resolve issue of his birth in a jai house of epic era of mahabharata, & krishna so far in centuries, to his followers, but obama a krishna equivalent of human god may fail to hide his birth datas and citizenship with african citizen fatherplus us mom of 18 yrs , and facts do not make us citizen ship automatic for Obama b h, what dr roy told public and govt of usa, many times. Battle in court in usa & i c j at hague by warrior dr roy continued, see below: & misc issues ::FROM DESK OF THE REV HON'BLE PAROMITA ROY BAIDYA, SRATEGIST::MUMBAI , INDIA & AS DT IN new york city, USA :: kOLKATA, India:: ET AL:::::visit web pages with search words viz"kamal karna roy" et al To: Htownsupv@harrietstown.org, maryann.kiera@hud.gov, besttown@saranaclake.com, askdoj@usdoj.gov, premansudroy@ymail.com, ckonieczko@ap.org, adenews@adirondackguide.com, cad@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in, cad@nda.vsnl.net.in, news@pressrepublican.com, letters@time.com, letters@washpost.com, cm@mp.gov.in, cm@mp.nic.in, communitynews@tvasia.com, lokmat@sansad.nic.in, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, "gargi lahiri" , "Dhurjatiprasad Lahiri" , letters@asianage.com, "mousumi majumder" , makhanlalghosh@ymail.com, mbesl@adephia.net, "mita_das mita" , national@nytimes.com, news-tips@nytimes.com, news@aajkal.net, news@afp.com, news@nashuatelegraph.com, opinion@japantimes.jp, pdrir@cag.delhi.nic.in, president@thewhitehouse.gov, president@whitehouse.gov, aanand@hindustantimes.com, abpadmn@abpmail.com, angeline.toh@reuters.com, bnews-tips@nytimes.com, cp@kolkatapolice.org, hhaoffice@adelphia.net, isnyder@harrietstownha.org, avene.ofarrel@reuters.com, dheath@pressrepublican.com, dhurjo@indiatimes.com, prdas01@gmail.com, editor@expressindia.com, editor@timesofindia.com, email@aljazeera.com, editorial@nytimes.com, coa@courts.state.ny.us, court@saranaclakeny.gov, ma

a member of we the people may turn popular & national leader, but the person is subject to laws for violation? Flag this message5.28. 2009 : BH OBAMA BIRTH RECORDS DEFECTIVE ALLEGED THE REV DR KAMAL KARN ROY US PRES CANDIDATE& HOPEFUL YET@ 5 28 09? 5.28 .2009 LONDON U K: The rev dr kamal karna k roy moved the u s d court in e d of pennsyvania at 601 market st , Philadelphia pa 19106 & at u s d court for northern district of new york, albany, n y 12207 for a declaratory judgements at thje judicial districts in usa , for prorata damages for democratic violations resulting in damages to dr kamal roy & his associations out source u sa & in usa , pursuant to u s constitution and other statutes of usa ; & to order to void appointment of Mr b h obama in the district jurisdiction of law ,as u s president wef 1.20. 2009 and as except obama all resigned except dr roy, the hope of being u s president wef 1.20 2009, the rev roy filed 229+ civil actions to void election of obama as he was no us born citizen or that he he never produced his authentic and duly & timely recorded birth records & he went on claiming citizenship of Indonesia when dual citizenships were not permitted by laws of usa & Indonesia; That the president us if obama had had lost his right to be u s citizen, if any and ineligible t be president usa ; Prayers, misc was made to court including prayer to remove him from Presidency , usa, and declare the rev roy, he later. the only eligible candidate left to be u s president & he may be sworn in as president and/or he be paid lost wages for 4 yrs wef 1.20. 2009 as us president for lost opportunity and wages. Misc other reliefs were demanded in petition file on 5.26.2009 the prayer also included for court ordered suggestion to u s attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to civil and criminal investigations on obama citizenhip at birth and how he maintained u s citizenship without break and aquiring u s citizenship again without official grant of recorded permissions of U S A, so obama lost his u s citizenship if earlier acquired by him, but he was not.::::: why mr b h obama ignored public grievances in usa & that of the rev dr kamal k k roy a legal candidate: nov 4 2008 election of u s president nov 4, 2008 election ignored 228+ election petitions for obama's violations at election to hijack u s presidency , court petitions and trial for truth on obma may continue beyond modern history ground obama election should be voided , though a pwerful section of u s govt, u s judiciary, some public of we the people were legally or illegally or as a choice were trying truth of obama birth & itizenship @ birth on mother earth alike hindu black god viz KRISHNA who never tried to resolve issue of his birth in a jai house of epic era of mahabharata, & krishna so far in centuries, to his followers, but obama a krishna equivalent of human god may fail to hide his birth datas and citizenship with african citizen fatherplus us mom of 18 yrs , and facts do not make us citizen ship automatic for Obama b h, what dr roy told public and govt of usa, many times. Battle in court in usa & i c j at hague by warrior dr roy continued, see below: & misc issues ::FROM DESK OF THE REV HON'BLE PAROMITA ROY BAIDYA, SRATEGIST::MUMBAI , INDIA & AS DT IN new york city, USA :: kOLKATA, India:: ET AL:::::visit web pages with search words viz"kamal karna roy" et alThursday, May 28, 2009 1:06 AM

world news @ democracy those u s news media & conglomerates of powerfulsUS may love void, weaker people read? London U K : 5.29. 2009 & all empire of cyberspace around Globe: --- On Thu, 5/28/09, vishwa dharma <vishwa_dh@yahoo.com> wrote: From: vishwa dharma <vishwa_dh@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 5.29. 2009: kolkata, india: as dt in other parts of globe including usa and cyberspace of internet system ,::Democratic world news for democracies are in peril, i e including U S A mr BH OBAMA's BIRTH RECORDS were DEFECTIVE ,ALLEGED THE REV DR KAMAL KARN ROY US PRES CANDIDATE& HOPEFUL YET@ 5 28 09? 5.28 .2009 LONDON U K: The rev dr kamal karna k roy moved the u s d court in e d of pennsyvania at 601 market st , Philadelphia pa 19106 & at u s d court for northern district of new york, albany, n y 12207 for a declaratory judgements at thje judicial districts in usa , for prorata damages for democratic violations resulting in damages to dr kamal roy & his associations out source u sa & in usa , pursuant to u s constitution and other statutes of usa ; & to order to void appointment of Mr b h obama in the district jurisdiction of law ,as u s president wef 1.20. 2009 and as except obama all resigned except dr roy, the hope of being u s president wef 1.20 2009, the rev roy filed 229+ civil actions to void election of obama as he was no us born citizen or that he he never produced his authentic and duly & timely recorded birth records & he went on claiming citizenship of Indonesia when dual citizenships were not permitted by laws of usa & Indonesia; That the president us if obama had had lost his right to be u s citizen, if any and ineligible t be president usa ; Prayers, misc was made to court including prayer to remove him from Presidency , usa, and declare the rev roy, he later. the only eligible candidate left to be u s president & he may be sworn in as president and/or he be paid lost wages for 4 yrs wef 1.20. 2009 as us president for lost opportunity and wages. Misc other reliefs were demanded in petition file on 5.26.2009 the prayer also included for court ordered suggestion to u s attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to civil and criminal investigations on obama citizenhip at birth and how he maintained u s citizenship without break and aquiring u s citizenship again without official grant of recorded permissions of U S A, so obama lost his u s citizenship if earlier acquired by him, but he was not.::::: why mr b h obama ignored public grievances in usa & that of the rev dr kamal k k roy a legal candidate: nov 4 2008 election of u s president nov 4, 2008 election ignored 228+ election petitions for obama's violations at election to hijack u s presidency , court petitions and trial for truth on obma may continue beyond modern history ground obama election should be voided , though a pwerful section of u s govt, u s judiciary, some public of we the people were legally or illegally or as a choice were trying truth of obama birth & itizenship @ birth on mother earth alike hindu black god viz KRISHNA who never tried to resolve issue of his birth in a jai house of epic era of mahabharata, & krishna so far in centuries, to his followers, but obama a krishna equivalent of human god may fail to hide his birth datas and citizenship with african citizen fatherplus us mom of 18 yrs , and facts do not make us citizen ship automatic for Obama b h, what dr roy told public and govt of usa, many times. Battle in court in usa & i c j at hague by warrior dr roy continued, see below: & misc issues ::FROM DESK OF THE REV HON'BLE PAROMITA ROY BAIDYA, SRATEGIST::MUMBAI , INDIA & AS DT IN new york city, USA :: kOLKATA, India:: ET AL:::::visit web pages with search words viz"kamal karna roy" et al To: Htownsupv@harrietstown.org, maryann.kiera@hud.gov, besttown@saranaclake.com, askdoj@usdoj.gov, premansudroy@ymail.com, ckonieczko@ap.org, adenews@adirondackguide.com, cad@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in, cad@nda.vsnl.net.in, news@pressrepublican.com, letters@time.com, letters@washpost.com, cm@mp.gov.in, cm@mp.nic.in, communitynews@tvasia.com, lokmat@sansad.nic.in, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, "gargi lahiri" <gargi6819lahiri@yahoo.com>, "Dhurjatiprasad Lahiri" <dhurjati97@rediffmail.com>, letters@asianage.com, "mousumi majumder" <mousumi.mjmdr@gmail.com>, makhanlalghosh@ymail.com, mbesl@adephia.net, "mita_das mita" <mita_das15@yahoo.com>, national@nytimes.com, news-tips@nytimes.com, news@aajkal.net, news@afp.com, news@nashuatelegraph.com, opinion@japantimes.jp, pdrir@cag.delhi.nic.in, president@thewhitehouse.gov, president@whitehouse.gov, aanand@hindustantimes.com, abpadmn@abpmail.com, angeline.toh@reuters.com, bnews-tips@nytimes.com, cp@kolkatapolice.org, hhaoffice@adelphia.net, isnyder@harrietstownha.org, avene.ofarrel@reuters.com, dheath@pressrepublican.com, dhurjo@indiatimes.com, prdas01@gmail.com, editor@expressindia.com, editor@timesofindia.com, email@aljazeera.com, editorial@nytimes.com, coa@courts.state.ny.us, court@saranaclakeny.gov, mayor@saranaclakeny.gov, manager@saranaclakeny.gov, meetthetown@yahoo.com, newyork@unesco.org, parna_04@

Why do people think drugs should be illegal...? Because of the crime associated with them (excluding morality and health issues)? As I see it, the black market was created by the government when it chose to ban instead of regulate recreational drugs. The crime associated with it would then be a derivative of that decision, and easily thwarted with goverment regulation (you don't see bootleggers running around anymore, do you?). Many people also say that it's because people are on drugs they commit crimes, but alcohol has been present in just about every crime ever committed, but it is still legal (never mind caffiene or sugar). Why the gap in the drug/crime association?

how airbus gain in market share affect the legitimacy of claims for subsidies? in december 2003, Boeing announced it would go ahead with the development of its latest commercial jetliner, the 7E7, which Boeing will position against Airbus's popular A330 aircraft. The "E" in the Boeing 7E7 stands for 'efficient.' By making extensive use of new composite and engine technology, Boeing hopes to reduce the aircraft's operating costs by as much as 20 percent compared to a traditional design. If it is successful, this will make the plane a potent competitor against the best-selling A330. however, the 7E7, now renamed the 787, is a risky project for Boeing. The aircraft will cost about $7 billion to develop, according to industry estimates, and demand is uncertain. To share the costs and risks of development Boeing has taken on several partners who will help to design and build the 787. Most important among these are a trio of three Japanese companies, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and Fuji Heavy Industries. Collectively, these three companies will probably build as much as 35 percent of the 787 by value, including parts of the fuselage, wings, and landing gear. They will ship the finished components to everett, Washington, for final assembly. These three companies are longtime Boeing partners. They contributed about 21 percent by value to Boeing's last new jetliner, the Boeing 777. Although there has been a long history of development subsidies in the commercial aerospace industry, a 1992 agreement between Boeing and Airbus limits the state aid either company can get from their respective governments. Airbus, now a private company, is limited to repayable launch aid that must not exceed one-third of the development costs of a new aircraft. The launch aid has to be repaid only if aircraft sales are high enough for Airbus to turn a profit on the investment in a new plane. As for Boeing, indirect aid from U.S. government agencies such as R&D contracts from the Pentagon and NASA are capped at 4 percent of its total revenues. It is unclear if the 1992 agreement extends to other parties in the projects. The Japenese Aircraft Development Corporation, an association of Japanese aircraft makers, has asked the Japanese government for help with the 787 project. The country's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has submitted a budget request that would make the 787 a "national project. Newspaper reports put the request at about $1.5 billion. Upon hearing this, Airbus officials were quick to claim that the arrangement could violate several international agreements, including a 1994 WTO prohibition against subsidies that can harm competitors. Behind the scenes, Airbus executives started to urge the European Union to look at the issue and possibly file a case on their behalf. They also noted that Boeing received aid from the states of Washington and Kansas, where its factories are located, and that also constitutes an unfair subsidy that was outside the scope of the 1992 agreement. In mid-2004, the issue became even more contentious when the u.s. government demanded an end to airbus's launch aid. airbus had already been granted lans of 3.7 billion to develop its latest aircraft, the A380 super-jumbo, but what really got attention in america were signs from airbus that it would also build a direct competitor to the 787, the A350, and ask for launch aid to help cover the development costs of that plane. Estimates suggested the lunch aid for the A350 could total $1.3 billion. furthermore, in 2004 airbus surpassed boeing in global market share. American officials felt that given the strength of the company, subsidies were no longer appropriate. In late 2004, the EU and U.S. government entered into negotiations to try to resolve the dispute, but talks ended in March 2005 with no agreement. The dispute now goes to the World Trade Organization, which must rule on the legality of the various subsidies. Meanwhile, Boeing is starting to pile up orders for the 787, and industry observers speculate that the longer launch aid for an airbus competitor is stalled in legal limbo, the less likely Airbus will be to go ahead with the plane.

Something to think about! So why not legalize it and make money, and stop terisom.? By Smokey, 5-05-06 (marijuana myths courtesy of twotonetony) MARIJUANA, MYTHS ABOUT MARIJUANA, AND OTHER NON-"STONER" REASONS THAT MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. First of all, this is information on marijuana from a purely factual stand point, so even if you are against marijuana PLEASE READ THIS. there are too many ignorant people against marijuana...you dont have to smoke it to be for it's legalization. MARIJUANA MYTHS 1. Marijuana causes brain damage The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of human populations of marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain. 2. Marijuana damages the reproductive system This claim is based chiefly on the work of Dr. Gabriel Nahas, who experimented with tissue (cells) isolated in petri dishes, and the work of researchers who dosed animals with near-lethal amounts of cannabinoids (i.e., the intoxicating part of marijuana). Nahas' generalizations from his petri dishes to human beings have been rejected by the scientific community as being invalid. In the case of the animal experiments, the animals that survived their ordeal returned to normal within 30 days of the end of the experiment. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system. 3. Marijuana is a "gateway" drug -- it leads to hard drugs This is one of the more persistent myths. A real world example of what happens when marijuana is readily available can be found in Holland. The Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 1970s. Since then, hard drug use -- heroin and cocaine -- have DECLINED substantially. If marijuana really were a gateway drug, one would have expected use of hard drugs to have gone up, not down. This apparent "negative gateway" effect has also been observed in the United States. Studies done in the early 1970s showed a negative correlation between use of marijuana and use of alcohol. A 1993 Rand Corporation study that compared drug use in states that had decriminalized marijuana versus those that had not, found that where marijuana was more available -- the states that had decriminalized -- hard drug abuse as measured by emergency room episodes decreased. In short, what science and actual experience tell us is that marijuana tends to substitute for the much more dangerous hard drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin. 4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high -- in many cases, near-lethal -- doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied. 5. Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all ofthese facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco. 6. Legal marijuana would cause carnage on the highways Although marijuana, when used to intoxication, does impair performance in a manner similar to alcohol, actual studies of the effect of marijuana on the automobile accident rate suggest that it poses LESS of a hazard than alcohol. When a random sample of fatal accident victims was studied, it was initially found that marijuana was associated with RELATIVELY as many accidents as alcohol. In other words, the number of accident victims intoxicated on marijuana relative to the number of marijuana users in society gave a ratio similar to that for accident victims intoxicated on alcohol relative to the total number of alcohol users. However, a closer examination of the victims revealed that around 85% of the people intoxicated on marijuana WERE ALSO INTOXICATED ON ALCOHOL. For people only intoxicated on marijuana, the rate was much lower than for alcohol alone. This finding has been supported by other research using completely different methods. For example, an economic analysis of the effects of decriminalization on marijuana usage found that states that had reduced penalties for marijuana possession experienced a rise in marijuana use and a decline in alcohol use with the result that fatal highway accidents decreased. This would suggest that, far from causing "carnage", legal marijuana might actually save lives. 7. Marijuana "flattens" human brainwaves This is an out-and-out lie perpetrated by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. A few years ago, they ran a TV ad that purported to show, first, a normal human brainwave, and second, a flat brainwave from a 14-year-old "on marijuana". When researchers called up the TV networks to complain about this commercial, the Partnership had to pull it from the air. It seems that the Partnership faked the flat "marijuana brainwave". In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly INCREASING alpha wave activity. Alpha waves are associated with meditative and relaxed states which are, in turn, often associated with human creativity. 8. Marijuana is more potent today than in the past This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous, independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually, the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein under the name, "American Cannabis". 9. Marijuana impairs short-term memory This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often, the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent. 10. Marijuana lingers in the body like DDT This is also true but misleading. Cannabinoids are fat soluble as are innumerable nutrients and, yes, some poisons like DDT. For example, the essential nutrient, Vitamin A, is fat soluble but one never hears people who favor marijuana prohibition making this comparison. 11. There are over a thousand chemicals in marijuana smoke Again, true but misleading. The 31 August 1990 issue of the magazine Science notes that of the over 800 volatile chemicals present in roasted COFFEE, only 21 have actually been tested on animals and 16 of these cause cancer in rodents. Yet, coffee remains legal and is generally considered fairly safe. 12. No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose This is true. It was put in to see if you are paying attention. Animal tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses. This is what the government won't tell to us Americans. They are too stubborn to take back a law that has been in place for 69 years (Marijuana Tax Act of 1937). Along with making marijuana illegal, the government spends billions of dollars each year fighting the drug war to keep marijuana and other drugs out of this country. Now i would like you to think of one person in this country that is unable to obtain marijuana or any other drug. If marijuana was legal, it would be create a market in the USA and there would be no reason for drug smuggling. Because marijuana would then be contained in the USA and smuggling would no longer be a problem, the government could much more easily control the use of the substance. Since everyone would now be buying their marijuana from stores in the USA, there would be a tax on this creating billions more in revenue for the government to add on to the billions no longer being spent on the war against marijuana. A very high % of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. With marijuana legalized, we wouldnt have to worry about drug dealers as much, which means less people going to prison, which in turn means more tax money to spend on something more important, like the HUGE deficit we have managed to create. Marijuana might be a harmful substance, but so are many other substances that are legal, many of which are much more harmful. Marijuana is actually EASIER to obtain because it is illegal and is costing us billions of dollars to make it easier, why would we want to do that? I hope you feel more informed after this. PLEASE REPOST THIS, whether you are for or against its legalization, people need to know the facts, not just that marijuana gets you high and screws up your life (which for the most part is not true). Also, tell everyone you know about these facts. Marijuana should be legal and the government will not do anything about it unless we stand up and voice the TRUTH I have noticed that alot of people have left a message. Saying people that do this are lazy and do not get anywhere in life. Tell that to the lawyers, Judges, and politions that are for it. and smoke it them selves. Am I wrong or do some people that abuse alcohol lazy to. Hell you can be lazy without doing any kind of drug. Saying everybody is lazy because they smoke, is being racist against the ones that are not lazy. Just like different cultures, I guess all white people are the same, Or all black people are the same. I guess sence some alcoholics get vilent when they drink then all people who drink are vilent. Does that make since, I dont think so. For those that are interested in the truth! check out www.norml.com

what do you think of these numbers canada? Why Canada Should Legalize Marijuana By: Peter BeckI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have many vices. Pot, however, is not one of them. I don’t smoke the stuff, and never have, but I don’t sit in judgment either. Recently, I started looking at what could happen to the Canadian economy if we didn’t just decriminalize marijuana, or condone medicinal uses for it, but actually allowed the free market to grow, package and sell it. What I’ve found out is pretty startling. To begin with, most estimates say the cannabis business in British Columbia alone is worth US$24 Billion dollars a year, street value. How much is that? That’s more than the forestry exports to the US from BC in any given year, and is about two and a half times the agricultural exports for the entire country. So, let’s start with that number: US$24 Billion a year in profits. That’s roughly CDN$34 Billion. I’m being conservative here, and forgetting the fact that if you were to legalize marijuana, Canadians would be growing it in every fallow field, window box, and basement in the country. Now, factor in the tourist trade. Come to Toronto, or Vancouver, or Peggy’s Cove for that matter, and such back a Molson Canadian accompanied by a pre-packaged, filtered, high-quality spliff. I’ve seen estimates in the range of $90 Billion for the country if even 1% of the American population comes north to buy their stash. $34 Billion plus $90 Billion equals $124 Billion. Here’s another number. Canada has about 600,000 citizens who have been indicted for using marijuana for personal use, and around 30,000 arrests are made each year. According to the Auditor General’s report, this translates into $500 Million for annual enforcement of drug laws, and about $500 Million for legal fees. Tack on about $50,000 a year for each incarcerated offender, and you end up with about $1.5 Billion a year. Again, I’m guessing on the conservative side. $124 Billion plus $1.5 Billion equals $125.5 Billion. Here’s another one: one acre of hemp produces the same amount of cellulose fibre as 4.1 acres of trees. Trees grow back in about twenty-odd years. Hemp grows back every four months or so, and produces paper at one-quarter the cost of wood pulp (creating one-fifth of the pollution). You can also make four times more gasohol or methanol from help stalks than from corn. Hemp is actually the strongest natural fibre there is, and until the 20th century, it provided almost all the world’s paper, clothing, textiles and rope. Even if we ignore the moral, ethical, or ecological reasons for using hemp to replace pulp and paper, it just makes sense economically. First, cut the capital expenditures in wood pulp production – about $8 Billion – by three-quarters. We just saved $6 Billion. Now, quadruple the potential volume of cellulose fibre. With about $15-20 Billion in annual exports of newsprint and wood pulp, that would be roughly (let’s be conservative and call it $15 Billion) $60 Billion. Obviously, there wouldn’t be that much demand, so let’s simply double the present number to $30 Billion, and keep in mind that our resource is now virtually unlimited. We don’t have to keep spending all that money in reforestation projects, so our parks and woodlands can be saved as an added bonus to the $90 Billion we’re making on tourism. $125.5 Billion plus $6 Billion plus $30 Billion equals $161.5 Billion. Is this starting to scare you? We haven’t even touched on the potential tax revenues from selling weed in nice, neat packages. The federal government gets about $5 Billion annually in revenues from tobacco. While the average Joe won’t be smoking a jack of J’s a day, a joint is probably going to cost more than a cigarette, and will certainly be taxed heavily. Let’s round it off to another $3 Billion – not including the increased sales of both tobacco and marijuana due to, again, the increased tourism. Textile export increases, new business development, job creation, medical research and exports – throw in another $4-5 Billion. $161.5 Billion plus $5 Billion plus, let’s call it $3.5 Billion (to round things out), equals $170 Billion. That’s $170 Billion: around 15% of the entire GDP for the country in 2001. We could give every man, woman and child in Canada five hundred dollars every year, and have about $20 Billion left for foreign aid. And there’s more. Legalizing marijuana, growing hemp and producing its products, supporting research and development into its many uses, and cutting down pollution and deforestation to levels well below Kyoto’s meager demands would certainly reverse the brain drain to the US. It would also attract thousands of liberal-minded, well-educated professionals to Canada’s industry, education, and health care systems. This would increase production, demand, and profitability. The US is, of course, concerned about Canada’s potential to become the Holland of North America. Their decades-old war on drugs has been too much of a backbone for popular support to let it slip away. The best threat they have come up with so far is to suggest that border crossings will be much tighter. This is not a serious economic threat, as we’ve already factored that in as of 9/11. Over 70% of Canadians approve of the decriminalization of marijuana. That, in itself, should be motivational. Even the Canadian Medical Association has admitted that it’s ‘not addictive, occasional use not harmful, not causal with criminal behaviour, no evidence of mental damage.’ Take whatever stance you’re comfortable with on smoking the stuff yourself; I’m looking at this purely by the numbers. i did not write this myself, by the way. its part of a senated commitees recomendation i did not write this myself, by the way. its part of a senated commitees recomendation

Who's your daddy? Answer's at the drugstore (What Do you Think?? About That. )? Skip navigation MSN Home | Mail MoreHotmailMessengerMy MSNMSN DirectoryAir Tickets/TravelAutosCareers & JobsCity GuidesDating & PersonalsElection 2008GamesGreenHealth & FitnessHoroscopesLifestyleMaps & DirectionsMoneyMoviesMusicNewsReal Estate/RentalsShoppingSpacesSportsTech & GadgetsTVWeatherWhite PagesYellow PagesSign Inmsn.comfeaturing Today Show Nightly News Dateline Meet the Press MSNBC TV NBC Sports HealthKids and parentingsponsored by Categories U.S. news World news Politics Business Entertainment Health Diet and nutrition Women's health Men's health Kids and parenting Sexual health Mental health Pet health Fitness Aging Cancer Heart health Skin and beauty Health library Sports Tech & science Travel Weather Local news Browse Video Community Photos Disable Fly-outMarketplace Shopping via MSN Shopping Start a business Entrepreneur.com Dating via PerfectMatch.com Homes for Sale via HomePages.com Investments $7 online stock trades Career Center via Monster Autos via MSN Autos Who's your daddy? Answer's at the drugstore Pharmacy chain markets DNA paternity tests in 30 states nationwide Pierre-philippe Marcou / AFP - Getty Images file New at-home DNA paternity tests require samples of cells swabbed from the cheeks of the child, the alleged father and, ideally, the mother. View related photos Video Who's your daddy? DIY paternity test debuts March 27: A new type of at-home medical test can reveal a child’s paternity. But is it a good idea? NBC's Michelle Kosinski reports. Today show Most popular • Most viewed • Top rated • Most e-mailed Giada De Laurentiis has a baby girl! Kathie Lee Gifford returns to morning TV Meet the losers of the Joy Fit Club Two popular cholesterol drugs may not work Obama, McCain forged oh-so-fleeting alliance Most viewed on msnbc.com A twist of fate Amateurs solve mysteries of the unnamed dead Families write about shared tragedy Solar farms to rise on California rooftops Photos: Mistaken identity Most viewed on msnbc.com Two popular cholesterol drugs may not work Giada De Laurentiis has a baby girl! White House unveils financial-rules overhaul Kathie Lee Gifford returns to morning TV Woman stuck to toilet remains hospitalized Most viewed on msnbc.com By JoNel Aleccia Health writer MSNBC updated 8:36 a.m. ET, Thurs., March. 27, 2008 JoNel Aleccia Health writer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • E-mail After two decades, Sean Reid of Surrey, British Columbia, discovered that he had a son. Fred Turley of Des Plaines, Ill., learned he didn’t have a daughter. And Wendy Lieb of Lewis Center, Ohio, made certain she wasn’t going to be a grandmother quite yet. In all three situations, crucial genetic information altered the lives of the people involved. And in each case, it came not from a doctor or other medical source, but from a $29.99 kit on a drugstore shelf. Reid, Turley and Lieb are among more than 800 customers who responded to the first wave of marketing for do-it-yourself DNA paternity tests sold as Identigene by Sorenson Genomics of Salt Lake City. Story continues below ↓ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sales in three western states — Washington, Oregon and California — were so brisk last fall that Rite Aid Corp. expanded the product this week to some 4,300 stores in 30 states across the country. “The running joke is that we’re the Maury Povich family,” said Reid, 37, who confirmed years of speculation about a former girlfriend’s son with a kit purchased at a Bellingham, Wash., store. “But why not do it privately? We did this as discreetly, as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible.” For users like Reid, the tests provide easier answers to one of life’s crucial questions — Who’s your daddy? — said Douglas Fogg, chief operating officer of Identigene. “Everyone is purchasing the tests because they’re curious,” said Fogg, who expects to sell at least 52,000 tests this year. “They’re looking to establish questions about their own child or their own paternity.” But for genetics experts, drugstore marketing of DNA testing raises questions of accuracy and ethics. “From our perspective, direct-to-consumer genetic tests raise all the same issues for lax government oversight, potentially misleading or false advertising and the potential for making profound medical decisions on the basis of poorly interpreted or understood results,” said Rick Borchelt, a spokesman for the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. At the very least, the kits have the potential to complicate the lives of the people who use them, legal experts cautioned. “We all need to take a step back and realize that this is different than many tests that you take,” said R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “This is a life-changing moment.” DNA tests join other diagnostic tools The paternity kits have taken their place on store shelves next to other diagnostic tests that don’t rely on DNA, including those for pregnancy, HIV and blood sugar, said Michael S. Watson, executive director of the American College of Medical Genetics. Unlike genetic tests for health conditions, tests that use DNA to determine paternity are fairly simple to provide and fairly easy to interpret, said Watson. They're subject to limited oversight, however, with no review required by the Food and Drug Administration and no certification required under the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, or CLIA. The Identigene kit includes swabs for collecting cell samples from the inside of the cheeks of the child and the alleged father. Collection of the mother’s cells is optional, but strongly recommended to strengthen the results. The swabs are packaged and mailed to the Sorenson laboratory in Salt Lake City where they’re analyzed. Cast your vote Are at-home DNA paternity tests a good idea? The Sorenson lab is accredited by the AABB, the agency formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks. Results are reported online, by phone or by mail in three to five business days. They come back as a probability figure that verifies paternity with 98 percent to 99 percent accuracy, Watson said. Total cost is about $150, including the price of the kit and a $119 laboratory processing fee. For another $200, users can purchase validated tests that meet legal requirements for determining paternity, Fogg said. Court use questionable But Susan Crockin, a lawyer who specializes in reproductive technology, said consumers shouldn’t count on the tests standing up in court. Video Who's your daddy? DIY paternity test debuts March 27: A new type of at-home medical test can reveal a child’s paternity. But is it a good idea? NBC's Michelle Kosinski reports. Today show “The jury’s still very much out on these tests in terms of reliability and establishing a chain of custody,” said Crockin, a consultant for the Johns Hopkins public policy center. Most of the users who have been buying the kits — which have gone on sale for as low as $17.99 — don’t plan to use the results to resolve legal issues, Fogg acknowledged. Instead, most are looking to answer social questions. And that's where the complexity comes in. Because the cell samples are taken in private, there’s the potential for fraud and deception, noted Charo, the ethics expert. “I can imagine rather peculiar circumstances in which somebody has a swab taken without their knowledge,” she said. “It raises questions about informed consent.” Even when people do consent, the results can be unsettling. Watson estimates that between 5 percent and 10 percent of genetic tests he's conducted show a child is not related to the presumed father. “It could break up families,” Watson said. “Some will be broken because that was the goal. Others will be broken up and that wasn't the goal.” But people who’ve used the at-home tests swear by the ease, the accuracy — and the results. After 20 years, a mystery solved For Reid, the paternity test opened the door to a new extended family. He’d always wondered whether the baby born to a former girlfriend was his, even though she insisted the child was fathered by another man. When the girlfriend contacted Reid on Facebook last summer, the pictures she sent of her oldest son raised the question anew. “My wife, said ‘Oh my, that’s you,’” said Reid, a nurse. Internet research pointed Reid to the Identigene test, which was cheaper and more convenient than other options. With cooperation from his former girlfriend and her son, they all took the tests, with results that altered everyone’s lives. “Our newest son has a family he never knew he had including grandparents, aunts, and three younger brothers who are all very excited to meet him,” Reid said. For Fred Turley, 55, the DNA test confirmed what his companion had told him: the 4-year-old girl he helped care for was not his. The news was disappointing, but clear, he said. “The bottom line is, I don’t have to live with the uncertainty about her being my daughter and wind up in a fight just to find out,” Turley said. “This won’t change how I feel about the girl. It will just remove what had become a major concern.” For Wendy Lieb, 41, the DNA test restored her 20-year-old son’s future. He’d already quit college, taken a job and assumed the responsibilities of pending parenthood after a girl he had sex with at a party claimed she was pregnant with his child. Click for related content Comprehensive sex ed may cut teen birth rate Baby boys more likely to die than girls 1 in 4 teen girls has at least one STD ‘He just didn't look like my son at all.’ Lieb said she was proud of her son’s response, but perplexed after the baby, a boy, was born. “He just didn’t look like my son at all,” Lieb said. “And we have fairly strong genes.” A trip to the drugstore and 10 days later, the answer was clear: her son was not the father. “I thought it would have required thousands of dollars and a trip to the doctor,” she said. Lieb is relieved for her own child, of course, but also for everyone involved. As difficult as the situation has been, she said, it will be easier for them to adjust now, rather than years later. The test may raise ethical questions, she said, but it also provides the peace of mind that comes with answers. “I think it’s a lot more ethical for you to find out the truth,” she said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23814032?GT1=43001

When I see things like this it makes me sick - President Obama Thong? Now do you know why we must protect our President? White House Lawyers Look to Limit Commercial Use of President Julianna Goldman – Fri Jan 30, 4:16 pm ET Featured Topics: Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama’s popularity makes him a marketer’s dream. Now, the honeymoon may be over for those trying to profit from his appeal. White House lawyers want to control the use of the president’s image, recognizing the worldwide fascination about Obama’s election, First Amendment free-speech rights and easy access to videos and photos on the Web. “Our lawyers are working on developing a policy that will protect the presidential image while being careful not to squelch the overwhelming enthusiasm that the public has for the president,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. Obama’s calls for change and his “Yes We Can” campaign mantra are being evoked to sell assembly-required furniture in Ikea’s “Embrace Change” marketing campaign, bargain airfares during Southwest Airlines Inc.’s “Yes You Can” sale and “Yes Pecan” ice cream at Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. shops. “I can’t remember this ever happening to an active politician before, as a spokesperson or as an image for a brand,” said Brad Adgate, director of research for Horizon Media Inc., a New York-based advertising agency. “He’s in the highest profile of any person in the world right now.” Riding the wave of Obama’s popularity may become a concern when advertisers use his likeness without permission to imply that Obama is endorsing a product or cause. The White House through the years has objected to commercial use of presidential faces, such as footage of President George H.W. Bush in a Cold War-themed 1989 television ad for cold medication. Presidential Speeches The National Education Association is running a TV ad with excerpts from a speech Obama gave on July 5, 2007, with the group’s logo behind him. The educators’ group has previously shown remarks by Obama in Web videos and is confident the president shares a “clear and longstanding” commitment to “real change and real reform in education,” said Steve Snider, NEA’s manager of advertising and broadcast services. The Web site for McKinstry Co., a Seattle-based mechanical contractor that Obama visited during last year’s presidential campaign, features a YouTube clip of Obama praising its work improving energy efficiency at schools and office buildings. “As president I’ll use companies like McKinstry as a model for the nation,” Obama says. McKinstry spokeswoman Genevieve Guinn said the company bought rights to the video and hasn’t gotten any White House complaints. Obama’s face is on a full-page newspaper advertisement by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying group in Alexandria, Virginia. Burning Coal “We figured out how to put a man on the moon in 10 years,” the ad quotes Obama as saying last August. “You can’t tell me we can’t figure out how to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States of America and make it work.” The group also began running a TV ad in December that shows footage of Obama promoting clean-coal energy during a campaign event last September. The clean coal lobby group told Obama representatives about the ads before the inauguration and received no signals from them that there was any discomfort, As a record-setting crowd jammed Washington earlier this month for Obama’s inauguration, Obama’s face was featured on thousands of t-shirts, coffee mugs and calendars for sale at stores and street vendors across the capital. Obama’s official inaugural committee got into the act, too, setting up its own memorabilia store. Malia, Sasha Dolls Since the Obamas moved into the White House, Michelle Obama objected to the sale by Beanie Babies-maker Ty Inc. of dolls with the same names as her daughters. The company said the Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia dolls weren’t modeled after the first daughters. A search for Michelle Obama’s name on Google Inc.’s Web site brings up an online ad for J. Crew Group Inc., which got free publicity when the first lady wore a J. Crew outfit on NBC’s “Tonight Show With Jay Leno” last October. “Inauguration Style: Get Looks Like Those Worn by the First Lady” the Web ad says. Psaki wouldn’t provide details about legal options the White House counsel’s office is considering to deal with commercial use of Obama’s likeness. The White House lawyers may have to make case-by-case determinations about the best ways to protect the presidential image without tempering enthusiasm or trampling on free-speech protections, said Jonathan Band, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington. “It will be difficult,” Band said. “Because he is the president of the United States and there was this campaign and everyone’s proud, I think the First Amendment will be applied much more broadly with respect to people wanting to use an image of the president than it would be with

What do you think of the 1000 characters limit? Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake.

Does the "WAR ON DRUGS" actually create MORE CRIME, cause MORE PROBLEMS, and FURTHER INFLATE the GOVERNMENT? Prohibition only creates crime and related social harms. This was the case in the 1920s with alcohol, and it is the case now with currently illegal drugs. It does not matter if you are for or against people using drugs. Prohibition does NOT WORK, and it costs far too much to continue. I never really thought it through when I was younger. It was very simple to me: Drugs are bad, therefore they should be illegal. That was all of the thought I put into it, because I did not think beyond the propaganda that I heard every day in school. I did not think about all of the problems that prohibition causes (even though I had studied prohibition at one point), and I think that most people are pretty much brainwashed by the same propaganda, so most of us don't bother to think about the negative impact that the "WAR ON DRUGS" has on our society. If you do not think we should change the laws, then you support drug UNcontrol. Prohibition means NO regulation, and NO control because drugs are pushed underground into criminality. Prohibition does not stop people from making, selling, buying or using drugs. All it does is make drugs impossible to control. The most optimistic reports show that we only interdict 10-15% of drug traffic. That means that prohibition is 85% to 90% ineffective. That also means that we have NO control over recreational substances. It does not matter if you are for or against drug use. Prohibition is an abject failure. If we put a stop to this irresponsible and detrimental "WAR", our country could experience a huge DECREASE in: -Crime (Crime is higher as a result of the war on drugs. In particular, homicides have skyrocketed - 10 per 100,000 - the only other time the homicide rate was so high was during alcohol prohibition. After prohibition, the murder rates dropped by more than HALF) -Disease and, -Government Spending (A RAND corporation study showed that each dollar spent on education and treatment is 7 times more effective than a dollar spent on criminal interdiction, yet we spend more than 45 BILLION DOLLARS per year on criminal interdiction and incarceration costs, and less than 4 billion dollars on education, treatment, and prevention. ), -Prison Population (According to the American Corrections Association, the average daily cost per state prison inmate per day in the US in 2005 was $67.55. That means it costs states approximately $16,948,295 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,186,127,675 per year), http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm -Gangs and Organized Crime (gangs are a product of drug prohibition), -Corrupt Police (Who wants to live in a police state?), -Drug Trafficking (obvious reasons), -Drugs Use among Teens (Drug use INCREASED 7 fold among 12-17 year olds after the modern War on Drugs started. The economics of prohibition favors the targeting of youths. Drug dealers don't ask for ID), -Graffiti (Gang tagging creates an enormous graffiti problem causing millions of dollars in damage every year. The gangs are a product of drug prohibition) -Deaths due to overdose, -car accidents caused by high speed chases (Where a driver is afraid of being caught with illegal drugs), -divorce rate (parents would not be separated from the family due to petty possession convictions), -GUN CONTROL - we have increasingly strict gun control laws because the crime wave that rides on prohibition has caused huge public outcry. Rather than focus on the cause of crime (socioeconomic factors of the drug war are a major component), the public and legislators lash out at gun owners. This would practically REMOVE the government's pretext to ban guns! Since Nixon started the modern war on drugs, use among teens is up 7 times. This is because the black market created by prohibition makes underage teens a very easy target. The result is that illegal drugs run rampant through every high school in America. But alcohol, as a legal drug, is much harder for a minor to obtain. We must remove the profit incentive in the black market for recreational substances - the only way to do that is to end prohibition and replace it with regulation. Congress is granted the power to "regulate commerce". "Regulate", to the writers of the Constitution, meant to facilitate the proper functioning of, as when someone regulates a clock to keep proper time, or the barrels of a double rifle to hit the same point of aim The Rand corporation's study showed that every dollar spent on education or treatment programs is 7 times more effective that a dollar spent on criminal interdictions. If recreational substances were made available through a regulated and taxed means, just like alcohol, we could focus far more money on education and treatment and as a result, lower drug use and provide for a healthier society. The resultant reduction in crime will provide safer streets for police and citizens, and allow the police to concentrate on real crimes, such as violent crimes. This was one of the rationales behind the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition, and it is still a good idea. In Holland where both Marijuana and Heroin are legally available, they have HALF the percentage of Marijuana users as in the US, and a THIRD the percentage of heroin users. If heroin were legal tomorrow would you shoot up? No, neither would I. The people that would use heroin already use it, and obtain it through the black market. Available through regulated channels, it would simply end the crime ridden black markets, and promote a healthy environment free of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis and overdoses. Prohibition policies are based on fiction. They destroy society by creating an environment of crime and corruption, as well as giving government "Big Brother" powers over the lives, recreational habits, and choices of all citizens. And prohibition policies create vast bureaucracies. And the lies and propaganda which these bureaucracies must create and disseminate, in order to prop up their fiction, can cause aware and thinking people to develop a tragic deep and permanent distrust of the government, of the hardworking people in law enforcement, and of the political process. Prohibition and the forces that support it are enemies of liberty and domestic tranquility. While there may be issues with the use, and sometimes abuse, of various recreational drugs like alcohol, those issues and those people that abuse should be dealt with directly, instead of creating an unregulated black market that feeds the mouth of crime. That is all prohibition has ever done, and will ever do. http://www.drugwarfaq.com/ http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm The first web site is very informative about the considerable number of problems that the "WAR ON DRUGS" has given us. I recommend that you read it in its entirety. I do not agree with everything he says, but there is a lot of good info there.

Why don't more people like the idea of ending DRUG PROHIBITION? Alchohol prohibition was a disaster!...... Prohibition only creates crime and related social harms. This was the case in the 1920s with alcohol, and it is the case now with currently illegal drugs. It does not matter if you are for or against people using drugs. Prohibition does NOT WORK, and it costs far too much to continue. I never really thought it through when I was younger. It was very simple to me: Drugs are bad, therefore they should be illegal. That was all of the thought I put into it, because I did not think beyond the propaganda that I heard every day in school. I did not think about all of the problems that prohibition causes (even though I had studied prohibition at one point), and I think that most people are pretty much brainwashed by the same propaganda, so most of us don't bother to think about the negative impact that the "WAR ON DRUGS" has on our society. If you do not think we should change the laws, then you support drug UNcontrol. Prohibition means NO regulation, and NO control because drugs are pushed underground into criminality. Prohibition does not stop people from making, selling, buying or using drugs. All it does is make drugs impossible to control. The most optimistic reports show that we only interdict 10-15% of drug traffic. That means that prohibition is 85% to 90% ineffective. That also means that we have NO control over recreational substances. It does not matter if you are for or against drug use. Prohibition is an abject failure. If we put a stop to this irresponsible and detrimental "WAR", our country could experience a huge DECREASE in: -Crime (Crime is higher as a result of the war on drugs. In particular, homicides have skyrocketed - 10 per 100,000 - the only other time the homicide rate was so high was during alcohol prohibition. After prohibition, the murder rates dropped by more than HALF) -Disease, -Government Spending (A RAND corporation study showed that each dollar spent on education and treatment is 7 times more effective than a dollar spent on criminal interdiction, yet we spend more than 45 BILLION DOLLARS per year on criminal interdiction and incarceration costs, and less than 4 billion dollars on education, treatment, and prevention. ), -Prison Population (According to the American Corrections Association, the average daily cost per state prison inmate per day in the US in 2005 was $67.55. That means it costs states approximately $16,948,295 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,186,127,675 per year), http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm -Gangs and Organized Crime (gangs are a product of drug prohibition), -Corrupt Police (Who wants to live in a police state?), -Drug Trafficking (obvious reasons), -Drugs Use among Teens (Drug use INCREASED 7 fold among 12-17 year olds after the modern War on Drugs started. The economics of prohibition favors the targeting of youths. Drug dealers don't ask for ID), -Graffiti (Gang tagging creates an enormous graffiti problem causing millions of dollars in damage every year. The gangs are a product of drug prohibition) -Deaths due to overdose, -car accidents caused by high speed chases (Where a driver is afraid of being caught with illegal drugs), -divorce rate (parents would not be separated from the family due to petty possession convictions), -GUN CONTROL - we have increasingly strict gun control laws because the crime wave that rides on prohibition has caused huge public outcry. Rather than focus on the cause of crime (socioeconomic factors of the drug war are a major component), the public and legislators lash out at gun owners. This would practically REMOVE the government's pretext to ban guns! Since Nixon started the modern war on drugs, use among teens is up 7 times. This is because the black market created by prohibition makes underage teens a very easy target. The result is that illegal drugs run rampant through every high school in America. But alcohol, as a legal drug, is much harder for a minor to obtain. We must remove the profit incentive in the black market for recreational substances - the only way to do that is to end prohibition and replace it with regulation. Congress is granted the power to "regulate commerce". "Regulate", to the writers of the Constitution, meant to facilitate the proper functioning of, as when someone regulates a clock to keep proper time, or the barrels of a double rifle to hit the same point of aim The Rand corporation's study showed that every dollar spent on education or treatment programs is 7 times more effective that a dollar spent on criminal interdictions. If recreational substances were made available through a regulated and taxed means, just like alcohol, we could focus far more money on education and treatment and as a result, lower drug use and provide for a healthier society. The resultant reduction in crime will provide safer streets for police and citizens, and allow the police to concentrate on real crimes, such as violent crimes. This was one of the rationales behind the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition, and it is still a good idea. In Holland where both Marijuana and Heroin are legally available, they have HALF the percentage of Marijuana users as in the US, and a THIRD the percentage of heroin users. If heroin were legal tomorrow would you shoot up? No, neither would I. The people that would use heroin already use it, and obtain it through the black market. Available through regulated channels, it would simply end the crime ridden black markets, and promote a healthy environment free of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis and overdoses. Prohibition policies are based on fiction. They destroy society by creating an environment of crime and corruption, as well as giving government "Big Brother" powers over the lives, recreational habits, and choices of all citizens. And prohibition policies create vast bureaucracies. And the lies and propaganda which these bureaucracies must create and disseminate, in order to prop up their fiction, can cause aware and thinking people to develop a tragic deep and permanent distrust of the government, of the hardworking people in law enforcement, and of the political process. Prohibition and the forces that support it are enemies of liberty and domestic tranquility. While there may be issues with the use, and sometimes abuse, of various recreational drugs like alcohol, those issues and those people that abuse should be dealt with directly, instead of creating an unregulated black market that feeds the mouth of crime. That is all prohibition has ever done, and will ever do. http://www.drugwarfaq.com/ http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm The first web site is very informative about the considerable number of problems that the "WAR ON DRUGS" has given us. I recommend that you read it in its entirety. I do not agree with everything he says, but there is a lot of good info there. saturn, you didn't read any of this question, did you? i agree, whcwarrior. The war on drugs is a PRIODUCT OF LIBERALISM.

newer horizon demanded in usa politicking. can non natural born + nonbinding resolution senate run pres U S ?

association of committee to elect the rev dr kamal karna roy v. homeland security dept us issue birth obama?