text:
The Anti-Vaccination Movement
Steven Novella
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 31.6, November / December 2007
Despite the growing scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and that neither vaccines nor mercury cause autism, a stubborn vocal minority claims otherwise, threatening the effectiveness of this public health program.
Michelle Cedillo has autism, which her parents believe is the result of her childhood vaccines. In June 2007 they had the opportunity, along with eight other families, to make their case to the Autism Omnibus—a U.S. Court of Federal Claims that was presided over by three "special masters" appointed for the purpose. These nine cases are the first test cases that will likely determine the fate of 4,800 other claims made over the past eight years for compensation for injuries allegedly due to childhood vaccines.
Vaccines are one of the most successful programs in modern health care, reducing, and in some cases even eliminating, serious infectious diseases. Public support for the vaccination program remains strong, especially in the United States where vaccination rates are currently at an all-time high of >95 percent (CDC 2004). Yet, despite a long history of safety and effectiveness, vaccines have always had their critics: some parents and a tiny fringe of doctors question whether vaccinating children is worth what they perceive as the risks. In recent years, the anti-vaccination movement, largely based on poor science and fear-mongering, has become more vocal and even hostile (Hughes 2007).
Of course, vaccines are not without risk (no medical intervention is), although the benefits far outweigh those risks. Because vaccines are somewhat compulsory in the United States—although opting out is increasingly easy—a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established to streamline the process for compensation for those who are injured due to vaccines (USDOJ 2007). It is this program to which the Cedillo and 4,800 other families are applying for compensation.
In the last decade, the anti-vaccine movement, which includes those who blame the MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine for autism, has largely merged with those who warn that mercury toxicity is the cause of many of the ills that plague mankind. The two groups have come together over the issue of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in some vaccines. They believe that it was the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines that led to the apparent autism epidemic beginning in the 1990s.
Autism is a complex neurological disorder that typically manifests in the first few years of life and primarily involves a deficiency of typical social skills and behavior. In the 1990's, the number of autism diagnoses significantly increased, from between one and three to about fifteen cases per ten thousand, although the true incidence is probably between thirty and sixty per ten thousand (Rutter 2005). During this same period, the number of vaccines given in the routine childhood schedule also increased. This led some to assume, or at least speculate, causation from correlation—perhaps the vaccines or something in them created this "epidemic" of autism.
We can now say, from multiple independent lines of evidence, that vaccines do not cause autism. For one thing, the autism "epidemic" probably does not represent a true increase in the disorder, but rather an artifact of expanding the diagnosis (now referred to as autism spectrum disorder, ASD) and increased surveillance (Taylor 2006).
In 1998, researcher Andrew Wakefield and some of his colleagues published a study in the prestigious English medical journal Lancet that claimed to show a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism (Wakefield 1998). Wakefield's theory was that the MMR vaccine, which contains a live virus, can cause in susceptible children a chronic measles infection. This in turn leads to gastrointestinal disturbances, including what he calls a "leaky gut" syndrome, which then allows for certain toxins and chemicals, like those from bread and dairy that are normally broken down by the gut, to enter the bloodstream where they can access and damage the developing brain.
Although the study was small and the evidence was considered preliminary, this article sparked a firestorm. As a result of the study and the media coverage that followed (and continues to this day), MMR compliance in Great Britain plummeted, resulting in a surge of preventable disease (Friederichs 2006).
Subsequent to the seminal article in the Lancet, many follow-up studies were performed testing the autism-MMR vaccine correlation. As the follow-up studies began to be published, however, it became increasingly clear that there was no link between MMR and autism. For example, a study in the British Medical Journal found that autism rates continued to climb in areas where MMR vaccination rates were not increasing (Taylor 1999). Another study found no association with MMR and autism or GI (gastrointestinal) disorders (Taylor 2002). Other studies showed no difference in the diagnosis rate of autism either before or after the MMR vaccine was administered (Honda 2005), or between vaccinated and unvaccinated children (Madsen 2002). Most recently, a study found that there was no decrease in autism rates following removal of the MMR vaccine in Japan (Honda 2005).
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed all of the MMR-autism data available to date and concluded that there was no association and essentially closed the case (IOM 2001)—a conclusion confirmed by still later studies, such as the Honda study in Japan cited above.
If Wakefield had simply been wrong in his preliminary findings, he would be innocent of any wrongdoing—scientists are not faulted if their early findings are not later vindicated. However, in May 2004, ten of Wakefield's co-authors on his original paper withdrew their support for its conclusions. The editors of Lancet also announced that they withdrew their endorsement of the paper and cited as part of the reason an undisclosed potential conflict of interest for Wakefield, namely that at the time of its publication he was conducting research for a group of parents of autistic children seeking to sue for damages from MMR vaccine producers (Lancet 2004).
It gets worse. Investigative reporter Brian Deer has uncovered greater depths to Wakefield's apparent malfeasance. Wakefield had applied for patents for an MMR vaccine substitute and treatments for his alleged MMR vaccine-induced gut disorder (Deer 2007). So, not only was he allegedly paid by lawyers to cast doubt on the MMR vaccine, but he stood to personally gain from the outcome of his research.
Andrew Wakefield. (Credit: Tom Miller) [Photo via Newscom]
Further, during the Cedillo case testimony, Stephen Bustin, a world expert in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), testified that the lab Wakefield used to obtain the results for his original paper was contaminated with measles virus RNA. It was therefore likely, Bustin implied, that the PCR used by Wakefield was detecting this contamination and not evidence for measles infection in the guts of children with autism who had been vaccinated, as Wakefield claimed. And finally, Nicholas Chadwick testified that the measles RNA Wakefield found matched the laboratory contamination and did not match either any naturally occurring strain or the strain used in the MMR vaccine—a fact of which he had informed Wakefield (USCFC 2007).
All of this, plus other allegations still coming out, has caused Britain's General Medical Council to call Wakefield before its "Fitness to Practise" panel for review of his alleged professional misconduct (GMC 2007).
Believers in the MMR-autism hypothesis dismiss the findings of the larger and more powerful epidemiological studies that contradict a link. Instead, they have turned Andrew Wakefield into a martyr, dismissing the evidence of his wrongdoing as a conspiracy against him designed to hide the true cause of autism from the public. Wakefield is unrepentant and maintains his innocence (Gorski 2007).
With the MMR-autism hypothesis scientifically dead, attention soon shifted to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative found in some childhood vaccines (although not the MMR vaccine). There is little doubt, and no controversy, that mercury, the major component of thimerosal, is a powerful neurotoxin, or poison to the brain. However, toxicity is always a matter of dose. Everything becomes toxic in a high enough dose; even too much water or vitamin C can kill you. So the real question is whether the amount of mercury given to children in vaccines containing thimerosal was enough to cause neurological damage.
Author of the book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic David Kirby (center) speaks as president Harvey Fineberg (left) of the Institute of Medicine listens during an interview by moderator Tim Russert (right) on NBC's Meet the Press August 7, 2005, at the NBC studios in Washington, D.C. Fineberg and Kirby talked about the rising number of autism diagnoses among children and the controversial charges of a government conspiracy to allow mercury exposures from childhood vaccines to more than double between 1988 and 1992. The Institute of Medicine reviewed all MMR-autism data and concluded that there was no association. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press) [Photo via Newscom]
Proponents of the mercury hypothesis argue that the ethylmercury found in thimerosal was given in doses exceeding Environmental Protection Agency limits. This load of mercury should be considered with prenatal vaccine loads possibly given to mothers, and to other environmental sources of mercury, such as seafood. Furthermore, underweight or premature infants received a higher dose by weight than larger children. Some children, they argue, may have a specific inability to metabolize mercury, and perhaps these are the children who become autistic.
Fear over thimerosal and autism was given a huge boost by journalist David Kirby with his book Evidence of Harm (Kirby 2005). Kirby tells the clichéd tale of courageous families searching for help for their sick children and facing a blind medical establishment and a federal government rife with corruption from corporate dollars. Kirby echoes the core claim that as the childhood vaccine schedule increased in the 1990s, leading to an increased cumulative dose of thimerosal, autism diagnoses skyrocketed.
In the end, Evidence of Harm is an example of terrible reporting that grossly misrepresents the science and the relevant institutions. As bad as Kirby's position was in 2005, in the last two years the evidence has been piling up that thimerosal does not cause autism. Rather than adjusting his claims to the evidence, Kirby has held fast to his claims, which has made him a hero alongside Wakefield of the mercury-autism-connection crowd as he has squandered his credibility.
There have now been a number of epidemiological and ecological studies that have all shown no correlation between thimerosal and autism (Parker 2004 and Doja 2006). I have already mentioned that the current consensus holds that there is no real autism epidemic, just an artifact of how the diagnosis is made. If there's no epidemic, there's no reason to look for a correlation between thimerosal and autism. This has been backed up by The Institute of Medicine, which has also reviewed all the available evidence (both epidemiological and toxicological) and concluded that the evidence does not support the conclusion that thimerosal causes autism (IOM 2004).
Especially damning for the thimerosal hypothesis are the recent studies that clearly demonstrate that early detection of autism is possible long before the diagnosis is officially made. Part of the belief that vaccines may cause autism is driven by the anecdotal observation by many parents that their children were normal until after they were vaccinated—autism is typically diagnosed around age two or three. However, more careful observations indicate that signs of autism are present much earlier, even before twelve months of age, before exposure to thimerosal (Mitchell 2006). In fact, autism expert Eric Fombonne testified in the Autism Omnibus hearings that Michelle Cedillo displayed early signs of autism clearly visibly on family video taken prior to her receiving the MMR vaccine (USCFC 2007).
Meanwhile, evidence is accumulating that autism is largely a genetic disorder (Szatmari 2007). This by itself does not rule out an environmental factor, but it is telling that genetic research in autism has proven so fruitful.
Mercury alarmists, in the face of this negative evidence, have been looking for rationalizations. Some have argued that the thimerosal in prenatal vaccines may be to blame, but recent evidence has shown a negative correlation there as well (Miles 2007).
What we have are the makings of a solid scientific consensus. Multiple independent lines of evidence all point in the same direction: vaccines in general, and thimerosal in particular, do not cause autism, which rather likely has its roots in genetics. Furthermore, true autism rates are probably static and not rising.
A demonstrator carries a sign protesting the use of mercury in vaccines past the U.S. Capitol in Washington July 20, 2005. Some three hundred people marched demanding that mercury not be used in vaccines anymore amid concern that it is the cause of autism and other neurological diseases in children. However, numerous studies show no correlation between Thimerosol and autism. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images) [Photo via Newscom]
The only researchers who are publishing data that contradicts this consensus are the father-and-son team of Mark and David Geier. They have looked at the same data and concluded that thimerosal does correlate with autism. However, the hammer of peer-review has come down on their methods and declared them fatally flawed, thus rendering their conclusions invalid or uninterpretable (Parker 2004). Also, like Wakefield, their reputations are far from clean. They have made something of a career out of testifying for lawyers and families claiming that vaccines caused their child's autism, even though the Geiers' testimony is often excluded on the basis that they lack the proper expertise (Goldacre 2007). The Geiers were not even called as experts in the Autism Omnibus hearings.
The Geiers are now undertaking an ethically suspect study in which they are administering chelation therapy to children with autism in conjunction with powerful hormonal therapy allegedly designed to reduce testosterone levels. Chelation therapy removes mercury, and so it is dependent upon the mercury hypothesis, which is all but disproved. Moreover, there is no clinical evidence for the efficacy of chelation therapy. The treatment is far from benign and is even associated with occasional deaths (Brown 2006).
With the scientific evidence so solidly against the mercury hypothesis of autism, proponents maintain their belief largely through the generous application of conspiracy thinking. The conspiracy claim has been made the loudest by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in two conspiracy-mongering articles: Deadly Immunity published on Salon.com in 2005 (Kennedy 2005), and more recently Attack on Mothers (Kennedy 2007). In these articles, RFK Jr. completely misrepresents and selectively quotes the scientific evidence, dismisses inconvenient evidence as fraudulent, accuses the government, doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry of conspiring to neurologically damage America's children, and accuses scientists who are skeptical of the mercury claims of attacking the mothers of children with autism.
Despite the lack of evidence for any safety concern, the FDA decided to remove all thimerosal from childhood vaccines, and by 2002 no new childhood vaccines with thimerosal were being sold in the U.S. This was not an admission of prior error, as some mercury proponents claimed; instead, the FDA was playing it safe by minimizing human exposure to mercury wherever possible. The move was also likely calculated to maintain public confidence in vaccines.
This created the opportunity to have the ultimate test of the thimerosal autism hypothesis. If rising thimerosal doses in the 1990s led to increasing rates of autism diagnosis, then the removal of thimerosal should be followed within a few years by a similar drop in new autism diagnoses. If, on the other hand, thimerosal did not cause autism, then the incidence of new diagnoses should continue to increase and eventually level off at or near the true rate of incidence. In 2005, I personally interviewed David Kirby on the topic, and we both agreed that this would be a fair test of our respective positions. Also, in an e-mail to science blogger Citizen Cain, Kirby wrote, "If the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS [Department of Developmental Services] system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis" (Cain 2005).
Well, five years after the removal of thimerosal, autism diagnosis rates have continued to increase (IDIC 2007). That is the final nail in the coffin in the thimerosal-vaccine-autism hypothesis. The believers, however, are in full rationalization mode. David Kirby and others have charged that although no new vaccines with thimerosal were sold after 2001, there was no recall, so pediatricians may have had a stockpile of thimerosal-laden vaccines—even though a published inspection of 447 pediatric clinics and offices found only 1.9 percent of relevant vaccines still had thimerosal by February 2002, a tiny fraction that was either exchanged, used, or expired soon after (CDCP/ACIP 2002).
Those who argue for the link have put forth increasingly desperate notions. Kirby has argued that mercury from cremations was increasing environmental mercury toxicity and offsetting the decrease in mercury from thimerosal. The Geiers simply reinterpreted the data using bad statistics to create the illusion of a downward trend where none exists (Geier 2006). Robert Kennedy Jr. dodges the issue altogether by asking for more studies, despite the fact that the evidence he asks for already exists. He just doesn't like the answer. Kennedy and others also point to dubious evidence, such as the myth that the Amish do not vaccinate and do not get autism. Both of these claims are not true, and the data RFK Jr. refers to is nothing more than a very unscientific phone survey (Leitch 2007).
The Autism Omnibus hearings have concluded, and while we await the decision due early next year, I am optimistic that science and reason will win the day. Just as shown in the 2005 Dover trial of intelligent design where the full body of scientific evidence was given a thorough airing in court and subjected to rules of evidence and the critical eyes of experienced judges, science tends to win out over nonsense. By all accounts, the lawyers for those claiming that vaccines caused their children's autism put on pathetic performances with transparently shoddy science, while the other side marshaled genuine experts and put forth an impressive case.
But the stakes are high, and not just for the 4,800 families. If the petitioners win these test cases despite the evidence, it will open the floodgates for the rest of the 4,800 petitioners. This will likely bankrupt the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and will also risk our vaccine infrastructure. Pharmaceutical companies will be reluctant to subject themselves to the liability of selling vaccines if even the truth cannot protect them from lawsuits.
Thimerosal still exists as a necessary preservative in multi-shot vaccines outside the United States, especially in poor third-world countries that cannot afford stockpiles of single-shot vaccines. Anti-thimerosal hysteria therefore also threatens the health of children in poor countries.
And of course a victory for the anti-vaccination activists would undermine public confidence in what is arguably the single most effective public health measure devised by modern science. This decrease in confidence will lead, as it has before, to declining compliance and an increase in infectious disease.
The forces of irrationality are arrayed on this issue. There are conspiracy theorists, well-meaning but misguided citizen groups who are becoming increasingly desperate and hostile, irresponsible journalists, and ethically compromised or incompetent scientists. The science itself is complex, making it difficult for the average person to sift through all the misdirection and misinformation. Standing against all this is simple respect for scientific integrity and the dedication to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Right now the evidence leads to the firm conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet, if history is any guide, the myth that they do cause autism will likely endure even in the face of increasing contradictory evidence.
- Brown, M.J., T. Willis, B. Omalu, and R. Leiker. 2006. Deaths resulting from hypocalcemia after administration of edetate disodium: 2003–2005. Pediatrics. 118(2):e534–36.
- Centers for Disease Control. 2004. MMWR Weekly, November 12. 53(44):1041–1044. Available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5344a4.htm.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization. 2002. Practice Records of the meeting held on February 20–21, 2002, Atlanta Marriott North Central Hotel. Available at www.kevinleitch.co.uk/grabit/acip-min-feb.pdf.
- Citizen Cain. 2005. Slouching Toward Truth—Autism and Mercury, November 30. Available at http://citizencain.blogspot.com/2005/11/slouching-toward-truth-autism-and_30.html.
- Deer, B. 2007. Andrew Wakefield & the MMR scare: part 2. Available at http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm.
- Doja, A., and W. Roberts. 2006. Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 33(4):341–46.
- Friederichs, V., J.C. Cameron, and C. Robertson. 2006. Impact of adverse publicity on MMR vaccine uptake: a population based analysis of vaccine uptake records for one million children, born 1987–2004. Archives of Diseases of Children 200691(6):465–68. Epub 2006 April 25.
- Geier, D.A., and M.R. Geier. 2006. An assessment of downward trends in neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States following removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Medical Science Monitor 12(6):CR231–9. Epub 2006 May 29.
- General Medical Council. 2007. July 16. Available at www.gmcpressoffice.org.uk/apps/news/events/index.php?month=7&year=2007&submit=Submit.
- Goldacre B. 2007. Opinions from the medical fringe should come with a health warning. The Guardian, Saturday, February 24. Available at www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/24/badscience.uknews.
- Gorski, D. 2007. Andrew Wakefield: The Galileo gambit writ large in The Observer. Respectful Insolence, July 9, 2007. Available at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/andrew_wakefield_the_galileo_gambit_writ.php.
- Honda, H., Y. Shimizu, and M. Rutter. 2005. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(6):572–79.
- Hughes, V. 2007. Mercury Rising. Nature Medicine 13(8):896–7. Epub 2007 August 31.
- Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS). 2007. Autistic spectrum disorder: No causal relationship with vaccines. Paediatrics & Child Health 12(5): 393–95. Available at www.cps.ca/english/statements/ID/pidnote_jun07.htm.
- Institute of Medicine. 2001. Immunization Safety Review: Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism. April 23. Available at www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/4715.aspx.
- Institute of Medicine. 2004. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. May 17. Available at www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx.
- Kennedy, R.F. 2005. Deadly immunity. June 16. Salon.com. Available at http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index3.html?pn=1.
- ———. 2007. Attack on mothers. June 19. The Huffington Post. Available at www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/attack-on-mothers_b_52894.html.
- Kirby, David. 2005. Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. New York: St. Martin's Press.
- Lancet Editors, 2004. Lancet 363(9411).
- Leitch K. 2007. Autism amongst the Amish. Left Brain/Right Brain. 22. Available at www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=5353.
- Madsen, K.M., A. Hviid, M. Vestergaard, D. Schendel, J. Wohlfahrt, P. Thorsen, J. Olsen, and M. Melbye. 2002. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine 347(19):1477–1482.
- Miles, J.H., and T.N. Takahashi. 2007. Lack of association between Rh status, Rh immune globulin in pregnancy and autism. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A1. 143(13):1397–407.
- Mitchell, S., J. Brian, L. Zwaigenbaum, W. Roberts, P. Szatmari, I. Smith, and S. Bryson. 2006. Early language and communication development of infants later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 27(2 Suppl):S69–78.
- Parker, S.K., B. Schwartz, J. Todd, and L.K. Pickering. 2004. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data. Pediatrics 114(3):793–804.
- Rutter, M. 2005. Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: changes over time and their meaning. Acta Paediatrica 94(1):2–15.
- Szatmari, P., et. al. 2007. Mapping autism risk loci using genetic linkage and chromosomal rearrangements. Nature Genetics 39, 319–28.
- Taylor, B. 2006. Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism. Child Care, Health, and Development 32(5):511–19.
- Taylor, B., E. Miller, C.P. Farrington, M.C. Petropoulos, I. Favot-Mayaud, J. Li, and P.A. Waight. 1999. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 12;353(9169):2026–2029.
- Taylor, B., E. Miller, R. Lingam, N. Andrews, A. Simmons, and J. Stowe. 2002. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. British Medical Journal 16; 324(7334):393–96.
- United States Court of Federal Claims. 2007. Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Transcript of Day 6. June 18, 2007. Available at ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day06.pdf.
- United States Court of Federal Claims, 2007. Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Transcript of Day 8. June 20, 2007. Available at ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day08.pdf.
- USDOJ, About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Available at www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm.
- Wakefield, A.J., S.H. Murch, A. Anthony, J. Linnell, D.M. Casson, M. Malik, M. Berelowitz, A.P. Dhillon, M.A. Thomson, P. Harvey, A. Valentine, S.E. Davies, and J.A. Walker-Smith. 1998. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351(9103):637–41.


text:
Order By Phone 1-877-777-2646
Shopping Cart 0 Items
Home > Accessories > Travel > Bowling Pin Flash Drive - 8GB Memory
3" tall and 1" wide Bowling Pin Flash Drive is perfect for bowling fans. The Bowling Pin Shaped Memory Stick has 8 GB memory enough to store all those "striking" bowling poses and pictures.
1. USB connection, support Hot plug & Play.
2. No external power supply required.
3. Support different types of Operating System
4. Solid State Storage, Shock proof and electromagnetic proof.
5. Durable data storage
6. Fast speed in write/read transfer
7. Hardware Requirement: PC with USB connection, Notebook, MAC
8. Life:>1 million times
9.capacity: 8GB
11. Material: Plastic
12. Encryption: No

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If "bad website" were a genre, it might well surpass the giant internet porn industry. Some bad websites seem the product of Luddites drawing on monitors with Sharpie markers. Others are constructed with all the efficacy of a monkey slinging poo at a wall to see what sticks. Yet others might be viewed as the abstract actualizations of artists under the influence of psilocybin mushrooms. And then there are the ones that truly stand out.
Dismiss for the moment sites suffering from inept coding or poor standards. These are legion and far too numerous to merit consideration as "bad websites". They are simply technical failures and amateur attempts. No. The sites that demand our attention today are true tragedies of design and despair. These are the sites designed for Businesses and Celebrities who should have known better, but didn't. These are so "over-the-top" bad that one must wonder if perhaps their web designer harbored some secret grudge against their client.
Without further ado, allow me to assume my best "Rod Serling" to present a Night Gallery of digital horror. Welcome to this exclusive showing of ten websites, each a collectors' item in its own way - not because of any special artistic quality, but because each captures on a screen, and suspends in time and space, a frozen moment of a nightmare.
I've provided the quick links to the websites themselves below, but you will probably want to page through the gallery, "10 web design tragedies," for the full effect with commentary on the visual assault you see before you.
Here's a little taste from Number 10 (yeah, you really need to view this full-size):
Quick Links For impatient masochists
- Number 10: http://www.arngren.net
- Number 9: http://www.lingscars.com
- Number 8: http://www.zombo.com
- Number 7: http://www.pearlbrite.biz
- Number 6: http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org
- Number 5: http://www.airportfleet.co.uk
- Number 4: http://www.georgehutchins.com
- Number 3: http://www.enterprisemission.com
- Number 2: http://www.jkrowling.com/en/index.cfm
- Number 1: http://www.georgerrmartin.com
Full Bio
Todd Fluhr is a freelance writer and multimedia designer. A self-described "Shockwave Rider" of technology, culture, and creativity, he has been involved in the interactive entertainment industry since the early 90's. He hopes to find time to sleep some day.


text:
In a recent conversation with my colleague Alice Hendricks, I learned that her business, Jackson River, earns far more than you'd expect from a 2-year-old consultancy (She asked me not to share numbers, so you have to take my word for it, but she's earning like a rock star.).
How, you might ask? Her bottom line: efficiency.
Amanda: Your revenue blows past ordinary growth curves. How did you do it?
Ms. Hendricks: Our model is to charge only for services. Our philosophy is that clients should not spend a lot of money on consultants and when they do, it should be really necessary and specifically valuable. Although this seems contrary to achieving high revenues, I am convinced that it is the abundance principle in action. We approach our work with honesty and transparency. We keep our hourly rate low so we are affordable and keep a very tight rein on scope. Also, we are picky about our projects and only take ones that we feel will be successful.
Amanda: That's a great answer, but I'm not sure it explains your revenue success. Companies that earn ¼ of what you do could say the same thing.


text:
L. Neil Smith's
Number 311, March 20, 2005
"This is your government, people."
Muslim Woman's Courage Sets Example
Special to TLE
Last week, Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court—the nation's highest Islamic court—vacated an appeals court decision that had outraged the world.
In essence, the appeals court had acquitted five of the six men convicted in the 2002 "honor rape" of Mukhtar Mai. Her ongoing story may well foreshadow the future of Muslim women who suffer under tribal law and other oppressive traditions. Hers is a savage tale of brutalization and courage, with confusing twists and a resolution that is uncertain. But it is a story of hope, which provides reason for optimism.
In it, the West provides an invaluable voice of conscience and compassion. But the story's ultimate message may be that Muslim women must stand up for themselves and say 'no.'
In the summer of 2002, a panchayat court (or village council) sentenced Mukhtar to be gang-raped by four men. The sentence was not to punish Mukhtar for wrongdoing. Rather, her 14-year-old brother was accused of associating in public with a girl from a rival and more powerful tribe; her rape was meant to punish the family for his transgression.
Gang-raped, beaten, and thrown naked into the street, Mukhtar was forced to walk home through her village. The public nature of the punishment ensured she was an outcast and unmarriageable. Mukhtar was expected to kill herself, but a suicide attempt failed. Her family revived her, and the support of her loved ones deterred her from making future attempts.
Her story grabbed the media's attention. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times visited her home and observed, "a girl in the next village was gang-raped a week after Ms. Mukhtaran, and she took the traditional route: she swallowed a bottle of pesticide and dropped dead."
By contrast, Kristof wrote, Mukhtar survived and propounded "the shocking idea that the shame lies in raping, rather than in being raped."
In rural Pakistan, as in many remote Muslim areas, tribal courts often take precedence over the law of the land on matters of family and "honor." Indeed, when human rights organizations express outrage over ritualized violence against women in Islamic cultures, it is often the panchayat tribal courts toward which they point an accusing finger.
For example, Pakistan is notorious for "honor killings." This is the practice by which women are murdered, usually by male relatives, for sexual 'improprieties' such as having sex outside of marriage. Mukhtar's story is an international indictment of that system.
However, in recent years—largely due to its alliance with and dependency upon the United States—Pakistan's national government has been trying to reform how women are treated in their country. President Musharraf has declared an agenda of "enlightened moderation" that sets his more Western version of society at odds with tribal traditions.
In Mai's case, the first "official" encouragement came from a local imam (an Islamic cleric) who called for her attackers to be brought before a civil court. (The importance of calls of reform and rebellion originating from within the society itself cannot be overstated.)
Soon, international opinion took up the cry and Pakistan's authorities reacted quickly. A special anti-terrorism court sentenced the four accused rapists as well as two members of the panchayat court to death. Musharraf presented Mukhtar with approximately $8,300 in compensation and ordered the police to protect her.
Mukhtar used the money to open schools for children in her village.
Sarwar Bari of Pattan—a non-governmental organization that supports Mukhtar—states, "A lot of people would have taken the money and run away, tried to forget, but Mukhtaran has not only stayed but has launched a visible challenge to the feudal landlords to change the status quo."
And, then, a slow and boring appeals process ensued. And, then, world attention shifted focus. Some of that shift was the natural consequence of a fast-moving world. Some was encouraged by Pakistan's government to mute global criticism. Clearly, the Pakistani government was not pleased with reporters like Kristof.
Last September, Kristof reported, "relatives of the rapists are waiting for the police to leave and then will put Ms. Mukhtaran in her place...I walked to the area where the high-status tribesmen live. They denied planning to kill Ms. Mukhtaran, but were unapologetic about her rape."
And while the world shifted focus, the appeals court set her rapists free.
Early this month, Kristof published an op-ed in the N.Y. Times entitled, "When Rapists Walk Free." There, Kristof commented, "I had planned to be in Pakistan this week to write a follow-up column about Mukhtaran. But after a month's wait, the Pakistani government has refused to give me a visa..."
But now that the higher court has overturned those acquittals, global attention is again on Mukhtar.
On a website about her ordeal, Mukhtar, a small, soft-spoken women in her 30s, says of the attention: "My legal name is Mukhtaran Bibi, though I have become known in recent years as Mukhtar Mai. The local media here in Pakistan gave me that name, meaning 'respected big sister,' after my story first became national news."
But what the world sees upon refocusing on Mukhtar is a woman who has stood strong for two years and become a lightning rod around which other women gather to march and protest.
One official reaction: a contempt plea has been filed against 14 people, including Mukhtar, for making statements critical of the court to the press. Liberalizing the treatment of women and moving too openly against tribal courts obviously places Musharraf in an uncomfortable position.
Yet change is coming. Mukhtaran has said. "It's more than I would have thought possible two years ago."
Imagine what might be accomplished if the world pays attention for the next two years.
You've read about it, now if you want to DO more FREEDOM in your life, check out:
This ain't no collection of essays and philosophical musings!
Doing Freedom! Magazine and Services specializes in


text:
by P.A. Madison on June 30th, 2011
- The Power Described
- The Regulating Power Sought Over Commerce with the States
- Commerce Defined
- Why Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse
- Why the Power among the States
- Why Congress Lacks Affirmative Powers over Interstate Commerce
- Confusing Marine Power with the Regulation of Commerce
- Conclusion
The United States Supreme court tells us their "case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." In a September 2009 press release, former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi asserted, "the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce."
The question explored here is whether such "case law" or public assertions are supported in any way by the history, text and custom of regulating commerce. If it cannot be supported by any factual evidence then it is clearly erroneous and has no place in federal jurisprudence where facts and truth should be held paramount.
History of the organic law of this country conclusively shows beyond any doubt that the regulation of commerce was nothing more, and nothing less, then the act of imposing a tax on articles of import for the sole purpose of restricting or prohibiting their introduction in order to protect or promote local manufactures. Moreover, this was the custom and practice of all nations in regulating commerce with other nations or parts of a nation and no nation ever claimed police powers over another nation or parts of themselves via authority to regulate commerce.
Because regulating commerce and generating revenue is accomplished through the same identical method of imposing a tax, the regulation of commerce "among the several states" was inserted for remedial purposes of preventing States from taxing the trade of other States as well as preventing Congress from doing the same under Section 9.
It will become abundantly clear why James Madison referred to the regulation of commerce "among the several states" as a "negative and preventive provision" and not any power Congress may resort to for "positive purposes" (see Madison letter to Joseph C. Cabell).
Finally, it will be pointed how the court has mistakenly confused marine law of nations with that of regulating commerce, which has introduced erroneous assumptions over the extent of the power.
Chief Justice Marshall tells us in the classic and still respected case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that the power to regulate commerce "describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."
Marshall obviously is correct in describing the Commerce Clause as dealing with commercial intercourse "between" nations and parts of nations because the Constitution speaks only of regulating commerce "with foreign nations" and "among the several States" and not the regulation of commercial activities within nations or within States. It is too obvious why the regulation of commerce must be "between" and not "within" because Congress has no sovereign jurisdiction over commercial activities either within a foreign nation or within a State. This fact alone makes it silly to suggest the power to regulate commerce can have broad application.
Some might attempt to argue the method of regulating foreign commerce is not the same as regulating commerce among the States. However, the text of the Commerce Clause reveals no alternating commands to how the regulation of commerce shall be regulated differently between States and nations (or even with Indian tribes). Marshall pointed out this clear fact in Gibbons by observing, "it (regulation of commerce) must carry the same meaning throughout the sentence, and remain a unit, unless there be some plain intelligible cause which alters it."
Marshall further pointed out that "[c]ommerce among the States must, of necessity, be commerce with the States."
Suffice to say, there is no "plain intelligible cause" to alter how the power is exercised differently between States and nations. Since commerce is regulated in the same manner among the States as with foreign nations, answering what rules are prescribed in regulating foreign commerce also answers the question of what are the proper rules for regulating commerce among the States.
Because the subject of regulation is the commercial intercourse "between" nations and States and not within them, does not make it terribly important of what might all come under the singular word "commerce" outside of this regulation because its meaning can only be properly defined in connection with what is actually exchanged between different powers. This textual fact of the Commerce Clause limits the discussion of commerce to importation since that is the only commercial intercourse that goes on between different powers (more on this in a moment).
A quick word on navigation: When "navigation" is spoken of as an ingredient of regulating commerce it is a reference to points of entry where ships of trade are directed to enter for purpose of customs (cargo inspection, duties and imposts levied, seizures made, etc.). This is why Chief Justice Marshall said the words, "nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another" was the navigation comprehended in regulating commerce.
The Regulating Power Sought Over Commerce with the States
No doubt the reason for little debate or controversies over Congress regulating commerce among the States during the constitutional convention was due to the well understood practice of the power and resolutions under the old Articles of Confederation asking for State approval to empower Congress with specific and detailed powers to regulate State and foreign commerce. The first resolution in February of 1781 by John Witherspoon, read, in part:
That it is indispensably necessary that the United States in Congress assembled, should be vested with a right of superintending the commercial regulations of every state, that none may take place that shall be partial or contrary to the common interest; and that they should be vested with the exclusive right of laying duties upon all imported articles, no restriction to be valid, and no such duty to be laid but with the consent of nine states: provided, that all duties and imposts laid by the United States in Congress assembled, shall always be a certain proportion of the value of the article or articles on which the same shall be laid …
Another resolution example is from a committee lead by James Monroe in 1785 asking the States to give Congress the authority "of regulating the trade of the states, as well with foreign nations, as with each other, and of laying such impost and duties, upon imports and exports, as may be necessary for the purpose." Monroe would later explain in 1822 that:
Commerce between independent powers or communities is universally regulated by duties and imposts. It was so regulated by the States before the adoption of this Constitution, equally in respect to each other and to foreign powers. The goods and vessels (tonnage duties) employed in the trade are the only subjects of regulation. It can act on none other. A power, then, to impose such duties and imposts in regard to foreign nations and to prevent any on the trade between the States was the only power granted.
Madison offered a resolution on November 30, 1785 asking that, "the United States in Congress assembled be authorized to prohibit vessels belonging to any foreign nation from entering any of the ports thereof, or to impose any duties on such vessels and their cargoes which may be judged necessary."
To prevent States from regulating commerce, Madison's resolution called for no State to be at "liberty to impose duties on any goods, wares, or merchandise, imported, by land or by water, from any other state, but may altogether prohibit the importation from any state of any particular species or description of goods, wares, or merchandise, of which the importation is at the same time prohibited from all other places whatsoever."
This resolution leads to the Annapolis Convention of 1786 that in return lead to the convention in Philadelphia in May of 1787.
Another resolution in August of 1786 asking the States to empower Congress with the power to "have the sole and exclusive power of regulating the trade of the States as well with foreign nations as with each other and of laying such prohibitions and such Imposts and duties upon imports and exports as may be Necessary for the purpose…"
These resolutions show a clear, consistent understanding of how commerce is, and was, regulated through taxation on importation and not municipal law over internal commercial activities. Additionally, these examples illustrate the well-recognized dual purpose of taxation of either raising revenue or regulating commerce.
William Pitt speaking before the House of Commons in 1765 pointed out the dual purpose of taxes, "there is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purpose of raising a revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of trade." Colonial delegate Benjamin Franklin asserted the same thing a year later. James Madison in Federalist No. 56 said, "[t]axation will consist, in a great measure, of duties which will be involved in the regulation of commerce."
Marshall in Gibbons also recognized the dual purpose of taxes: "It is true that duties may often be, and in fact often are, imposed on tonnage with a view to the regulation of commerce, but they may be also imposed with a view to revenue."
Imposing a general revenue tax disguised as a regulation of commerce that clearly does not protect or promote local manufactures, could have adverse consequences as Britain once discovered during colonial times (the colonies "cheerfully consent[ed]" to Britain taxing for the regulation of their external commerce but not for general revenue). Because of this dual nature of taxes, States were restrained from laying taxes for any purpose upon imports or exports outside of their own.
The first act of Congress following the convention to regulate commercial intercourse was an act titled, "An act for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandizes, imported into the United States," signed by President Washington on July 4, 1789. Imposing rules of what imported articles are restricted or prohibited via a tax was the only known method of regulating commercial intercourse between independent powers.
It is now easy to understand what Marshall meant of regulating commerce in Gibbons as "cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior." He of course was referring to the prohibition against a State in taxing either another State or foreign nation imports/exports once it is introduced into the State and with the intent to be shipped through the State to another for purpose of bringing that trade to market.
Because the regulation of commerce is the regulation of intercourse "between" different powers, and because this intercourse is regulated through duties on imports, leaves us with the only question of what exactly is an "import."
Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland (1827) says the "lexicons inform us they (imports) are 'things imported.'" He continues, "If we appeal to usage for the meaning of the word, we shall receive the same answer. They are the articles themselves which are brought into the country." Marshall goes on to state the articles of import are those "only which are intended for sale or consumption in the country."
It should be apparent how such things as "labor" or "services" cannot come under the regulation of commerce because, for example, "services" are not property imported. It is also rather absurd to argue regulating the transportation of "passengers" is a regulation of commerce in light of the unmistakable fact the United States no longer recognizes a property in men for purposes of trade. This is what made regulating the foreign slave trade awkward under the Commerce Clause because as Madison put it, human beings were not "property," and "slaves are not like merchandise, consumed, etc."
This is why the court in New York v. Miln (1837) was forced to acknowledge persons "are not the subject of commerce, and not being imported goods, cannot fall within a train of reasoning founded upon the construction of a power given to Congress to regulate commerce."
England and the States never asserted they were regulating commerce when they passed laws regulating manufactures, labor or fixing the price of certain commodities.
The word "commerce" as employed under the Commerce Clause also does not extend any powers over buying and selling. Thomas Jefferson said, "[t]o make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling . . . if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external." In response to Jefferson, Hamilton agreed buying and selling "falls more aptly within the province of the local jurisdictions than within that of the general government."
Consider also that to regulate the value of money, to make laws for bankruptcies, or to "fix the standard of weights and measures" are all-important ingredients of commerce, yet the Constitution specifically enumerates these powers for Congress to exercise. In Federalist No. 42 Madison said: "The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy, is so intimately connected with the regulation of commerce, and will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie, or be removed into different states, that the expediency of it seems not likely to be drawn into question."
So while bankruptcy may be "intimately connected" with commerce, this connection does not make it part of any regulation of commerce because bankruptcies are never the subject of commercial intercourse between different sovereigns.
It is no wonder that the framers are frequently found referring to the regulation of commerce as the "regulation of trade" because this commerce is the regulation of those articles of trade imported for the purpose of consumption.
Why Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse
The object behind taxation for regulating commercial intercourse is not, of course, revenue, but for the protection or encouragement of local manufactures by laying restrictive or prohibiting duties on those imported items that compete with what is domestically manufactured. Moreover, like all taxes, this tax extends no power over the thing taxed other than to restrict or prohibit its introduction.
The Declaration of Colonial Rights of 1774 declared the "regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother-country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members."
Again, referring to Section 1 of the first acts of Congress in regulating commerce in 1789, we find the purpose of regulating commerce in the words, "encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandizes, imported, etc."
Jefferson wrote in 1821 that the "government of the United States at a very early period, when establishing its tariff on foreign importations, were very much guided in their selection of objects by a desire to encourage manufactures within themselves."
Madison writing on tariffs in 1828 said the power of regulating commerce "has been understood and used, by all commercial and manufacturing nations, as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named."
A couple of examples of regulating commerce is in order: Congress may seek to encourage American shipbuilding or American navigation in the coasting trade through prescribing high tonnage duties on foreign made vessels while laying little to none on American made ships in order to encourage building or use of American ships. Another example would be how Congress currently encourages the use of American made ethanol for gasoline blending by placing a $0.60 per gallon duty on all imported ethanol. While this is a proper exercise of regulating commerce, mandating by positive law that refineries must produce gasoline blended with ethanol is not because such laws are a police regulation that only the sovereign where such activities occur under can mandate.
During the federal convention in 1787, Madison noted that Col. Mason observed the "particular States might wish to encourage, by impost duties, certain manufactures, for which they enjoyed natural advantages, as Virginia [in] the manufacture of hemp, etc." Madison responded by saying the "encouragement of manufactures in that mode requires duties, not only on imports directly from foreign countries, but from the other States in the Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced from the want of a general government over commerce."
Why Congress was empowered to Regulate Commerce among the States
Nothing clarifies a constitutional provision better than the purpose for which it was approved and adopted to serve. With that said, a little history is in order.
The single most cause of discontent among the Colonies and States was over how particular States taxed the commerce of other States. Example: Connecticut was taxing the produce of Massachusetts as it navigated down the Connecticut River causing Massachusetts to retaliate by taxing all exports from its harbors belonging to citizens of all New England colonies prior to 1650.
Later New York attempted to break up the trade of Connecticut and New Jersey by imposing heavy duties on every vessel entering from those States. Delaware and New Jersey attempted to attract the foreign trade of Pennsylvania and New York by offering lower import duties. Massachusetts and Rhode Island placed prohibitive duties on imports via British ships while Connecticut admitted such imports free, seeking a monopoly of domestic trade in British products.
James Madison explains the "very material object" of the power to regulate commerce among the States in Federalist No. 42:
A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.
Madison describes the power as a "constitutional remedy" in this 1832 letter to Professor Davis of the University of Virginia:
The power to regulate commerce among the States was well known and so explained by the advocates of the Constitution when before the people for their consideration, to be as a necessary control on the conduct of some of the importing States toward their non-importing neighbors. A recurrence to the angry legislation produced by it among the parties, some of whom had passed commercial laws (duties and imposts on articles of import) more rigid against others than against foreign nations, will well account for the constitutional remedy.
Alexander Hamilton liken States regulating each other's trade to the "trammels" of the German empire: "The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered are rendered almost useless."
Framer Edmund Randolph commenting upon the powers of Congress over commerce among the States as President Washington's AG in 1791, described the power as "little more than to establish the forms of commercial intercourse between the States, and to keep the prohibitions which the constitution imposes on that intercourse undiminished in their operation; that is, to prevent taxes on imports or exports."
It does not require rocket science to figure out why States would desire an end to such mischief by removing the power of the States to impose such taxes. The accepted way of doing it was to delegate the power exclusively in one authority so no State could claim it still possessed the right, and if any State did attempt to tax other States commerce for its own interests there would be a remedial avenue in voiding such actions.
None of this of course, in any way, extends to concerns over buying or selling across State lines.
Example: A resident citizen of a State purchases a book from a mail order merchant who then ships the book from another State to the purchaser. This activity is not part of any regulation of commerce because the book is not a property belonging to an export of another State with the intent to bring to market for sale but is merely private property having already been sold.
As we will discover below, the central government could not be trusted with any affirmative power to regulate State-to-State commerce.
Congress Lacks Affirmative Powers over Interstate Commerce
With the regulation of commerce being the power to impose a tax upon competing articles of importation for purposes of protecting or promoting local manufactures, makes clear how the Constitution limits its exercise between States. Under Article I, Section 9 (Limits on Congress) under the clause that reads, "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
This federal prohibition is broad and encompasses every known tax for every known purpose upon any articles exported from any State. An "export" is merely the reverse of an import – that is to say, only those items of trade transported out for the purpose of sale or consumption in another jurisdiction.
Framer James Wilson made it clear this prohibition extended to the regulation of commerce by pointing out this federal prohibition against taxing State exports would remove "half the regulation of trade," meaning Congress would effectively be left with only an affirmative power over foreign imports while leaving the regulation of commerce among the States a nullity.
The debate over the clause during the federal convention went along these lines (from Madison's notes):
Mr. Elseworth: It is best as it stands-The power of regulating trade between the States will protect them agst each other-Should this not be the case, the attempts of one to tax the produce of another passing through its hands, will force a direct exportation and defeat themselves – There are solid reasons agst. Congs taxing exports. 1. it will discourage industry, as taxes on imports discourage luxury. 2. The produce of different States is such as to prevent uniformity in such taxes. there are indeed but a few articles that could be taxed at all; as Tobo. (Tobacco) rice & indigo, and a tax on these alone would be partial & unjust. 3. The taxing of exports would engender incurable jealousies.
Mr. Williamson: Tho' N- C. (North Carolina) has been taxed by Virga (Virginia) by a duty on 12,000 Hhs of her Tobo. exported thro' Virga yet he would never agree to this power. Should it take place, it would destroy the last hope of an adoption of the plan.
Mr. Butler was strenuously opposed to a power over exports as unjust and alarming to the staple States.
Mr. Langdon suggested a prohibition on the States from taxing the produce of other States exported from their harbours.
Mr. Dickenson: The power of taxing exports may be inconvenient at present; but it must be of dangerous consequence to prohibit it with respect to all articles and forever. He thought it would be better to except particular articles from the power.
Mr. Sherman: It is best to prohibit the National legislature in all cases. The States will never give up all power over trade. An enumeration of particular articles would be difficult invidious and improper.
Mr. Gerry was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to compel the States to comply with the will of the Genl Government, and to grant it any new powers which might be demanded-We have given it more power already than we know how will be exercised-it will enable the Genl Govt to oppress the States, as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.
Mr. Mercer was strenous against giving Congress power to tax exports. Such taxes were impolitic, as encouraging the raising of articles not meant for exportation. The States had now a right where their situation permitted, to tax both the imports and exports of their uncommercial neighbours. It was enough for them to sacrifice one half of it. It had been said the Southern States had most need of naval protection. The reverse was the case. Were it not for promoting the carrying trade of the Northn States, the Southn States could let their trade go into foreign bottoms, where it would not need our protection. Virginia by taxing her tobacco had given an advantage to that of Maryland.
Mr. Butler declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing exports.
As it turned out, framer Roger Sherman was correct; States would never give up all power over commerce to the central government, nor did they.
It has been argued the clause really reads "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported [to a foreign nation] from any State." This argument obviously has serious flaws primarily because such an interpretation is at war with the unambiguous text. It is also at war with the fact Congress avoided taxing State exports from State-to-State to avoid any appearance of taxing this trade.
Example: When Congress passed the controversial Carriage Tax of 1794 for taxing the conveyance of passengers it made very clear that carriages used in "husbandry, or for the transporting or carrying of goods, wares, merchandise, produce or commodities" was exempted. This was to avoid any appearance of Congress attempting to lay a tax on State-to-State exports.
Without the power to lay duties on State exports, there are no means for Congress to encourage or protect manufactures in one State from competition of another State. Congress cannot argue they are merely regulating State imports because one States import is another States export when it comes to commerce among the States. Regulating commerce only works when the intercourse is between foreign nations and where there are no State exports involved.
Justice Story said of section nine: "The obvious object of these provisions is, to prevent any possibility of applying the power to lay taxes, or regulate commerce, injuriously to the interests of any one state, so as to favour or aid another." Story further remarked the "prohibition extends not only to exports, but to the exporter. Congress can no more rightfully tax the one, than the other."
Framer Charles Pinckney told the House on February 14, 1820:
I will only mention here, as it is perfectly within my recollection, that the power was given to Congress to regulate the commerce by water between the States, and it being feared, by the Southern, that the Eastern would, whenever they could, do so to the disadvantage of the Southern States, you will find, in the 9th section of the 1st article, Congress are prevented from taxing exports, or giving preference to the ports of one State over another, or obliging vessels bound from one State to clear, enter, or pay duties in another; which restrictions, more clearly than any thing else, prove what the power to regulate commerce among the several States means.
Since the States made no restriction upon themselves to regulate their own internal commerce, can act to promote or protect manufactures of the State by imposing restrictive or prohibitory duties on anything that competes with what is made and sold in the State. Example: A State may impose high duties on foreign made t-shirts that are shipped into the State with the intent to be sold intrastate in order to protect State t-shirt manufacture from low cost foreign competition.
There is no right under the Commerce Clause that says merchandise must be freely admitted and sold within a State but only that outside trade may enter and exit a State unburdened by taxes.
Since it is abundantly clear to what the text and history of the clause commands, no further discussion is required.
Confusing Marine Power with the Regulation of Commerce
It needs to be noted how the powers over commerce has been erroneously extended through the false assumption of the maritime jurisdiction and the regulation of commerce being one of the same. They are not.
When the States moved from a league of States to one of a Nation for limited purposes of foreign commerce, defense, bankruptcies, piracies on the seas, etc., became by custom of nations a marine power. Per law of nations, all maritime affairs within three miles of the shore are invested with the national power and this jurisdiction extends to anything related to the sea such as salvage, marine insurance, safety regulations, contracts, vessel registration, liens, coasting trade, pilotage, seamen, etc., etc., etc.
Nobody disputed or questioned the fact the new general government would be empowered over general maritime affairs of the sea because it was widely viewed as the responsibility of all nations to exercise. Framer Edmund Randolph summed it up best when he wrote as Attorney General:
The law of nations, although not specifically adopted by the Constitution, is essentially a part of the law of the land. Its obligation commences and runs with the existence of a nation, subject to modification on some points of indifference.
This explains how the constitution can extend jurisdiction to the judiciary over admiralty and maritime affairs without such a power having been specifically delegated to national government to exercise.
Maritime jurisdiction extends itself to rivers and canals that are directly connected with the sea, and which may allow navigating for purpose of carrying out trade. Bodies of water where there is no direct connection to the sea or channels unusable for trade do not fall within this jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it is the custom of nations to treat vessels' as exclusive property under the jurisdiction of the nation whose flag they sail under. Said Webster: "A vessel on the high seas, beyond the distance of a marine league from the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs, and subjected, exclusively to the jurisdiction of that nation."
This is the authority for Congress to require vessels to carry necessary medications for seamen, or tax seamen wages to provide for hospitalization in case of sickness. None of this has anything to do with the Commerce Clause.
Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden points out that the marine power of the nation and the regulation of foreign commerce were placed in the same hands: "The provisions of the law respecting native seamen and respecting ownership are as applicable to vessels carrying men as to vessels carrying manufactures, and no reason is perceived why the power over the subject should not be placed in the same hands."
In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters (1944), Justice Hugo Black made a rather lame attempt to show the regulation of commerce included the business of insurance by completely misconstruing what Alexander Hamilton wrote in his 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.
In footnote, Black quotes Hamilton's words, "admit of little if any question" to falsely assert Hamilton was suggesting the "federal power to regulate foreign commerce included 'the regulation of policies of insurance.'" Justice Black omits the important fact that Hamilton was not directly describing the regulation of foreign commerce but speaking of the nations maritime power for which such insurance over shipping falls.
In his opinion, Hamilton said the regulation of commerce comes under four headings for which the business of insurance does not fall under because Hamilton describes the power as a taxing power with the incidental power to aid the collection (customhouses):
- To prohibit them (nations) or their commodities from our ports (imposing prohibitory duties or embargo).
- To impose duties on them where none existed before, or to increase existing duties on them.
- To subject them to any species of custom house regulation.
- To grant them any exemptions or privileges which policy may suggest (low or no duties on particular articles or tonnage).
After highlighting these four proper headings of regulating foreign commerce, Hamilton argues these headings "omits every thing that relates to the citizens, vessels, or commodities, of the United States." Hamilton then goes into a laundry list of omissions that turns out to be those exact powers exercised by nations under their maritime jurisdiction, example: "The regulation of policies of insurance; of salvage upon goods found at sea; and the disposition of such goods." And, "[o]f the power of regulating the manner of contracting with seamen, the policies of ships on their voyages, &c. of which the act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchant service is a specimen."
It is obvious from Hamilton's list of omitted powers he was speaking of those powers exercised over marine affairs since little, if any, had any direct application to dry land. Additionally, these powers had no connection to laying taxes on articles of import which Hamilton himself had acknowledged was the sole method of regulating commerce.
Maritime jurisdiction would exist without any mention of regulating commerce because it is a custom of all mercantile nations for the national power to manage affairs of the sea. On the other hand, Congress could not regulate commerce without being specifically empowered because otherwise it would have been a reserved power remaining with each State to exercise like they had after the revolution and because it isn't a part of law of nations.
The power to proscribe what articles of imports shall be restricted or prohibited through the laying of duties on imports for purposes of protecting or promoting American manufactures and the rules for executing this power was the only power acknowledged, approved and adopted. Rules for executing this power can include customhouse regulations, pilotage, forfeitures, laws against smuggling (avoiding customs), navigation points, etc.
Because the power acts only on commercial intercourse "between" separate powers, limits the power to importation and anything that could burden the introduction of imports through taxes. Only Congress is authorized to burden the introduction of foreign imports.
The sole purpose behind the regulation of commerce "between" powers being for the promotion or protection of manufactures against foreign competition dispels the judicial fable of internal economic activities or markets of States is related to the commercial intercourse "between" them.
This explains why Congress never showed any interest over internal commercial activities among the States or their markets as evidenced by the lack of any laws over the subject or acts of acquiring and maintaining vital data over commerce among the States. On the other hand, the entire interest of the nation, as a nation, was with foreign commerce where rules were made and statistics kept.
As a consequence of the power to regulate commerce among the States being void of any affirmative powers for Congress to exercise over the States, and because the power is limited to laying a tax on imports, the power cannot be appealed to in order to make any act of Congress over markets or commerce of the States necessary and proper.
For the court to deny the purpose, custom and usage of the term "to regulate commerce" "between" States and nations in order to continue empowering Congress with greater authority over the States to do what is forbidden is repugnant to the Constitution.
Finally, I'll leave the last word to Justice Story:
"If the constitution is to be only what the administration of the day may wish it to be, and is to assume any and all shapes which may suit the opinions and theories of public men, as they successively direct the public councils, it will be difficult, indeed, to ascertain what its real value is. It cannot possess either certainty, or uniformity, or safety. It will be one thing today, and another thing tomorrow, and again another thing on each succeeding day. The past will furnish no guide, and the future no security.
"It will be the reverse of a law, and entail upon the country the curse of that miserable servitude so much abhorred and denounced, where all is vague and uncertain in the fundamentals of government."


text:
Philippa Willitts is a freelance writer, proofreader, copyeditor and journalist, available for hire.
She helps businesses to tailor their website content so that it gets maximum search engine exposure without compromising on the writing style; she can provide up-to-date and well-researched regular content for blogs to engage readers and customers; and she has a particular interest in content marketing, providing long-term customer-focused website content to ensure that customers find your site and recognise it as an authority in its niche.
She is also a journalist, writing mostly on health and disability and women's issues, with an additional focus on women in business. She has a weekly column at Global Comment.
She has been published on the Guardian, Independent, Channel 4 News and New Statesman websites, xoJane, the Daily Dot and more and is also a skilled writer of SEO content, blog posts, commercial copy, press releases, case studies and web content.
Her specialist areas are health and disability; women's issues; and digital marketing, especially on the subjects of social media, SEO, content marketing, internet security and internet marketing.
On this site you can find details of her freelance writing and rates, her proofreading and copyediting, frequently asked questions, and contact details.
If you are interested in finding out more about having Philippa write for you, please email her at email@example.com
The rest of her website is written in the first person. She's never quite sure why About Pages tend not to be, but it was one trend she decided against bucking.


text:
Maximum Family Games Changes Name to Maximum Games
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. – (May 25, 2012) – Today, Maximum Games announced its new, streamlined name. The company, formerly known as Maximum Family Games, updated the name to more accurately reflect its broad and expanding portfolio of games, which includes titles for teens and adults, as well as those that are family-oriented.
The announcement of the name change from Maximum Family Games to Maximum Games was made today by Len Ciciretto, president of Maximum Games. Maximum Games is an entertainment software publishing company whose mission is to deliver premier video games for all ages available on all leading platforms. As the company expands, the name change reflects a wider audience and broader sense of the entertainment brand.
"This year we are releasing several exciting new games and needed a new company name to reflect our positioning," said Ciciretto. "The new name embraces a more complete sense of who we cater to as a gaming company. People will get the maximum experience playing our games, whether they are family-oriented titles, or those favored by teens and adults."
The company believes its new name better represents the full nature of its products, which reach further than children's games. While still planning on delivering kid-appropriate titles, Maximum Games also intends on publishing games for more mature audiences this coming year and in the years to come.
When the company first launched in 2009, its name corresponded with its games, representative of a young, education-focused brand. Its first popular titles included Junior Brain Trainer, Junior Classic Games, Junior Brain Trainer 2, Junior Mystery Quest, and Junior Brain Trainer Math Edition. Currently, the company has plans to release several games in the second half of the year that are both appropriate for teens and adults.
"When we began we wanted to create experiences for young kids that were wholesome and fun," said Ciciretto, adding "Now we wish to do the same, while completing the circle with titles that truly encompass everyone's love of video games – from kids to teens to adult women and men."
The company will begin to use the new name immediately. For more information on Maximum Games, visit the official company site at www.maximumgames.com.
About Maximum Games
Headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, Maximum Games publishes premier interactive video games for all leading platforms. For more information on Maximum Games, visit the company's website, www.maximumgames.com. ;
|[View All]


text:
dphto needed a new banner ad design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 26 designs submitted by 9 freelance designers.
- We value simple, elegant, and fast websites
- We want people to be able to express themselves outside of the traditional means that Facebook and Twitter offer -- photos can convey emotions and feelings in a much deeper way than text.
Aimed at younger people who want to express themselves using photos as the primary medium. Should have a fun feeling that encourages users to express themselves.
We want to create 3 standard ad units to attract new users to the site. These should be 300x250, 160x600 and 728x90.
The ad should pitch new users to express themselves and also leverage some of the existing pictures from the website.
Good examples of photos can be found here:


text:
products for hairdressers - natural dyes for hair
Davines specializes in hairdressers and aesthetics.
"Beauty will save the world." In Davines believe is really possible thanks to our vision of sustainability.
By creating "beauty" we want to encourage people to take care of themselves, the environment in which they live and work, of what they love.
We inspire Simplicity, Harmony and Good Taste. For us, the Harmony is a convergence of unique features. The beauty in which we celebrate this uniqueness. Our own products are linked to the respect and admiration we have for individuality.
All this is the basis of our style.
A New Colour - Mask - Naturaltech - Davines Essential Haircare - Davines Authentic Formulas - More Inside
products for hairdressers - natural dyes for hair
Via Ravasini 9/A
43100 Parma - Italy
Tel. +39 0521.965611
Fax. +39 0521.292597


text:
: Local News
Three Area Players on Historic U16 State Team
Submitted: 03/26/2013
- A Trio of Northwoods hockey Players are part of a history making team. Their dream season is taking them to California.Kelly Knetter of Wausau on the left, Katie Detert of Rhinlander in the middle and Tomahawk's Nicole Nerva are members of Team Wisconsin's U16 team.Earlier this month, Team Wisconsin won both the state and Central District Playoffs. That means the team earned their first ever trip to the USA Hockey National Championships.The Championships are in San Jose. Pool Play begins next week. The young ladies are excited to play against the Nation's best."It's good to play against the top competition and see where I stack up against them," says Detert. "There will be college coaches there from Division One and D-3 Schools.""Being the first girls team to go is exciting," adds Nerva. "Many of the other teams play together all-year long. We don't practice together. So we have to come together and talk to each other when we're playing."
Written By: Joe Dufek
Text Size:
+ Increase
Decrease -


text:
This product is currently sold out.
You can obtain status and/or reserve this item by contacting us. We can also be reached by calling toll free 1-866-326-9377 (Dialing from outside the US +01 314 772 3566) between 10AM and 6PM CST (-6 GMT).
Once you slip on the N2N Bodywear Power G Swimsuit, don't be surprised if your confidence grows by leaps and bounds. Made from durable nylon fabric that retains its shape in and out of the water, it's available in half a dozen different bright colors and has a contoured pouch for an impressive profile enhancement.
83% Nylon, 17% Spandex.
Machine wash cold, do not bleach. Tumble dry low. Wash dark colors separately.
|26-30 in 66-76 cm
|30-34 in 76-86 cm
|34-38 in 86-97 cm
|Extra Large
|38-42 in 97-107 cm


text:
Select your Platform
Your Username
Mod Hack Enabled
Pubg Mobile Hack Battle Point And Bp Extra Tool Version: 2.2.b - Updated :
Select your Platform
Your Username
Mod Hack Enabled
Battle Point Amount
Bp Extra Amount
Starting Pubg Mobile Hack Generator...
Username Boban on Platform
Amount 200.000
Amount 200.000
Due to very high traffic on our servers, we need to verify again that you are not robot. Please do the following method below.
After that check your Pubg Mobile Hack account for the Battle Point and Bp Extra. Please give us 10 minutes to add resources to your account.
Pubg Mobile Hack Battle Point Bp Extra Hack Tool are made to assisting in you whilst actively playing Pubg Mobile Hack very easily. Its making resources of Battle Point and Bp Extra with a ton numbers availabe daily. We are going to apologies we could hardly offer unlimited amount yet. However shouldn't be anxious, how many total will always be a lot good enough to experience Pubg Mobile Hack very easily with no ordering any of buy-in-app-services that the developer's offer.
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS goes mobile - the original Battle Royale game is now available on your device!
1. Official PUBG on MOBILE
100 players parachute onto a remote 8x8 km island for a winner-takes-all showdown. Players have to locate and scavenge their own weapons, vehicles and supplies, and defeat every player in a graphically and tactically rich battleground that forces players into a shrinking play zone. Get ready to land, loot, and do whatever it takes to survive and be the last man standing!
2. High-quality Graphics and HD Audio
The powerful Unreal Engine 4 creates a jaw-dropping visual experience with rich detail, realistic gameplay effects and a massive HD map for Battle Royale. Feel like you're in the thick of the action as you play with high-quality audio, immersive 3D sound effects and 7.1 channel surround sound.
3. Realistic Weapons
A constantly growing lethal arsenal of firearms, melee weapons, and throwables with realistic ballistics and travel trajectories gives you the option to shoot, beat down, or incinerate your adversaries. Oh, and you like the pan? We've got the pan.
4. Travel in Style
Commandeer a variety of vehicles including cars, trucks, motorcycles, and boats to hunt down your enemies, race them to the play zone or make a swift escape.
5. Team Up with Friends
Survive the battle with your friends. Invite and team up with your friends, coordinate your battle plan through voice chat and set up the perfect ambush.
6. Fair Gaming Environment
Powerful anti-cheat mechanisms ensure a fun and fair environment for all PUBG MOBILE players.
Not Just A Game. This Is Battle Royale.
* Requires a persistent internet connection.
* Recommended specs for getting the most out of PUBG MOBILE: Android 5.1.1 or above and at least 2 GB RAM.


text:
By Ed Patino
HILLSDALE � A second half eruption let the Hillsdale High School boys basketball team keep the day's festivities rolling.
After grinding their way into a lead by halftime, the Hornets scored 50 points in the second half en route to a 76-38 victory over the Hudson Tigers in a Lenawee County Athletic Association game before a boisterous winter homecoming crowd.
Hillsdale (12-2, 8-2 LCAA) swept the two-game regular season series from Hudson (2-12, 1-9 LCAA). The Hornets matched their margin of victory from the teams' first meeting Dec. 20.
Leading by nine at halftime, the Hornets finally broke through Hudson's zone defense, scoring 18 points in the third quarter before outscoring the Tigers 32-11 in the fourth.
"There was no yelling and screaming, but we challenged the guys at halftime," Hillsdale coach Brad Felix said. "We had to play smarter and take better shots, and we needed to attack the rim more. Adjustment-wise we started to go 'all-go' on the press and that made a difference."
The pressure got to the Tigers, as Hillsdale forced them into 27 turnovers.
Hudson played an effective zone defense in the first half, taking away the paint and daring the Hornets to shoot from outside. The Tigers scored the game's first five points and kept Hillsdale off the board until midway through the first quarter. Kenton McCosh got Hillsdale rolling with back-to-back 3-pointers, then Patrick Drews buried a missile, making it 9-5.
Adam Laser-Laughlin closed the frame with a traditional 3-point play, then consecutive baskets by Bubba Williams gave Hudson a 13-9 lead early in the second.
The Hornets finally got inside and Zach VanOrman scored three straight baskets in the paint, then Brandon Bisher drained a 3-pointer midway through the quarter, giving Hillsdale an 18-13 lead. Another missile from Bisher and a traditional 3-pointer by Drews lifted the Hornets into an 11-point lead before Dan Komarynski scored inside, bringing Hudson to within 26-17 at halftime.
"Kenton sparked us with his 3's and kept us in it early," Felix said. "We had a lot of good looks in the first half and we generally make those in our gym. They become bad looks when you miss seven or eight in a row when you have mismatches inside."
The shots started falling for the Hornets in the third quarter. Andrew Wilcox scored on a putback midway through the frame, putting Hillsdale up 13. An inside basket from Bisher and two free throws by Trey Conrad stretched the lead to 44-27 entering the fourth.
The teams exchanged baskets early in the frame until the Hornets began pulling away thanks to several Hudson turnovers. The Tigers' 20 turnover resulted in a Bisher 3-pointer, then a Drews putback made it 51-30. Conrad went coast-to-coast later in the frame, then Lukas Miller closed the scoring with an inside basket in the final seconds.
"Our defense has been our staple this season, and tonight we got it done in a different way," Felix said. "We got a lot of deflections tonight, and our 16 steals is a season-high."
Drews had 14 points to lead the Hornets. Bisher added 13 points, while VanOrman and Jimmy Chase both had 10 points. Conrad scored seven points and Wilcox and McCosh both finished with six points.
Laser-Laughlin finished with 15 points to lead Hudson. Logan Milligan added eight points, while Justin Boies scored seven points.
The Hornets will travel to Blissfield on Tuesday. Hillsdale defeated the Royals in the teams' first meeting Jan. 8.
Hornets take down Tigers


text:
Developing with POJOs Part 2
This is part two of a three part series on Developing in POJOs. See Part 1 for material on
- Comparing classic EJB to POJO approaches
- Using an object-oriented design
- Benefits of using POJOs
- Transparent persistence with JDO and Hibernate
- Encapsulating the calls to the persistence framework
Eliminating DTOs
Another way to improve a J2EE application is to eliminate the DTOs, also known as value objects. A DTO is a simple object consisting of only fields (i.e., no behavior) and is used to return data from the business tier to the presentation tier. An EJB application uses DTOs because EJB 2 entity beans cannot be efficiently accessed by the presentation tier. Each call to an entity bean might be a remote call and/or a separate database transaction. As a result, they must only be accessed by the session façade, which copies data from them into DTOs. The trouble with using DTOs, however, is that they and the code that creates them are extremely tedious to develop and can sometimes be a significant portion of a J2EE application. Hibernate, JDO, and EJB 3 objects do not have this limitation and can be accessed directly by the presentation tier. As a result, we eliminate many or all of the DTOs in an application.
Returning domain objects to the presentation tier
There are a couple of ways to return Hibernate, JDO, and EJB 3 objects to the presentation tier. One option is for the business tier to return objects that are still persistent. This can be simpler to implement but requires the presentation tier to manage database connections, which is sometimes neither desirable nor possible.
Another approach is for the business tier to return detached objects. A detached object is a previously persistent object that is no longer connected to the database. Instead of copying values from a persistent object into a DTO, the business tier detaches the object and returns it to the persistent tier. This approach eliminates the need for DTOs while keeping all database accesses in the business tier.
Different persistence frameworks handle detached objects in different ways. In Hibernate and EJB 3, objects are automatically detached but the application must ensure that all of the objects required by the presentation tier are loaded, which can sometimes require extra calls to the persistence framework. In JDO 2.0 an application must explicitly detach the required objects by calling a JDO API.
Using a façade to retrieve and detach domain objects
An important design decision is determining which class will be responsible for calling the persistence framework to retrieve and detach the objects required by the presentation tier. For example, the money transfer business logic must retrieve the recent transactions and detach them along with the account objects. You could make this the responsibility of the TransferService, but doing so would make it more complicated and couple it to the needs of the presentation tier. Moreover, because the business tier must sometimes call the persistent framework to ensure that the domain objects can be returned to the presentation tier, making the TransferService call the detachment logic would mix together pure business logic with infrastructure details.
Unless the service is very simple and contains little or no business logic, a better option is to retrieve and detach the required objects in a separate class—TransferFacadeImpl. As figure 1 shows, TransferFacadeImpl implements the TransferFacade interface, which specifies the methods that can be called by the business logic's client and plays a role similar to that of an EJB component interface. It returns a TransferResult that contains the domain objects.
Click here for a larger image.
Figure 1 The design of TransferFacade, which encapsulates the business logic and detaches objects
Like the EJB we saw earlier, TransferFacade defines a transfer() method that returns a TransferResult. It calls TransferService and TransactionRepository, and creates TransferResult. As you can see, TransferResult is the only DTO in this example. The rest of the objects returned to the presentation tier are domain objects.
Making POJOs transactional
Let's review what we have done so far. We replaced a procedural design with an object-oriented design, replaced entity beans with POJOs plus a persistence framework (either Hibernate or JDO), and eliminated DTOs. Because of these changes, we have a design that is easier to understand, maintain, and extend. In addition, the edit-compile-debug cycle is extremely short. We now have an application where most of the code is sufficiently modular that you can write unit tests. We haven't yet discussed how to eliminate the TransferService EJB. Even though it is a simple class that calls the object model classes, development slows down considerably any time we have to change it because of the deployment requirement. Let's see what we can do about that.
Although session beans support distributed applications, the main reason they are used in many applications is because they provide container-managed transactions. The EJB container automatically starts a transaction when a business method is invoked and commits the transaction when the method returns. It rolls back the transaction if a RuntimeException is thrown. Container-managed transactions are extremely useful. They free you from writing error-prone code to manually manage transactions. Consequently, if you want to replace session beans with POJOs, you should use an equally convenient mechanism to manage transactions. This naturally takes us to the Spring framework.
Managing transactions with Spring
There are several lightweight mechanisms for making POJOs transactional. One very popular framework that provides this capability is Spring. Spring is a powerful J2EE application framework that makes it significantly easier to develop enterprise Java applications. It provides a large number of features, and I'm only going to provide a brief overview of a few of them in this article. For more information see Spring in Action [Walls 2005].
The Spring framework provides an extremely easy-to-use mechanism for making POJOs transactional that works in a similar way to container-managed transactions. Spring will automatically begin a transaction when a POJO method is invoked and commit the transaction when the method returns. It can also roll back a transaction if an error occurs. Spring can manage transactions using the application server's implementation of the Java Transaction API (JTA) if the application accesses multiple resources such as a database and JMS. Alternatively, Spring can manage transactions using the persistence framework or JDBC transaction management APIs, which are simpler and easier to use because they do not require an application server.
When using the Spring framework, we can make a POJO transactional by defining it as a Spring bean, which is simply an object that is instantiated and managed by Spring. Defining a Spring bean requires only a few lines of XML. The XML is similar to a deployment descriptor and configures Spring's lightweight container, which is a sophisticated factory for constructing objects. Each entry in the XML file defines the configuration of a Spring bean, which includes its name, its POJO implementation class, and a description of how to instantiate and initialize it. An application obtains a bean by calling the Spring bean factory with the name and expected type of the bean:
BeanFactory beanFactory = ... TransferFacade tf = (TransferFacade) beanFactory.getBean("TransferFacade", TransferFacade.class);
This code fragment calls the BeanFactory.getBean() method with TransferFacade as the name of the bean and TransferFacade as the expected class. The bean factory will throw an exception if a bean with that name does not exist or is of a different type.
Page 1 of 2
IT Solutions Builder TOP IT RESOURCES TO MOVE YOUR BUSINESS FORWARD
Which topic are you interested in?
Data Storage
IT Management
What is your company size?
What is your job title?
What is your job function?
Searching our resource database to find your matches...


text:
One of four Marines killed in an explosion at Camp Pendleton lived in Vista with his wife and three children.
27-year-old Sgt. Miguel Ortiz was an Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician. He served in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Family members feared for him when he was deployed, knowing how dangerous his job was. But they never imagined, as careful as he was, that Ortiz would be killed this way.
"He was a great man, great father and friend," said Juan Carlos Ahumada, a close friend of Ortiz.
Support Pours in for Marine's Family
Ahumada choked back tears as he talked about his friend. He was notified of the Marine's death along with the rest of the Ortiz family.
"It was a shock. We didn't expect anything like that out of the blue. I just saw him that morning," Ahumada said.
Melessa Amesquit is also among the extended family of friends.
"He was an amazing dad a friend. He was practically our family," Amesquit said .
Ortiz was a decorated veteran of two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. Ortiz and three other EOD Marines were killed, not in battle but by an explosion on the practice range.
"He knew what he was doing. He was always careful," Ahumada said.
Marines Killed at Camp Pendleton ID'd
"We wouldn't think something would happen to him being home," Amesquit added.
Dangerous and difficult as it was, friends say Ortiz enjoyed being a Marine. But his true passion was his family: His wife Susie, his son and two daughters that Miguel adored.
"We were with them through deployment. It's the same thing. They are going to need us more than anything," Amesquit said .
Ortiz and his fellow Marines were killed while disposing of unexploded ordinance during range maintenance.
A Navy Corpsman and two other Marines nearby were released after receiving medical treatment at the scene.


text:
Here is the hard data as it is known at this time:
This tree a more consistent with the archaeological remains:
than this tree:
But there is a new theory put forth by different researchers about every other week.
Bottom line: The N mt haplogroup is distinct from D.
One has to remember that the landscape was far different when the D mt DNA crossing of the Pacific took place.
Due to rising sea levels most of the earliest data is going to be underwater off the coasts of South America.
Trace that landscape, trace the South American Ice Sheets,
and then you could start a search for inland migration routes.
Any N mt haplogroup who were coastal in Australia were washed away by impact mega-tsunamis in the mid 1400's and earlier.