text:
Her age fooled doctors big-time.
Gloria Borges, 28, seemed too young to have colon cancer. From January to July, the hard-working attorney and had been plagued by bloating and extreme diarrhea. Her general practitioner told her to take probiotics and herbal supplements.
But by September she couldn't ignore the debilitating symptoms.
She checked herself into a hospital in downtown Los Angeles, where it took doctors five days to realize she needed emergency surgery for stage-four colon cancer.
"Like anybody else who's 28 and experiencing [gastrointestinal] issues, I just wrote it off as other issues," said Borges, who at the time was told she would live just another year or two.
Now she's 31 and harnessing her youth, in an unusual partnership with a top cancer researcher. The goal is to steer an ambitious $250 million fundraising initiative to cure colon cancer, a disease that is often hard to raise funds for because of an "ick" factor.
Colon cancer is on the rise among young people, with more than 10 per 100,000 adults between the ages of 20 to 49 afflicted with the disease in 2007, up from more than 8 per 100,000 in 1992, according to the American Cancer Society.
People younger than 30 make up 2 to 3 percent of all colon-cancer patients, said Borges, who has blogged about colon cancer for three years and runs The WunderGlo Foundation, a public-education group that raises funds for colon-cancer research.
Yet the diagnosis is difficult for younger adults because colon-cancer screenings are only recommended for people older than 50, said Jasmine Greenamyer, chief operating officer for the nonprofit group Colon Cancer Alliance.
"If [the diagnosis is] under 50 ... it's often misdiagnosed as anemia, hemorrhoids or, 'You just had a baby,'" she said. "The only population increasing in incidence is under 50. It's a big call to action."
The American Cancer Society says the reasons for the uptick in younger adults' being diagnosed with colon cancer are "unknown" but might reflect the nation's obesity epidemic, which has ballooned in recent decades.
Younger diagnoses are changing the picture of the colon-cancer patient. A photo of Borges on her anti-cancer initiative, The Wunder Project (part of her foundation), shows her wearing a T-shirt that says, "My oncologist is my homeboy."
She produced a viral "Harlem Shake" video in his cancer center that grabbed almost a million hits.
Since her diagnosis and treatment, Borges, who is married and lives in the Hollywood Hills of Los Angeles, has traded antitrust litigating for fighting for cancer research. Her idea of a great party is one that takes place in an intensive-care unit.
Music blasts from her hospital room after surgeries as streams of friends and family members come in to laugh and enjoy themselves, Borges said.
Borges' diet has also changed.
"I was a steak-and-cheese-platter and Johnny-Walker-Black-drinking attorney," Borges said.
She's now a vegan who practices meditation.
Colon cancer in all but 5 to 10 percent of cases (in which genes can predispose a person to getting the disease) is caused by lifestyle and diet, making it the most preventable of all cancers, said Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz, scientific director of the Cancer Genetics Unit at the University of Southern California's Norris Cancer Center.
Younger colon cancer sufferers like Borges are more likely to survive longer because they have a stronger will to live, said Lenz, who is also Borges' doctor and the co-director of USC's Colorectal Center.
"People have a lot to fight for," Lenz said. "They're willing to be much more aggressive."
In 2011 Borges underwent an 11-hour, 17-procedure treatment nicknamed by patients as "The Mother of All Surgeries." She lost her ovaries, gall bladder, spleen, appendix and more. She has now gone through 45 rounds of chemotherapy.
It's a medical intervention that few colon cancer patients attempt, Lenz said. It was successful and, for now, her cancer has abated, he said. Meanwhile, a fire has lit inside her to try to do something that is even used as a cliché for something impossible: cure cancer.
The Wunder Project seeks to raise $250 million to cure cancer in nine years.
Borges came up with the figure and timeframe through closely working with Lenz, a top researcher in the colon-cancer field who happened to be located in the same city.
"He told me, 'I'm not here to hold hands with patients and talk them through as they die. I'm here to cure,'" she said. "I knew he had those intangibles I wanted in a teammate."
Then came her question: "I said, 'If you had all the money in the world, could you cure [colon cancer]?' Without hesitation he said, 'Yes.'"
Lenz said he thinks his methodology for a cure can be used as a blueprint to help cure other cancers, too.
"We believe this is the first domino that will lead to the end of cancer," Borges said.
The pair -- both aggressive workers, independent thinkers with a sense of humor -- became best friends. They email each other often a dozen times during the day. They trade developments on colon cancer and Borges goads Lenz to go vegan, she said.
They spend weekends together, colluding to end colon cancer.
It's an unusual relationship that has invigorated several major colon cancer researchers around the world to quicken the pace of research, Lenz said.
"This is absolutely novel," said Lenz, a Germany native who has researched colon cancer for two decades. "I cannot [fundraise like this] with my development office. They wouldn't have the drive or perspective of a patient. This is the first time a [patient] is fully in the middle of development."
Lenz said he doesn't see any ethics issues in treating Borges and collaborating with her at the same time.
"At the beginning, I thought this will be weird, but it hasn't been at all," he said. "The only worry I have is that it's too much for her … if this jeopardizes her health, I will say, 'You cannot continue,'" he said.
"I'm always holding my breath, 'How long this will work'?" he said of Borges' treatment.
Borges' youth and personality are part of her drive, he said.
"I was always an out-of-box thinker, I was always pushing the envelope, I don't accept a no," Lenz said. "She has a similar personality. I think we've found each other on that level. We're fighting passionately on something we believe in. I think we found each other in some mysterious ways."
The patient-doctor fundraising project is unusual in other ways. Colon-cancer research is underfunded compared with breast, prostate and other cancers even though it's the third-most common cancer when men and women are combined, Greenamyer of the Colon Cancer Alliance said.
"The disparity in funding is huge," she said. "There's still the squirm factor."
Borges said she has set a casual tone with colleagues, friends and others when it comes time to talk shop about colon cancer.
"You'd be surprised how willing people are to talk about their poop," she said. "I have to hear about people's GI [gastrointestinal] function all the time. A colleague will take me aside and I think they want to talk about a case but they want to talk about their poop."
Borges and Lenz were initially prompted into action after the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston announced its "Moon Shots Program," a plan that started last month to raise $3 billion to cure six cancers: breast, ovarian, leukemia (3 kinds), melanoma, lung and prostate.
The list didn't include colon cancer.
So far The Wunder Project has raised more than $150,000, enough to pay for Borges' annual overhead, she said.
Borges, who appeared on "The Today Show" last week to talk about colon-cancer awareness and her new project, said she has never been more content.
"I think I'm having more fun now. My perspective on life is so different, the way I truly enjoy life, and my relationships," she said. "I just went cage-diving with sharks."
Among the young people with colon cancer who she has helped are four random acquaintances from college and prior years who noticed her blog. They told her about strange gastrointestinal issues they were having and she helped them demand colonoscopies. All four were diagnosed with colon cancer.
They told her she saved their lives, Borges said.
If she could go back in time and not get colon cancer, but also not experience everything she has in the past three years, she wouldn't.
"I'd take the disease every single time," Borges said.


text:
UPDATE: On Tuesday afternoon, the Claims Settlement Act of 2010 passed the House on a 256 to 152 vote. The legislation now awaits President Obama's signature.
Following the vote, Obama said Congress dealt with the funding bill "in a bipartisan fashion to bring this painful chapter in our nation's history to a close. ... Yet, while today's vote demonstrates important progress, we must remember that much work remains to be done." The Obama administration "will continue our efforts to resolve claims of past discrimination made by women and Hispanic farmers and others in a fair and timely manner."
Having passed the Senate, the $4.6 billion Claim Settlement Act of 2010 is now in the hands of the House. The legislation – which bundles together settlements for Pigford II, Cobell (brought by Native Americans against the Interior Department over the management of Indian trust accounts and resources) and four Native American water rights cases – is expected to be voted on in early December.
For more, see Pigford funding passes out of Senate
On Monday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli addressed the settlements and how the claims process will be set up. While keen to point out efforts to root out any fraud, Vilsack made it clear it is unlikely anyone at USDA will be punished for the discrimination that was the basis for Pigford.
"President Obama has been very clear with me … that we're to treat farmers, ranchers and growers equally and fairly," said Vilsack. "That means not only making sure we're doing the right things today but righting the wrongs from the past.
"Civil rights has become a top priority of mine since coming to USDA and we've implemented a comprehensive program to learn from past errors, to learn from our mistakes, and take definitive action to ensure all our customers are treated fairly. We've conducted civil rights training in our FSA locations, doubled our compliance reviews and seen the lowest number of FSA complaints since we began keeping records."
Also on the USDA agenda: "cultural transformation. Today, we have the lowest number of equal employment opportunity complaints since the department began keeping track."
For more see $1.25 billion settlement for black farmers
Vilsack spoke on how claims will proceed, assuming House passage of the settlement funding.
"First, the proposal passed by the Senate and agreed upon by USDA, lays out a very complicated and detailed method for individuals filing a claim seeking compensation. They must qualify as a class member (which means they must have filed a 'late-filing request' under the original Pigford consent decree sometime after October 1999 and prior to June 2008). If they aren't on the current 'timely' list of those who filed late requests, they'll have to provide significant and independent documentary evidence that they had, in fact," made such a filing.
In addition to being a member of the class, claimants "also must furnish a detailed, complete claim form. If they're represented by counsel, that will include a statement by the attorney (representing the claimant under penalty of perjury) that the claim is based on existing law and factual contentions are true and correct."
The eligibility/payment process will include "a number of steps inherent in the review of these claims by the comptroller general and USDA's inspector general. (This will) ensure we're performing the settlement process appropriately … and paying those who are entitled to payment.
"Payments will not be forthcoming until the court has ultimately approved the final accounting of expenditure funds made available in the appropriation."
Vilsack is hopeful the House takes quick action "because we'd like to put this chapter at USDA behind us. Then, we'll focus on other cases pending against the department."
The cases have been in court for decades, said Perrelli, and have been "incredibly hard-fought. Both judges and Congress have repeatedly urged the parties to settle and there's never been any doubt that significant sums were necessary to resolve them….
"With respect to Pigford II, in the 2008 farm bill, Congress gave new claims to African American farmers who'd submitted late claims to the original Pigford settlement. Working with the USDA, we at DOJ took that class of individuals … didn't make one additional person eligible, and saw that we could fight this for years in court or see if there was a more responsible way to resolve it. We think this settlement does that."
Vilsack said USDA operations are currently under review to make sure the agency "isn't making the same mistakes made 20 years ago." That report is due at the end of December.
Looking at claims during the last Bush presidency "we found, roughly, 3,000 claims that required further investigations and 600, or so, that might very well lead to claims. We've asked Congress to take a look at that in terms of the statute of limitations."
Congress, said Vilsack, has yet to respond.
If the funding is approved, how long before payments reach claimants?
"I don't know that anyone can give a good estimate," said Vilsack. "Obviously, an individual arbitrator … has to be appointed with the consent of all engaged. That person/s will have to set up shop (and review claims).
"That will take some time. We want to make sure it's done right and, as it is looked at by the comptroller general or inspector general, there aren't any problems. We'll take the time required to do it right with the understanding that folks have waited a long time."
Vilsack was also asked about the USDA facing discrimination cases involving Hispanics and women.
"We are engaged in an effort to provide opportunities for a quicker resolution for individual claimants (in the cases involving Hispanics and women). They are different than the Pigford II cases because there was no congressional directive or a certification of the courts of a class. So, these are individual claims…
"What we hope is that in the not-too-distant future we'll see how to set up a process where those claims will at least have the option of resolving their dispute with the government case-by-case."
Asked if the Obama administration has decided not to punish USDA employees for past discrimination, Vilsack said his focus "has been on making sure we don't get the government in the same situation it's been in (over the) last 20 or 30 years." That means "taking a look at our current practices and procedures and making sure we're not making the same mistakes again, intentionally or unintentionally…
"I think it might be somewhat difficult to be able to establish responsibility for something that may have occurred 20 or 30 years ago. I think what we ought to be doing is focusing … on making sure we're serving today's farmers as well as we possibly can."
Perrelli fleshed out the anti-fraud measures in the Pigford settlement. "The Pigford II settlement arises out specific legislation out of Congress that created a class of individuals of between 65,000 and 66,000 individuals who'd filed claims late in the original Pigford settlement…
"With respect to fraud, the government's liability is capped. That provides some protection.
"More directly, there is an independent adjudicator who is responsible for making sure the process is fair and without fraud. They are directed, if there is any concern about fraud, to seek additional, appropriate information. … There will (also be) multiple audits that will focus across the whole."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thank you for your interest in Strata Corporation. Strata is a diversified and vertically integrated organization offering a wide variety of construction services, materials, supplies and transportation by rail and truck. We are committed to meet the needs of our customers and have been for over a century.
Strata Corporation prides itself on its people and their contribution to the success of the company. Our management team and employees are focused on what is important to our customers. We provide construction services, materials and supplies, including:
- Commercial & Residential Aggregates
- Commercial & Residential Concrete
- Highway-Heavy Construction
- Oil Field Services
- Military Construction
- Municipal Construction
- Environmental Remediation Services
- Electrical Contracting
- Airport Construction
- Transportation by Truck and Rail
- Site Preparation
- Certified Quality Assurance & Quality Control Lab
- Hydro-Excavator Services
TO OUR PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE CUSTOMERS. Strata Corporation would like to thank you for your business!.


text:
Alpha 5
General discussion for SC:Galaxies!
Post Reply
Re: Alpha 5
Hi. It's been few weeks after last post. Can I ask what is a progress for Alpha 5? Is it be released if it get to greenlight?
Re: Alpha 5
Yup, that's the idea. If you have the Alpha already you will be getting a Steam key to the email address on their mailing list.
All I know is this Lo-Pan character comes out of nowhere...while his buddies are flying around on wires cuttin' everybody to shreds and he just stands there, waiting for me to drive my truck straight through him with light coming out of his mouth?
Post Reply


text:
18Entry by McDudefaceIV
17Entry by junkpunch
16Entry by aerodynamite
Smart actors play the same character in every movie. Arnold Schwarzenegger was savvy enough to find a performance that worked for him early in his career, and stick with it. But more skilled, show-off actors like to pretend to be different people in every single one of their movies. We asked you to show us what it might look like when those actors occasionally forget which person they're pretending to be. The winner is below, but first the runners up ...
Congrats, McDudefaceIV. You win money.
Weird? Or -- now hear us out -- brilliant?
We fixed the one dumb thing about that bad movie. It's good, now.


text:
Hi guest ·
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
the big lie "the media is liberal"
Goto page
iWindsurf Community Forum Index
Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic
View next topic
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 9723
Location: on earth
Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 1:12 pm
Post subject:
Sorry Key,
As far as your references to tin foil. Well because you have not backed up your position you have learned well from the right wing. Now I think you were just the paper delivery boy not a real journalist.
You are welcome to post some facts as I have. A problem with many if not most in the media is their lack of the ability to understand or comprehend math statistics. I also find this a general characteristic of the right wing in general (the last election was a real example how Romney Rove et all were sure from their experts polling models they had won, every single right wing partisan one was wrong).
I will go out on a limb here. You were deficient in your math /stats skills vs... but very strong in the english skills. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule as my father has a undergrad in journalism, masters in engineering and PhD in Physics so their are for sure journalists that do just fine in the math areas. But you are not one of them, I also do not take insult to my writing skills and have no problem regurgitating it a few times till people understand and I hope you likewise realize your limitations in math stats, logic. I know I am not ever going to be able to explain the theory of relativity to most people not only because I do not have the ability to write effectively but because there are just some people that do not have the math ability. Even though to me understanding that is such a basic simple simon thing.
So while you like to go name calling because you can not back up your point with facts or data I understand it because you just do not grasp the statistical relevance and how important it is to understand our world. so just because I can not explain things to you with hundreds of facts and examples does not mean they are not true.
Just like I can not get you to understand I can find several hundred write ups on a subject in the internet on many right wing propaganda items and so on. Yes on major issues that are media equivalent that if it would have been liberal supporting are not.
Seems I can debunk your complete crying game with just one form of media, radio. It is at least 90 but I claim over 95% highly partisan right wing without any debate. Can you name one liberal who has a "national" political partisan show that is on the radio more than 3 hours for more than 5 years ever? Same with just one hour "national". When they compile the numbers they do not even include religious partisan shows like the "Pat Robertsons" type of shows and entire networks that are national. I believe those should be included in right wing partisan propaganda.
I have challenged right wingers to for about 8 years to enlighten me how they are such media victims with this challenge, and to date not one right winger has ever been able to show me that it is a liberal slant to radio, or even show me where across the nation I can find a liberal point of view nationally anywhere. Where I can back up the 90 percent plus. I know you do not respect stats... for which they stand...
Another great example of statistics that people have a hard time understanding is the Dan Rather firing. No liberal owned media would fire him for being correct. Using forensics to determine if the documents were real or accurate. Do you know what the probability of those documents could be inaccurate when not one issue in them was not consistent with the time that they occurred. And only 3 people living could have known about these issues. That a person just simply could not have made up these events that 2 of the three living people did say were discussed at the time. The only person who did not go on record to say they were not true of the times was Bush. So to have accurately made up events that occurred 30 plus years before that only 3 people alive knew about is ABSOLUTELY impossible. let me repeat 0 percent that the events written did not occur. Yet the so called liberal media did not either figure that out or there is not a liberal media. After all as I mentioned Bush's father right wing partisan former attorney general was hired by CBS to prove the documents were false. And he could not do it, he never said the information in the documents were false EVER. He only concluded it should not have been aired and I say BS to that, again with logic it had zero percent chance it could have not been accurate about the times.
In fact a real non partisan attorney general would have recommended a special prosecutor to see who scrubbed government documents from the Bush files. And that special prosecutor would have put Bush, Cheney, Rove, Karen Hughes, all the Texas political people that were involved in front of grand juries. where was that media demanding answers and ever that the probability that someone could have made up documents that were remembered by people that were involved 30-40 years before it. And the third person Bush never said these other two people were lying. And the documents did fit in with the other documents that were remaining in Bushs records in fact they also did fit perfectly with how things were done at the time. Again that is the forensics of documents that is used all the time for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that are real.
I do have a few reasonable ways that document was not the same type font at the time. One is: Basically the government has been scanning old document s and using OCR to put them in smaller files. Interesting that the right winger senator Duke Cunningham of San Diego was convicted of helping (taking bribes) a company providing those services to the national Guards/military. That was just one of the many company making big bucks scanning documents for the military, that company had many complaints from the military that there system was not as good as some of the others. Needless to say I never read any liberal media investigating that, well how could they it is my blogger concept. Oh but it was a right winger so called blogger that got the entire not read concept going.
Back to top
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4481
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 3:04 pm
Post subject:
To return to the world that most people inhabit for a moment, it seems that the Gosnell jury have found him guilty of murder. Were they all zealots, opposed to women's rights, or, heaven forbid, Catholics!!? Or were they normal people who had no trouble distinguishing between murder and abortion as some here did. I suspect the didn't "
conflate late term abortions with all abortions
" since they were smart enough to figure out that infanticide is not abortion. Neither did they fall for the defense accusations of racism. They know that race card is usually pulled by those who have no cogent argument.
Back to top
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 3192
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 3:53 pm
Post subject:
Yeah...Heard it on NPR
Back to top
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11919
Location: Berkeley, California
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 4:50 pm
Post subject:
How appropriate to actually wait until the jury has decided on the facts to condemn the practices of Gosnell. I suppose it is too much to also wait until someone has said something in support of Gosnell before you attack them. Justice appears to have been done, in the appropriate way in the American judicial system.
Back to top
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 9723
Location: on earth
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 12:08 am
Post subject:
another great example...
google news "IRS and NAACP" that actually got audited by the Bush regime for political purposes. you get 1230 hits.
Google news "Tea Party and IRS" and you get 149,000 results.
where the tea party ones did not get one single audit yet they were operating in a gray area as they are to be performing a community activity like building a ballpark.
How about the Rovian in-justice department that did 6 to one investigations on liberal vs conservatives, yet the only one they got was some guy with 50k in his fridge. Yes we had record setting the largest contributor to the president Kenny Boy Ley losing billions of people. Yet no special prosecutor, Ley enron jets were flying Bush et all to even florida for the recounts. Again the largest supporter of Bush. We had dukester caught and the prosecutor thought there was more, so he was fired to stop him getting more on the west coast. So that we could keep the rovian in-justice department at a 6 to one investigate liberals. again only one conviction of 50k in a fridge, can you imagine if it would have been stings of right wingers. Well we also set a record with Abramoff who had about 100 right wingers on his payroll, and that one was worth over 80-90 million dollars of theft/corruption. Yet was it only right winger Ney that got jail time. A sting could have put over 100 republican elected officials in the slammer for taking gifts from abramoff. But no the rovian in-justice department would not goo after all the ones taking gifts from abramoff.
Did you hear abramoff how he would do it, he would tell the people in the right wingers office that there was a "big paying" job for them in his office if they needed a job, he was hiring so he said it gave him the inside to these 100 or so elected officials and their offices. This was above the free tickets he was doling out and the discounted or free meals to the powerful. Again he came clean after getting out of jail. again the in-justice department continued with their 6 to one investigations on liberals yet the largest crimes in political recent history by right wingers.
Then there were the three right wingers that got caught with illegal phone jamming democratic HDQS on an election day. All three convicted, but they did not appoint a special prosecutor. One of the three was calling a number in the whitehouse that was never investigated... gee why not... again the rovian in-justice department.
IRS Ends 2-Year Probe Of NAACP's Tax Status
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 1, 2006
Nearly two years after a controversial decision to investigate the NAACP for criticizing President Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the remarks did not violate the group's tax-exempt status.
In a letter released yesterday by the NAACP, the IRS said the group, the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization, "continued to qualify" as tax-exempt.
Federal law requires tax-exempt nonprofit organizations to be politically nonpartisan.
as we know the tea partys are partisan to the max.
After filing four freedom-of-information requests, NAACP lawyers discovered that far more than two members of Congress called for an investigation and that all were Republicans.
Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Susan Collins (Maine) called for the investigation.
Others included Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis (R-Va.) and then-Rep. Larry Combest (R-Tex.). Former GOP representatives Joe Scarborough of Florida, who now hosts a talk show, and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., currently governor of Maryland, also requested a probe.
The investigation started Oct. 8, 2004, a month before the election
Last edited by real-human on Tue May 14, 2013 7:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9272
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 2:14 am
Post subject:
mac, I'm with you on this.
Back to top
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4481
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 10:34 am
Post subject:
You can both be forgiven for your ignorance of the facts of the Gosnell case since the media you rely upon did not cover the case until the last month or so. If you had broadened your news gathering habits, you would have known that nine members of Gosnell's staff, including his wife, pleaded guilty
in 2011
to a host of charges, among them illegal abortions and murder. That might have given you a clue that something was terribly wrong and given you a basis for condemning Gosnell's practices rather than condemning those who drew attention to them. Who knows, you might have learned some other stuff too!!
Back to top
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1500
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 10:43 am
Post subject:
mrgybe wrote:
You can both be forgiven for your ignorance of the facts of the Gosnell case since the media you rely upon did not cover the case until the last month or so. If you had broadened your news gathering habits, you would have known that nine members of Gosnell's staff, including his wife, pleaded guilty
in 2011
to a host of charges, among them illegal abortions and murder. That might have given you a clue that something was terribly wrong and given you a basis for condemning Gosnell's practices rather than condemning those who drew attention to them. Who knows, you might have learned some other stuff too!!
It's a murder investigation and trial. I do not follow murder trials myself; I am interested in policy-making, to which this case has exactly zero relevance.
I think the so-called media bias is the real "news story" here; suggested to you by your favorite "information" outlets, and very eagerly parroted on this forum. Picking a fight over this is a little absurd, in my opinion.
Do you attack windmills much?
florian - ny22
Back to top
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18828
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 10:52 am
Post subject:
mrgybe wrote:
You can both be forgiven for your ignorance of the facts ... and given you a basis for condemning Gosnell's practices rather than condemning those who drew attention to them.
You're kidding, right? Are you implying that someone with electricity or at least newspapers in his home hasn't been inundated with this serial murder case and trial for the past year or so? How can such a person claim any knowledge of current events? And on what basis would such a person condemn drawing attention to the case? I'll bet they don't even know that the doctor's anesthesiologist was a neighborhood kid with no education beyond high school, if that, who was tossed a book, given 20 minutes to read it, then expected to keep women alive while the butcher operated on her.
I'd also bet they don't even know that even the farthest left media and even some Congressmen are starting to see through this administration. With even
Maureen Dowd
Tom Brokaw
lambasting their hero, pigs are starting to fly.
Back to top
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4481
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 11:03 am
Post subject:
feuser wrote:
It's a murder investigation and trial. I do not follow murder trials myself; I am interested in policy-making, to which this case has exactly zero relevance.
A narrow perspective. I fully expect this case to result in a serious examination of abortion policy. The technology existing when late term abortion limits were set in the 70's, has changed dramatically. At 24 weeks, and well before that, anyone can now see clear images of a formed being with recognizable human features and the ability to feel pain. This will make a lot of people very uncomfortable with existing laws and clearly debunk the myth that this is no more than a bunch of cells that can be easily disposed of if deemed inconvenient.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
iWindsurf Community Forum Index
Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page
Jump to:
Select a forum
Windsurfing Discussion
Regional Discussion: Places, Sessions, Events, Access, Associations
Southwest USA, Hawaii, Mexico
Northwest USA & Canada
Eastern and Central USA & Canada
Europe, Caribbean & S. America, Australia & NZ, Africa, Asia
Industry News & Promotions
Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
Lost and Found
Self-Help Forum
WeatherFlow Labs
post new topics in this forum
reply to topics in this forum
edit your posts in this forum
delete your posts in this forum
vote in polls in this forum
attach files in this forum
download files in this forum
Log in
© Copyright 1999-2007
WeatherFlow, Inc
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Ad Marketplace
Powered by
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


text:
- Home
- Editor's Desk
- Features
- Columns
- Arts & Culture
- Special Editions
- Advertising
Thursday March 21, 2019; 08:15 am EDT
They're infesting roses and spruce
While driving I passed a planting of roses that did not appear normal. Up close I saw that the plants were heavily infested with spider mites. The foliage and stems had a rusty red color and were covered with fine webs. The variety of roses appeared to be Knockouts, which are advertised as very resistant to insects.
This summer's hot, dry weather is ideal for the growth and development of spider mites. The small spider-like creatures are about the size of the pointed end of a pin. They are often difficult to spot, but their webs are unmistakable.
To determine if your plants are infested with spider mites, hold a clean white sheet of paper under the stem of a plant. Sharply strike the stem of the suspected plant. If the plant has spider mites, they will appear as small dark dots moving on the paper.
If you don't have a sheet of paper handy, prune off the end of a suspected branch and hold it toward the sun or a bright light. A gentle spray of water will make any webs very visible.
Horticultural oil, also known as summer oil, is one of the most effective sprays for eradicating and controlling spider mites. These highly refined oils are approved for use by organic gardeners. At this time of year, a two percent concentration is generally adequate and will not burn foliage or flower petals. However, to avoid potential foliar injury, apply the sprays only when temperatures are below 80 degrees.
Horticultural oil will not only kill the adults, it will also suffocate the eggs. Landscapes with heavy infestations of spider mites will require at least two treatments two to three weeks apart.
Alberta spruce and blue spruce are also very susceptible to spider-mite injury. Checking your plants with a white sheet of paper as described for roses is the best way of determining if you need to spray.
Here's one caution: Spraying a blue spruce with oil will cause it to turn and remain green until next spring. If you do not wish to cause a color change, you'll have to use a hard pesticide recommended for the control of spider mites.


text:
3:00 pm
The Electric Company "War of the Words" When Hector is chosen to give a presentation on stamina to Jessica and Keith's health class, the pranksters work overtime to keep Hector from getting some much needed rest. Will Hector have enough stamina to make the presentation?. D
3:30 pm
WordGirl "Captain Tangent/Chuck and Brent Ride Again" Captain Tangent - When Becky and her family go out to dinner at Blackbeard's Buffet, they encounter a new villain, Captain Tangent - a teenage pirate with a magnetic hook and talking parrot. It's up to WordGirl to stop him from stealing her mom's trophy and all the coins (a.k. D
4:00 pm
Wild Kratts "Masked Bandits" As they prepare for a creature costume party, the Wild Kratts team begins to notice all sorts of strange things happening in the Tortuga HQ. Jimmy is sure there is a ghost or monster living with them, but the Kratt brothers are convinced it's some kind of creature. When the gang sets out to discover who is causing all the trouble, they discover that certain animals gravitate towards human habitation because it provides food and protection from predators. D
4:30 pm
Cyberchase "Trading Places" The kids learn to trade, barter and create a monetary system to rebuild their crashed cybercraft.G
5:00 pm
Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman "The People Vs. Grandma Ruffman" Grandma's accused of trying to break Ruff's twin, Scruff Ruffman, out of prison! The FETCHers try the case with help from real lawyers in a real courtroom with a real judge. D
5:30 pm
Nightly Business Report Tonight on Nightly Business Report - Another market milestone. As the S&P hits an all-time high, what's driving the rally? What's lagging? And, can it last? Also, Alan Krueger, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, discusses the President's budget and his outlook for the economy. D
5:56 pm
NewsHour Promo NULL
6:00 pm
PBS NewsHour NULL
7:00 pm
Nature "Clash: Encounters of Bears and Wolves" Two great predators encounter each other in Yellowstone National Park. In each encounter, the opposition must be measured, strengths must be tested and risks weighed; each time, one or the other have the tactical advantage. Their encounters illustrate how all animals in the park must assess, decide and act - to fight or flee.G
8:00 pm
NOVA "Australia's First 4 Billion Years: Awakening" Hidden in the red hills of Australia are clues to the mysteries of Earth's birth, how life arose and how it transformed the planet. Experts unveil the earliest forms of life: an odd assortment of bacterial slime that would flood the atmosphere with oxygen and spark a biological revolution. Part 1 of 4G
9:00 pm
The Truth About Exercise with Michael Mosley With recent advances in genetic testing technology and brain stimulation techniques, scientists are uncovering new and surprising truths about what exercise is really doing to the body and why different people respond to it differently. Mosley volunteers himself as a human guinea pig to discover the truth about exercise.G
10:00 pm
10 Things You Need to Know About Losing Weight Michael Mosley presents 10 science-based approaches to losing weight without starving. Experiments reveal the relationship between plate size and food consumption, why soup is the most filling of meals, how low-fat dairy products help the body eliminate fat, the long-term fat-burning potential of exercise, the counterintuitive fact that meal-skipping doesn't facilitate weight loss, and more.G
11:00 pm
Charlie Rose NULL


text:
Great Holiday and Christmas Gifts for Young Boys
Fab Gift Guide: Kid Bro
Fab Gift Guide: Kid Bro
I always get stuck when it comes to buying gifts for all the young dudes. This holiday, I've come prepared with a selection of fresh gifts for every type: the musical genius, fresh skateboarder, tech-savvy, and sports enthusiast. What boy wouldn't love these awesome Von Zipper Chakkra Gloss Ski Goggles ($95). I want a pair for myself. Make sure to check out all the Sugar Network's 2009 Holiday Gift Guides as well.
0previous images
-21more images


text:
I wanted some patriotic decor for our mantel for the rapidly approaching Fourth of July holiday. So, I went out to our pile of leftover barn wood that we used for our house siding and dug out some red and white painted pieces. I cut a few pieces to the same length and scraped off any big chunks of peeling paint.
Tomorrow, I'll show you my little banner I made on the front of the mantel out of old bottlecaps.
I'll be linking up to the following parties:


text:
Dark Fusion:
Send, from your hand or your side of the field to the Graveyard, Fusion Material Monsters that are listed on a Fiend-Type Fusion Monster Card, and Special Summon that Fusion Monster from your Fusion Deck. (This Special Summon is treated as a Fusion Summon). The Special Summoned monster cannot be targeted by the effects of other Monsters, Spells, and Traps this turn.
SP = Short Print (Common);
SSP = Super Short Print (Common);
DNPR = Duel Terminal Normal Parallel Rare;
DRPR = Duel Terminal Rare Parallel Rare;
DSPR = Duel Terminal Super Parallel Rare;
DUPR = Duel Terminal Ultra Parallel Rare;
|No comments yet for this card.


text:
Dreaming of a mountain biking mecca? If you live in Colorado or are planning a riding holiday, an all but mandatory summer riding destination is the Monarch Crest Trail, offering quintessential high country riding.
Starting on the ridge of the Continental Divide at the 11,312ft Monarch Pass and climbing up from there, the 34-mile point-to-point route consists primarily of singletrack that keeps riders above 11,000ft for approximately 11 miles before gradually dropping to 7,000ft.
In the Crest's upper elevations the paths occasionally run perfectly atop the Continental Divide, offering unrestricted, 360-degree views of the Colorado Rockies.
So is it a 34-mile downhill? Not quite. There are amazing descents that last for miles but they're buffered by long, steep and sustained climbs that shatter the egos of the unprepared – or misinformed – on a daily basis.
You should go into the ride thinking that it's a great cross-country route with some fantastically long descents – such as the roughly 7-mile drop down the Silver Creek section.
The classic 34-mile route to Rainbow Trail usually takes competent riders three to five hours. Most of the ride is along buff Colorado singletrack but it's riddled with more than a few technical sections (exposed roots, scree fields, rock gardens, and so on) that will keep you on your toes.
There are also several options to make the ride shorter or longer, and there are a few key turns that are essential for making it home on the same day, so it's best to pick up a map in one of the local shops before giving it a try.
The Rainbow Trail section is a favorite for many riders
By elevation and exposure alone, the Crest trail is an intermediate to advanced ride, and probably shouldn't be attempted by beginners on their own. Be prepared for snow, sleet or freezing rain, even in the peak of summer.
Prime time for the Crest is in mid-to-late September, when the Aspen leaves are glowing gold and the weather is slightly less prone to afternoon thunderstorms. A fantastic option for that time of year is the Monarch Crest Crank fundraiser, which not only benefits the Chaffee County Alliance Against Domestic Abuse but offers a one-stop option for breakfast, shuttle service, support, and food, music, new friends and brews in Salida afterwards.
Bike wise, the Crest trail doesn't demand any specific setup, although there are more than enough rocks to warrant tubeless tires. Any fun, efficient trail bike that's well sorted for a day in Colorado's backcountry should do fine. If you don't have your own bike there are several rental options in and around Salida. BikeRadar have opted for 5in travel trail bikes more often than not over the years, and will probably continue with that choice for the Crest.
Salida itself
Like the Arkansas River it sits by, the small mountain town of Salida is surrounded by Colorado's Collegiate Peaks – many of which are above 14,000ft in elevation – and offers great riding along with an impressive amount of culture for a place its size.
If there isn't music by the river, a farmer's market in the city park, or creative homemade vessels floating through town during America's oldest whitewater festival, known as FIBArk, ask around – there's probably a roller derby or twilight pump track session somewhere just outside of town.
The town offers an interesting mix of old and new in terms of its buildings
Salida's trail system is also growing at an impressive rate, with fun, well-maintained singletrack literally on the edge of town.
'S' hill is currently where the majority of the goods are, and the trail system itself is considered a city park, complete with excellent signage, including maps at the trailhead. It's a great option for an afternoon ride before tackling the Crest trail the following day, and on warmer summer days you can take a trailside dip in the Arkansas River.


text:
Enthusiastic users of the 'external brain' service Evernote may at some point find their way to the company's popular podcast, in which three of the company's top guys sit around and crack jokes while giving advice about how best to use their software. On the most recent installment, Evernote CEO Phil Libin mentioned recently speaking with a journalist — that would be your humble Tech Chronicles blogger — about the journalist's opinion that the podcasts are often as funny as they are useful. (A recurring gag on the show is to suggest the company may be acquired by the makers of Smuckers Jam.)
Libin and colleagues Dave Enbgerg and Andrew Sinkov were somewhat dismissive of the idea that their podcast has become a comedy showcase, but Tech Chronicles stands by what we said. As evidence, we'd point you to our recent discussion with Libin, in which he reveals how his company arrived at a "freemium" business model (it rhymed). One thing not in dispute: Evernote itself is no joke. The Mountain View company has
nearly 8.5 million 9 million users, and has raised more than $45 million in venture capital. Here are some of Libin's thoughts on Evernote:
On freemium:
We kind of struggled with this model, but when we had enough data we looked at it and we said, it's more important that you stay than that you pay. And as soon as we realized that we said, OK, that's obviously important, because it rhymes. It's one of the fundamental truths about business. Basically we played around with different models until we found the rhyming one.
On not money-grubbing:
The data for us is very clear: The longer people stay, the more valuable they are. We just want as many people as possible to start using Evernote. We want those people to come from friend referrals — we don't want them to come from Super Bowl ads. And we want as many of those people as possible to keep using it and keep coming back. Those are the two most important things. We don't really think about how to get money out of people. That almost comes naturally. If you've been using it long enough, you're going to be paying. Anything we do to try to squeeze money out of people sooner — some people will pay, but other people will leave. Yeah, we may have been able to get a little more money in the short term, but everyone who leaves because of that, we've lost 100 percent of the lifetime value of them going forward.
On word of mouth advertising:
The job of getting people who have never heard of Evernote to hear about Evernote isn't our job — that's our users' job. We very much want the first time you hear about Evernote not to be from us. We want it to be from a friend of yours, or from an article or something. When we track user behavior, what we see is that people who we know came in from a friend referral are vastly more valuable to us: they stick around more, they use it more, they convert [to the paid version] more. People who came in in because we paid to reach out to them, those just don't do nearly as well.
On the biggest risk:
We've put together a fairly ambitious plan for the next three years. And if you ask what is the biggest risk here — what is the thing that's going to screw this up? And it's hiring. That is the biggest risk. I'm far more worried about growing the team than I am about competition or any of that kind of stuff. I know how to deal with the rest of the stuff. We're at 59 people today. Three years from now we're supposed to be at about 360 people. I don't know how we're going to hire 301 people, because I don't know 301 more people. So to me, that really is the biggest risk.


text:
|This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.
U.S. Department of Justice
Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899)
Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977)
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1281 (2006)
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984)
N. Pac. Ry. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958)
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993)
United States v. American Cyanamid Co., 556 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 719 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1983)
United States v. Columbia Artists Management Inc., 662 F. Supp. 865 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1995)
United States v. General Dynamics Corp., [1961 - 1970 Transfer Binder] Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 45,060 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1961)
United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶¶ 70,890-892, and 70,919 (E.D.N.Y. 1963)
United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 163 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 1998)
United States v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., The Federal Antitrust Laws 1890 - 1951 ¶ 930, (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 1948)
United States v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 1952 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 67,248 (E.D.N.Y. 1952)
United States v. Loew's, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940)
United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (1932)
United States v. Swift & Co., 1975-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 60,201 (N.D. Ill. 1975)
United States v. Topco Associates, 405 U.S. 596 (1972)
United States v. Western Electric Co., 900 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
United States v. Western Electric Co., 993 F.2d 1572 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Antitrust Division Manual, § III.H.5.a.i. (2007 ed.)
William F. Baxter, Department of Justice Authorization for Fiscal Year 1984 Before the Subcommittee on Monopolies & Commercial Law, Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 16 (1983)
William French Smith, Attorney General of the United States, Remarks at the Annual Meeting of the District of Columbia Bar (June 24, 1981)
Jeffrey I. Zuckerman, Removing the Judicial Fetters: The Antitrust Division's Judgment Review Project (1982)
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, DOJ Bull. No. 1984-04, Statement of Policy by the Antitrust Division Regarding Enforcement of Permanent Injunctions Entered in Government Antitrust Cases
U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, New Protocol to Expedite Review Process for Terminating or Modifying Older Antitrust Decrees (Apr. 13, 1999)
Defendants The BOC Group, Inc. ("BOC") and Praxair, Inc. ("Praxair") have moved to terminate the Final Judgment entered by the Court on March 7, 1952, as amended (hereinafter "1952 Final Judgment").(1) A copy of the 1952 Final Judgment is attached as Appendix 1. BOC, Praxair, and American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. ("Air Liquide") have also moved to terminate the Final Judgments in United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶¶ 70,890-892, and 70,919 (E.D.N.Y. 1963), entered by the Court on October 17, 1963 (hereinafter "1963 Final Judgment"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 2.(2)
After soliciting public comments on the proposed termination and conducting an extensive investigation focusing on likely economic effects, the United States has tentatively consented to termination of the 1952 Final Judgment and the 1963 Final Judgment, subject to such further public notice and comment as may be ordered by the Court.(3) The United States has concluded that these judgments are no longer necessary to protect competition, that some of their provisions may well inhibit competition, and that the continued existence of these judgments does not otherwise provide any public benefit. It would be in the public interest for the Court to terminate both the 1952 Final Judgment and 1963 Final Judgment as to all defendants.
As discussed below, the pending motions raise similar legal and factual issues and involve many of the same parties. The parties submit that, in the interest of judicial economy, these motions should be assigned to, and heard by, the same judge (cf. United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95, 97-100 (2d Cir. 1995)), especially since the judges to whom the 1952 and 1963 cases were originally assigned respectively, Judge Rayfiel and Chief Judge Mishler are deceased.
The 1952 Final Judgment arose out of an investigation in the 1940s into anticompetitive practices by the original four defendants, certain other CO2 suppliers, and ICEC, a patent holding and licensing company in which the defendants and other suppliers had an interest. The primary competitive concern of the United States was the collective, anticompetitive behavior by these defendants.
As a result of this investigation, the United States filed a Complaint on June 24, 1948 against ICEC (which is no longer in existence), Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation (which is no longer in existence), Liquid Carbonic (now Praxair), and Airco and Pure Carbonic (both now BOC). United States v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., The Federal Antitrust Laws 1890 - 1951 ¶ 930, at 369 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 1948). The Complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the manufacture and sale of gaseous CO2, liquid CO2, and solid CO2 (dry ice) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "CO2 products") within the United States, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Complaint alleged that the defendants eliminated competition by acquiring plants, competitors, and
distributors and by pooling their patents in an effort to restrict licensees for such patents. It also charged that the defendants agreed to eliminate competition by fixing prices and allocating customers and territories. The Complaint further alleged that the defendants conspired to handicap small distributors, with whom the defendants competed.
On March 7, 1952, the United States and the defendants agreed to enter into the 1952 Final Judgment in lieu of trial. United States v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 1952 Trade Cas. (CCH)
¶ 67,248 (E.D.N.Y. 1952). The 1952 Final Judgment required, among other things, divestiture by Liquid Carbonic of certain manufacturing plants and the cancellation by defendants Airco and Liquid Carbonic of existing contracts with certain producers for the purchase of CO2 products. It also enjoined both companies from entering into new contracts with these producers.
In the 1950s, the United States initiated an investigation of the original parties to the 1952 Final Judgment, except ICEC, to determine whether they had violated the Final Judgment. As a result of this investigation, the United States filed a Complaint on August 22, 1961 against four CO2 suppliers: General Dynamics (now Praxair), Airco (now BOC), Chemetron Corporation (now Air Liquide) and Olin (no longer in the CO2 business). United States v. General Dynamics Corp., [1961 - 1970 Transfer Binder] Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 45,060 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1961). The Complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize CO2 markets within the United States, and had monopolized, and attempted to monopolize, such trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, except for Olin, Section 3 of the Clayton Act. In particular, it alleged that each defendant engaged in unlawful behavior in the CO2 industry by tying the use of storage tanks and
other related equipment owned by that defendant to the purchase of CO2 from the defendant (and vice versa). The Complaint further alleged that the defendants foreclosed competition through the use of long-term requirements contracts. As in the 1952 Final Judgment, the Complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in these activities to handicap small distributors, with whom the defendants competed in the sale of CO2, primarily in the form of dry ice and small cylinders of gaseous CO2 products sold to small customers.
On October 17, 1963, the United States and the defendants named in the Complaint agreed to enter into the 1963 Final Judgment in lieu of going to trial. United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶¶ 70,890-70,892, 70,919 (E.D.N.Y. 1963).(4)
Fourteen of the substantive provisions of the 1952 Final Judgment remain in effect,(5) and nine substantive provisions of the 1963 Final Judgment remain in effect.(6) As discussed below, none of these provisions is needed to protect competition in light of the many changes in industry circumstances over the past four-plus decades and the fact that most of the potentially anticompetitive conduct addressed by the decree provisions is also adequately addressed by the antitrust laws themselves. In addition, several provisions of these decrees impose obligations that are inconsistent with the requirements of modern antitrust law and policy, and their continued existence may well be inhibiting rather than preserving effective competition. The 1952 Final Judgment continues to enjoin the defendants from buying and selling CO2 from one another, except in cases of operational distress. See Liquid Carbonic Corp., 1952 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ ¶ 67,248, 67,377-78, at § VI(A). The 1963 Final Judgment continues to enjoin the defendants from (a) tying or conditioning the sale or lease of CO2 storage tanks to a customer's purchases of CO2 (Section VI(A)-(E) of the 1963 Final Judgment); and (b) entering into any CO2 supply contract that exceeds one year in length and accounts for more than one-half of a customer's entire CO2 requirements (Section VI(F) of the 1963 Final Judgment). See General Dynamics Corp., 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶¶ 70,890-70,892, 70919, at § VI(A)-(F). Because the provisions of the two decrees that remain in effect either are no longer necessary or may be interfering with the competitive process, their continued existence does not provide a public benefit and the two decrees should be terminated.
This Court has jurisdiction to terminate the Final Judgment. Section XIII of the 1952 Final Judgment gives the Court jurisdiction to "modif[y] or amend[] any of the provisions thereof"; Sections XI or XII of the 1963 Final Judgment (depending on which defendant's version) give the Court jurisdiction to "modif[y] or terminat[e] any of the provisions herein"; and "the power of a court of equity to modify an injunction in adaptation to changed conditions" is "inherent in the jurisdiction of the chancery." United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114 (1932). Under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[o]n motion and upon terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . [when] it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 163 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 1998) ("IBM") (affirming grant of joint motion by United States and defendant to terminate antitrust consent decree).
Where, as here, the United States tentatively consents to termination of all of the provisions of an antitrust judgment, the issue before the court is whether such termination is in the public interest. IBM, 163 F.3d at 740; United States v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 719 F.2d 558, 565 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v. Loew's Inc., 783 F. Supp. 211, 213 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); United States v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 662 F. Supp. 865, 869-70 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Exercising "judicial supervision," IBM, 163 F.3d at 740, the court should approve a consensual decree termination where the United States has provided a reasonable explanation to support the conclusion that termination is consistent with the public interest. Loew's, 783 F. Supp. at 214. See also United States v. Western Elec. Co., 900 F.2d 283, 307 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (public interest test applies to a termination of decree restrictions with assent of all parties to the decree; district court should approve an uncontested termination "so long as the resulting array of rights and obligations is within the zone of settlements consonant with the public interest today"); United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1576-77 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (under "deferential" public interest test, court should accept a consensual termination of decree restrictions that Department of Justice "reasonably regarded as advancing the public interest;" it is "not up to the court to reject an agreed-on change simply because the proposal diverge[s] from its view of the public interest;" rather, court "may reject an uncontested modification only if it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences will result").
The "public interest" standard takes its meaning from the purposes of the antitrust laws. IBM, 163 F.3d at 740; Am. Cyanamid, 719 F.2d at 565. As the Court of Appeals has emphasized, "[t]he purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market." IBM, 163 F.3d at 741-42 (alteration in original) (quoting Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 458 (1993)). The purpose of an antitrust decree is to remedy and prevent the recurrence of the violation alleged in the complaint. Where the government has consented to termination, the focus is on whether there is a "likelihood of potential future violation, rather than the mere possibility of a violation." IBM, 163 F.3d at 742 (emphasis added). In this context, if the government reasonably explains why there is "no current need for" the constraints imposed by a decree, termination will serve "the public interest in 'free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.'" Loew's, 783 F. Supp. at 213, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (quoting N. Pac. Ry. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958)).
Obsolete decrees are worse than unnecessary; they may themselves have anticompetitive effects, burdening the parties, the courts, and the competitive process. See, e.g., IBM, 163 F. 3d at 740; Loew's, 783 F. Supp. at 214. Where the United States and the defendants jointly seek termination long after entry of a decree that has no termination date, it is reasonable to presume that the violation has long since ceased and that competitive conditions were adequately restored. Thus, for example, the Second Circuit affirmed termination of the IBM decree under the public interest standard because there was no longer any material threat of antitrust violations absent the decree restrictions and because the decree "resulted in artificial restraints . . . which do not further the cause of healthy competition." IBM, 163 F.3d at 740. Termination of an antitrust decree, of course, leaves the parties "fully subject to the antitrust laws of general application." Loew's, 783 F. Supp at 214.
Termination of the Final Judgments is plainly in the public interest. The United States' extensive experience with the enforcement of the antitrust laws has shown that, as a general matter, industries evolve and change over time in response to competitive and technological forces. In most situations, the passage of many decades results in significant industry change that renders the rigid prohibitions placed years before in consent decrees either irrelevant to the parties' ongoing compliance with the antitrust laws, or an affirmative impediment to the kind of adaptation to change that is a hallmark of the competitive process.
These considerations, among others, led the Antitrust Division in 1980 to establish a policy of including in every consent decree a so-called "sunset provision" that, except in exceptional cases, would result in the decree's automatic termination after no more than ten years.(7) As a result of the Division's consistent adherence to this policy, the only antitrust consent decrees to which the United States is a party that remain in effect are those entered within the past ten years, or before 1979 when the "sunset" policy was adopted. The Division has encouraged parties to old decrees to seek the Division's consent to their termination, especially where they contain provisions that may be restricting competition. See U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, DOJ Bull. No. 1984-04, Statement of Policy by the Antitrust Division Regarding Enforcement of Permanent Injunctions Entered in Government Antitrust Cases (hereinafter, "DOJ Policy Regarding Decree Enforcement"); and U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, New Protocol to Expedite Review Process for Terminating or Modifying Older Antitrust Decrees (Apr. 13, 1999) (hereinafter, "New DOJ Decree Termination Protocol").(8) In the United States' view, decrees entered prior to 1979 presumptively should be terminated, except in special circumstances.(9)
In this case, there are several specific reasons why immediate termination of these two very old decrees would be in the public interest. Since the decrees were entered, there have been substantial changes in the CO2 industry, which have made the subject decree provisions at best superfluous, and at worst potentially anticompetitive. Antitrust case law has also changed such that certain conduct that was deemed per se illegal and was categorically prohibited by these final judgments is now subject to rule of reason analysis, and would be permissible unless its likely effects are shown to be, on balance, anticompetitive. See, e.g., Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 58-59 (1977).
Both of the Final Judgments have been in effect for more than 40 years. In these intervening years, most of the original defendants either left the CO2 business or went out of business entirely. These decades have also seen significant changes in the competitive landscape of the CO2 industry, including in the commercial form in which CO2 is sold, how it is manufactured and distributed, who it is sold to and their volume requirements, and the greater ease of entry by new competitors because of the greater availability of the raw feedstock required for CO2 production. These industry changes have led to a market that now includes as many as eight other CO2 suppliers located throughout the country that are not subject to the decrees. Therefore, the industry now is less prone to potentially anticompetitive coordinated conduct than in the 1940s and 1950s when the conduct underlying the decrees took place.
When the Final Judgments were entered, there were few sources of CO2 feedstock. In contrast, today raw CO2 feedstock is readily available from natural CO2 wells and as a by-product of chemical production and rapidly expanding ethanol production, among other sources.(10) Perhaps as a consequence of the greater availability of raw CO2 feedstock, there has been substantial entry into the CO2 business, resulting in the emergence of significant new competitors to BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide.
In addition, a major objective of both Final Judgments to protect independent distributors of CO2 from the major CO2 producers has been rendered largely irrelevant by industry changes. When the Final Judgments were entered, the primary CO2 products were dry ice and gaseous CO2 sold (in 20- or 50- pound high-pressure steel cylinders) to small-volume (100 to 200 pounds per year) businesses, such as soda fountains and local restaurants that used the CO2 for beverage carbonation or food refrigeration. Local distributors played an important role as intermediaries between manufacturers and these small end users. Today, however, small distributors account for only a small percentage of CO2 sales, and small businesses account for a only a small amount of CO2 consumption. Instead, most CO2 currently is sold to large customers that buy tanker-load volumes in bulk liquid form directly from manufacturers, several of which first appeared in the market after the Final Judgments were entered. And, as discussed below,(11) because of the greater number of uncommitted sources of raw CO2 feedstock now available, eliminating the Final Judgments' constraints is unlikely to have any adverse competitive effect even on small customers.
The interpretation and application of the antitrust laws have also changed significantly since entry of the Final Judgments. The defendants' Memorandum in Support of Uncontested Motion to Terminate FInal Consent Decree points out that the 1952 Final Judgment prohibits BOC and Praxair from engaging in certain business practices that were per se illegal at the time, which would now be evaluated under a rule-of-reason analysis. For example, until 1984 all tying arrangements were treated as per se illegal. Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Jefferson Parish, and its more recent decision in Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 126 S.Ct. 1281 (2006), it is clear that Section 1 of the Sherman Act authorizes per se condemnation of a tying arrangement only if the plaintiff proves that the defendant has market power in the tying product market. Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 2. As a result, while certain tying arrangements are still considered per se illegal, most are reviewed under a rule-of-reason inquiry. Id.; Indep. Ink, 126 S.Ct. at 1291-92.
Many of the provisions in the Final Judgments, including those that required the defendants to divest assets and license patents, have either been completed or have expired and thus are no longer operative. Of those provisions that remain in effect, some simply duplicate existing antitrust laws, including but not limited to those provisions that prohibit fixing prices and dividing customers and competitors.(12) After the passage of decades, decree provisions that in substance require defendants to abide by the antitrust laws add little, if anything, to antitrust compliance. Since the remedies available under current antitrust statutes for criminal antitrust violations, such as hard-core price-fixing and market allocation, are generally more severe than those that could be obtained by holding a defendant in contempt under an outstanding decree, the United States typically does not seek to preserve such decree provisions. Hard-core violations of the Sherman Act now are classified as felonies and are subject to far harsher penalties, including more substantial monetary fines and longer jail time, than in the 1950s and 1960s.(13) The Department believes that these antitrust penalties provide greater deterrence to resumption of the challenged anticompetitive conduct than would the threat of prosecution for criminal contempt of the decrees.
Other decree provisions that remain in effect flatly prohibit conduct that today would more properly be evaluated under the rule of reason, and only prohibited if anticompetitive harm from the conduct outweighed procompetitive benefits.(14) Flat prohibitions may have been appropriate at the time of the decrees to restore competition, but such prohibitions are no longer necessary in light of the passage of time, industry change and the evolution of antitrust standards. In particular, two individual provisions and one group of five provisions in the Final Judgments restrict the freedom of the defendants in a manner that is inconsistent with modern antitrust standards and could hinder the defendants' ability to compete with other CO2 suppliers that are not subject to the consent decrees.
Under Section VI(A) of the 1952 Final Judgment, BOC and Praxair are prohibited from buying and selling CO2 from one another, except in cases of operational distress. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 1952 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 67,248 at § VI(A). When this decree was entered, this provision was imposed to make it more difficult for defendants to collude. As discussed above, however, major industry changes since 1952 have led to a marketplace that appears significantly less conducive to the sort of collusive conduct addressed by the 1952 Final Judgment. Substantial new competitive entry has occurred, and today there are at least four and as many as eight CO2 suppliers competing for CO2 sales in various regions throughout the country.
Moreover, an outright prohibition on inter-company sales of CO2 appears to impose on BOC and Praxair unnecessary inefficiencies that do not burden their competitors. Because transportation costs are high relative to the value of CO2, it can be efficient for a manufacturer with a customer located far from that manufacturer's own source of supply to acquire CO2 from another manufacturer located closer to the customer rather than transporting CO2 from a far-away location. Unlike BOC and Praxair, competing CO2 suppliers (not subject to the 1952 Final Judgment) are free to purchase CO2 from any supplier to meet the needs of their customers and provide competitive pricing. This provision precludes only BOC and Praxair from attempting to realize efficiencies in distribution that could be passed on to their customers, and thus may have the effect of increasing the overall cost of distributing CO2. Therefore, this restriction should be eliminated.
Under Section VI(A)-(E) of the 1963 Final Judgment, BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide are required to lease or sell storage tanks and related equipment to any customer of CO2 on a nondiscriminatory price basis. General Dynamics Corp., 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶¶ 70,890- 70,892, and 70,919 at § VI(A). The original purpose of the provision was to prevent any one of the defendants from conditioning the initial or continued lease of CO2 tanks and equipment upon the customer's purchase of CO2 exclusively from that defendant, which was thought to prevent smaller CO2 distributors from gaining a foothold in the CO2 market. At the time, the majority of customers were small, and they leased storage tanks from the CO2 manufacturers instead of purchasing their own tanks.
BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide are still subject to this provision today, even though they do not manufacture tanks and their customers now either own their own storage tanks or can easily replace their tanks by purchasing or leasing them from a supplier other than the defendants. For any effort by BOC, Praxair, or Air Liquide to tie CO2 purchases to the provision or use of storage tanks to be anticompetitive, the manufacturers would need to possess, individually or collectively, market power in the provision of the storage tanks. See Indep. Ink, 126 S.Ct. at 1293. In the absence of such power, arrangements linking the use of the manufacturer's tanks to the purchase of CO2 from that manufacturer may well serve procompetitive purposes. These defendants plainly have no market power in the supply of tanks. They do not manufacture storage tanks, and there are at least 20 independent sources of storage tanks to which customers can turn. Therefore, this restriction is no longer necessary to preserve competition and should be eliminated.
Under Section VI(F) of the 1963 Final Judgment, BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide are precluded from entering into contracts with customers that have the effect of obligating them to purchase their requirements of CO2 for a "period of more than one (1) year." General Dynamics Corp., 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶¶ 70,890, 70,892, and 70,919 at § VI(F). This proscription appears to have been intended to remedy a concern that the major producers of CO2 could employ long-term contracts to foreclose smaller rivals from large and profitable customer accounts.(15) Today, BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide are still precluded from offering long-term contracts to their customers, while competing CO2 suppliers (not subject to the Final Judgments) typically do offer such contracts. The extensive use of long-term contracts in this industry suggests that customers may prefer the stability and reliability provided by long-term supply arrangements, and that in preventing the defendants from entering into these types of arrangements the decree may be impeding beneficial competition.
It is well established in economics that securing long-term commitments from customers can be procompetitive, by reducing risks and enhancing output. If the restriction on such arrangements is removed in this industry, BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide, like their rivals, would have the ability to try to obtain customer commitments to reduce the investment risk associated with expanding already-constructed facilities or constructing new liquid CO2 facilities. Without this ability, faced with greater investment risk, they are less likely than their competitors to make investments to expand CO2 output. In fact, BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide have opened only four of the 20 new CO2 plants built in the last six years. Therefore, the restriction on long-term contracts appears to be inhibiting competition and should be eliminated.
As noted above, before tentatively agreeing to join the defendants in moving the Court to terminate these Final Judgments, the United States conducted its own investigation of the industry and also solicited and received public comments on the defendants' proposal. Only two written comments were submitted, one from a competing supplier of CO2, and the other from a CO2 customer. These commenters requested that the Department not disclose their identities or enough details of their comments so that their identities can be deduced.
In its comment, the CO2 customer focused exclusively on the provisions of the 1963 Final Judgment that enjoin defendants from tying the supply of storage tanks to their customers' purchases of CO2.(16) That comment expressed concern about the cost of buying and installing new storage tanks to allow a choice of CO2 suppliers in the event the incumbent tank owner attempted to require the customer to purchase CO2 from it. However the commenter provided no basis for concluding that such switching would be uneconomical, and the Department's investigation indicated that tanks are readily available from many third parties, and even small customers routinely install their own storage tanks. As discussed above, moreover, the ban on the defendants' tying tank supply to CO2 sales has little, if any, continuing competitive significance. Because the defendants have no market power in the provision of storage tanks, they cannot force customers to purchase CO2 by threatening not to provide them with tanks.
The other commenter, a competing supplier of CO2, focused on the provisions of the 1963 Final Judgment that enjoin defendants from entering into long-term CO2 supply contracts and also suggested that the defendants currently are engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to divide markets, fix prices, rig bids, and eliminate competitors, and that termination of the 1963 Final Judgment would allow the defendants more effectively to thwart competition from rivals. The proscription on entry into long-term customer supply contracts originally was intended to prevent the defendants from exploiting their market power to impede entry or expansion by rival suppliers. The ease with which new firms can now enter the CO2 industry and existing producers can rapidly expand their CO2 production mitigates against an inference that the defendants have any power to impede entry. Moreover, allowing the defendants to enter into long-term customer contracts could be a procompetitive development, as such contracts could frustrate future industry attempts to cooperate to increase prices of liquid CO2 and could promote an overall increase in industry output by reducing the cost of developing and exploiting new sources of liquid CO2.
As to the alleged conspiracy, over the years, the United States has conducted several civil and criminal investigations of the CO2 industry and found that antitrust enforcement was not warranted. Nor does this commenter provide any concrete basis for believing that the defendants are colluding in violation of the decree or the antitrust laws. In any event, if the defendants conspired to thwart competition by the commenter or others, such conduct likely would violate the antitrust laws, an offense punishable by severe criminal or civil penalties, without regard to the termination of these decrees. To the extent the commenter fears it will have to compete more aggressively against defendants freed of outdated restrictions on their ability to meet customer demands for products and services (e.g., long-term supply contracts), that apprehension goes to the very heart of the competitive process and provides no legitimate basis for retaining these two ancient consent decrees.
In sum, the 1952 Final Judgment and the 1963 Final Judgment were designed to restore and maintain competition in an industry in which the participants had for years colluded to suppress competition. As a result of the passage of time, changes in substantive antitrust law, and sweeping changes in the CO2 industry, these decrees no longer serve the public interest. They are not necessary, both because their purposes are amply served by the existing body of antitrust law and because sweeping industry changes over the past four-plus decades, including the entry of additional CO2 suppliers, have rendered the structure of the CO2 industry in the United States less susceptible to the sort of collusion the decrees sought to prevent. Moreover, several provisions of these decrees are inconsistent with modern antitrust principles and appear to be inhibiting rather than protecting competition. Therefore, the United States believes that termination of the 1952 Final Judgment and 1963 Final Judgment would be in the public interest and tentatively consents to such termination.
In United States v. Swift & Co., the court noted its responsibility to implement procedures that will provide non-parties adequate notice of, and an opportunity to comment upon, antitrust judgment modifications proposed by consent of the parties:
Cognizant . . . of the public interest in competitive economic activity, established chancery powers and duties, and the occasional fallibility of the Government, the court is, at the very least, obligated to ensure that the public, and all interested parties, have received adequate notice of the proposed modification. . . .
1975-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 60,201, at 65,703 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (footnote omitted). There has been sufficient notice and opportunity for comment in this case.
First, early in the course of its investigation of the defendants' proposal to terminate the Final Judgments, the United States asked the defendants and they agreed to publish notice of their proposal and provide the public an opportunity to submit comments to the United States. The notice was published in three widely read industry publications: it appeared in Chemical Week on March 1, 2006 and March 8, 2006; Food Engineering on March 10, 2006; and Beverage World on March 15, 2006. See Appendix 4. The United States received two sets of comments from third parties who urged continuation of certain provisions of the decrees, and it took the comments into account in its competitive analysis of the decrees and assessment of the likelihood that termination would undermine or enhance industry competition. The United States believes that advance publication of the defendants' pending proposal provided sufficient public notice and opportunity to comment on the pending motions for termination of the 1952 and 1963 Final Judgments.
Second, notwithstanding the adequacy of that prior notice, the parties have agreed to certain procedures that may be followed in bringing this matter to a conclusion, as reflected in the Stipulation attached to this Memorandum. If the Court should agree with the United States that further notice and comment procedures are not required, the United States requests that the Court promptly enter an order in the form of Exhibit A to the Stipulation.
If the Court concludes that further notice and comment procedures are appropriate, then the United States requests that the Court promptly enter an order in the form of Exhibit C to the Stipulation, establishing additional notice and comment procedures. Following this additional notice, period of public comment, and after receiving the United States' response to all comments, the Court may, if it concludes it is in the public interest, enter an order in the form of Exhibit E to the Stipulation. As outlined in the attached Stipulation, the United States proposes and BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide have agreed to the following additional notice and comment procedures:
This procedure is designed to provide additional notice to all potentially interested persons, informing them that two separate motions to terminate the Final Judgments are pending and providing them a further opportunity to comment thereon. BOC, Praxair, and Air Liquide have agreed to follow this procedure, including publication of the appropriate notices. The parties therefore submit herewith to the Court two separate orders establishing this procedure.
The United States proposes the foregoing procedure in accord with Antitrust Division policies that were in place when notice was published in March 2006. In cases such as this, however, where notice was published informing interested parties that the Department was considering the potential termination of the decrees, and where interested parties submitted comments to the Department that were taken into account in the Department's analysis, the Department no longer believes that further notice automatically should be required. If the Court concludes that further notice and comment is appropriate in this matter, the Department requests that the Court promptly enter the agreed orders providing for such notice. If the Court concludes that no further notice is necessary, the Department requests that the Court enter an order terminating the decrees.
For the foregoing reasons, the United States tentatively(17) consents to termination of the 1952 Final Judgment and the 1963 Final Judgment.
Dated: March 13, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
U.S. Department of Justice
1. BOC is a successor in interest to original defendants Air Reduction Company, Inc. ("Airco") and Pure Carbonic, Inc. ("Pure Carbonic"). Praxair is a successor in interest to defendant The Liquid Carbonic Corp. ("Liquid Carbonic"). Defendant International Carbonic Engineering Co. ("ICEC"), a patent holding and licensing firm, no longer exists. Although defendant Wyandotte Chemical Corp. exited the CO2 business in the 1960s after it was acquired by BASF, it was nonetheless served with copies of the pending motions and supporting memoranda.
2. With respect to the 1963 Final Judgment, BOC is a successor in interest to original defendant Airco and Praxair is a successor to defendant General Dynamics Corp. Air Liquide became subject to the 1963 Final Judgment when a corporate subsidiary acquired the carbon dioxide ("CO2") business once owned by defendant Chemetron Corp. The fourth defendant under the 1963 Judgment, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. ("Olin"), remains bound by the decree, but exited the CO2 business in 1971. The parties have nonetheless served Olin with copies of the motion and the supporting memoranda.
3. The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) (the "Tunney Act"), which provides for public notice and comment on antitrust settlements proposed by the United States, does not apply to decree terminations. Nevertheless, the United States solicited public comments in furtherance of its investigation of the proposed termination of these decrees. In response, the United States received two written comments, one from a competitor and one from a customer. We address the commenters' concerns below. See Section IV.D., infra, pp. 17-19.
4. The 1963 Final Judgments for General Dynamics (now Praxair) and Airco (now BOC) vary slightly from those for Chemetron (now Air Liquide) and Olin, apparently due to the fact that General Dynamics and Airco were parties to the 1952 Final Judgment, while Chemetron and Olin were not. Compare 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) at ¶¶ 70,890 (General Dynamics) and 70,919 (Airco), with 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) at ¶¶ 70,891 (Chemetron) and 70,892 (Olin). The consent decrees in General Dynamics and Airco omit § IV(A), which appears in the consent decrees in Chemetron and Olin, but they include § VIII, which is not in the Chemetron and Olin decrees. These differences, however, are not material to the question of whether the decrees should be terminated.
5. 1952 Final Judgment at §§ IV(A)-(E), IV(G), V(A)-(C), VI(A)-(B), VII(D)-(E), and VIII(A).
6. 1963 Final Judgment at §§ IV(A)-(B), IV(D), VI(A)-(F). Paragraphs IV(A)-(B) and IV(D) in the General Dynamics-Airco decrees correspond to paragraphs IV(B)-(C) and IV(E) in the Chemetron-Olin decrees.
7. Antitrust Division Manual, § III.H.5.a.i. (2007 ed.). This change in policy followed Congress' 1974 amendment of the Sherman Act to make violations a felony, punishable by substantial fines and jail sentences. With these enhanced penalties for per se violations of the antitrust laws, the Division concluded that antitrust recidivists could be deterred more effectively by a successful criminal prosecution under the Sherman Act than by a criminal contempt proceeding under provisions of an old consent decree aimed at preventing a recurrence of price-fixing and other hard-core antitrust violations. United States v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 662 F. Supp. 865, 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
8. In addition, in the early 1980s, the Division conducted its own review of over 1,200 old consent decrees then in effect to ensure that none "hinder[ed] . . . competition" or "reflect[ed] erroneous economic analysis and thus produce[d] continuing anticompetitive effects." The Honorable William French Smith, Attorney General of the United States, Remarks at the Annual Meeting of the District of Columbia Bar (June 24, 1981), at 11. Although that effort was necessarily constrained by the Division's limited resources and other enforcement priorities, it did lead to the termination of several decrees that at the time appeared most problematic. See also Jeffrey I. Zuckerman, Removing the Judicial Fetters: The Antitrust Division's Judgment Review Project (1982) at 2-3 (attached hereto as Appendix 3); see Department of Justice Authorization for Fiscal Year 1984 Before the Subcommittee on Monopolies & Commercial Law, Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 16 (1983) (statement of William F. Baxter, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division).
9. Among the special circumstances where continuation of a decree entered more than ten years ago may be in the public interest are: a pattern of noncompliance by the parties with significant provisions of the decree; a continuing need for the decree's restrictions to preserve a competitive industry structure; and longstanding reliance by industry participants on the decree as an essential substitute for other forms of industry-specific regulation where market failure cannot be remedied through structural relief.
10. Production of CO2 has risen dramatically since the 1950s, from approximately 850,000 tons per year to approximately 11.7 million tons annually today. Indeed, in the Midwest, one of the nation's largest CO2-producing areas, CO2 is now so plentiful that more CO2 is vented than processed. The country's expansion in production of CO2 has been triggered, in part, by an exponential increase in production and use of ethanol, a "green" gasoline additive. Over the last four years alone, the nation's annual ethanol production capacity has more than doubled from 2.2 billion gallons to 4.6 billion gallons, and it is expected to double again by 2008. Production of raw CO2, a by-product of ethanol production, is also projected to more than double by 2008.
11. See, e.g., Section IV.C.
12. See, e.g., 1952 Final Judgment at IV(A). This conduct is prohibited under longstanding antitrust principles. See, e.g., United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596, 608 (1972); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 218 (1940); Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211, 237-38 (1899).
13. See note 7, supra, p. 9.
14. See, e.g., 1952 Final Judgment at VII(D).
15. Under the 1963 Final Judgment, the defendants are permitted to enter into long-term contracts for less than all of a customer's requirements.
16. See Section IV(C)(2)-(3), supra, pp. 15-17.
17. The Department's consent is tentative because it has reserved the right to withdraw that consent for any reason prior to the entry of orders terminating the 1952 Final Judgment and 1963 Final Judgment.


text:
Monday, 3 December 2012
New Companion Clara to have a romance? With Who?
8 comments :
- Jason said...
Well we do see them kiss in the Christmas trailer. But what about River?
- 3 December 2012 at 17:58
- Christel Doctor Who said...
The nail in the coffin of Modern Doctor Who...oh deary deary me!
- 3 December 2012 at 20:57
Yawn. Let's just hope the Daily Mirror is just being shit again.
- 3 December 2012 at 21:37
Funny, I don't recall the Doctor ever showing any attraction to his companions in the past. I guess he must mean the new series, but there was certainly none of that prior (unless you count the sixth Dr's strangling of Peri as some kind of Gallifreyan mating ritual)
- 4 December 2012 at 02:32
How do I put this politely? @#$! River.
- 4 December 2012 at 02:33
- Matthew Bagnall said...
That happened with the slutty kissogram last series...
And River Song since her death all she's been trying to do is rape the Doctor
Lets not forget the implied foursome that the Doctor was invited into (Dinosaurs on a spaceship)
- 4 December 2012 at 07:40
- Combom Pazza said...
thy doctor fancying a human, wouldnt that be like us fancying a monkey?
The Daily Mirror NEVER get it right, IMHO this is speculation and it should be treated as such!
- 5 December 2012 at 11:08
Anything beats River Song.
- 4 February 2013 at 10:57


text:
Faculty Profile - Prof. Bobby Hortonby Tom Runge • September 19, 2013 Share:
Name: Bobby Horton
Your background: I grew up in Stone Mountain, Georgia, before attending University of Richmond for my undergraduate degree and then UNC-Chapel Hill for my graduate degrees. My wife Naomi and I have been married for 11 years and have three children, two boys and a girl. Our family spends a lot of time at the local Boys and Girls Club soccer fields (all three kids play, and I coach) and at the Crawfordsville High School pool (our two boys swim for the local club). When not running to sporting event, we like the hike the local state parks or the Sugar Creek Trail.
Department and specialty at Wabash: Psychology; specialty: Social Psychology
Favorite part of Wabash: Relationships with students and faculty colleagues.
Favorite place on the campus: The arboretum, particularly the path between Hays and the corner of Wabash and Grant.
Favorite food: I like just about everything.
Something most people don't know about you: I like to dance (shhh….)


text:
USDA: Highest Corn Acreage Since 1936 Expected
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - The USDA reports that farmers intend to plant 97.3 million acres of corn this year, the most since 1936.
The spring planting survey released Thursday says the 2013 corn planting forecast is up slightly from last year's 97.2 million acres.
Corn remains profitable, as prices are strong after last year's drought left the grain in short supply.
Record corn acreage is expected in Arizona, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, and Oregon.
But some Corn Belt states will continue to be affected by the worst drought since the 1950s, with slightly less planted acreage expected.
The report says farmers plan to plant 77.1 million acres in soybeans, down slightly from 2012's 77.2 million acres but still the fourth-highest soybean planting on record.


text:
Brand : Compac
Available Thicknesses : 12mm, 20mm, 30mm, 50mm,
Available Finishes : Polished,
This product has been discontinued. Please get in contact for advice on alternative options.
Moka compac quartz is a resistant and elegant product of extremely high quality, with a most attractive appearance and perfect finishes, which offers countless possibilities for interior design. It is the ideal choice for countertops and floors in kitchens and bathrooms, as well as for high traffic areas.
Moka Quartz Compac is a versatile material that increases the possible applications of marble, making it possible to create new homogeneous colours in a wide range of formats and decorative pieces.
For thirty years, MARMOL COMPAC Technological Marble has consolidated a prestige that has also extended to the QUARTZ COMPAC line. This elegant product of exceptional hardness and resistance to impact is ideal both for areas that have to withstand intense foot traffic as well as for household environments. Its minimal absorption, ease of cleaning and low maintenance make it a highly recommendable choice for bathrooms or kitchens, as it is extremely resistant to abrasion, acids, oils.
Moka Quartz Compac is a perfect for a kitchen worktop and the company have a range of marble composites (Marmol Compac) which is ideal for bathrooms and flooring. The Marble Store are approved fabricators of all Compac products.
For more information visit
Please continue to request quote or Buy Online
Select Stone Thickness :