text:
Corning Optical Communications LLC, part of Corning Incorporated's (NYSE:GLW) Telecommunications segment, will highlight innovation in data center solutions at the Green Data Center Conference & Exposition, Jan. 31 to Feb. 2, in San Diego.
In its interactive exhibit, Corning Optical Communications will display its Pretium EDGE® Solutions for data center applications. Designed and developed with extensive end-user input, Pretium EDGE Solutions address the need for ease-of-use, scalability, termination density and technology future-proofing, while offering excellent total cost of ownership.
Enabled by Corning® ClearCurve® bend-insensitive 50/125 µm multimode fiber, Pretium EDGE Solutions allow for up to:
• 35 percent faster deployment;
• 25 percent faster moves, adds and changes (MACs);
• 100 percent more density than traditional preterminated solutions.
Corning's Plug & Play™ Universal Systems for data centers will also be on display with Pretium EDGE Solutions at the exposition.
Corning will also display the Pretium EDGE Reverse Polarity Uniboot, an LC connector that provides quick and easy polarity management in the field with no tooling requirements. The Reverse Polarity Uniboot's clamshell design prevents fibers from being exposed during the polarity flip. In addition, the connector has a color-coded visual reference allowing quick recognition when a fiber has been reversed. Finally, the connector features a removable trigger design that allows for 10 different colored triggers that can be used for segmenting network fabrics.
On Feb. 1, at 11 a.m., Doug Coleman, manager of technology and standards for Corning Optical Communications, will present "Optical Connectivity Enables the Green Data Center." This presentation will provide background on how and why green data center initiatives can reduce energy consumption, increase energy efficiencies and minimize environmental effects. Optical connectivity enhances green data center installations by utilizing high-port-density electronics with very low power and cooling requirements, in addition to providing premier pathway and space performance.
For additional information on Corning Optical Communications products and services, contact a customer service representative at 1-800-743-2675, toll free in the United States, or (+1) 828-901-5000, international, or visit the Web site at www.corning.com/opcomm.
About Corning Incorporated
Corning Incorporated (www.corning.com) is the world leader in specialty glass and ceramics. Drawing on more than 160 years of materials science and process engineering knowledge, Corning creates and makes keystone components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. Our products include glass substrates for LCD televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions for a number of industries including semiconductor, aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology.


text:
This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a081309giulianideathpanels
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event August 13, 2009: Giuliani: Health Care Reform Will Result in 'Death Panels'. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
The conservative Washington Times, a staunch opponent of President-elect Barack Obama, publishes an editorial predicting that the incoming Obama administration will, in some form or fashion, move to "exterminate" babies with disabilities and other "useless" Americans through its promised reform of the US health care system, similar to actions taken by the Nazis before World War II. The Times provides a brief synopsis of Adolf Hitler's "T4 Aktion" program designed, in the words of the Times, "to exterminate 'useless eaters,' babies born with disabilities. When any baby was born in Germany, the attending nurse had to note any indication of disability and immediately notify T4 officials—a team of physicians, politicians, and military leaders. In October 1939 Hitler issued a directive allowing physicians to grant a 'mercy death' to 'patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health.' Thereafter, the program expanded to include older children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition, encephalitis, epilepsy, muscular spasticity, or paralysis. Six killing centers were eventually established, and an estimated quarter-million people with disabilities were executed." The Times draws a parallel between the Nazis and the Obama administration's support for legal abortion and for physician-assisted suicide, which it equates with "euthanasia." The incoming administration will, the Times fears, begin "selecting" babies with disabilities for what apparently will be "selective abortions." It quotes the Reverend Briane K. Turley as saying: "Were God's design for us left unhindered, we could naturally expect to welcome 40,000 or more newborn infants with Down syndrome each year in the US. And yet we have reduced that number to just under 5,500. These data strongly indicate that, in North America, we have already discovered a new, 'final solution' for these unusual children and need only to adapt our public policies to, as it were, 'cure' all Down syndrome cases." Turley, the Times notes, claims that "there is growing evidence suggesting that, among health care practitioners and systems, the central motivation behind legally enforced or high pressure screenings is economics." The Times then adds: "[A]nd the results seem to bear him out. America's T4 program—trivialization of abortion, acceptance of euthanasia, and the normalization of physician assisted suicide—is highly unlikely to be stopped at the judicial, administrative, or legislative levels anytime soon, given the Supreme Court's current and probable future makeup during the Obama administration, the administrative predilections that are likely from that incoming administration, and the makeup of the new Congress." The Times predicts a new "final solution" of "extermination" that will start with disabled infants and will progress "from prenatal to postnatal to child to adult." (Washington Times 11/23/2008) The editorial anticipates the "deather" claims that many conservatives will make in the summer of 2009 (see January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, and August 13, 2009).
Media critic and columnist George Neumayr writes that the Democrats' economic stimulus plan will include enforced abortions and euthanasia for less productive citizens. Neumayr calls this claim a once "astonishingly chilly and incomprehensible stretch [that] is now blandly stated liberal policy," basing it on the Democrats' plan to provide money to the states for "family planning." Neumayr equates the funding, which would go for such initiatives as teaching teenagers about the use of condoms and measures to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, to the famous Jonathan Swift essay of 1729, "A Modest Proposal," which satirically suggested that impoverished Irish families might sell their children to rich Englishmen for food. "Change a few of the words and it could be a Democratic Party policy paper," Neumayr writes. "Swift suggested that 18th-century Ireland stimulate its economy by turning children into food for the wealthy. [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] proposes stimulating the US economy by eliminating them. Other slumping countries, such as Russia and France, pay parents to have children; it looks like Obama's America will pay parents to contracept or kill them. Perhaps the Freedom of Choice Act can also fall under the Pelosi 'stimulus' rationale. Why not? An America of shovels and scalpels will barrel into the future. Euthanasia is another shovel-ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing health care costs under Obama's plan, after all, counts as economic stimulus too. Controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs. It's all stimulus in the Brave New World utopia to come." Like a Washington Times editorial from months earlier (see November 23, 2008), Neumayr uses the term "final solution" for the Democrats' economic proposal, the term for the Nazis' World War II-era extermination of millions of Jews and other "undesirables." He writes: "'Unwanted' children are immediately seen as an unspeakable burden. Pregnancy is a punishment, and fertility is little more than a disease. Pelosi's gaffe illustrates the extent to which eugenics and economics merge in the liberal utilitarian mind." "Malthus lives," he says, referring to the 19th century scholar Thomas Robert Malthus, whose theories of ruthless natural selection predated Charles Darwin's theories of evolution. Neumayr goes on to accuse "Hillary Clinton's State Department" of preparing to set up programs of "people-elimination," predicated on what he calls "UN-style population control ideology" and "third-world abortions." (Neumayr 1/27/2009)
Betsy McCaughey (R-NY), the former lieutenant governor of New York and a fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, writes that health care provisions in the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan will affect "every individual in the United States." McCaughey writes: "Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." McCaughey says the provisions are similar to suggestions in the book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis, by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), until recently Obama's pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. McCaughey writes that hospitals and doctors who do not use the system will be punished, by a federal oversight board to be called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Perhaps most worrisome is McCaughey's claim that elderly Americans will be given reduced health care based on their age and expected productivity. "Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council," she writes. "The Federal Council is modeled after a UK board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a UK health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.… If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the US will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined." (McCaughey 2/9/2009) McCaughey's claims are very similar to the ones she made against the Clinton administration's attempt to reform health care in 1994 (see Mid-January - February 4, 1994). They will be proven false (see July 23, 2009).
The Washington Times spins off a recent op-ed by health industry lobbyist Betsy McCaughey (see February 9, 2009) to claim that the Obama administration will attempt to save money by euthanizing old people, disabled people, and sickly infants. The editorial begins with the "chilling" idea of a national medical information database that will allow the government to "track… your every visit to a health care provider—where you went, who you saw, what was diagnosed, and what care was provided." The Obama administration, the Times claims, will use that information to decide which people deserve the more expensive lifesaving treatments and which ones must be denied in the interest of cost efficiency. "If it costs too much to treat you, and you are nearing the end of your life anyway, you may have to do with less, or with nothing," the Times writes. "You just aren't worth the cost.… What nondescript GS-11 will be cutting care from Aunt Sophie after her sudden relapse before he or she heads to the food court for some stir fry?" The elderly, the physically and mentally disabled, all "whose health costs are great and whose ability to work productively in the future" will, the Times writes, be allowed to die or even exterminated. So will premature babies, badly wounded soldiers, and others as yet to be determined. The Times again cites Nazi Germany's "T4 Aktion" program of forcibly euthanizing less productive citizens (see November 23, 2008) as a likely template for the Obama program. (Washington Times 2/11/2009)
Conservative syndicated columnist Cal Thomas uses a recent editorial by health care industry lobbyist Betsy McCaughey (see February 9, 2009) to accuse the Obama administration of planning a "euthanasia" program to exterminate hapless Americans. President Obama's economic stimulus plan, Thomas writes, "means the government will decide who gets life-saving treatment and who doesn't. It is survival of the fittest in practice." Thomas then writes that the Obama administration's support of legal abortions will inevitably lead to "euthanasia" of older and less productive citizens. He quotes a 1979 book by theologian Francis Schaeffer and future Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? as saying, "Will a society which has assumed the right to kill infants in the womb—because they are unwanted, imperfect, or merely inconvenient—have difficulty in assuming the right to kill other human beings, especially older adults who are judged unwanted, deemed imperfect physically or mentally, or considered a possible social nuisance?" Thomas then writes, "No one should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia." Schaeffer and Koop's prediction that "the next candidates for arbitrary reclassification as nonpersons are the elderly" now "seems to be coming true," Thomas writes. He also repeats a claim from the 92-year-old Koop that in 1988, he had suffered from an ailment that temporarily paralyzed him. Under Britain's government-run health care, Koop claims, "I would have been nine years too old to have the surgery that saved my life and gave me another 21 years." Soon, Thomas writes, "dying will become a patriotic duty when the patient's balance sheet shows a deficit." (Thomas 2/18/2009)
On his radio show, conservative host Glenn Beck warns that the Democrats' "socialistic" health care reform proposal will lead to "eugenics" as envisioned by leaders of the Nazi Third Reich. Beck tells his listeners that the reform package will not only result in senior citizens being forced to die before their time in order to save on medical costs (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, and February 18, 2009), but also says: "This is Nazi Germany stuff. This is the kind of stuff that is progressive in its nature. It is eugenics. It is survival of the fittest. It is the reason why the abortion argument makes so much difference. You can't devalue life at either end because these people are waiting to swoop in and say it's just not worth doing these things. Don't waste the money on old people. They're not going to live long anyway. Spend it on someone who meets the requirements of our cost-benefit analysis. So old people, thanks for all the contributions you made to society during your better years but now we're sorry to say it's time to send you to a better place, heaven." (Glenn Beck 5/13/2009)
President Obama, in a televised "town hall" event held in the White House to discuss health care reform, suggests that one way to trim medical costs might be to cease performing expensive and futile treatments—"extraordinary measures"—on terminally ill patients who do not want such interventions and would not benefit from them. Currently, doctors who have no particular instructions will perform "extraordinary measures" to stave off a terminally ill patient's death, even for a matter of hours, no matter how intrusive or expensive the procedure. Obama tells his listeners that families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care." In some instances, he says, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." He notes the experience of his recently deceased grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given less than nine months to live. When she broke her hip, she and her family had to decide whether to put her through a long, expensive, and painful hip-replacement procedure. "[A]nd the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?" he says. (Nicholas 6/25/2009) Obama is not advocating that life-extending treatments be forcibly denied to terminally ill or elderly patients (see July 23, 2009 and July 23, 2009), but his remarks will be misconstrued as advocating just such a position (see June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, and July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, and August 12, 2009).
Capital Research Center senior editor Matthew Vadum writes an op-ed for the conservative American Spectator magazine claiming that President Obama is sending a message to America's elderly in his health care reform proposals: "Screw you." Referring to a statement made by Obama at a "town hall" forum on health care reform, where the president noted that money could be saved by trimming unwanted and unneeded "extraordinary measures" carried out on terminally ill patients (see June 24, 2009), Vadum writes: "So, old people: screw you. In the future Uncle Sam will put you on an ice floe and let you float away to your heavenly reward. It gives new meaning to the Latin phrase 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.' (In English, How sweet and glorious it is to die for one's country.) Medical decisions should be made by patients, their families, and their doctors, not by government bureaucrats, but that's ObamaCare for you." (Vadum 6/25/2009)
House Representative Paul Broun (R-GA—see November 11, 2008) says that the Obama health care reform proposals will kill Americans. On the floor of the House, Broun attacks the idea of a "public option," described by Congressional Democrats as a government-funded alternative to private health care. Broun says, "[T]his program of 'government option' is being touted as being the panacea, the savior of allowing people to have quality health care at an affordable price is gonna kill people." Broun says that Canada and the United Kingdom, both countries that rely on public health care, "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society." Progressive news and advocacy site Think Progress notes that both Canada and the UK have both a lower infant mortality rate and longer life expectancy than the US. (Think Progress 7/10/2009) Liberal media watchdog site Media Matters notes that neither the Canadian nor British health care systems serve as models for President Obama's health care reform proposals. (Media Matters 7/10/2009) Broun's claims are based in part on health insurance advocate Betsy McCaughey's warnings that the health care reform proposal will encourage senior citizens to die sooner (see February 9, 2009 and July 23-24, 2009), warnings that are debunked by the St. Petersburg Times (see July 23, 2009).
Betsy McCaughey, the chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York, and a conservative opponent of health care reform, says that under the Obama administration's reform proposal, elderly Americans would be encouraged to die earlier to save money (see February 9, 2009 and July 23-24, 2009). On conservative radio host Fred Thompson's show, she says, "Congress would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner." These sessions will help elderly patients learn how to "decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care… all to do what's in society's best interest or in your family's best interest and cut your life short." (St. Petersburg Times 7/23/2009) "These are such sacred issues of life and death. Government should have nothing to do with it." Thompson calls McCaughey's claim the "dirty little secret" of the health care reform proposal. (St. Petersburg Times 7/23/2009; Brown 7/28/2009) In August, progressive MSNBC host Rachel Maddow will tell her listeners: "That is not true at all, not a word of it. Not mandatory, not require, not every five years, not counseling, not tell them, not how to, not end their life. None of the words in that claim are true except maybe the two 'that's' and the word 'in.' It's not true, but it is convenient, and so it survives. And it is in fact being promoted more than ever. It's convenient for the interests [that oppose] health care reform to scare old people about reform." (MSNBC 8/12/2009) The next day, McCaughey publishes an op-ed in the New York Post advancing the same arguments. "One troubling provision" of the bill, she writes, "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years… about alternatives for end-of-life care.… [The] mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care." (McCaughey 7/17/2009)
Availability of Discussions Mandated Since 1990 - The provision in question states that as part of an advanced care consultation, an individual and practitioner will have a consultation that includes "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title." Such explanations and consultations have been part of government-provided senior care since 1990; in 2003, the Bush administration issued guidelines for physicians' discussion of end-of-life care with seniors.
Claims Contradicted - John Rother of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) counters with a statement: "This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed. To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives." Jon Keyserling of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization adds: "I was surprised that any responsible legislative analyst would indicate this is a mandatory provision. That is just a misreading of the language and, certainly, of the intent." McCaughey later responds to those statements by repeating her assertions, saying that doctors would "pressure" seniors to accept less costly services that would lead to quicker deaths. (St. Petersburg Times 7/23/2009; Brown 7/28/2009)
Debunked - McCaughey's claims will soon be disproven (see July 23, 2009).
Fox News and radio talk show host Sean Hannity tells his radio audience of the op-ed published in the morning's New York Post by health industry lobbyist Betsy McCaughey, claiming that the Democrats' health care reform proposal would result in senior citizens being advised to end their lives prematurely (see July 16, 2009). Hannity says: "[I]t sounds to me like they're actually encouraging seniors in the end, 'Well, you may just want to consider packing it all in here, this is—' what other way is there to describe this?… So that they don't become a financial burden on the Obamacare system? I mean that's how they intend to cut cost, by cutting down on the health care we can give and get at the end of our lives and dramatically cutting it down for senior citizens? You know, welcome to the brave new world of Obamacare. We're going to encourage, you know, inconvenient people to consider 'alternatives to living.'" The same day, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham tells her listeners: "Can you imagine—if I were doing Saturday Night Live, like, if I were producing it this weekend, and I was going to be fair about political humor, I would have a hospice chute—like a door, a trap door that goes into a chute where the elderly would just walk up—'Oh, my hip hurts.' And all of a sudden you see this leg kicking granny down the chute, and that's Obamacare." She continues by making a veiled reference to Nazi concentration camps: "[S]ome will call them death camps, but this is the way Obamacare is gonna go for America." And on the same day, conservative radio hosts Jim Quinn and Rose Tennent echo Hannity and Ingraham's claims. Quinn says, "[T]here's a drop dead date, you should pardon the expression but a lot of us are going to—" Tennent interjects, "Are going to drop dead, yeah." Quinn then adds, "For heaven's sakes, this is the death-to-old-people plan." (Media Matters 7/17/2009)
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, following up on claims that the Obama health care reform proposal would encourage elderly Americans to die sooner (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, and July 17, 2009), tells his listeners that the reform proposal includes "[m]andatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home.… That's an invasion of the right to privacy. We can't have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die." The claim will soon be debunked (see July 23, 2009). (St. Petersburg Times 7/23/2009)
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) issue a statement that warns the Obama administration's health care reform proposal would provide for "government-encouraged euthanasia" of senior citizens. Boehner and McCotter's statement reads: "Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation [HR 3200, the most recent version of the reform proposal] encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration' and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. At a minimum this legislative language deserves a full and open public debate—the sort of debate that is impossible to have under the politically-driven deadlines Democratic leaders have arbitrarily set for enactment of a health care bill." Boehner and McCotter also state that the reform bill would encourage state-assisted suicide: "With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing, and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself. Health care reform that fails to protect the sanctity and dignity of all human life is not reform at all." (House Republican Leader 7/23/2009) The next day, McCotter will add: "This is very dangerous. We, in Michigan, have already fought back in attempted assisted suicide several years ago. And yet you see that the people who support this are trying to use this bill to advance this agenda." (MSNBC 7/29/2009) The statement is quickly challenged by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who with Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA) introduced a separate bill that would provide for end-of-life consultations for senior citizens. Both bills propose nothing more than having Medicare pay for such consultations, if the patients or the patients' families desire them. "I cannot tell you how disappointed I was to see this type of reaction to a carefully crafted piece of legislation we have been working on for more than six months that is bipartisan and that speaks to the needs of American families," Blumenauer says. "The American public, especially our senior citizens, deserve our best efforts to meet their needs—not treat them like political footballs." A Boustany spokesman says the congressman stands behind the measure he co-authored, but says it should include language stating that taxpayer money would not be used to counsel patients on physician-assisted suicide. Two states—Oregon and Washington—allow physician-assisted suicide in certain situations, and the Montana Supreme Court is considering a lower-court ruling that found physician-assisted suicide to be a right under Montana's Constitution. (Brown 7/28/2009) Liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters calls the statement's analysis "repulsive." (Warner 7/24/2009) The characterization of the bill by Boehner and McCotter will be disproven by a St. Petersburg Times analysis (see July 23, 2009).
Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX) lays out a skein of theories on radical radio host Alex Jones's broadcast. During his interview with Jones, Gohmert accuses the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats of trying to implement socialism and kill senior citizens; Jones and Gohmert compare Obama to a number of foreign despots. Gohmert tells Jones and his listeners: "We've been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens. They'll put them on lists and force them to die early because they won't get the treatment as early as they need.… I would rather stop this socialization of health care because once the government pays for your health care, they have every right to tell you what you eat, what you drink, how you exercise, where you live.… But if we're going to pay 700 million dollars like we voted last Friday to put condoms on wild horses, and I know it just says an un-permanent enhanced contraception whatever the heck that is. I guess it follows that they're eventually get around to doing it to us." Gohmert is echoing claims by Republican lawmakers and industry lobbyists that the Democrats' health care reform proposal will kill senior citizens (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, and July 23-24, 2009). Jones ups the ante by accusing the White House "science czar" of planning to "put… stuff in the water to sterilize us," and then goes on to accuse the White House of, among other things, implementing a "eugenics control grid over us" and implementing "youth brigades, national service compulsory in a group outside the military under the Democratic Party control in the city year in the red and black uniforms." Gohmert agrees with Jones, and says these kinds of policies were "done in the 1930s," a plain reference to Nazi Germany, "and it's not the only place its been done. It has been done throughout history." Jones says, "Mao did it," referring to Communist China's Mao Zedong. Gohmert agrees: "Well, that's exactly what I was thinking of. This is the kind of the thing we got to stop. We got to get back to the roots, the basics." Gohmert praises Jones for his rhetoric and accusations: "That shows how on top of things you are, Alex." For his part, Jones effusively thanks Gohmert and reminds him that "you're there fighting and we're supporting you." (Fang 7/27/2009) Progressive MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says of Gohmert and Jones: "You know, the Democrats may be fighting it out about whether they're going to be beholden to the insurance companies and whether there's going to be a public option in health care reform. But when it comes to the Republicans, this is the kind of thing they are bringing to the table: Hitler, Mao, and secret plots to kill old people." (MSNBC 7/29/2009)
Following up on arguments that Congressional Democrats' health care reform proposal would encourage senior citizens to die sooner (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, and July 24, 2009), conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners, "People at a certain age with certain diseases will be deemed not worth the investment, and they will just—as Obama said—they'll give them some pain pills and let them loop out until they die and they don't even know what's happened." During a phone-in town hall on health care the same day as Limbaugh's broadcast, President Obama will say something quite different from Limbaugh's characterization (see July 28, 2009). MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says of Limbaugh's allegations later that evening: "'Democrats want to reform health care because it's a secret plan to kill people.' This is the kind of thing that when it shows up on the floor of the House or in a town hall with the president, you get a little glimpse of crazy. But the nest for this kind of crazy, where this stuff is hatched, it's among the conservative base and in the conservative media. Conservative talk radio is really where they let it all hang out." (MSNBC 7/29/2009)
The conservative publication Investors Business Daily (IBD) writes an editorial harshly criticizing the Democrats' health care reform package. The editorial repeats the debunked canard that the reform proposal will mandate allowing elderly, less "productive" citizens to die rather than pay to keep them alive (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, and July 28, 2009). IBD compares the US health care system to Britain's government-run National Health Service (NHS), claiming that in Britain health care is strictly rationed and routinely allows people to die if they don't meet up with the criteria for paying for their care. "The British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to," the editorial claims. In the original version of the editorial, the editors write, "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." The IBD editors are apparently unaware that Hawking was born in Oxford, England, lives in Britain, teaches at the University of Cambridge, and has been supported by Britain's health care system for his entire life. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein writes: "You could write some long response to the rest of the lies and distortions in that IBD editorial, but the more appropriate reply is to just warn people against ever reading the editorial page in Investor's Business Daily. It's not just that they didn't know that Stephen Hawking was born in England. It's that the underlying point was wrong, as you'll note from the continued existence of Stephen Hawking. They didn't choose an unfortunate example for an accurate point. They simply lied." Hawking himself tells Guardian columnist Hugh Muir: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." After the corrections, IBD alters the editorial to omit the Hawking reference, but does not acknowledge that Hawking has remained alive due to NHS medical interventions. (Investor's Business Daily 7/31/2009; Klein 8/10/2009; Muir 8/11/2009; Weiner 8/13/2009)
The St. Petersburg Times's "PolitiFact" debunks a recent claim that the Democrats' health care reform proposal would let citizens die if keeping them alive would cost more than $22,000. The conservative Club for Growth has budgeted $1.2 million for advertisements opposing health care reform. One ad claims, "The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the 'socialized' system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000." It depicts a man weeping over another person lying in a hospital bed, while a voiceover says: "$22,750. In England, government health officials decided that's how much six months of life is worth. Under their socialized system if a medical treatment costs more, you're out of luck. That's wrong for America." While the ad does not directly state that the Obama administration would put such a price tag on the lives of the elderly and dying, as PolitiFact writes: "[T]he implication is clear: The reform plan will lead to callous decisions that would allow people to die if they face a costly treatment." The ad is based on "comparative effectiveness research," which aims to find the most effective treatments for the lowest cost. Other conservative groups such as Conservatives for Patients Rights (CPR) have portrayed the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCCER), a new board created by the stimulus bill to find the best health treatments, as being modeled after the British system. Unfortunately for the CPR claim, the proposed American system would be nothing like its British counterpart, which is run by government entities. In Britain, a government board, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), decides whether particular treatments are covered or not. The Democrats' proposal says that the FCCCER will not "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." Nor will its reports or recommendations "be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment." PolitiFact notes that several prominent Republicans, such as Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), have made unsubstantiated claims that elderly people would be denied care in favor of younger patients if they were in Britain. Michael Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute says that while the Club for Growth's claim about a price limit of $22,750 for extending the life of the patient is not completely inaccurate (it is based on a single unusual case), the Democrats' legislation does not "say it's going to do what Britain is doing." Dr. Sean Tunis, a former top Medicare and Medicaid official in the Bush adminstration, calls the ad "misleading" and "fallacious." PolitiFact concludes: "[T]he ad's main point about cost limits is incorrect. There is no such practice in the comparative effectiveness program, nor is it part of the current health reform proposals pending in Congress. The House and Senate bills under consideration would not require the government to decide how much a person's life is worth." It terms the ad "False." (St. Petersburg Times 8/6/2009)
Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, writes on her Facebook page that the Democrats' health care reform package would result in a government "death panel" that would kill her baby, Trig. Her child was born with Down Syndrome. Palin writes: "Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!… And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." Palin also commends Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) for warning the nation about President Obama's "Orwellian" health care adviser: "Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president's health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff [Rahm Emanuel], in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." (Kleefeld 8/7/2009; Time 8/8/2009)
Inspired by Debunked Claims from Industry Lobbyist - Palin's warning about government "death panels" is inspired by debunked warnings from industry lobbyist Betsy McCaughey and a variety of Republican lawmakers and conservative talk show hosts about the reform proposals' implicit agenda to kill older Americans faster (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, and July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009). Politico's Ben Smith writes: "As nonpartisan sources note, the [proposal] deals with medical practitioners helping individuals prepare living wills, powers of attorney, and the like. It's a long ways from there to a 'death panel' where bureaucrats decide who lives or dies." (Smith 8/7/2009)
Countering Palin's Assertions - Progressive MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says of Palin's assertions: "There is no Obama death panel. There's no plan to kill old people. There's no plan to kill off any people who aren't productive enough. There's no plan to kill off any of Sarah Palin's children. And if we were actually talking about health care instead of waddling through this free-floating morass of factless partisan rage and corporate opportunism, it would occur to someone to notice that the provision being considered by Congress that has Sarah Palin ranting about Obama death panels and the death of her own children was introduced by Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia (see August 10, 2009). And it's not about killing old people. It's about making it easier for old people to create living wills. A similar provision was introduced by another Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine. This is a Republican idea." (MSNBC 8/10/2009) Days later, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) tells an audience: "It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels. Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't [in the bill]. There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.… There are things that are in this bill that are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up." (Demer 8/11/2009)
An anti-health care reform television ad designed to frighten seniors into believing that so-called "death panels" will have government officials choosing to terminate them (see August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, and August 10, 2009) is produced by a supposedly "non-partisan seniors advocacy group." However, in fact the group is led, organized, and funded by senior Republican operatives. The ad says in part that health care reform will, for seniors, "mean long waits for care, cuts to MRIs, CAT Scans, and other vital tests. Seniors may lose their own doctors. The government, not doctors, will decide if older patients are worth the cost." The organization that produced and released the ad is called the "60 Plus Association," or "60+," a registered non-profit organization that claims to be non-partisan. The president of 60+ is Jim Martin, a former official for the National Conservative Action Committee and another group, Americans Against Union Control of Government. The honorary chairman of 60+ is Roger Zion, a former Illinois Republican congressman whom the group's site calls "one of Washington's leading spokesman for the conservative cause." When 60+ began running ads against prescription drug reform a few years ago, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) discovered that, in the organization's words, "virtually all of their largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source—the nation's pharmaceutical industry." John Rother of AARP will confirm that 60+ is "funded primarily by corporate interests, especially pharmaceuticals." Speaking to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, he says that 60+ and other anti-reform groups are specifically targeting seniors. "I don't think you can look at those commercials and not conclude that seniors are the target of a very intentional scare campaign," he says. "And many seniors, of course, are worried about change because they depend on Medicare. They are perhaps not in the greatest of health, and they definitely want to know that Medicare will be there, their doctor will be there when they need it. So, change can be a little scary.… It certainly makes me angry because, you know, there are real issues and people should be engaged in this debate. But to scare people, to raise these bogus issues, to intentionally mislead a big part of the population is—you know, it's a subversion of democracy." Rother adds: "[W]e've looked at this bill and we read every page, we've concluded that the bills proposed in the Congress would be good for seniors, would actually help them afford their medications better, make sure that doctors are there when they need them. So, we feel there's nothing to be scared about in the actual legislation." In 2003, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid 60+ to organize opposition against prescription drug reform in Minnesota and New Mexico. 60+ in turn hired a PR firm, Bonner & Associates, which according to the AARP "specializes in 'Astroturf lobbying'" (see April 14, 2009, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, July 27, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 5, 2009, Before August 6, 2009, August 6, 2009, and August 6-7, 2009). Bonner paid employees to call residents of those states and, identifying themselves as volunteers for 60+, urge them to oppose the legislation. 60+ also has ties to former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who directed Native American tribes to donate to 60+ in return for Republican support in Congress. 60+ has also lobbied in favor of approving the storage of nuclear waste at the infamous Yucca Mountain, Nevada, storage site. Maddow says: "[T]he campaign against health care reform in this country is being brought to you by professional, corporate-funded, Republican-staffed political PR operations. In this case, an organization that promotes itself as non-partisan but appears to be anything but. These are professional PR operatives that are scaring real Americans with increasingly paranoid and kooky lies about health care. And they're getting rich in the process, thanks to the largess of extremely interested parties who are more than willing to pay for their services." (MSNBC 8/11/2009; MSNBC 8/12/2009)
Conservative radio and Fox News television host Glenn Beck says he believes that "death panels" are real. Beck is referring to a recent statement made by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), who accused Congressional Democrats of creating "death panels," review boards that would make decisions as to who would receive medical treatment and who would be allowed to die, as part of their health care reform legislation (see August 7, 2009), itself a larger part of the so-called "deather" belief (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, and July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009). On Beck's radio show, he asks: "So, why is there no more discussion than there is on Sarah Palin and what she said over the weekend that there would be death—what did she call it?—a death squad? Or a death—" His executive producer, Steve Burguiere, fills in the name, "Death panel." Beck continues: "A death panel for her son Trig. That's quite a statement. I believe it to be true, but that's quite a statement.… I believe she at least should be listened to and you should question, 'Is it evil?' Would there be—what would make her say that there would be a death panel? I mean, tomorrow on Fox at 5 o'clock, make sure you're joining us, because we'll ask some of those same questions. We will show you some of the reasons why you could read it this way. It'll be up to you whether or not you find it credible enough to say: 'Well, now, wait a minute. Those are really bad seeds that have been planted before. Maybe we shouldn't plant those seeds.' But it's up to you to decide." (Media Matters 8/10/2009)
The "60 Plus Association" (60+), a conservative anti-health care reform organization, sends out what Washington Post commentator Greg Sargent calls a "brutal" mailer to Nebraska residents, depicting photos of senior citizens apparently suffering from various untreated ailments and making the questionable claim that health care reform would be funded by $500 million in Medicare cuts. 60+ is leading a media push against the Democrats' reform package by claiming that the government would institute so-called "death panels" (see Shortly Before August 10, 2009). Sargent writes: "This is kind of a new frontier in the scare campaign targeting old folks: It links the prediction of drastic Medicare cuts to the widely-debunked claim that health care reform will lead to mass government euthanasia of the elderly" (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, and August 11, 2009). The mailer repeats the widely discredited claim that the government could deny you treatment even if "you and your doctor insist on them," and quotes President Obama as saying during one "town hall" forum, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." Sargent notes: "Taken out of context, the comment sounds like a callous declaration to a patient that he or she should suck it up and forget about getting needed care. In fact, Obama was actually discussing the difficulties inherent in helping the elderly make good medical decisions." (Sargent 8/11/2009)
Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, commenting on the Democrats' health care reform legislation on the morning show Fox and Friends, claims "no one is saying" that the reform package would kill old people (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, and August 11, 2009). "The president's reform plan is a redistribution of health care," Johnson says. "And what he's saying is, I want to reduce hospital costs by $220 billion from Medicare. I want to cut out Medicare Advantage that affects 10 million people. I want to reduce imaging studies. I want to reduce electric wheelchairs. I want to reduce advanced nursing care in facilities. So no one is saying that the president wants to kill old people." Unfortunately, on the very same program, Johnson said two weeks before that the reform package would indeed kill old people: "Some people are saying, well, this is a health care reform, other people say—maybe me—that this is a subtle form of euthanasia. And when you start looking at the proposals, you say, 'God, what's happening?'" Johnson has made similar accusations in the recent past, and said that under the reform proposals, America would become a "kind of 2009 'Brave New World,' 'Soylent Green,' '1984,' Aldous Huxley kind of world" where doctors will advise you to end your life rather than continue your care. (Media Matters 7/28/2009; Media Matters 7/31/2009; Media Matters 8/3/2009; Jilani 8/12/2009)
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tells a group of Republican state legislators in Illinois that "it is natural" to assume that the Democratic health care reform plan will lead to "death panels" making end-of-life decisions for seniors. "This is a real concern not made up by radio talk show hosts," Giuliani claims. In recent weeks, the claim of so-called "death panels" has energized the conservative anti-reform movement even as it has been roundly debunked (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 13, 2009, and August 12-13, 2009). Giuliani admits that there are no provisions for "death panels" in the Democratic legislation pending in Congress, but says that "simple economics" tells him the panels will happen. "President Obama says he will cover 30 to 40 to 50 million people who are not covered now—without it costing any money," he says. "This is absurd. Health care—in case the Obama administration hasn't noticed, is very expensive. They will have to cut other services, cut programs. They will have to be making decisions about people who are elderly." He goes on to blame Obama and Congressional Democrats for creating the worry about "death panels" because of "the ambiguity of the legislation." (Pallasch 8/13/2009)
Attorney George Felos, who represented Michael Schiavo in the Terri Schiavo end-of-life case, says it is ironic to have the same politicians who insisted on becoming involved in the Schiavo decision in 2005 now saying it is not politicians' place to become involved in end-of-life decisions as part of their opposition to health care reform (see July 10, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 13, 2009, August 12-13, 2009, and August 13, 2009). (Terri Schiavo had been in a coma for years; her husband wanted to have her feeding tube removed and allow her to die. Republican politicians, including then-President George W. Bush, attempted to block the move.) MSNBC host Rachel Maddow notes: "When Terri Schiavo's next of kin, her husband, Michael Schiavo, tried to carry out what he said were his wife's end-of-life wishes, it was the Republican Party who decided that actually the government knew better—actually the politicians understood this better than that family and the government should intervene. And now, many of the very same people who interfered in Michael and Terri Schiavo's health care decisions at the end of Terri Schiavo's life, the politicians who brought that end-of-life decisions to floor of the US Capitol, they are arguing against health care reform now on the grounds that they don't want the government to interfere an end-of-life decisions." One of the Republicans involved in the Schiavo case, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), says that the health care reform legislation pending in the House will no longer include a provision for government funding of end-of-life counseling. Felos tells Maddow that there are "some similarities" to the Schiavo case: "[E]nd-of-life decision-making for patients is a very sensitive issue. People have legitimate fears. They have legitimate concerns about that. And in the Schiavo case, those legitimate fears and concerns were exploited for political and ideological reasons. And I think that's what we're seeing now done in an opposite way." (MSNBC 8/14/2009)
Two Democratic House members say that the media should not "glorify" the contentious, sometimes-riotous anti-reform protests that have recently occurred at health care debates (see June 30, 2009, July 6, 2009, July 25, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 31, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 2, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6-8, 2009, August 8, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, and August 11, 2009). Alan Grayson (D-FL) cites the violence that occurred at a debate featuring Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL—see August 6, 2009), saying that the "disrepect" shown at the debate reflects badly not on Castor, but "on the people who show the disrespect for the democratic process." He adds: "I think in any society, you're always going to have a certain percentage of people who are nuts. But these are not people who deserve any special recognition, much less glorification. You don't treat people the way those people treated Kathy Castor. It's wrong.… I look for intelligent, well-founded criticism of any bill because that's how you make the bill better. But if you have people running around saying this bill is going to kill every old person in the country (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 13, 2009, August 12-13, 2009, and August 13, 2009), how could you possibly show any respect for that silly point of view? It makes no sense to me." Patrick Murphy (D-PA) says that the contention that the reform proposal threatens Americans' freedoms is simply wrong: "I had a guy yesterday try to say to me, 'You know, I'm worried about my freedoms.' I say, 'Sir, I fought for your freedoms [Murphy is a veteran of the Iraq war]. I'm going to protect those freedoms. I took an oath to support and defend those freedoms. And I take that responsibility very seriously. But, you know, we need to understand that the current path for small business, for everday families, for seniors, is unsustainable." (US House of Representatives 2009; Terkel 8/15/2009)
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the misinformation permeating the debate over health care reform is having an effect. Forty-five percent believe that the reform legislation pending in Congress includes "death panels" (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 13, 2009, August 12-13, 2009, August 13, 2009, and August 15, 2009), and 55 percent believe that illegal immigrants will receive government-funded coverage. These numbers are disproportionately higher among Fox News viewers: 72 percent believe the government will fund coverage of illegal immigrants, 75 percent believe in "death panels," and 79 percent believe the reform bill will lead to a government takeover of the US health care system. Large minorities of other network viewers believe these same examples of misinformation. MSNBC's Domenico Montanaro writes: "This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story." (Montanaro 8/19/2009; Corley 8/19/2009) Another poll, from Public Policy Polling, shows that 39 percent of Americans want the government to "stay out of Medicare," apparently unaware that the government funds, administers, and operates Medicare. The same poll shows that 38 percent of respondents do not believe President Obama is a natural-born American citizen; six percent don't believe that Hawaii, Obama's birth state, is part of the United States. The poll does not differentiate between Fox viewers and others. (Jilani 8/19/2009)
Newsweek publishes an extensive article detailing what it calls "the five biggest lies in the health care debate." Despite the title, the article actually debunks seven.
The government will have electronic access to your bank accounts and steal citizens' money (see (July 30, 2009) and After). The bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee indeed calls for electronic fund transfers, but only from insurers to doctors and other providers. Patients are not involved in such transactions.
You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive. This story seems to originate from a blog, Flecks of Life, which features a picture of President Obama made up as the Joker from the Batman films. The House bill provides for a "health care exchange," including a list of private insurers and a single government plan, allowing people without health insurance to choose from the list. The government will prevent insurers from refusing clients with "preexisting conditions," and require them to offer at least minimum coverage. However, Newsweek observes, "The requirements will be floors, not ceilings, however, in that the feds will have no say in how generous private insurance can be."
No chemo for older Medicare patients. Newsweek calls this a "vicious" rumor coming from the so-called "deather" camp (see November 23, 2008, January 27, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 18, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 24, 2009, June 25, 2009, July 10, 2009, July 16, 2009, July 17, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 23-24, 2009, July 24, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009 - August 12, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, Shortly Before August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 13, 2009, August 12-13, 2009, August 13, 2009, August 15, 2009, August 18, 2009, and August 23-24, 2009). The claim is that Medicare will refuse cancer patients over 70 years of age anything other than end-of-life counseling, including chemotherapy and other life-extending treatments. The claim, Newsweek says, "has zero basis in fact. It's just a vicious form of the rationing scare."
[H]ealth-care reform will be financed through $500 billion in Medicare cuts. Again, nothing in the House bill or anything being considered in the Senate exists to back this claim. There are proposed decreases to increases in future Medicare funding, essentially reducing Medicare expenditures from the forecast of $803 billion by 2019. $560 billion would be removed from future Medicare increases over the next 10 years, and would not come from funds slated to provide actual care to seniors. And the House bill proposes increasing Medicare funding by $340 billion over the next 10 years. According to Medicare expert Tricia Newman of the Kaiser Family Foundation, the money would pay for office visits, eliminate copays and deductibles, and close the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug benefits.
Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance. While a 1986 law allows illegal immigrants to receive free emergency care through emergency room clinics like everyone else in America, the House bill does not give anyone free health care. Illegal immigrants will not be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance. In July, the House defeated a Republican-sponsored amendment to require anyone enrolling in a public plan or seeking subsidies to purchase health insurance to provide proof of citizenship. After the amemdment was defeated, Representative Steve King (R-IA) began spreading the false claims that since proof of citizenship would not be mandated, illegal immigrants would indeed be able to obtain government-funded health insurance. Newsweek writes: "Can we say that none of the estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants will ever wangle insurance subsidies through identity fraud, pretending to be a citizen? You can't prove a negative, but experts say that Medicare—the closest thing to the proposals in the House bill—has no such problem."
Death panels will decide who lives. So-called "death panels" form the heart of the "deather" claims that the government would mandate "end of life counseling sessions" that would encourage elderly and seriously ill patients to allow themselves to die. Newsweek calls the claim a "lie" that "springs from a provision in the House bill to have Medicare cover optional counseling on end-of-life care for any senior who requests it. This means that any patient, terminally ill or not, can request a special consultation with his or her physician about ventilators, feeding tubes, and other measures. Thus the House bill expands Medicare coverage, but without forcing anyone into end-of-life counseling."
The government will set doctors' wages. This is another claim that seems to have originated on the Flecks of Life blog. Like the earlier claim, it is false. The House bill, according to Newsweek, "says that physicians who choose to accept patients in the public insurance plan would receive five percent more than Medicare pays for a given service, [but] doctors can refuse to accept such patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of, say, Aetna." Amitabh Chandra of Harvard University says, "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the government; that's completely false." (Begley 8/29/2009)
Home | About | Timelines | Forum | Development | Donate | Contact
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Financial FAQs
New-home construction is already a casualty of the government shutdown, and even sequestration agreement that has cut government hiring and spending more than $1.6 trillion to date. But its effect would be mitigated if interest rates remain low, and lenders continue to ease qualification criteria, such as lowering their super-high credit score requirement.
The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo housing-market index fell to 55 in October from 57 in September. A prior September estimate pegged the level at 58, which matched the highest reading since 2005. Results above 50 signal that builders, generally, are optimistic about sales trends.
"Interest rates remain near historic lows and we don't expect the level of rates to have a major impact on sales and starts going forward," said David Crowe, NAHB's chief economist. "Once this government impasse is resolved, we expect builder and consumer optimism will bounce back."
Despite the recent decline, pent-up demand is supporting builder sentiment, which has increased 34 percent over the past year, outpacing home-construction growth.
"A spike in mortgage interest rates along with the paralysis in Washington that led to the government shutdown and uncertainty regarding the nation's debt limit have caused builders and consumers to take pause," said Crowe. "However, interest rates remain near historic lows and we don't expect the level of rates to have a major impact on sales and starts going forward. Once this government impasse is resolved, we expect builder and consumer optimism will bounce back."
Interest have declined slightly from their recent highs, so that the 30-year conforming fixed rate today is approximately 4.25 percent with 0 origination points in California.
There is some good news. The average credit score among borrowers who received a mortgage in September was 732, down from a peak of 750 a year prior, according to new data released today by Ellie Mae, which provides mortgage lenders with loan origination systems. And this is a sign both that lenders loosening their heretofore strict qualification standards, and that more eligible homebuyers will be allowed in the market.
"The share of purchase loans continued to grow in September 2013, climbing 1 percent to 58 percent of all loans even in the face of higher interest rates and seasonality," said Jonathan Corr, president and chief operating officer of Ellie Mae. "This was the eighth consecutive month that the purchase loan percentage has increased or stayed steady. In January 2013, purchases represented only 27 percent of closed loans.
"The credit standards also continued to ease in September with average FICO scores for closed loans dropping to 732 compared to 734 in August. September's averages were 15 points below where they were at the beginning of the year (January 2013) and the lowest level since we began our tracking in August 2011," noted Corr. "When you drill down farther, the change is even more apparent. For example, 31 percent of the closed loans in September 2013 had FICO scores under 700 compared to 17.4 percent of closed loans in September 2012."
That's also the lowest average credit score since the company started tracking this data in August 2011.
This is important because even a 680 FICO score is a sign of good credit record, though credit balances may be high. But the overall debt-to-income ratio is more important in determining borrowers' ability-to-pay in this case.
Lenders pulled back on giving mortgages to borrowers with less-than-perfect credit in 2008 as the number of borrowers who foreclosed on their homes spiked. That's left millions of would-be home buyers shut out of the housing market. The findings suggest that some borrowers who were unable to gain financing as recently as a year ago could get mortgage approval now.
To be sure, the bar to getting a mortgage remains high. Applicants who were denied a mortgage in September had an average FICO score of 696, according to Ellie Mae—a score that's relatively stellar by most counts. FICO scores range from 300 to 850. Before the recession it was common for borrowers with credit scores in the 600 range and below to get mortgages.
Harlan Green © 2013
Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen


text:
Please do not use the screen image as a representation of the wallpaper colour as this varies from monitor to monitor. We always recommend that you order a sample for more accurate representation.
A compilation of Osborne & Little's best-selling plain, semi-plain and patterned wallcoverings in metallic and neutral colours in a single volume. Contemporary textured, beaded, flock, holographic, mica and animal print designs are presented in an essential decorating palette. The colours range from cool hues of graphite, stone and silver through to warmer tones of linen, taupe, gold and bronze. Quartz is a plain wallpaper in matt and pearlescent mica finishes. Order your Osborne & Little wallpaper today from The Best Wallpaper Place. Free UK delivery over £100. Price match guarantee. 10% Off Osborne & Little wallpaper - use code TENOFF at checkout.
We offer a number of options for orders within the UK and for International orders. Orders dispatched from our warehouse are handled and delivered by FedEx. Orders dispatched directly from our wallpaper brands are subject to their delivery schedules as specified on each product page. Where a Next Day delivery option is selected this is based on the next working day based on the shipping schedule of the brand of wallpaper chosen.
Your relevant delivery options will show at checkout once you have inputted your delivery address. You can select the most convenient delivery for you.
Delivery options and guide pricing is below; costs will be confirmed at checkout. For full details on delivery costs & international shipping visit our dedicated Delivery & Returns page.
|Standard FedEx Delivery (Anytime between 9am - 6pm Monday to Friday)
|£9.95 FREE on selected brands when you order over £100
|Standard FedEx Delivery (Anytime between 9am - 6pm Monday to Friday)
£21 depending on delivery postcode & package weight
|FedEx Next Day by 9am (subject to website order cut off times)
£64 depending on delivery postcode
|FedEx Next Day by 12 noon (subject to website order cut off times)
£28 depending on delivery postcode
|Saturday Delivery
|Price on request depending on postcode. Please contact our Sales Team.
Shop online at The Best Wallpaper Place with 100% security and confidence.
For commercial orders BACS payment is also accepted. For any payment or order questions contact our Sales Team on 0121 289 4290.


text:
Celebration of Lights suspended
Allegheny County cites high costs, loss of UPMC sponsorship
An effort is being made to find sponsors who can save the Celebration of Lights, an annual attraction at Hartwood Acres during the holiday season that benefits charity.
Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald suspended the Celebration of Lights earlier this week, citing higher costs and declining sponsorship money. UPMC said it would not pick up the bill as the main sponsor again this year.
Businessman Art McGovern told WTAE's Shannon Perrine that he's in meetings to try to keep the lights on come November.
"What's important to me about it is it makes the community better," McGovern said by phone. "I'm a Pittsburgher, born and raised, and continue to live here by choice. I just love the area. I think the people are fantastic.
More than 2 million lights were used in the outdoor display along a 3 1/2-mile stretch of road leading up to the Hartwood mansion. More than 170,000 people visited the drive-through event last year, and it generated about $160,000 for charity.
A portion of the annual proceeds go to WTAE-TV Channel 4's Project Bundle-Up, a partnership with The Salvation Army of Western Pennsylvania, which provides new coats, gloves and other cold-weather clothing to children and seniors.
A Facebook page called Save The Hartwood Acres Celebration has been started. Fans of the event are supporting the page with Likes and Shares on Facebook to spread the word.
"It could be four $25,000 donors. It could be a hundred $1,000 donors. We're just hoping people step forward and say, 'We want to help children get those warm coats,' and we're believing that God's going to bless us," said Major William Bode, of the Salvation Army.
Fitzgerald said county taxpayers had to cover most of the $1.5 million cost for last year's Celebration of Lights.
"With the hiring freeze and some of the other budgetary shortfalls we have this year, it's regrettable that this is one more thing that has to be cut out," he said. "We're hoping people will continue to support Project Bundle-Up, which has done great, great work over the years. This is certainly no reflection on them and what they do. But, again, the costs continue to escalate and the sponsorship continued to decline."


text:
An Open Letter To A Former Guantanamo Chief Prosecutor
Navy reservist Capt. John Murphy is a former chief prosecutor of the military commission established to try terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. His own case with NPR, however, is filled with implications for the rest of us.
So it is that I am copying all of you on my message to him. Some of you might have informed opinions on how far NPR—or other news organizations—should go in changing or supplementing an old online story that somehow involves us, even tangentially. The story might be technically accurate, but you might feel wronged anyway in a report that will stay online forever for anyone to see.
Dear Capt. Murphy:
Your complaint is an intriguing one, though that is probably not the word that you would use. I am sympathetic to your feeling tarred in the broad-brush summary of past Guantanamo Bay chief prosecutors. This is doubly so because I myself served in Vietnam and have separately studied many of the difficult issues involved in guerrilla wars and terrorism. I see that you are both a Navy reserve captain and an assistant United States attorney, which suggests to me that you have looked at the Guantanamo tribunals through many different lenses.
All this said, I have decided not to ask for a correction, but I thought I owed you an explanation why. Over the past several weeks, I consulted with a number of ethicists and First Amendment legal experts on the principles involved in your complaint.
The two NPR stories are factually accurate, but the question you raise is whether you were unfairly damaged collaterally. You are part of a small group of five former chief prosecutors. The stories note that one of the five left under a cloud, but doesn't name which one. Does NPR have a responsibility to name the one, so that it's clear that you as one of the remaining four aren't him? I have to conclude no.
Aside from there being little news value in giving all the names, it is not unreasonable or unfair to expect that if someone wants to know about each of the five that they do the additional research on their own. Or they could ask you, as some people apparently did. I understand that it is embarrassing to be suspected, especially given your position as a U.S. attorney. Public trust in you is key. But you have a good, honest answer to give back.
As it is, the Department of Defense investigated Col. Fred Borch, the former chief prosecutor who left in 2004 under a cloud of accusations of attempting to rig outcomes in the terrorist trials by blocking defense evidence. The department found no evidence of misconduct.
A related question is whether an addendum should be added to the Web versions of the stories as a way of clarifying the record. This might be just a nice thing to do for you, as well as clarifying what happened in the case of Col. Borch. My first instinct was to say yes. But on second thought, after discussion with the newsroom, I have decided that there is no precedence for such a practice and no way to know where to draw the line of when to make such addendums—as opposed to corrections—and when not to. Summaries are by definition the stuff of everyday journalism. No story is a totally complete record.
The two stories were about the current chief prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins and transparency efforts to assure fairness in a military court process that had come under a lot of criticism. The first report, which aired in February by correspondent Dina Temple-Raston, called Martins "Guantanamo's detox man." From the Web version of the story:
Martins is the sixth person to fill the chief prosecutor's job in seven years. One chief prosecutor who preceded him was accused of rigging the military commissions' process to ensure convictions. Another chief prosecutor quit after he said he felt pressured to include evidence derived from torture in commission proceedings. He later said he left because he didn't feel he could do that in good conscience. Martins says military commissions are different now — that they are fair.
The second report, done in April, also by Temple-Raston, did not mention the rigging accusation on air but says in its Web version:
One chief prosecutor who preceded Martins was accused of rigging the military commissions' process to ensure convictions. Another quit after he said he felt pressured to include evidence derived from torture in commission proceedings. He later said that he left because he didn't feel he could do that in good conscience.
But just as the stories didn't name you or Borch—or note the Defense Department's ruling on Borch—they also didn't name the chief prosecutor who quit in protest, the implication being that perhaps he should be considered a hero. That former chief prosecutor was Col. Morris Davis. Arguably, you could just as easily have been the hero as the goat among the five former prosecutors. I say "arguably" because readers and listeners will decide for themselves how they think the tribunals should be run and what they think of the comportment of each of the chief prosecutors. I don't know your own views or what you did as chief prosecutor and don't need to: they are irrelevant in making my own decision on fairness in NPR's reporting in this case.
But I don't want to totally abandon the idea of grappling with the possibility of doing for-the-record addendums online and defining the lines of when to do so. Adding to the record may not be required, but it can be a nice thing to do, and might even make good business sense. For a non-profit like NPR, just as for the commercial news media, that means attracting audience by serving it. I plan over the coming months to open a professional discussion with colleagues inside and outside NPR on these possible Web addendums. I can see stumbling blocks that might be reasons not to do so. Among them are practical matters of time, staffing, budget and opportunity costs. Do you put limited newsroom resources into adding to past reports or into creating new ones? To what extent should a news Web site attempt to be a complete archive? A single site can never compete with a search engine, after all.
Any discussion of adding to the record broaches a larger issue being debated worldwide of whether and how to change what we consider history by changing the online record. Should some stories be deleted altogether, for example those that are proven to be wrong? The European Union is currently debating a proposal on what is being called "a right to be forgotten." The idea is to give each of us a means to expunge information about ourselves online not only because its inaccurate, but also because we just want to. Or maybe time has passed since we did something wrong or embarrassing, and so we deserve now to have it expunged. These issues get at everything on the Web, and not just in news sites.
Separately, I am passing along your offer to the NPR newsroom and show producers to be available to speak on Guantanamo issues. Who they call is their choice, but it does seem to me that your dual civilian and military perspectives might be valuable.
I know that this is not the answer you wanted. I hope, nonetheless, that you trust that it was one reached with great deliberation and concern, and great respect for you and your positions.
Please continue the discussion below, on Twitter @SchumacherMatos or at my Facebook page.
More from the Ombudsman:


text:
Well, the new translation of the Mass is now up and running, and, at least in my parish, its launch seems to have passed off without any awkwardness at all. "And with your spirit" was confidently and (as far as I could see) unanimously declared, as though the congregation had been saying it for years (phone conversations, however, have elicited a certain difficulty elsewhere in remembering to say it. Maybe the most important thing to remember is to keep your eyes on the card). There was a real sense of occasion, I thought. We began, slightly shakily, using James MacMillan's very splendid setting (used at the beatification last year), and the process of getting people's heads around it has begun. All in all, it was a great occasion.
As in parishes all over the country, a series of sermons on the new translation, and on the Mass itself, also got successfully underway. I wonder how many priests said for the first time that the people's response in that opening exchange between priest and congregation does not mean "and the same to you, Father". "And also with you" can't really mean much more: indeed, it was the perfect example of how the old translation, from the off, consistently reduced (ah, wondrous past tense) theological meaning in the movement from Latin to English. So why is it "and with your spirit"? Your priest probably quoted biblical, especially Pauline, and also Patristic instances in which the phrase was regularly used – instances which mostly had never been quoted in sermons before, since we were lumbered with "And also with you"; why bother? (if you didn't have such a sermon on Sunday, have a look at Fr Austin Milner OP's scholarly article published in the Herald early this year).
The loss of meaning in that opening exchange was enormous. A good explanation of just how much was lost (and now has been regained) has been given by Mgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington:
In effect, the expression et "cum spiritu tuo" is an acknowledgement by the congregation of the grace and presence of Christ who is present and operative in the spirit or soul of the celebrant. Christ's Spirit is present in the priest in a unique way in virtue of his ordination. Hence what the dialogue means is:
Celebrant: The Lord be with you.
Congregation: We do in fact acknowledge the grace, presence and Spirit of Christ in your spirit.
This understanding of the dialogue was not uncommon among the Fathers of the Church. For example St John Chrysostom wrote:
"If the Holy Spirit were not in our Bishop [referring to Bishop Flavian of Antioch] when he gave the peace to all shortly before ascending to his holy sanctuary, you would not have replied to him all together, And with your spirit. This is why you reply with this expression… reminding yourselves by this reply that he who is here does nothing of his own power, nor are the offered gifts the work of human nature, but is it the grace of the Spirit present and hovering over all things which prepared that mystic sacrifice. (Pentecost Homily.)"
On the whole, I am thrilled by the new translation, which consistently uncovers new theological meaning in the text. That's why this Sunday I felt I had to be present at a celebration using the new English Rite: this was, after all, an historic event for the Church in this country. In future, I shall probably revert to my practice of attending the Oxford Oratory's 11am Latin High Mass on Sundays. But most other Masses there are in English: and when I go to Mass during the week, there or at the Oxford University Catholic chaplaincy, Mass will still be in the vernacular. Most of us who prefer Mass in Latin have long ago accepted that most Masses we attend will be in English: so it is wonderful that the new translation is so palpably closer to the Latin – not just in some scholarly sense we would only be aware of if we have made a close comparative study of the new and old translations with the Latin text, but noticeably for anyone, sometimes, dramatically so: it is splendid, for instance that now, instead of confessing "that I have sinned through my own fault" and striking my breast just the once, on Sunday I confessed (striking my breast thrice) "that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault": for, the suppression of that threefold repetition of the "mea culpa" (in response, perhaps, to some mistaken ecumenical sense that there is a protestant dislike of what they are pleased to call "vain repetition") – that suppression always produced a consciousness, in anyone who went sometimes to the Mass in Latin, of a dreadful and palpable loss of the prayer's devotional power. But no longer: never again. Alleluia.
I have to say, however, that there was, for me, one disappointment (and though only one, a real and substantial one): that there has been no change in the exceptionally clumsy (and inaccurate) translation of the Agnus Dei. "Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world" isn't just dreadful because it carries on from the old regime that terrible habit of writing prayers which seem to be informing God that he does this or that, or has this or that characteristic, so that it almost looks as though one is saying in the Agnus Dei, for instance, "look, you take away the sins of the world, the least you can do therefore is…" There is a real feeling of presumption in prayers conceived in this way, as well as a loss of meaning. The Latin is Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata Mundi: God's taking away the sins of the world is expressed in a subordinate clause; this signifies that our prayer comes from our own consciousness of God's saving mercy, and the transformation of our own relationship with God that that consciousness has brought (the same is true in the Gloria in Excelsis: "Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis/ Qui tollis peccata mundi etc"). Grammatically, of course, there is a problem in achieving a literal translation. "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata Mundi, dona nobis pacem" has a vocative noun "Agnus", followed naturally by second person verbs, "tollis" and "dona". That would, if you preserved the subordinate clause, produce the literal translation "Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, grant us peace". That "take" sounds, on its own, awkward in modern English.
But why not "Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world"? That is accurate and I would have thought quite mellifluous. It would take some getting used to: but so will "and with your Spirit". But why am I grumbling? This will be the last time, I swear: for, in the immortal words of John Greenleaf Whittier, "For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'." It's too late now: the translation we now have will be the last, certainly in our lifetimes.
The fact is, I have to admit, that I would personally always rather hear Mass said or sung in Latin anyway. But mostly, that's not an option (though one day, and perhaps even relatively soon, say in a decade or two, perhaps it will be). We should be grateful (and I am, profoundly) for what we now have: an immensely improved and mostly much more beautiful translation of the Mass (some of the greatest beauties are in the new translations of the Eucharistic prayers: so the sooner Missals and Mass booklets with both priest's and people's parts are available, the better).
The more we get used to the new translation, I am convinced, the deeper will be our love of the Mass, freed from the sense that in the translation we use we have been shortchanged. One result, I would not be surprised, will be a growing feeling that we now need to change the translation of the Bible we use at Mass: the dreadful Jerusalem Bible is the scriptural equivalent of the old translation of the Mass: clumsy and banal, just not good enough.
OK, Vox Clara; how about it?
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.


text:
Thread: Stainless Steel Door Hinge Pins
Stainless Steel Door Hinge Pins
Magnitude Engineering's premium line of stainless steel replacement pins for Jeep Wrangler door hinges will allow you to replace your corroded, deteriorated, broken, or worn out pins with ease. Whether you are trying eliminate unsightly rust, compensate for years of wear, fix that door that won't latch properly, or prevent potentially damaging leaks due to door misalignment; replacing your pins is a simple and cost effective way to improve the appearance and operation of your door.
Simply remove the old pins and insert new ones in their place without the extra time, expense, and risk of replacing your hinges. As opposed to replacing your hinges, replacing only your pins minimizes the risk stripping a screw, exposing unpainted steel, or damaging paint on your door that could cause it to rust.
Magnitude Engineering's premium replacement pins are precision machined from solid stainless steel bar. Unlike OEM or other replacement pins that are cold formed from rust susceptible mild steel and coated with a thin layer of plating that can be scratched or wear away over time, these solid stainless steel pins will not flake or rust.
Visit the Magnitude Engineering website for more information or to purchase at:
Magnitude Engineering
Similar Threads
Replies: 0Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:52 PM
Replies: 0Last Post: 01-13-2013, 11:32 PM
Replies: 0Last Post: 01-05-2013, 11:55 AM
Replies: 0Last Post: 12-17-2012, 11:41 AM
New Magnitude Engineering Stainless Steel Door Hinge PinsBy mecheng10 in forum 4x4 VendorsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-08-2012, 04:22 PM


text:
This Psychic Reading, 2533-8, given by Edgar Cayce at the office of the Association, Arctic Crescent, Virginia Beach, Va., this 3rd day of May, 1944 from 11:05 to 11:40 a. m. eastern. Present: Edgar Cayce; Gertrude Cayce, Conductor; Gladys Davis, Steno. Mr. [2533] and Jeanette Fitch.
…There is no mystery to the transmutation of the body of the Christ. For having attained in the physical consciousness the at-onement with the Father-Mother-God, the completeness was such that with the disintegration of the body―as indicated in the manner in which the shroud, the robe, the napkin lay―there was then the taking of the body-physical form. This was the manner. It was not a transmutation, as of changing from one to another.
Just as indicated in the manner in which the body-physical entered the Upper Room with the doors closed, not by being a part of the wood through which the body passed but by forming from the ether waves that were within the room, because of a meeting prepared by faith. For as had been given, "Tarry ye in Jerusalem―in the upper chamber―until ye be endued with power from on high."
As indicated in the spoken word to Mary in the garden, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." The body (flesh) that formed that seen by the normal or carnal eye of Mary was such that it could not be handled until there had been the conscious union with the sources of all power, of all force.
But afterward―when there had been the first, second, third, fourth and even the sixth meeting―He then said: "Put forth thy hand and touch the nail prints in my hands, in my feet. Thrust thy hand into my side and believe." This indicated the transformation.
For as indicated when the soul departs from a body (this is not being spoken of the Christ, you see), it has all of the form of the body from which it has passed―yet it is not visible to the carnal mind unless that mind has been, and is, attuned to the infinite. Then it appears, in the infinite, as that which may be handled, with all the attributes of the physical being; with the appetites, until these have been accorded to a unit of activity with universal consciousness.
Just as it was with the Christ-body: "Children, have ye anything here to eat?" This indicated to the disciples and the Apostles present that this was not transmutation but a regeneration, recreation of the atoms and cells of body that might, through desire, masticate material things―fish and honey (in the honeycomb) were given.
As also indicated later, when He stood by the sea and the disciples and Apostles who saw Him from the distance could not, in the early morning light, discern―but when He spoke, the voice made the impression upon the mind of the beloved disciple such that he spoke, "It is the Lord!" The body had prepared fire upon the earth―fire, water, the elements that make for creation. For as the spirit is the beginning, water combined of elements is the mother of creation.
Not transmutation of flesh but creation, in the pattern indicated.
Just as when there are those various realms about the solar system in which each entity may find itself when absent from the body, it takes on in those other realms not an earthly form but a pattern―conforming to the same dimensional elements of that individual planet or space.
--Edgar Cayce reading 2533-8


text:
3 x Sporty Sailing rope Bracelet Pack
SEEWEIB Sporty Spirit Bracelets - great accessory for active day and sport for him and her, available in two sizes: one for substance and one for petit lovers which comes in 8 colours.
We all want to add some character to our style, even when we are in the gym or on the track. Something, that is stylish yet comfortable. Keeping this in mind, we designed Sporty Spirit bracelet which give just enough pot of colour and an edge to your sport wear.
We offer two sizes for him and her, so you can choose bracelet that will suit your active day best.
Our Sporty Spirit bracelet is made with marine grade stainless steel AISI 316 parts, which are:
- 100% waterproof
- non-toxic
- resistant to most domestic chemicals
Here you will become 3 Sporty Spirit Bracelets!!! The colors you choose from 8 available!
We use the same rope , the sailors use in sailing, which ensures longevity of the bracelet and comfort in wearing it.
Made in EU. Available Worldwide. Free Shipping. It does not get better than this.
You search for friendship bracelets, kids bracelets, mens bracelets or bracelet for women - you're at the right place.