text:
Estate Tax Debate
Several of the participants of the Mirror of Justice blog have been having a running debate over the last several days about Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and the proposed repeal of the Estate Tax. I can't possibly link to all the individual posts, so you'll just have to click over and scroll from the bottom.
Now I have to confess that prior to reading these posts, I could not have imagined someone making the case for repealing the Estate Tax on the basis of CST.
But now, I am happy to say, I can imagine it. I just don't find it convincing!
12 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I will venture into this minefield.It is common for people who oppose the repeal of the estate tax to assume that those who support its repeal must be beholden to the rich, and that this is their reason for supporting the repeal. As Ms. Brown, the blogger at MoJ who has been supporting the estate tax has pointed out, less than 2 percent of all estates ever pay the tax. Moreover, most of the data I have seen indicates that about half of the very wealthy (those that would pay this tax) vote Democrat anyway. In other words, if you are devising a strategy to pander to the electorate, opposing the estate tax is not a good one. This, and the fact that people like me (and others of my acquaintance) who are unlikely to ever have to worry about the tax (I should be so lucky) do so on principle I dont pander to the rich in the hope that one of them will put me in his will.Many of the principles that drive people to oppose the estate tax certainly line up with Catholic moral teaching, and many of the practical shortcomings of the tax (as has been discussed in the MoJ blog) justify its repeal under what I think you mean by CST (that is economic, political, and social policy that supports the common good).As my Dad used to say, its awfully easy to be generous with other peoples money he was talking about me using his money, but the principles the same. The estate tax is sometimes called the Robin Hood tax. The problem is it isnt. Prince John and the Sherriff of Nottingham got rich by stealing their wealth from other people. If Robin Hood was known for robbing the successful and giving to the government, people would have been a lot less sympathetic. Most Americans appreciate that the wealthy got there by providing other people with goods and services in voluntary exchanges heck, even Madonna did it that way.Basically, people are a little queasy about it because it is as close to naked confiscation as you get in the tax system. Bringing this back to the moral question, using the government to take something from someone else isnt a whole lot different than taking it yourself. It smells of jealousy. I agree, you can take this argument too far and subvert any system of taxation, but the estate tax comes perilously close to violating the 8th and 10th commandments this is why many average Americans dont like it.
Sean: what are the source data for your statement that "many average Americans don't like it (the Estate Tax)?"Most "average Americans" aren't remotely able to leave estates that exceed the threshhold for the ET to kick in. Those who do have usually benefitted from tax loopholes, smart lawyers and tax accountants ... you know, the non-average things. I am perfectly willing to let someone take full advantage of any and all legal tax benefits available to them for their earned and investment income. They have earned it.Their heirs have only EARNED anything by being born. Not good enough. And the fact that their parents want them to have it for "free" isn't good enough, either.Let the the heirs pay taxes on their inheritences and then earn income that can be covered by the tax benefits available to all of us.
Jimmy,I said the Estate Tax doesn't affect many people.Interestingly enough, the NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Kennedy School of Govt. Poll (hardly a right wing front organization) indicated a slight majority of Americans favor repealing the tax. More interesting in a 2001 poll (McLaughlin & Associates and Public Opinion Research) that asked whether it was right to tax assets that had been subject to income tax during a person's life at his death - almost 90% said no!Even more fascinating is a poll by The Coalition for America's Priorities an outfit that opposes repeal and even supports increasing the estate tax found that only 23% supported repeal, but in their polling question they added the bit of information that the tax only gets paid by the wealthiest 1% of families.In other words, when you describe the actual nature of the tax, most people see it as inherently unfair, and even after you bring in class consciousness and the fact that it will only be unfair to rich people, almost a quarter still think it's wrong.You seem to be operating on the assumption that the government, or society, or the collective us have some sort of entitlement to someone else's property just because they die. We no more earn it than the heirs do. Also, this attitude proves my point - it has the odor of jealousy and covetousness about it.
Is there a principle that suggests that we should gladly pay our taxes? Since I disagree, on moral grounds, with the way my tax dollars are spent, should I not lobby to repeal the estate tax? Am I more or less likely than the government to distribute my estate in a moral manner?
One way to analyze the several issues swirling through most debates over the estate tax is to resolve these issues into questions of fairness and efficiencyokay, so Im an economist and this is the way I think about these things. Catholic social thought guides my thinking about what is fair. The Vaticans recently published Compendium on the Churchs teaching here, as well as its iterative development of the same starting with Leo XIII, builds on the dignity of the human person and the universal endowment. Albino Barrera calls these the gifts from God of self, of others and of creation. Surely private ownershipstewardship may be a better termof creation is supported in CST. Personal initiative, innovation, and entrepreneurship are promoted as necessary for achieving ones own human dignity. The rub comes when our actions deny others their dignity. To flourish as human beings, we must strike a balance between subsidiarity and solidarity in using the gifts God gave us. If we accumulate Gods gifts unfairlyI acknowledge I am begging the question of what is fairredistribution is called for by CST. Taxation schemes are by definition confiscatory, naked or otherwise. I fail to see how SeanH thinks taxing ones wealth is more confiscatory than taxing ones income. Taxes finance government activities and objectives which imperfectly reflect collective choices. Governments sometimes act, usually unintentionally, against the common good. Nongovernmental organizations may at times be preferable, but practice shows that such organizations can not rely solely on voluntary contributions; they also need government grants and tax incentives that spur voluntary contributions.Economic analysis is more suited to addressing the efficiency issues of taxation. I do see that taxation can distort the economic decisions one makes for good or for ill: I might work less if my wage is taxed; I might save less now (consuming more) if my returns from this saving will be taxed; I might contribute more to Commonweal if I can subtract my donation from the base upon which my income tax is calculated. To be efficient is to minimize these distortions; optimal taxation strives to minimize such distortions while achieving the common good.
Mr. Perkins - I respectively disagree. I have worked in government twice. Both experiences were extremely satisfying. My co-workers were both bright and committed. In both instances the job needed to be done and only government could do it. However, it is also my experience that government does nothing particularly well. Generally, it is also a very poor steward. It seems to me that we should attempt to limit the tasks we give goverenment to those that are necessary and that only it can accomplish. Is there any evidence that if taxes were materially reduced that charitable giving would not increase? It seems foolish to contribute dollars in taxes with the mere expectancy of receiving a few pennies. Is there a better way of limiting government's options than reducing what it may spend? I guess I already know the answer to that. I am stuck with being morally repulsed by what is being done with my tax dollars.
"My tax dollars", "my money." I am not a communist nor socialist but I believe that the goods of the earth belong to all. So when five million children die each year before the age of five by preventable causes that is where my excess money should go.What kind of CST exists that ignores the lesson of the Good Samaritan?I understand that the government may not be the best place for the money. So some provision alla Buffet and Gates ought to be made.
Please - not Bill Gates - let's save millions from malaria and kill millions by abortion - but that's another issue.George, I didn't say one was less confiscatory than the other, at least I didn't mean to. The point is that it is confiscatory twice.That being said, there is a difference between taxing income and taxing estates. Sure, if I have my income taxed I will consider the marginal increase in wealth that my effort or investment will bear when making my decision - the type of economic distortion you are talking about. It is a myth of class warfare that wealthy people make money on income taxes by losing a lot of money intentionally. You can never save more in income tax than you lose. This however, is not always true with estate taxes. Estate planners will actually divest or put money in less profitable or even loss positions to avoid the tax - particularly at the end of life. Having worked in the federal government and the military most of my adult life, outside the armed forces, I agree with Mr. Perkins that the government doesn't do most things very well - or certainly not very efficiently. I make an exception for the armed forces because they actually do perform their mission very well - mostly due to a strict ethic. Unfortunately, when it comes to management of resources, they are also inefficient. That being said, they run like a Swiss watch compared to the State Department and the EPA.As for Mr Mazzella's argument about wealth, I agree, it ultimately and metaphysically doesn't belong to anyone - or at least not to anyone for very long. That being said, if we really care about those five million children, we ought to look what actually works to help them. There is plenty of food and medicine to go around. Why doesn't it get to them? I had a friend who was stationed in Somalia in 1992-93. The place was positively awash in food, but kids were starving. Why? Because there was no system of law and respect for private property. Everywhere these two things exist, people are generally better off - in fact, much better off. In fact, where these things don't exist, all the aid in the world may make us westerners feel better (and it certainly helps some people - so I don't advocate abandoning it), but is won't come close to solving the problem.
Just an aside that might be of interest:I show my college class PBS's documentary "The Persuaders" documentary, which features conservative think-tanker Frank Luntz talking about the "death tax," a term that he feels clarifies the estate tax for people.For more on Luntz, see: http://www.luntz.com/I always ask my students what they think the "death tax" is after they see the show--most of them assume it's some sort of tax on your funeral service or possibly a fee you have to pay to have to pay a hospital for declaring you dead--and what their opinion of it is. Most feel that it's unfair.Then I make them look up info on estate tax and give me an informed definition and an opinion. About two-thirds feel an estate tax is fair after they understand that it's a graduated tax on assets above a certain value.In a PR class, of course, this all helps drive home the power of words and catch phrases.More to the point here, young people are poorly educated about how taxation works, and are especially vulnerable to the wordmeisters on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to forming opinions about taxation.
James Keegan:You asked, Is there any evidence that if taxes were materially reduced that charitable giving would not increase? I do not know where one might find data to test this proposition empirically. There is however plenty of evidence that income tax deductions for charitable giving stimulate contributions and that these contributions increase with the income tax rate. Even though your question may not be answered empirically, there is reason to believe that lowering taxes would reduce charitable giving. Consider my example (in my previous post) of a donation to Commonweal, a publication you (I presume) and I consume jointly. An issue of Commonweal is unlike a pint of porter: for $4 I can buy a pint; what I drink, you cant. An issue of Commonweal is quite different: if I buy an issue, I get to read it and you can too without buying it. You might pick up my discarded issue or you might read it online. Commonweal is a jointly consumed good. Unlike the porter, my consuming (reading) an issue does not preclude your reading it. Goods that can be jointly consumed provide incentives for some to ride freely on the contributions of others. You can read it whether or not you pay for it (by subscription or voluntary contribution). Hence, because of free-riding behavior, reducing taxes, the fiscal conscription often used to pay for jointly consumed goods, would not increase charitable giving.SeanH:I did not say nor imply that government doesnt do most things well. Given your exception for our armed forces, we do seem to agree that jointly consumed goods should be produced or at least financed by government. National defense is the stereotypical jointly consumed good. My consuming the security produced by this force takes nothing away from your security consumption. Were we to leave the provision of national security to the private sector decision making, free-riding behavior by individuals would leave society with less of national defense than it wants. This is inefficient.I suspect you might concede that there are many other goods that to some extent are jointly consumed. If so, you must acknowledge that markets are not able to allocate such goods efficiently (never mind fairly). You seem ready in the case of national defense to prefer government to private market provision. Might there be other goods too? Would our society be better off without a State Department or an EPA?
It surprises me that many posts are basically politically ideological, when I thought the thread was about CST and this issue. Where is the notuion of the "common good?"As a retired government worker, though, I take exception to the argument that governmnet, as a generalization, "doesn't do things well." When incompetent political hacks are in charge, as I saw in the days of Dinkins in new York or more recently, "Good job, Brownie," there are sure to be problems; when big unregulated governm,ent contracts are on the line (cf. Hallibuton in Iraq) much evil can be afoot.But, in general, we are lucky to have our police, fire, sanitation and other profesionals, who(with some venal or incompetent exceptions. who I think are the minority) do great work for us who like to bitch and moan about our money.
Mr. Perkins: Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. If I may impose on your generosity again, your argument seems to be that because some abuse "free riding" that all taxpayers would treat a windfall with stinginess. If I am missing your point, I apologize for my dullness. Could we not count on those who give generously before any windfall to continue to do so after, and with resoect to, the windfall?Mr. Mazzella: Please allow me to apologize if my poor choice of words offended you. However, it is just because I subscribe to the position of Psalm 24:1 that I struggle with the question of how to best dispose of "my money." {If I tell you that Luke 10:25 et seq. is my favorite parable, can we get the past the vocabulary issue and accept it as a shorthand that we both employ?} Ms. Raber: I believe tht taxes should be progressive or graduated. But I think that much of what is currently sustained by our taxes is immoral. Hence my dilemna.Mr. Nunz: Given your last two (2) sentences I think tht we disagree only in enphasis.Amen.


text:
Umbilical cord blood banking is the process of saving and storing cord blood at the time of birth for its therapeutic stem cells.
Umbilical cord blood banking is something you might want to talk to your doctor about before your baby is born. Cord blood is the blood in your baby's umbilical cord following birth that is usually discarded. However, some parents are now saving and storing cord blood because it has been found to be rich in stem cells.
Stem cells are the building blocks of the blood and immune systems. They can divide to become other types of cells. The stem cells found in umbilical cord blood and bone marrow can divide and become all three types of blood cells: red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Stem cells are able to restore function to the blood-making system and immune system. This is especially valuable when the systems have been damaged by radiation or chemotherapy. In a stem cell transplant, patients with a marrow or blood disease (such as leukemia) first undergo chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy to wipe out their diseased blood or marrow cells. Then, blood stem cells from a healthy donor are transplanted into the patient, where they grow and develop into healthy marrow and blood cells.
Stem cells are currently used in the treatment of nearly 40 life-threatening diseases including certain cancers (such as leukemia) and immune and genetic disorders. And researchers are now looking for ways to use cord blood to address medical problems such as stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and muscular dystrophy.
The blood collection process is easy and painless, and it does not interfere with the delivery or care of your newborn. (The collection process is essentially the same with a cesarean birth as it is for a natural birth.) After your baby is born, but before the placenta is delivered, your obstetrician or midwife cleans a 4- to 8-inch area of umbilical cord with an antiseptic solution and then inserts the blood bag needle into the umbilical vein. When the blood has been collected, the blood bag is clamped, sealed and labeled. The collection typically takes two to four minutes. Two tubes of maternal blood are also drawn at this time. The procedure is painless and noninvasive. There is no risk to you or your child.
The cells in your blood cord sample must then be processed and frozen within 48 hours by a laboratory specially equipped to handle umbilical cord blood banking.
Some parents choose to save and store umbilical cord blood so they will have a supply available in case it is ever needed by their child or a family member: Cord blood stem cells are a perfect match for the donor baby; they have 25 percent probability of being an exact match for a sibling, and can be potentially used for parents and grandparents. Others choose to save cord blood because of the possibilities that science might provide in the future. The blood can be collected only at birth and so many don't want to miss the opportunity. And some collect the cord blood and donate it to a public blood bank.
Umbilical cord blood donation is a new idea that is picking up after a slow start. Currently, there are just 11 public cord blood banks in the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) registry that accept donated cord blood. The NMDP website (www.nmdp.org) lists 10 non-NMDP centers around the country that also accept cord blood donations (but often only for related transplant recipients). The American Red Cross currently has seven active cord blood collection sites around the country, and The National Institutes of Health has committed $30 million to establish three national public donation banks.
Women who donate their cord blood can, theoretically, retrieve their own donation should they need it before the units have already been used by another individual who needs a stem cell transplant. Because donation is free, it is liable to be a more accessible option for many families. (But be aware that if your doctor charges a fee for drawing the blood, that will not be covered by the blood bank.) However, because cord blood donation is a newer stem cell option, donating is not available in all communities. If there is not a participating hospital in your community, you might want to try contacting a major university hospital or medical center in your local area to explore other options. Be sure to first check the NMDP's website for registered blood banks and more information about cord blood donations: www.nmdp.org; or call them at 1-800-MARROW2.
As the concept of umbilical cord blood banking becomes more popular and common, the methods of obtaining the blood will become more standardized and routine. But right now, here are some factors you should carefully consider.
The hospital where you deliver is unlikely to offer umbilical cord blood banking. You must make all arrangements yourself and supply your doctor with the collection kit. If you talk to your doctor well in advance of your baby's delivery about your interest in cord blood banking, he or she might be able to refer you to a reputable cord blood bank in your area who will give you all the information and collection equipment you need.
Not all umbilical cord blood banks are equal. The Federal government is in the process of developing industry standards for the collection, processing, and storage of cord blood, but at this time uniform regulations do not exist. You should, at the very least, make sure that the laboratory you choose is accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks.
There is no way of knowing at this time how long stored cord blood will last. One study out of Amsterdam produced viable cord blood stem cells from blood frozen for 15 years. But the "shelf life" of cord blood is still tentative.
In most cases, medical insurance companies do not pay for umbilical cord blood banking. This is an out-of-pocket expense that can be very costly. You will also pay an annual storage fee to the blood bank for storing the blood. If you choose to move the cord blood to a different blood bank, you'll have to pay preparation and shipment charges.
If you give birth to multiples and want to draw umbilical cord blood, each child needs his or her own collection—the only direct match is from the direct donor. This, of course, raises the cost. However, some cord blood banks offer discounts for multiples and for additional children the parents might have at a later time.
Find out who has access to the cord blood's hidden information-the diseases and genetic traits shared by both infant and parents. Ask questions about the bank's policy regarding screening cord blood and ask whether all identifiers are stripped from the blood samples in order to protect the donor's privacy. Many physicians will advise their patients against donating cord blood to a blood bank that retains patient identifiers.
Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pregnancy and Childbirth © 2004 by Michele Isaac Gliksman, M.D. and Theresa Foy DiGeronimo. All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Alpha Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
To order this book visit Amazon's website or call 1-800-253-6476.
© 2000-2016 Sandbox Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The 10 Greatest Fictional Sports Ever Invented
#5. Rollerball
How the game is played:
Two teams of 10 players roller-skate in laps, trying to get hold of a magnetic ball you can throw through a metal hoop set in the wall. The ball is put in play when it is fired from a cannon at the skaters. Three members of the team are allowed to ride motorcycles through the track, potentially turning every match into an impromptu, live-action version of build-a-track from Excitebike.
Lasting Impact:
Ended up loosely inspiring modern roller derby; Specifically, the attitude, spectacle and brutality, subtracting Chris Klein (laaaaame!) and adding loads of snarling hot chicks in short pants throwing more 'bows than a Ludacris concert. (Tittays!)
Awesomeosity Factor:
7.6 out of 10 - James Caan on roller skates? Awesome. Unleashing bloodthirsty bikers onto a velodrome full of roller-skaters? Awesome. Shooting roller-skaters with a cannon while trying to dodge crazy motor-biking assholes trying to do sweet jumps off their testicles? Awesome. The remake? Sucktastic. The making of the remake leading to John McTiernan watching his cornhole in prison? Uber-Suck.
#4. Death Race (Death Race 2000)
How the Game is Played:
Similarly to the Gumball Rally, a transcontinental road race run on public roads. Crossing checkpoints as fast as possible scores you points. Committing vehicular manslaughter by running over innocent pedestrians also scores you points. Depending on your definition of "winning," you must score the most points, murder the most pedestrians and then also plow your car into the President of the Fascist United Provinces, and usurp his power. The best games of Death Race include lots of usurping.
And toothy cars.
Lasting Impact:
A large number of people owning Grand Theft Auto have no idea you can do other things in the game besides playing Death Race. The movie came out in the early 70s and still, motorists of all ages spot someone or something on the sidewalk and assign a point total to it, immediately followed by the brief mental image of turning said target into loose beef under the front wheels. Sick smile or high-pitched giggle is optional.
Awesomeosity Factor:
8.3 out of 10 - Considering human-kind has only had automobiles for a little over 100 years, there's something almost elemental to the wild-eyed glee we glean upon witnessing two-tons of metal smashing into soft meaty things. But as with anything very simplistic, after awhile it gets old. Aside from pretty paint jobs and leather-daddy copilots, the lack of variety in the gameplay deducts too many awesomeosity points to put this at #1.
#3. The Running Man
How the Game is Played (short story):
After finding yourself emaciated and in a state of severe destitution, you agree to be defamed by the American Government in return for the opportunity to compete on live television for a shot at financial security. You are turned loose on the streets with 4800 dollars. You must evade government assassins for 30 days. While running, you must make two daily video messages and mail them to the TV Studio, making it that much easier for them to track you. If you miss a video drop, you forfeit the money, but the assassins keep hunting you until you are dead.
How the Game is Played (movie):
You're Arnold Schwarzenegger. You wear a silly costume and run around a Hollywood backlot while, behind the camera, Starsky tells Richard Dawson to smoke and sneer a lot as he orders the Village People to murder Arnie in front of a live studio audience.
But he won't be sent to the cooler.
Lasting Impact:
Seventy-five percent of everything currently on television can be traced back to this story, for all the good and bad that entails.
Awesomeosity Factor:
8.7 out of 10 - King wrote the short story in one frenzied week, and it shows: By that I mean it's lean, it's focused, it moves forward in a straight line at about 200-miles an hour, and it isn't bloated out to 3000 pages and loaded with multiple references to "Beams" and "Ka-Tets." It also actually ends. Most of his other stories just sort of stop, which is different from an ending in the same way "landing" is different from "faceplanting." The ending to "Running Man" was awesome - pre 2001. Unfortunately, now it's just kind of uncomfortable. Couple that with the campy, trashy film adaptation, and a couple awesomeosity points have to be deducted.
#2. Quidditch (Harry Potter)
How the Game is Played:
First, develop magical powers. Secondly, attend school full of godless heathens who openly mock Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with their wicked ways. Then, once you've assembled enough soulless bastards, you can form teams of broomstick riding devil-children, and play this airborne combination of soccer, basketball and hockey.
Goals are scored by chucking a smaller ball (the Quaffle) through one of the opponents three goals without being knocked off your broom by a defense whose job it is to hit a large iron ball (the Bludger) into your body at bone-breaking speeds. The game only ends when a tiny, winged ball with a mind of its own (the Snitch) is captured by a member of either team. Catching the snitch is worth 150 points, regular goals are worth 10. Whoever has more points when the snitch is caught, wins.
This is the wrong way to catch the snitch.
Lasting Impact:
Teams from more than 200 colleges are affiliated with the International Quidditch Association, and play in tournaments with rewritten rules that account for the fact that real people can't fly on household cleaning implements.
Awesomeosity Factor:
9.6 out of 10 - It almost doesn't need explaining. Soccer + hockey + basketball + flying + drunk Phantasm ball + witchcraft = Fucking Awesome. I scored a 27 on the math section of my SATs and even I can understand that equation.
#1. Calvinball (Calvin and Hobbes)
How the Game is Played:
Remember what its like to be young. Then make up whatever rules you have to in order to continue having fun. When you are exhausted from sheer exhilaration and laughter, the game is over, and everyone has won. Celebrate victory by going sledding with a stuffed tiger and eating PBJ sandwiches under your favorite tree.
Lasting Impact:
Every child currently alive on planet Earth intrinsically knows how to play this game.
Awesomeosity Factor:
15 out of 10 - Interesting note: Calvinball is actually the second most awesome invention of messrs. Calvin and Hobbes. Number one is the Transmogrifier.
Awesomeosity Factor:
37.6 out of 10 - True story: If Henry Kissinger can get a Nobel Prize, there is zero reason why Calvin can't have one. It's appropriate penance for the decades we've spent slapping bootleg images of him, alternately pissing or praying, on the back of our shitbox minivans and hoopties.
Now check out some made-up stuff that isn't so grand, in The 7 Worst Fictional Towns In America and The 11 Most Retarded Fictional Weapons.


text:
More senseless slaughter While Americans continue to try to come to grips with the senseless slaughter of children in the Sandy Hook Massacre, Planned Parenthood has disclosed in its annual report that with the help of more than a half-billion dollars in taxpayer-funded grants and reimbursements, it performed 333,904 abortions. It killed all those unborn children in the name of birth control and "essential health care for women and families."
Read more of this story and more!
7-Day Subscribers have FREE access to everything on rep-am.com and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE to register and activate your access,.
Not a subscriber?
You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.
Follow Us
Bob wrote on Jan 11, 2013 7:22 AM:
" The thing you forget to mention is crime has been down, historically. Sure it is up now with a bad economy but murders and violent robberies went down now that we let all the crack heads get free abortions at Planned Parenthood. This is a topic where being against it should be personal because it puts you at an advantage if the right people have morals and do not have abortions, eventually the scumbags will marry the wrong sex or abort their mentally ill charges. No loss there. "
Post a reader commentWe encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.
Log In
|Register / Forgotten Password?


text:
I have a table (MyTable) with varchar columns named SourceID and ReferenceID where SourceID contains a table name and ReferenceID contains a key value for the source table.
Is it possible in a query to refer to the source table's record assuming I know the name of the key field that matches the value in RefrenceID?
MyTable as MT
INNER JOIN MT.SourceID as Src ON MT.ReferenceID = Src.InstanceID
This doesn't work, obviously. But is there a way to do this as opposed to dynamically building the SQL statement using the values of SourceID and ReferenceID and then executing the query? More specifically, is there a way to make MT.SourceID in the example above be usable within the JOIN?
Any and all help is greatly appreciated. :)
I found this article: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/jeffs/archive/2007/04/03/Conditional-Joins.aspx
And it has a trick like follows:
E.EmployeeName, coalesce(s.store,o.office) as Location
Employees E
left outer join
Stores S on ...
left outer join
Offices O on ...
O.Office is not null OR S.Store is not null
The WHERE clause simply helps the outer joins behave like inner joins. This would work well enough if there were a limited number of table options and they all had unique keys. This gets me part of the way there but but I really want is to have the table names in the joins to be based on a field in Employees.
I haven't given up yet.


text:
This question already has an answer here:
I have already installed Win 7 on C drive now I want to install Ubuntu on E drive which is free partition. How to install?
This question already has an answer here:
I have already installed Win 7 on C drive now I want to install Ubuntu on E drive which is free partition. How to install?
marked as duplicate by Basharat Sialvi, Radu Rădeanu, Seth♦, stephenmyall, John S Gruber Jun 27 '13 at 16:51
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
You can install Ubuntu on a separate drive by booting from a CD/DVD or bootable USB, and when you get to the installation type screen choose something else.
The images are instructional. Your case might be different.
Be careful to make sure that you're installing on the right hard drive. If by mistake you install on the C Drive it can cause a problem with Windows.
Just make sure that you read the instructions, especially which hard drive to install to, since Linux lists drives different than Windows. Check the capacity of the drive that you want to assign to Ubuntu, and make sure that you have select the correct hard drive.
I suspect you are using Wubi, which I have never used so this could be completely wrong but you should be able to burn a live CD and boot from it, this might let you select the other disk to install to when choosing the install location.
You can also mount different parts of the OS to different drives. I have my / on my 120gb SSD and my /home on my 1tb HDD, this will place all the user home folders there and most apps there (I use up a lot of space and needed to do this). You can mount seperataly post-install but it is much easier during installation