text:
Oil was put on the threads, but the old bolts would not turn.
My thoughts, theories, and facts about a failing genealogy society.
(This post is a copy of the same article that I posted on The You Go Genealogy Girls, this same date.)
(This post is a copy of the same article that I posted on The You Go Genealogy Girls, this same date.)
This pertains mostly to one society but could easily apply to others who are not vigilant with the future of their own societies. Two well written and recent articles can be read here as to the life and death of Genealogical Societies. There are certainly some out there that need to take a lesson from both Susan Petersen and Ruby Coleman. Many of the points-of-fact made in these two fine articles IS what is killing many societies, and sadly my own state society is on that list. The 'good ol' boys' club makes for a slow and painful death! Change is never easy but in this day...you either change and progress or get left behind. I encourage everyone interested in their own Genealogical Society to read the articles written by Susan and Ruby.
A few problems and gripes from my own personal perspective about my State Genealogical Society.
1. There is so much more today for the average genealogist to pick from to help them learn and do quality research, why would anyone waste time with a society who does not want to give much back to them as a member? I volunteer some of my time to a few good sites by helping to index or digitize records. Those sites also give back to me. I also have two local county museum/research centers that benefit me and to whom I help as much as possible. I want my membership to my genealogy society to be a two way street. My state society can't even get caught up on the publications that have been in arrears for months and months, digitizing records for the website is nearly stagnant...there have been no new publications or direct email contacts since the April 2015 Conference. Just a day ago, I got a membership card in the mail which was actually paid in April. Things had begun to progress the last half of 2014 and first part of 2015, now everything appears to be backsliding again.
2. A Facebook page is all that seems to be quite active but has little of consequence on it pertaining to the actual Society itself. It is very little Society news and mostly turned into an inquiry/message board type site. I would love to see some division of the two; news and inquiry. This idea was offered once before and poo-pooed but I still like the idea. Maybe I want to spend time on inquires that day and maybe I only want to quickly check society news (always hoping there will be something uplifting and new) and don't have time for reading lengthy posts. Other FB sites create separate 'pages', why can't this society do the same?
3. From personal experience my state society has neglected to make use of my offer of free digitizing of records that should be on their regular website (after I offered at least 3 times to help digitize records and got no response from 2008-2013, I quit offering). Those surname family records are still in limbo. Granted I am in the far end of the state, away from most society activity, but I drive and so do most of the society members. I was willing to pick up items too and voiced that to two different past Presidents. Their last State Conference of 2015 brought more requests for help with articles and digitizing...so why didn't anyone contact me OR OTHERS who offered in prior years? This year I was directly asked to help with possible area Rep work, the one time that I could NOT agree to do it because of my husband's illness in 2014-15 and his need for constant care. I did do some graphic design work and printing this last year in the way of certificates and a few other items for the society. I was asked by the then President to help and I did that gladly because it was something I could do from home. I got no pay, nor expected any. I put together a small vendor table group to help bring some variety to the last conference and made several prize donations as they had been sorely lacking in vendors for the several previous yearly Conferences. The only thank you for coming and setting up that I got was from the then President and one other and now past officer/member of the society.
4. How does a State Society elect a new President who makes every effort to bring about change and progress...and then cause so much trouble for her that it led to her resigning after a year of service? (I should add that after having to virtually try to drag them forward because the 'good 'ol boys' resented her straight forward leadership and progressive ideas.) Leadership is truly a quality that few really possess and Presidents of any entity ARE supposed to lead. Most good leaders, including the one who resigned, have years of experience doing just that...LEADING. She has more than 50 years experience, is a well known professional researcher, and had 13 years experience as the head of a 501-C foundation and has written several genealogical publications/books over 40 years. Taking initiative, being out-spoken about problems and solutions, and rallying the other workers/members are known good qualities for leadership. Trailing from behind or being led by a nose ring won't benefit any officer or his/her company/society, particularly one elected to a Presidents job. In the retail or business world, the stagnant and non-progressive type would not even be considered to be President of an organization.
5. Another observation looking in from the outside; personality conflicts have no place within the leadership of any group/society...nor does extreme nasty badgering and bullying. As a close relative of the past President, I admittedly had some special insight into the back-stabbing and obviously malicious attempts toward subverting the Presidential leadership of this lady. The nasty and malicious emails that she received often from two of the "good 'ol boys" for a nearly a year were abhorrent. They should absolutely be ashamed at treating anyone that way. That alone has caused my husband and I to have second thoughts about continuing both our memberships in this society, that yet to be determined. Had it been my choice, all those emails would have been made public and shared with every member of the society. I still think they should be. (The President chose to keep those mostly private, a decision that I absolutely disagreed with.) As President during all that time, she was moving the society forward and trying to protect the Society's assets both real and intellectual.
6. Years of complacency have taken a toll in many areas, including adherence to policy and by-laws, seriously declining membership, poor conference management and programming, the same few people just rotating titles for years, a stagnant to non-existent website and more. This last year, a disgruntled officer (who had held his office for years) officially resigned and it was accepted by the board. An interim replacement volunteer was found to act until elections and when the first officer found out, he just changed his mind to keep the job …he followed no by-law rules and did not wait until election to officially run again. The ensconced old officers in this society do not want change. It is run like a small club not a non-profit society and one which is chartered/sanctioned by NGS by-laws. No society can be a one or two man/woman operation as it requires good leadership and members who are proud to belong and volunteer. Change was beginning to be in order in my society but I feel it will now likely remain stagnant or slip back into regression just as it has been for several years...no change, no improvement, no accountability, and nothing to bring in new ideas and very few new people.
7. As for the money. Why such a complaint about spending a little extra of a good sized savings to help promote a good conference? Maybe I am the only one but a few nice rolls/cookies instead of granola bars was a nice thing! The meals were wonderful too and I am betting the society still has plenty of monetary reserves to move forward on. As a former business owner for 35 years, sometimes you have to spend a little extra to gain a lot in the end! Going to a conference to hear a great speaker, experiencing a very good offering of presentations and meeting with friends is always great fun. I like to hear a renowned speaker when I attend a conference. My dues should help pay for a tiny part of these expenses. I can learn nearly all the same things right from home now so why should I drive all the way from western Nebraska to the east of the state for 8 hours one way if there is not something special to bring me? Megan, Laura, and George were wonderful, what happened with the 2014 conference? Were you saving money for something special, perhaps a rainy day... or for a society burial fund?
In conclusion:
I have sat silent on this matter for some time, particularly because I have a direct family relationship to the past President of the Society** that I am particularly referring to. I did not feel that many would heed my comments because of that fact. I have thought about and stewed many nights over this for some time now and I can no longer sit in silence. I watched as certain people carried on a vicious campaign against this lady; mostly because she was assertive and pushed for change, advocated for policy adherence and progress but also because they fostered personal animosity towards her and felt a great loss of former power under her guidance. Her guidance and leadership seemed to intimidate them. Even considering a personal connection to the aforementioned President, I truly feel the outcome would have been the same for anyone who might have threatened the Status-Quo of this organization. In the 15 or so years after my retirement that I have been deeply involved in genealogy, I have joined several genealogy societies both small and large, not a one has failed to be inspirational and helpful in some way except what has been my own state Society. That makes me sad. A few young, climbers who have joined the remaining 'good 'ol boys' will not keep my own society afloat unless they too see that progress and a strong leader into the 21st Century is needed. If they too, fall prey to the statement of "that is always how we have done it" that will be an even quicker way to the society graveyard. Age and youth must work together. Just because you are younger and thinking you are smarter, just shaping to the old society leadership and ideas WILL NOT move the society in the right direction. All genealogy societies need both new blood and the old and experienced members. The so called 'rookies' as well as the 'ensconced relics' should all have a place, but both should realize that change should occur. The 'rookies' are the sustaining life of a surviving society! Old and new can complement one another when they choose to work together for betterment of the society. Knowledge is certainly not limited to one age group! Sadly, because of what I personally believe to have been inspired by a lot of early on jealousy and animus by some of the leadership, my society has recently lost a good President and the backing/membership of several of the seasoned members.With a life to live and more to do than put up with intimidation and down right nasty people, her family wondered why anyone should enjoy serving the ungrateful 'beast'. She is certainly not a quitter, far from it, but after a with encouragement from her family and close friends, me included, she made the ultimate personal decision to resign as President after only one short year. Contrary to what some have put forward, members for decades don't leave because their President is aggressively leading but instead because there is nothing for them to stay for.
I believe that The Nebraska State Genealogical Society leadership has to make some serious and progressive changes if they want the Society to survive. Clean house and start over if necessary. Adhere to rules and by-laws. Try to foster and hold the membership. Actively engage and then show appreciation to volunteers. Take special care of the physical collections and ensure their safety and society ownership for generations to come. Work for the betterment of and be accountable to the membership. The times are changing, accept that... and make the needed changes. This is going to be a tall order in my humble opinion, as I see this society sliding into oblivion as have many others the last few years!
Cheri Hopkins
YouGoGirl #2
**Ruby Coleman, past President of the Nebraska Genealogical Society is my sister-in-law


text:
Brooklyn Nets coach Jason Kidd pleaded guilty Tuesday to a misdemeanor drunken driving charge and was placed on interim probation nearly a year after he smashed his Cadillac SUV into a utility pole on eastern Long Island.
In exchange for the guilty plea, Kidd agreed to speak to Long Island high school students about the dangers of drunken driving. If he fulfills his community service, his plea will be reduced to a violation — driving while ability impaired — when he returns to court on Sept. 30.
Kidd, who retired as an NBA player after last season with the New York Knicks, was recently hired to coach the Nets — the team he took to two NBA Finals as a player when the franchise played in New Jersey.
Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said outside court that Kidd could have received three years' probation, but a better alternative was reached.
"He's a role model to kids and other people. And he's going to have the opportunity to talk to them about the foolish mistake that he made and the fact he took responsibility for his actions," Spota said outside court. "That is for me more important than three years' probation."
Police said Kidd crashed his SUV into a telephone pole in the Hamptons community of Water Mill on July 15, 2012. He was treated at a hospital for minor injuries.
Defense attorney Ed Burke Jr. said Kidd was returning from a charity function before the crash. A Southampton Town Police report noted the 10-time NBA all-star and Olympic gold medalist was unsteady on his feet, smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot and glassy eyes.
The judge asked him at the plea hearing how much he'd consumed before his arrest. "A couple of drinks, three or four," Kidd replied in a very soft voice.
"You could have killed yourself. You could have killed someone else," said Town Court Judge Andrea Schiavoni. "I hope you wake up every day happy to be here."
Kidd nodded in response.
"He took responsibility for that night," Burke said afterward. "Jason knows he was very, very lucky that night. He was very lucky no one was hurt."
Kidd did not speak when he left the courthouse. Burke said his client recently bought a vacation home in Water Mill and wants to become part of the community there.
While playing with Phoenix in 2001, Kidd was arrested on a domestic violence charge, acknowledging he struck his former wife.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Did somebody say Skip?
This is the ultimate rewards program for the ultimate foodie. Earn points on every order and use your points to get more of what you love: free food. Order, earn points, and start getting rewarded now.
There are no sign-ups or monthly fees. To begin, all you need is a Skip account. It's that easy.
Drive With Skip
Earn extra money in your spare time. Set your availability, keep 100% of your delivery fees and tips, and get paid weekly.
Partner With Skip
Team up with us to reach more customers. Let us take care of the details, so you can stay focused on making great food.
Careers At Skip
Gain experience that matters. Grow with our team of high performers in a fun, challenging, and fast-paced environment.


text:
48 S.Ct. 591
72 L.Ed. 968
No. 228.
Argued April 12, 1928.
Decided June 4, 1928.
Messrs. William Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., J.
Harry Covington, of Washington, D. C., Moorfield Storey, of Boston, Mass., and George B. Young, of Montpelier, Vt., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 509-513 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 514-516 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1921, departing from previous plans Congress laid a tax on life insurance companies based upon the sum of all interest and dividends and rents received, less certain specified deductions: (1) Interest derived from tax-exempt securities, if any; (2) a sum equal to 4 per centum of the company's legal reserve diminished by the amount of the interest described in paragraph (1); (3) other miscellaneous items-seven-not presently important.
Petitioner maintains that, acting under this plan, the collector illegally required it to pay taxes, for the year 1921, on federal, state, and municipal bonds; and it seeks to recover the amount so exacted. The Court of Claims gave judgment for the United States (63 Ct. Cl. 256).
The Revenue Act of 1921, approved November 23, 1921, chapter 136, tit. 2, Income Tax (42 Stat. 237, 238, 252, 261) provides: 'Sec. 213. That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise provided in sec. 233) (the exceptions not here important) the term 'gross income'—
'(a) Includes gains, profits, and income * * *
'(b) Does not include the following items, which shall be exempt from taxation under this title:
(1), (2), and (3) (not here important).
'(4) Interest upon (a) the obligations of a state, territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or (b) securities issued under the provisions of the Federal Farm Loan Act of July 17, 1916; or (c) the obligations of the United States or its possessions. * * *' Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 ff.
'Sec. 230. That, in lieu of the tax imposed by section 230 of the Revenue Act of 1918, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every corporation a tax at the following rates:
'(a) For the calendar year 1921, 10 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of the credits provided in section 236; and
'(b) For each calendar year thereafter, 12 1/2 per centum of such excess amount.' Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 nn.
'Sec. 243. That in lieu of the taxes imposed by sections 230 (general corporation tax) and 1,000 (special taxes on capital stock) and by title III (was profits and excess profits taxes) there shall be levied, collected, and paid for the calendar year 1921 and for each taxable year thereafter upon the net income of every life insurance company a tax as follows:
'(1) In the case of a domestic life insurance company, the same percentage of its net income as is imposed upon other corporations by section 230 (ten per cent. for 1921, twelve and one-half thereafter);
'(2) In the case of a foreign life insurance company, the same percentage of its net income from sources within the United States as is imposed upon the net income of other corporations by section 230.' Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 t(2).
'Sec. 244. (a) That in the case of a life insurance company the term 'gross income' means the gross amount of income received during the taxable year from interest, dividends, and rents.
'(b) The term 'reserve funds required by law' includes * * *' Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 t(3).
'Sec. 244. (a) That in the case of a life insurance company the term 'net income' means the gross income less—
'(1) The amount of interest received during the taxable year which under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of section 213 is exempt from taxation under this title (interest on tax-exempt securities);
'(2) An amount equal to the excess, if any, over the deduction specified in paragraph (1) of this subdivision, of 4 per centum of the mean of the reserve funds required by law and held at the beginning and end of the taxable year, plus (certain other sums not here important). * * *' Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 t(4).
(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) and (9) grant other exemptions not now important.
The mean of petitioner's reserve funds for 1921 was $67,381,877.92. Four per centum of this is $2,695,279.12.
During 1921 interest derived from all sources amounted to $3,811,132.78; from dividends, nothing; from rents, $13,460-total, $3,824,592.78. $1,125,788.26 of this interest came from tax-exempt securities-$873,075.66 from state and municipal obligations, and $252,712.60 from those of the United States.
The collector treated interest plus dividends plus rents, $3,824,592.78, as gross income, and allowed deductions amounting to $2,899,690.79, made up of the following items: $1,125,788.26, interest from tax-exempt securities; $1,569,490.86, the difference between 4 per cent. of the reserve fund ($2,695,279.12) and ($1,125,788.26) interest received from exempt securities; miscellaneous items, not contested and neglible here, $204,411.67. After deducting these from total receipts ($3,824,592.78-$2,899,690.79), there remained a balance of $924,901.99. This he regarded as net income, and upon it exacted 10 per centum, $92,490.20.
If all interest received by the company had come from taxable securities, then, following the statute, there would have been deducted from the gross of $3,824,592.78-4 per cent. of the reserve, $2,695,279.12, plus the miscellaneous items $204,411.67-$2,899,690.79, and upon the balance of $924,901.99 the tax would have been $92,490.20. Thus it becomes apparent that petitioner was accorded no advantage by reason of ownership of tax-exempt securities.
Petitioner maintains that the result of the collector's action was unlawfully to discriminate against it and really to exact payment on account of its exempt securities, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Also that diminution of the ordinary deduction of 4 per cent. of the reserves because of interest received from tax-exempt securities, in effect, defeated the exemption guaranteed to their owners.
The portion of petitioner's income from the three specified sources which Congress had power to tax-its taxable income-was the sum of these items less the interest derived from tax-exempt securities. Because of the receipt of interest from such securities, and to its full extent, pursuing the plan of the statute the collector diminished the 4 per cent. deduction allowable to those holding no such securities. Thus, he required petitioner to pay more upon its taxable income than could have been demanded had this been derived solely from taxable securities. If permitted, this would destroy the guaranteed exemption. One may not be subjected to greater burdens upon his taxable property solely because he owns some that is free. No device or form of words can deprive him of the exemption for which he has lawfully contracted.
The suggestion that, as Congress may or may not grant deductions from gross income at pleasure, it can deny to one and give to another, is specious, but unsound. The burden from which federal and state obligations are free is the one laid upon other property. To determine what this burden is requires consideration of the mode of assessment, including, of course, deductions from gross values. What remains after subtracting all allowances is the thing really taxed.
U. S. v. Ritchie (1872) Fed. Cas. No. 16168-Ritchie was the state's attorney for Frederick county, Md. The federal statute allowed an exemption of $1,000. The collector claimed that, if Ritchie's salary was held free from taxation, $1,000 of it should be applied to the exemption clause. Giles, J., held:
'The United States could not apply the compensation of a state officer to the satisfaction of the exemption alone, because that would, indirectly, make his income from such source liable to the taxation from which it is exempt; that to exhaust the exemption clause by taking the amount out of his official income, would be to make it, in effect, subject to the revenue law, and to deny to a state's officer the advantage of the state's exemption, and that therefore the official income of defendant was not to be taken into consideration in the assessment of the tax.'
People, etc., v. Commissioners, etc. (1870) 41 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 459, held: That, in determining the amount of personal property of an individual, by assessors or commissioners of taxes, for the purpose of taxation, stocks and bonds of the United States are to form no part of the estimate. They cannot be excluded or deducted from the amount of his assets, liable to taxation, for it is error to include them in such assets.
Packard Motor Car Co. v. City of Detroit (1925) 232 Mich. 245, 205 N. W. 106 held: That tax-exempt credits may not be taxed, directly or indirectly, and in levying a tax on property they must be treated as nonexistent. The provision of Act No. 297, Pub. Acts 1921, providing that, if the person to be taxed 'shall be the owner of credits that are exempt from taxation such proportion only of his indebtedness shall be deducted from debts due or to become due as is represented by the radio between taxable credits and total credits owned, whether taxable or not,' is void as an interference with the power of the United States government to raise money by issuance of tax-exempt obligations, and is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
See, also, City of Waco v. Amicable Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Com. App. 1923) 248 S. W. 332.
Miller et al., Executors, v. Milwaukee, 272 U. S. 713, 47 S. Ct. 280, 71 L. Ed. 487, held: That, where income from bonds of the United States which by act of Congress is exempt from state taxation is reached purposely, in the case of corporation owned bonds, by exempting the income therefrom in the hands of the corporations, and taxing only so much of the stockholder's dividends as corresponds to the corporate income not assessed, the tax is invalid.
It is settled doctrine that directly to tax the income from securities amounts to taxation of the securities themselves, Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 275 U. S. 136, 48 S. Ct. 55, 72 L. Ed. 202 (November 21, 1927); also that the United States may not tax state or municipal obligations. Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, Admx., 269 U. S. 514, 521, 46 S. Ct. 172, 70 L. Ed. 384.
How far the United States might repudiate their agreement not to tax we need not stop to consider. Counsel do not claim that here state obligations should have more favorable treatment than is accorded to those of the federal government. The Revenue Act of 1921 (section 213) expressly disavows any purpose to tax interest upon the latter's obligations. Section 1403 provides:
'That if any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.' Comp. St. § 6371 4/5 n.
Congress had no power purposely and directly to tax state obligations by refusing to their owners deductions allowed to others. It had no purpose to subject obligations of the United States to burdens which could not be imposed upon those of a state.
Considering what has been said, together with the saving clause just quoted, and the manifest general purpose of the statute, we think that provision of the act which undertook to abate the 4 per cent. deduction by the amount of interest received from tax-exempt securities cannot be given effect as against petitioner under the circumstances here disclosed. It was unlawfully required to pay $92,490.20, and is entitled to recover.
The judgment of the Court of Claims (63 Ct. Cl. 256) must be reversed. If within ten days counsel can agree upon a decree for entry here, it may be presented. Otherwise, the cause will be remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Claims.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, dissenting.
Ever since Corporation Tax Act, August 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. 11, 112, the United States has laid upon life insurance companies a special excise tax measured by net income. But the several revenue acts have varied as to the rate of the tax and also as to the method of computing the taxable income. That is, the items to be included in gross income and the items to be allowed as deductions have been changed from time to time. In the earliest act no deduction was made of interest on tax-exempt bonds. Until 1921, the gross income considered included premium receipts.1 See New York Life Insurance Co. v. Edwards, 271 U. S. 109, 46 S. Ct. 436, 70 L. Ed. 859; McCoach v. Insurance Co. of North America, 244 U. S. 585, 37 S. Ct. 709, 61 L. Ed. 1333. Compare Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Lederer, 252 U. S. 523, 40 S. Ct. 397, 64 L. Ed. 698. The inclusion of premium receipts, with corresponding deductions, was found to be unsatisfactory. After much consideration, Congress, upon consultation with the life insurance companies and with the approval of at least most of them, substituted a new basis for computing the tax.2 Act of November 23, 1921, c. 136, §§ 243-245, 42 Stat. 227, 261. The validity of that act is now attacked by the National Life Insurance Company. Other companies have, as amici curiae, filed a brief in support of the legislation.
The gross income to be considered under the Act of 1921 is limited to that received 'from interest, dividends, and rents.' In order to ascertain the taxable income, this gross investment income is to be reduced by nine classes of deductions, so far as severally applicable. Only two of these are material here-the provisions in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 245. Taken together, they provide for the deduction from the gross investment income of the interest from tax-exempt bonds or of an amount equal to 4 per cent. of the mean insurance reserve, whichever sum is the greater. That is, paragraph (1) provides for a deduction of interest received from tax-exempt bonds;3 and this deduction is to be made to the full extent, under all circumstances. Paragraph (2) provides that there shall be deducted such amount, if any, as is required to be added to the income from the tax-exempt securities, to equal 4 per cent. of the mean insurance reserve. Thus, no deduction under paragraph (2) will be allowed, if the income from the tax-exempt securities equals or exceeds 4 per cent. of the required reserve. And if the company has any income from tax-exempt bonds, it will not receive the full deduction of 4 per cent. of the required reserve, under paragraph (2). The reason for allowing the deduction of 4 per cent. of the reserve is that a portion of the 'interest, dividends, and rents' received have to be used each year in maintaining the reserve; i. e., adding to it on the basis of a certain interest rate, varying from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. according to the requirements of the statutes of the several states.
The National Life Insurance Company had, during the year 1921, gross investment income amounting to $3,824.592.78. Of this income, $1,125,788.26 was interest on tax-exempt bonds. Four per cent. of the company's insurance reserve amounted to $2,695,279.12. As the interest received from tax-exempt bonds was less than 4 per cent. upon its reserve, the company was allowed under paragraph (2) the additional deduction of a sum equal to the difference between these two, namely, $1,569,490.86. The aggregate of the deductions allowed under paragraphs (1) and (2) was thus no greater than the deduction would have been if all the company's income had been derived from taxable securities.
That the return and the payment required of the company was in exact accord with the act is conceded. The contention is that the act is unconstitutional, because as applied it renders the tax-exempt privilege of no value to the company. The argument is that the tax burden from which such federal and state obligations are free is the one laid upon other property; that a person may not be subjected to greater burdens upon his taxable property because he owns some that is free; that here the company has been required to pay more upon its taxable income than could have been demanded under the statute had the income come been derived solely from taxable securities; that to permit this to be done would destroy the guaranteed exemption for which the bondholder lawfully contracted, and would enable the federal government to burden the states; and that this cannot be done, whatever the device or form of words employed by Congress. The argument rests, I think, upon misconceptions.
Some of the tax-exempt bonds held by the company were state (including county, district, and municipal) bonds. Some were United States bonds which in terms provide for exemptions from federal taxes. With the holders of state bonds the United States has entered into no contract. Whatever rights the company may have as to them must flow either directly from the terms of the federal act which provides for the deductions to be made in computing the net income, or must arise indirectly out of the Constitution. The objection made and sustained by the court, is that the act is void because thereby Congress taxes the bonds, an instrumentality of the states, or that it discriminates against the holder. Compare Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124, 20 L. Ed. 122; Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 521-524, 46 S. Ct. 172, 70 L. Ed. 384. As to the United States bonds, the claim is that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated, because the act nullifies the provision in the bond that it shall be exempt from federal taxation.4 On this contention the court does not pass. Compare Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 25, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493. But it holds, nevertheless, that there must be deducted the full 4 per cent. of the reserve in addition to the tax-exempt interest from federal as well as from state securities. It interprets the will of Congress to be that such a deduction should be made, because otherwise federal obligations would have less favorable treatment than must be accorded state bonds.
As the tax imposed by the Act of 1921 is on net income, I should have supported that it was settled by Flint v. Stone-Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 147, 162, 31 S. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 589, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312, that the inclusion in the computation of the interest on tax-exempt bonds, like the inclusion of the receipts from exports, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 38 S. Ct. 432, 62 L. Ed. 1049; Barclay & Co. v. Edwards, 267 U. S. 442, 447, 45 S. Ct. 135, 69 L. Ed. 703, or the inclusion in a state tax of receipts from interstate commerce, United States Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321, 326, 38 S. Ct. 499, 62 L. Ed. 1135, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 748; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 57, 40 S. Ct. 221, 64 L. Ed. 445; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U. S. 113, 120, 41 S. Ct. 45, 65 L. Ed. 165, would not have rendered the tax objectionable. Compare Interbore Rapid Transit Co. v. Sohmer, 237 U. S. 276, 284, 35 S. Ct. 549, 59 L. Ed. 951. But here it is indisputable that no part of the income derived from tax-exempt bonds is taxed; for the statute requires that, in computing the taxable income, the full amount of the interest on tax-exempt securities should be deducted. The only question that can arise in any case is how much additional shall be allowed as a deduction under paragraph (2).
The only factual basis for complaint by the company is that, although a holder of tax-exempt bonds, it is, in respect to this particular tax, no better off than it would have been had it held only taxable bonds. Or, to put it in another way, the objection is not that the plaintiff is taxed on what is exempt, but that others, who do not hold tax-exempt securities, are not taxed more. But neither the Constitution, nor any Act of Congress, nor any contract of the United States, provides that, in respect to this tax, a holder of tax-exempt bonds, shall be better off than if he held only taxable securities. Nowhere can the requirement be found that those who do not hold tax-exempt securities shall, in respect to every tax, be subjected to a heavier burden than the owners of tax-exempt bonds.
It is true that the tax-exempt privilege is a feature always reflected in the market price of bonds. The investor pays for it. But the value of the tax-exempt feature, like the value of the bond itself, may fluctuate for many reasons. Its value may be lessened by changing, through legislation, the supply or the demand. It may be lessened by laws which have no relation to taxation, as was done when the federal reserve legislation changed the basis for securing notes of issue.5 The recent successive reductions in federal surtaxes6 lessened for many holders the relative value of tax-exempt bonds. The narrowing thereby of an existing use for the tax-exempt bonds was important enough to affect the market value. Some of the states lessened the value of United States bonds to many a holder, when they substituted a small tax on intangibles, or an income tax, for the heavy general property tax to which all taxable bonds had theretofore been subject. The amendment of the state Constitution involved in Florida v. Mellon, 273 U S. 12, 47 S. Ct. 265, 71 L. Ed. 511, by which Florida prohibited its Legislature from imposing taxes on succession or on income, and offered to the rich a haven of tax immunity, reduced the potential demand for, and hence the value of, tax-exempt bonds. By all such legislation the relative advantage, with respect to some taxes, of tax-exempt over taxable bonds was lessened. With respect to other taxes, the relative advantage was wholly removed. And the relative value of the tax-exempt bonds to the holder was thereby necessarily reduced. But obviously that lessening of relative advantage and of value did not impair any legal right possessed by the holder.
The holder of tax-exempt bonds often finds himself with respect to taxes imposed under legislation other than the Act of 1921, no better off than if he had owned only taxable bonds. But this court has never held a statute invalid on that ground. A state inheritance or legacy tax is valid, although the tax is as high when the estate transmitted consists in part of bonds of the United States as when none are held. Plumber v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 20 S. Ct. 859, 44 L. Ed. 988; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 22 S. Ct. 213, 46 L. Ed. 196. Compare Greiner v. Lewellyn, 258 U. S. 384, 42 S. Ct. 324, 66 L. Ed. 676. This is true also of the tax upon Connecticut savings banks, upheld in Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594, 18 L. Ed. 897; of that upon Massachusetts savings banks, upheld in Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611, 18 L. Ed. 907; of that upon Massachusetts manufacturing corporations, upheld in Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632, 18 L. Ed. 904; of that upon insurance corporations, upheld in Home Insurance Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 10 S. Ct. 593, 33 L. Ed. 1025. Under all of these statutes a corporation holding bonds of the United States was obliged to pay the same amount in taxes that it would have been required to pay if it had not been a holder of United States bonds.7 Similarly it has been held, in a long line of cases sustaining state laws taxing shares in a national bank to the shareholders, that no deduction need be made in the assessment on account of the United States bonds constituting a part of the assets of the bank by which the value of the shares is measured. Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, 583, 18 L. Ed. 229; People v. Commissioners, 4 Wall. 244, 255, 18 L. Ed. 344; Peoples National Bank of Kingfisher v. Board of Equalization, 260 U. S. 702, 43 S. Ct. 98, 67 L. Ed. 471; Des Moines National Bank v. Fairweather, 263 U. S. 103, 114, 44 S. Ct. 23, 68 L. Ed. 191.
The mere fact that the National Life Insurance Company was not allowed a larger deduction than would have been available if it had held only taxable bonds, cannot, therefore, render the taxing provision void. Whether there is in the provision for deductions some element of discrimination which renders it unconstitutional, remains for consideration. It may be assumed-if the term is used with legal accuracy-that the United States may not discriminate against state bonds or against its own outstanding bonds. Discrimination is the act of treating differently two persons or things, under like circumstances. Compare Merchants' Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 463, 17 S. Ct. 829, 42 L. Ed. 236. Here the sole complaint is that the two, although the circumstances are unlike, are treated equally. The claim is not that the holder of tax-exempt bonds is denied a privilege enjoyed by others. It is that the holder of tax-exempt bonds should be given in respect to another matter a preferred status. The preference claimed is that it shall be allowed, in addition to tax exemption on its bonds, a deduction of 4 per cent. of the reserve. The Constitution does not require the United States to hold out special inducements to invest in state bonds, compare Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 17, 47 S. Ct. 265, 71 L. Ed. 511; nor to give to holders of its own bonds privileges not granted by its contract with them. As was stated by counsel for the amici curiae:
'This allowance of a deduction of a fixed percentage, or 4 per cent. of the mean of the reserve, itself points to the nature of the deduction, not as a right but as a favor. In granting this favor, in the interest of policyholders, Congress was entitled to consider the deduction already allowed for income in tax-exempt securities.'8
There is no suggestion that in fact Congress discriminated against tax-exempt bonds, or against insurance companies as holders thereof.9 In the Senate, it was stated that all the life insurance companies favored the measure.10 There is no suggestion of a purpose in Congress to favor some companies at the expense of others. But, even if the possibility of such discrimination appeared, the objection of inequality in operation, if it were applicable to federal legislation, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R., 240 U. S. 1, 25, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493; La Belle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 392, 41 S. Ct. 528, 65 L. Ed. 998; Barclay v. Edwards, 267 U. S. 442, 450, 45 S. Ct. 135, 348, 69 L. Ed. 703, would not be open here. For there is no finding of the Court of Claims that the National Life fares less well than some other company. See Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U. S. 23, 26, 35 S. Ct. 2, 59 L. Ed. 105; Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S. 172, 180, 181, 43 S. Ct. 526, 67 L. Ed. 929.
I find nothing in the cases cited by the petitioner which lends support to the view that its rights have been violated. Directly to tax the gross income from securities amounts, of course, to taxing the securities themselves. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Wisconsin, 275 U. S. 136, 48 S. Ct. 55, 72 L. Ed. 202. In Miller v. Milwaukee, 272 U. S. 713, 47 S. Ct. 280, 71 L. Ed. 487, as was stipulated, the dividends which this court held could not be taxed by the state were directly declared from interest accruing from United States bonds. Thus the dividends from tax-exempt bonds were taxed while those from other sources were free from the tax. The tax challenged in People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, 25 L. Ed. 705, in Farmers' & Mechanics' Savings Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516, 521, 34 S. Ct. 354, 58 L. Ed 706, and in each of the cases from the state courts cited, was a direct property tax imposed upon federal obligations.11
To hold that Congress may not legislate so that the tax upon an insurance company shall be the same whether it holds tax-exempt bonds or does not, would, in effect, be to read into the Constitution a provision that Congress must adapt its legislation so as to give to state securities, not merely tax exemption, but additional privileges, and to read into the contract of the United States with its the bondholders a promise that it will, so long as the bonds are outstanding, so frame its system of taxation that its tax-exempt bonds shall, in respect to all taxes imposed, entitle the holder to greater privileges than are enjoyed by holders of taxable bonds. But no rule is better settled than that provisions for tax exemption, constitutional or contractual, are to be strictly construed. Compare Trucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527, 575, 22 L. Ed. 805; Wilmington & Weldon R. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 U S. 279, 294, 13 S. Ct. 72, 36, L. Ed. 972; Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 134, 146, 16 S. Ct. 456, 40 L. Ed. 645; Ford v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 164 U. S. 662, 17 S. Ct. 230, 41 L. Ed. 590; Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 662, 674, 23 S. Ct. 386, 47 L. Ed. 641; People ex rel. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co. v. St. Bd. of Tax Com'rs, 199 U. S. 1, 36, 25 S. Ct. 705, 50 L. Ed. 65; Jetton v. University of the South, 208 U. S. 489, 499, 28 S. Ct. 375, 52 L. Ed. 584. The rule was acted upon as recently as Millsaps College v. City of Jackson, 275 U. S. 129, 48 S. Ct. 94, 72 L. Ed. 196.
Moreover, even if the decision of the court on the main question be accepted as the rule of substantive law, I am unable to see how the company can be allowed to recover anything. The provision of section 245 is that there shall be deducted from the gross income:
'(2) An amount equal to the excess, if any, over the deduction specified in paragraph (1) of this subdivision (i. e., the interest on tax-exempt securities), of 4 per centum of the mean of the reserve funds required by law.' (Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 t(4)(a2)).
The court has, of course, power to declare that the system of taxation established by Congress is unconstitutional. But I find no power in the court to amend paragraph (2) of section 245 so as to allow the company to deduct 4 per cent. of its reserves, in addition to its income from tax-exempt securities. Congress was confessedly under no obligation to allow any deduction on account of the insurance reserves of any company. To expand the scope of the permitted deduction is legislation-and none the less so because the operation can be performed by striking out certain words of the act.
The power so to legislate is not conferred on this court by section 1403 of the Act. That section declares:
'That if any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.' Comp. St. § 6371 4/5 n.
The limited purpose and the narrow effect of such a clause was stated by this court in Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44, 71, 42 S. Ct. 453, 459, 66 L. Ed. 822:
It 'furnishes assurance to courts that they may properly sustain separate sections or provisions of a partly invalid act without hesitation or doubt as to whether they would have been adopted, even if the Legislature had been advised of the invalidity of part. But it does not give the court power to amend the act.'
Even if such a clause could ever permit a court to enlarge the scope of a deduction allowed by a taxing statute, the present case would be wholly inappropriate for the exercise of such a power. Here the asserted unconstitutionality can be cured as readily by striking out the whole of paragraph (2) as by enlarging it. Section 1403 gives no light as to which course Congress would prefer. So far as there are indications elsewhere, they would point to the former course. The new method of taxation was intended by Congress to procure additional revenue from the insurance companies. House Report, 67th Cong. 1st Sess. No. 350, p. 14. And the deduction permitted by paragraph (2) was a concession which Congress need not have made. Whether, in view of these facts, a court could properly save the act by striking out paragraph (2), or whether the alleged unconstitutionality necessarily renders invalid the whole scheme of taxation, thus leaving in force the tax on insurance companies contained in the Act of 1918,12 there is no need to consider. Compare Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Springfield, 257 U. S. 66, 69, 42 S. Ct. 24, 66 L. Ed. 131; Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 290, 44 S. Ct. 323, 68 L. Ed. 686. On either view there can, in my opinion, be no recovery on the findings here.
Mr. Justice HOLMES and Mr. Justice STONE join in this dissent.
Mr. Justice STONE, dissenting.
While it may be conceded that the petitioner has been discriminated against, the discrimination occurs only in respect of an act of bounty. Petitioner's only complaint is that Congress has not granted it as large an exemption-purely a matter of grace-as it has accorded to others owning no tax-exempt securities.
In granting a bounty of any short, Congress has a particular purpose: The generous protection of insurance reserves in the interest of the policyholders. For that purpose an exemption of 4 per cent. of the reserves was considered sufficient. In the case of companies already entitled to an exemption of 4 per cent., a further act of bounty was of course unnecessary to accomplish the end in view. Unless established principles require it, I do not think we should hold that Congress was powerless to act as generously as was necessary to achieve its useful purpose without granting additional and unnecessary bounties to insurance companies fortuitously in possession of tax-exempt bonds.
There is a distinction between imposing a burden and withholding a favor. By the Constitution or by contract the holders of tax-exempt securities are protected from burdens; but from neither source do they derive an affirmative claim to favors. If Congress voted to subsidize all insurance companies except those holding tax-exempt bonds, whatever other objections might be made to such a course, I do not think petitioner could complain because it had not been made the recipient of a gift. For the same reason I believe that its present contention is insubstantial.
But, even though the result now reached were to be deemed a logical implication of the doctrine announced in Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. Ed. 122, that neither national nor state governments may tax the instrumentalities of the other, still, as this court has often held, that rule may not be pressed to the logical extreme of forbidding legislation which affects only remotely or indirectly the holders of the other's securities. See Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 523, 46 S. Ct. 172, 70 L. Ed. 384. As Mr. Justice BRANDEIS has just pointed out, 'a state inheritance or legacy tax is valid although the tax is as high when the estate transmitted consists in part of bonds of the United States as when none are held'; and this court has sustained statutes under which 'a corporation holding bonds of the United States was obliged to pay the same amount in taxes that it would have been required to pay if it had not been a holder of United States bonds.' Not all income earned in the employment of a state is exempt from federal taxation, Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra; instrumentalities affecting indirectly or remotely the functions of one government may nevertheless be taxed by the other, Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U. S. 362, 32 S. Ct. 499, 56 L. Ed. 801; Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U. S. 375, 25 S. Ct. 50, 49 L. Ed. 242; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania, 240 U. S. 319, 36 S. Ct. 298, 60 L. Ed. 664.
Now, the rule which, under the decisions of this court, has been thus narrowly limited, is extended into a new field; and the government is forbidden to grant any benefit or immunity to a taxpayer unless it be extended in addition to the immunity already assured by reason of his possession of tax-exempt securities. Here too the remedy is not the cancellation of the benefits to others of which petitioner complains, but the grant to it of an added bounty which Congress has not authorized and which the Constitution, it seems to me, neither requires Congress nor permits this court to give.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS joins in this dissent.
Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. 11, 112; Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, 38 Stat. 114, 172, 173; Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, 765-768; Act of February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1075-1079. Under all these acts the companies were allowed to deduct the amount paid on policies (except as dividends) and the amount required by law to be added to their reserves.
In a memorandum filed with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives at the time when the Revenue Bill of 1918 (40 Stat. 1057) was being considered, the Association of Life Insurance Presidents stated: 'Although only a minor proportion of the premiums received by the insurance companies constitutes true income, the greater part being the policyholders' contributions toward current losses and to permanent capital, the entire premium income is included in gross income under the income tax law. This departure from principle is, however, rendered innocuous through deductions expressly allowed by the statute.' Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 65th Cong. 2d Sess., on the Proposed Revenue Act of 1918, Pt. I, p. 811. The Senate Finance Committee recommended in 1918 the plan later included in the Act of 1921, namely, that the basis of the tax be changed so as to include only the investment income, and that the deductions should be similarly limited. Senate Report, 65th Cong. 3d Sess. No. 617, p. 9. In presenting the bill Senator Simmons stated that it had been framed after consultation with many representatives of the life insurance companies. 57 Cong. Rec. 254. The plan was adopted by the Senate, but had to be abandoned in conference.
At the Annual Meeting of Life Insurance Presidents, December, 1920, it was stated that the basis of the income tax was unsatisfactory both to the companies and to the government, and that a plan similar to that embodied in the Senate amendment to the 1918 bill should be adopted. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting, pp. 140, 141, 143-145. The Revenue Bill of 1921 (42 Stat. 227), as introduced in the House, contained the plan of taxation which had been adopted by the Senate is 1918. House Report, 67th Cong. 1st Sess. No. 350, p. 14. It was stated to the Senate Finance Committee that 'all the life insurance companies are behind that scheme and are satisfied with it.' Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, 67th Cong. 1st Sess., on H. R. 8245, September 1-October 1, 1921, p. 84. See, also, Senate Report, 67th Cong. 1st Sess. No. 275, p. 20; Brief of Amici Curiae, p. 1.
The scope of the deduction to be made on account of tax-exempt securities is defined by paragraph 4 of subdivision (b) of section 213 of act: 'Interest upon (a) the obligations of a state, territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or (b) securities issued under the provisions of the Federal Farm Loan Act of July 17, 1916; or (c) the obligations of the United States or its possessions; or (d) bonds issued by the War Finance Corporation. In the case of obligations of the United States issued after September 1, 1917 (other than postal savings certificates of deposit), and in the case of bonds issued by the War Finance Corporation, the interest shall be exempt only if and to the extent provided in the respective acts authorizing the issue thereof as amended and supplemented, and shall be excluded from gross income only if and to the extent it is wholly exempt to the taxpayer from income, war profits and excess profits taxes.' 42 Stat. 227, 238 (Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 ff).
The precise terms of the exemption are not the same in all issues of United States bonds. Thus, bonds issued under the First Liberty Loan are declared to be 'exempt, both as to principal and as to interest, from all taxation, except estate or inheritance taxes, imposed by authority of the United States, or its possessions, or by any state or local taxing authority.' In the second and later loans the bonds are subject to 'graduated additional income taxes, commonly known as surtaxes, and excess profits and war profits taxes, now or hereafter imposed by the United States,' except that the interest on an amount not in excess of a certain figure is free from tax. All the bonds held by the petitioner were, by the statutes under which they were issued, exempt from the normal tax.
For the effect of the pending federal reserve legislation and its enactment (December 23, 1913, c. 6, 38 Stat. 251), on the market value of United States bonds held to secure national bank circulation, see Commercial & Financial Chronicle, vol. 97, pp. 91, 153, 271, 1083, volume 98, pp. 131, 200.
Act of June 2, 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 265 (26 USCA § 952(a); Comp. St. § 6336 1/6 ee(a)); Act of February 26, 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 21 (26 USCA § 952(a)).
Recently, these cases were cited with approval in Flint v. Stone-Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 165, 31 S. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312, and in Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis Ry. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 232, 36 S. Ct. 261, 60 L. Ed. 617.
The brief for the amici curiae states further: 'The petitioner has neither constitutional nor statutory right to deduct from its income an amount equal to 4 per centum of the mean of its reserve or to deduct any percentage of its reserve funds, or to deduct any interest derived from the investment of its reserve funds (in addition to that from tax-exempt securities). * * * Every life insurance company that has tax-exempt securities is treated exactly on the same basis. Companies that have tax-exempt securities are not entitled to a double deduction and those that have no tax-exempt securities still have reserves which they hold for the protection of their policy holders and Congress has fairly allowed a deduction of a percentage of those reserves. * * * This was a mere question of policy which Congress was free to adopt as it chose. * * * What the petitioner wants is not simply to have its constitutional right protected, and to be immune from taxation on its investment in government securities, but to get a further advantage, to which it has no constitutional right, that is, to include its tax-exempt income in figuring its deduction on its reserve. It seeks not freedom from taxation, but a preferred position in calculating its reserve. What is there in the Constitution which comples Congress to give such an advantage? * * * The petitioner has no constitutional right to gain an advantage from its investment in tax-exempt securities beyond the fact that it is not to be deprived in whole or in part of its investment and that the investment is not to be made a subject of taxation.'
The amount of the United States securities outstanding on June 30, 1921, was $23,748,292.000. See Annual Report of Secretary of the Treasury for 1921, pp. 680-685. This figure does not include federal farm loan bonds, of which $420,763,315 were outstanding October 31, 1921, Id., p. 963, or the obligations of the insular possessions and the District of Columbia, of which there were $52,970,750 outstanding on June 30, 1921. Id., pp. 750, 754. The estimated total of tax-free securities, issued by states, counties, etc., outstanding January 1, 1922, was $8,142,000,000. Memorandum of the Government Actuary, Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 67th Cong. 2d Sess., on Tax Exempt Securities, p. 21.
See note 1.
In Packard Motor Co. v. Detroit, 232 Mich. 245, 247, 248, 205 N. W. 106, the decision was rested expressly upon that ground. In City of Waco v. Amicable Life Insurance Co. (Commission of Appeals of Texas), 248 S. W. 332; (Court of Civil Appeals, 230 S. W. 698, 702, the case was rested upon the construction of the state statute. The constitutional question was treated slightly and obiter. In People v. Board of Commissioners of Taxes, 41 How. Pr. 459, 474 (Supreme Court of New York, at General Term 1871), there 'was no written opinion, the decision being rendered on argument.' It does not appear whether it was placed on the construction of the statutes or on a constitutional ground. This is also true of U. S. v. Ritchie, Fed. Cas. No. 16168.
That tax was repealed by section 1400(a) of the Act of 1921 (Comp. St. § 6371 4/5 m(a)). But section 1400(b) provides: 'In the case of any tax imposed by any part of the Revenue Act of 1918 repealed by this act, if there is a tax imposed by this act in lieu thereof, the provision imposing such tax shall remain in force until the corresponding tax under this act takes effect under the provisions of this act.' 42 Stat. 227, 321 (Comp. St. §§ 6371 4/5 m(b)).


text:
Diahann Carroll Recalls Her 'Dynasty' Diva Days
Actress and singer featured on PBS 'Pioneers of Television'
Diahann Carroll broke television barriers in 1968 as the lead character in NBC's Julia, becoming the first black actress to star in her own series. In 1984, she did it again, as the glamorous invader of the all-white environment of nighttime soaps as Dynasty's Dominique Deveraux.
On Jan. 22 Carroll, now 77, appears in the PBS Pioneers of Television segment "Primetime Soaps," which is a look at over-the-top 1980s-era hits such as Dallas and Dynasty.
Diahann Carroll has also been a singer and Broadway star, and continues to work on popular shows from Grey's Anatomy to White Collar. The oft-married grandmother — once engaged to Sidney Poitier — talked to us about her role in integrating primetime TV, lessons learned from more than five decades as an entertainer, and what it was like to swap slaps with Joan Collins.
Q. What concerns did you have about taking the title role in Julia back when TV was far from integrated?
A. I thought it would be a glorious idea, but the thought of [moving to California and] not being in New York really frightened me. I'm a staunch New Yorker. My parents were there. I married there, I had a baby. And I could see the controversy, that this was considered a major step forward in terms of television shows starring black actors. Fortunately, we went on the air and it was received very well. But in order to make that step, a lot of adjustments had to be made for a little New York lady who thought the world revolved around New York City.
Q. Talk about how you ended up on Dynasty —a world of rich white people with big hair and big shoulder pads.
A. I saw the show and I thought, "Oh, this is absolutely a hoot, I love it." I thought it would be great fun if they thought that I could fit into this. And so my manager and I approached them, and [we had] a meeting. I was absolutely thrilled [to get the part]. I just loved the opportunity to put this character, Dominique Deveraux, on screen. We were all very excited — we knew that it would be the talk of the town.
Q. Talk about how you ended up on Dynasty —a world of rich white people with big hair and big shoulder pads.
A. I saw the show and I thought, "Oh, this is absolutely a hoot, I love it." I thought it would be great fun if they thought that I could fit into this. And so my manager and I approached them, and [we had] a meeting. I was absolutely thrilled [to get the part]. I just loved the opportunity to put this character, Dominique Deveraux, on screen. We were all very excited — we knew that it would be the talk of the town.
Q. There was at least one episode where you and Joan Collins were fighting, hitting and kicking each other. What was it like filming those scenes?
A. I think we loved it, Joan and I. I said, "We have to fight more often." It was funny, and it was also very much what the audience wanted at that time. With the clothes and the hair, it was very clear that we were actually doing this show as a send-up, and I think we did it very well. Of course, we had to fight to make the dialogue overcome the wardrobe [laughs]. I don't know if we ever won that war.
Q. You once said that playing Norma Desmond in the Canadian production of Sunset Boulevard in the mid-'90s was the most rewarding role of your career. Do you still feel that way?
A. I would say it was. However, I have paid the price for taking my life to Canada for almost two years and leaving everything — my family, my marriage. It was not an easy time. But it was a great experience, absolutely. Now I do like to do the kind of work that does not involve long periods of time on the road.
Q. You have a recurring role in the USA Network series White Collar. How does the show's filming schedule affect your life in California?
A. It's a wonderful situation. I think last season I shot four or five episodes. I go back to New York to shoot, which I love because my grandchildren live there — ages 10 and 12. They're almost as tall as I am.
Q. An upcoming episode features you singing at the Cotton Club. Was that your idea or the writers'?
A. It was their idea. I haven't done any singing in a very long time. There comes a time where your vocal cords, they look at you and say, "We're tired." But I enjoyed doing it, I really did. It was nice to wake up those areas of my life again.
Q. You wrote an autobiography in 2009 called The Legs Are the Last to Go: Aging, Acting, Marrying, and Other Things I Learned the Hard Way. What do you wish you knew in your 30s or 40s that you know now?
A. I've learned a great deal. However, I'm not sure I would have wanted to know it in my 30s and 40s — trying to find out is what gives you your momentum. I think you have to learn it on your own. Although the first thing in the profession that I know now, that I perhaps didn't then, is: Listen more than you speak. Listen, and always ask questions.
I think, too, at this age, I have understood that it's really not necessary to marry everyone that you feel you've fallen in love with. I remember having kind of a conversation like this with Elizabeth Taylor, and I think we'd both come to that conclusion. You don't have to get married! [laughs]
Q. Mistakes are often part of who you are.
A. Mistakes are definitely part of who I am. I wouldn't want to have lived without having those mistakes. So that's why I try to be cautious about advice. I hate giving advice.
You May Also Like


text:
FMC Agricultural Solutions adds Authority® Maxx to its Authority line of herbicides. Receiving EPA registration earlier this month, Authority Maxx offers soybean growers concentrated, scalable broadleaf control with a focus on species that glyphosate can leave behind."Authority Maxx provides the maximum amount of Authority growers can get for their dollar," said Brent Neuberger, FMC Agricultural Solutions North America senior technical sales manager. "With Authority Maxx, growers can dial in the control and residual they need without limiting their cropping options for next season."
A dual-action herbicide, Authority Maxx is a pre-mix of two herbicides with different modes of action, providing burndown activity and residual control of many glyphosate and ALS-resistant small-seeded broadleaves. As with other Authority products, Authority Maxx can be applied as part of fall burndown, or in the spring to prevent yield-robbing weed competition."Glyphosate resistance is a real issue, particularly among small-seeded broadleaves like Palmer amaranth and waterhemp," said Neuberger. "Authority Maxx is an ideal partner to join the Roundup Ready PLUS® platform in 2014 because it targets those difficult weeds and gives growers options for this season and next."
For more information on FMC crop protection products, please visit www.FMCcrop.com. Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/FMCcrop.


text:
- Total $0.00
Flat 20% off on order above $999 - Use Discount Code - 'FLAT20' & Flat 10% off on all orders - Use Discount Code 'FLAT10'
0.5ct Stunning Natural Diamond GH/SI 14K Gold Cross Pendant
18" chain is included with a pendant.
In Stock
It is in stock and ready for its new home! Shipping timelines are usually within 3 to 5 business days from the date ordered items usually ship within 3 business days from the purchase date.
Shipping Later
We do not have it on hand yet but it is on its way to us! You can still purchase it and your order will be added in the queue to be fulfilled and shipped as soon as they are available.
Made to order (including engravings, monograms and ring sizing)
Once your order has been placed, we will get right on your piece since it is being made specially for you. This can take a bit more time to be processed but you will get a piece that is exactly what you want.
Free Shipping in US


text:
Vedanta is Living Experience
Sri Swami Sivananda
This article is from the book Lectures on Yoga and Vedanta.
VEDANTA is today a much abused term. All sorts of vanity, hypocrisy and self-conceit have been masquerading in its name. It has become the fashion of the day to pass for a Vedantin as it is then convenient to give up all sorts of responsibilities, rituals and restrictions of the Varnashrama Dharma and enables one to lead a happy-go-lucky life of ease, lethargy and inertia. The Punjab is full of dry, lip-Vedantins. Punjabi women have also taken to Vedanta and they take great pride in calling themselves Vedantins, whether or not they understand the philosophy, whether or not they do any practice. All retired officers who have not done any selfless service or any Sadhana or worship or charity take to Vedanta as a sort of fancy.
Thus Vedanta has become a very comfortable philosophy, because one can do whatever he chooses and eat whatever he likes. Licentiousness is mistaken for a life of expansion. If a man can eat anything in any hotel in any part of the world, if he can move socially with any man or woman, that does not mean, he is a Vedantin. There is much tall talk of Vedanta nowadays. There is idle Vedantic gossiping. But there is no practical Vedanta. Nobody wants to do any real solid Vedantic Sadhana. Man feels ashamed to call himself a Bhakta, but he takes great pride in calling himself a Yogi or a Vedantin, because he foolishly imagines he will be respected by the public. Many ignorant Vedantins have mistaken the body for Brahman and hence there is corruption amongst the so-called loose Vedantins. This is not only lamentable but also highly deplorable.
Wholesale preaching of Vedanta to the Masses is not advisable. It will result in chaos, bewilderment and stagnation. Grasping of Vedantic principles and a right understanding of the philosophy and Sadhana are very difficult. Vedanta is for a select few who are equipped with the four means of salvation or Sadhana Chatushtaya and who have removed the impurities of their minds and mental oscillation through constant practice of Nishkama Karma Yoga and Upasana. The path of Vedanta is not so easy as it is generally supposed to be. It is a sharp razor-edge path. Therefore, those who preach Vedanta to the masses do more harm than any good. They are misleading the people.
It is very, very easy to say, "Soham–I am He, Sivoham–I am Siva, Aham Brahma Asmi–I am Brahman" like a parrot, but to live in the very spirit of Vedanta, to feel the oneness or unity of consciousness, to become 'That' in reality and to radiate the Brahmic Bliss, Joy and Peace is an extremely difficult affair. While repeating 'Soham', if his mind is easily upset when another utters a single harsh word, and if he begins to fight with that man vehemently, there is no use at all in that repetition. It is mere hypocrisy. He will not be able to influence others. People will take him for a cheat.
Vedanta is not merely a concept or a dogma. It is neither a theory nor a dry philosophy for contention and argumentation. It is the actual life of perennial joy in Brahman or Truth. A single practical Vedantin like Sankara could move the whole world. A practical Vedantin will outweigh a thousand and one Sandows when weighed in a balance. A practical Vedantin possesses tremendous inner spiritual strength. The whole world rejoices at the sight of a real practical Vedantin. Practical Vedanta is a living experience, the melting of the individual self in the ocean of consciousness or the Supreme Self. The experiencer exclaims with inexpressible joy, "All indeed is Brahman. All differences, distinctions, qualities have vanished. I see Brahman and Oneness everywhere. I am Brahman."


text:
Last week we discussed the differences between a Rockford Fosgate P3 subwoofer and a Kicker Solo-Baric L7, and focused on the features that set them apart from each other. In this week's second "battle" we will go pound for pound with the Alpine Type R and the JL Audio W3. Both of these series of car subwoofers are considered high quality and never disappoint.
JL Audio 12W3v3-2
JL Audio is one of those companies that everyone knows by name. Even if they have never heard any of their drivers people will still tell you that JL Audio is considered one of the top companies in the car audio industry. Hard work and precision goes into all of their products and nothing could be more true about JL Audio's 12W3v3-2 W3 series subwoofer. Many of the subwoofer's patented technologies focus on the response and linear movement of the subwoofer, making it one of the most accurately precise woofers on the market today. While the W3 will sound great in a ported enclosure it was design to perform at is best in a smaller sealed enclosure, allowing the subwoofer to produce tight, crisp, and clean bass every single time. One of the coolest things about the W3 is that while other woofers suffer under lower power conditions, the W3 does not; in fact it will still reproduce clear and tight bass at multiple power ranges. The W3 is really the subwoofer that was designed for those who don't want to miss a beat.
Alpine SWR-1243D
Alpine's SWR-1243D Type-R series subwoofer is one of the most top rated subwoofers not only on our site but within the car audio world and for a number of very good reasons. With an RMS power handling of 600 watts, this woofer is able to really reproduce some hard hitting bass. Alpine's patented High Amplitude Multi-Roll surround allows the woofer do deliver deep and clean bass. The Type-R woofer is known as a power hungry subwoofer meaning that it wants all the power it can handle because it was designed to play loud. One of these woofers is more than enough to make your car shake eliminating the need for additional woofers, unless of course you want more power and want the entire block to hear you coming. This woofer is able to combine SPL with SQ and a price that is more than great. Its ability to be a versatile subwoofer, really sets it apart from other woofers who are more proned to play better under one condition than the other.


text:
You can't see the result because the "Hoka.com" deals has not been published. We request you to take advantage of "Hoka.com" Coupons or Gift Card sections or use our unique search engine to check entire deals & coupons sections of the eDealinfo.
Please revise your search text and try again.


text:
The Cold War had been over for well over a decade when a Boston physician arrived in St. Petersburg to visit a Russian military medical clinic, as part of a US State Department effort to steer former Soviet scientists away from biological weapons and toward peaceful research that could be commercialized.
He found doctors using a powerful, potentially explosive laser designed for military applications to treat patients with advanced kidney cancer. They shone the laser light onto patients' backs, sometimes raising small welts, and then injected them with vaccines prepared from their own tumor cells.
It sounds sinister, even barbaric. But the more Dr. Jeffrey Gelfand, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, learned, the more impressed he became.
"I saw patients with renal carcinoma who I thought were doing astoundingly well compared to what was happening in the States," Gelfand said. Patients with advanced cancer appeared to be "surviving for really, a very prolonged period -- years," he said.
After Gelfand's return, a startup, Boston BioCom, was set up to commercialize the technology, which the Russian doctors also used to strengthen the body's natural immune responses to an array of vaccines. And colleagues at Mass. General's Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center began doing basic animal studies to verify and probe the science behind the powerful effects Gelfand had seen. On Wednesday, the team reported in the journal PLOS ONE that a different kind of laser increased the potency of a flu vaccine in mice.
More studies will need to be done to see whether a laser treatment could make vaccines work better in people, but outside researchers said the results were promising. And the idea, which Gelfand and colleagues admit was viewed skeptically at first, has been given a major vote of confidence -- a four-year, $1.6 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to understand the biological reasons behind the effect.
"It's to me very encouraging that people are thinking of things that haven't been tried yet and showing they can work," said Dr. Pritish Tosh, an infectious disease physician and vaccine researcher at the Mayo Clinic. "This is innovative and intriguing."
The finding, which researchers hope could lead to human clinical trials soon, is the end result of an effort that took Gelfand and his team across the former Soviet Union to review more than 200 technologies in the mid-2000s. They traveled to an institute in Siberia where the building housing a smallpox laboratory was guarded by a .50-caliber machine gun, passed guards who joked, "you're the seventh American to leave this building alive," and visited poorly heated laboratories where determined scientists continued their research despite drastic funding cuts.
Gelfand led a team of seven who conducted a kind of scientific American Idol, in which researchers seeking funding would pitch their work. The team was specifically interested in biomedical research that could be validated and commercialized. They passed on many projects, including proposals to make artificial caviar and to immunize chickens against influenza by having them walk through a mist of weakened virus.
The American team did more than just hand out money -- they started ongoing partnerships with Russian researchers, introduced them to investors, and helped them write business plans.
They were confident that there was something to the laser treatment, but they had to go back to basics. The data weren't sufficient to start clinical trials in the United States, so they needed to do the rigorous animal studies to replicate the effect. And they wanted to see whether it would be possible to replace the large, powerful military laser used by the Russians with a portable, hand-held device.
At Mass. General, Dr. Satoshi Kashiwagi and Dr. Mark Poznansky led a team that spent nearly a year trying out different lasers to determine a safe dosage in mice.
They were encouraged when they found that an invisible, near-infrared laser administered for a minute enhanced an immune response to flu vaccine in mice. The researchers did detailed studies of the response, and although they do not fully understand the mechanism at work, they believe that the laser causes skin cells to release chemical signals that draw immune system cells to the area.
As a final test, the Mass. General researchers administered a flu vaccine into the skin of the mice after the laser treatment and then exposed them to a high dose of flu virus. Half the mice given a laser treatment in addition to the vaccine survived, whereas only a quarter of the mice given the vaccine alone lived.
The mice treated with the laser did nearly as well as those that received the vaccine with a chemical adjuvant, which are often combined with vaccines to boost their potency. Chemical adjuvants, however, may cause side effects. The 2009 H1N1 vaccine that was given with an adjuvant in Europe was linked to increased cases of narcolepsy.
The researchers have done a small safety trial of the laser in people, and hope that they can test it in clinical trials soon. They are thinking broadly: perhaps laser treatment could increase the effectiveness of vaccines in populations for whom they don't work very well, such as elderly people. Perhaps vaccines given in multiple doses, such as the hepatitis B or HPV vaccine, could be reduced to fewer shots by adding a laser treatment, which might increase use of such vaccines.
Dr. Sergey Onikienko, a professor in the department of military therapy at the St. Petersburg Military Medical Academy, led the work that inspired the new study. He began researching medical applications of lasers in the late 1970s.
First, he said, he found that lasers could be used to spur wound healing in animals, and over the years his research expanded into more and more applications -- and into human patients.
Through an interpreter, Onikienko said he felt proud that his work had been validated and extended in the new study.
"I think as a scientist, looking back, empirical data are great," Onikienko said. "But clearly this work needed fundamental understanding of what was going on."
Carolyn Y. Johnson can be reached at email@example.com. Follow her on Twitter @carolynyjohnson.


text:
WATCH: Blue Whales 101
A blue whale's tongue alone can weigh as much as an elephant—its heart as much as an automobile.
- Common Name:
- Blue Whale
- Scientific Name:
- Balaenoptera musculus
- Type:
- Mammals
- Diet:
- Carnivore
- Group Name:
- Pod
- Average Life Span In The Wild:
- 80 to 90 years
- Size:
- 82 to 105 feet
- Weight:
- Up to 200 tons
- IUCN Red List Status:
- Endangered
- Current Population Trend:
- Increasing
What is the blue whale?
Blue whales are the largest animals ever known to have lived on Earth. These magnificent marine mammals rule the oceans at up to 100 feet long and upwards of 200 tons. Their tongues alone can weigh as much as an elephant. Their hearts, as much as an automobile.
Diet of krill
Blue whales reach these mind-boggling dimensions on a diet composed nearly exclusively of tiny shrimplike animals called krill. During certain times of the year, a single adult blue whale consumes about 4 tons of krill a day.
Blue whales are baleen whales, which means they have fringed plates of fingernail-like material, called baleen, attached to their upper jaws. The giant animals feed by first gulping an enormous mouthful of water, expanding the pleated skin on their throat and belly to take it in. Then the whale's massive tongue forces the water out through the thin, overlapping baleen plates. Thousands of krill are left behind—and then swallowed.
Coloring and appearance
Blue whales look true blue underwater, but on the surface their coloring is more a mottled blue-gray. Their underbellies take on a yellowish hue from the millions of microorganisms that take up residence in their skin. The blue whale has a broad, flat head and a long, tapered body that ends in wide, triangular flukes.
Vocalization and behavior
Blue whales live in all the world's oceans, except the Arctic, occasionally swimming in small groups but usually alone or in pairs. They often spend summers feeding in polar waters and undertake lengthy migrations towards the Equator as winter arrives.
These graceful swimmers cruise the ocean at more than five miles an hour, but accelerate to more than 20 miles an hour when they are agitated. Blue whales are among the loudest animals on the planet. They emit a series of pulses, groans, and moans, and it's thought that, in good conditions, blue whales can hear each other up to 1,000 miles away. Scientists think they use these vocalizations not only to communicate, but, along with their excellent hearing, to sonar-navigate the lightless ocean depths.
Blue whale calves
Calves enter the world already ranking among the planet's largest creatures. After about a year inside its mother's womb, a baby blue whale emerges weighing up to 3 tons and stretching to 25 feet. It gorges on nothing but mother's milk and gains about 200 pounds every day for its first year.
Blue whales are among Earth's longest-lived animals. Scientists have discovered that by counting the layers of a deceased whale's waxlike earplugs, they can get a close estimate of the animal's age. The oldest blue whale found using this method was determined to be around 110 years old. Average lifespan is estimated at around 80 to 90 years.
Aggressive hunting in the 1900s by whalers seeking whale oil drove them to the brink of extinction. Between 1900 and the mid-1960s, some 360,000 blue whales were slaughtered. They finally came under protection with the 1966 International Whaling Commission, but they've managed only a minor recovery since then.
Blue whales have few predators but are known to fall victim to attacks by sharks and killer whales, and many are injured or die each year from impacts with large ships.


text:
2007 Federal Sentencing Guidelines
§2G2.6. Child Exploitation Enterprises
(a) Base Offense Level: 35
(b) Specific Offense Characteristics
(1) If a victim (A) had not attained the age of 12 years, increase by 4 levels; or (B) had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years, increase by 2 levels.
(2) If (A) the defendant was a parent, relative, or legal guardian of a minor victim; or (B) a minor victim was otherwise in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant, increase by 2 levels.
(3) If the offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b), increase by 2 levels.
(4) If a computer or an interactive computer service was used in furtherance of the offense, increase by 2 levels.
Statutory Provision: 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g).
Application Notes:
1. Definitions.—For purposes of this guideline:
"Computer" has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).
"Interactive computer service" has the meaning given that term in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2)).
"Minor" means (A) an individual who had not attained the age of 18 years; (B) an individual, whether fictitious or not, who a law enforcement officer represented to a participant (i) had not attained the age of 18 years; and (ii) could be provided for the purposes of engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) an undercover law enforcement officer who represented to a participant that the officer had not attained the age of 18 years.
2. Application of Subsection (b)(2).—
(A) Custody, Care, or Supervisory Control.—Subsection (b)(2) is intended to have broad application and includes offenses involving a victim less than 18 years of age entrusted to the defendant, whether temporarily or permanently. For example, teachers, day care providers, baby-sitters, or other temporary caretakers are among those who would be subject to this enhancement. In determining whether to apply this enhancement, the court should look to the actual relationship that existed between the defendant and the minor and not simply to the legal status of the defendant-minor relationship.
(B) Inapplicability of Chapter Three Adjustment.—If the enhancement under subsection (b)(2) applies, do not apply §3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill).
3. Application of Subsection (b)(3).—For purposes of subsection (b)(3), "conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b)" is: (i) using force against the minor; (ii) threatening or placing the minor in fear that any person will be subject to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (iii) rendering the minor unconscious; or (iv) administering by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of the minor, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of the minor to appraise or control conduct. This provision would apply, for example, if any dangerous weapon was used or brandished, or in a case in which the ability of the minor to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired by drugs or alcohol.


text:
Since buying La Ballena, you may think that I reserve it for all of my cargo hauling needs. Not so, not so! I can find a way to get almost anything on my Bat.
Huge purse in the front. A dozen chicken eggs, a dozen quail eggs, 6 avocados, a bunch of leeks, 2 lbs of lamb sausage and a jar of home preserved lemons in the left pannier. An abandoned Japanese chair in the right pannier. Had I been successful at the Apple store, I would have had a new IPad on their somewhere as well.
It isn't just me hauling chairs and other things, either.
Kid? Check. Backpack? Check. Fishing gear in backpack? Check. Folding chair? Check.
Who needs a rack when you have strong biceps?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Chair Delivery
2 comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Utopia on the Horizon
In May 2011, hundreds of thousands of Greeks swarmed into Syntagma Square in Athens to protest against the fire sale of their country, their labor rights and their livelihoods to corrupt domestic elites and foreign financial interests.
In a matter of days, a protest camp was set up - organized on the principles of direct democracy, leaderless self-management and mutual aid - providing a glimpse of utopia in the midst of a devastating financial, political and social crisis.
On June 28-29, during a Parliamentary vote on further austerity measures, the state finally responded with brutal force, eventually evicting the protesters from the square and crushing the radical potential of their social experiment.
A year later, activists involved in the movement and the occupation of Syntagma Square, as well as the WWII resistance hero Manolis Glezos, decided to speak in front of the camera.
What follows is this dramatic portrait of a country veering on the brink of collapse; and the people who chose to struggle in order to build a new world on the ruins of the old.


text:
To ensure uniform deliveries to all our clients, and remain updated regarding changes and trends, we cooperate internationally, nationally and regionally and transfer experience across the organisation. Our presence in more than 70 locations throughout the country means that we are also familiar with the challenges facing your business in the local market. Indeed, we believe that the combination of our business sector experience and our local knowledge ensures that our clients obtain the best...
Accountant, auditor, business lawyer, advisor
BDO in Oslo provides a wide range of services within audit, accounting, consultancy, and taxation and duties. Our clients range from small and medium-sized companies to major organisations within public and private sectors.
We see great value in having a local presence. Combining our local knowledge with expertise from across the country, and in-depth knowledge from the international BDO network, enables us to help our clients reach their goals. We supply our services based on our clients' needs. Our advice is grounded on insight, experience, and industry knowledge. We deliver with enthusiasm, professional solidity, and the courage to provide our clients with the advice they ask for – and the advice they need to get to the next level.
Don't hesitate to get in touch with us for a non-committal conversation.
Head of Office: Roger Telle-Hansen
Postal address


text:
"A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah."
New York Times, 1997
In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star go up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that Mehdi had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.
violent ex-waiter and a slumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.
By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, "Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism". In 1995, the US Attorney's Office in New York had listed Mehdi as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of Sheik Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled "Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?", which argued that Robert Kennedy's assassin had been acting in self-defense.
Considering Mehdi's role in actively working on behalf of the Sheik behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. And yet when all was said and done, in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.
The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration's schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not come down to the World Trade Center after the bombing, but in his list of priorities, he did find a way to make time for Ramadan. A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better, when he became the first US President to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were there representing countries that had helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after the attacks, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.
But the Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse. Before the star and crescent flew at the World Trade Center, the site suffered only a few dead. After it, thousands dead. The more Ramadan dinners Bush hosted, the more Americans died, because the Star and Crescent and the Ramadan dinners both signified a deliberate blindness to the threat of Islamic terrorism.
No one who understood what had happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, would have permitted a banner associated with its attackers to be flown there. But while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, let Mehdi have his way with the World Trade Center, other Muslims were working to carry out Sheik Abdel-Rahman's agenda for a war on America and the free world; "Cut the transportation of their countries," the blind Sheik had commanded, "tear it apart, destroy their economy, burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air, or land."
While Secretary of State Albright was holding her Ramadan dinners, other Ramadan dinners were being held out of sight at which more substantive events were being discussed. While the US was busy bombing Yugoslavian civilians in order to create a separatist Muslim state for KLA terrorists, Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were recruiting the first of the 9/11 hijackers. While the United States tried to appease Muslims, Muslims plotted to murder Americans.
In 1997, the New York Daily News wrote an upbeat story about Mehdi's Star and Crescent, which envisioned Islam blending in merrily into the holiday season.
New York may seem a little brighter this holiday season as the glowing Muslim crescent and star symbol nudges its way onto a seasonal landscape of Christmas trees, menorahs and Kwanzaa candles.
Watch out, ho, ho, ho-ing Santas you might get drowned out by cheery folks yelling, "Allahu akbar!"
Four years later, cheery folks yelling "Allahu Akbar" had filled downtown Manhattan with ashen snow and brightened it with the flames of the burning towers of the World Trade Center.
On the Christmas of 2001, New York City was a city with an open wound. Muslims had finally made their impact on the holiday season in a truly unforgettable way. At Ground Zero, workers were still struggling to search through the remains, looking for bodies or parts of them. "It would be like a gift for somebody," a police officer said, who was spending his holiday searching through the debris. A gift for the non-believers on that holiday season from Islam.
While Muslims were stuffing their faces in November of 2001, Americans were mourning their dead. While Abdul, Mohammed and Raisa were picking through their lamb stew, Americans were picking up the pieces of their loved ones. And yet it was Americans who were repeatedly told to be sensitive to Muslim concerns.
On the 9th anniversary of 9/11, Islam had another gift for us. Having bought up a building damaged in their own attack, they plotted to set up a grand mosque near Ground Zero. Another gift to New Yorkers from the religion that kept on giving. Another Crescent and Star.
The same people who did not learn the lesson in 1997, and allowed the Crescent and Star to fly at the World Trade Center, were eager to let the Ground Zero Mosque go forward in the name of tolerance. But despite the Crescent and Star, appeasement proved to be no defense. 3,000 people died on 9/11 because American leaders preferred to appease, rather than confront. And we are still busy appeasing, like never before.


text:
'No take' zones benefit whole reef
(CNS): A study of no-take marine zones found that they not only help economically valuable species such as lobster, conch, and fish recover from overfishing, but may also help re-colonize nearby reef areas. The report from the Wildlife Conservation Society, represents a systematic review of research from no-take areas around the world, and comes as signatory countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity are being required to protect at least 10% of their marine territory.
The report, "Review of the Benefits of No-Take Zones" written by Dr Craig Dahlgren, a recognized expert in marine protected areas and fisheries management, was commisssioner by the WCS to describe the performance of no-take zones in Belize and in other countries to ultimately conserve highly diverse coral reef systems.
In many coastal marine ecosystems around the world, overfishing and habitat degradation are prompting marine resource managers to find ecosystem-based solutions. The report also examines factors affecting the performance of no-take zones, such as the design, size, location, and factors of compliance with fishing regulations.
"Belize has been a leader in the region for establishing marine protected areas and has a world-renowned system of marine reserves, many of which form the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System World Heritage Site," said Janet Gibson, Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Belize Program. "It's clear that no-take zones can help replenish the country's fisheries and biodiversity, along with the added benefits to tourism and even resilience to climate change."
According to past studies, the recovery of lobster, conch, and other exploited species within marine protected areas with no-take zones, or fully protected reserves, could take as little as 1-6 years. Full recovery of exploited species, however, could take decades.
"The report provides a valuable guide for Belize's marine managers and fishers," said Dr Caleb McClennen, Executive Director of WCS's Marine Program. "We also hope this effort will generate and sustain stakeholder support for these important regulatory tools."
Category: Science and Nature