text:
Northfield Laboratories Reports Results of Pivotal Phase III Trauma Study
- Details
- Category: Proteins and Peptides
- Published on Thursday, 24 May 2007 04:00
- Hits: 2591
EVANSTON, IL, USA | May 23, 2007 | Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLD) reported today results of its pivotal Phase III trauma trial with PolyHeme(R), its human hemoglobin-based oxygen-carrying red blood cell substitute. The trial was designed to seek an indication for use in the treatment of life-threatening red blood cell loss when transfusion is required and red blood cells are not available, not for use interchangeably with blood. This indication addresses a critical, unmet medical need.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was a dual superiority-noninferiority assessment of mortality at 30 days after injury. The margin to assess noninferiority, using the upper limit of the confidence interval, was set at 7% more than control. In the primary Modified Intent to Treat population, the upper limit was 7.65%. In the As Treated population, the upper limit was 7.06%. In the Per Protocol population, the upper limit was 6.29%.
Day 30 mortality was also a primary safety endpoint. Further analysis of the mortality data indicates that the difference in mortality at 30 days between patients who received PolyHeme beginning at the scene and continuing for up to 12 hours following injury, and control patients who received the standard of care, including early blood, was not statistically significant.
"The results of this study are best understood in the context of bleeding patients who do not have early access to blood transfusion," said Steven A. Gould, M.D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "47 million Americans live more than an hour away from a trauma center where blood is available. Mortality rates in that scenario would be considerably higher than those observed in the control patients in the urban setting of this trial, where transit times were relatively short. We believe that when our data are extrapolated to patients who need an oxygen carrier and have delayed access to blood, PolyHeme can play an important role in saving lives."
Conference Call
Northfield will hold a conference call today, Wednesday, May 23, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. EDT to discuss the results of the study. To participate in the call, investors may dial 866.770.7146 and reference the passcode 56877457. Investors may also access a live audio webcast at www.northfieldlabs.com; this will be archived for two weeks. A telephone replay will also be available for two weeks by dialing 888-286-8010 and entering the passcode 14789842.
Analysis Populations
The study protocol pre-specified multiple patient populations for analysis: the primary Modified Intent to Treat population (MITT); the As Treated population (AT); and the Per Protocol population (PP).
Efficacy Analysis
The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was a dual superiority-noninferiority assessment of mortality at 30 days after injury. A noninferiority endpoint requires the establishment of a relative margin around the control outcome. The margin to assess noninferiority in this study, using the upper limit of the confidence interval, was set at 7% more than control.
MITT Population
The MITT population is comprised of all 714 patients both randomized and treated. In this population, patients were analyzed as randomized, and not based on the actual treatment they received. There were 41 randomized patients in the study who received the incorrect treatment. Therefore, the 21 patients randomized to PolyHeme who did not receive any PolyHeme were analyzed in the PolyHeme group. Similarly, the 20 patients randomized to control who did receive PolyHeme were analyzed in the control group.
AT Population
The AT population is also comprised of all 714 patients both randomized and treated. However, in this population all patients were analyzed according to the treatment they actually received. Therefore, all patients who did receive PolyHeme were analyzed in the PolyHeme group, and all patients who did not receive any PolyHeme were analyzed in the control group. Although the AT population was pre-specified for safety rather than efficacy, it provides a meaningful opportunity to assess mortality as well.
PP Population
The PP population is comprised of the 586 patients both appropriately randomized and correctly treated. The PP population does not include 128 patients who had major protocol violations related to eligibility or treatment regimen. Since the PP patients were treated exactly as specified in the protocol, Northfield believes the PP population represents the clearest opportunity to assess a treatment effect.
In the primary MITT population, the upper limit of the confidence interval was 7.65%. In the AT population, the upper limit was 7.06%. In the PP population, the upper limit was 6.29%. The data are shown in Table 1.
PolyHeme Control Upper Limit
(deaths/N) % (deaths/N) %
------------------------- ---------- ----- ---------- ---- -----------
------------------------- ---------- ----- ---------- ---- -----------
------------------------- ---------- ----- ---------- ---- -----------
------------------------- ---------- ----- ---------- ---- -----------
Secondary efficacy endpoints of the study included Day 1 mortality (Table 2), the incidence of multiple organ failure, the use of donated blood through Day 1, and an analysis of mortality by the mechanism of injury (blunt versus penetrating trauma). The incidence of transfusion of donated blood was significantly lower in the PolyHeme group at 41% than the control group at 51% (p(less than or =)0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between PolyHeme and control patients for the other efficacy endpoints.
PolyHeme Control
(deaths/N) % (deaths/N) %
------------------------------------- ---------- ---- ---------- ----
------------------------------------- ---------- ---- ---------- ----
------------------------------------- ---------- ---- ---------- ----
------------------------------------- ---------- ---- ---------- ----
Safety Analysis
The primary safety endpoints in the study were Day 1 mortality, Day 30 mortality, and durable serious adverse events (SAEs). Durable serious adverse events were prospectively defined as SAEs which resulted in a "permanently disabling" outcome. There were two durable SAEs in each group. There was no statistically significant difference between the PolyHeme and control groups for any of these endpoints.
Additional Safety Data
All adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiac SAEs, and myocardial infarction (MI) were also analyzed. The overall incidence of AEs in the PolyHeme group of 93% (324 patients) was higher than that in the control group of 88% (322 patients), (p(less than or =)0.05). The most common AEs in both groups were: anemia, fever, and electrolyte imbalances. The overall incidence of SAEs in the study was 40% (141 patients) in the PolyHeme group and 35% (126 patients) in the control group (pgreater than or 0.05). The most common SAEs in both groups were: shock, pneumonia, and respiratory failure.
The incidence of cardiac AEs was 35% (123 patients) in the PolyHeme group and 29% (105 patients) in the control group (pgreater than0.05). The incidence of cardiac SAEs was 7% (23 patients) in the PolyHeme group and 4% (16 patients) in control (pgreater than0.05). The overall incidence of MI in the study as reported by investigators was 2%: eleven PolyHeme patients and three control patients (p(less than or =)0.05). Three PolyHeme patients and one control patient died.
The medical literature documents the difficulty of making an accurate diagnosis of MI in trauma patients for multiple reasons, including direct trauma to the chest. Myocardial infarction and myocardial ischemia are traditionally assessed by EKGs and the cardiac enzymes Troponin I and CK-MB, both of which can be altered by direct trauma. Approximately 75% of the patients in this study had abnormal EKGs or elevated cardiac enzymes. Because of the disparity between the low number of reported MIs and the high incidence of abnormal EKGs and elevated cardiac enzymes, Northfield has established an independent panel of cardiac experts to review the cardiac profiles of all 720 randomized patients in a blinded fashion to categorize MIs in the study.
"This was a seminal study. This summary represents our initial opportunity to explore the data on safety and efficacy in detail. We continue to believe there is a potential benefit to using PolyHeme in patients with delayed access to blood, whose expected mortality without oxygen-carrying replacement would be considerably greater," said Dr. Gould.
As the data have not been submitted to FDA, Northfield is preparing a detailed summary of the study data for submission to FDA for review.
About the Study
This randomized, controlled open-label, multi-center, active control pivotal Phase III study of 720 patients was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PolyHeme when used to treat patients in hemorrhagic shock following traumatic injuries beginning in the prehospital setting. Treatment began at the scene of injury, continued in the ambulance during transport, and for up to 12 hours post-injury or a total of 6 units. Patients then received donated blood if they continued to bleed. Patients in the control group received the standard of care: saline in the field and during transport, followed by blood upon arrival at the hospital. Thirty-two Level I trauma centers participated in the study, which was conducted to seek an indication for the use of PolyHeme that addresses a critical, unmet medical need: the unavailability of blood.
In December 2006, Northfield announced that it had received the preliminary draft top-line data from its contract research organization. Northfield indicated that due to certain discrepancies in the data identified during its initial review, it became necessary to resolve the discrepancies and unlock the study database to make any necessary corrections. The process has now been completed, the study database relocked, and the data reanalyzed. Northfield has also had the opportunity to further analyze the study data, including additional safety data. These data have not been submitted to or reviewed by FDA.
About Northfield Laboratories
Northfield Laboratories, Inc., is a leader in developing an oxygen-carrying red blood cell substitute for the treatment of life-threatening blood loss, when an oxygen-carrying fluid is required and red blood cells are not available. PolyHeme(R) is a solution of chemically modified human hemoglobin that requires no cross matching and is, therefore, compatible with all blood types. It has a shelf life in excess of 12 months. For further information, visit www.northfieldlabs.com.
Forward Looking Statement
This press release may contain forward-looking statements concerning, among other things, Northfield's future business plans and strategies and clinical and regulatory developments affecting our PolyHeme red blood cell substitute product. These forward-looking statements are identified by the use of such terms as "intends," "expects," "plans," "estimates," "anticipates," "should," "believes" and similar terms. These forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may therefore differ materially from those predicted by the forward-looking statements because of various factors and possible events, including the possibility that since the data from our Phase III clinical trial have not been submitted to, or reviewed by, FDA, they may not be sufficient to demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of PolyHeme, our ability to obtain FDA approval to market PolyHeme commercially, our ability to obtain priority review, the availability of capital to finance our clinical trials and ongoing business operations, our ability to obtain adequate supplies of raw materials and to manufacture PolyHeme in commercial quantities, our ability to market PolyHeme successfully, the possibility that competitors will develop products that will render PolyHeme obsolete or non-competitive, our ability to protect our intellectual property rights, the outcome of certain governmental inquiries and purported class action lawsuit as described in our most recently filed annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly report on Form 10-Q, the possibility that we may be subject to product liability claims and other legal actions, our dependency on a limited number of key personnel, the uncertainty of third party reimbursement for our product and other risks and uncertainties described from time to time in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our most recently filed annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly report on Form 10-Q. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release. We do not undertake any obligation to update or publicly release any revisions to forward-looking statements to reflect events, circumstances or changes in expectations after the time such statement is made. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to Northfield or any person acting on our behalf are qualified by this cautionary statement.
SOURCE: Northfield Laboratories Inc.


text:
The need for effective leaders in public and government institutions is critical for the implementation of the constant reforms and changes demanded of public organisations.
But attracting world class talent with the skills to lead within complex and politically charged organisations remains a constant battle throughout the world.
Learn more by reading our Executive Search for government departments, agencies and public bodies framework.
Follow us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Selena Gomez has been putting on a happy face in the wake of her recent breakup from on-again/off-again boyfriend Justin Bieber, but if her performance in New York this weekend is any indication, there's more to the situation than meets the eye. Taking the stage for a private concert benefiting UNICEF on Jan. 19, the 20-year-old singer made several cryptic references to moving on from an old relationship.
"I've been through a lot the past few months. It's been weird and sad and cool," she told the crowd before introducing an acoustic cover of Justin Timberlake's scorned lover's anthem "Cry Me a River." "This song definitely speaks to me."
Gomez didn't specifically mention Bieber, but a source at the event tells Us Weekly she "seemed so angry" during the song. (Incidentally, her ex performed the same tune in concert a few months ago.)
Prior to the show, however, the newly single Wizards of Waverly Place actress was all smiles as she spoke to reporters on the red carpet. And she seemed to light up when asked about her friendship with fellow starlet Taylor Swift.
"Taylor is one of the most inspirational, positive, good-hearted people I know," she gushed of her BFF, who recently went through a breakup of her own, with One Direction boy-bander Harry Styles. "I met her when she was 18…it was absolutely incredible to see someone so successful and so humble. I think she's been a big part of me staying who I am, too."
Gomez also discussed her risque role in the upcoming movie Spring Breakers, in which she plays one of four bikini-clad co-eds who rob a restaurant to pay for their spring break trip. "It's kind of been refreshing and nice for me to step out of my comfort zone and do things that I didn't think I could do as an actress," she said, noting that she had tried to warn her younger fans about the film.
The singer revealed that she was taking more risks offscreen, as well, particularly with her music. "I'm a little bit more mouthy [now]," she said of her new album. "I'm a little bit older. I've got a little more sass. [I'm] telling a lot more, too."
"Everything happens for a reason," she added mysteriously, "so enjoy every moment."


text:
Thank you for inviting me to join in this 40th anniversary of Common Cause. Your founder, John Gardner, profoundly influenced my life and I welcome this opportunity to share some memories of him. When we met in 1965 John Gardner was already very wise and I was still very young. I never grew younger but he kept growing wiser. The chief of the New York Times bureau in Washington, Scotty Reston, drawing (I later learned) on Emerson, told me, "Take John as your mentor and you'll see how to live the greatest number of good hours."
He was right.
As we worked together – John as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and I as a White House Assistant – I came to know well the man who built meaning into his life because he saw no other way to achieve it. Meaning doesn't come in the genes, he said—you compose it out of your own past, out of your own affections, out of the experience of human beings as it is passed on to you, out of the things you believe in, out of the values for which you are willing to sacrifice something. The ingredients are there, he said: You are the only person who can put them together in the unique pattern that will be your life.
One of my White House colleagues said of him, "He thinks like a saint." "No," Lyndon Johnson said, "he thinks like a good Republican. They're harder to find than saints. But one is all you need."
John was the one.
And he and Lyndon Johnson were the right two at the right time. Johnson: the intense, impetuous, impatient Democrat. Gardner: the reflective, righteous and resolute Republican. Both were radical middle of the roaders, who believed in widening the road into a broad highway so more people could travel it. When John joined the cabinet in 1965, he told us: "What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities, disguised as insoluble problems." He knew the score, and wasn't intimidated by it. He wouldn't be intimidated today in the midst of the largest special-interest-funded congressional campaign in our history. He would be outraged at all the dirty money pouring secretly into the political system, turning it into a sewer. And he would be engaged in trying to clean it up.
It was occasionally said that he was a romantic. After all, he had dropped out of Stanford intending to become a novelist, until he tried writing one. He got his PhD in psychology instead. He also enlisted in the Marine Corps during World War II, and Marines are seldom duped by illusions. His parents had separated before his birth and he never forgot the brokenness of things. He knew how broken the world is, but he believed in trying to mend it. He wasn't naïve about this. At his most eloquent, when he talked about the 'rebirth of a nation', he admitted that the notion might seem "wonderfully optimistic" but he quickly assured his audience that a successful rebirth of our country would involve severe labor pains. "We may howl with pain," he said, "before we do what needs to be done."
He also told us, "Don't pray for the day when we finally solve our problems. Pray for freedom to continue working on the problems that the future will never cease to throw at us."
I learned from him that the best way to live in the world is to imagine a more confident future and to get up every morning to do what you can to help bring it about. "Don't let the vast superstructure of civilization mislead you," he said, "Everything comes back to the talent and energy and sense of purpose of human beings."
One memorable summer evening we sat on the south lawn of the White House – just six of us: LBJ and Lady Bird, John and Aida Gardner, Judith and me, both of us barely thirty. I just listened – to the astute and wily politician who understood politics and to the agile and wise intellectual who understood policy. Both wanted the widest possible participation of the largest number of citizens in the affairs and fruits of democracy. However they arrived at it – and it must have had something to do with the rigors of their youth – they shared a philosophy that whatever things are good for some human beings are really good for all human beings – that the happy or good life is essentially the same for all: a satisfaction of the same needs inherent in human nature. In practice this meant acting on the conviction that what the richest parents in the country want for their children – the goods essential for life, liberty, and happiness – is what the poorest parents want for their children.
Looking back, I realize that in spirit they were social democrats, although no one used the term then. I am more convinced of this after reading the book Ill Fares the Land that the historian Tony Judt published before his untimely death this past August. Judt described a time when "the public" was no fiction and the word wasn't even a term of opprobrium. Public schools, public libraries, public parks, public highways, public goods and services were the means of creating a fair society for people who weren't rich. At its heart was an ethical compact without which society is a war of all against all and the free market for wolves becomes a slaughter for the lambs.
Guess where the historian Judt located the closest America came to that notion of social democracy? In Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Much of what was best in the legislation and social policy of the 20th century, he said, was social democracy in all but name.
We'll never know what might have blossomed from that era if the relationship between these two men had not been orphaned by war. LBJ appointed John to head H.E.W. on the very next day after announcing that he was sending ground troops to Vietnam. In the Rose Garden the president said to his new cabinet member, "Whatever happens in Vietnam, we'll not fail to pursue the Great Society." But two years later John went to the LBJ ranch in Texas to plead for larger appropriations for his programs. The president turned him down and instead cut even more from the budget as it was. Gardener responded with a muted anguish that pained the president. As they were about to get out of the car, LBJ put his arm around him and said, "Don't worry, John. We're going to end this damned war and then you'll have all the money you want for education and health and everything else."
It was not to be. In an emotional private meeting one year later, Gardner told the president he was resigning: "In an election year you deserve the total support of every cabinet member and a cabinet member who doesn't think you should run shouldn't be in the cabinet." Face to face, he said: "I believe you can no longer pull the country together."
That's the kind of man he was. He gave up his position but not his principles. He left the government but not the fight. And he founded Common Cause because he didn't want to sit on the sidelines. "Everybody's organized but the people," he said. "Now it's the citizen's turn."
Forty years later, here we are – that charge to us a presence in this room.
What might he think of the country today? I believe he would agree with Tony Judt: Ill Fares the Land. "The symptoms of collective impoverishment are all about us," Judt wrote. Bankrupt cities. Broken highways. Collapsing bridges. Failed Schools. In a succinct and compelling review of Judt's work in the current issue of Harper's magazine, Terry Eagleton – a professor at Notre Dame and the National University of Ireland – concludes that "much of what seems natural to us — privatization, inequalities, an obsession with wealth" — has emerged from the last three decades, and that public squalor is once again "the other face of private affluence."
The social-democratic climate that Judt thought so promising was remarkable, he said, for three features: how unprecedented it was, how quickly it came to seem plain common sense, and how abruptly it vanished from sight around 1980. The Vietnam War was over but its repercussions played out in politics. The conservative movement once embodied in Barry Goldwater found its new hero in Ronald Reagan and launched a campaign to bring back radical laissez-faire, when there was no social contract and all but the privileged and powerful were left to forage on their own. Well-organized forces backed by wealthy right-wingers rushed in to bring it about. Inspired by the fabulist Ayn Rand, infatuated with "Austrian" economics, spouting bumper sticker quotes lifted from Milton Friedman, propelled by cascades of cash from corporate chieftains like Coors and Koch and 'Neutron' Jack Welch, and fortified by the pious prescriptions of fundamentalist political preachers, the right marched on Washington, and succeeded brilliantly. Freedom in America would come to mean the freedom of the rich to buy the government they wanted and to write the rules to their advantage, even if it meant leaving millions of Americans behind. Advocates of "limited government" in rhetoric only, they were never really opposed to government, only to one that wouldn't tolerate their social Darwinism.
See for yourself. Read the literature. Start with A Time for Truth, the call to arms by Richard Nixon's treasury secretary, William Simon, the Wall Street wheeler-dealer. He argued that "funds generated by business" would have to "rush by multimillions" into right-wing causes in order to uproot the institutions and the "heretical" morality of the New Deal. He called for an "alliance" between right-wing ideologues and "men of action in the capitalist world" to mount a "veritable crusade" against everything brought forth by the long struggle for a progressive America. It would mean, as Business Week noted at the time, "that some people will obviously have to do with less…It will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more." But so be it.
A "bitter pill" was the least of it. This was class war ordered from the top down. Instead of creating a level playing field, government would become the agent of the powerful and privileged. Public institutions, laws and regulation, as well as the ideas, norms, and beliefs which aimed to protect the common good and helped to create America's iconic middle class, would now be greatly weakened and increasingly vulnerable to attack. The Nobel Laureate economist Robert Solow succinctly summed up the movement's agenda: "The redistribution of wealth in favor of the wealthy and of power in favor of the powerful."
But this was not what America was meant to be. America was not intended to be a country where the winner takes all. Our system of checks and balances – read The Federalist Papers –was meant to keep an equilibrium in how power works and for whom. The aristocrat De Tocqueville came here from France in the 1830s and marveled at the egalitarian spirit he found in the new country. As the economist Jeffrey Madrick reminds us, equitable access to public resources was the lifeblood of democracy. Americans made primary schooling free to all because, as Isabel Sawhill and Sara McLanahn write in The Future of Children, the American ideal of a classless society was "one in which all children have a roughly equal chance of success regardless of the economic status of the family into which they were born." Debtors, especially the relative poor, were protected by state law against rich creditors. Government encouraged Americans to own their own piece of land, and even supported squatters' rights. By the time I was a teenager, equal access to opportunity began to materialize for millions and upward mobility after World War II, aided and abetted by such government programs as the GI Bill, created the world's largest and most envied middle class. Incomes of the bottom 80% grew faster than the incomes of the top 1%, and those at the bottom grew most rapidly of all. This, at a time when the super-rich were taxed at a rate of 9l%. America was indeed becoming a shared project. Only four decades ago Robert Lampman, a key architect of anti-poverty programs, could argue that "the recent history of Western nations reveals an increasingly widespread adoption of the idea that substantial equality of social and economic conditions among individuals is a good thing."
Then the financial class revolted. No one's been more candid about it than the multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffett: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
John Gardner saw it coming. He foresaw what would happen to America's egalitarian spirit if the excesses of money in politics were not curbed.
He would nod knowingly but sadly today at the report that "thirty zip-codes in America have become fabulously wealthy while whole urban and rural communities are languishing in unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, growing insecurity and fear."
He would wince at reading The Economist, on the eve of President George W. Bush's second inauguration – well before the great collapse four years later – warning that the United States "risks calcifying into a European-style, class-based society."
He would be appalled by the political power exerted by a handful of financial titans not only to avoid the penalties that the 'free market' would have inflicted on them for their role in helping to wreck the economy, but to emerge, with taxpayer bailouts, to reap huge profits while 29 million unemployed and underemployed people struggle to make ends meet.
He would be sympathetic to the everyday people who turn out for Tea Party rallies to protest our failing institutions. Our institutions, after all, are failing, and why not oppose government if our political class has been bought off by the rich? I'll wager, however, that he would regard the movement itself as a Trojan horse for its secret bankrollers.
And he would be shocked by the activist reactionary majority on the Supreme Court that has opened the floodgates for oligarchs and plutocrats to secretly buy our elections and consolidate their hold on the corporate state. One of the greatest of our Supreme Court justices, Louis Brandeis, warned that "you can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both." The pro-corporate Roberts majority looked at both options and declared, 'OK. We'll take the former."
The founder of Common Cause was a prophet in seeing money as the dagger directed at the heart of democracy. Like his fellow Republican Teddy Roosevelt, he opposed the 'naked robbery' of the public's trust. A century ago, in one of the most powerful speeches in American political history, Roosevelt said: "It is not a partisan issue; it is more than a political issue; it is a great moral issue. If we condone political theft, if we do not resent the kinds of wrong and injustice that injuriously affect the whole nation, not merely our democratic form of government but our civilization itself cannot endure."
Democracy in America has been a series of narrow escapes, and we may be running out of luck. The most widely shared assumption of our journey as Americans has been the idea of progress, the belief that the present is 'better' than the past and things will keep getting better in the future. No matter what befalls us – we keep telling ourselves – 'the system works.'
All bets are now off. The great American experiment in creating a different future together has come down to the worship of individual cunning in the pursuit of wealth and power, with both political parties cravenly subservient to Big Money. The result is an economy that no longer serves ordinary men and woman and their families. This, I believe, accounts for so much of the profound sense of betrayal in the country, for the despair about the future. As Gabriel says in James Weldon Johnson's epic Green Pastures: "Everything that's tied down is coming loose." America as a shared project is shattered, leaving us increasingly isolated in our separate realities.
John Gardner would understand this dark reading of our gross national psychology. The workings of the human psyche were his field of study. But the Marine Corps, remember, was his finishing school, and Semper Fidelis his personal code. So I will close with his own words, as relevant today as ever:
We are treading the edge of a precipice here….There is a disconnection between the people and their leaders. Citizens do not trust their government. And a variety of polls indicate that this mistrust extends to corporations and the media. People do not feel they have must control of their lives, and the sense of impotence grows like a great life-endangering tumor. Civilizations die of disenchantment. If enough people doubt their society, the whole venture falls apart. We must never let anger, fashionable cynicism, or political partisanship blur our vision of this point.
We must not despair of the Republic.
There, fellow celebrants, is the call. The only way to defeat organized money is with organized people. Now it's your turn.


text:
HR 2764. (Fiscal 2008 state and foreign operations appropriations), Boxer of California amendment to repeal a statute that bars international aid groups that perform or promote abortions from receiving federal funds/On the amendment
senate Roll Call 319 Sep 06, 2007
Member's Vote
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)
This vote was on an amendment that would overturn a policy in place for most of the past 20 years that bars federal funds from going to any organization in a foreign country that performs or promotes abortion services – often referred to as the "Mexico City policy." Long a Democratic priority to remove the policy, President Clinton had repealed it during his administration, only to see it reinstated by President Bush in 2001 through an executive order. The amendment, by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was offered to the bill that funds U.S. foreign operations, such as peacekeeping initiatives and HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
Boxer argued that this policy hamstrings women's rights and public health groups in foreign countries that try to provide family planning choices, or that lobby foreign governments over inadequate health policies. Boxer said many of these organizations find themselves "gagged" when it comes to speaking out about issues of health and women's rights, because they are afraid to lose U.S. funds for their other initiatives.
"Colleagues, I wish to tell you a story, a compelling story of what happened in Nepal in 2001. A little 13-year-old girl was raped in Nepal by her uncle. A family member took her for an abortion. Under the laws of Nepal, they sentenced that little girl to 20 long years in jail. Because a family planning agency helped her and because that family planning agency in Nepal, an NGO, spoke out on behalf of changing the laws that put a little girl in jail and let the uncle free, America withheld its funds. That is shameful. It is wrong. Please help me overturn this Mexico City global gag rule."
Many progressive also chafe at the idea that a moral objection to abortion services or information about family planning should be enshrined in U.S. law, particularly in poor countries where information about sex education and contraceptives are minimal.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that rescinding the policy would lead to U.S. funds being used to perform abortions in foreign countries, and that as a result the number of abortions would spike. "We won't support groups that fund abortions overseas. You can be pro-choice and say: I think that makes sense, because I don't think we should use taxpayer funding to support abortion or to promote abortion policies overseas. We should let them decide this deeply moral subject that is a very difficult subject in our country, let alone in places around the world," Brownback said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the conservative argument that taxpayer money could be used to fund abortions if this policy were lifted is a straw man. "Our law explicitly prohibits any U.S. funds from being used for abortion or to promote abortion," Leahy said. But he added that the Mexico City policy goes further because it prohibits federal money from supporting private family planning organizations that provide information or advice about abortions, or to advocate for safe abortion practices. "If we tried to impose the Mexico City policy on any family planning organization within our borders, it would violate the first amendment. But we impose it on those same organizations when they work overseas beyond the reach of our Constitution," Leahy said.
Some Republicans also have expressed reservations because the White House has threatened to veto any piece of legislation that contains a provision lifting the policy, as well as a blanket veto threat against any measure that weakens current pro-life policies.
"There's no point in getting the bill vetoed on this issue," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.. "I'm a little surprised that the Democratic majority has decided to reopen it."
The amendment was adopted 53-41 on a close, mostly party line vote, with just a handful of defectors. Seven Republicans voted yes, of whom three are women – Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. One Democrat voted no – Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who opposes abortion in most instances. He was also the only Democratic senator who voted against expanding stem cell research in 2006.
Issue Areas:
|Key: Y=Yea, N=Nay, W=Win, L=Loss


text:
Greetings! Oh what a week, are you caught up in the pre-Thanksgiving scramble? Juggle juggle, balance, multitask, and a little more juggling, right? Whew! I'm looking forward to next week's down time, just to sit around with family and friends, bake pies, peel potatoes, sample wines, and eat eat eat. And maybe do some more eating.
Announcing the 3 winners of the Purple Lemon Designs giveaway! Congratulations to:
#22: Kristin "Love the Medium Circles-n-Circles, which could be used all year round. I just moved to a new home so this would be great!"
#624: Shirley L. "I shared on Twitter (I am @willowwhimsy)"
#748: Layla O.: "Oh I want one of these and was bummed not to have won last time, maybe this time. The wrought iron scroll would be great but any is fine by me."
A few hardworking DIY readers have sent me some fabulous makeovers, take a peek:
I'm loving this master bedroom makeover at The Painted Hive. What a clever and beautiful headboard!
Diane creatively reinvented this side table cart, I love her modern design!
Nicole was tired of the honey tones on her table so she picked some favorite paint and fabric and simply reinvented the set!
Christy teaches you how to make your own box pleat valance right here.
Natalie from Jacksonville sent me a picture of this charming ottoman. It was honey wood before with an awful 80s check pattern, but not any more, so pretty!
Noelle F. from St. Louis sent in this revamp. With a cracked door, Noelle opted for paint instead of stain on her giant armoire. She created her own stencil from a pattern she fell in love with on a Target gift bag!
Here's a few Favorite Finds, perhaps you'll enjoy them too.
Camila's review of the new online mags is spot on.
Kelly found the most perfect girl pillow ~ now I want one too!
Who would have thought a peel & stick wood floor could look this good?
New mom Katie's letter to herself to stop freaking out and embrace motherhood.
Michelle gives us her best tool for narrowing down Craigslist favorites with Craigeasy!
Finally, if ever there was a 'cut and paste' job that I wanted to do when I comes to holiday decorations in my home, well this Style At Home feature couldn't be more me.
Blues, greens, creams, mixed metallics, swoon. Do you ever see a space and wonder how could one stylist possibly capture your entire vision for your holiday home in one singular image?
Exhibit A
Like I said, can I just 'cut and paste' ? That would make my holiday decorating so much easier.
See the entire series of inspiring pics over at Style at Home.
Have a lovely fall day!!


text:
Do we need a new Star Trek TV series? Yes — with the present vacuum of big-ticket scifi and adventure shows, a new, Federation-centric Trek series could rule the ratings.
Hollywood has had a thing for remakes lately. This weekend alone will see new adaptations of The Karate Kid and The A-Team. We've already had Nightmare on Elm Street and silly Clash of the Titans. The Birds, Child's Play and Footloose are all in the works.
It's irritating and tiresome that Hollywood feels so overwhelmingly nostalgic. But if they can't help themselves, I suggest that take a recent reproduction, Star Trek, and spin it back to television.
I would never call myself a Trekkie. I was a comic book nerd, yes, but not sufficiently geeky to wander into outer space.
In fact, I'm still not sure I've seen Star Wars from original start to original finish. Star Trek: The Next Generation, however, proved to be the exception.
Perhaps it was the technology, or the compelling, storylines. Perhaps it was Captain Picard with his sultry, philosophical ways. Whatever the reason, Next Generation remained a secret pleasure for at least a few of my adolescent years. It's still a favorite, and recently I've found myself recording episodes and thinking, "They could do this again."
The televisual grounds are fertile for a new Trek installment. With Lost, 24 and Ugly Betty all off the air, and Sci-Fi smash Battlestar Galactica's cultural influence ebbing, viewers will be hungry for compelling action, adventure and romance. And space presents endless possibilities. But what would be appealing to people who have fond Trek memories, although aren't rabid fans? The people like me [men 19-49] who can bring in big ratings? I asked some of my peers that exact question.
A new series would need to address timely, relevant questions. How does the Utopia-esque Federation of Planets incorporate its globes and colonies? How do you balance innate cultures with the Federation's lofty ideals? "Star Trek is all about finding new cultures and, when possible, adding them to the Federation," wondered my friend Teelin. "In the stories it always is a good thing, but in reality whenever that happens we force religion and bring smallpox." The Federation would become the European Union of a fictionalized future.
Another pal, Ben agreed on this possible plot, but did us one better. "Yeah, your direction is kind of interesting," he said, "but it could even be broadened to have a sort of Law and Order type plot. The ship goes out to bring new worlds into the Federation, and/or addresses interstellar crime and punishment." The crew and viewer are then forced to address a moral, possibly even serialized, dilemma decorated in top-notch Sci-Fi accoutrements. What could be better?
Plus, there are loads of angles writers could take with the Federation's "prime directive," a political philosophy that forbids member "states" from getting involved in other planet's domestic affairs. It's kind of like today's Westphalian sovereignty, only on a larger scale, and not as endangered.
Okay, so now we're onto something. But one of the most complicated plot problems when approaching a franchise is when. That Terminator reboot, which I gave a fair shot, had a few problems with chronology, and Star Trek's collective time line gets more than a little convoluted. The newest movie introduced time travel, a device that doesn't necessarily translate well to television. Case-in-point: Heroes, where even the characters couldn't keep track of their respective eras.
To solve time-related conundrums, this new fantasy Trek can take place around the time of last chronological installment, Star Trek: Voyager, which ended in 2378, only 8 television years after Next Generation. According to my data, Captain, some kind of Cold War has been brewing, a perfect way to slip in the intergalactic political angle. Patrick Stewart could even make a return as Picard to add some street cred and gravitas, like Jennie Garth on the new 90210, and then a fresh cast can take the helm. Oh, wait… the Cast.
Of course the biggest hurdle to a new Trek would be the movie version itself. The producers want to build the mega-hit into a franchise complete with hot young stars and even hotter contracts. Is it feasible, or even legal, for television franchise owner CBS to support a small screen Trek team, while Paramount, which owns the movie franchise, simultaneously promotes their own actors?
Business aspects aside, with the movie installments so far apart – the next one won't hit until 2012 – and the potential storylines happening at either end of the fictional timeline, there aren't too many insurmountable hurdles, not even market saturation, to prevent a successful TV launch. It's totally feasible to capitalize on a franchise with fresh blood and endless possibilites. Just think about it, Hollywood, because the Star Trek story could – and should – live on indefinitely, and not just as a summer blockbuster.
This post originally appeared on Death and Taxes. Image via zoomar's Flickr.


text:
The telescope is an optical instrument made with lenses and mirrors which shows magnified views of distant objects. The invention of the refracting telescope (or "spyglass") is usually credited to Hans Lippershey. When Galileo Galilei encountered the spyglass, he made himself a much more powerful one, and was the first person in history to make detailed recorded observations of the objects in the nighttime sky.
Galileo discovered lights that went back and forth around the planet Jupiter, which we now know as the four largest moons of Jupiter. These can seen by anyone with a pair of modern binoculars; they usually look like three or four stars that are close to Jupiter and all lined up in a straight line. This discovery was important because at the time philosophers and theologians believed that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth. They believed that the geocentric design reflected the will of God.
The simplest telescopes (e.g., the kind Galileo worked with) are built with two lenses in a tube (see Refraction).
- Most of the history of astronomical telescopes has been dominated by either Keplerian refractors or Cassegrainian reflectors. The Cassegrain telescope was proposed by a priest. The Keplerian telescope was first proposed by Johannes Kepler, but first built by the Catholic priest, Christopher Scheiner. [1]
During the twentieth century, astronomers built huge telescopes. Some of the most famous in the United States are:
- the Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton near San Jose, California;
- the Yerkes Observatory in the resort area on the shore of Lake Geneva in Wisconsin;
- the Mount Palomar Observatory near San Diego, California;
- the Keck Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
- the Hubble Space Telescope in Earth orbit.


text:
Bron-Bron is all grown up. And it shows.
Four years ago, LeBron James orchestrated one of the most selfish television events of this century, arrogantly telling the world he was taking his talents to South Beach and incurring the wrath of a nation. A No. 23 James jersey was burned on Cleveland Street, and Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert characterized LeBron's "Decision" as a "cowardly betrayal.'' LeBron Hate ruled the day.
Today LeBron is loved throughout the land, especially in Cleveland. He is taking his talents to Lake Erie. He is the Prodigal Son, returning home to protect the rim.
This time, LeBron did it with class. He released a thoughtful, eloquent letter on Sports Illustrated.com, announcing his move back to the Cavaliers, writing, "I always believed that I'd return to Cleveland and finish my career there . . . This is what makes me happy . . . What's most important for me is bringing one trophy back to Northeast Ohio.''
I have no idea how much help LeBron might have had with this missive. It doesn't matter. Many of John F. Kennedy's speeches were scripted by Ted Sorensen. The thoughts are what matter and LeBron's message is one that even Miami fans should understand and allow:
Ich Bin Ein Clevelander.
How do you rip a guy who wants to go home? Going home is a primary instinct. LeBron has always been part Michael Jordan, part Wilt Chamberlain. Now he is part Thornton Wilder, part Garrison Keillor. He is Dorothy in ruby red Nikes. There's no place like Cleveland.
Making this story even better, LeBron is going home to godforsaken Cleveland. Who does that? Think Art Modell would go back to Cleveland? Bill Belichick? Manny Ramirez?
F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American life. Everybody says they'll never go back to Cleveland.
On Basketball: James's latest decision has ripple effects
There is nothing like this in the annals of American sports. At 29, James is already one of the top 10 players in the history of basketball, possibly a top-fiver, and he has a chance to be the best ever. He is the most famous athlete in the land and he has opted out of Miami Beach for the concrete and despair of Cleveland. After abandoning his friends and neighbors, he is coming home in an effort to give the fans of Cleveland something they have not experienced in a full half century: a championship.
There have been no championship Duck Boats on the Cuyahoga River since Lyndon Johnson was president. The last time Cleveland won a championship in any major sport was when Jim Brown toted the rock for the Cleveland Browns in 1964.
The Browns were beaten by John Elway's Drive in 1987 and Earnest Byner's fumble in '88. Like LeBron, the franchise left Cleveland, inspiring heartbreak and hatred. The Browns, owned by Modell, bolted after the 1995 season, then came back as an expansion team in 1999. The Cleveland Indians last won a World Series in 1948. They couldn't win the Series in '54 when they went 111-43 during the regular season. The Tribe blew it again in the 1997 World Series when Jose Mesa couldn't close it out against the Florida Marlins. The Cavs have never won anything and totally imploded after the Celtics shocked them in the 2010 playoffs — LeBron's first, last stand.
LeBron's move will have ripple effects throughout the NBA. Other stars will follow. There will be blockbuster trades and free agent signings. This might even affect the Celtics and Danny Ainge's pursuit of Minnesota star forward Kevin Love.
But it's not about NBA rosters or championship odds at this moment. It's about a once-in-a-generation talent who began his professional career with his hometown team and jilted that team in the worst manner possible, only to return four years later with an announcement that was contrite, heartfelt, and humble. He has brought hope to the hopeless.
"Before anyone ever cared where I would play basketball, I was a kid from Northeast Ohio,'' LeBron wrote. "It's where I walked. It's where I ran. It's where I cried. It's where I bled. It holds a special place in my heart. People there have seen me grow up. I sometimes feel like I'm their son. The passion can be overwhelming. But it drives me. I want to give them hope when I can. My relationship with Northeast Ohio is bigger than basketball. I didn't realize that four years ago. I do now.''
These are cynical times, but I am buying LeBron's message. It was hard to root for him when he played for the Miami Heat, but it's easy to root for him now. He is already infinitely wealthy and famous. He's won a couple of championships. He could have gone anywhere, but he has chosen to go home to Cleveland.
How are you going to hate him now?
More LeBron James coverage:
• LeBron James to return to Cavaliers
• Danny Ainge had no rooting interest in James' decision
• Celtics scored big in trade that helped Cavaliers acquire James
Dan Shaughnessy is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com. Follow him on Twitter @dan_shaughnessy.


text:
Designed by DeRouen & Co. | Country: United States
"Intuition Ale Works of Jacksonville was just ending a very successful first year (during which its customers could only buy its beer on tap), when owner and head brewer, Ben Davis approached Texas-based DeRouen & Co. with his vision of being the first Florida craft brewery to package beer in cans. Long associated with college kids and bad beer, canning beer actually provides better taste quality and is better for the environment. DeRouen worked closely with Davis to develop packaging that extends the brand and evokes their handmade and sophisticated personality. I-10 West Coast, represented by a cross-country interstate, speaks to Davis's connection with the beach lifestyle on the East and West coasts; Jon Boat Coastal conveys the joy of fishing (with a fresh, cold beer in hand) in the coastal waters around Jacksonville; and The People's Pale Ale label represents the demand for a great American-style pale ale."


text:
Apparently a number of Washington Pundits had a meeting and achieved consensus among themselves that Chuck Hagel's performance in his confirmation hearing to be secretary of defense was bad.
Personally, I don't think that we should defer to the Washington Pundits on this. These are the kind of people who assured us that invading Iraq would be a great idea. Now, I'm not saying that people who claimed that invading Iraq would be a great idea shouldn't be allowed to publicly express their opinions relating to foreign and military policy. That would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. That would be wrong. But if it were general journalistic policy to always identify them as supporters of the Iraq war whenever they talk about anything that relates to foreign policy or the military, the same way we put warning labels on hazardous chemicals, I wouldn't see any legitimate objection to that.
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post informs us that Hagel was "just plain bad," although "it almost certainly won't keep him from becoming the next man to lead the Pentagon."
Let's stop right there. Isn't that a contradiction? If Hagel gets confirmed, doesn't that mean that in the hearing, he did what he had to do? If he did what he had to do, was his performance "just plain bad"?
What was Hagel's main task in the confirmation hearing?
Wasn't Hagel's main task to avoid saying anything that would give any Senator a reason or excuse to vote against his confirmation? In particular, wasn't it to avoid saying anything that contradicts current administration policy or that might unnecessarily put the Democratic senators and reasonable Republican senators who are expected to vote for his confirmation – people like Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand – in a politically awkward position? Whatever one may think of Schumer and Gillibrand otherwise, they're playing on the Hagel team now. Wasn't it part of Hagel's task to protect all the players on the Hagel team, by avoiding unnecessarily saying things or behaving in a way that would make their vote for his confirmation politically more difficult?
If Hagel is confirmed as secretary of defense, as people in Washington overwhelmingly expect, doesn't that mean that he successfully completed his assigned task?
Wasn't part of Hagel's task to show that he will have no problem acting publicly as a loyal lieutenant to President Obama? Doesn't one want from a loyal lieutenant that he stay focused on the assigned task, keeping his cool even as arrows rain down upon him?
Now let's consider Cillizza's main evidence that Hagel performed poorly.
"This exchange with his one-time friend John McCain over Iraq was typical of how poorly Hagel fared in the give and take of the day," Cillizza writes.
There follows a video clip of the exchange between McCain and Hagel about the Iraq surge.
But if you watch The Washington Post's video clip, here's what you see. First, McCain gives a long, nasty rant about Hagel, full of insults. (Nice way to treat someone you once called "brother.") Then, when Hagel tries to answer McCain's question, McCain keeps interrupting him, talking over him and refusing to let him answer. Finally, Hagel is allowed to answer, but here The Washington Post video clip cuts off, so you don't get to see what Hagel's actual answer was. According to The Washington Post, apparently, Hagel's actual answer to the question wasn't part of the "exchange" between McCain and Hagel. The "exchange" was the part where McCain interrupted Hagel and wouldn't let him answer.
What exactly was Hagel supposed to do differently during this "exchange"? Capitulate to McCain and agree with McCain's insistence that he give a "yes or no" answer to the question of whether the Iraq surge "succeeded"? Or was he supposed to try to shout over McCain in order not to be interrupted? What would you have done, assuming that your primary goal was to get confirmed? Which choice by Hagel was consistent with the task of keeping a calm demeanor under fire?
Now, some people claim that Hagel looked bad because he walked back previous positions.
There are two separate issues to understand here.
The first is understanding what any cabinet nominee would have to do if challenged on a discrepancy between a past statement about policy and the administration's current position. The nominee would have exactly one choice, which is to walk to the current administration policy. Every serious hierarchical organization in the world is like this: You join the team, you have to publicly defend the team line. In private, you're a member of the advisory committee, and you argue for your views. But in public, you're true to your school.
As an illustration that this is the normal state of the world: I was once interviewed for a job as a union organizer. During my interview, I was asked a question about my opinion on prison expansion. This union represented prison guards, among many other kinds of workers, and they had a position in support of prison expansion. I said: I understand why you have this position. Personally I am opposed to prison expansion, and if you hire me, I would prefer not to have anything to do with that, but in any event, if you hire me, I won't do anything publicly that contradicts the union's line. I got the job. I wasn't going to be working with prison guards. They just needed to know that as a union employee, I wasn't going to publicly contradict the union's line. That's the way it works in a private interview. If it had been a public interview, I would have had to say something different.
This especially stuck out in Hagel's case because some Republicans decided to make a huge spectacle of it. Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton also had a record of statements differing from the policies of the administration when they joined it; they also had to walk to the administration's positions. The difference was that in those cases no one made a huge fuss about it. No one looks particularly elegant when they are making this walk.
The second issue to understand is the distinction between matters of principle and rhetorical flourishes.
Was Hagel's task to give a spirited and passionate defense of his past colorful and blunt descriptions of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians or of the behavior of some Washington lobbyists who agitate to bring US policy into compliance with the preferences of Benjamin Netanyahu?
When Senator Lee asked Hagel whether he stood by his past characterization of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, in which he used the colorful and blunt phrase, "keep Palestinians caged up like animals," was Hagel supposed to double down? Should he have said, "Well, Senator, some would say the analogy was unfair to people who keep animals in cages. I mean, you wouldn't let a caged animal die at a military checkpoint for want of medical care."
That would no doubt have been psychologically and emotionally satisfying to many viewers.
Would it have helped or hurt Hagel in the main task of getting confirmed as Secretary of Defense?
Now, some people who weren't paying close attention may have gotten the impression that when Hagel walked back rhetorical flourishes, he walked back issues of principle.
Indeed, in an editorial calling for Hagel's confirmation by the Senate, The New York Times wrote that Hagel allowed himself to "back off on some positions, like his concern for Palestinians." Perhaps the Times wrote this because Hagel walked back the "keep Palestinians caged up like animals" quote.
A transcript of the hearing is here. I challenge anyone to show in the transcript where Hagel "backed off on his concern for Palestinians," if we distinguish, as all pragmatic people must (and that's the only kind of opinion we should take seriously in this case), between walking back rhetoric and walking back substance.
Indeed, consider the following exchange between Senator Lee and Secretary of Defense-designate Chuck Hagel on the very subject of sympathy for the Palestinians:
SENATOR MIKE LEE (R-Utah): On April 12th, 2002, there was a Palestinian terrorist who detonated a bomb in downtown Jerusalem, killing six Israelis and wounding, I believe, about a hundred others. On that day, while you were still serving in the US Senate, you gave a speech on the Senate floor. You made a couple of comments that I'd like to discuss with you and ask you a little bit about.
In one segment of the speech, you said: We understand Israel's right to defend ourself – itself. We're committed to that. We've helped Israel defend that right. We will continue to do so. But it should not be at the expense of the Palestinian people, innocent Palestinian people and innocent Israelis who are paying a high price.
Some who have read that have reacted with concern that this may be indicative of a feeling on your part that there might be some moral equivalency between, on the one hand, Israel's exercise of its right to defend itself and, on the other hand, Palestinian terrorism. Do you believe that there is a moral equivalency between these two things?
CHUCK HAGEL: No, absolutely not, Senator.
SENATOR LEE: Do you understand how others might read this statement in such a way that could leave them with that impression?
MR. HAGEL: I do.
SENATOR LEE: And you – how do you respond to it? In other words, do Palestinians – let's say those Palestinians who have engaged in acts of terrorism, perhaps in retaliation against Israel for Israel defending itself, do they have a legitimate gripe?
MR. HAGEL: Well, terrorism can never be justified under any circumstances. And . . .
SENATOR LEE: But is their grievance legitimate?
MR. HAGEL: The Palestinians?
SENATOR LEE: Yeah, the Palestinians who decide to strap a bomb onto themselves and detonate it or otherwise engage in acts of terror. Do they have a legitimate grievance that they're expressing?
MR. HAGEL: Well, they have grievances. A lot of people have grievances, but . . .
SENATOR LEE: Are those grievances legitimate?
MR. HAGEL: . . . but not a justification for terrorism and killing innocent people. Never.
SENATOR LEE: Are they on par with the grievances that innocent Israelis have when they become the victims of violent acts?
MR. HAGEL: I don't think you can judge, whether it's Israelis or Palestinians or anybody in the world, in separating innocent victims of terrorism.
SENATOR LEE: Well, I think you can in some circumstances, can't you? I mean –
MR. HAGEL: Not victims.
SENATOR LEE: For heaven's sakes, though – OK, maybe not victims, but can't you, and indeed, must you not judge when it comes to one group of people who may at least be willing to recognize the other group of people's right to exist?
MR. HAGEL: Absolutely. In fact, I'm clearly on the record on that point, on – in fact, in 2006 there was the anti-Palestinian terrorist act that I voted for, and there were a number of other resolutions, acts, votes, speeches I've made. In my book I have said unequivocally, Hezbollah, Hamas, specifically, they must renounce terrorism, and first they must accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland, respect the borders, protect the borders. Absolutely I made that very clear.
What happened in this exchange? In clarifying that terrorism can never be justified, Hagel said exactly what he had to say. But in defending the principle that you can't separate innocent Israeli and Palestinian victims, Hagel didn't give an inch. In fact, it was Senator Lee who had to give ground, conceding that in considering victims, one cannot morally distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians.
And this is about as close as you can come to a pure test of character in Washington. Because everyone knows that there is absolutely zero political price to be paid in Washington for throwing the Palestinians under the bus. If someone presses you to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you know that political expediency says: Go ahead. There's no price to be paid for this. There's no one who'd like to punish you for it politically who has the capacity to do so.
There is exactly one reason and one reason only not to throw the Palestinians under the bus in Washington, and that is that throwing the Palestinians under the bus is not the act of a righteous man. And that's why Chuck Hagel didn't do it.
Now tell me again how Hagel flubbed his hearing. I'm thinking that maybe some of the people saying this don't follow these issues very closely.
If you agree with The New York Times that the Senate should move quickly to confirm Senator Hagel, you can raise your voice here.
Briefly, we wanted to update you on where Truthout stands this month.
To be brutally honest, Truthout is behind on our fundraising goals for the year. There are a lot of reasons why. We're dealing with broad trends in our industry, trends that have led publications like Vice, BuzzFeed, and National Geographic to make painful cuts. Everyone is feeling the squeeze of inflation. And despite its lasting importance, news readership is declining.
To ensure we stay out of the red by the end of the year, we have a long way to go. Our future is threatened.
We've stayed online over two decades thanks to the support of our readers. Because you believe in the power of our work, share our transformative stories, and give to keep us going strong, we know we can make it through this tough moment.
We've launched a campaign to raise $35,000 in the next 4 days. Please consider making a donation today.


text: If you're graduating from college as a member of the Class of 2014 and you haven't already begun your job search - or already landed a position to start after you graduate - you may be at a disadvantage.Much like the "early admission" process at the beginning of your college days, expressing early interest in a profession, company and a role can give you an edge over the competition, says Rick Gillis, an author, career consultant and resume expert.Ahead of the Tech Jobs Curve"Estimates vary, but I'd say there's about a million and a half new graduates every year -- from community colleges to career certificates to Bachelor's degrees to Ph.D.s.," Gillis says. "The job market gets flooded and with every passing semester even more competition enters the market. Getting your resume and your search out in front of the crowd gives you an advantage," he says.\n\n{Related: Top Starting Salaries for College Technology Majors]\n\nMark O'Toole, managing director of public relations and content marketing for HB Agency says as an employer, he'd encourage any college graduate to begin their search as early as possible to gain an advantage. In fact, he says, his firm began searching to fill an open position early this year, and has already made an offer to a candidate who'll be graduating later this spring. "You must present yourself as a candidate who is on the cutting edge of technology and skills, because you've been using them very recently." -- Rick Gillis "The woman we've hired applied with our firm early, and took time over her spring break to meet with us and interview," he says. The candidate stood out for his agency because of her early application, and because she was willing to make the effort before others in her class, he says."Because she showed such interest and initiative, we were able to spend much more time with her and really be sure she was the right fit for the role, rather than during the late spring timeframe when we get bombarded with resumes, candidates and interviews," he says.The Early Bird Gets the Best CandidateAnd it's not just candidates who are beginning their job searches before diplomas are even handed out; many organizations begin the recruiting, screening and hiring process almost a full year in advance when looking to fill entry-level roles, says Dan Black, Americas director of recruiting for EY (formerly known as Ernst & Young)."Sooner is really better; especially in the professional services sector, where we operate, most of the folks in our industry do the bulk of campus recruiting in the fall," Black says. "We do virtually all of our hiring based on the efforts from the previous year, so when spring comes the job market and the number of available openings can be anemic," Black says. \n[Related: What to Look for When Hiring Social Media Tech Talent in 2014]Black says EY starts the process so early because many other competitors began to recruit earlier and earlier; "& identifying and hiring top talent is so competitive, we want to get to them first," he says.It's a Good Time to Be GraduatingThe outlook for 2014 graduates is bright, says Black. Ernst & Young, LLP, the US member firm of the global EY organization, is looking to recruit about 7,200 "campus recruits" for both internships and full-time positions in fiscal 2014, which means the firm isn't just back to pre-recession hiring levels, it's exceeding those.And the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), of which Black is president of the board, reported last fall that employers expect to hire approximately 7.8 percent more new college grads from the class of 2014 for their U.S. operations than they did from the class of 2013, he says.Even if you haven't begun your job search, there are a number of ways you can prepare for entry into the job market, says Black. An internship opportunity is always a great way to gain on-the-job experience and work with potential future employers, he says, and an internship may well turn into an offer for full-time employment."We convert 90 percent of our interns to full-time hires," Black says. "We see internships exploding across our industry and more and more companies are using these types of programs with college students," he says.How to Prepare: Tap Social MediaEven if you haven't participated in an internship program, making sure your social media presence is up-to-date, polished and professional is also crucial during a job search, says Gillis."LinkedIn is a huge advantage, especially for college graduates or potential graduates," Gillis says. "If you're establishing a presence there, it shows a level of professionalism and tech savvy that's enticing for employers," he says.Gillis adds that new college graduates without much relevant work experience aren't necessarily at a great disadvantage when looking for jobs if they know how to highlight their strengths and their knowledge. New college grads are often far more aware of and skilled with cutting edge technologies and best practices than even more seasoned, experienced job-seekers, and that can an advantage, too, he says."You must present yourself as a candidate who is on the cutting edge of technology and skills, because you've been using them very recently," Gillis says. One of Gillis' clients, in fact, was a new graduate with a landscape architecture degree in the middle of the 2008 housing slump, and felt his job prospects were grim. But by emphasizing his newly minted education and his familiarity with cutting-edge design tools, he landed a job quickly, Gillis says."The firm was run and staffed by older, less tech-savvy employees, and [was] impressed by his knowledge and experience with some of the latest and greatest design and tech-based tools," Gillis said. "He was able to show them how he could improve their practice and generate revenue using these, and so even during a housing slump, he got the job," he says.EY's Black advises potential graduates to get involved with available career resources and to continually make contact with on-campus recruiting efforts and events, because networking is such an important part of landing a job, he says."Don't underestimate the importance of being connected to career resources on campus, and get involved in the events and offerings from companies at your school," Black says. "The campus recruiting folks are very involved with and invested in what's happening on campus, and so you should attend events, meet and network with company representatives and make sure your name and your resume is out there," Black says. If graduates make themselves and their interest known, they become recognizable, and more than just a name on a page. And that could give them an edge when it comes to interviewing and, eventually, hiring, Black says.HB Agency's O'Toole adds that graduates shouldn't be deterred by their lack of real-world job experience, since most recruiters and hiring managers are fully aware that entry-level candidates won't have the same skills and experience as a seasoned, older professional."It's unscientific, but the majority of hiring managers I've spoken to over the course of my career have an understanding that these candidates are coming in with minimal experience after four years of college," O'Toole says. "At this level, it's more about proving that they can be professional, mature, and will fit into the corporate culture and be willing to learn new skills on the job," he says.So, Class of 2014 - don't wait. Start your job search as soon as possible, O'Toole says, "because you might get the job before others who wait until later."And Class of 2015, it's never too soon to start.Sharon Florentine covers IT careers and data center topics for CIO.com. Follow Sharon on Twitter @MyShar0na. Email her at email@example.com Follow everything from CIO.com on Twitter @CIOonline and on Facebook.


text:
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
"To preserve independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Dial in to talk to


text:
Hydrangea Flower Lace Cap Hydrangea Picture
lace cap hydrangealace cap hydrangea picturelace cap hydrangea flowerflowerpicturerosephotophotographphotographynaturenature loverbreathtakinguniquebeautiful
Flower Photos to Bring Life and Good Vibes to Your Home
A beautifully decorated place can give a homey feeling and can be inspiring. With flowers, you can definitely achieve a pleasant atmosphere that can uplift the spirit, as along with their aesthetic, they have emotion-evoking and mood-elevating characteristics.
A study conducted by scientists at Rutgers University shows that flowers can positively affect persons' emotions, moods, and behaviors and that they can heighten life satisfaction. Some factors that contribute to those effects are their varying colors and distinctive designs.
However, it takes effort to maintain fresh flower decorations. Thankfully, you can also adorn your home with flowers through photos. So even if you don't have a green thumb or even just the time to tend to flowers, you can still have the advantage of having beautiful blossoms displayed at your home.
Research Findings on Flowers' Impact on People
The scientists at Rutgers University conducted a study for a period of 10 months, observing the behaviors and emotions of participants, both men and women belonging to different age groups, towards receiving flowers. It involved a series of tests with the objective of discovering the impact of flowers on people.
Evident when participants received flowers was the immediate impact the flowers had on happiness. The participants seemed surprised, genuinely happy, and appreciative upon receiving flowers.
Another observation was that flowers leave a lasting positive effect on persons' moods. Feelings of depression, anxiety, and agitation were lessened as reported by participants. And heightened life satisfaction was apparent among them.
Lastly, it was also found that flowers bring people closer into intimate connections. Through giving and receiving flowers, positive contact is invoked in relationships with others.
Much like being given flowers brings positive vibes to persons, giving a room flower decor can enrich its aura. Flowers displayed in a room can positively influence one's psychological state. The psychological effects of flowers may vary depending on their color and kind, so you have to choose accordingly as to what kind of ambiance you want to set in a room.
Flower Color Meanings and Effects
The colors of flowers, themselves, can be attention-grabbing. The splashes of color that flowers bring to our surroundings make a beautiful sight. Apart from being visually appealing, the colors of flowers are symbolic and can convey different messages.
Corresponding to their color, flowers have an emotional essence and are of deep meaning. There is, in fact, the age-old tradition of gifting flowers to special persons in our lives on special occasions like birthdays; anniversaries; Valentine's Day; and etc in celebration of those events or as an expression of sentiments towards those persons. When used as decorations, the flowers' attributes exude in a room, thus, inducing emotions and moods.
Each flower color has its own significance. For whatever vibe you wish to create in a room, there is an ideal color.
Perhaps you'd like a relaxing ambiance in the den; a motivational feel in the home office; a calming atmosphere in the bathroom; an air of repose in your bedroom or if you have a significant other with you, a romantic aura; and etc. You can find the perfect flower color for any mood you want to set in any room of your home. Below is a list of flower colors and what they mean.
Red is a powerful color. It can evoke strong feelings, such as love; desire; passion; high energy; strength; power; courage; and constancy.
And as the color red is typically associated with the heart, red flowers, usually a bouquet of red roses, make the perfect gift for your significant other. They would also be perfect for a lovers' bedroom because of their passionate characteristics that can set a romantic mood.
Red flowers may also represent beauty and respect.
Pink is another flower color for couples or for those in the stage of courtship. Having a lighter and softer color than the more vibrant; stronger-colored red flowers that embody great love, pink flowers can represent the blossoming of love that can grow beautifully in time with effort.
These promising flowers are the ideal gift for someone you are courting or have been involved in a new romantic relationship with. As decor in a room, they can arouse romance.
The lightness of pink flowers also gives it meanings of gentleness, delicacy, femininity, and grace. They may also mean happiness, joy, playfulness, youth, and innocence.
Symbolizing creativity, purple flowers can boost creative energies. They may also represent transitions of great significance in life.
With a color of royal roots, purple flowers may also emanate dignity; tradition; success; pride; and wealth. These regal flowers also are associated with spirituality.
The color purple also gives these flowers an enchanting; mysterious air because of the rarity of the color purple in nature, which is rather exotic. Purple also means elegance and can be an expression of admiration and adoration.
Often used in formal ceremonies for their elegant nature, white flowers have a simplistic beauty that can bring modest elegance befitting to those events. Also, they are notably common in weddings for their symbolisms of love so pure and thoughtful as well as unwavering fidelity. The plain, clean appearance of their color makes white flowers synonymous with purity, honesty, innocence, perfection, rebirth, new beginnings, and openness.
White flowers are perfect if you opt for a minimalist aesthetic with a touch of elegance.
As we can find the color green all around nature, it is natural that green flowers are associated with nature; being in harmony with nature; and abundance. And as spotting greens after the long; cold winter season is a sign that spring is coming, green flowers are also symbolic of new life; rebirth; renewal; youthfulness; and growth. Green flowers give a naturally refreshing feel and can also be calming, as they can bring about serenity and harmony.
Green flowers may also represent hope, prosperity, progress, good health, resilience, good fortune, fertility, and sincerity.
Yellow flowers are promoters of happiness and joy. Their brilliant color can help brighten one's day and bring positive energy to a room.
Another symbolism yellow flowers are widely known for is friendship, which makes them popular gifts for friends. A display of these friendly yellow flowers can encourage communication.
Yellow flowers can also be motivational and compelling, as they are also symbolic of optimism; energy; success; pride; and new beginnings. Amidst their radiance, yellow flowers also have a soft side with their meanings of warmth and compassion.
The color blue is actually the rarest color for flowers, so it gives flowers an otherworldly appeal. The extraordinary blue flowers have a reputation for being calming and being symbolic of trust.
With the coolness of their color, blue flowers can help you cool down. They can give off a relaxing vibe and relieve negative emotions and stress. And same as the blue ocean and the blue sky, which are constants of the earth, blue flowers convey dependability and trustworthiness.
Moreover, common representations of blue flowers are tranquility; peace; honesty; loyalty; openness; and sympathy.
As a combination of the colors red and yellow, orange obtained the characteristics of high energy from red and happiness from yellow. Thus, orange flowers can give a boost of energy and brighten up the spirit with its bold; vibrant; orange color. They can work wonders for those who want to feel energized and for those who are feeling down.
Orange flowers are adventurous and may also signify enthusiasm, excitement, endless possibilities, optimism, determination, and success. They are also warm, amicable flowers that can stimulate socialization.
The Different Moods Different Flowers Can Bring
Each kind of flower, with their own distinct characteristics, have something different to offer. When placed in a room for display, their attributes can transcend into the ambiance of the room and make an impact on our psyche. Below, you can find the different kinds of flowers and the moods they can bring out.
Roses are a popular classic. They symbolize love, romance, security, fidelity, and friendship and convey new beginnings, promise, and hope. According to a study in the Journal of Physiological Anthropology, they have de-stressing and relaxing effects.
Water lilies floating on water produce a calming feeling. The softly flowing; calm water they thrive afloat on, itself, evokes a mood of serenity. It's likewise for these "jewels of the pond" going with the flow of the gentle waters of ponds and lakes to give off that mood as well.
Orchids, being of tropical nature, have an exotic appeal, and with their wispy; free-flowing appearance, they seem modern; artistic; and oriental. They can bring cheer for all seasons with their vibrant elegance available all year round as well as give a boost of positive energy. They symbolize love, beauty, strength, and luxury.
Gerbera daisies are vibrant, cheery flowers in colors ranging from yellow, orange, red, pink, and also white. They can remind you of childhood and can trigger feelings of cheeriness, whimsy, and contentment.
Tulips are bright, cheery-colored flowers with modest beauty that can perk up one's mood. Their blossoming during springtime associates them to accepting warmth and new beginnings. The symbolisms of tulips are happiness, youthfulness, and tradition.
Birds of paradise, possessing bright orange and blue colors and resembling the shape of a tropical bird in flight, are the quintessential tropical flowers, which makes them exotic. When they bloom, each petal unfolds, revealing their distinguishable shape, and that gives them the meanings of anticipation and excitement. They're commonly associated with joy; paradise; and freedom, but they can also be romantic with their other meanings of faithfulness; love; and thoughtfulness.
Rhododendrons are elegant flowers that signify wealth and abundance. They are also passionate, with their message of love and desire. These flowers are also an embodiment of care.
Lacecap Hydrangeas are a kind of hydrangeas that bloom in gorgeous, natural arrangements composed of clusters of tiny flowers at the center encompassed by large ornamental flowers. These flowers represent humility, as they have only a few ornamental flowers that appear to enframe the tiny blooms.
Dahlias are graceful flowers with a unique beauty that can withstand and thrive in difficult conditions. That explains why their common symbolisms include grace, standing out, and inner strength. They can also mean positive life change, constant kindness, and a balance between adventure and relaxation.
Calla lilies convey youth, rebirth, and renewal since they bloom in spring. They also represent overcoming challenges, for even when they are cut and placed in a vase, they can still regrow and even withstand frost. Other common symbolisms of calla lilies are holiness, faith, and purity.
Flowers are remarkable, natural decorations of nature with beautiful meanings. But as attractive and meaningful as they may be, most of them may not always be available at all times of the year, and caring for plants isn't for everybody. Through photos, you can effortlessly have any flower you like whatever the season.
Photos of flowers can be as stunning and can set the mood in a room just as the real flowers. A diverse compilation of photos of flowers with varying colors, designs, and meanings can be found on www.premierphotographer.com, where you can select the perfect ones for decorating your home.


text:
Robert Pollin: Last quarter of 2012 had zero growth, wages were lower, unemployment higher as stock market hit record highs
Story Transcript
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in a very happy Baltimore.
And now join us for this week's edition of The PERI Report with Bob Pollin, who joins us from the PERI institute in Amherst, Massachusetts.
Thanks for joining us again, Bob.
ROBERT POLLIN, CODIRECTOR, POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: I'm very happy to be on, Paul.
JAY: So what do you got for us this week?
POLLIN: Well, I think there were two really key statistics about the state of the economy that came out last week, and maybe an even more important one that came out the week before.
The two pieces of evidence that came out last week are showing us that the economy is stuck in the mud. Number one, the growth rate of GDP for the last three months of 2012 was zero. Actually, it was -0.1. So the idea that the economy is on a healthy growth trajectory is completely rejected by this evidence over the last quarter that there was no growth whatsoever. Keep in mind that this is 3.5 years, fully, after the recession, the 2007-2009 recession, officially ended. Three and a half years later, we're still getting no growth.
Second, on the unemployment rate, the unemployment rate also was stuck. Again, actually, unemployment went up, official unemployment went up slightly from 7.8 to 7.9 percent in January 2013—still more evidence that the economy is stuck, that we are not getting out of the recession caused by the financial collapse of 2007, 2008. So that's what happened just last week.
Now, what happened the week before? A much more longer term perspective on the economy, which is that the Labor Department reported that the rate of unionization, the percentage of workers in the economy that are members of union, has fallen to a 97-year low of 11.3 percent. Only 11.3 percent of workers are now in unions.
Now, this has been a long decline in terms of unionization rates, but the decline was accelerated greatly in 2011 and continuing in 2012. Well, why? Because of the vicious assault on unions that started in Wisconsin when Governor Scott Walker tried to break all the public-sector unions. It moved into Indiana when Indiana voted to become a so-called right-to-work state, which is that workers receive the benefits of union contracts without having to join the union. And now, in 2012, that same right-to-work abandonment happened in, of all places, Michigan.
So we know that there is this huge assault on working people, on their rights to organize, their rights to defend themselves, their rights to collectively bargain, is happening while the economy is still stuck in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash.
Now, I want to just put those two together for a second, because that relates to a theme that you, Paul, have been talking about for a long time and you and I have discussed. The economy is extremely fragile, and a big reason why it's fragile is because of the huge increases in inequality that have gone on for a generation.
Why does inequality matter for the stability of an economy? We know inequality is of course bad in terms of fairness, that workers don't get their share of the productivity they produce. That's been going on for generations. On top of that, though, inequality leads to more instability because you don't have workers with money in their pockets to buy things, so you don't have sufficient demand in the economy to pull businesses back into new investments. And that is one of the big factors that is keeping the economy down.
So instead of addressing that by raising the minimum wage and by enabling unions to fight for workers to get better wages and benefits, we're actually going in exactly the opposite direction. And in reflecting that, we see the economy stuck at no growth and rising unemployment 3.5 years after the recession ended.
JAY: So put that together with another number. On Friday, the New York Stock Exchange broke through 14,000 for the first time in five years. It's the highest point in five years, at a time when these numbers you just described came out.
POLLIN: Well, what we've known for a long time is that the behavior of the financial market is almost completely decoupled from the behavior of how everyday people relate to the economy. There hasn't been any relation for a long, long time. The only relation that happened during the bubble years was that, you know, these slick financiers got people to take on mortgages they couldn't afford. They earned a lot of fees. We had a financial bubble that has now crashed and that people are still suffering the consequences.
But beyond that, the role of the financial markets to induce spending, investment, productive-activity jobs is long gone. That hasn't been happening now, certainly since the recession, and even before the recession. We still don't have money going into small businesses at affordable rates so that small businesses can expand. That's not even on the agenda, even though you and I have talked about it umpteen times. That is not on the political agenda of the Democrats, the Republicans, or the Fed. And meanwhile, yes, the stock market is soaring while workers' living standards are deteriorating.
JAY: I mean, maybe there's a connection in that sense, is that the individual companies that are doing well within this market, even if it's depressed, are going to do even better if wages stay low. So maybe there's that kind of correlation when people see these numbers.
POLLIN: Well, yes. There's this long tension as to what makes a capitalist economy function, in terms of profitability for business. One way is, well, you keep workers down as much as possible, and you squeeze out the biggest share of the overall pie for profits. That's one way. The other way is, if workers have these living standards and wages, they're going to have more money in their pockets, and they're going to buy more, and that the business will benefit from demand. So one we could call a profit-led story about growth, and the other one we could call a wage-led story or a egalitarian story about what can make an economy grow.
There are ways in which either story can work and which—that is, work in terms of profitability, but there's only one story that will work in terms of benefiting workers, obviously not to suppress workers, not to attack workers, not to destroy unions, but to allow the economy to grow on a foundation of rising wages, decent unions, rights for workers. And we are not heading in that direction now.
JAY: Yeah. I've said before that wages is the five letter word you cannot hear out of the mouth of any major political party.
POLLIN: That has not been part of the story. I mean, there are people that are fighting now to get the minimum wage raised around $10 an hour, but we can't get even the mainstream Democrats to take that idea seriously, even though the minimum wage today is well below what it was in the 1960s after correcting for inflation. The minimum wage in 1968 was almost close to $11 an hour, correcting for inflation, and now it's $7.25.
JAY: Thanks for joining us, Bob.
POLLIN: Thank you very much for having me.
JAY: And thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


text:
Rare Book Monthly
Book Catalogue Reviews - August - 2005 Issue
Books and Manuscripts of All Ages from the 19th Century Shop
By Michael Stillman
The 19th Century Shop has issued its Catalogue 106 of "Rare Books and Manuscripts of All Ages." This is a wonderful collection of works from some of the greatest scientists, writers, political and other leaders from half a millennium. Many of them carry the signatures and inscriptions of their famous creators. Here are a few selections from this fine collection.
Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds and most important scientists the world has ever known. Therefore, it's a bit surprising to find that he was obsessed with his genealogical pedigree. Newton was born to a solid but not aristocratic family. His father died before he was born and he was raised by his grandmother. Perhaps this led the great man to be so concerned about his background. The 19th Century Shop offers a manuscript draft in which Newton relates family traditions which linked him to Sir John Newton. It is all very strange since Newton's reputation would long outlive those of the noblemen he admired. Priced at $75,000.
Albert Einstein may be the only other scientist on Newton's level, but he didn't suffer from an aristocracy complex. He was a humble genius. Offered is a first edition of Die Drundlage der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie. The English-speaking world knows this better as the "General Theory of Relativity." This 1919 book is signed and dated by Einstein in 1951. 19th Century provides a quote from Einstein about this book: "Hardly anyone who truly understands it will be able to escape the charm of this theory." I wouldn't know. $32,000.
This is one of the most important travel anthologies ever published: the complete set of Cook's Voyages. Captain James Cook led three voyages to the Pacific. The first was undertaken to observe a rare transit of Venus, which would enable calculation to be made of the Earth's distance from the sun. However, along the way, Cook discovered Australia and New Zealand. The second established that the huge southern continent then believed to exist in fact did not. The explorers were the first to cross the Antarctic Circle. The third voyage unsuccessfully sought a northwest passage, but did discover Hawaii, where Cook was killed by natives. The ten-volume set is priced at $95,000.
Clement Moore was one of America's preeminent Biblical Hebrew scholars of the 19th century. His father was the Episcopal Bishop of New York and Moore became a Professor of Classics at General Theological Seminary. His work herein offered is called a Compendious Lexicon of the Hebrew Language, a two-volume set published in 1809. While this was Moore's greatest work, it is not what he is remembered for. He is remembered for a little poem he wrote for his children which Moore thought insignificant. It is called "A Visit from St. Nicholas," now better known as "Twas the Night Before Christmas." $3,800.