text:
Fertility drugs
This category contains fertility treatment drugs for women.
Clomiphene Citrate (Clomid or Serophene) may be prescribed it if you're not ovulating normally. These drugs are often used along with other fertility methods, like assisted reproductive techniques or artificial insemination. About 60% to 80% of women who take clomiphene will ovulate, and about half will be able to get pregnant.
Tamoxifen is known as an alternative to Clomid (Clomiphene Citrate). Tamoxifen works through the same mechanisms as Clomiphene.
Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is usually used along with other fertility drugs to stimulate your ovaries directly to produce an egg. HCG is also used to increase sperm count in men.
For gonadotropin stimulation can be used Human Menopausal Gonadotrophin (HMG) which contains a follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and a lutenizing hormone (LH).
Cabergoline (Dostinex) is used to lower certain hormone levels and reduce the size of a pituitary tumor that may be causing your ovulation troubles.
Aromatase inhibitors (Letrozole, Femara, Aromasin, Arimidex) can also work as fertility medication, probably through a mechanism similar to clomiphene.
Doxycycline (an oral antibiotic, not a fertility drug) is provided to the male partner during the female's stimulation cycle to reduce the levels of bacteria which may be found in semen, can also be given to the female partner to decrease the risk of infection after aspiration of the follicles at the time of egg retrieval.
Please, consult your doctor.
Nolvadex, Tamoxifen - Maxi-Fen-10 [Tamoxifen Citrate 10mg 50 pills]
Manufacturer: Maxtreme Pharma
Category: Anti Estrogens
Substance: Tamoxifen Citrate
Package: 10mg 50 pills
Showing 1–20 of 24 results
Anastrozole, Arimidex, Arimixyl – Anazole [Anastrozole 1mg 30 pills]$36.30 Add to cart
Anastrozole, Arimidex, Arimixyl, Brutrax, Anabrez – Antreol-1 [Anastrozole 1mg 10 pills]$19.80 Add to cart
Cabergoline, Cabaser, Dostinex – Cabgolin [Cabergoline 0.5mg 4 pills]$20.90 Add to cart
Clomid, Clomiphene, Clomifene – Fertomid-100 [Clomifene 100mg 10 pills]$11.00 Add to cart
Clomid, Clomiphene, Clomifene – Fertomid-50 [Clomifene 50mg 10 pills]$7.70 Add to cart
Clomid, Clomiphene, Clomifene – Promifen [Clomifene 50mg 50 pills]$38.50 Add to cart
Doxycycline – Doxee Best [Doxycycline 100mg 30 pills]$11.00 Add to cart
Exemestane, Aromasin – Aromex [Aromasin 25mg 30 pills]$86.90 Add to cart
Exemestane, Aromasin – Xtane [Aromasin 28 pills]$80.30 Add to cart
Letrozole, Femara – Letromina [Letrozole 2.5mg 30 pills]$52.80 Add to cart
Letrozole, Femara, Fempro – Generic Letrozole [Letrozole 10 pills]$7.70 Add to cart
Menopur, Menotrophin, Human Menopausal Gonadotrophin – HMG 150IU [Human Menopausal Gonadotrophin 150IU vial]$53.90 Add to cart
Nolvadex, Tamifen – Tamoxifen [Tamoxifen Citrate 10mg 10 pills]$5.50 Add to cart
Nolvadex, Tamifen – Tamoxifen [Tamoxifen Citrate 20mg 10 pills]$6.60 Add to cart
Nolvadex, Tamifen – Tamoxifen [Tamoxifen Citrate 40mg 10 pills]$8.80 Add to cart
Nolvadex, Tamoxifen – Altamofen [Tamoxifen Citrate 10mg 50 pills]$15.40 Read More
Nolvadex, Tamoxifen – Altamofen [Tamoxifen Citrate 20mg 50 pills]$27.50 Add to cart
Nolvadex, Tamoxifen – Maxi-Fen-10 [Tamoxifen Citrate 10mg 50 pills]$24.20 Add to cart
Nolvadex, Tamoxifen – Maxi-Fen-20 [Tamoxifen Citrate 20mg 50 pills]$53.90 Add to cart
Novarel, Ovidrel, Pregnyl, Human chorionic gonadotropin, hCG – Fertigyn [hCG 5000IU vial]$34.10 Add to cart
Welcome to our store specializing in the sale of anabolic steroids worldwide!
Working in the industry of selling legal anabolic steroids online since 2009, we have accumulated extensive experience and deep understanding of the topic. For years our stores (such as anabolic-steroids.pro, steroid-suppliers-uk.com, 24gear.net, sports24online.ca, eastcoastroids.pro,...) have been very effective and we confidently declare that we know everything about steroid supplying. Now we proudly present our newest project: «Bulking Space»
Ordering laboratory tests, receiving feedback from our customers we have selected only the best steroids and PCT from the best manufacturers and have created this online store. Confidently state, active ingredient from any manufacturer in our catalog is equally effective! Tested!
In catalog of roids.space there are the steroids, hormones and PCT from worldwide known manufacturers, such as Alpha Pharma, Maxtreme, Eminence, British Dispensary, Body Research, Bharat Serums, Intas and many others. steroids.roids.space (sister-site of this shop) also offers steroids from such famous manufacturers as British Dragon, Genesis, Hubei, MAXPRO. Anabolics and hormones whose manufacturer is listed as Generic produced in factories that we trust, but without the overhead of creation and maintenance of brands and market their own commercial names. But we would not offer them in our store if you weren't confident in them. This is a great way to save money and buy a quality product. Recommended!
The prices in our store, you have already noticed, are lower than in other stores. We were able to achieve thanks to the supply volumes and established over the years a good personal relationship with suppliers, often directly from producers.
A set of meds in our site catalogue has a fullness in the sense that you will find here drugs for any steroid cycle and post cycle therapy. We have all the best associated with steroid topic and believe us - if you're here for something not found - it is unlikely you need it...
I would like to boast that most customers have made orders on our website, become our regular customers and friends. The average percentage of regular customers from the total orders base of the month is held at a rate of 70-75%.
Our company roids.space has a customer support and maintenance department - see details in the contact section. Feel free to contact us with your questions.
For payment of orders we accept Visa card, MasterCard, AmEx.
Shipping of parcels (costs $25 per order) is organized via EMS with 100% delivery rate to USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand (managed by USPS), delivery to European countries is carried out from our EU shipping centers (see also steroids.roids.space). Transportation usually takes 5-15 business days to any destination worldwide, every package is sent with tracking code.
The details about delivery, see FAQ, just want to note that we deliver steroid drugs worldwide. Please note that we provide a full guarantee on the quality of our drugs, and that your money will not disappear: you will receive your order and will be satisfied or we get your money back.
And finally, here is a list of drugs that our users opt for most orders. We all love to look at tops, maybe this will be useful to you :)
Top active substances
Steroid brands top


text:
void Auth::setShowLogin (
bool $showLogin = true
Controls if the login page will be displayed to the user. Normally you might need to display the login form only on a certain page of your web application.
true if you want to display the login form and false if you want to hide it.
This function can not be called statically.
This is equivalent to the 4th paramether of Auth::Auth()

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Overall Rating (based on customer reviews): 4.6 out of 5 stars
The specs of 'Tungsten Carbide Men's Wedding Band Ring Sz 9.0' are:
- Manufacturer: Metal Factory
- Product Dimensions: 2.2×1.5×0.4 inches
- Shipping Weight: 0 pounds
Here are some REAL customer reviews:
"Excellent Value"
We looked at tungsten carbide rings in our local mall jewelry stores and found them to cost $200 and up for comfort fit bands. We took a chance on this ring and we are sure glad we did! The original 14K gold band my husband wore has become very worn and… Read more
"ring looks very nice!"
"Got For Vacation"
Get Tungsten Carbide Men's Wedding Band Ring Sz 9.0 at the best price available today.


text:
IObit Driver Booster Pro 10.0.0.65 Multilingual + Portable | 33.2/49.4 Mb
Updating drivers is usually an initial step to avoid hardware failure, system instability and hidden security vulnerabilities. To update drivers regularly is also an effective way to enhance your overall PC performance, and maximize your gaming experience. While this process could be risky and frustrating if done manually.
Driver Booster PRO is introduced to download and update drivers for you automatically with just one click. Based on cloud library, Driver Booster PRO can always be the first to identify outdated drivers, and download and update driver at an unrivaled speed. With the backup feature, it is an easy, effective and risk free solution to keep your drivers up-to-date.
Update Outdated Drivers Safely and Rapidly
- Support More Hardware Devices & Improve PC Performance
- Update Drivers 300% Faster with Just One Click
- Specialized Driver Tweaking for Top Gaming Experience
- Backup Drivers for Safe Restore
Driver Booster Pro Features:
- Download and Update Outdated Drivers with One Click
- Enhance Hardware Functionality for Top Performance
- Specialized Driver Tweaking for Top Gaming Experience
- Automatically Identify Outdated Drivers
- Support More Comprehensive Hardware Devices
- Enjoy Priority to Update Outdated Drivers Promptly
- Backup Drivers for Safe Restore
- Download and Update Drivers up to 300% Faster
- Automatically Update to the Latest Version
Operating System:Windows 7, 8/8.1, 10, 11
Home Page-http://www.iobit.com/
Visit All My News
Recommend Download Link Hight Speed | Please Say Thanks Keep Topic Live


text:
ROCKLAND, ME—In an attempt to convince an anxious populace that his legislative agenda is working and that everything is going to be all right, President Barack Obama embarked on a 50-state, 30,000-town tour Monday during which he plans to gaze assuredly into the eyes of each American citizen, one at a time.
"I know a lot of people out there are nervous. They're worried about unemployment, the oil spill in the Gulf, and whether or not I am making the right choices in Washington," Obama said during a rally at Rockland District High School. "To those Americans, I offer you this inspiring, confident gaze."
Obama then stepped down from his podium, walked into the 2,000-person audience, and peered comfortingly into each person's eyes. After taking 45 minutes to methodically work his way from the front row all the way to the balcony, and punctuating each look with a gentle pat on the shoulder, Obama returned to the stage, collected himself, and addressed the silent group before him.
"There," he said. "All better."
In their announcement of the "2010 Eye-to-Eye Tour," White House officials said that Obama will first spend two weeks making eye contact with the 55 million residents of the densely populated Northeastern states, looking into their eyes and, if necessary, offering them an encouraging head nod. Obama will then continue down the East Coast before taking on the tour's biggest challenge: gazing with confidence into the eyes of a hostile Southern electorate that largely rejects his policies.
Sources said in order to convince Southerners that the $787 billion economic stimulus package is working and that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is necessary, Obama will stare at them with a serious yet caring squint, give them a soothing smile, and, if necessary, mouth the words "trust me."
At press time, Obama was making his way down North Calvert Street in Baltimore, where he was earnestly looking into the eyes of 42-year-old construction worker Paul Hatfield.
"This is a way for the president to get out of the Washington bubble and really reconnect with the American people," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said during a Tuesday briefing. "To be honest, I was a little hesitant about the idea at first, but then the president called me into his office, sat me down, told me to take off my glasses, and looked at me with the most reassuring expression I have ever seen. At that point I was sold."
In the past several days, more than 60 million citizens have had similar calming encounters with the president. Patrons at the Beefside Family Restaurant in Concord, NH, many of whom expressed concern that the country was more divided than ever, were placated Tuesday when the president went from booth to booth making eye contact with every man, woman, and child present. If diners attempted to avoid his glance, Obama maneuvered his head quickly but confidently until he made direct eye contact and held their gaze.
Obama also offered a self-assured stare to more than 24,000 out-of-work autoworkers in New Jersey; all members of the Vermont teacher's union; some 500 West Virginia coal miners; Philadelphia; attorneys and clients in the law offices of Blum, Horowitz, and Mertz; and Pittsburgh native and Hollywood actor Michael Keaton.
"I was waiting for the T when I felt a tap on my shoulder," Boston resident Jarrod Tomlinson, 36, said. "I turned around and it was the president of the United States. Before I could tell him that as a small business owner, I was a little worried that the new health care bill wouldn't offer me the subsidies necessary to provide my employees with coverage, he just grabbed both of my arms, looked into my eyes for maybe five seconds, massaged my shoulder briefly, and walked away."
"And you know what?" Tomlinson continued. "I think everything's going to be okay."
Though recent poll numbers indicate that Obama is slowly earning the trust of Americans throughout the country, some positive effects of his confident glance appear to have been negated by Vice President Joe Biden, who has been busy winking at every American citizen while pretending to shoot them with imaginary finger guns.


text:
Saturday, 3 March 2012 00:04 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
REUTERS: That heart-shaped box of chocolate you got for Valentine's just might have some benefits for your real heart, a new study hints.
The study, which combined the results of 42 small clinical trials, found that people fed chocolate or cocoa for a few weeks to months had small dips in their blood pressure and improved blood vessel function.
On average, chocolate eaters shaved a couple points from their blood pressure and showed a small improvement in "flow-mediated dilation" -- a measure of how well the blood vessels respond to increased blood flow.
They also had a dip in their levels of insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar. High insulin levels are linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
The findings, reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, are far from the first to connect chocolate to heart health.
A number of widely reported studies have found that chocolate lovers seem to have lower rates of certain heart risks, like high blood pressure.
But those types of studies, known as observational studies, cannot prove cause-and-effect. People who indulge in chocolate may have other factors in their lives that explain the better heart health.
In contrast, the new study focused on clinical trials -- where researchers randomly assigned people to eat chocolate or not, then watched for changes in chocolate eaters' blood pressure, cholesterol and other heart risk factors.
The fact that there were some improvements suggests that chocolate may have some actual benefits, according to the researchers, led by Lee Hooper of Norwich Medical School in the UK.
But Hooper cautioned that the studies in the analysis were small and had their flaws. And possibly most important, none have been large or long enough to show whether there's any effect on a person's risk of heart disease or stroke.
"My take-away message would be that if people like dark chocolate, then eating a little in place of other 'treat' foods is fine, and may be beneficial," Hooper told Reuters Health in an email.
"However," she added, "the evidence is not yet good enough to suggest that we should all be doing this."
An expert not involved in the study agreed.
"From a practical perspective it is premature to advise individuals to consume chocolate or cocoa to decrease their risk of cardiovascular disease," said Alice H. Lichtenstein, director of the cardiovascular nutrition lab at Tufts University in Boston.
That's due to a number of reasons, not the least of which is calorie control, according to Lichtenstein.
Another is that it's not clear how chocolate would have heart benefits. Compounds called flavonoids are the "presumed" player, Lichtenstein said in an email, but they have not been adequately tested to see whether they are, in fact, effective ways to protect your heart.
And even if they are, Lichtenstein said, "little information is available to the consumer for the level of flavonoids in a specific chocolate product."
Plus, Hooper pointed out, there's a range of plant foods that contain various flavonoids -- including many fruits (like berries, citrus and apples) and vegetables (like kale, spinach and broccoli), nuts, soy, tea and wine.
For the current study, Hooper's team pooled data from 42 small clinical trials involving about 1,300 people in all.
That approach is called a meta-analysis, and it allows researchers to draw conclusions based on bigger numbers.
But it also has shortcomings, Hooper's team acknowledges. Each of the trials was different -- including different types of people (healthy in some cases, having chronic health problems like diabetes or heart disease in others), and different ways of testing chocolate's effects.
Some studies used cocoa drinks, some solid chocolate, and some cocoa supplements. They also varied in how long people were "treated" -- but most trials lasted less than six weeks.
Larger, longer-term trials -- including ones not funded by the cocoa industry -- are needed, Hooper and her colleagues write.
Maybe the biggest question is whether any benefits would be worth the downside of chocolate. Based on these small studies, Hooper's team writes, it could take several hundred calories' worth of chocolate to see effects on insulin and blood vessel function.
And that could mean trouble for your waistline, the researchers point out.
Lichtenstein agreed. "Until we get additional data, it is premature to say that adding hot chocolate fudge sauce to a bowl of ice cream is going to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease," she said."What we do know," she added, "is that adding the chocolate sauce without decreasing the amount of ice cream in the bowl is going to lead to weight gain." For now, Lichtenstein said, if you enjoy a little chocolate in your life, you can probably keep doing so. But don't add it in the hopes of helping your heart.


text:
March 04, 2008
The Power of Negative Thinking
When you encounter a difficult or stressful situation, and someone advises you to: "Think Positive!" or "Look on the Bright Side!" do you:
(a) Smile and say "of course!" because it wouldn't occur to you to view life any other way?
Or do you:
(b) Barely stifle the urge to bop the optimist over the head with an umbrella, which you happen to have with you because it's pretty damn cloudy and the skies could break open at any minute?
Some folks are die-hard optimists and some are resolute pessimists and most of us fall somewhere in between. Personally, I think of myself right in the middle as a "realist," but given the general tendency of American culture to favor optimism, I know I probably fall much further down on the optimism scale--say somewhere around "party pooper."
Pessimism has a bad reputation. According to various studies, which I won't cite because they're annoying, we pessimists are supposedly less happy and less fun to be around blah blah blah.
(But we're also a hell of a lot less likely to lose our shirts when we gamble).
I'm not, in my own mind, overly pessimistic. When some important life event comes up I enjoy fantasizing about best-case scenarios. But I also imagine the worst case ones and I plan for them. I'm never late to the airport or an important meeting, for example, because I find it easy to visualize the multitude of things that could go wrong and make me horrendously late. (And yes, as a result, I'm always really freakin' early for everything).
As it turns out, if you are a somewhat anxious person, there is a psychology professor at Wellesley College, Julie K. Norem, who says: screw the optimism. Optimism isn't the best strategy for everyone. Defensive Pessimism, in which you allow yourself to imagine worst case scenarios, is a perfectly good strategy too. In fact, if you try to "think positively" just because everyone around you says "Turn that frown upside down!" it can just make you more anxious. (There is even a Defensive Pessimism quiz, if you want to find out if you are one. And yeah, I am.)
However, I also think it's possible to be a Very Happy Pessimist, if you do it right. Pessimism isn't something you should have to apologize for, especially if in using it properly you find yourself every bit as happy as one of those perky optimists.
So what's the trick to embracing your negative thinking and Loving Life as a Pessimist? It's actually really easy:
Anticipate the negative, but appreciate the hell out of the positive when it happens. Bonus: the more pessimistic you are, the more often you're pleasantly surprised!
Just think of it as delayed gratification. All those optimists celebrate early, assuming everything will go right. When it doesn't, they either have to cope with disappointment or ignore reality and pretend they never had such high expectations in the first place.
Happy pessimists, however, get the disappointment part over with early. We plan in case things go wrong, so if they do, we're prepared. But here's the difference between a Happy and an Unhappy pessimist: the unhappy one doesn't stop to appreciate that the Bad Things didn't happen.
Don't skip this step, this is the fun part of pessimism. Bask in relief and gratitude that things worked out nicely!
Unhappy pessimists go right on to worrying about the next thing. This, in my opinion, is a big mistake--unless you actually enjoy worrying. Which as it happens, some people do.
Note: I haven't read Professor Norem's book yet, so I could be getting the whole concept of Defensive Pessimism horribly wrong, and have just completely embarrassed myself and driven readers away from Cranky Fitness in droves.
Oh, wait, you're still here? Hooray!
So what sort of outlook do you folks have? Optimist? Pessimist? Somewhere in between? And do you think Crabby is Crazy in thinking there's such thing as a Happy Pessimist?
36 comments:
Hmmmn, interesting post. Thought provoking even.ReplyDelete
Some people believe the glass is half-full, others believe the glass is half-empty.
Me, I've always believed the glass was twice as big as it needed to be.
So does that make me a defensive realist? :)
Merry, I'd say the "twice as big as it needs to be" is an awesome world view! Can I borrow it?ReplyDelete
This post was actually inspired by the fact that after worrying quite a bit about selling our California house (getting the disappointment done early) we seem to have done just fine and I am VERY HAPPY about it.
Well, unless there's a major earthquake on the Hayward fault in the next 10 days before escrow closes.
Oh wait, perhaps I'm not quite done worrying yet...
(And what the heck are you doing up so early? I'm on East Coast time, I have an excuse!)
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Yeah, I qualified as a defensive pessimist!ReplyDelete
I do tend to be a planner for those worst case scenario things.
Merry...glass twice as big as it needed to be. That's great!
You too Holly?ReplyDelete
Even though I took the quiz with this post on my mind, I was still sort of surprised to find out I was one.
I imagine that you, like me, are of the Happy Pessimist subtype.
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I got a 72 on that defensive pessimist quiz, so I guess that answers that. Nothing wrong with being prepared, though.ReplyDelete
Have you read much about the whole Positive Psychology trend (www.authentichappiness.com)? This pessimism study offers an interesting balance to it, methinks.
I'm a pessimist with optimistic tendencies... or is it an optimist with pessimistic tendencies?ReplyDelete
I often expect the worst so I can be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't happen.
For example, right now I'm waiting for my greyhound's leg x-rays to make it to Ohio State university for a consult. She may have osteosarcoma (bone cancer). I'm bracing for the worst - I saw the lesion on her x-ray (big black spot the size of a dime) but hoping for the best.
Look for good but prepare for bad.ReplyDelete
And may I suggest for as much as we should celebrate the good when it gets here, we ought to celebrate the bad, too, if for no other reason than we got through it.
I think I'm an optimist (with the exception of a few cold wintery days) and my husband is most definitely a pessimist. It works out though - as we're always prepared for the worst, but always muddle through with a bit of a grin. We even each other out and meet somewhere int he middle.ReplyDelete
I used to annoy him when he'd say "sure -be a glass half full sort of person" and I'd grin and say "hey I've got my own *glass*? cool!"
Test said I'm a pessimist tho...odd.
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Great post. I only discovered your blog recently, and so far I'm really enjoying catching up with what you've written.ReplyDelete
Just out of curiosity, anyone got good advice on how to handle working with an unhappy pessimist who always goes right to the worst-case scenario? Methods that don't involve jail time, preferably, although I'm willing to be flexible...
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Marijke Durning,ReplyDelete
I realize I'm not looking at the x-ray, but a black round area is usually some type of cyst. The sarcoma would be a large white area. I hope it turns out OK for you.
Dr. J
Hi Yorick! Welcome.ReplyDelete
Sounds like you've met some of my family. I can't change their view, but it took me a long time to realize that they really can't stand a positive outlook. They're happy being negative, or at least they're comfortable with it.
I can't force them to move out of their comfort zone, so I accept them as they are. But since my more optimistic outlook is just as jarring to them as their negative outlook is to me, when together we rub each other the wrong way, which leads to shortened family visits.
One aunt is renowned throughout the family for needed to be as negative as possible at all times. Some of my cousins have adopted an interesting strategy for dealing with her: they treat her cutting remarks as if they were meant humorously. Laughing at her remarks, not at our aunt herself, deflects the negative comments.
It's a tricky situation to deal with in any case, especially if you can't take a break. If you collect enough positive people around you, that could offset the negative person and make it easier to be around them.
I'm just throwing out ideas. Anyone else have any thoughts?
Marijke, positive thoughts! My dog is coming back to me next week. She'd had such severe environmental allergies, I'd had to send her south for the winter. She's better now. I hope, hope, hope your dog gets better!ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
The Bag Lady scored 65 - a defensive pessimist! Who knew? She thinks of herself as a prepared optimist!ReplyDelete
Marijke - hope everything turns out alright for your dog. Listen to Dr. J!!
What irks me is that there's an American mindset that equates healthy skepticism and preparation for a rainy day with a "doomer" mindset.ReplyDelete
A dose of caution and sense of self-preservation are what kept our ancestors alive and kept folks like me out of adjustable-rate mortgages on overpriced exurban McMansions.
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I think, from the description, that I'm probably a Strategic Optimist, but when I clicked on "submit" I got a small pop-up window that remained stubbornly blank, for two tries.ReplyDelete
I describe myself as Relentlessly Cheerful.
Mary Anne in Kentucky
I agree about the McMansions and adjustable-rate mortgages. That's not optimism so much as it is self-delusion. (I hope those two terms aren't synonymous.)ReplyDelete
What I was thinking of was watching the TV news with my family. Each negative story that comes on will be discussed with relish, really digging into the misery of the situation. But if perchance something positive is reported, there's silence. No one can dig in and extract any misery from the story, so they let it pass by and wait for the next awful situation. It's like they feed off of all the terrible things that go on in the world.
(This is a gross overgeneralization of my family. It's only a few of them who are prone to this behavior. Somehow the negative always stands out more than the positive.)
I'm an optimist, and my BF is a pure pessimist. We have very interesting exchanges due to this difference... some people might call them arguments :)ReplyDelete
I also refer to myself as a realist.ReplyDelete
While there are definitely benefits to focusing on the positive, I've often found that the "optimists" in my life are the onese who have their heads burried in the sand. More of a Scarlet O'Hara "I'll just think about that tomorrow" rather than really dealing and still being okay with whatever it is.
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Thanks for the welcome Merry. :)ReplyDelete
I'm definitely not someone who runs around singing "The hills are alive" or anything like that, and have my moments where my instant, knee-jerk reaction to a situation is "oh, this is gonna suck like a sucky thing that blows."
But we're talking almost unrelenting negative energy from the moment one particular coworker arrives for the day: with her it's always about seeing the downside first, assuming the worst, and thinking "well, I just don't know how this can possibly work." And unfortunately, we work in an open office with very few coworkers—there really is no way of escaping her company for any significant amount of time and still get my job done.
Hmmm. Maybe an attitude adjustment with a clue bat is in order? ;)
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I'm an annoying optimist. :DReplyDelete
A defensive pessimist with a score of 64. I'm not at all surprised.. I KNEW it would turn out badly! ;)ReplyDelete
I always thought I was an optimist, but then I married an optimist, and have found I'm a little more pessimistic than I thought.ReplyDelete
And in general, when people are too perky I tend to be the party pooper in the bunch. When they're overly negative, I tend to be the big optimist.
So maybe I'm just an antagonist.
Defensive pessimist here - 67! I have given up making five year plans. Every time I have made one, something has gone horribly wrong in my life. Now, I just take it as it comes.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I'm a devout believer in using negative thinking to help you instead of being trapped under its weight. If you're only positive, you're only seeing 1/2 of the picture.ReplyDelete
I'm a total idealist. Like I still think it is possible for everyone to get along and all of all that is bad to just go away. I've even had money stolen out of my wallet while on a bus (I left it on their) and am always leaving my purse everywhere b/c I just think no one will steal it!! But I blame that on my parents who never had a lock on our door!!!ReplyDelete
My hubby says I live in La La land. It's nice here.
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Crabby, as a gal who has to consider the worst-case scenario to preserve her sanity, I completely relate. I consider myself generally optimistic and happy, but I'm also a person who needs to sort through what could go wrong in a situation before I embrace it wholeheartedly.ReplyDelete
Fascinating stuff, as always!
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I got a 43, which means, "You may use both strategies or neither strategy consistently." So, I'm a non-committal pessimist. I'm neither in nor out yet I have the option to do both. I sound like one of Carrie's bad dates on Sex in the City...lol...ReplyDelete
In my 20's, I'd say I was very much a defensive pessimist because that went along well with my Perfect Girl persona. But, into the 30's, I lessoned up on most of it because there is no point worrying about an outcome that hasn't occurred yet. Although, I do have an OCD thing with checking the stove before I leave the house for fear I leave it on and set the house on fire. This where I see the pessimism leading to anxiety. Interesting.
Hooray, I'm back from the East Coast and the plane didn't crash!ReplyDelete
My awesome mother-in-law has made us beef stew and we are being summoned to dinner, so life definitely does not suck! Beef stew and a big salad and some chocolate cake for dessert--the perfect antidote for a yucky day spent in transit. But it does mean I need to scurry for now.
However, I must hurry back to the computer after dinner because these comments are so interesting and amusing I have to jump in again.
I'm intrigued I have so much company in the defensive pessimist camp, at least according to the quiz. Back later...
- AnonymousMarch 4, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Defensive pessimism....fun label. Here's a quote (can't remember the attribution, sorry)ReplyDelete
The optimist builds airplanes, the pessimist, parachutes.
That quote (posted by Anonymous) reminds me of the joke received in email years ago.. and still circulating the net...ReplyDelete
A family had twin boys whose only resemblance to each other was their looks.
Opposite in every way, one was an eternal optimist, the other a doom and gloom pessimist.
Just to see what would happen, on the twins' birthday, their father loaded the pessimist's room with every imaginable toy and game. The optimist's room, he loaded with horse manure.
That night the father passed by the pessimist's room and found him sitting amid his new gifts crying bitterly.
"Why are you crying?" the father asked.
"Because my friends will be jealous, I'll have to read all these instructions before I can do anything with this stuff, I'll constantly need batteries, and my toys will eventually get broken." answered the pessimistic twin.
Passing the optimistic twin's room, the father found him dancing for joy in the pile of manure. "What are you so happy about?" he asked.
To which his optimistic twin replied, "There's got to be a pony in here somewhere!"
I think positive psychology has a lot to offer-- lots of good common sense stuff there. (I do have some reservations about how they measure happiness, though, and sometimes it seems a bit simplistic). But if it's possible to be somewhat pessimistic and also an admirer of positive psychology, then, well, I am!
marijke, hope the dog's x-ray turns out okay! That stuff is so scary.
leah--you're a wiser, more mature person than I am if you can celebrate the bad, but I'm workin' on it.
geosomin--okay now I'm really skeptical of the test if you're coming out a pessimist!
yorick28-welcome and thanks so much for joining us! And yeah, I'm with Merry that arguing with negativity only seems to reinforce it. I think we pessimists need some acknowledgment that bad things can happen before we can move on to how to move forward to the positive. But if they want to just stay stuck in negativity, there's not much you can do to!
Dr. J--I want you reading my x-rays if god forbid I need any! Thanks for your expertise.
Merry, love your family management techniques!
Bag Lady, if you're a pessimist then I'm getting REALLY skeptical.
Bunnygirl, I'm so with you on the limitations to optimism. And then we cautious folks are often called upon to bail out those who can't see the downside to anything.
Oh dear, so many more great comments... will try to come back soon.
Mary Anne, sorry the quiz bombed, but I'm not surprised you have a cheerful bent. (And I'm still waitin' on those robots...)ReplyDelete
Sarah, I think optimist/pessimist combos are actually a pretty good mix. The Lobster is an optimist and we balance each other out.
Scrumpy's Baker, I'm glad there's another realist around!
Andrewe, good for you! (And I think most people would say pessimists are much more annoying than optimists. As long as you let us pessimists be grumpy you're not annoying at all).
Hilary, you crack me up!
Katieo--I'm a bit of a contrarian too. There's nothing like a true pessimist to bring out the optimist in me and vice versa.
Reb, "take it as it comes" actually sounds like a very evolved life philosophy.
hey Craig, thanks for stopping by! (And cool web site!)
Sara, you La-La land residents are actually quite nice to be around, especially the ones that don't insist that we realists or pessimists have to be cheerful too. (And sorry about the wallet stuff!)
Dara, thanks--I think we have a very similar outlook!
Stephanie, a 43 sounds quite optimistic compared to the rest of us. And checking the stove--I can totally relate. For me its thinking I've forgotten to lock the front door. I always have--but I never remember doing it).
Anonymous and Hilary--great examples! (And, um, when are commercial flights going to start providing parachutes?)
I'd have to put myself squarely in the optimist column. On the test, I got "neither here nor there," basically. Thing is, I'm not blindly optimistic. I realize that bad things might happen, I just don't expect them to. So I do what I can to create the best outcome, preparing against the worst while expecting the best :)ReplyDelete
I think part of the reason I find myself so optimistic (I'm the one on my dodgeball team, when we've lost 8 in a row, who says "we've got them on the next game!" and "we played that round really well, even if we lost" and if we lose all our games (which happens often), "we can only get better from here!"), is that I grew up with a very negative mother. Her first reaction to seeing a new apartment of mine was to say "well, at least the paint isn't peeling."
So I try not to be obnoxious about it (and I don't have my head buried in the sand, because I'm an optimistic realist), but the really negative people do irritate me sometimes. I find it hard to spend too much time around someone who's always complaining, but isn't interested in finding solutions to make their situation better. Don't get me wrong, I complain (venting is necessary sometimes), but it's to get out the frustration I feel sometimes, and I try to complain in a constructive way.
I guess I'm leaning more toward the Defensive Pessimist side, but after more thinking, it really depends on. I can be very optimistic for some things (for instance, I'm not the kind of person who'll go on a 3-days trip and expect things won't be "that great"--I'll just be happy about it, thinking that no matter what, it'll be different from my daily life, so it can only be good). On the other hand, when I balance the odds and realize they are against me, I tend to prepare myself to the worst, so that I won't be totally crushed. And I'm glad I did that regarding my recent genetic test; if I had convinced myself I hadn't this defect, only to see I had it all the same, perhaps I'd have reacted badly. Right now, I'm able to react with a certain peace of mind, no desire to drown my sorrow in food, and, may I say, even a little dose of... optimism.ReplyDelete
So yeah... It depends?
The key thing is not whether the glass is half full or half empty, but when some lumbering oaf will come along, knock it over the table to shatter on the floor.ReplyDelete
Thanks for commenting, Cranky Fitness readers are the BEST!
Subscribe to comments via RSS
(Note: Older Comment Threads Are Moderated)


text:
Rule #1 - Be Patient - Rule #2 - Don't ask when, if you don't contribute - Rule #3 - You have coding skills - LinuxMCE's small brother is available: http://www.agocontrol.com
what packages did you install to make dvd working? because linuxmce makes this kind of things to work.
More key points I've found: do not install any updates, let linuxmce do that for you...install automatix after, worked great for me..
After many installs I was finally able to get the networking straight and with BOTH network cards:- Clean Ubuntu install- Ubuntu Updates- Set Networks1. Static (Internet - ADSL Gateway and WLAN Router) 2. DHCP Server (Linux MCE)- Install MCE (i worked out for 2 hours during this time)- Reboot- Start MCE (went shopping and came back 2 hours later)And you know what? I got the WIZARD....sniff, sniff...so happy.- Set the Wizard preferences- Grey Screen (oh noooo!)Change the User Interface, reboot, start MCE, eat dinnerWhat's next?


text:
HOUSTON -- The Astros fired manager Bo Porter on Monday, saying the dismissal had less to do with the team's 59-79 record than the need for "new direction" and a "united message throughout the entire organization."
Porter was in his second season with the Astros and was succeeded by interim manager Tom Lawless, who worked in Houston's minor league system. Lawless' first game in charge is Tuesday night at home against the first-place Los Angeles Angels.
Bench coach Dave Trembley also was let go.
Porter joined the Astros after working as a third-base coach for the Washington Nationals. The Astros went a franchise-worst 51-111 in his first season for their third straight 100-loss season.
General manager Jeff Luhnow said the decision was not based on "our current level of competitiveness." The Astros entered Monday in fourth place in the AL West with the second-worst record in the league.
"I recognize that our win-loss record is largely a product of an organizational strategy for which I am responsible," Luhnow said in a statement. "Rather, I made this decision because I believe we need a new direction in our clubhouse."
Luhnow refused repeatedly to get into more detail about why Porter was let go as he fielded questions for almost 25 minutes on Monday afternoon. He did say that he had been mulling the move for a few weeks and that he made the final decision on Sunday.
"Once you make a decision it is in everyone's best interest to move it along," he said. "It's easier to wait until the end of the season in some respects, but it's not fair to Bo and it's not fair to us."
Owner Jim Crane said the firing was "not an easy decision to make." It comes following recent reports citing sources who said Luhnow and Porter were not getting along. Luhnow wouldn't address those rumors other than to say that there were "numerous inaccuracies" in the reports.
Porter issued a statement Monday afternoon.
"During my time in Houston I dedicated myself to do everything I could to help this organization win, in the short-term and for the long-term," he said in the statement. "I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in Houston with an organization in transition. I'm gratified we were able to bring some excitement to this city as a result of our improvement from 2013 to 2014."
Starting pitcher Scott Feldman lamented Porter's firing and noted the care and concern he showed when Feldman's father died earlier this season. He said he spoke to Porter on Monday and thanked him for the way he treated him throughout the season and particularly in that difficult time.
"I hope he realizes that he was doing as well as he could given the circumstances," Feldman said. "It's tough to see, but Bo's a strong guy and I'm sure he'll be back on his feet and back in the game whenever he wants to be."
Whoever is hired as full-time manager will be the team's fourth since 2007, not including those who held the job on an interim basis. Luhnow said they hope to hire someone quickly.
"What we will seek going forward is a consistent and united message throughout the entire organization," Luhnow said. "It is essential that as an organization we create an atmosphere at the major league level where our young players can come up and continue to develop and succeed.
"Ultimately, I am responsible for creating that culture, and I will do everything in my power to do so -- even when it means making difficult moves like the one we made today."
Porter was the first managerial hiring in Luhnow's tenure, and he was unhappy it didn't work out.
"It is a disappointment in that any time you bring in a new leader of any department ... you hope that the individual is going to be there for the long haul," he said. "In no way did we intend to hire someone for a short-term (transitional) period. As we look forward to the next hire, we're looking for someone for the long haul."
He said many people will help in the hunt for a new manager and noted that Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan, who re-joined the team in February as a special assistant following a stint with the Rangers, will be among them.
The firing is the latest development in months of trouble surrounding the Astros that includes being the victim of hackers who accessed team's servers and published months of internal trade talks on the Internet, and failing to reach a deal with No. 1 overall draft pick Brady Aiken.
"It's been a challenging summer for me personally and for us as the Astros organization," Luhnow said. "A lot of things happened not the way we scripted them to happen and we've had to react. That's part of the job."
Lawless was the interim manager at Triple-A Oklahoma City this season when manager Tony DeFrancesco was on medical leave. Adam Everett, who was also working in the minors, will replace Trembley as bench coach.


text:
ECB's Visco says markets watching Italy closely
Financial markets remain keenly focused on Italy's ability to control its public finances and pursue reforms to lift its stagnant economy, European Central Bank governing council member Ignazio Visco said on Saturday.
Confidence in Italy has been shaken in the run-up to elections, after a strong campaign by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that has opened up the race and threatened the prospects of stable government emerging after the vote.
"Italy must not lower its guard," Visco, the governor of the Bank of Italy, said according to the text of a speech at a conference in Bergamo.
"The attention of international investors continues to focus, rightly, on our capacity to preserve balance in public finances and to pursue with determination, an increase in our development potential," he said.
He said periodic bouts of market tension, which have been seen over the past few weeks as elections on Feb 24-25 approach, underlined the fragility of Italy's economy, which the Bank of Italy forecasts will shrink by 1 percent this year.
The main gauge of market sentiment towards Italy, the difference or spread between yields on 10 year BTP bonds and safer German Bunds has widened in recent days and briefly topped 300 basis points on Friday, up from 280 points a month ago.
European Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn echoed the concern that the election could halt the course of reform in the euro zone's third-largest economy, which is stuck in recession with a public debt burden second only to Greece in the 17-member bloc.
"It's a very fragile situation. Whatever colour the new government in Italy has, it is important that it maintains the course of reform," he told an Austrian magazine in an interview published on Saturday.
The comments, as the election countdown begins, underline concern about the vote, which pits former prime ministers Silvio Berlusconi and Mario Monti in an uncertain three-way race for power against centre-left leader Pier Luigi Bersani.
The agenda is dominated by the slack state of the Italian economy, which is suffering from record unemployment and a recession that has been deepened by almost two years of repeated tax hikes and spending cuts.
On Saturday, retail industry association Confcommercio said consumption in Italy had fallen 4 percent last year, which it said was the biggest fall in 50 years.
Bersani is leading in the opinion polls but Berlusconi's campaign has cut into his advantage and threatened to force the centre-left and Monti to seek a potentially unstable coalition deal after the election.
The anti-establishment 5-Star Movement led by fiery comic Beppe Grillo, who rejects any alliance with the mainstream parties, is also expected to take a large share of the vote, adding an additional uncertainty factor.
Visco repeated the Bank of Italy's forecast that the economy should start to recover in the second half of the year but said it was vital that the next government continue on the reform path laid out with its European partners.
He said it would have to focus on improving productivity, strengthening investment and improving the efficiency of public services but he also singled out the high overall tax burden as a crucial factor weighing down the economy.


text:
Alan Cranston (D-CA)
Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
John Glenn (D-OH)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Donald Riegle (D-MI)
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators—Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat of Michigan)—were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB's investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
All five senators served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they both retained their seats. McCain would go on to run for President of the United States twice, and was the Republican Party nominee in 2008. McCain was the last senator remaining in his office before his death in August 2018.
The U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. federal government.[1] The accompanying slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, at the time the lowest rate since World War II.[2]
The Keating Five scandal was prompted by the activities of one particular savings and loan, Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, California. Lincoln's chairman was Charles Keating, who ultimately served five years in prison for his corrupt mismanagement of Lincoln.[3] In the four years after Keating's American Continental Corporation (ACC) had purchased Lincoln in 1984, Lincoln's assets had increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion.[4]
Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money. Keating and other savings and loan operators took advantage of this deregulation.[4][5] Savings and loans established connections to many members of Congress, by supplying them with needed funds for campaigns through legal donations.[5] Lincoln's particular investments took the form of buying land, taking equity positions in real estate development projects, and buying high-yield junk bonds.[6]
Corruption allegations
The core allegation of the Keating Five affair is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, and he called on those senators to help him resist U.S. federal regulators. The regulators did back off, to later disastrous consequences.
Beginning in 1985, Edwin J. Gray, chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), feared that the savings industry's risky investment practices were exposing the government's insurance funds to huge losses.[6] Gray instituted a rule whereby savings associations could hold no more than ten percent of their assets in "direct investments",[6] and were thus prohibited from taking ownership positions in certain financial entities and instruments.[7] Lincoln had become burdened with bad debt resulting from its past aggressiveness, and by early 1986,[6] its investment practices were being investigated and audited by the FHLBB:[8] in particular, whether it had violated these direct investment rules; Lincoln had directed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured accounts into commercial real estate ventures.[4] By the end of 1986, the FHLBB had found that Lincoln had $135 million in unreported losses and had surpassed the regulated direct investments limit by $600 million.[6]
Keating had earlier taken several measures to oppose Gray and the FHLBB, including recruiting a study from then-private economist Alan Greenspan saying that direct investments were not harmful,[6] and getting President Ronald Reagan to make a recess appointment of a Keating ally, Atlanta real estate developer Lee H. Henkel Jr., to an open seat on the FHLBB.[6] By March 1987, however, Henkel had resigned, upon news of his having large loans due to Lincoln.[6] Meanwhile, the Senate had changed control from Republican to Democratic during the 1986 Congressional elections, placing several Democratic senators in key positions, and starting in January 1987, Keating's staff was putting pressure on Cranston to remove Gray from any FHLBB discussion regarding Lincoln.[9] The following month, Keating began large-scale contributions into Cranston's project to increase California voter registration.[9] In February 1987, Keating met with Riegle and began contributing to Riegle's 1988 re-election campaign.[10]
It appeared as though the government might seize Lincoln for being insolvent.[7] The investigation was, however, taking a long time.[8] Keating was asking that Lincoln be given a lenient judgment by the FHLBB, so that it could limit its high risk investments and get into the safe (at the time) home mortgage business, thus allowing the business to survive. A letter from audit firm Arthur Young & Co. bolstered Keating's case that the government investigation was taking a long time.[11] Keating now wanted the five senators to intervene with the FHLBB on his behalf.
By March 1987, Riegle was telling Gray that "Some senators out west are very concerned about the way the bank board is regulating Lincoln Savings," adding, "I think you need to meet with the senators. You'll be getting a call."[10] Keating and DeConcini were asking McCain to travel to San Francisco to meet with regulators regarding Lincoln Savings; McCain refused.[7][11] DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous about interfering.[7] Keating called McCain a "wimp" behind his back, and on March 24, Keating and McCain had a heated, contentious meeting.[11]
On April 2, 1987, a meeting with Gray was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[7] The senators requested that no staff be present.[12] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln".[7] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[7]
On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[4] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[7][11] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[7] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[7] DeConcini began the meeting by saying, "We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent."[13] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."[7] The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.[7]
The San Francisco regulators finished their report in May 1987 and recommended that Lincoln be seized by the government due to unsound lending practices.[4][7] Gray, whose time as chair was about to expire, deferred action on the report, saying that his adversarial relationship with Keating would make any action he took seem vindictive, and that instead the incoming chair should take over the decision.[6] Meanwhile, Keating filed a lawsuit against the FHLBB, saying it had leaked confidential information about Lincoln.[6] The new FHLBB chair was M. Danny Wall, who was more sympathetic to Keating and took no action on the report, saying its evidence was insufficient.[4][7] In September 1987, the Lincoln investigation was removed from the San Francisco group[7] and in May 1988, the FHLBB signed an agreement with Lincoln that included not going ahead with a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.[14] In July 1988, a new audit of both Lincoln and American Continental began in Washington.[7][14]
Cranston continued intervening on behalf of Keating after the April 1987 meetings, contacting both Wall and California state regulators and continuing to receive large amounts of new donations to the voter registration projects from Keating.[15] DeConcini also continued on behalf of Keating, contacting Wall, California State regulators, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) advocating approval of a sale of Lincoln as a December 1988 alternative to government seizure.[14][15] Bank regulators refused to approve the sale of Lincoln.[14] Glenn too continued to help Keating after the April 1987 revelation, by setting up a meeting with then-House Majority Leader Jim Wright.[16]
News of the April meetings between the senators and the FHLBB officials first appeared in National Thrift News in September 1987, but was only sporadically covered by the general media for the next year and a half.[17] In early 1988, The Detroit News ran a story on Riegle's participation,[18] which Riegle responded to on Meet the Press by denying an interceding on Lincoln's behalf,[13] before returning Keating's campaign contributions back to him.[18] In spring 1988, the Los Angeles Times ran a short piece in their business section, but their political reporters did not follow up on it; two isolated, inside page mentions by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal similarly failed to develop further.[18] As media critic Howard Kurtz would later write, "the saga of Charles Keating took years to penetrate the national consciousness."[18] The political fortunes of the senators involved did not suffer at this time. During the 1988 U.S. presidential election, McCain was mentioned by the press as a vice-presidential running mate for Republican nominee George H. W. Bush,[19][20] while Glenn was one of the two vice-presidential finalists in Michael Dukakis' selection process, losing out to Lloyd Bentsen.[21]
Failure of Lincoln Savings and Loan
Lincoln stayed in business; from mid-1987 to April 1989, its assets grew from $3.91 billion to $5.46 billion.[6] During this time, the parent American Continental Corporation was desperate for cash inflow to make up for losses in real estate purchases and projects.[22] Lincoln's branch managers and tellers convinced customers to replace their federally-insured certificates of deposit with higher-yielding bond certificates of American Continental; the customers later said they were never properly informed that the bonds were uninsured and very risky given the state of American Continental's finances.[22] Indeed, the regulators had already adjudged the bonds to have no solvent backing.[12] FDIC chair L. William Seidman would later write that Lincoln's push to get depositors to switch was "one of the most heartless and cruel frauds in modern memory."[12]
American Continental went bankrupt in April 1989, and Lincoln was seized by the FHLBB on April 14, 1989.[4] About 23,000 customers were left with worthless bonds.[23] Many investors, often living in California retirement communities, lost their life savings, and felt emotional damage for having been duped on top of their financial devastation.[22][24] The total bondholder loss came to between $250 million and $288 million.[23][25] The federal government was eventually liable for $3.4 billion to cover Lincoln's losses when it seized the institution.[26]
Keating was hit with a $1.1 billion fraud and racketeering action, filed against him by the regulators.[4] In talking to reporters in April, Keating said, "One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."[27]
In the wake of the Lincoln failure, former FHLBB chair Gray went public about all five of the senators' assistance to Keating in a May 21, 1989, front-page story by John Dougherty in the Dayton Daily News, saying that in the April 1987 meetings the senators had sought "to directly subvert the regulatory process" to benefit Keating.[14][28] Press attention to the senators began to pick up, with a July 1989 Los Angeles Times article about Cranston's role.[18] Within a couple of months, Arizona Republic and Washington Post reporters were investigating McCain's personal relationships with Keating.[18]
Relationships of senators to Keating
On September 25, 1989, several Republicans from Ohio filed an ethics complaint against Glenn, charging that he had improperly intervened on Keating's behalf.[29][30] The initial charges against the five senators were made on October 13, 1989, by Common Cause, a public interest group, who asked for the U.S. Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the actions of the senators relative to Lincoln and the contributions received from Keating and whether they violated the rules of the Senate or federal election laws.[30][31][32][33] But the most public attention came from the House Banking Committee, whose new chair Henry B. Gonzalez held 50 hours of hearings into the Lincoln failure and associated events.[18]
By November 1989, the estimated cost of the overall savings and loan crisis had reached $500 billion, and the media's formerly erratic coverage had turned around and become a feeding frenzy.[18][34] The Lincoln matter was getting large-scale press attention and the senators became commonly known as the "Keating Five".[35][36] All the senators denied they had done anything improper in the matter, and said Keating's contributions made no difference to their actions.[29] The senators' initial defense of their actions rested on Keating being one of their constituents; McCain said, "I have done this kind of thing many, many times," and said the Lincoln case was like "helping the little lady who didn't get her Social Security."[35] Some of the five hired high-power Washington lawyers to represent them – including Charles Ruff for Glenn and John Dowd for McCain – while others feared that to do so would give the appearance their political careers were in jeopardy.[37][38]
The Justice Department and the FBI began by investigating possible criminal actions by Keating, but then expanded their inquiries to include the five senators.[39] The FBI soon focused their attention on Cranston, because the largest sums of money from Keating came into Cranston-involved voter-registration drives whose tax-exempt status might have been violated.[40]
Much of the press attention to the Keating Five focused on the exact relationships of each of the senators to Keating.
Cranston had received $39,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1986 Senate re-election campaign.[4] Furthermore, Keating had donated some $850,000 to assorted groups founded by Cranston or controlled by him, and another $85,000 to the California Democratic Party.[4] Cranston considered Keating a constituent because Lincoln was based in California.[35]
DeConcini had received about $48,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign.[4] In September 1989, after the government sued Keating and American Continental for improper actions regarding contributions, DeConcini returned the money.[41] DeConcini considered Keating a constituent because Keating lived in Arizona; they were also long-time friends.[35]
Glenn had received $34,000 in direct contributions from Keating and his associates for his 1984 presidential nomination campaign, and a political action committee tied to Glenn had received an additional $200,000.[4] Glenn considered Keating a constituent because one of Keating's other business concerns was headquartered in Ohio.[35]
McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981,[11] and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating.[42][43] Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent since Keating lived in Arizona.[35] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[44] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in the Fountain Square Project, a Keating shopping center, in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.[7][45] McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet; three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.[7] McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[7][46]
Riegle had received some $76,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign.[4] Riegle would announce in April 1988 that he was returning the money.[6] Riegle's constituency connection to Keating was that Keating's Hotel Pontchartrain was located in Michigan.[35]
Senate Ethics Committee investigation and findings
The Senate Ethics Committee's investigation began on November 17, 1989.[47] It focused on all five senators and lasted 22 months,[32] with nine months of active investigation and seven weeks of hearings.[48] The committee was composed of three Democratic senators, Howell Heflin (chair), David Pryor, and Terry Sanford, and three Republican senators, Warren Rudman (vice chair), Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms.[47] Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett was appointed as special outside counsel to the committee, tasked with conducting the investigation.[47]
Initially the committee investigated in private. On September 10, 1990, Bennett submitted a confidential report, which soon leaked, that recommended that the committee continue its investigation of Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle, but take no action against Glenn and McCain,[31] as there was insufficient evidence to pursue the latter two.[49] Bennett also recommended that public hearings be held.[30]
Speculation that this would be the decision had already taken place, and both Glenn and McCain were frustrated that the long delay in resolving their cases was damaging their reputations.[49] However, there were political implications, as the removal of the two would eliminate the only Republican from the case.[49] The committee's work was further made difficult by there being no specific rule that governed the propriety of members intervening with federal regulators.[49] By mid-October, several Republican senators, including former Ethics Committee chair Ted Stevens, were taking the unusual step of publicly complaining about the Ethics Committee's inaction, saying that it was unfair to Glenn and McCain, that the whole lengthy process was unfair to all five, and that political motives might be behind the delays.[50] Eventually, the committee could not agree on the Bennett recommendation regarding Glenn and McCain:[31] vice chair Rudman agreed with Bennett, chair Heflin did not.[16] On October 23, 1990, the committee decided to keep all five senators in the case, and scheduled public hearings to question them and other witnesses.[30][31]
These hearings would take place from November 15 through January 16, 1991.[31] They were held in the Hart Senate Office Building's largest hearing room.[51] They were broadcast live in their entirety by C-SPAN, with CNN and the network news programs showing segments of the testimonies.[51] At the opening of the hearings, as The Washington Post would later write, "the senators sat dourly alongside one another in a long row, a visual suggestive of co-defendants in a rogues' docket."[52] Overall, McCain would later write, "The hearings were a public humiliation."[51]
The committee reported on the other four senators in February 1991, but delayed its final report on Cranston until November 1991.[48] During that period there was partisan-aligned disagreement within the committee over how to treat Cranston, and in August 1991 a special counsel's report was released by Helms.[53] A delay was also caused when Pryor suffered a heart attack in April 1991, and was replaced on the committee by Jeff Bingaman.[54] Bingaman spent months learning the complex materials involved in the matter, only to resign in July due to a conflict of interest.[54] Pryor was reassigned to the committee in August 1991, so as to not further delay its deliberations.[54]
The various committee reports addressed each of the five senators.
Cranston: reprimanded
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Cranston had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[55] He had received more than a million dollars from Keating, including $850,000 to the voter registration groups closely affiliated with him; he had done more arm-twisting than the other senators on Keating's behalf; and he was the only senator officially rebuked by the Senate in this matter.[56]
Cranston was given the harshest penalty of all five senators. In November 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reprimand Cranston, instead of the more severe measure that was under consideration: censure by the full Senate. Extenuating circumstances that helped to save Cranston from censure included the fact that he was suffering from cancer, and that he had decided to not seek reelection, according to Heflin. The Ethics Committee took the unusual step of delivering its reprimand to Cranston during a formal session of the full Senate, with almost all 100 Senators present.[32]
Cranston was not accused of breaking any specific laws or rules, but of violating standards that Heflin said "do not permit official actions to be linked with fund-raising." Although the Ethics Committee stated "No evidence was presented to the Committee that Senator Cranston ever agreed to help Mr. Keating in return for a contribution," the Committee officially found that Cranston's conduct had been "improper and repugnant", deserving of "the fullest, strongest and most severe sanction which the committee has the authority to impose." The sanction was in these words: "the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, on behalf of and in the name of the United States Senate, does hereby strongly and severely reprimand Sen. Alan Cranston."[32][57]
After the Senate reprimanded Cranston, he took to the Senate floor to deny key charges against him. In response, Rudman charged that Cranston's response to the reprimand was "arrogant, unrepentant, and a smear on this institution," and that Cranston was wrong to imply that everyone does what Cranston had done. Alan Dershowitz, serving as Cranston's attorney, alleged that other senators had merely been better at "covering their tracks."[32]
Riegle and DeConcini: criticized for acting improperly
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Riegle and DeConcini had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[55] Specifically, it said that even though neither of them violated any Senate rule, their conduct "gave the appearance of being improper."[41] DeConcini was especially faulted for having taken the lead in the two meetings with the FHLBB.[41]
After the ruling, Riegle expressed contrition, saying "I certainly regret and accept responsibility [for actions that] did lend themselves to an appearance of a conflict of interest."[41] DeConcini, however, said he would continue to be "aggressive" in representing his constituents in their affairs with federal regulators.[41]
Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[55] He was only criticized by the committee for "poor judgment."[58]
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[55][56] McCain was criticized by the committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[7] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[59] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[7]
Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[60] Glenn later described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[8]
The Senate Ethics Committee did not pursue, for lack of jurisdiction, any possible ethics breaches in McCain's delayed reimbursements to Keating for trips at the latter's expense, because they occurred while McCain was in the House.[61] The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said that it too lacked jurisdiction, because McCain was no longer in the House.[62] It said it did not require that McCain amend his existing financial disclosure forms for his House years, on the grounds that McCain had now fully reimbursed Keating's company.[62]
Not everyone was satisfied with the Senate Ethics Committee conclusions. Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, which had initially demanded the investigation, thought the treatment of the senators far too lenient, and said, "[The] action by the Senate Ethics Committee is a cop-out and a damning indictment of the committee,"[41] and "The U.S. Senate remains on the auction block to the Charles Keatings of the world."[63] Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, called it a "whitewash".[63] Jonathan Alter of Newsweek said it was a classic case of the government trying to investigate itself, labeling the Senate Ethics Committee "shameless" for having "let four of the infamous Keating Five off with a wrist tap."[64] The New York Times ran several editorials criticizing the Ethics Committee for having let the senators off lightly.[65] Margaret Carlson of Time suspected the committee had timed its first report to coincide with the run-up to the Gulf War, minimizing its news impact.[63] One of the San Francisco bank regulators felt that McCain had gotten off too lightly, saying that Keating's business involvement with Cindy McCain was an obvious conflict of interest.[66]
Some of the Senate Ethics Committee members were concerned that letting the senators off lightly would harm their own reputations.[41] Nevertheless, the existing Senate rules did not specifically proscribe the actions taken by DeConcini, Riegle, Glenn, and McCain.[41] Vice-chair Rudman defended the committee's actions, saying: "Given the news media frenzy surrounding [the Keating Five], the easiest thing for the committee to do would have been to find them guilty of something and recommend sanctions. ... The politically difficult thing, the one requiring backbone, was what we did — to review all the evidence and reach a predictably unpopular conclusion based only on fact."[65]
A number of press reports came out during the Ethics Committee's work that purported to reveal aspects of the investigations.[45] Chair Heflin was upset by the leaks and two investigations into them were held, one by the General Accounting Office acting on behalf of the committee and one by the Senate's Temporary Special Independent Counsel.[45][61] Neither report reached a conclusive finding or directly implicated anyone in the leaks.[61] The special counsel report, released in 1992, ascribed partisanship as the motive for the leaks and said they were intended to hurt DeConcini, Riegle, and Cranston; it also gave an inference that McCain and his staff were responsible for key leaks.[45][61]
DeConcini later charged that McCain had leaked to the press sensitive information about the investigation that came from some of the closed proceedings of the Ethics Committee.[7] McCain denied doing so under oath, although several press reports concluded that McCain had been one of the main leakers during that time.[7][61] The GAO investigator later said, "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that McCain made those leaks."[45] Vice chair Rudman stated in his 1996 autobiography that McCain and his staff were responsible for some of the leaks,[61] but later repudiated the assertion.[45]
Keating and Lincoln Savings became convenient symbols for arguments about what had gone wrong in America's financial system and society,[67] and were featured in popular culture references.[67][68] The senators did not escape infamy either.[66] By spring 1992, a deck of playing cards was being marketed, called "The Savings and Loan Scandal", that featured on their face Charles Keating holding up his hand, with images of the five senators portrayed as puppets on his fingers.[7][67] Polls showed that most Americans believed the actions of the Keating Five were typical of Congress as a whole.[48] Political historian Lewis Gould would later echo this sentiment, as well as Cranston attorney Dershowitz's argument, writing that, "the real problem for the 'Keating Three' who were most involved was that they had been caught."[5]
McCain testified against Keating in a civil suit brought by Lincoln bondholders, and was seen as the plaintiffs' best witness.[69] The other four senators refused to testify.[69] Cranston left office in January 1993, and died in December 2000. DeConcini and Riegle continued to serve in the Senate until their terms expired, but they did not seek re-election in 1994. DeConcini was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February 1995 to the board of directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.[70] Glenn did choose to run for re-election in 1992, trying to become the first senator ever to win a fourth term from Ohio.[8] The Republican candidate, Lieutenant Governor R. Michael DeWine, attacked Glenn on Keating Five as well as a number of other matters, in one of the dirtiest campaigns in the country that year and the toughest of Glenn's senatorial contests.[8][71] Glenn prevailed, however, defeating DeWine by nine percentage points to gain one more term in the Senate before retiring and not running for re-election in 1998.[8][71]
After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who had an easier time gaining re-election in 1992 than he anticipated.[72] He survived the political scandal in part by becoming friendly with the political press.[72] McCain subsequently ran for president in 2000 and became the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. During the 2000s, several retrospective accounts of the controversy reiterated the contention that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[16][25][30][34] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain,[25] as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic senators.[30]
The scandal was followed by a number of attempts to adopt campaign finance reform—spearheaded by U.S. Sen. David Boren (D-OK)—but most attempts died in committee. A weakened reform was passed in 1993. Substantial campaign finance reform was not passed until the adoption of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002. Bennett would later write that the Keating Five investigation did make a difference, as members of Congress were afterward far less likely to intercede with federal investigations on behalf of contributors.[73]
In early October 2008, the Keating Five scandal, its possible parallel to the subprime mortgage crisis and liquidity crisis of September 2008, and specifically the role in the scandal of Republican presidential nominee McCain, were briefly emphasized by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, through a 13-minute "documentary" entitled Keating Economics.[74][75] This introduction occurred after the McCain campaign began emphasizing the Obama–Ayers controversy.[74] The Keating Five matter otherwise had little impact on McCain's eventually unsuccessful campaign.[76]
- United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Preliminary inquiry into allegations regarding Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and Riegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan: Open session hearings before the Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, second session, November 15, 1990, through January 16, 1991. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991.
- United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston together with Additional Views, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, S. Rep. No. 223, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (November 20, 1991). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991.
- ^ "Financial Audit: Resolution Trust Corporation's 1995 and 1994 Financial Statements" (PDF). U.S. General Accounting Office. July 1996.
- ^ "Housing Finance in Developed Countries An International Comparison of Efficiency, United States" (PDF). Fannie Mae. 1992.
- ^ Grossman, Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed, p. 201.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "The Lincoln Savings and Loan Investigation: Who Is Involved". The New York Times. 1989-11-22.
- ^ a b c Gould, The Most Exclusive Club, pp. 289–290.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Nash, Nathaniel C. (1989-07-09). "Showdown Time for Danny Wall". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Nowicki, Dan; Muller, Bill (2007-03-01). "John McCain Report: The Keating Five". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
- ^ a b c d e f "John Glenn archives: John Glenn ~ Political Career". Ohio State University. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-06-22. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
- ^ a b Binstein and Bowden, Trust Me, p. 275.
- ^ a b Binstein and Bowden, Trust Me, pp. 278–279.
- ^ a b c d e Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 108–111.
- ^ a b c Seidman, Full Faith and Credit, pp. 233, 235.
- ^ a b Pizzo, Inside Job, pp. 291, 294–296.
- ^ a b c d e Dougherty, John (1993-07-14). "DeConcini & Keating". Phoenix New Times. Archived from the original on 2010-05-27. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
- ^ a b "Who were the Keating Five?". Chicago Tribune. 1990-01-14.
- ^ a b c Karaagac, John McCain: An Essay in Military and Political History, pp. 163, 169.
- ^ McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, pp. 185–186. Used because it has a thorough list of media references to what would become Keating Five.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Kurtz, Media Circus, pp. 69–72.
- ^ Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 115–119.
- ^ Nowicki, Dan; Muller, Bill (2007-03-01). "John McCain Report: The Senate calls". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
- ^ Germond and Witcover, Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars?, pp. 340, 343.
- ^ a b c Nash, Nathaniel C. (1989-11-30). "Collapse of Lincoln Savings Leaves Scars for Rich, Poor and the Faithful". The New York Times.
- ^ a b Stevenson, Richard W. (1991-12-13). "U.S. Files Keating Charges". The New York Times.
- ^ Stevenson, Richard W. (1990-09-19). "Keating Indicted in Savings Fraud and Goes to Jail". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c Tolchin, Glass Houses, p. 51.
- ^ Berthelsen, Christian (1999-04-07). "Keating Pleads Guilty to 4 Counts of Fraud". The New York Times.
- ^ Nash, Nathaniel C.; Shenon, Philip (1989-11-09). "A Man of Influence: Political Cash and Regulation: A Special Report: In Savings Debacle, Many Fingers Point Here". The New York Times.
- ^ See also Preliminary inquiry into allegations regarding Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and Riegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan committee report, p. 126.
- ^ a b Roberts and Doss, From Watergate to Whitewater, pp. 140–141.
- ^ a b c d e f Bennett, In the Ring, pp. 129, 133–134.
- ^ a b c d e Dewar, Helen (1991-02-08). "Panel Finds 'Credible Evidence' Cranston Violated Ethics Rules". The Washington Post.
- ^ a b c d e Dewar, Helen (1991-11-21). "Cranston Accepts Reprimand; 'Keating 5' Senator Angers Colleagues by Denying Misconduct". The Washington Post.
- ^ Berke, Richard L. (1989-10-27). "Savings and Loan Executives Accused of Tapping Phones". The New York Times.
- ^ a b Mitchell, Talking Back, pp. 147-148.
- ^ a b c d e f g Berke, Richard L. (1989-11-05). "Helping Constituents or Themselves?". The New York Times.
- ^ Carlson, Margaret (1989-11-27). "A Legal Bank Robbery". Time. Archived from the original on March 7, 2008.
- ^ Shenon, Philip (1989-11-22). "5 Senators Struggle to Avoid Keating Inquiry Fallout". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-05.
- ^ McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 195. Used to specify McCain's attorney.
- ^ Nash, Nathaniel C. (1989-11-13). "Savings Official's Ties In Senate Investigated". The New York Times.
- ^ Berke, Richard L. (1989-12-06). "Cranston Inquiry Widens to Include Signups of Voters". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c d e f g h "Senate ethics panel cites Cranston in Keating Five case". Chicago Tribune. 1991-02-28. Archived from the original on 2008-12-11.
- ^ Berke, Richard L. (1991-01-05). "2 Senators Deny Impropriety In Dealings With Keating". The New York Times.
- ^ Rosenblatt, Robert A.; Fritz, Sara (1991-01-05). "McCain Probed Over Traveling to Keating Spa Thrifts". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-10-06.
- ^ Sullum, Jacob (2005-03-11). "How John McCain Reformed". Reason.
- ^ a b c d e f Mahtani, Sahil (2008-11-01). "McCain First, Second, And Always". The New Republic. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
- ^ Rasky, Susan (1989-12-22). "To Senator McCain, the Savings and Loan Affair Is Now a Personal Demon". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, pp. 194–195. Used to give committee composition.
- ^ a b c Williams, Political Scandals in the USA, p. 103.
- ^ a b c d Berke, Richard L. (1990-09-29). "Ethics Committee is Urged to Clear 2 of 5 in Savings Inquiry". The New York Times.
- ^ Berke, Richard L. (1990-10-15). "G.O.P. Senators See Politics In Pace of Keating 5 Inquiry". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 199. Used to give atmosphere of hearings.
- ^ Dobbs, Michael (2008-10-22). "Senator's Image as Reformer Born in Crisis". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
- ^ Berke, Richard L. (1991-08-05). "Cranston Censure Urged by Counsel". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c "Senator Pryor Returns to Ethics Committee". The New York Times. 1991-08-22.
- ^ a b c d "The Online NewsHour: Washington Corruption Probe". PBS. Archived from the original on 2008-02-28. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
- ^ a b Purdy, Elizabeth (2005). "Keating Five". In Salinger, Lawrence M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of White-collar & Corporate Crime. SAGE Publications. ISBN 0-7619-3004-3. pp. 476–478.
- ^ Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston ...
- ^ Regens and Gaddie, The Economic Realities of Political Reform, p. 6.
- ^ "Excerpts of Statement By Senate Ethics Panel". The New York Times. 1991-02-28. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
- ^ McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 161. Used to support direct quotation.
- ^ a b c d e f Robinson, Walter V. (2000-02-29). "Pluck, leaks helped McCain to overcome S&L scandal". The Boston Globe.
- ^ a b McCain and Salter, Worth the Fighting For, p. 188. Gives best explanation for House treatment of Keating reimbursements.
- ^ a b c Carlson, Margaret (1991-03-11). "Then There Was One". Time. Archived from the original on August 31, 2008.
- ^ Alter, Jonathan (1993-10-25). "The Buck Stops Where?". Newsweek.
- ^ a b Rudman, Warren (1991-10-31). "To the Editor: On Keating Five, Ethics Panel Acted Properly". The New York Times.
- ^ a b Rutenberg, Jim; Thompson, Marilyn W.; Kirkpatrick, David D.; Labaton, Stephen (2008-02-21). "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
- ^ a b c Binstein and Bowden, Trust Me, pp. 388–389.
- ^ "The Simpsons: Lisa's First Word". TV.com. Archived from the original on 2008-10-06. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
- ^ a b Abramson, Jill; Mitchell, Alison (1999-11-21). "Senate Inquiry In Keating Case Tested McCain". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
- ^ "Dennis DeConcini Papers, 1944–2003: Biographical Note". University of Arizona Library. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
- ^ a b Mondak, Nothing to Read, p. 38.
- ^ a b Nowicki, Dan; Muller, Bill (2007-03-01). "John McCain Report: Overcoming scandal, moving on". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
- ^ Bennett, In the Ring, p. 148.
- ^ a b Bacon, Perry Jr. (2008-10-06). "Dems: Forget Ayers, Remember Keating". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-10-06.
- ^ Miller, S.A. (2008-10-31). "Candidates attack political associations". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
- ^ Juliano, Nick (2008-09-25). "Fox host tells guest mentioning McCain role in Keating Five scandal to 'pipe down'". The Raw Story. Archived from the original on December 10, 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
General references
- Alexander, Paul (2002). Man of the People: The Life of John McCain. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-22829-X.
- Bennett, Robert S. (2008). In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer. Random House. ISBN 978-0-307-39443-9.
- Binstein, Michael; Bowden, Charles (1993). Trust Me: Charles Keating and the Missing Billions. Random House. ISBN 0-679-41699-4.
- Germond, Jack; Witcover, Jules (1989). Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars? The Trivial Pursuit of the Presidency 1988. Warner Books. ISBN 0-446-51424-1.
- Gould, Lewis J. (2005). The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02778-4.
- Grossman, Mark (2003). Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-060-3.
- Karaagac, John (2000). John McCain: An Essay in Military and Political History. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0171-4.
- Kurtz, Howard (1994). Media Circus: The Trouble with America's Newspapers (paperback). Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-6356-3.
- McCain, John; Salter, Mark (2002). Worth the Fighting For. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-50542-3.
- Mitchell, Andrea (2007). Talking Back: To Presidents, Dictators, and Assorted Scoundrels. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-303873-3.
- Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1995). Nothing to Read: Newspapers and Elections in a Social Experiment. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-06599-8.
- Pizzo, Stephen; Fricker, Mary; Muolo, Paul (1989). Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-050230-7.
- Regens, James; Gaddie, Ronald (1996). The Economic Realities of Political Reform: Elections and the U.S. Senate. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47468-X.
- Roberts, Robert North; Doss, Marion T. (1997). From Watergate to Whitewater: The Public Integrity War. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-275-95597-4.
- Seidman, L. William (1993). Full Faith and Credit: The Great S & L Debacle and Other Washington Sagas. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-2134-8.
- Tolchin, Martin; Tolchin, Susan J. (2003). Glass Houses: Congressional Ethics and the Politics of Venom. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4161-2.
- Williams, Robert (1998). Political Scandals in the USA. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 1-85331-189-8.


text:
Enjoying wine responsibly and in moderation is consistent with a healthy lifestyle for most adult people. It is not the alcoholic beverages consumption per se that is the problem; it is the harmful use of alcohol and its impact on others that needs to be addressed.
It is not only the amount of alcohol that is important, but also the drinking patterns. The consequences of drinking alcoholic beverages often depend on the pattern of drinking: heavy or abusive drinking patterns will increase health risks, while there is not only less risk but even some reported health benefits for many adult people from moderate drinking.
Drinking patterns
There are actual relevant differences in the drinking patterns in Europe and around the world, as the consumption patterns of the different alcohol beverages are strongly influenced by cultural factors. The very different drinking patterns in different areas of the world are part of very different traditional lifestyles.
The vast majority of people who drink wine do so in moderation and responsibly. While overall consumption of wine has decreased in Europe (by 15 mill hl over the past 20 years, with more than 20% decrease in the traditional wine producing countries since 1996) Europeans are increasingly purchasing wines of higher quality and are consuming in a more responsible and moderate way, associated with diet and gastronomy, in a home or restaurant environment.
Click here to enter the scientific database on social and cultural aspects of wine consumption
Understanding complex regional and cross - cultural determinants
Traditionally, most European cultures consider wine a refined choice, a view which is consistent with moderate consumption. While wine consumption in the EU has fallen considerably over the past 20 years, among young people, for example, there has been a gradual increase in the misuse of alcoholic beverages, particularly in the form of "binge drinking" (repeated heavy drinking, more than five standard drink units at a time, with the purpose of getting drunk).
This trend highlights the importance of analysing drinking patterns and the need to promote responsibility and moderation when consuming alcoholic beverages.
The European Comparative Alcohol Study (ECAS) compared the alcohol consumption and drinking patterns in 14 European countries and found considerable differences. While the European Mediterranean region accounts for the highest alcohol consumption per capita, drinking patterns that pose fewer health risks can be observed there: for example, alcoholic beverages are primarily consumed at home with meals, not in bars/restaurants and not without food. Considerable national variations with regards to "binge drinking" exist as well. For example, 34% of Irish respondents said they usually binge drink, compared to only 2% of respondents in wine-producing Italy and Greece, and 4% in Portugal.
In fact, harmful drinking patterns are considerably less common in predominantly wine producing countries, where wine is consumed more regularly, almost exclusively with meals and the volume of alcohol consumed at each drinking session tends to be much lower than in the Nordic countries, the UK and Ireland, which have the highest levels of binge drinking.
Furthermore, enormous cross-cultural variations in the way Europeans behave when they drink exist. In some societies, alcohol misuse is often associated with violent or anti-social behaviour, while in others drinking behaviour is generally harmonious. These differences are partly related to inconsistent cultural beliefs about alcoholic beverages, expectancies regarding the effects of alcohol, and social norms regarding drunkenness (ECAS final report, 2002).
It is well documented in the ECAS 2 study that the traditional method of only considering the per capita alcohol consumption within a country's population and neglecting the drinking patterns is not necessarily the decisive factor for alcohol related harm. A better understanding of individual drinking patterns, particularly among young people, is required in order to be able to suggest solutions that could minimise alcohol related harm.
Evidence-based research which examines drinking patterns as well as the motivation to drink the different alcoholic beverages in different local cultural contexts can contribute successfully to curbing alcohol abuse and misuse.


text:
Professional development is encouraged and will be supported by the College whenever possible. A travel authorization must be approved by the president prior to making any travel arrangements. Arrangements should be made as far in advance as possible.
Before leaving for a conference or workshop, faculty should submit to the appropriate Dean the arrangements made for classes.
Policy Number: 302-01-00BP
Adopted: May 10, 2010
Amended: May 24, 2011