THE lawsuits challenging the individual mandate in the health care law, including one in which a federal district judge last week called the law unconstitutional, will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court, and pundits are already making bets on how the justices will vote.
But the predictions of a partisan 5-4 split rest on a misunderstanding of the court and the Constitution. The constitutionality of the health care law is not one of those novel, one-off issues, like the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, that have at times created the impression of Supreme Court justices as political actors rather than legal analysts.
Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this law’s constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?
Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. For the system to work, all individuals — healthy and sick, risk-prone and risk-averse — must participate to the extent of their economic ability.
In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here: by restricting certain economic choices of individuals, we ensure the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congress’s power to establish.
The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.
Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so. After all, the individual mandate is enforced through taxation, even if supporters have been reluctant to point that out.
Given the clear case for the law’s constitutionality, it’s distressing that many assume its fate will be decided by a partisan, closely divided Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, whom some count as a certain vote against the law, upheld in 2005 Congress’s power to punish those growing marijuana for their own medical use; a ban on homegrown marijuana, he reasoned, might be deemed “necessary and proper” to effectively enforce broader federal regulation of nationwide drug markets. To imagine Justice Scalia would abandon that fundamental understanding of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause because he was appointed by a Republican president is to insult both his intellect and his integrity.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom many unfairly caricature as the “swing vote,” deserves better as well. Yes, his opinion in the 5-4 decision invalidating the federal ban on possession of guns near schools is frequently cited by opponents of the health care law. But that decision in 1995 drew a bright line between commercial choices, all of which Congress has presumptive power to regulate, and conduct like gun possession that is not in itself “commercial” or “economic,” however likely it might be to set off a cascade of economic effects. The decision about how to pay for health care is a quintessentially commercial choice in itself, not merely a decision that might have economic consequences.
Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law. Those judges made the confused assertion that what is at stake here is a matter of personal liberty — the right not to purchase what one wishes not to purchase — rather than the reach of national legislative power in a world where no man is an island.
It would be asking a lot to expect conservative jurists to smuggle into the commerce clause an unenumerated federal “right” to opt out of the social contract. If Justice Clarence Thomas can be counted a nearly sure vote against the health care law, the only reason is that he alone has publicly and repeatedly stressed his principled disagreement with the whole line of post-1937 cases that interpret Congress’s commerce power broadly.
There is every reason to believe that a strong, nonpartisan majority of justices will do their constitutional duty, set aside how they might have voted had they been members of Congress and treat this constitutional challenge for what it is — a political objection in legal garb.
Laurence H. Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, is the author of “The Invisible Constitution.”
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Sarah Palin forgets to sign trademark application YES! she's ready to be President!?
The applications to trademark the names of Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin have been rejected by the federal government because the former Alaska governor forgot to sign the forms, according to news reports.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is trying to trademark her name. CAPTIONBy Brandi Simons, APThe 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee and her daughter, who was a finalist on Dancing with the Stars, have indicated they will resubmit the forms -- this time with signatures.
Fox Business News reports this from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
"Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, SARAH PALIN, consists of a name identifying a particular living individual whose consent to register the mark is not of record."
AOL's Politics Daily first reported last week that Palin, who is thinking of running for president, and her daughter filed applications to protect their names -- and their brands.
Palin has reportedly earned millions for writing two best-selling books. Bristol Palin, 20, was a finalist last year on ABC's popular dance competition program.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is trying to trademark her name. CAPTIONBy Brandi Simons, APThe 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee and her daughter, who was a finalist on Dancing with the Stars, have indicated they will resubmit the forms -- this time with signatures.
Fox Business News reports this from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
"Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, SARAH PALIN, consists of a name identifying a particular living individual whose consent to register the mark is not of record."
AOL's Politics Daily first reported last week that Palin, who is thinking of running for president, and her daughter filed applications to protect their names -- and their brands.
Palin has reportedly earned millions for writing two best-selling books. Bristol Palin, 20, was a finalist last year on ABC's popular dance competition program.
GOP Mitch Daniels proposes a deal on health care
This op-ed by Gov. Mitch Daniels includes an introductory critique of the Affordable Care Act that's so overstated that it borders on comedy.
(I mean, "all claims made for it were false"? Really? Every single one?) But once you get past that, it's exactly what I've been hoping to see from a major member of the Republican Party: It's a list of changes that Congress could make to the Affordable Care Act in order to make it acceptable to Republicans, or at least to Mitch Daniels.
• We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.
• All the law's expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren't forced to buy benefits they don't need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.
• The law's provisions discriminating against consumer-driven plans, such as health savings accounts, are waived.
• We are given the freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange, or to utilize new approaches to the traditional program, instead of herding hundreds of thousands more people into today's broken Medicaid system.
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
According to Daniels, these changes would transform the program from an "impending disaster" into a system where "customer choice would be dramatically enhanced" and "health care would be much more affordable."
I don't agree on the impending disaster part, but the rest of it is true, though with a few big catches: There'd be more choices because there'd be fewer standards, and there'd be cheaper coverage options because insurers would be allowed to offer extremely limited products.
Most of the list is composed of small tweaks. Daniels doesn't think the bill sufficiently reimburses the states for administrative costs, or worries the legislation is insufficiently welcoming to high-deductible plans, or wants another estimate of take-up in the exchanges? Fair enough. Those concerns should be addressed.
The bigger-ticket items are Medicaid and the mandates. I don't see anything wrong with allowing states to move Medicaid-eligible populations into the exchanges -- at least so long as they're committed to giving them access to high-quality insurance once they're in there (remember, Medicaid is much cheaper than equivalent private insurance products). This is actually a compromise I mentioned explicitly in my piece envisioning the health-care system in 2030.
But I wonder what Daniels really means when he calls for "all the law's expensive benefit mandates [to be] waived." Does he mean the categories of care that the bill directs insurers to cover? Does he mean that the bill should throw out protections from preexisting conditions and limits on annual caps? I'm on the side of more, not less, flexibility in this area, but that's not the same as getting rid of standards entirely.
That said, this is a worthwhile debate to be having. Whether the law excludes innovative insurance products that could help bend the cost curve is a much more productive debate to be having than whether we should be making a major move to cover our citizens and bend the cost curve at all. And there's no doubt that the legislation's actual implementation would benefit from the buy-in of conservative governors like Mitch Daniels.
Daniels, of course, doesn't have a vote in Congress, and it's not even clear he has many friends there. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the deals he offers. Back in September, Daniels called for a second stimulus centered around a payroll tax cut and full expensing for business and investment. Both were part of the deal that congressional Republicans struck with the administration a few months later.
Ezra Klein Washington Post
(I mean, "all claims made for it were false"? Really? Every single one?) But once you get past that, it's exactly what I've been hoping to see from a major member of the Republican Party: It's a list of changes that Congress could make to the Affordable Care Act in order to make it acceptable to Republicans, or at least to Mitch Daniels.
• We are given the flexibility to decide which insurers are permitted to offer their products.
• All the law's expensive benefit mandates are waived, so that our citizens aren't forced to buy benefits they don't need and have a range of choice that includes more affordable plans.
• The law's provisions discriminating against consumer-driven plans, such as health savings accounts, are waived.
• We are given the freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange, or to utilize new approaches to the traditional program, instead of herding hundreds of thousands more people into today's broken Medicaid system.
• Our state is reimbursed the true, full cost of the administrative burden to be imposed upon us, based on the estimate of an auditor independent of HHS.
• A trustworthy projection is commissioned, by a research organization independent of the department, of how many people are likely to wind up in the exchange, given the large incentives for employers to save money by off-loading their workers.
According to Daniels, these changes would transform the program from an "impending disaster" into a system where "customer choice would be dramatically enhanced" and "health care would be much more affordable."
I don't agree on the impending disaster part, but the rest of it is true, though with a few big catches: There'd be more choices because there'd be fewer standards, and there'd be cheaper coverage options because insurers would be allowed to offer extremely limited products.
Most of the list is composed of small tweaks. Daniels doesn't think the bill sufficiently reimburses the states for administrative costs, or worries the legislation is insufficiently welcoming to high-deductible plans, or wants another estimate of take-up in the exchanges? Fair enough. Those concerns should be addressed.
The bigger-ticket items are Medicaid and the mandates. I don't see anything wrong with allowing states to move Medicaid-eligible populations into the exchanges -- at least so long as they're committed to giving them access to high-quality insurance once they're in there (remember, Medicaid is much cheaper than equivalent private insurance products). This is actually a compromise I mentioned explicitly in my piece envisioning the health-care system in 2030.
But I wonder what Daniels really means when he calls for "all the law's expensive benefit mandates [to be] waived." Does he mean the categories of care that the bill directs insurers to cover? Does he mean that the bill should throw out protections from preexisting conditions and limits on annual caps? I'm on the side of more, not less, flexibility in this area, but that's not the same as getting rid of standards entirely.
That said, this is a worthwhile debate to be having. Whether the law excludes innovative insurance products that could help bend the cost curve is a much more productive debate to be having than whether we should be making a major move to cover our citizens and bend the cost curve at all. And there's no doubt that the legislation's actual implementation would benefit from the buy-in of conservative governors like Mitch Daniels.
Daniels, of course, doesn't have a vote in Congress, and it's not even clear he has many friends there. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the deals he offers. Back in September, Daniels called for a second stimulus centered around a payroll tax cut and full expensing for business and investment. Both were part of the deal that congressional Republicans struck with the administration a few months later.
Ezra Klein Washington Post
Electronic Flaws Did Not Cause Toyota Problems
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration's investigation into Toyota safety problems has found no electronic flaws to account for reports of sudden, unintentional acceleration and other safety problems. Government investigators said Tuesday the only known cause of the problems are mechanical defects that have been addressed by previous recalls.
The Transportation Department, which was assisted by engineers with NASA, said its 10-month study of Toyota vehicles concluded there was no electronic cause of unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyotas. The study, which was launched at the request of Congress, responded to consumer complaints that flawed electronics could be the culprit behind Toyota's spate of recalls.
"We enlisted the best and brightest engineers to study Toyota's electronics systems and the verdict is in. There is no electronic-based cause for unintended acceleration in Toyotas," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
Toyota has recalled more than 12 million vehicles globally since fall 2009 to address sticking accelerator pedals, gas pedals that became trapped in floor mats, and other safety issues. The recalls have posed a major challenge for the world's No. 1 automaker, which has scrambled to protect its reputation for safety and reliability.
Toyota paid the U.S. government a record $48.8 million in fines for its handling of three recalls. The company has said it has not found any flaws in its electronic throttle control systems and said the previously announced recalls have addressed the safety concerns.
LaHood said NASA engineers "rigorously examined" nine Toyotas driven by consumers who complained of unintended acceleration. NASA reviewed 280,000 lines of software code to look for flaws that could cause the acceleration. Investigators tested mechanical components in Toyotas that could lead to the problem and bombarded vehicles with electro-magnetic radiation to see whether it could make the electronics cause the cars to speed up.
A preliminary part of the study, released last August, failed to find any electronic flaws based on a review of event data recorders, or vehicle black boxes.
Despite its findings, LaHood said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was considering new regulations to improve safety. They include requiring brake override systems on all vehicles, standardizing keyless ignition systems and requiring event data recorders, or vehicle black boxes, on all new vehicles.
Transportation officials said they would also consider conducting more research on electronic control systems and review the placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals.
In Tokyo on Tuesday, Toyota reported a 39 percent slide in quarterly profit but raised its full-year forecasts for earnings and car sales. It is a mixed picture for the automaker, which is enjoying booming sales in high-growth markets in Asia, Africa and South America, while facing lingering worries about quality lapses in the U.S.
In addition to the recalls, Toyota began installing brake override systems on new vehicles. The systems automatically cut the throttle when the brake and gas pedals are applied at the same time. The company also created engineering teams to examine vehicles that are the subject of consumer complaints and appointed a chief quality officer for North America amid complaints its U.S. division did not play a large enough role in making safety decisions.
Consumer advocates and safety groups raised concerns that flawed electronics could be causing unwanted acceleration in the Toyotas. They have questioned the reliability of the event data recorders studied by the government, saying they could be faulty or fail to tell the whole story of the individual crashes.
Toyota's safety issues received broad attention from the government after four people were killed in a high-speed crash involving a Lexus near San Diego in August 2009.
NHTSA has received about 3,000 reports of sudden acceleration incidents involving Toyota vehicles during the past decade, including allegations of 93 deaths. NHTSA, however, has confirmed just five of them.
Congress considered sweeping safety legislation last year that would have required brake override systems, raised penalties on auto companies that evade safety recalls and given the government the power to quickly recall vehicles. But the bills failed to win enough support, and it remains unclear if Congress will pursue similar legislation before the 2012 elections.
The National Academy of Sciences is conducting a separate study of unintended acceleration in cars and trucks across the auto industry. The panel is expected to release its findings this fall.
The Transportation Department, which was assisted by engineers with NASA, said its 10-month study of Toyota vehicles concluded there was no electronic cause of unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyotas. The study, which was launched at the request of Congress, responded to consumer complaints that flawed electronics could be the culprit behind Toyota's spate of recalls.
"We enlisted the best and brightest engineers to study Toyota's electronics systems and the verdict is in. There is no electronic-based cause for unintended acceleration in Toyotas," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
Toyota has recalled more than 12 million vehicles globally since fall 2009 to address sticking accelerator pedals, gas pedals that became trapped in floor mats, and other safety issues. The recalls have posed a major challenge for the world's No. 1 automaker, which has scrambled to protect its reputation for safety and reliability.
Toyota paid the U.S. government a record $48.8 million in fines for its handling of three recalls. The company has said it has not found any flaws in its electronic throttle control systems and said the previously announced recalls have addressed the safety concerns.
LaHood said NASA engineers "rigorously examined" nine Toyotas driven by consumers who complained of unintended acceleration. NASA reviewed 280,000 lines of software code to look for flaws that could cause the acceleration. Investigators tested mechanical components in Toyotas that could lead to the problem and bombarded vehicles with electro-magnetic radiation to see whether it could make the electronics cause the cars to speed up.
A preliminary part of the study, released last August, failed to find any electronic flaws based on a review of event data recorders, or vehicle black boxes.
Despite its findings, LaHood said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was considering new regulations to improve safety. They include requiring brake override systems on all vehicles, standardizing keyless ignition systems and requiring event data recorders, or vehicle black boxes, on all new vehicles.
Transportation officials said they would also consider conducting more research on electronic control systems and review the placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals.
In Tokyo on Tuesday, Toyota reported a 39 percent slide in quarterly profit but raised its full-year forecasts for earnings and car sales. It is a mixed picture for the automaker, which is enjoying booming sales in high-growth markets in Asia, Africa and South America, while facing lingering worries about quality lapses in the U.S.
In addition to the recalls, Toyota began installing brake override systems on new vehicles. The systems automatically cut the throttle when the brake and gas pedals are applied at the same time. The company also created engineering teams to examine vehicles that are the subject of consumer complaints and appointed a chief quality officer for North America amid complaints its U.S. division did not play a large enough role in making safety decisions.
Consumer advocates and safety groups raised concerns that flawed electronics could be causing unwanted acceleration in the Toyotas. They have questioned the reliability of the event data recorders studied by the government, saying they could be faulty or fail to tell the whole story of the individual crashes.
Toyota's safety issues received broad attention from the government after four people were killed in a high-speed crash involving a Lexus near San Diego in August 2009.
NHTSA has received about 3,000 reports of sudden acceleration incidents involving Toyota vehicles during the past decade, including allegations of 93 deaths. NHTSA, however, has confirmed just five of them.
Congress considered sweeping safety legislation last year that would have required brake override systems, raised penalties on auto companies that evade safety recalls and given the government the power to quickly recall vehicles. But the bills failed to win enough support, and it remains unclear if Congress will pursue similar legislation before the 2012 elections.
The National Academy of Sciences is conducting a separate study of unintended acceleration in cars and trucks across the auto industry. The panel is expected to release its findings this fall.
Reagan Kids Reject GOP Heirs to Father's Conservative Legacy
Would Ronald Reagan Support the Tea Party? His Children Disagree
Channeling Ronald Reagan has become an obsession of the nation's leading conservative political figures, including many who are likely candidates for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, compares his Pennsylvania roots to Reagan's in Tampico, Ill. And, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, among others, credits Reagan as an inspiration to "fight for conservative causes."
But ask the 40th president's three surviving children -- Michael and Ron Reagan and Patti Davis -- whether any of their father's potential Republican successors could claim the Reagan mantle, and they say no way.
Is Sarah Palin the next Ronald Reagan?
"You've got to be kidding me," Patti Davis said in an interview with ABC News' "This Week."
"Sarah Palin has nothing in common with my father," said Ron Reagan, Davis' younger brother and a political liberal. "Sarah Palin is a soap opera."
Where does Gingrich stand?
"In some dank little basement somewhere or some fantasy world in his own head," he added.
"You must be kidding me," Davis said of the comparison of Gingrich to her father. "No!"
Michael Reagan, a Republican strategist, said simply that no one matches up.
"I'm not going to down that road because I don't see anyone in Ronald Reagan's image," he said. "He was one of a kind."
While the Reagan children have found the comparisons -- and the extent to which politicians will go to make them -- highly amusing, they say they are intrinsically contrary to Reagan's personal philosophy.
"I remember when I was a kid, my father saw an ad somewhere for 'real simulated diamonds' and he was chuckling and laughing about this. He thought it was so funny that they would put together those two words, real and simulated. And I remember him saying: 'You think people are stupid? Do they think people don't know what the word simulated means?'" Davis said. "I think he would have had the same reaction to people trying to imitate him."
Reagan's three children say the infatuation with their father's legacy is perhaps most reflective of the Republican Party's search for a unifying figure, a leader to chart a path forward.
"Everybody's trying to out-Reagan themselves," said Michael Reagan, an adopted son of the late president. "They're quoting my father, which is wonderful. But they've got to find their own voice and who they are. And I think a mistake that we make as conservatives is by looking for the next Ronald Reagan.
"We may very well walk right past the next great leader of our movement," he said.
Michael Reagan said he believes that next leader may emerge from the Tea Party, which he said is the best current example of his father's vision in action.
"My dad would be supportive of grassroots America rising up and saying we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore," he said.
Ron Reagan and Patti Davis sharply disagree, calling the Tea Party's message "extreme" and contrary to their father's principles.
"My brother is, perhaps, more comfortable speaking for him [Ronald Reagan] than I am," Ron Reagan said. "The vitriol that's directed at the White House from some sectors now, I think would really disquiet him. He would think that was unworthy of this country and he would find it disturbing."
But even on the Tea Party, the Reagan children find ground to agree: Their father's brand of politics was different from the all-or-nothing, uncompromising partisanship that exists today.
They say President Reagan knew how to reach across the aisle and form real bonds and lasting partnerships with Democrats, like House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who rushed to the hospital when the president was shot.
"O'Neill somehow manages to get himself into the hospital room ... and my father is asleep at the time, and he goes and kneels by the bed, apparently, and begins to recite the Lord's Prayer," Ron Reagan said. "My father wakes up and hears him and sees him there and begins reciting it with him. And before O'Neill leaves, he takes my father's hand and kisses it and he says, 'God bless you, Mr. President.' Now can you imagine John Boehner doing that with Barack Obama? I can't. And I think that's a sad thing."
Channeling Ronald Reagan has become an obsession of the nation's leading conservative political figures, including many who are likely candidates for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, compares his Pennsylvania roots to Reagan's in Tampico, Ill. And, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, among others, credits Reagan as an inspiration to "fight for conservative causes."
But ask the 40th president's three surviving children -- Michael and Ron Reagan and Patti Davis -- whether any of their father's potential Republican successors could claim the Reagan mantle, and they say no way.
Is Sarah Palin the next Ronald Reagan?
"You've got to be kidding me," Patti Davis said in an interview with ABC News' "This Week."
"Sarah Palin has nothing in common with my father," said Ron Reagan, Davis' younger brother and a political liberal. "Sarah Palin is a soap opera."
Where does Gingrich stand?
"In some dank little basement somewhere or some fantasy world in his own head," he added.
"You must be kidding me," Davis said of the comparison of Gingrich to her father. "No!"
Michael Reagan, a Republican strategist, said simply that no one matches up.
"I'm not going to down that road because I don't see anyone in Ronald Reagan's image," he said. "He was one of a kind."
While the Reagan children have found the comparisons -- and the extent to which politicians will go to make them -- highly amusing, they say they are intrinsically contrary to Reagan's personal philosophy.
"I remember when I was a kid, my father saw an ad somewhere for 'real simulated diamonds' and he was chuckling and laughing about this. He thought it was so funny that they would put together those two words, real and simulated. And I remember him saying: 'You think people are stupid? Do they think people don't know what the word simulated means?'" Davis said. "I think he would have had the same reaction to people trying to imitate him."
Reagan's three children say the infatuation with their father's legacy is perhaps most reflective of the Republican Party's search for a unifying figure, a leader to chart a path forward.
"Everybody's trying to out-Reagan themselves," said Michael Reagan, an adopted son of the late president. "They're quoting my father, which is wonderful. But they've got to find their own voice and who they are. And I think a mistake that we make as conservatives is by looking for the next Ronald Reagan.
"We may very well walk right past the next great leader of our movement," he said.
Michael Reagan said he believes that next leader may emerge from the Tea Party, which he said is the best current example of his father's vision in action.
"My dad would be supportive of grassroots America rising up and saying we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore," he said.
Ron Reagan and Patti Davis sharply disagree, calling the Tea Party's message "extreme" and contrary to their father's principles.
"My brother is, perhaps, more comfortable speaking for him [Ronald Reagan] than I am," Ron Reagan said. "The vitriol that's directed at the White House from some sectors now, I think would really disquiet him. He would think that was unworthy of this country and he would find it disturbing."
But even on the Tea Party, the Reagan children find ground to agree: Their father's brand of politics was different from the all-or-nothing, uncompromising partisanship that exists today.
They say President Reagan knew how to reach across the aisle and form real bonds and lasting partnerships with Democrats, like House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who rushed to the hospital when the president was shot.
"O'Neill somehow manages to get himself into the hospital room ... and my father is asleep at the time, and he goes and kneels by the bed, apparently, and begins to recite the Lord's Prayer," Ron Reagan said. "My father wakes up and hears him and sees him there and begins reciting it with him. And before O'Neill leaves, he takes my father's hand and kisses it and he says, 'God bless you, Mr. President.' Now can you imagine John Boehner doing that with Barack Obama? I can't. And I think that's a sad thing."
Monday, February 07, 2011
Rush is on for custom domain name suffixes
The pillar of the basic Web address - the trusty .com domain - is about to face vast new competition that will dramatically transform the Web as we know it. New Web sites, with more subject-specific, sometimes controversial suffixes, will soon populate the online galaxy, such as .eco, .love, .god, .sport, .gay or .kurd.
This massive expansion to the Internet's domain name system will either make the Web more intuitive or create more cluttered, maddening experiences. No one knows yet. But with an infinite number of naming possibilities, an industry of Web wildcatters is racing to grab these potentially lucrative territories with addresses that are bound to provoke.
Who gets to run .abortion Web sites - people who support abortion rights or those who don't? Which individual or mosque can run the .islam or .muhammad sites? Can the Ku Klux Klan own .nazi on free speech grounds, or will a Jewish organization run the domain and permit only educational Web sites - say, remember.nazi or antidefamation.nazi? And who's going to get .amazon - the Internet retailer or Brazil?
The decisions will come down to a little-known nonprofit based in Marina del Rey, Calif., whose international board of directors approved the expansion in 2008 but has been stuck debating how best to run the program before launching it. Now, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is on the cusp of completing those talks in March or April and will soon solicit applications from companies and governments that want to propose and operate the new addresses.
This week, hundreds of investors, consultants and entrepreneurs are expected to converge in San Francisco for the first ".nxt" conference, a three-day affair featuring seminars on ICANN's complicated application guidelines. The conference's Web site, which has a list of applicants, is not without a sense of humor: "Join the Internet land rush!" a headline screams, above a photograph of the Tom Cruise character galloping on a horse in the movie "Far and Away," the 1992 film about giveaways out West in the late 19th century.
These online territories are hardly free. The price tag to apply is $185,000, a cost that ensures only well-financed organizations operate the domains and cuts out many smaller grass-roots organizations, developing countries or dreamers, according to critics. (Rejectees get some of the application fee returned.) That's on top of the $25,000 annual fee domain operators have to pay ICANN.
Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, a grass-roots firm in Los Angeles, alleges that the new domains are designed purely to make money for ICANN and the companies that control the domains. The new Web addresses, he added, will only mean more aggravation for trademark holders and confusion for the average Internet user.
Peter Dengate Thrush, chair of the ICANN board of directors, argued that the high application fee is based on the nonprofit's bet that it's going to get sued, and to protect against cybersquatters or other organizations ill equipped to manage an entire domain of hundreds, if not thousands of Web sites. "Our job is to protect competition and give extra choices for consumers and entrepreneurs," Thrush said.
Many organizations are competing for the same domain names, in disputes that often will be settled by an ICANN-sponsored auction or by an ICANN board decision. Two companies vying for the environmentally-friendly .eco domain have competing endorsements: one from a nonprofit chaired by former vice president Al Gore; the other from a group founded by former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev.
The Internet has 21 generic domains such as .com, .net., .edu or .org and hundreds of others for countries, such as .de for Germany. The most prevalent generic domains are .com and .net, which account for about half of the world's 202 million Internet addresses.
Since 2000, ICANN has expanded the number of "generic top-level domains" only twice, and only in tiny doses to such sites ending in .biz, .jobs, .museum, or .mobi (for mobile sites). Those domains have so far yet to attract huge audiences.
But many entrepreneurs expect that the new expansion of Web addresses - the first of which won't go live until early 2012 - will catch on with users and make money. Many budding domain operators expect to earn millions of dollars, according to Kieren McCarthy, a former ICANN general manager who is organizing next week's domain name conference in San Francisco.
The future operator of .sport, for instance, could sell as many as 200,000 or more Web addresses - hockey.sport, bethesda.sport or washingtoncapitals.sport - for wholesale prices ranging from $6 to $50 to such companies as Go Daddy. These firms then re-sell the Web sites to consumers for higher prices. McCarthy also said ICANN is debating whether the domain operators could sell Web addresses directly to the consumer themselves.
Ron Andruff, president and chief executive of dotSport LLC, a New York-based outfit, said he believes more users will find niche interests and communities more easily with the new addresses. "Google and Bing are not in business of helping you find what you are looking for," he said. "They're in the business of generating revenue from those willing to bid the highest to get on their search results page."
Scott Seitz, the CEO of DotGay LLC, wants to build a universe of sites - he expects 300,000 initially - with addresses such as lawyers.gay, aids.gay, hotels.gay or communitycenter.gay. He has the backing of several prominent gays rights groups including Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
Seitz, who is gay, said the simple idea of operating the domain devoted to the gay movement exerts its own pressures. "I have a responsibility, and I am in awe of that," said Seitz, adding that he and his business partners intend on donating two-thirds of their revenue to various social causes. "I buried 40 friends in 18 months [who died from complications related to HIV]. Having .gay is scary, it could be crazy. I've already told people to get steel doors and window bars for security to protect against anti-gay organizations that wouldn't want dot-gay to happen."
For people who might propose controversial domains - such as .nazi, which ICANN officials have worried about - approval will be based on the applicant's identity and intentions, and on the grounds of "morality and public order." Such companies as Canon or IBM will be given priority for .canon or .ibm, and so will municipalities for such domains as .paris or .nyc.
Some people are chasing after multiple domains. Antony Van Couvering, the chief executive of Minds + Machines, a California-based registry company, is working with various partners to pursue not only .eco (with the backing of Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection), but a slew of others, including .gay, .nyc, and, in the interest of capturing even the most far-flung audiences, .zulu - for South Africa's largest ethnic population. It's the .eco domain that will be competitive, though. Jacob Malthouse, a former ICANN official, formed a Vancouver-based company that is also going after .eco; his venture has the support of Gorbachev's Green Cross International.
Other entrepreneurs may bump up against corporate titans and trademark issues. Constantine Roussos, of Los Angeles, has spent years working on his application for .music. Roussos, a 34-year-old musician whose family owns real estate in Cyprus, envisions .music as the industry's trusted inventory of Web sites operated by musicians, managers, studios, promoters, composers and so on. For example, only artists with verifiable professional identities could create sites such as queen.music or pink.music.
Roussos believes the .music domain will help Internet users easily connect to their favorite band's real Web site by typing the name of the band followed by .music on their Web browser; and will help musicians sell their music directly to consumers. Many famous bands - Queen, Kiss, the Eagles - don't own their own .com Web sites because their names use common words, he lamented.
The music industry, however, has its concerns about .music. In early January, the Recording Industry Association of America wrote a letter to ICANN's board of directors, expressing fear that a .music domain might make musicians more vulnerable to piracy and trademark infringement.
But Roussos believes his model for .music might help the music industry. "When you're searching for Queen and type it into Google, will your results be the Queen of England or the Queen of Denmark?" he asked. "But if you go to queen.music, you know it's the band. It's faster. And it'll drive traffic and more money to the artist."
This massive expansion to the Internet's domain name system will either make the Web more intuitive or create more cluttered, maddening experiences. No one knows yet. But with an infinite number of naming possibilities, an industry of Web wildcatters is racing to grab these potentially lucrative territories with addresses that are bound to provoke.
Who gets to run .abortion Web sites - people who support abortion rights or those who don't? Which individual or mosque can run the .islam or .muhammad sites? Can the Ku Klux Klan own .nazi on free speech grounds, or will a Jewish organization run the domain and permit only educational Web sites - say, remember.nazi or antidefamation.nazi? And who's going to get .amazon - the Internet retailer or Brazil?
The decisions will come down to a little-known nonprofit based in Marina del Rey, Calif., whose international board of directors approved the expansion in 2008 but has been stuck debating how best to run the program before launching it. Now, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is on the cusp of completing those talks in March or April and will soon solicit applications from companies and governments that want to propose and operate the new addresses.
This week, hundreds of investors, consultants and entrepreneurs are expected to converge in San Francisco for the first ".nxt" conference, a three-day affair featuring seminars on ICANN's complicated application guidelines. The conference's Web site, which has a list of applicants, is not without a sense of humor: "Join the Internet land rush!" a headline screams, above a photograph of the Tom Cruise character galloping on a horse in the movie "Far and Away," the 1992 film about giveaways out West in the late 19th century.
These online territories are hardly free. The price tag to apply is $185,000, a cost that ensures only well-financed organizations operate the domains and cuts out many smaller grass-roots organizations, developing countries or dreamers, according to critics. (Rejectees get some of the application fee returned.) That's on top of the $25,000 annual fee domain operators have to pay ICANN.
Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, a grass-roots firm in Los Angeles, alleges that the new domains are designed purely to make money for ICANN and the companies that control the domains. The new Web addresses, he added, will only mean more aggravation for trademark holders and confusion for the average Internet user.
Peter Dengate Thrush, chair of the ICANN board of directors, argued that the high application fee is based on the nonprofit's bet that it's going to get sued, and to protect against cybersquatters or other organizations ill equipped to manage an entire domain of hundreds, if not thousands of Web sites. "Our job is to protect competition and give extra choices for consumers and entrepreneurs," Thrush said.
Many organizations are competing for the same domain names, in disputes that often will be settled by an ICANN-sponsored auction or by an ICANN board decision. Two companies vying for the environmentally-friendly .eco domain have competing endorsements: one from a nonprofit chaired by former vice president Al Gore; the other from a group founded by former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev.
The Internet has 21 generic domains such as .com, .net., .edu or .org and hundreds of others for countries, such as .de for Germany. The most prevalent generic domains are .com and .net, which account for about half of the world's 202 million Internet addresses.
Since 2000, ICANN has expanded the number of "generic top-level domains" only twice, and only in tiny doses to such sites ending in .biz, .jobs, .museum, or .mobi (for mobile sites). Those domains have so far yet to attract huge audiences.
But many entrepreneurs expect that the new expansion of Web addresses - the first of which won't go live until early 2012 - will catch on with users and make money. Many budding domain operators expect to earn millions of dollars, according to Kieren McCarthy, a former ICANN general manager who is organizing next week's domain name conference in San Francisco.
The future operator of .sport, for instance, could sell as many as 200,000 or more Web addresses - hockey.sport, bethesda.sport or washingtoncapitals.sport - for wholesale prices ranging from $6 to $50 to such companies as Go Daddy. These firms then re-sell the Web sites to consumers for higher prices. McCarthy also said ICANN is debating whether the domain operators could sell Web addresses directly to the consumer themselves.
Ron Andruff, president and chief executive of dotSport LLC, a New York-based outfit, said he believes more users will find niche interests and communities more easily with the new addresses. "Google and Bing are not in business of helping you find what you are looking for," he said. "They're in the business of generating revenue from those willing to bid the highest to get on their search results page."
Scott Seitz, the CEO of DotGay LLC, wants to build a universe of sites - he expects 300,000 initially - with addresses such as lawyers.gay, aids.gay, hotels.gay or communitycenter.gay. He has the backing of several prominent gays rights groups including Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
Seitz, who is gay, said the simple idea of operating the domain devoted to the gay movement exerts its own pressures. "I have a responsibility, and I am in awe of that," said Seitz, adding that he and his business partners intend on donating two-thirds of their revenue to various social causes. "I buried 40 friends in 18 months [who died from complications related to HIV]. Having .gay is scary, it could be crazy. I've already told people to get steel doors and window bars for security to protect against anti-gay organizations that wouldn't want dot-gay to happen."
For people who might propose controversial domains - such as .nazi, which ICANN officials have worried about - approval will be based on the applicant's identity and intentions, and on the grounds of "morality and public order." Such companies as Canon or IBM will be given priority for .canon or .ibm, and so will municipalities for such domains as .paris or .nyc.
Some people are chasing after multiple domains. Antony Van Couvering, the chief executive of Minds + Machines, a California-based registry company, is working with various partners to pursue not only .eco (with the backing of Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection), but a slew of others, including .gay, .nyc, and, in the interest of capturing even the most far-flung audiences, .zulu - for South Africa's largest ethnic population. It's the .eco domain that will be competitive, though. Jacob Malthouse, a former ICANN official, formed a Vancouver-based company that is also going after .eco; his venture has the support of Gorbachev's Green Cross International.
Other entrepreneurs may bump up against corporate titans and trademark issues. Constantine Roussos, of Los Angeles, has spent years working on his application for .music. Roussos, a 34-year-old musician whose family owns real estate in Cyprus, envisions .music as the industry's trusted inventory of Web sites operated by musicians, managers, studios, promoters, composers and so on. For example, only artists with verifiable professional identities could create sites such as queen.music or pink.music.
Roussos believes the .music domain will help Internet users easily connect to their favorite band's real Web site by typing the name of the band followed by .music on their Web browser; and will help musicians sell their music directly to consumers. Many famous bands - Queen, Kiss, the Eagles - don't own their own .com Web sites because their names use common words, he lamented.
The music industry, however, has its concerns about .music. In early January, the Recording Industry Association of America wrote a letter to ICANN's board of directors, expressing fear that a .music domain might make musicians more vulnerable to piracy and trademark infringement.
But Roussos believes his model for .music might help the music industry. "When you're searching for Queen and type it into Google, will your results be the Queen of England or the Queen of Denmark?" he asked. "But if you go to queen.music, you know it's the band. It's faster. And it'll drive traffic and more money to the artist."
Elisabeth Hasselbeck Is Not Amused Bill Maher Wants To Trade Her
Elisabeth Hasselbeck Is Not Amused Bill Maher Wants To Trade Her To Mubarak In Exchange For Lara Logan
On his Friday HBO show Bill Maher responded to news that Lara Logan, chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News, had been detained and subsequently released in Cairo in fairly typical fashion:
New rule: now that Hosni Mubarak has released Lara Logan, he must put her intrepid hotness on a plane immediately. In exchange, we will send Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
In equally typical fashion, Hasselbeck was enraged by the remark.
On today View she went off on an angry rant about her unscheduled appearance saying that though she tried to address only "real men," she would make an exception and address "Billy Maher," as she called him.
"Notice how the audience laughs," said Barbara Walters, indicating that Maher's comment was a joke.
"You can hide anything in the cloak of a joke. It is unfair. It is chauvinistic what you said, and you'll probably run this again, and I find it disturbing -- but also amusing -- that I happen to be on your mind."
"It is wrong to do to any person, any woman, who just happens to disagree with you. You obviously missed the call of civility from our President Barack Obama, and you were on the other line with ignorance and hate."
Walters said: "I'm not sure it's about women -- well, it is to women -- but I think it's your politics."
"He used to have a show called 'Politically Incorrect.' That's his stock and trade," said Joy Behar. "Did he hurt your feelings?"
"He doesn't have the ability to hurt my feelings," said Hasselbeck "because he's not a real man."
Throw down!
"That was a personal shot," said Behar. "Now he's going to come back at you."
No doubt.
On his Friday HBO show Bill Maher responded to news that Lara Logan, chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News, had been detained and subsequently released in Cairo in fairly typical fashion:
New rule: now that Hosni Mubarak has released Lara Logan, he must put her intrepid hotness on a plane immediately. In exchange, we will send Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
In equally typical fashion, Hasselbeck was enraged by the remark.
On today View she went off on an angry rant about her unscheduled appearance saying that though she tried to address only "real men," she would make an exception and address "Billy Maher," as she called him.
"Notice how the audience laughs," said Barbara Walters, indicating that Maher's comment was a joke.
"You can hide anything in the cloak of a joke. It is unfair. It is chauvinistic what you said, and you'll probably run this again, and I find it disturbing -- but also amusing -- that I happen to be on your mind."
"It is wrong to do to any person, any woman, who just happens to disagree with you. You obviously missed the call of civility from our President Barack Obama, and you were on the other line with ignorance and hate."
Walters said: "I'm not sure it's about women -- well, it is to women -- but I think it's your politics."
"He used to have a show called 'Politically Incorrect.' That's his stock and trade," said Joy Behar. "Did he hurt your feelings?"
"He doesn't have the ability to hurt my feelings," said Hasselbeck "because he's not a real man."
Throw down!
"That was a personal shot," said Behar. "Now he's going to come back at you."
No doubt.
Groupon's Controversial TV Commercials - Super Bowl Ad Has Viewers Outraged
The 30-second spot, for which Groupon paid close to $3 million, opens with picturesque scenes of Tibet, as actor Timothy Hutton calls attention to the troubles of its people.
"Mountainous Tibet," he somberly intones, "one of the most beautiful places in the world. This is Timothy Hutton. The people of Tibet are in trouble, their very culture in jeopardy."
His mood then shifts abruptly to one of jaunty surprise.
"But they still whip up an amazing fish curry. And since 200 of us bought on Groupon.com, we're getting $30 worth of Tibetan food for just $15."
Viewers let fly with a blistering salvo of Tweets almost immediately. "I guess Groupon decided to do a funny commercial about Tibet," said one acidic writer, "because Darfur would be in bad taste."
The other Groupon spots made fun of saving whales and the devastation of Brazil's rainforest.
Groupon CEO Andrew Mason professed surprise to the Wall Street Journal at the hostile response.
The ad — one of three aired by Groupon during the game — was intended, he maintains, only as a "spoof" of celebrity-endorsed public service announcements. Groupon takes the suffering of Tibet seriously and intends to raise money for the Tibetan people, he said.
The company then posted this on its Twitter account: "Like standing too close to a rainbow, viewers' hearts are warmed by Groupon's Super Bowl ad."
Ironically, Groupon first came into life as a website called The Point, whose purpose was to help activists and others organize and raise money for worthy causes.
Though the Super Bowl ads did not say it, Groupons' own website currently encourages users to donate to the three causes its ads lampooned: the Tibet Fund, Greenpeace and RAN (the Rainforest Action Network). Moreover, Groupon offers to match donations in part.
The donation part of the website went live at around noon Central Standard Time Sunday. Says a Groupon spokesperson, "It has always been the foundation of the campaign. We would never have run the ads without these organizations' support and a way for our subscribers to contribute to their causes."
No Groupon commercial has yet aired for a fourth cause listed on the website -- fighting poverty and illiteracy by building schools. The beneficiary here will be the nonprofit buildOn. Carrie Pena, communications director for buildOn, says Groupon first approached the charity back in January about participating in a commercial. They weren't told -- nor do they know now -- what the content of the commercial will be. Groupon told buildOn the campaign would be "tongue-in-cheek in nature" and would make fun of "over-the-top celebrity advertising for non-profits." That was it.
Asked if she saw any of Groupon's Super Bowl commercials, she says she saw only one before falling asleep -- the one poking fun at Greenpeace. How did that one make her feel?
"I think that it's great that they were helping raise awareness for Greenpeace and drive donations." She says that if buildOn's arrangement with Groupon works the way she hopes, buildOn stands to get up to $400,000. That's a lot, she says, given that the charity's annual budget is only $7 million.
"It will fund 12 schools in Mali and Nepal and will educate over 3,000 students," she says
Asked by ABC News for comment, the Tibet Fund said it wasn't yet ready to make a statement in reaction to the Groupon ads.
A further irony: Groupon didn't get into the Super Bowl's advertising scrimmage until the last minute. As recently as a month ago, the company had been told all spots had been sold and they were out of luck. They intended to run only pre- or post-game ads.
Then, at the last minute, another advertiser dropped out and Groupon stepped in. Chief Operating Officer Rob Solomon told Advertising Age that Groupon, "after two years in business earning 50 million subscribers to date" felt it was time to use TV to reach an "even broader audience."
Groupon rival Living Social also aired a spot during the game--one that showed an old burly guy beautifying himself with goods and services provided through Living Social deals. It's not known how many outraged old burly guys were affronted.
"Mountainous Tibet," he somberly intones, "one of the most beautiful places in the world. This is Timothy Hutton. The people of Tibet are in trouble, their very culture in jeopardy."
His mood then shifts abruptly to one of jaunty surprise.
"But they still whip up an amazing fish curry. And since 200 of us bought on Groupon.com, we're getting $30 worth of Tibetan food for just $15."
Viewers let fly with a blistering salvo of Tweets almost immediately. "I guess Groupon decided to do a funny commercial about Tibet," said one acidic writer, "because Darfur would be in bad taste."
The other Groupon spots made fun of saving whales and the devastation of Brazil's rainforest.
Groupon CEO Andrew Mason professed surprise to the Wall Street Journal at the hostile response.
The ad — one of three aired by Groupon during the game — was intended, he maintains, only as a "spoof" of celebrity-endorsed public service announcements. Groupon takes the suffering of Tibet seriously and intends to raise money for the Tibetan people, he said.
The company then posted this on its Twitter account: "Like standing too close to a rainbow, viewers' hearts are warmed by Groupon's Super Bowl ad."
Ironically, Groupon first came into life as a website called The Point, whose purpose was to help activists and others organize and raise money for worthy causes.
Though the Super Bowl ads did not say it, Groupons' own website currently encourages users to donate to the three causes its ads lampooned: the Tibet Fund, Greenpeace and RAN (the Rainforest Action Network). Moreover, Groupon offers to match donations in part.
The donation part of the website went live at around noon Central Standard Time Sunday. Says a Groupon spokesperson, "It has always been the foundation of the campaign. We would never have run the ads without these organizations' support and a way for our subscribers to contribute to their causes."
No Groupon commercial has yet aired for a fourth cause listed on the website -- fighting poverty and illiteracy by building schools. The beneficiary here will be the nonprofit buildOn. Carrie Pena, communications director for buildOn, says Groupon first approached the charity back in January about participating in a commercial. They weren't told -- nor do they know now -- what the content of the commercial will be. Groupon told buildOn the campaign would be "tongue-in-cheek in nature" and would make fun of "over-the-top celebrity advertising for non-profits." That was it.
Asked if she saw any of Groupon's Super Bowl commercials, she says she saw only one before falling asleep -- the one poking fun at Greenpeace. How did that one make her feel?
"I think that it's great that they were helping raise awareness for Greenpeace and drive donations." She says that if buildOn's arrangement with Groupon works the way she hopes, buildOn stands to get up to $400,000. That's a lot, she says, given that the charity's annual budget is only $7 million.
"It will fund 12 schools in Mali and Nepal and will educate over 3,000 students," she says
Asked by ABC News for comment, the Tibet Fund said it wasn't yet ready to make a statement in reaction to the Groupon ads.
A further irony: Groupon didn't get into the Super Bowl's advertising scrimmage until the last minute. As recently as a month ago, the company had been told all spots had been sold and they were out of luck. They intended to run only pre- or post-game ads.
Then, at the last minute, another advertiser dropped out and Groupon stepped in. Chief Operating Officer Rob Solomon told Advertising Age that Groupon, "after two years in business earning 50 million subscribers to date" felt it was time to use TV to reach an "even broader audience."
Groupon rival Living Social also aired a spot during the game--one that showed an old burly guy beautifying himself with goods and services provided through Living Social deals. It's not known how many outraged old burly guys were affronted.
REVENGE? Cockfighting bird stabs, kills man
LAMONT, Calif. -- The tables were turned at a California cockfight after a man was fatally stabbed in the leg by a sharp blade attached to one of the fighting birds, The Bakersfield Californian reported.
Jose Luis Ochoa, 35, was taken to a local hospital shortly after police responded to a reported cockfight last Sunday in Lamont, Calif., a town nine miles south-southeast of Bakersfield.
An autopsy revealed Wednesday that Ochoa's death was accidental and caused by an injury to his right calf.
"I have never seen this type of incident," Sgt. Martin King, a 24-year veteran, told the paper. But he noted that it was not surprising that Ochoa died since one of his major arteries had likely been severed.
"People have been known to bleed out from those injuries if medical attention is not obtained immediately."
A California man bled out after a cock stabbed him in the leg with a fighting "spur" attached to its leg.
John Goodwin, director of animal cruelty policy for the Humane Society of the United States, also weighed in, telling the paper he was "surprised it doesn't happen more often considering the knives they put on those birds."
Just last month, the UK's Daily Mail reported that a man in India was killed when his fighting rooster slashed his throat.
Ochoa paid $370 in fines last year after pleading no contest to one count of owning or training an animal for fighting, the paper said.
Goodwin noted that the small fines were a weak deterrent to the bettors' pots which can reach $10,000 even in a small cockfight.
Jose Luis Ochoa, 35, was taken to a local hospital shortly after police responded to a reported cockfight last Sunday in Lamont, Calif., a town nine miles south-southeast of Bakersfield.
An autopsy revealed Wednesday that Ochoa's death was accidental and caused by an injury to his right calf.
"I have never seen this type of incident," Sgt. Martin King, a 24-year veteran, told the paper. But he noted that it was not surprising that Ochoa died since one of his major arteries had likely been severed.
"People have been known to bleed out from those injuries if medical attention is not obtained immediately."
A California man bled out after a cock stabbed him in the leg with a fighting "spur" attached to its leg.
John Goodwin, director of animal cruelty policy for the Humane Society of the United States, also weighed in, telling the paper he was "surprised it doesn't happen more often considering the knives they put on those birds."
Just last month, the UK's Daily Mail reported that a man in India was killed when his fighting rooster slashed his throat.
Ochoa paid $370 in fines last year after pleading no contest to one count of owning or training an animal for fighting, the paper said.
Goodwin noted that the small fines were a weak deterrent to the bettors' pots which can reach $10,000 even in a small cockfight.
1 Dead and 11 Shot at Ohio Fraternity (We love our violence and guns!)
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (AP) — Two men angry over a dispute at an Ohio fraternity house party left the gathering and returned early Sunday, spraying bullets into a crowd and killing a Youngstown State University student who was trying to separate two groups, authorities said.
Eleven other people were injured, including a 17-year-old with a critical head wound.
The men were arrested and charged later Sunday with aggravated murder, shooting into a house and 11 counts of felonious assault, Youngstown police Chief Jimmy Hughes said.
The suspects are in their early 20s and from the Youngstown area, but Hughes withheld their names pending further investigation.
"These guys were in the location for a little while before the shooting occurred," he said. "Something happened that they became unhappy. They had some type of altercation."
The shooting occurred at a two-story brick house in a neighborhood of once-elegant homes, many of which are now boarded up. The house party had been bustling with 50 or more people early Sunday, Hughes said.
"Somebody just got shot!" a caller tells a dispatcher on a recording of the 911 call.
The Mahoning County coroner's office identified the dead student as 25-year-old Jamail E. Johnson. He was shot once in the head and multiple times in his hips and legs; an autopsy is planned Monday, said Dr. Joseph Ohr, a forensic pathologist with the coroner's office.
Capt. Rod Foley said Johnson apparently was trying to separate two groups when he was shot.
"(Johnson) was just an excellent, excellent young man, and our loss runs deep," said Christopher Cooper, a legal officer for Omega Psi Phi fraternity.
The senior had recently traveled to North Carolina for a fraternity program emphasizing manhood and scholarship, Cooper said.
Johnson's fraternity brothers were trying to decide whether to return to the house, he said. They were "very solemn, very alarmed, very hurt," Cooper said.
The 11 people who were injured ranged in age from 17 to 31. About half of them were shot in the foot, police said. Two were hit in the abdomen, and the most seriously hurt was the 17-year-old who was shot near one ear.
They were taken to nearby St. Elizabeth Health Center. Eight of them had been treated and released by afternoon, hospital spokeswoman Tina Creighton said. She said she could not release the conditions of the other three.
The university said six of the injured were students.
Members of the university-sanctioned Omega Psi Phi fraternity lived at the house, YSU spokesman Ron Cole said.
Omega Psi Phi doesn't own the house, Cooper said.
A neighbor, Rodger Brown, 54, said the house and an adjacent home with Greek lettering indicating a fraternity often have parties on Friday and Saturday nights but had caused no problems in the neighborhood.
"It's a nice, quiet neighborhood," he said.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich planned to meet Monday in Youngstown with YSU president Cynthia Anderson and Mayor Jay Williams to discuss the shootings.
"This is one of those days that every university president across the country, as well as many other officials, always dread," Anderson said at a news conference on campus.
Anderson said she had been assured by police that there was no threat to the urban campus in northeast Ohio near the Pennsylvania border. The university has about 15,000 students with alumni including former Kansas Jayhawks football coach Mark Mangino and fashion designer Nanette Lepore.
Eleven other people were injured, including a 17-year-old with a critical head wound.
The men were arrested and charged later Sunday with aggravated murder, shooting into a house and 11 counts of felonious assault, Youngstown police Chief Jimmy Hughes said.
The suspects are in their early 20s and from the Youngstown area, but Hughes withheld their names pending further investigation.
"These guys were in the location for a little while before the shooting occurred," he said. "Something happened that they became unhappy. They had some type of altercation."
The shooting occurred at a two-story brick house in a neighborhood of once-elegant homes, many of which are now boarded up. The house party had been bustling with 50 or more people early Sunday, Hughes said.
"Somebody just got shot!" a caller tells a dispatcher on a recording of the 911 call.
The Mahoning County coroner's office identified the dead student as 25-year-old Jamail E. Johnson. He was shot once in the head and multiple times in his hips and legs; an autopsy is planned Monday, said Dr. Joseph Ohr, a forensic pathologist with the coroner's office.
Capt. Rod Foley said Johnson apparently was trying to separate two groups when he was shot.
"(Johnson) was just an excellent, excellent young man, and our loss runs deep," said Christopher Cooper, a legal officer for Omega Psi Phi fraternity.
The senior had recently traveled to North Carolina for a fraternity program emphasizing manhood and scholarship, Cooper said.
Johnson's fraternity brothers were trying to decide whether to return to the house, he said. They were "very solemn, very alarmed, very hurt," Cooper said.
The 11 people who were injured ranged in age from 17 to 31. About half of them were shot in the foot, police said. Two were hit in the abdomen, and the most seriously hurt was the 17-year-old who was shot near one ear.
They were taken to nearby St. Elizabeth Health Center. Eight of them had been treated and released by afternoon, hospital spokeswoman Tina Creighton said. She said she could not release the conditions of the other three.
The university said six of the injured were students.
Members of the university-sanctioned Omega Psi Phi fraternity lived at the house, YSU spokesman Ron Cole said.
Omega Psi Phi doesn't own the house, Cooper said.
A neighbor, Rodger Brown, 54, said the house and an adjacent home with Greek lettering indicating a fraternity often have parties on Friday and Saturday nights but had caused no problems in the neighborhood.
"It's a nice, quiet neighborhood," he said.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich planned to meet Monday in Youngstown with YSU president Cynthia Anderson and Mayor Jay Williams to discuss the shootings.
"This is one of those days that every university president across the country, as well as many other officials, always dread," Anderson said at a news conference on campus.
Anderson said she had been assured by police that there was no threat to the urban campus in northeast Ohio near the Pennsylvania border. The university has about 15,000 students with alumni including former Kansas Jayhawks football coach Mark Mangino and fashion designer Nanette Lepore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)