Tue Mar 17, 2009
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Who's next for testing?" Nathalie Boittin asked on Tuesday in a crowded waiting room at the Whitman-Walker Clinic in northwest Washington.
A young black man rose and Boittin, a community health educator, led him to get tested for the AIDS virus.
Testing has spiked at this clinic and others in the U.S. capital since an official report this week showed that 3 percent of the city's residents are infected with HIV. Officials believe the true figure is even higher.
"There are a lot of people who don't know they are HIV positive because they don't want to know or are afraid to know," said Edward Harris, a 55-year-old man who gets care at the clinic.
With a large poor and minority population, the District of Columbia has struggled with HIV for decades. Its report on Monday showed the number of people with HIV infections rose 22 percent from 2006 to 2007.
"I think the true prevalence rate could be 30 to 50 percent higher," Dr. Shannon Hader, the city's HIV/AIDS Administration director, said in a telephone interview. Many people are likely infected without knowing it.
The report showed that 6.5 percent of the city's black men were infected. Overall, there were 15,120 HIV-infected people. Blacks make up 53 percent of the population of just over half a million people, but account for 76 percent of infections.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Washington has one of the most severe epidemics in the nation.
"It's an epidemic across all aspects of District life," Whitman-Walker Clinic CEO Donald Blanchon said. "It's not an epidemic of one group. It's not just gay or black."
COMPLEX EPIDEMIC
Blanchon said people are being infected in three different ways, making it harder to target those at highest risk.
While sex between men was the top cause, accounting for 37 percent of cases, heterosexual sex led to 28 percent of cases and injection drug use to 18 percent, according to the report.
Hader said the city is stepping up its efforts. The city said it raised the number of people in its AIDS drug assistance program by 50 percent from 2007 to 2008, while the number of young people getting HIV tests doubled in the same period.
The city said it is one of two in the nation with a major condom distribution program, distributing 1.5 million in 2008.
"We want to make condoms widely available for free at a lot of easy-access points around the city," Hader said, including beauty parlors, barber shops, liquor stores and bars.
In 2007, the U.S. Congress, which under a special arrangement can control some of the district's operations, lifted a ban on a needle-exchange program, now under way.
"There's not a lack of qualified service providers or interesting or good programs in the city. But clearly it wasn't all coming together to satisfy the scale and the complexity of our needs here," Hader said.
The city also released survey data highlighting the fact that many heterosexuals do not use condoms and have multiple, overlapping sexual partners.
"At the end of the day, there's the need for individual responsibility. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, where you come from, what your (sexual) orientation is," Blanchon said. "You need to practice safe sex."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
FUSION ENERGY - real or fiction?
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
San Francisco
If you hang around the renewable-energy business for long, you’ll hear a lot of tall tales. You’ll hear about someone who’s invented a process to convert coal into vegetable oil in his garage and someone else who has a duck in his basement that paddles a wheel, blows up a balloon, turns a turbine and creates enough electricity to power his doghouse.
Hang around long enough and you’ll even hear that in another 10 or 20 years hydrogen-powered cars or fusion energy will be a commercial reality. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard one of those stories, I could buy my own space shuttle. No wonder cynics often say that viable fusion energy or hydrogen-powered cars are “20 years away and always will be.”
But what if this time is different? What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer.
Are we there?
That is the tantalizing question I was left with after visiting the recently completed National Ignition Facility, or N.I.F., at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 50 miles east of San Francisco. The government-funded N.I.F. consists of 192 giant lasers — which can deliver 50 times more energy than any previous fusion laser system. They’re all housed in a 10-story building the size of three football fields — the rather dull cover to a vast internal steel forest of laser beams that must be what the engine room of Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise space ship looked like.
I began my tour there with the N.I.F. director, Edward Moses. He was holding up a tiny gold can the size of a Tylenol tablet, and inside it was plastic pellet, the size of a single peppercorn, that would be filled with frozen hydrogen.
The way the N.I.F. works is that all 192 lasers pour their energy into a target chamber, which looks like a giant, spherical, steel bathysphere that you would normally use for deep-sea exploration. At the center of this target chamber is that gold can with its frozen hydrogen pellet. Once one of those pellets is heated and compressed by the lasers, it reaches temperatures over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, “far greater than exists at the center of our sun,” said Moses.
More importantly, each crushed pellet gives off a burst of energy that can then be harnessed to heat up liquid salt and produce massive amounts of steam to drive a turbine and create electricity for your home — just like coal does today. Only this energy would be carbon-free, globally available, safe and secure and could be integrated seamlessly into our current electric grid.
Last Monday at 3 a.m., for the first time, all 192 lasers were fired at high energy precisely at once — no small feat — at the target chamber’s empty core. That was a major step toward “ignition” — turning that hydrogen pellet into a miniature sun on earth. The next step — which the N.I.F. expects to achieve some time in the next two to three years — is to prove that it can, under lab conditions, repeatedly fire its 192 lasers at multiple hydrogen pellets and produce more energy from the pellets than the laser energy that is injected. That’s called “energy gain.”
“That,” explained Moses, “is what Einstein meant when he declared that E=mc2. By using lasers, we can unleash tremendous amounts of energy from tiny amounts of mass.”
Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process, the next step (if it can secure government and private funding) would be to set up a pilot fusion energy power plant that would prove that any local power utility could have its own miniature sun — on a commercial basis. A pilot would cost about $10 billion — the same as a new nuclear power plant.
I don’t know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard. But here’s what I do know: President Obama’s stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.
But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. I am talking about systems that could give us abundant, clean, reliable electrons and drive massive innovation in big lasers, materials science, nuclear physics and chemistry that would benefit, energize and renew many U.S. industries.
At the pace we’re going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we’ll still need coal for some time. But let’s make sure that we aren’t just chasing the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.
San Francisco
If you hang around the renewable-energy business for long, you’ll hear a lot of tall tales. You’ll hear about someone who’s invented a process to convert coal into vegetable oil in his garage and someone else who has a duck in his basement that paddles a wheel, blows up a balloon, turns a turbine and creates enough electricity to power his doghouse.
Hang around long enough and you’ll even hear that in another 10 or 20 years hydrogen-powered cars or fusion energy will be a commercial reality. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard one of those stories, I could buy my own space shuttle. No wonder cynics often say that viable fusion energy or hydrogen-powered cars are “20 years away and always will be.”
But what if this time is different? What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer.
Are we there?
That is the tantalizing question I was left with after visiting the recently completed National Ignition Facility, or N.I.F., at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 50 miles east of San Francisco. The government-funded N.I.F. consists of 192 giant lasers — which can deliver 50 times more energy than any previous fusion laser system. They’re all housed in a 10-story building the size of three football fields — the rather dull cover to a vast internal steel forest of laser beams that must be what the engine room of Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise space ship looked like.
I began my tour there with the N.I.F. director, Edward Moses. He was holding up a tiny gold can the size of a Tylenol tablet, and inside it was plastic pellet, the size of a single peppercorn, that would be filled with frozen hydrogen.
The way the N.I.F. works is that all 192 lasers pour their energy into a target chamber, which looks like a giant, spherical, steel bathysphere that you would normally use for deep-sea exploration. At the center of this target chamber is that gold can with its frozen hydrogen pellet. Once one of those pellets is heated and compressed by the lasers, it reaches temperatures over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, “far greater than exists at the center of our sun,” said Moses.
More importantly, each crushed pellet gives off a burst of energy that can then be harnessed to heat up liquid salt and produce massive amounts of steam to drive a turbine and create electricity for your home — just like coal does today. Only this energy would be carbon-free, globally available, safe and secure and could be integrated seamlessly into our current electric grid.
Last Monday at 3 a.m., for the first time, all 192 lasers were fired at high energy precisely at once — no small feat — at the target chamber’s empty core. That was a major step toward “ignition” — turning that hydrogen pellet into a miniature sun on earth. The next step — which the N.I.F. expects to achieve some time in the next two to three years — is to prove that it can, under lab conditions, repeatedly fire its 192 lasers at multiple hydrogen pellets and produce more energy from the pellets than the laser energy that is injected. That’s called “energy gain.”
“That,” explained Moses, “is what Einstein meant when he declared that E=mc2. By using lasers, we can unleash tremendous amounts of energy from tiny amounts of mass.”
Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process, the next step (if it can secure government and private funding) would be to set up a pilot fusion energy power plant that would prove that any local power utility could have its own miniature sun — on a commercial basis. A pilot would cost about $10 billion — the same as a new nuclear power plant.
I don’t know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard. But here’s what I do know: President Obama’s stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.
But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. I am talking about systems that could give us abundant, clean, reliable electrons and drive massive innovation in big lasers, materials science, nuclear physics and chemistry that would benefit, energize and renew many U.S. industries.
At the pace we’re going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we’ll still need coal for some time. But let’s make sure that we aren’t just chasing the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.
JUST MET SEX!
from "Redbook" Magazine
By Jennifer Benjamin
Miss that erotic charge you had when your love was brand-new? Reboot in the bedroom with these tips for turning up the heat on your old flame.
Long-term love brings all sorts of advantages: a shared history with the guy you love most, a partner who you know will always have your back, and a warm, satisfying sexual connection that can only come from years of intimacy. Still, as great as it is to know each other so well in bed, how could you not miss that crackle and spark you had when you and he first started having sex? Thing is, it doesn't take a lot of work to recapture that "just-met" excitement. Step back, reminisce, enjoy security and butterflies — and congratulate yourselves on really, truly having it all.
Create a Little Distance
Best friends, partners, soul mates — it's what many couples strive to be. But while that kind of emotional melding feels warm and secure, it's not always sexy. "The very things that love thrives on — familiarity, stability, and security — can kill passion and lust in a relationship," explains couples therapist Esther Perel, Ph.D., author of Mating in Captivity. "For desire to thrive, you need to maintain some of the elusiveness and independence you had when you were first together — if you're too available to your partner, too open with each other, you lose that edge."
That's why, for the sake of your sex life, it's a good idea to make some space. "A little bit of distance and separation, both physical and emotional, can actually fuel sexual excitement because it sets up a thrill-of-the-chase kind of dynamic, similar to what you had when you were first dating," says Los Angeles-based sex coach Patti Britton, Ph.D., co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sensual Massage. "When you perceive a gap between you and your partner, you subconsciously feel challenged. And that perceived 'obstacle' can actually increase your desire for each other."
Maryanne, 31, an educator in Phoenix, travels a lot for work, as does her husband. While the time apart can be tough, they find that it winds up doing great things for their sex life. "After being gone for a while, it's like we can't get enough of each other," Maryanne says. "It really builds up the anticipation, so when we are together again, it's exciting and steamy and new." No business trip required: A regular girls' night out (and guys' night for him), a weekend away with your girlfriends every so often — all can create the kind of space you need to recharge those naughty feelings.
Another benefit of time apart is that it allows you to make a life for yourself outside of your relationship. "It's important to have an identity as an individual, to be involved in activities that take you away from the home and each other and give you something of your own," says Sharna L. Striar, Ph.D., a certified sex therapist and relationship counselor in private practice in New York City. Try revisiting some of the activities and personal passions you used to pursue before you two started dating but maybe haven't had time for since. It could be yoga, running, photography, or even just Thursday happy hours with friends. By feeding your soul this way, Striar adds, "you're likely to discover a few new things about yourself — things that your partner can then discover as well."
It's also okay — even good — to keep some corners of your life and mind all to yourself. "Many couples feel like the only way to bond is by sharing everything with each other," says Perel. "But it's mystery that really fuels desire and draws your partner to you. You might think that if you've been together for years, it's impossible, but the mystery is always there, if you allow it."
Rediscover Each Other
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sex with a new partner is thrilling largely because it's, well, new. "What makes just-met sex so exciting is that sense of the unknown and the anticipation of what might happen," says Georgia-based sex therapist Gloria Brame, Ph.D. "You're still discovering each other's bodies, finding new ways to turn each other on, and testing new waters." So in order to recapture that just-met sizzle, you have to snap out of the same-old sex routine.
A classic way to reboot your sexual relationship is to go away together — for a week, a few days, even just a night. Or send the kids on a sleepover and turn off the phones so you can have total alone time in your own home. "Call it a sex vacation," says Britton. "It's an opportunity to go back to the beginning, when you didn't have babies, shared bills, or a mortgage, and your relationship was just about the two of you, having fun."
Even if you can't get away, taking a trip down memory lane can bring back some of that new-relationship excitement. Consider reenacting your first meeting or date, maybe even returning to the scene of the crime. "Reliving that first introduction can give you both emotional and sexual recall," says Brame. "It can transport you to that moment — those butterfly feelings, the sexual buzz." And the sense that you're "strangers" can make the encounter feel illicit and naughty as well.
Take it a step further by tapping into some of your first sexual experiences with each other. "Think about what turned you on then and use that in your sex life now," Brame adds. Was it his smell? Having sex in the middle of the day? Showering together? Getting it on in the car? Although you may have been there, done that five years ago, re-creating those same naughty encounters will bring you back to the beginning. And focus on sexual activities that help you rediscover each other's bodies, making them new again. One suggestion: Blindfold yourselves and take turns lightly kissing each other's bodies or stroking your partner's skin with your fingertips. You may be surprised by how much you might have been missing all this time.
Shock Your System
Ah, the first flush of new love. The perma-smile plastered on your face, that tingling below the belt, the goose bumps you got when he touched you. Thank you, hormones! "The novelty and excitement of a new sexual partner triggers the production of dopamine and norepinephrine, neurotransmitters that are responsible for that love high," explains Helen Fisher, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University and author of Why We Love. "They also boost testosterone in your system, increasing your sex drive." As the newness wears off, though, all of those chemicals start to decline, making you less amped up romantically and sexually.
Shock Your System continued...
Here's the good news: You can actually trick your hormones into giving you that new-love glow again. Any kind of adrenaline-boosting activity, in the bedroom or out, drives up dopamine levels in the brain, bringing back some of that same heady excitement you had when you first met, says Fisher. So try something daring together, whether it's mountain biking, kickboxing, dancing, even seeing a thriller or horror movie. A high-octane endeavor is in itself an aphrodisiac, and it can help you rekindle some of that nervous excitement and stomach flip-flopping that you may have felt on your first few dates together.
Doing daring things in bed is another way to plug into that fear factor. Consider exploring something unexpected and a little scary for you sexually, whether it's hanging out around the house naked, getting into doggy-style position with the lights on, or being more vocal during sex. "Stepping out of your comfort zone will give you a rush of I can't believe I'm doing this, which can be equally as adrenaline-boosting as rock climbing," says Brame.
Another way to fire up that tear-each-other's-clothes-off desire: Put some feeling into it. "The reason make-up sex is often so intense is that anger and tension are sexually energizing emotions — they spark desire and excitement," says Britton. Just ask Anna, 41, a therapist in Oakland, CA: "My husband and I like to play fight. We'll spank each other, we'll wrestle, I'll teasingly pin him down during sex. After being together for eight years, we don't have as many emotional highs and lows, so getting aggressive, even in a playful way, brings some excitement to the surface. We get a rush from it, like a flashback to the fun, passionate intensity we felt when we first started dating."
Tune in to Your Sexy Side
When was the last time you did something purely for the sake of feeling sexy? "When you're dating, your appearance and sexual self-confidence are often a priority," says Britton. "But once you're married and have other things going on in your life, you don't always put as much focus into your sexuality." Think back to the times in your life when you've felt your sexiest — including when you and your guy first met. What did you wear? How did you walk, talk, act? What music did you like? What food did you crave? What did you do to pamper yourself? Can you re-create any of those sensations now?
Once you've connected with your sexiest self, think about how you used to express that sensuality with your guy and try those moves now — whether that means wearing low-cut tops, running your hand over his forearm, or giving him a sweet smile. When you let your inner sexiness shine out, he can't help but respond to that energy. "Forget that you've been together for years and get back to that place you were at in the beginning," says Striar. "You're stepping outside of the wife/mother role you're used to and tapping into that flirty, more sexually focused version of yourself that you both remember from your early days."
Take Sex Off the Table
Maybe you had a three-date rule or a one-month rule, or maybe you waited until you were committed or married. In any event, when you first got together, sex wasn't necessarily assumed. As a result, you probably spent a lot of time exploring all of the other ways to have fun without intercourse. And because that was all you were doing, it made the kissing and groping and fondling that much hotter. You can get back that urgency by instituting a temporary sex ban for a week, two weeks, a month — whatever feels like a long wait to you.
Of course, you'll have to get your partner on board. "Tell him that you want to have fun with all that making out and foreplay you did so much of back in the day. But, in order to do so, you have to take oral sex and intercourse off the table for a little while," says Brame. "Explain that the act of not having sex will make the sex even more intense and passionate when you finally do have it again." Plus, you'll be finding creative new ways to please each other. You can heighten the sexual anticipation by sending each other saucy emails or text messages, or talking about all the things you can't wait to do once the sex ban is lifted.
"My husband and I have a great sex life, but recently, I felt like we weren't spending enough time on foreplay," says Sloane, 33, a human resources manager from Boston. "So I told him I wanted to bring back the whole idea of having make-out sessions — just lying on the couch or in bed, kissing and touching each other, but without it leading to actual sex. At first he kind of balked, but once we started trying it, we both remembered how hot it was to tease each other like that." Not only does holding back actually increase your desire for sex, but it also re-creates those early days of your sexual relationship — when all you two could think about was finally, finally getting each other into bed. YOUR COMMENTS Please.
By Jennifer Benjamin
Miss that erotic charge you had when your love was brand-new? Reboot in the bedroom with these tips for turning up the heat on your old flame.
Long-term love brings all sorts of advantages: a shared history with the guy you love most, a partner who you know will always have your back, and a warm, satisfying sexual connection that can only come from years of intimacy. Still, as great as it is to know each other so well in bed, how could you not miss that crackle and spark you had when you and he first started having sex? Thing is, it doesn't take a lot of work to recapture that "just-met" excitement. Step back, reminisce, enjoy security and butterflies — and congratulate yourselves on really, truly having it all.
Create a Little Distance
Best friends, partners, soul mates — it's what many couples strive to be. But while that kind of emotional melding feels warm and secure, it's not always sexy. "The very things that love thrives on — familiarity, stability, and security — can kill passion and lust in a relationship," explains couples therapist Esther Perel, Ph.D., author of Mating in Captivity. "For desire to thrive, you need to maintain some of the elusiveness and independence you had when you were first together — if you're too available to your partner, too open with each other, you lose that edge."
That's why, for the sake of your sex life, it's a good idea to make some space. "A little bit of distance and separation, both physical and emotional, can actually fuel sexual excitement because it sets up a thrill-of-the-chase kind of dynamic, similar to what you had when you were first dating," says Los Angeles-based sex coach Patti Britton, Ph.D., co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sensual Massage. "When you perceive a gap between you and your partner, you subconsciously feel challenged. And that perceived 'obstacle' can actually increase your desire for each other."
Maryanne, 31, an educator in Phoenix, travels a lot for work, as does her husband. While the time apart can be tough, they find that it winds up doing great things for their sex life. "After being gone for a while, it's like we can't get enough of each other," Maryanne says. "It really builds up the anticipation, so when we are together again, it's exciting and steamy and new." No business trip required: A regular girls' night out (and guys' night for him), a weekend away with your girlfriends every so often — all can create the kind of space you need to recharge those naughty feelings.
Another benefit of time apart is that it allows you to make a life for yourself outside of your relationship. "It's important to have an identity as an individual, to be involved in activities that take you away from the home and each other and give you something of your own," says Sharna L. Striar, Ph.D., a certified sex therapist and relationship counselor in private practice in New York City. Try revisiting some of the activities and personal passions you used to pursue before you two started dating but maybe haven't had time for since. It could be yoga, running, photography, or even just Thursday happy hours with friends. By feeding your soul this way, Striar adds, "you're likely to discover a few new things about yourself — things that your partner can then discover as well."
It's also okay — even good — to keep some corners of your life and mind all to yourself. "Many couples feel like the only way to bond is by sharing everything with each other," says Perel. "But it's mystery that really fuels desire and draws your partner to you. You might think that if you've been together for years, it's impossible, but the mystery is always there, if you allow it."
Rediscover Each Other
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sex with a new partner is thrilling largely because it's, well, new. "What makes just-met sex so exciting is that sense of the unknown and the anticipation of what might happen," says Georgia-based sex therapist Gloria Brame, Ph.D. "You're still discovering each other's bodies, finding new ways to turn each other on, and testing new waters." So in order to recapture that just-met sizzle, you have to snap out of the same-old sex routine.
A classic way to reboot your sexual relationship is to go away together — for a week, a few days, even just a night. Or send the kids on a sleepover and turn off the phones so you can have total alone time in your own home. "Call it a sex vacation," says Britton. "It's an opportunity to go back to the beginning, when you didn't have babies, shared bills, or a mortgage, and your relationship was just about the two of you, having fun."
Even if you can't get away, taking a trip down memory lane can bring back some of that new-relationship excitement. Consider reenacting your first meeting or date, maybe even returning to the scene of the crime. "Reliving that first introduction can give you both emotional and sexual recall," says Brame. "It can transport you to that moment — those butterfly feelings, the sexual buzz." And the sense that you're "strangers" can make the encounter feel illicit and naughty as well.
Take it a step further by tapping into some of your first sexual experiences with each other. "Think about what turned you on then and use that in your sex life now," Brame adds. Was it his smell? Having sex in the middle of the day? Showering together? Getting it on in the car? Although you may have been there, done that five years ago, re-creating those same naughty encounters will bring you back to the beginning. And focus on sexual activities that help you rediscover each other's bodies, making them new again. One suggestion: Blindfold yourselves and take turns lightly kissing each other's bodies or stroking your partner's skin with your fingertips. You may be surprised by how much you might have been missing all this time.
Shock Your System
Ah, the first flush of new love. The perma-smile plastered on your face, that tingling below the belt, the goose bumps you got when he touched you. Thank you, hormones! "The novelty and excitement of a new sexual partner triggers the production of dopamine and norepinephrine, neurotransmitters that are responsible for that love high," explains Helen Fisher, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University and author of Why We Love. "They also boost testosterone in your system, increasing your sex drive." As the newness wears off, though, all of those chemicals start to decline, making you less amped up romantically and sexually.
Shock Your System continued...
Here's the good news: You can actually trick your hormones into giving you that new-love glow again. Any kind of adrenaline-boosting activity, in the bedroom or out, drives up dopamine levels in the brain, bringing back some of that same heady excitement you had when you first met, says Fisher. So try something daring together, whether it's mountain biking, kickboxing, dancing, even seeing a thriller or horror movie. A high-octane endeavor is in itself an aphrodisiac, and it can help you rekindle some of that nervous excitement and stomach flip-flopping that you may have felt on your first few dates together.
Doing daring things in bed is another way to plug into that fear factor. Consider exploring something unexpected and a little scary for you sexually, whether it's hanging out around the house naked, getting into doggy-style position with the lights on, or being more vocal during sex. "Stepping out of your comfort zone will give you a rush of I can't believe I'm doing this, which can be equally as adrenaline-boosting as rock climbing," says Brame.
Another way to fire up that tear-each-other's-clothes-off desire: Put some feeling into it. "The reason make-up sex is often so intense is that anger and tension are sexually energizing emotions — they spark desire and excitement," says Britton. Just ask Anna, 41, a therapist in Oakland, CA: "My husband and I like to play fight. We'll spank each other, we'll wrestle, I'll teasingly pin him down during sex. After being together for eight years, we don't have as many emotional highs and lows, so getting aggressive, even in a playful way, brings some excitement to the surface. We get a rush from it, like a flashback to the fun, passionate intensity we felt when we first started dating."
Tune in to Your Sexy Side
When was the last time you did something purely for the sake of feeling sexy? "When you're dating, your appearance and sexual self-confidence are often a priority," says Britton. "But once you're married and have other things going on in your life, you don't always put as much focus into your sexuality." Think back to the times in your life when you've felt your sexiest — including when you and your guy first met. What did you wear? How did you walk, talk, act? What music did you like? What food did you crave? What did you do to pamper yourself? Can you re-create any of those sensations now?
Once you've connected with your sexiest self, think about how you used to express that sensuality with your guy and try those moves now — whether that means wearing low-cut tops, running your hand over his forearm, or giving him a sweet smile. When you let your inner sexiness shine out, he can't help but respond to that energy. "Forget that you've been together for years and get back to that place you were at in the beginning," says Striar. "You're stepping outside of the wife/mother role you're used to and tapping into that flirty, more sexually focused version of yourself that you both remember from your early days."
Take Sex Off the Table
Maybe you had a three-date rule or a one-month rule, or maybe you waited until you were committed or married. In any event, when you first got together, sex wasn't necessarily assumed. As a result, you probably spent a lot of time exploring all of the other ways to have fun without intercourse. And because that was all you were doing, it made the kissing and groping and fondling that much hotter. You can get back that urgency by instituting a temporary sex ban for a week, two weeks, a month — whatever feels like a long wait to you.
Of course, you'll have to get your partner on board. "Tell him that you want to have fun with all that making out and foreplay you did so much of back in the day. But, in order to do so, you have to take oral sex and intercourse off the table for a little while," says Brame. "Explain that the act of not having sex will make the sex even more intense and passionate when you finally do have it again." Plus, you'll be finding creative new ways to please each other. You can heighten the sexual anticipation by sending each other saucy emails or text messages, or talking about all the things you can't wait to do once the sex ban is lifted.
"My husband and I have a great sex life, but recently, I felt like we weren't spending enough time on foreplay," says Sloane, 33, a human resources manager from Boston. "So I told him I wanted to bring back the whole idea of having make-out sessions — just lying on the couch or in bed, kissing and touching each other, but without it leading to actual sex. At first he kind of balked, but once we started trying it, we both remembered how hot it was to tease each other like that." Not only does holding back actually increase your desire for sex, but it also re-creates those early days of your sexual relationship — when all you two could think about was finally, finally getting each other into bed. YOUR COMMENTS Please.
RULES you could use!
Do's and Dont's of 2009
Health:
1. Drink plenty of water.
2. Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a beggar.
3. Eat more foods that grow on trees and plants and eat less food that is manufactured in plants.
4. Live with the 3 E's -- Energy, Enthusiasm, and Empathy.
5. Make time to practice meditation, yoga, and prayer.
6. Play more games.
7. Read more books than you did in 2008.
8. Sit in silence for at least 10 minutes each day.
9. Sleep for 7 hours.
10. Take a 10-30 minutes walk every day. And while you walk,smile.
Personality:
11. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
12. Don't have negative thoughts or things you cannot control. Instead invest your energy in the positive present moment.
13. Don't over do. Keep your limits.
14. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
15. Don't waste your precious energy on gossip.
16. Dream more while you are awake.
17. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
18. Forget issues of the past. Don't remind your partner with his/her mistakes of the past.That will ruin your recent happiness.
19. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone. Don't hate others.
20. Make peace with your past so it won't spoil the present.
21. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
22. Realize that life is a school and you are here to learn. Problems are simply part of the curriculum that appear and fade away like algebra class but the lessons you learn will last a lifetime.
23. Smile and laugh more.
24. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
Society:
25. Call your family often.
26. Each day give something good to others.
27. Forgive everyone for everything.
28. Spend time with people over the age of 70 & under the age of 6.
29. Try to make at least three people smile each day.
30. What other people think of you is none of your business.
31. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.
Life:
32. Do the right thing!
33. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
34. GOD heals everything.
35. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
36. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
37. The best is yet to come.
38. When you awake alive in the morning, thank GOD for it.
39. Your Inner most is always happy. So, be happy.
Health:
1. Drink plenty of water.
2. Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a beggar.
3. Eat more foods that grow on trees and plants and eat less food that is manufactured in plants.
4. Live with the 3 E's -- Energy, Enthusiasm, and Empathy.
5. Make time to practice meditation, yoga, and prayer.
6. Play more games.
7. Read more books than you did in 2008.
8. Sit in silence for at least 10 minutes each day.
9. Sleep for 7 hours.
10. Take a 10-30 minutes walk every day. And while you walk,smile.
Personality:
11. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
12. Don't have negative thoughts or things you cannot control. Instead invest your energy in the positive present moment.
13. Don't over do. Keep your limits.
14. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
15. Don't waste your precious energy on gossip.
16. Dream more while you are awake.
17. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
18. Forget issues of the past. Don't remind your partner with his/her mistakes of the past.That will ruin your recent happiness.
19. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone. Don't hate others.
20. Make peace with your past so it won't spoil the present.
21. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
22. Realize that life is a school and you are here to learn. Problems are simply part of the curriculum that appear and fade away like algebra class but the lessons you learn will last a lifetime.
23. Smile and laugh more.
24. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
Society:
25. Call your family often.
26. Each day give something good to others.
27. Forgive everyone for everything.
28. Spend time with people over the age of 70 & under the age of 6.
29. Try to make at least three people smile each day.
30. What other people think of you is none of your business.
31. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.
Life:
32. Do the right thing!
33. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
34. GOD heals everything.
35. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
36. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
37. The best is yet to come.
38. When you awake alive in the morning, thank GOD for it.
39. Your Inner most is always happy. So, be happy.
Friday, March 13, 2009
BILL GATES says
Should be posted in all schools and work places:
Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good,politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
If you agree, pass it on.
If you can read this - Thank a teacher!
If you can read this in English Thank a soldier!!!
Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good,politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
If you agree, pass it on.
If you can read this - Thank a teacher!
If you can read this in English Thank a soldier!!!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
THOMAS FRIEDMAN
This Is Not a Test. This Is Not a Test.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
It’s always great to see the stock market come back from the dead. But I am deeply worried that our political system doesn’t grasp how much our financial crisis can still undermine everything we want to be as a country. Friends, this is not a test. Economically, this is the big one. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12. Yet, in too many ways, we seem to be playing politics as usual.
Our country has congestive heart failure. Our heart, our banking system that pumps blood to our industrial muscles, is clogged and functioning far below capacity. Nothing else remotely compares in importance to the urgent need to heal our banks.
Yet I read that we’re actually holding up dozens of key appointments at the Treasury Department because we are worried whether someone paid Social Security taxes on a nanny hired 20 years ago at $5 an hour. That’s insane. It’s as if our financial house is burning down but we won’t let the Fire Department open the hydrant until it assures us that there isn’t too much chlorine in the water. Hello?
Meanwhile, the Republican Party behaves as if it would rather see the country fail than Barack Obama succeed. Rush Limbaugh, the de facto G.O.P. boss, said so explicitly, prompting John McCain to declare about President Obama to Politico: “I don’t want him to fail in his mission of restoring our economy.” The G.O.P. is actually debating whether it wants our president to fail. Rather than help the president make the hard calls, the G.O.P. has opted for cat calls. It would be as if on the morning after 9/11, Democrats said they wanted no part of any war against Al Qaeda — “George Bush, you’re on your own.”
As for President Obama, I like his coolness under fire, yet sometimes it feels as if he is deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis, while pressing ahead on other popular initiatives. I understand that he doesn’t want his presidency to be held hostage to the ups and downs of bank stocks, but a hostage he is. We all are.
Great and difficult crises are what produce great presidents, so one thing we know for sure: Mr. Obama’s going to have his shot at greatness. This crisis is uniquely difficult in four respects.
First, to get out of a crisis like this you need to let markets clear. You need to let failed companies, or homeowners, go bankrupt, unlock their dead capital and reapply it to thriving entities. That is how the dot-com bust ended, and out of that carnage emerged a whole new set of companies. The problem with this crisis is that A.I.G., Citigroup and General Motors — and your neighbor’s subprime mortgage — are not Dogfood.com. You let the market clear them away, and we could all be wiped out with them. Therefore, the president has to find a way to punish bad financial actors without setting off another Lehman Brothers domino effect.
Second, we need to get a market going that would bring fair value and clarity to the “toxic mortgages” crippling the balance sheets of our major banks. This will likely require some degree of government subsidy to private equity groups and hedge funds to get them to make the first bids for these toxic assets by guaranteeing they will not lose. This could make great policy sense, but be a nightmare to sell politically. It will strike many as another unfair giveaway to Wall Street.
Unfortunately, the president may have to look the American people in the eye and explain that “fairness is not on the menu anymore.” All that’s on the menu now is whether or not we avoid a system meltdown — and this will require rewarding some new investors.
Third, the president may have to make some trillion-dollar decisions — like nationalizing major banks or doubling the economic stimulus — with no real precedent and without knowing all the long-term ramifications.
Finally, to do all this, the president has to make us realize how dangerous a moment we’re in, without creating a panic that will prompt Americans to put every dime in their mattresses and undermine the economy even more.
All this will require leadership of the highest order — bold decisions, persistence and persuasion. There is a huge amount of money on the sidelines eager to bet again on America. But right now, there is too much uncertainty; no one knows what will be the new rules governing investments in our biggest financial institutions. If President Obama can produce and sell that plan, private investors, big and small, will give us a stimulus like you’ve never seen.
Which is why I wake up every morning hoping to read this story: “President Obama announced today that he had invited the country’s 20 leading bankers, 20 leading industrialists, 20 top market economists and the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate to join him and his team at Camp David. ‘We will not come down from the mountain until we have forged a common, transparent strategy for getting us out of this banking crisis,’ the president said, as he boarded his helicopter.”
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
It’s always great to see the stock market come back from the dead. But I am deeply worried that our political system doesn’t grasp how much our financial crisis can still undermine everything we want to be as a country. Friends, this is not a test. Economically, this is the big one. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12. Yet, in too many ways, we seem to be playing politics as usual.
Our country has congestive heart failure. Our heart, our banking system that pumps blood to our industrial muscles, is clogged and functioning far below capacity. Nothing else remotely compares in importance to the urgent need to heal our banks.
Yet I read that we’re actually holding up dozens of key appointments at the Treasury Department because we are worried whether someone paid Social Security taxes on a nanny hired 20 years ago at $5 an hour. That’s insane. It’s as if our financial house is burning down but we won’t let the Fire Department open the hydrant until it assures us that there isn’t too much chlorine in the water. Hello?
Meanwhile, the Republican Party behaves as if it would rather see the country fail than Barack Obama succeed. Rush Limbaugh, the de facto G.O.P. boss, said so explicitly, prompting John McCain to declare about President Obama to Politico: “I don’t want him to fail in his mission of restoring our economy.” The G.O.P. is actually debating whether it wants our president to fail. Rather than help the president make the hard calls, the G.O.P. has opted for cat calls. It would be as if on the morning after 9/11, Democrats said they wanted no part of any war against Al Qaeda — “George Bush, you’re on your own.”
As for President Obama, I like his coolness under fire, yet sometimes it feels as if he is deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis, while pressing ahead on other popular initiatives. I understand that he doesn’t want his presidency to be held hostage to the ups and downs of bank stocks, but a hostage he is. We all are.
Great and difficult crises are what produce great presidents, so one thing we know for sure: Mr. Obama’s going to have his shot at greatness. This crisis is uniquely difficult in four respects.
First, to get out of a crisis like this you need to let markets clear. You need to let failed companies, or homeowners, go bankrupt, unlock their dead capital and reapply it to thriving entities. That is how the dot-com bust ended, and out of that carnage emerged a whole new set of companies. The problem with this crisis is that A.I.G., Citigroup and General Motors — and your neighbor’s subprime mortgage — are not Dogfood.com. You let the market clear them away, and we could all be wiped out with them. Therefore, the president has to find a way to punish bad financial actors without setting off another Lehman Brothers domino effect.
Second, we need to get a market going that would bring fair value and clarity to the “toxic mortgages” crippling the balance sheets of our major banks. This will likely require some degree of government subsidy to private equity groups and hedge funds to get them to make the first bids for these toxic assets by guaranteeing they will not lose. This could make great policy sense, but be a nightmare to sell politically. It will strike many as another unfair giveaway to Wall Street.
Unfortunately, the president may have to look the American people in the eye and explain that “fairness is not on the menu anymore.” All that’s on the menu now is whether or not we avoid a system meltdown — and this will require rewarding some new investors.
Third, the president may have to make some trillion-dollar decisions — like nationalizing major banks or doubling the economic stimulus — with no real precedent and without knowing all the long-term ramifications.
Finally, to do all this, the president has to make us realize how dangerous a moment we’re in, without creating a panic that will prompt Americans to put every dime in their mattresses and undermine the economy even more.
All this will require leadership of the highest order — bold decisions, persistence and persuasion. There is a huge amount of money on the sidelines eager to bet again on America. But right now, there is too much uncertainty; no one knows what will be the new rules governing investments in our biggest financial institutions. If President Obama can produce and sell that plan, private investors, big and small, will give us a stimulus like you’ve never seen.
Which is why I wake up every morning hoping to read this story: “President Obama announced today that he had invited the country’s 20 leading bankers, 20 leading industrialists, 20 top market economists and the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate to join him and his team at Camp David. ‘We will not come down from the mountain until we have forged a common, transparent strategy for getting us out of this banking crisis,’ the president said, as he boarded his helicopter.”
Monday, March 09, 2009
Voting Rights STOPPED by GWB Court!
Court Refuses to Expand Minority Voting Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:47 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a part of the Voting Rights Act aimed at helping minorities elect their preferred candidates only applies in electoral districts where minorities make up more than half the population.
The decision could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election and for southern Democrats, in particular, to draw friendly electoral boundaries after the 2010 Census.
The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, came in the case of a North Carolina plan that sought to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.
While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law's provision to the district. The case dealt with the section of the law that bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to ''elect representatives of their choice.''
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court would not extend the law to those so-called crossover districts. The 50 percent ''rule draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike,'' Kennedy said in striking down a North Carolina legislative district.
In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the district, saying the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court said.
Kennedy said that, absent prohibitions like North Carolina's rule against crossing county lines, ''states that wish to draw crossover districts are free to do so.'' But they are not required, he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case.
The four liberal justices dissented. A district like the one in North Carolina should be protected by federal law ''so long as a cohesive minority population is large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority,'' Justice David Souter wrote for himself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.
Ginsburg also suggested that Congress could amend the law to cover districts like the one in North Carolina.
Civil rights groups that urged the court to uphold the North Carolina plan said such districts help to diminish racially polarized voting over time because the candidate who is the choice of black or Hispanic voters must draw some white support to win election.
In April, the court will hear a more significant challenge to another provision of the Voting Rights Act, requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval before implementing any changes in how elections are held.
The court's familiar ideological split in this case strongly suggests that Kennedy could hold the key to the outcome in the April case as well, said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University.
In another election-related case, the court let stand an appeals court decision that invalidated state laws regulating the ways independent presidential candidates can get on state ballots.
Arizona, joined by 13 other states, asked the court to hear its challenge to a ruling throwing out its residency requirement for petition circulators and a June deadline for submitting signatures for independent candidates in the November presidential elections.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued and won a favorable ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:47 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a part of the Voting Rights Act aimed at helping minorities elect their preferred candidates only applies in electoral districts where minorities make up more than half the population.
The decision could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election and for southern Democrats, in particular, to draw friendly electoral boundaries after the 2010 Census.
The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, came in the case of a North Carolina plan that sought to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.
While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law's provision to the district. The case dealt with the section of the law that bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to ''elect representatives of their choice.''
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court would not extend the law to those so-called crossover districts. The 50 percent ''rule draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike,'' Kennedy said in striking down a North Carolina legislative district.
In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the district, saying the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court said.
Kennedy said that, absent prohibitions like North Carolina's rule against crossing county lines, ''states that wish to draw crossover districts are free to do so.'' But they are not required, he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case.
The four liberal justices dissented. A district like the one in North Carolina should be protected by federal law ''so long as a cohesive minority population is large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority,'' Justice David Souter wrote for himself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.
Ginsburg also suggested that Congress could amend the law to cover districts like the one in North Carolina.
Civil rights groups that urged the court to uphold the North Carolina plan said such districts help to diminish racially polarized voting over time because the candidate who is the choice of black or Hispanic voters must draw some white support to win election.
In April, the court will hear a more significant challenge to another provision of the Voting Rights Act, requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval before implementing any changes in how elections are held.
The court's familiar ideological split in this case strongly suggests that Kennedy could hold the key to the outcome in the April case as well, said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University.
In another election-related case, the court let stand an appeals court decision that invalidated state laws regulating the ways independent presidential candidates can get on state ballots.
Arizona, joined by 13 other states, asked the court to hear its challenge to a ruling throwing out its residency requirement for petition circulators and a June deadline for submitting signatures for independent candidates in the November presidential elections.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued and won a favorable ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
People Kill People?
Court Turns Down NYC Case Against Gun Industry
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:09 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has turned away pleas by New York City and gun violence victims to hold the firearms industry responsible for selling guns that could end up in illegal markets.
The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was examining whether it had other legal options. ''It was one tool. It was one part of our strategy to fight against illegal guns,'' he said.
The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.
The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.
The city refiled the lawsuit in January 2004, saying manufacturers let handguns reach illegal markets at gun shows in which non-licensed people can sell to other private citizens; through private sales in which background checks are not required; by oversupplying markets where gun regulations are lax, and by having poor overall security.
The city said a state nuisance law makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly create a condition endangering the safety or health of a considerable number of people. But the appeals court said New York's law does not qualify as an exception to federal law. It agreed with U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2005, is constitutional.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:09 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has turned away pleas by New York City and gun violence victims to hold the firearms industry responsible for selling guns that could end up in illegal markets.
The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was examining whether it had other legal options. ''It was one tool. It was one part of our strategy to fight against illegal guns,'' he said.
The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.
The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.
The city refiled the lawsuit in January 2004, saying manufacturers let handguns reach illegal markets at gun shows in which non-licensed people can sell to other private citizens; through private sales in which background checks are not required; by oversupplying markets where gun regulations are lax, and by having poor overall security.
The city said a state nuisance law makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly create a condition endangering the safety or health of a considerable number of people. But the appeals court said New York's law does not qualify as an exception to federal law. It agreed with U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2005, is constitutional.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Health Care NYT editorial
A Start on Health Care Reform
President Obama has shown both courage and sound judgment pressing for quick action on comprehensive health care reform, even in the midst of the country’s deep economic crisis. He has rightly stressed the urgency of reining in skyrocketing health care costs that are straining the budgets of families, businesses, and federal and state governments.
But his proposals, for all of their ambition, do not fully answer two central questions: how to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and how to reform the health care system to reduce costs and improve the quality of care.
Mr. Obama has decided to let Congress thrash out the details of those issues, with the White House providing guidance along the way. Democratic leaders in Congress, many of whom are far more versed in the issues than the president is, will have to step up and fashion an effective bill. If they falter, Mr. Obama will need to step in with a clear vision and vigorous leadership.
To his credit, the president has tackled the first tough issue of how to pay for expanded coverage and systemic reforms. His budget has proposed huge expenditures — $634 billion over 10 years — as a down payment, and it clearly specifies where to find the money.
Half would come from raising taxes on the rich, another quarter from eliminating unjustified subsidies for private plans that participate in Medicare, and other big chunks from reducing payments to drug companies, hospitals and the home health care industry.
Yet even the administration admits that $634 billion will not be enough to reach universal coverage: some experts think it will take at least twice that amount.
The administration has also given no clue as to how it will significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans — now 46 million and growing. The expanded children’s health insurance program, which Mr. Obama signed into law early last month, will cover more than four million uninsured children, and his stimulus bill will help millions more Americans retain or gain coverage. But this, too, is only a down payment on the problem.
The president’s main focus is on starting to reduce the soaring cost of health care. That, he argues, is a prerequisite to making universal coverage affordable and politically palatable. But in the meantime, many millions of uninsured Americans continue to go without adequate care. Congress will need to look hard at whether bigger strides can be made toward universal coverage at the same time that costs are addressed.
The president’s plans make a start toward reforming the health care delivery system, but it is only a start. His stimulus program is pouring money into electronic medical records, preventive care and comparative effectiveness studies of medical treatments — all of which should help improve care and possibly lower costs in the long run. His budget plan calls for Medicare to change its reimbursement rates for hospitals to promote higher quality, greater efficiency and substantial savings.
All told, the changes are projected to cut the growth rate in Medicare spending — from 7.3 percent a year to 6.1 percent in the fifth year. That looks like a modest reduction for now, but when compounded over many decades, it could greatly reduce projected Medicare expenditures by midcentury. Since Medicare policies often ripple through the entire health care system, overall health expenditures should slow.
Meanwhile, the administration has deliberately ducked some of the most contentious issues. There is no mention of requiring individuals to carry health insurance on themselves or their children. No mention of requiring employers to pay for coverage. No mention of having a public plan compete with private plans in a national insurance exchange. No discussion of whether employee health benefits should be taxed. No talk of requiring insurers to cover all applicants. No mention of government negotiating Medicare drug prices.
The White House has obviously decided that it is best to let Congress work out the compromises and decide how to allocate the pain. That is the opposite of the Clinton administration’s approach. It hatched a highly detailed plan in secret that never won Congressional support and crashed under a barrage of opposition from affected industries.
We do not challenge Mr. Obama’s political instincts. We simply note that someone will need to make the hard choices if health care reform and universal coverage are to succeed.
President Obama has shown both courage and sound judgment pressing for quick action on comprehensive health care reform, even in the midst of the country’s deep economic crisis. He has rightly stressed the urgency of reining in skyrocketing health care costs that are straining the budgets of families, businesses, and federal and state governments.
But his proposals, for all of their ambition, do not fully answer two central questions: how to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and how to reform the health care system to reduce costs and improve the quality of care.
Mr. Obama has decided to let Congress thrash out the details of those issues, with the White House providing guidance along the way. Democratic leaders in Congress, many of whom are far more versed in the issues than the president is, will have to step up and fashion an effective bill. If they falter, Mr. Obama will need to step in with a clear vision and vigorous leadership.
To his credit, the president has tackled the first tough issue of how to pay for expanded coverage and systemic reforms. His budget has proposed huge expenditures — $634 billion over 10 years — as a down payment, and it clearly specifies where to find the money.
Half would come from raising taxes on the rich, another quarter from eliminating unjustified subsidies for private plans that participate in Medicare, and other big chunks from reducing payments to drug companies, hospitals and the home health care industry.
Yet even the administration admits that $634 billion will not be enough to reach universal coverage: some experts think it will take at least twice that amount.
The administration has also given no clue as to how it will significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans — now 46 million and growing. The expanded children’s health insurance program, which Mr. Obama signed into law early last month, will cover more than four million uninsured children, and his stimulus bill will help millions more Americans retain or gain coverage. But this, too, is only a down payment on the problem.
The president’s main focus is on starting to reduce the soaring cost of health care. That, he argues, is a prerequisite to making universal coverage affordable and politically palatable. But in the meantime, many millions of uninsured Americans continue to go without adequate care. Congress will need to look hard at whether bigger strides can be made toward universal coverage at the same time that costs are addressed.
The president’s plans make a start toward reforming the health care delivery system, but it is only a start. His stimulus program is pouring money into electronic medical records, preventive care and comparative effectiveness studies of medical treatments — all of which should help improve care and possibly lower costs in the long run. His budget plan calls for Medicare to change its reimbursement rates for hospitals to promote higher quality, greater efficiency and substantial savings.
All told, the changes are projected to cut the growth rate in Medicare spending — from 7.3 percent a year to 6.1 percent in the fifth year. That looks like a modest reduction for now, but when compounded over many decades, it could greatly reduce projected Medicare expenditures by midcentury. Since Medicare policies often ripple through the entire health care system, overall health expenditures should slow.
Meanwhile, the administration has deliberately ducked some of the most contentious issues. There is no mention of requiring individuals to carry health insurance on themselves or their children. No mention of requiring employers to pay for coverage. No mention of having a public plan compete with private plans in a national insurance exchange. No discussion of whether employee health benefits should be taxed. No talk of requiring insurers to cover all applicants. No mention of government negotiating Medicare drug prices.
The White House has obviously decided that it is best to let Congress work out the compromises and decide how to allocate the pain. That is the opposite of the Clinton administration’s approach. It hatched a highly detailed plan in secret that never won Congressional support and crashed under a barrage of opposition from affected industries.
We do not challenge Mr. Obama’s political instincts. We simply note that someone will need to make the hard choices if health care reform and universal coverage are to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)