Tuesday, November 12, 2013

True Healthcare

From Forbes:
"The Obamacare Exchange Scorecard: Around 100,000 Enrollees And Five Million Cancellations"

In the market for individually-purchased health insurance, more than 4.8 million Americans have received notices that their preexisting plans are soon to be illegal, and will be cancelled. Many more cancellation notices are imminent. But yesterday, the Wall Street Journal obtained information regarding the number of people who have signed up for new private health coverage under Obamacare: “40,000 to 50,000” for the federal exchange, and 49,000 for 12 of the 14 state-based exchanges.  Last month, the Associated Press published details of an internal Obama administration memo, dated September 5, detailing the White House’s monthly targets as to how many people would sign up for private insurance under Obamacare’s exchanges. “We expect enrollment in the initial months to be low,” said the September 5 memo. Through October, the administration estimated that 494,620 would sign up. They only got about a fifth of the way toward that lowball estimate.
“So far, private health plans have received enrollment data for 40,000 to 50,000 users of the federal marketplace,” write Christopher Weaver, Timothy Martin, and Louise Radnofsky in the Journal. “Separately, 12 of the 14 states that are running their own exchanges have tallied roughly 49,000 enrollees.” Believe it or not, the enrollment data from the federal government may actually exaggerate the number of people who have signed up. “The number represents enrollment date sent to insurers from the marketplace,” but counts “data sent to insurers from the marketplace.”  Last Friday, in a briefing conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, officials walked back a previous commitment to get the website fixed by the end of November. “It’s a critical date, without question,” said one. “But don’t think of it as an unveiling date. The goal is to make significant improvements that day.” These officials picked November 30 as their self-imposed deadline because, without it, many of the Americans seeing their preexisting plans cancelled before January 1 won’t be able to find Obamacare-compliant plans to replace them. Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post report that insurers may be looking for extra subsidies in order to help the government out. “One idea circulated within the insurance industry would be for HHS to approave a method to estimate subsidies and give preliminary tax credits based on those estimates—with the accurate amount determined later, once the system works better.” But “insurance industry leaders have said that they would insist on a guarantee that they would be compensated for any underpayments—and that they have asked to keep any overpayments.”  Based on what we’ve seen to date from the administration, it appears likely that the website will take four to six months to function properly. The Obama administration should take the advice of the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D., Mont.) and shut the thing down until they can fix it. But the administration appears hell-bent on keeping the exchange open, because they want to enroll as many people into Obamacare before the President’s term is up. That way, the law will become harder to repeal, even if Republicans win in 2016. I get the political logic. But Americans are facing significant disruptions in the quality and consistency of their health coverage. It’s this very mentality that caused the Obama administration to force-launch a website that wasn’t ready for prime time. It’s important for them to get it right.

^ It's seems that the President and his team are not telling us the truth and don't even know their own system - surprise, surprise. ^

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/12/the-obamacare-exchange-scorecard-around-100000-enrollees-and-five-million-cancellations/?partner=yahootix

Monday, November 11, 2013

Remembrance Day!

From the Globe and Mail: 
"Veterans plan silent protests of government policies"

When the clock strikes 11 a.m on Remembrance Day in Chilliwack, B.C., retired Air Force captain Claude Latulippe will be at the local cenotaph paying homage to former comrades and to the many other Canadians who gave their lives for their country. But, when it is time for Mark Strahl, the local Conservative MP, to lay a wreath, Mr. Latulippe and other veterans will face away.  It is a gesture that Mr. Latulippe, 65, says he believes will be repeated in communities across Canada. Veterans, he said, want to turn their backs on the Conservative government “just like the Conservatives are turning their backs on veterans.” The tension between Canada’s veterans and the government has been building for years over policies that veterans say ignore their sacrifices and leave them with less than what was provided to previous generations of soldiers, sailors and airmen. Protest is not something that comes naturally to former members of the armed forces, said Mr. Latulippe. “Military don’t march against authority,” he said. “Military fall in line and do what they’re told.” But demonstrations of previous years have been successful in moving the government to resolve some critical problems and could prompt action on others, he said. The list of current grievances is long. It starts with the New Veterans Charter, which became law in 2006. The charter replaced a system that provided disabled veterans with a pension for life with one that offers a lump-sum payment of up to $276,000.
Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent has said the charter will leave hundreds of the most severely disabled veterans living in poverty in their old age. In fighting a case brought against the charter by a group of severely disabled veterans, the government is arguing that the Crown has no sacred duty to care for veterans – a position that has outraged former military personnel. Veterans are also upset that some disabled members of the military are being dismissed before they have put in the 10 years of service required to qualify for a pension. They are angry that the Veterans Affairs offices in nine Canadian communities are being shut down. And they are frustrated with a burial fund that is available only to veterans with incomes of less than $12,010 a year.

^ It is sad that veterans in Canada (and many countries around the world including the US) have to "fight" for the respect of the country and government that sent them in to places to risk their lives. The fact that the Canadian Government would even consider saying that they didn't have a "sacred duty" to the veterans is just plain disgusting. ^



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/veterans-plan-silent-protests-of-government-policies/article15371603/

Veterans' Day!

From the Stars and Stripes:
"A day by many names, celebrated all the same"

It’s a day celebrated by many throughout the world. It doesn’t have the same name in most countries, but the reason for this “holiday” is the same: to honor military veterans. On the 11th hour of the 11th month in 1918, a ceasefire agreement was signed by the Allied powers with Germany, ending the fighting of World War I. The war would not officially be declared over until June 28, 1919, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, but most consider Nov. 11, 1918 the day that ended “the war to end all wars,” according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs website. Britain, France, Australia and Canada also commemorate the veterans of World Wars I and II on or near November 11th, according to the History Channel. Canada has Remembrance Day, while Britain has Remembrance Sunday (the second Sunday of November). In Europe, it is common to observe two minutes of silence at 11 a.m. every November 11. After 19 months of fighting between the United States and Germany, President Woodrow Wilson would announce a new national holiday in the U.S. “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations …” according to the VA site. Amristice Day — which became a legal federal holiday on May 13, 1938 — is a day to break free from our daily routine, to pause for a few moments of silence and to recognize the many service members who fought during World War I, according to the VA site. Two more wars would pass before the Act of 1938 would be amended by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, striking out the word “Armistice” and replacing it with “Veterans,” according to an Oct. 12, 1954, Federal Register. In 1968, the Uniform Holiday Bill allowed the government to observe federal holidays on Mondays, ensuring three-day weekends for federal employees for Washington’s birthday, Memorial Day, Columbus Day and Veterans Day. It was thought that these extended weekends would encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities and stimulate greater industrial and commercial production, according to the VA site. The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on October 25, 1971. But many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holidays on their original dates. It became apparent that the commemoration of Veterans Day was a matter of significance to a great number of our citizens, according to the VA site, and so on September 20th, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of Nov. 11, beginning in 1978. Veterans Day continues to be observed on Nov. 11, regardless of what day of the week on which it falls.
 
^ Veterans' Day is very important as we have millions of men and women that fought for our country. The least we can do is remember their sacrifice one day a year. Today is also my parents' wedding anniversary an as my dad is a veteran it is very fitting.) ^
 

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Female Veterans

From USA Today:
"Women's role in Vietnam honored on Veterans Day"

Diane Carlson Evans was a nursing student in Minnesota in the late 1960s when she noticed her male friends and classmates getting called up one by one to go to Vietnam. Very much aware of the war, she visited a recruiter and asked how she could join the effort. "I decided I needed to be there, too," she says. The Army needed nurses, so, after graduating college and undergoing basic training, she served as a nurse in evacuation hospitals in Vung Tau and Pleiku, Vietnam from 1968 to 1969.
Carlson Evans says she and other nurses put their youth and inexperience aside to treat serious injuries and unfamiliar diseases while serving in combat zones. "We were young taking care of the young," she says. The memory and legacy of the women who served in Vietnam and paved the way for future generations will be honored at the annual Veterans Day observance Monday with a ceremony at 1 p.m. at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. Also, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Vietnam Women's Memorial, located near the iconic Vietnam Wall. Carlson Evans, who is the founder and president of the Vietnam Women's Memorial Foundation, says she initiated the effort for a women's memorial when she found out that a statue of three men would be added to the Vietnam Memorial in the early '80s. "Every story is about the men. People don't even know women were in Vietnam," she recalls thinking at the time. The women's memorial "heightens awareness that women went off to war, and this is what they did. And their contributions are worthy of recognition by the nation." Sculpted by Glenna Goodacre, the bronze statue depicts three uniformed women with a wounded soldier. During her time in Vietnam, Carlson Evans says about 90% of women serving were nurses, while the rest made up the Woman's Army Corps in areas such as administration, finance and bookkeeping. In the 1960s, women made up about 1% of the total military force. Today, they make up 15%-20%, she says. Following Vietnam, Carlson Evans says some women would go on to serve in leadership roles, becoming "fully integrated" in the military.  In January, then-Defense secretary Leon Panetta decided to open previously off-limit posts in armor, infantry and special operations to women. Later in June, the Pentagon issued its timeline for allowing women to serve in front-line combat roles by 2016.
"In Vietnam, I had 45 men in beds, and, as a woman, I was protecting them," she says. At the invitation of Carlson Evans, retired general Colin Powell will be delivering the salute to the Vietnam Women's Memorial. "As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I spoke at the groundbreaking of the Vietnam Women's Memorial in 1993, so it will be especially poignant for me to speak this Veterans Day as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Women's Memorial," Powell, who fought in Vietnam and later served as secretary of State, said in an email. "I most especially want to acknowledge the 11,000 women who served in Vietnam, mostly as nurses." Powell said the bronze statue "celebrates the hope, strength and passion that the Vietnam women brought to the struggle for life in Vietnam." "They paved the way for the large-scale increase in the number of women in the Armed Forces serving in almost every occupational specialty." For its founder, the memorial stands as a visual reminder of all the women who "exceeded expectations" and ultimately opened doors for those who followed. "We proved our strength, our courage, our bravery," Carlson Evans says. "We stand on the shoulders of every generation that (stood) before us."

^  This is a subject that many people don't know even though there was a TV show about it ("China Beach.") Even though women in Vietnam weren't allowed to be in combat roles they still risked their lives to help others and that sacrifice needs to be remembered. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/09/vietnam-women/3464303/

Young Vets

From USA Today:
"Young vets join ranks of those who served in WWII, Vietnam"

Mention Veterans Day, and most people think of those who served in World War II or Vietnam. Not likely to come to mind immediately are those in their 20s and 30s who served in recent wars. When Richard Simoes left the U.S. Army in 2006, after serving in Kosovo and Afghanistan, he immediately had to transition back to civilian life on his own. And, except for the tattoo on his right arm that is a symbol of the unit in which he served, he left military life behind to start a lawn service. "There was nobody directing me to, 'Hey, here are these benefits,'" said Simoes, 35, of Merritt Island. It wasn't until after the business collapsed in a faltering economy and someone mentioned to him the GI Bill benefits to which he was entitled, that he thought of himself as a veteran. "I feel like it's an appreciation for the older veterans," said Jason Goodman, 35, an Air Force veteran who is a student at Eastern Florida State College. "I feel like it's hard for us to think of ourselves as veterans." But that will change as time goes on and the most recent wars become part of history, said retired Army Col. Nathan Thomas, president of Welcome Home Vets, an organization that honors and assists veterans of all wars. Thousands are likely to return to civilian life when the war in Afghanistan ends for U.S. troops. "When you think of veterans, you think of World War II and Vietnam because those things are behind us," Thomas said. "People often don't think of the young guys as veterans because they think of their careers as ongoing, even though some have left the military." Eric Petersen, 42, who served in the Air Force, said he was too busy working and transitioning to civilian life to think of himself as a veteran. "I think of my father as a veteran," he said. "He was a drill sergeant in the Air Force, a training instructor." But while the younger generation of veterans might not get the same recognition as their fathers or grandfathers, as a group they have spent more time in combat zones than any previous generation. A lot of people don't really connect or care who served, said retired Army Command Sgt. Maj. Bill Ryan. Because the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing after 10 years, they don't consider those still serving when they think of veterans. "The only ones they see are the wounded ones," said Ryan, who served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. "People don't really care unless they have a family member in there. Oh, they'll say, 'Nothing's too good for a veteran.' But a lot of it is lip service." While the current crop of veterans is eligible to join groups such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, they have shied away from doing so for the most part. In some cases, they have started new organizations instead. Petersen, Tom Bartley and Charles Berry are part of the Collegiate Veterans Society at Eastern Florida. The organization has been active in several community events and is growing as it recruits new members on campus.
They said that they want recognition for younger veterans' service to go beyond ceremonies on Veterans Day. The recognition they want is consideration when they search for a job or try to start a business.

^ This was very interesting because it is completely right. World War 2 vets have always been treated with the respect they deserve. Korean War vets were praised when people remembered there was a war there.  Vietnam vets were usually thrown aside because of people's stupid views (they forget the President and Congress send troops to fight), but now they are "popular" again. Those that served/serve in the 1st Iraq War and now in the 2nd Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are being forgotten . It's a sad fact, but most Americans don't even remember there is a war still on in Afghanistan. This article summed it up correctly when it said that "people don't really care unless they have a family member there." Since we have an all-volunteer military the majority of the American population is affected and so doesn't care. I believe ALL veterans - young and old - deserve respect and help after they serve. ^



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/younger-women-men-join-ranks-of-those-who-served/3486639/

Saturday, November 9, 2013

CDN Legacy

From the Globe and Mail: 
"Will the Canadian mission in Afghanistan be a war to remember?"

On Monday, when Canadians across the country pause to observe Remembrance Day, how many will think of their soldiers still serving in Afghanistan? Canada’s combat mission ended two years ago, but 620 troops are still here and won’t all be home until March. Most are training the Afghan police, army and air-force units expected to ensure that, after 12 years, 158 military casualties and an estimated cost to taxpayers of $18.1-billion, this war wasn’t for nothing.  But about 100 are at Camp Souter, near the Kabul airport, literally packing to go home. How do they feel the war will be remembered now that Canada’s role is coming to an end? To find out, I make the trek from my home in downtown Kabul to meet Colonel Stephen Blair, who is leading the exit mission. His unit is sorting vast quantities of equipment amassed at 13 Canadian bases across the country, and tidying up after battle poses a particular challenge in a landlocked country. As a result, the soldiers are packing whatever is going home in big containers that will be flown to Kuwait, and then travel by sea. Anything discarded will be donated or destroyed. So, while this is a time to be practical – deciding what goes home (ammunition) and what stays behind (hockey sticks) – it’s also a time to reflect on a dozen years of hard conflict. Asked what he feels Canada’s Afghan legacy will be, Major-General Dean Milner, the top Canadian commander here, offers a familiar response. “Security in the south,” he tells me. It’s true that central Kandahar, the south’s biggest city, is safer than a few years ago. The simple fact that it has not fallen to the Taliban is a testament to the prowess of Canada and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. But outside such pockets of stability, violence continues to rise: Insurgent attacks are up almost 50 per cent this year. It’s unclear what kind of “security” Canada is leaving behind. At Camp Souter, I ask Col. Blair what he thinks Canada has accomplished, something he is well placed to consider: His brother was with one of the first battalions deployed to Kandahar in 2002, and now he is wrapping up. But he pleads for time: “It’s too raw. I haven’t been able to process anything.” Corporal Stacey Noseworthy, 24, is less hesitant. “I find it a great success,” she says of the mission. When asked why she is so sure, she sounds surprised: “But we wouldn’t be leaving, if we weren’t.” Over lunch, the talk turns to how this war will be remembered. Will there be a celebration on Parliament Hill like the one for troops returning from Libya in 2011?
Many of the soldiers suspect the government wants them to come home quietly and pretend nothing much happened in Afghanistan. Some seem uncertain what the point of it all was. Before leaving, I ask an Afghan vendor what he thinks will happen when the foreigners go home. Nothing, he replies, wearing a wan smile. But who will buy your scarves and trinkets? “I do not worry,” he says wearily. (I cannot be the first person to ask.) “Allah is good. He provides. He will protect us.”

^ This question facing Canadians is also facing other countries with troops in Afghanistan (ie the Americans, German, British, etc.) It seems that regardless where you live the ordinary people have forgotten there is still a war going on in which men and women are still dying. Now that troops are coming home the legacy question comes into play. While I do not know what the legacy will be for Canada or the United States I do know that both countries (as well as all the others with troops) did a lot in/for Afghanistan and that what they did over there enables all the ordinary people at home to be allowed to forget since they are safe and secure. ^

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/will-the-canadian-mission-in-afghanistan-be-a-war-to-remember/article15358082/

75: German Pogrom

From DW:
"Germany remembers 1938 Nazi pogrom"

On the 75th anniversary of the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jewish citizens, Europe's leading rabbi has called for tolerance and pluralism. The 1938 pogrom devastated Jewish life and was a prelude to the Holocaust.  The president of the Council of European Rabbis Pinchas Goldschmidt has warned against a trend in Europe toward restricting the religious freedom of minority groups. He called for tolerance and pluralism as Germany marks the 75th anniversary of the 1938 pogrom, also known as Reichskristallnacht.  Some 200 Rabbis were set to gather in Berlin for a three-day conference, starting Sunday, where they will discuss issues confronting Europe's Jewish communities. Ritual circumcision and the kosher and halal slaughtering of animals have come under criticism in Europe in recent years, sparking outrage among the continent's Jewish and Muslim communities. "With the conference taking place on the 75th anniversary of the pogrom, we want to remember the Shoa and show that Jewish life in Germany has been reborn," Goldschmidt told the German news agency DPA.  On November 9, 1938, a wave of anti-Semitic attacks was instigated against the Jewish communities of Austria and Germany by forces of the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Some 1,400 synagogues and thousands of Jewish medical practices, businesses, and homes and apartments were destroyed in a matter of hours. At least 91 people were killed. In the following days, 30,000 members of the Jewish community were deported to concentration camps. At the time, the Nazis in propaganda claimed that the violence was a spontaneous response to the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris. The shooter was 17-year-old Herschel Grynszpan, whose parents had been deported by the Nazis to Poland. But in reality the pogrom was organized by the Nazis and led by the paramilitary SS and SA. In Berlin, the Catholic and Protestant churches led a march through Berlin on Saturday to remember the victims of the 1938 pogrom. "We are going through the streets with the knowledge of how fragile a democratic culture and human rights are, and how fast the rule of law and justice can be sacrificed," said Protestant Bishop Markus Dröge. The anniversary events will culminate in a remembrance ceremony on Sunday in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

^ Kristallnacht was not a random occurrence because of the shooting in Paris (as the Nazis claimed) but pre-planned and just waiting for the "right" event to ignite the mass-looting. This event is one of those that clearly shows the ordinary German alive at the time can never say they "didn't know" what was going on to the Jews and others during the Holocaust. While they may not have known about the mass shootings in the East they clearly knew about the concentration camps and this pogrom as they were out in the open for everyone to see and witness. The fact that thousands upon thousands of Jews were arrested and sent to the camps after November 9th  re-enforces that clarity. It has been 75 years and while a lot has changed in both Germany and the world it seems that a recent study shows that anti-Semitism is still very alive and active in Germany and many other places. Things that seem small today can bloom into more terrible events later on. From a "small" event like Kristallnacht in 1938 to the liberation of the death camps in 1945 shows that example. People always say "Never Again" but then in the same breath they allow events to happen at home and abroad that make that two-word phrase seem hypocritical. ^



http://www.dw.de/germany-remembers-1938-nazi-pogrom/a-17216241

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Speaking Dementia

From the USA Today:
"Speaking more than one language may delay dementia"

The latest evidence that speaking more than one language is a very good thing for our brains comes from a study finding dementia develops years later in bilingual people than in people who speak just one language. The study, conducted in India and published Wednesday in the journal Neurology, is not the first to reach this conclusion. But it is the largest and comes with an intriguing new detail: The finding held up even in illiterate people — meaning that the possible effect is not explained by formal education. Instead, the researchers say, there's something special about switching from one language to another in the course of routine communication — something that helps explain why bilingual people in the study developed dementia five years later than other people did. When illiterate people were compared with other illiterate people, those who could speak more than one language developed dementia six years later. "We know from other studies that mental activity has a certain protective effect," says co-author Thomas Bak, a neurologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. "Bilingualism combines a lot of different mental activities. You have to switch sounds, concepts, grammatical structures, cultural concepts. It stimulates your brain all the time." For the study, Bak and colleagues in India reviewed medical records of 648 people with dementia who were seen in a clinic in the city of Hyderabad. The location was key, because residents of the city, like many people in India, often speak two or three languages — typically some combination of the official language, Telugu, the Urdu dialect Dakkhini and the English increasingly used in schools, workplaces and the media, the authors write. People may speak in one language or combination at home and in neighborhoods and another at work or school, all in the course of a normal day, says co-author Suvarna Alladi, a neurologist at Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. "Since bilingualism is more of a norm in India, bilingualism is not a characteristic of any particular socioeconomic, geographic or religious group," she says. More than half of the people diagnosed with dementia at the clinic were bilingual or multilingual. But the researchers found those people had developed their first symptoms, such as memory loss and confusion, at an average age of 65.6 — five years later than the average of 61.1 for people who spoke just one language. The differences were seen in several types of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia (associated with poor blood flow to the brain) and frontotemporal dementia (caused by degeneration of the brain's frontal or temporal lobes). Two previous smaller studies, conducted in Ontario, Canada, found a later onset of Alzheimer's disease in bilingual people. But in those studies, bilingual people were largely immigrants, raising questions about whether they differed in other ways from the general population, says Brian Gold, a neuroscientist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. The new study is more convincing, he says, "because it is studying bilingual people raised in the same country and culture."
Gold's own lab studies have found that bilingual seniors excel at certain skills, such as quickly sorting colors and shapes, and that their frontal lobes work more efficiently as they perform such tasks.
All the research taken together is more good reason, he says, to expose children to language-learning as they grow — and for bilingual families to keep using more than one language in their homes. It's still unclear, he says, whether people can boost their brains by taking up a second language later in life. "It may never be too late," Bak says, but he agrees more research is needed. It's also unclear, Bak says, whether bilingual people fare any better than others once symptoms of dementia develop.
 
^ This is good to hear. While I am not bilingual I do know several different languages and have used them whenever I get the chance. I think that knowing at least one other language enough to talk to a native-speaker would also help delay the start of dementia - but I'm no doctor. ^
 

Mass Citizens

From the BBC:
"Hungary creating new mass of EU citizens"

Hungary has granted tens of thousands of passports to people in neighbouring countries, making them automatic citizens of the EU with all the advantages that brings. The man leaving the Hungarian consulate looks at me with incomprehension when I greet him in Hungarian.  "He does understand it - he just doesn't speak it very well yet," says his female companion, hastily.  The man clutches a brown folder in his hand, containing his new Hungarian citizenship papers. He took the oath of allegiance to Hungary 15 minutes earlier. Now, they are on their way to take photos, for his first Hungarian passport.  Some 100,000 people have applied for Hungarian citizenship in Serbia, and more than 500,000 worldwide since a new Hungarian law came into force, in January 2011. There are only two conditions - a direct ancestor who was a Hungarian citizen, and a basic knowledge of the language. Serbia's northern province of Vojvodina, Transylvania in Romania, Slovakia, and Transcarpathian Ukraine were all parts of Austro-Hungary until 1920, and many parts were briefly re-annexed by Hungary during World War Two.  Therefore most families in the region have a grandparent or great-grandparent who qualifies.  While Romania and Slovakia are already in the EU, the value of a Hungarian passport is inestimable for a Serbian citizen. It is seen as a chance to escape the domestic economic crisis and - regardless of the EU's own deep unemployment - to live and work anywhere in the bloc.   Serbia's government has accepted the Hungarian law calmly - after all it has its own equivalent, with Serbs in Bosnia able to claim Serbian citizenship.  But others are more nervous about Hungarian motives. The Slovak government passed a law banning dual citizenship, and some politicians accused Hungary of irredentist claims on its former territory.  Fifty-one Slovak Hungarians who claimed Hungarian citizenship have been stripped of their Slovak citizenship, as have several hundred Czechs. "People ask for Hungarian citizenship for either emotional or rational reasons," explains Hungary's general consul in Subotica, Tamas Korsos.  "The emotional one I need hardly explain - that sense of belonging to a national community. The rational one is that one can travel more easily with a Hungarian passport." Does he mind the fact that so many are applying who have no emotional connection to Hungary, and simply want to work in Germany or beyond?  He insists that most apply because they identify with Hungary, but adds: "I do not condemn that in any way… everyone looks after his own interests. I look forward to the day when he can travel everywhere with a Serbian passport too!" When it passed the new citizenship law, the Fidesz government in Hungary explained that the purpose was to give Hungarians around the world, and especially those in neighbouring countries, the chance to belong to the motherland again.  The European Commission has no official comment on the reality of half a million new EU citizens - just as there was no criticism of Romania for inviting Moldovans to take up Romanian citizenship - about 400,000 have already.  The soft underbelly of the scheme is the language knowledge. There is no exam, no list of questions - just a requirement that each person who applies "be able to handle their everyday affairs in Hungarian".  The consular staff spend two days a week on the road, visiting villages and towns to popularise the measure. On each occasion, they are presented with a pile of filled out application forms. From the consulate, 100 new Hungarian citizens emerge each day.  The sudden popularity of the Hungarian language - one of the hardest in Europe - has spawned a brisk trade in language schools. Many Hungarians offer teaching over the internet by Skype. One I speak to refuses an interview. "It's too sensitive," she explains.

^ I believe the citizenship of any country should be tightly controlled and not simply given (unless born to a parent who is a citizen or someone who was naturalized) or sold. With that said I don't see an issue with Hungary's law. Countries of Europe changed hands so often throughout the years. I once knew I man who said: "I have lived in 4 different countries without ever leaving my house." I see no issue with extending citizenship to someone whose parent or grandparent was a citizen of another country (but getting into great-grandparents, etc is going too far.) Germany extended German citizenship to anyone who can claim an ethnic German root (that's how many people behind the Iron Curtain left places like: Poland or the USSR and moved to West Germany.) Russia used to have a law that allowed any person born anywhere in the Soviet Union to become a Russian citizen. The Russian law didn't extend to ancestry (ie a parent or grandparent) and I personally believe there shouldn't be a statue of limitations - if someone was born anywhere in the USSR from 1922 to 1991 they should have the option to become a Russian until everyone from that time period dies out (Russia announced in December 1991 that it was the successor-state to the USSR and so this is part of that.) Spain had a similar law that allowed any person who had a parent or grandparent discriminated by Franco and lost their Spanish citizenship to regain it - that had a statue of limitations too. Israel allows anyone who is a Jew (through their mother) to get Israeli citizenship - it should be changed to allow a person with any Jewish parent. I also believe European (and other countries) should allow dual-citizenships. Most (ie Germany, Slovakia, Japan, the Ukraine, etc) do not. I see no issue with having multiple citizenships if it is all through ancestry and not naturalization (I also think "birth right citizenship" like the US and Canada gives should be done away with.)  I am a dual Canadian-American (since Canada changed the law a few years ago.) I am not considered, by either the United State or Canada, as being a naturalized citizen, but a full-blooded citizen. I also can not give Canadian citizenship to any children I may have - that is just plain discrimination. If I was naturalized I could understand it, but I can not see what "logic' the Canadian Government uses to forbid a native-born Canadian from giving it to their children. One way for countries to allow dual-citizenships and at the same time to restrict it is to do what places like the US, Canada, Russia, etc do: you have to enter the United States on a US Passport and Canada on a Canadian Passport (or a Russian passport for Russia.) That way you are legally recognized by that country as that nationality and not any of the others you have. Along the same lines I believe that people born outside the country to parents who are citizens of that country should not have any restrictions (political or otherwise) placed on them. I know many friends and family-members born outside the US to at least one American parent who can not become President, etc (and many of those who forced to live outside the country because the American Government sent them to a certain place.) Citizenship varies around the world and there are so many issues and problems that every country should look at and address. Bottom line here is I think ancestry citizenship should be up to the grandparents with no statue of limitations, birth-citizenship should be eliminated, dual-citizenship should be allowed, native citizens should always be allowed to give it to their children and those born outside the native country to at least one native parent should have no limitations placed on them. ^



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24848361

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Russian Learning

From MT:
"New Council to Promote Russian Language Abroad"

The Cabinet has formed a new council to promote the Russian language abroad, allocating a 1.5 billion ruble ($46 million) budget to fund the opening of linguistic centers in dozens of countries around the world. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed an order on Tuesday establishing the council to "help fulfill the government's policy aimed at popularizing the Russian language, supporting and developing it," the Cabinet said on its website. Among the council's tasks will be the opening of Pushkin Institute linguistic centers in about 50 countries, including former Soviet republics, Europe, the U.S., China, Japan, Syria, Iraq and several other Middle Eastern nations, news reports said. The new council will be headed by social policy chief Olga Golodets, her spokesman Alexei Levchenko said. The spokesman said some of the Russian language centers overseas may be free, while some may charge tuition, and one of the first centers to open under the project will be based in Paris, Izvestia reported. Levchenko added that popularizing the Russian language is "one of the instruments of promoting the country through soft power, as opposed to rockets and weapons," Kommersant said. Russian language councils existed in the country in the 1990s to the mid-2000s, mostly to help Russians speak and write their native language properly. One of its major accomplishments was the creation of the literacy website Gramota.ru in 2000, to explain both the basics and many of the trickiest issues of the language's arcane spelling and punctuation rules.
A member of the Kremlin's international relations council, Vladimir Zorin, said that the language council was part of President Vladimir Putin's national development strategy through 2025. "If people know more about the Russian language, culture, our mentality, this by itself would help improve the image of our country abroad," Zorin told newspaper Vzglyad. Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Russian World foundation and the State Duma's educational committee, said that the number of Russian speakers around the world has shrunk by 50 million people in recent years, and though the creation of a council was a good idea, its budget of 1.5 billion rubles was insufficient.

^ Most countries have a council to teach foreigners their language and their culture. When I was living in Russia and needed a break and wanted to read or see something in English I went to the nearby British Council (which has since been forced to close by the Russian Government.) While the person there barely spoke English they had movies and books that I could take home. On thing I found interesting about this article is that it wants to teach Russians living in other countries how to speak their own language. I can understand teaching non-Russians to love Russian culture and language, but Russians themselves is funny. The Russian language is very difficult (especially for an English-speaker) so the more opportunities foreigners have to learn from a native speaker will make thing easier (it is along the same lines of a native English-speaker going to another country to teach English.) ^

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/new-council-to-promote-russian-language-abroad/489058.html

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Voting

Today is Election Day. I went to the Old Town Hall in my town to vote (as I have since I moved here 4 1/2 years ago) only to find there was no one around and nothing set-up. I went to the New Town Hall and asked the woman there who looked at me as though I was insane. It is the first Tuesday of November and thus is Federally-mandated Election Day. So, in the end, I tried to do my civic duty, but my town stopped me from that.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Russia's Free 72

From the MT:
"Visa-Free Travel for 20 Countries to Boost Domestic Airline Profits"

As early as next year, foreigners from 20 countries could visit Russia without a visa for up to 72 hours as long as they purchase a ticket with a Russian carrier, a draft bill by the Culture Ministry proposes. Russia's flagship carrier Aeroflot is expected to increase its revenues by 30 billion rubles ($936 million) after the 72-hour visa-free stay policy for foreign tourists is introduced in the country, the proposal published Sunday on the government's legal information website said. The draft legislation to allow foreign nationals in transit at 11 Russian airports to remain in the country for 72 hours without a visa was approved by the Russian government in September. The loosened visa regulations will apply to visitors from 20 countries, including Germany, China, United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, France, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Poland, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Singapore, Australia and Greece. Experts believe that the measure will increase foreign tourist arrivals by 60 percent, the statement said. According to estimates, the Russian hotel industry will see its income rise by 3.6 billion to 5.4 billion rubles ($110-160 million) a year. Last year, 2.1 million foreign nationals visited Russia as tourists.

^ This is a step in the right direction. I understand that this is mostly for people transiting through Russia to someplace else (ie another former Soviet Republic or Asia.) I am curious to know if the 72 hours is very every trip - ie someone flies to Moscow spends 72 hours in that city and then leaves Russia. Then the same person flies to Saint Petersburg  - can he/she spend another 72 hours there without a visa? Hopefully this program will gain a lot of support and get more people to visit Russia (even if only for 72 hours.) If this works well then I could see Russia expanding the visa-free stay to more countries and for longer periods. Russia is a very interesting country, but I don't think you can see much or learn a lot about the country and its people in only 72 hours (I think the same for any country.) ^

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/visa-free-travel-for-20-countries-to-boost-domestic-airline-profits/488910.html

Disabled Fine

From USA Today:
"US Airways fined $1.2M over wheelchair assistance"

The Transportation Department fined US Airways $1.2 million Monday – one of its largest penalties for a disability case – for failing to provide wheelchair assistance to passengers in Philadelphia and Charlotte. "All air travelers should be treated fairly when they fly, regardless of any disabilities they may have," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. The department also announced a new rule to require easier stowage of wheelchairs in new planes and the accessibility of airport kiosks and airline websites. US Airways said it takes its responsibility to provide safe, reliable and convenient travel for passengers seriously and has made "significant improvements" since the complaints cited in the agreement, according to spokesman Todd Lehmacher. The airline is spending more than required to improve its service, he said. "We are investing $2 million per year in continuous enhancements to our technology, staffing and training," Lehmacher said. "This will build on the success of our recent improvements and ensure that our customers with disabilities have a positive travel experience on our airline." Airlines are supposed to provide free, prompt wheelchair assistance to passengers with disabilities between gates and making connections. But transportation officials investigated after receiving 300 complaints from passengers at the two airports during 2011 and 2012, with some passengers being left unattended for long periods and missing connections. Investigators found US Airways' use of electric carts and wheelchairs to carry passengers required frequent transfers and led to long delays. In some cases, investigators found "egregious" violations such as passengers left unattended on a plane for more than 15 minutes after other passengers got off, being left unattended more than 30 minutes in a terminal or being taken to the wrong gate. US Airways will pay the government $700,000, according to a seven-page agreement with the government. The airline can use $280,000 to improve its service by hiring managers to ensure services for passengers with disabilities, $80,000 to create a telephone line to assist passengers, $75,000 to buy tablets to monitor requests, $35,000 to compensate passengers and $30,000 to program computers so boarding passes will designate passengers needed assistance. In addition Monday, the Transportation Department announced a new rule for the disabled that requires automated airport kiosks be accessible within two years and airline websites within three years. Because travelers typically receive the cheapest fares on web sites rather than by phone, the rule requires airlines to test their accessibility in consultation with groups representing visual, auditory, tactile, and cognitive disabilities. The rule also requires airlines to choose between stowing wheelchairs in the cabin on new aircraft or strapping them to a row of seats, to ensure that two folding chairs can be transported at a time. "These new rules build on our past work in ensuring that our air transportation system is accessible for everyone, while balancing both airlines' and passengers' need for flexibility," Foxx

^ Having used many airlines and needing to stow a wheelchair I have seen most not do what they say they would. I try to never use the airport helpers as I am capable to push the chair myself, but when boarding I have only had the wheelchair put inside the plane one time. Most of the time it is put underneath the plane - which takes a long time to get back when you land. In one incident the airline person told me the on-board storage was already used by another chair and I later learned that there was no chair in the bin - it was used to hold the pilots' luggage. I really hope the government continues to stand-up for the disabled and fine the airlines and airports that do not treat the handicapped correctly. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/11/04/dot-us-airways-disabled-passengers-wheelchair/3433037/

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Selfish Charities

From the Globe and Mail:
"Canadians less trusting of charities, new study finds"

A detailed study of Canadians’ attitudes toward charities has found that a growing number of people are less trustful of charity leaders and have less faith that charitable organizations are spending donor money honestly. More than two-thirds of Canadians also believe there are too many charities raising money for the same cause and international development organizations are among the least trusted charities in the country, according to the report released Sunday by the Edmonton-based Muttart Foundation.  The 158-page report, called Talking About Charities 2013, is based on interviews with more than 3,800 people. It’s the fifth survey the foundation has done since 2000 and it provides a rare glimpse into how Canadians view the country’s 85,600 charities, which receive more than $8-billion in annual donations. “Our role in commissioning this report is to provide an objective picture of the landscape in which charities operate,” the foundation’s president Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai said in a press release. “There are parts of that picture that some will like; there are others that clearly indicate the need for action.” The foundation’s executive director Bob Wyatt said charities play an important role in helping governments shape public policy because their work directly impacts people. “And in order to play a role, charities need to know what Canadians think of them and what the perception is,” he said in an interview. “There are some findings in [the report] that indicate that charities need to do a better job in communicating with the public.” Overall the study found that a large majority of people, 79 per cent, said they had “some” or “a lot” of trust in charities and an even higher percentage said charities are important to the country, findings that have remained constant in each survey since 2000. However, the level of trust in the people running charities has fallen to 71 per cent from 80 per cent in 2004. While the level of trust in many other professions, such as lawyers (52 per cent), politicians (33 per cent) and religious leaders (52 per cent), has also fallen, the drop for charity leaders has been among the steepest. Doctors and nurses scored the highest levels of trust at over 90 per cent. Mr. Wyatt said the loss in trust in all professions raises some key questions. “Are we becoming a less trusting society and if so why?” he asked. “What’s this telling us about Canadian society, not just in terms of charities but about who we are?” A larger issue for charities raised by the report was the attitudes toward fundraising and how charitable organizations spend donations. While 70 per cent of those surveyed said they agreed that charities are generally honest about how they use donations, that has fallen from 84 per cent in 2000. And a rising number, now 25 per cent, disagreed that charities are honest about their spending. “The fact that you have one in four Canadians who are saying they are not sure about [honesty], that gives me some pause for concern,” said Mr. Wyatt.
Nearly 75 per cent of those surveyed also said charities spend too much on fundraising and administration. Mr. Wyatt said that response was among the most disturbing in the report. “What it means is we haven’t told our story. People are not getting the message that in order to deliver programming you have to have staff,” he said. “There are some myths out there that we have to counter now, we can’t allow them to continue to exist.”
Among the reports other findings:
  • Canadians are divided 50-50 on whether there should be a legal limit placed on the amount of money charities can spend on fundraising. Roughly half said there should be a limit and half said it should be left up to charities to decide.
  • The level of trust is highest for hospital charities and those that work with children, each scoring above 80 per cent.
  • Just 50 per cent of those surveyed trust international development organizations. That has fallen from 57 per cent in 2006. Churches and other places of worship were trusted by 59 per cent of those surveyed and environmental charities by 67 per cent. Arts related charities were trusted by 60 per cent.
  • Younger people are more trusting of charity leaders than older people. Among those aged 18-24, 79 per cent said they trust those running charities. That compared with 62 per cent for people over 65.
  • Nearly nine in ten people, 86 per cent, believe that running a business is a good way for charities to raise money. But 70 per cent said there is a significant concern that charities could lose money on business activities.
  • Only 21 per cent said charities are doing a good or excellent job at providing information about fundraising costs. And 26 per cent said they are doing a good or excellent job providing information on how they use donations.
^ I, too, believe that charities and non-profits need to be held more accountable for how they spend the money people give them. People give to charities in the belief that their money is going to go solely to the cause they are giving to and that isn't always the case. I also don't trust when a charity complains that donations are low and yet they refuse to accept non-monetary goods. To me that raises a red flag to not trust that charity. I have tried to donate food, clothes, etc to several charities over the years only to be told they only want money and so I give them nothing. ^

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-less-trustful-of-charities-new-study-finds/article15233158/

Nazi EBay

From the JP:
"Report: Holocaust memorabilia found on eBay"

eBay has removed from its listings around 30 items of memorabilia from the Nazi Holocaust, including clothes worn by concentration camp victims, after a newspaper investigation discovered they were on sale on the e-commerce website, Britain's Mail on Sunday said. The newspaper said its reporters found a range of items on the site over the past week, including what was presented by the vendor as a complete Auschwitz uniform worn by a Polish baker who perished in the Nazi death camp.  The Mail on Sunday said it had alerted eBay and that the online auctioneer had removed 30 items from sale and offered to make a donation of 25,000 pounds ($40,000) to a suitable charity.
In a statement, eBay said: "We are very sorry these items have been listed on eBay and we are removing them. We don't allow listings of this nature, and dedicate thousands of staff to policing our site and use the latest technology to detect items that shouldn't be for sale. "We very much regret that we didn't live up to our own standards. We have made a donation to charity to reflect our concern," said the company, which receives a commission on items sold and charges vendors a listing fee.
The Mail on Sunday said eBay had been unable to say how long such items may have been for sale on its website. The paper said the purported Auschwitz uniform had been priced at 11,300 sterling by the vendor, a Ukrainian man based in Canada, who had sold another batch of clothing purporting to be linked to Auschwitz for $18,000 last year. The report quoted the vendor, named as Viktor Kempf, as saying he had been criticized in the past for selling such items, but did so to "document" them and to fund history book projects. "I don't want people to think I'm just doing it for the money. These periods in history are horrific, nobody should ever forget them," Kempf was quoted as saying. Other items found on eBay by the British paper included shoes and a toothbrush said to have belonged to concentration camp victims as well as yellow Star of David armbands used by the Nazis to identify Jews for persecution.

^ Places like EBay and Amazon are so large that it is hard to stop things before they are put up for sale. It is good that EBay removed the articles once they were discovered. I don't understand why anyone would sell or want to buy items from a concentration/death camp. Those items belong in a museum. ^

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Report-Holocaust-memorabilia-found-on-eBay-330459

Survivor Home

From USA Today:
"Home for Holocaust survivors sees last generation"

Listen to the many harrowing stories of war, suffering and survival, all under one roof: On the third floor, there's Margie. A prisoner of Nazi labor camps, she hauled backbreaking cement bags and was beaten with clubs. Sometimes, she had only a piece of bread to eat every other day. She weighed 56 pounds when she was freed. Down the hall, there's Edith. Though pregnant, she miraculously avoided the gas chamber at Auschwitz. She lost her mother, father and husband in the camps. After liberation, she faced even more heartbreak: Her son died days after his birth. Up on the eighth floor, there's Joe. As a boy of 10, he was herded onto a cattle car and transported to a concentration camp — the first of five he'd be shuttled to over five cruel years. These Holocaust survivors share a history and a home: a retirement community founded more than 60 years ago for Jews who'd been victims of Nazi persecution. For decades, it was a refuge for those who'd endured the living hell of Auschwitz, Theresienstadt, Mauthausen and other camps. And a haven, too, for those who'd fled before the dark night of German occupation fell over their homeland. In its heyday, the Selfhelp Home, as it's called, bustled with Jewish refugees from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, the dining room a babel of central European tongues. Hundreds were on a waiting list. But that was long ago. As time passed, the need for a special sanctuary faded. Others who had not endured the genocide moved in. Only 12 Holocaust survivors — the youngest in their mid-80s, the oldest 102 — remain. So do a few dozen other Jews who escaped Hitler's reach, often leaving behind family as they started new lives in Kenya, China, Colombia and other distant lands. They're now the last generation to bear witness to one of the greatest horrors of all time, a resilient community of friends and neighbors sharing what once seemed impossible: long lives. When they're gone, their stories will be preserved in history. But for now, their voices still echo in these halls.  Seventy-five years ago, Margie Oppenheimer awoke with a Nazi pointing a rifle in her 14-year-old face. It was Nov. 9, 1938, Kristallnacht — the night of broken glass — when the Nazis coordinated a wave of attacks in Germany and Austria, smashing windows, burning synagogues, ransacking homes, looting Jewish-owned stores. They trashed the family's apartment and small department store in Oelde, Germany. So began seven years of terror that took Oppenheimer from the Riga ghetto — escaping mass killings by German squads — to a series of labor and concentration camps. She broke concrete, shoveled sawdust, laid bricks, glued U-boats. She fought hunger and fear, lice and typhus, repeating to herself: "I WILL be strong. I want to live." One day at the Stutthof concentration camp in Poland, Nazis marched Oppenheimer and others naked into an open field for inspection. Those strong enough to work were directed to the right. Oppenheimer, who was emaciated, was ordered to the left with hundreds of older women. She was placed into new barracks and had the Roman numeral II scrawled on her left forearm. "I'm thinking this is the last time I will see the sun," she recalls. That night at the camp two friends did the unimaginable: Without saying anything, they pulled Oppenheimer under an electrified fence to another side of the camp. She scrubbed off one number on her arm so she was no longer marked for death. She stayed in those quarters and at the next day's 6 a.m. roll call, she tried to hide her skeletal, barely 5-foot frame behind a tall woman. "The commander said, 'There is one person extra. Who IS that person? Come forward!'" Oppenheimer recalls, her high-pitched voice imitating his stern tone. "My face was hot. It was on fire. I thought if anybody sees me, they'll know I am the one who isn't supposed to be there." An elderly woman was pulled from the line and dispatched to her death. "She was killed because of me, because I wanted to be free," Oppenheimer says, her eyes clouding with tears. "And I feel guilty about that until this living day." Oppenheimer eventually became a nurse but couldn't bear to work with children. "Here you have happy, lovely kids," she explains. "All I saw were kids being pulled from their mothers and killed. Those are the pictures that I still have in front of me." The past never totally disappears. One night at dinner someone asked if everyone had received plum cake. Oppenheimer pointed to two tablemates. Suddenly she was reminded of a Nazi commander dubbed "the death finger" because he'd point, then declare with a "you, you, you," those to be exterminated. She trembles just thinking about it. Oppenheimer now lives in a cozy, sun-lit apartment filled with four generations of family photos. She and her husband — an Auschwitz survivor — had decided long ago they'd eventually move to Selfhelp but he died before there was a need. Oppenheimer has found comfort there. "I'm happy to know that there are people here who went through the same thing," she says. Oppenheimer doesn't share her story unless asked, but has written a memoir to record events her three children weren't all that eager to hear. "My kids didn't want us to talk about it," she says. "They'd say, 'You're in a free country now. Enjoy the freedom. Forget the past.'"
She can't. "What happened yesterday — I can't remember," she says, "but what happened at that time ... it's still with me. I can never forget it." The home actually started as an association in the mid-1930s when a branch of a New York organization called Selfhelp formed in Chicago. Selfhelp was more than a name; it was a philosophy for refugees who didn't want to depend on public aid. Instead, they started a support group, collecting meager dues to help each other find jobs or apartments, learn English and navigate daily life. "The mission was to create a safe oasis where they could start again," says Ciocci, whose husband's grandmother was an early member. Gerry Franks, one of the home's founders, had come from Berlin. Now 92, he still remembers being 17 years old, watching from his bicycle the hateful frenzy of Kristallnacht as Nazi storm troopers painted small crosses in the corner of windows of Jewish-owned businesses so mobs would know where to attack. He saw a schoolmate pick up a chair lodged in an already-shattered store window and hurl it into a magnificent chandelier. "I tell you, it broke something within me," Franks says. "I thought, 'What the heck am I doing in this country anymore?'" His family left soon after. As a Selfhelp founder, Franks and others decided, after about a decade, to start a retirement community for their parents and other refugees, many attached to Old World ways. In 1951, a rambling, three-story brick house was dedicated in Hyde Park, on the South Side. The home later moved to a nine-story building on the North Side. About 15 years ago, with increasing numbers of survivors dying, Selfhelp — which offers everything from independent living to around-the-clock care — began opening its doors to Jews who weren't European war refugees. "In a matter of years, this community will be gone, this sense of culture will be gone, these last links to what central Europe was before the war will be no longer be with us," Bensinger says. "There's a great sense of sadness for all of us." Edith Stern sometimes thinks her memory is too strong. She remembers her improbable wedding ceremony in Theresienstadt. A concentration camp inmate with meningitis, she was too weak to stand, but strong enough to take her vows. Her head was bandaged and a pink silk gown peeked out from her blanket. Her groom stood at her side. "All the people cried," she says with a wistful smile. "I laughed. I'd married the man of my dreams." She remembers months later, she and her mother on a transport, thinking they were heading to a German labor camp where they'd be reunited with their husbands. Instead, they arrived at Auschwitz. Her mother was dispatched to the gas chambers, Stern to work. She was ushered into the camp by a female guard who pointed to the chimneys, and delivered a chilling taunt: "'You see those flames? Those are your parents, your husbands, your children burning.'" Stern also remembers the anguish when the pregnant young widow, newly freed, arrived at a Prague hospital. The staff, seeing a scrawny woman with a shaved head, thought she was a prostitute and the baby's father a Nazi. Stern says she was treated roughly at first. After three grueling days of labor, her son, Peter, was born. He had blood in his skull, and he died three days later. "He was," she says, "a beautiful baby." Stern moved to Chicago in 1965 and joined the staff of Selfhelp, developing an instant rapport with the other refugees. "The reason I wanted to work there was I could never do anything for my parents because they were killed," she says. "These people could have been my parents ... I loved them and they loved me." Now a stylish, lively 92-year-old grandmother, Stern says she always knew she'd return. Moving in 14 years ago, she says, was "like coming home." Her younger sister, Marietta, who spent the war with a foster family in England as part of Kindertransport, a rescue mission for Jewish children, lives across the hall. Stern says she and other survivors are forever bound by experiences few can comprehend. "We had these terrible mutual memories," she says. "When I tell you about my life, you cannot imagine it. But these people can. For you, my story is like a novel. For them, it's real life."

^ These kinds of places are disappearing just as fast as the survivors are dying. I have met numerous Holocaust survivors; heard their stories, read their books, seen their video testimonies and nothing compares to meeting the actual person. It is good for the survivors to spend their last years among those that suffered to although I hope they continue to meet other people - non-survivors - so they can continue spreading their story and truth before they are gone. ^


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/02/home-for-holocaust-survivors-sees-last-generation/3390233/

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Swift Change?

From USA Today:
"Emboldened, gay marriage activists eye 50 states"

The Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act in June opened the door to an explosion of activity by gay marriage proponents. Today, they are waging their campaign on several fronts: filing lawsuits, encouraging public officials to defy state bans on gay marriage, and stepping up a push for state legislation. Since June, couples have filed 23 lawsuits to end bans in 21 states; governors and state attorneys general in at least three states have refused to defend their state bans in court; and county clerks in four states have issued marriage licenses to gay couples despite laws against it. Hawaii is considering legislation to allow gay marriage, and advocates are pushing for Oregon and Nevada to do the same next year. The movement that had been gaining strength even before the high court's ruling is embracing many of the same strategies of the 1960s civil rights movement. Yet opponents see these efforts as "lawless" attempts to circumvent the will of the majority of the country, including many places that have voted for gay marriage bans. The Supreme Court ruling invalidated a section of the 17-year-old DOMA that denied federal benefits, such as Social Security and joint tax filing, to married gay men and lesbians in the 14 states, and the District of Columbia, that allow gay marriage. That measure, the court declared, existed primarily "to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage." The landmark decision emboldened activists to argue that if the federal government can't discriminate against married gay people, neither can the states.

Recent developments:
• On Oct. 21, New Jersey became the 14th state to allow gay marriage after a court ruled that a ban was unconstitutional. Republican Gov. Chris Christie dropped his opposition because he thought he would lose in the state Supreme Court, where the justices have ruled in favor of gay marriage in previous cases.

• On Oct. 17, Oregon's Department of Justice ruled that state agencies must recognize the unions of same-sex couples married legally in other states or countries, even though the state has a ban. That means treating gay married couples the same as straight couples for tax purposes and other state benefits, such as property rights and child custody. Activists hope to get a measure on the 2014 ballot to overturn the ban.

• Since August, some county clerks in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Mexico have challenged state laws banning gay marriage by issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

The number of Americans who favor same-sex marriage has been creeping up. In the mid-1990s, opinion polls showed, at most a quarter of people supported gay marriage, says Michael Klarman, a Harvard law professor who wrote From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. Fast-forward more than 15 years to a September poll by Bloomberg, which found that 55% of Americans support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. The national poll found 36% were opposed. Statistician Nate Silver, famous for accurately predicting the 2012 presidential vote in all 50 states, used a statistical analysis to forecast that by 2016, 31 states would be likely to favor gay marriage in a referendum, and by 2020, only six states — all in the South — would still be likely to vote against it. Thirty-five states ban same-sex marriage, most through constitutional amendments.


^ I wouldn't call the gay marriage fight in the US a swift change. It has taken 10 years since the first state (MA) allowed it and even decades more to get to that point. It is compared to the Civil Rights Movement for blacks and that really took-off in the 1950s and 1960s (so about 10 years of active resistance.) I don't understand how in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century people (especially in the United States) can openly discriminate against homosexuals. I consider banning them from marriage a form of discrimination as they can't enjoy the full state benefits that married heterosexuals can. I am glad that the trend is to change the status quo and hopefully that will mean that all the US states and territories will allow homosexuals to marry. I believe that it is important for heterosexuals to also join the :fight" for gay rights - through the Straight, but not Narrow standing. The Civil Rights Movement wouldn't have succeeded if white people hadn't been open-minded and joined and I firmly believe the same here. ^


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/02/gay-marriage-states-supreme-court/3175799/

Tourist Slump

From Yahoo Canada:
"What is it tourists don't like about Canada?"

Canadian Tourism Commission CEO Michele McKenzie announced last month she would be stepping down after a difficult decade at the helm of the national tourism marketing body. Statistics tell the tale: from 2000 to 2010, Canada's share of global international arrivals decreased from 2.9% to 1.7%. Our share of revenues fell from 2.3% to 1.7%. A sharp decline in U.S. visitors and flat traveller numbers from overseas have left tourism operators ever more dependent on the domestic market. Canadians themselves accounted for 80% of spending in 2012, up from 68% a decade earlier, a recent Scotiabank report found. The report blamed the Canadian dollar's appreciation, which eroded price competitiveness, "as well as the rapid growth in emerging markets as a tourist destination." That has left Canada with a wide and growing tourism deficit. Though the sector accounts for only 2% of the economy, it employs almost 600,000 people. And in the eyes of critics, it is getting even less competitive. "The cost of the product we're selling continues to rise. Our airports, for instance, are used as a cost centre rather than as an economic engine," laments John Winter, CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. It's unfair to saddle the CTC with responsibility for the decline. Indeed, the Crown corporation has had some small successes that point the way to the industry's future. Under McKenzie's watch it launched "Canada. Keep Exploring," a "country branding" exercise that moved away from "moose, Mounties and mountains brochures" to screaming young zip-liners wearing helmet cameras and posting their adventures on social media.  The campaign was a hit with young, affluent travellers. It won the coveted FutureBrand No. 1 country ranking in 2010 and 2011. In 2012, travel to Canada by the under-25 age group increased by almost one-quarter. Another growth node lies in emerging markets. Though the Harper government has been maligned for paring the CTC's budget to $58 million a year-less than that of New York City-it did negotiate Approved Destination Status with China prior to the 2010 Olympics. The effect was instantaneous; China went from the sixth- to the third-largest overseas inbound market by revenues. Canada welcomed 273,300 overnight Chinese travellers in 2012 who injected $486 million into the economy. Marketing dollars are being redirected to India and Brazil too. Restoring Canadian tourism to its 1990s heyday is probably an impossible task. But just stopping the slide will require more such investments in targeted marketing.

^ Canadians (and I am a dual Canadian-American) don't seem to fully understand the travel industry like other countries do. Canadian staff at embassies and high commissions are allowed to strike, if a Canadian citizen has a problem overseas they have to call a number in Ottawa for help rather than the local Canadian Embassy. That is just the overseas part. I drove around the Maritimes a few years ago and had a difficult time doing research for it. I checked the provincial tourist websites. I looked at city sites. I looked up travel companies itineraries to learn what there was to see in each place. In the end I used American and British websites to plan my trip since the Canadian ones weren't that informative. Maybe that is why tourists don't want to come to the country - they can't even get their websites right. Canada has a lot to offer and it's the 2nd largest country in the world. If they get their act together (the Federal, Provincial, local governments along with those businesses in the hospitality industry) things would greatly improve for both the citizens and tourists. ^

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-tourists-dont-canada-130000881.html

A Heathy Liar

From Yahoo:
"Health Care Shoppers Aren’t as Dumb as Obama Thinks"

President Obama calls them “substandard” insurance plans. But to many of the people who bought individual insurance policies that are now being canceled under the Affordable Care Act, their choice of insurance was a prudent decision that met their needs at a price that will be hard to beat under the ACA.  Jim Stadler is one of the “5 percenters”—the 5% of Americans with health insurance policies they purchased on their own—who got notified recently that their carrier was canceling coverage because it didn’t meet the tougher new minimum requirements of the ACA. Stadler, a freelance writer who lives outside of Charlotte, N.C., was laid off from a full-time job at an ad agency in 2009, at which point he became a freelancer and bought individual health coverage for him and his two kids. Under Stadler’s expiring policy, his premiums are $411 a month, for coverage that always seemed adequate to him. “It’s not a substandard policy,” he says. “I thought it was a great deal.” The premium for the new policy offered by his insurer will be $843 a month, with coverage that’s more or less the same as far as he’s concerned. But new policies are required to include free preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies, and they can’t be canceled or priced higher for sicker people, which is why the cost of some policies is going up. Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”  The 5-percenter problem could end up being a much more serious albatross for Obamacare and its mostly Democratic supporters than the notorious web site snafus and other temporary snags, which can mostly be fixed. Obama did, in fact, say repeatedly, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” But policies held by as many as 10 million Americans don’t meet the minimum requirements of the law and are now being canceled. Obama this week added a “vast majority” clause to his earlier claim: “For the vast majority of people who have health insurance that works, you can keep it,” he said in a recent speech on health-care reform.  Obama also continues to point out that many people whose insurance is being cancelled will get a better deal through one of the new exchanges, because of federal subsides offered to lower-income people to help them pay for coverage. The real losers, by contrast, are people like Stadler who won’t qualify for subsidies, and will no longer be able to buy “substandard” policies, either. Many such people will face higher costs for better coverage they wouldn’t choose to pay for on their own, which is exactly the type of Washington-knows-better policymaking that outrages Tea Partiers and many independents who think the government has become too invasive.  Distrust of Obamacare and the people running it has been compounded by the malfunctioning web site and the sheer complexity of the law and its many requirements. Jeanne Patterson of Drexel Hill, Pa., will be losing coverage at the end of the year, and her insurance carrier told her she must choose another plan by Nov. 20 or she won’t be able to get coverage for 2014. The White House, meanwhile, has said it may take until Nov. 30 to fix the crash-prone federal web site. The ACA gives people who choose a plan through an exchange until Dec. 15 to purchase coverage that would take effect Jan. 1, but like many others, Patterson hasn’t been able to navigate the buggy site to find out what her options are.  Patterson, a 58-year-old unemployed insurance broker, pays $500 a month for insurance now, plus about $100 in co-pays for three brand-name medications used to treat chronic migraines. She might qualify for subsidies under the exchange that would help lower her premiums, but she worries that her out-of-pocket costs for drugs will skyrocket. “I had a really good plan,” she says. “My main problem now is uncertainty. It has me sick. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have health care and I don’t know what it will cost me.”
Obama and his supporters have characterized many people who buy individual insurance policies as dupes who don’t realize they’re paying exorbitant prices for an inferior product. In his recent speech, for instance, Obama described such coverage as “cut-rate plans” offered by “bad-apple insurers” that “don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.”  But many of the 5-percenters Obama is referring to see a cruel irony the president may not be aware of. “They canceled my insurance, then said, ‘Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you,’”says Nate Quarry, a 41-year-old former mixed martial arts fighter who lives outside of Portland, Ore., and whose insurance will expire at year-end. Quarry was happy with the $650-a-month plan that covered him and his daughter. He doesn’t qualify for subsidies, so he’s been looking for a new individual policy similar to the one he’s losing.  So far, the insurance companies he’s called and emailed don’t seem interested in covering him. “I feel like I’m standing on a used car lot saying I want to buy a car, and nobody’s looking at me,” Quarry says. “Is this really happening?” Once the dust settles from the turbulent Obamacare launch, maybe an insurance company will step forward to take his money.

^ It's nice that people are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. I have been saying (and writing) about this for years and am happy to say: "I told you so! ^

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/healthcare-shoppers-aren%E2%80%99t-as-dumb-as-obama-thinks-195824524.html

Friday, November 1, 2013

Smoking 21

From the BBC: 
"New York to raise cigarette sale age"

New York City Council has voted to raise the minimum age for buying cigarettes from 18 to 21.
New York will now become by far the most populous place in the US to impose such a high age limit, the Associated Press reports. The new age limit includes electronic vapour cigarettes. Across the US there is a minimum age for smoking of 18. Some states have raised the limit to 19 and at least two other towns have raised it to 21.  Critics of the measure have argued that young people may turn to the black market for cigarettes. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who supported the bill, has 30 days to sign it into law. The measure would then come into effect after 180 days. A plan by Mr Bloomberg to make shops keep cigarettes out of public view was shelved earlier this year.

^ NYC seems to be moving backwards instead of forwards and becoming the laughing-stock of the country with all their new laws (the ones they try to pass, the ones that pass and the ones that pass and get struck down by the courts.) 18 year olds are legally considered adults everywhere in the US and so they should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol. If the age of maturity was moved to 21 in the country then I could see these laws being legal, but since it is 18 I don't see how the Federal Government (for alcohol) or the State/local Governments can have it at 21. ^

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24752995

Candy Corn

From USA Today:
"5 things you didn't know about candy corn"

Our country is deeply divided and polarized today. And the reason for this comes to a head this week:
No, the issue isn't deficit spending or debt ceilings. It's…candy corn. You either love it or hate it. There's no middle ground on this important issue. Candy corn, I would assert, is the lima beans of candy. It's perennially the last thing left in many trick or treaters' bags every year, and much of it gets tossed. I cannot abide even the sight of those cursed little isosceles triangles, leave alone their gooey taste and the cheap and overpowering sugar rush they impart. But hey, that's just me. I hated this stuff as a kid, even though I like both candy and corn. But surprisingly, candy corn, at least judging by Twitter, has many defenders (#candycorn) as well as, of course, us haters. (Volcanic comedian Lewis Black even asserts, "Nothing proves just how dumb we are collectively as a people as candy corn.")
So, in the interest of informing the debate, here are…

5 things you didn't know about candy corn

1. The CIA has been using it for years as an "enhanced interrogation technique."
Among the many classified documents leaked by Edward Snowden was a largely overlooked report detailing the CIA's forced feeding of candy corn to suspected Al Qaeda prisoners. The documents reveal that it proved far more effective in getting sensitive information than waterboarding ever did..

2. Dentists and their staffs loathe candy corn
You may be surprised, however, by the reason. The little buggers are loaded with sugar and many people keep their dentists on speed-dial around Halloween. It's good for dentist's business. BUT…normal dental tools and office air compressors won't get the stuff completely off patients' teeth. Many dental hygienists are assigned to go out and rent industrial power washers to effectively remove all of it from patients' sucrose-encrusted choppers It's an unwieldly process usually performed in dental parking lots.

3. There are landfills devoted entirely to surplus candy corn Candy corn is non-biodegradable, and most waste-management companies won't touch the stuff. It must be carefully sorted and then trucked to a few special sites around the country in remote areas -- e.g., the one at the federal nuclear storage site out in Hanford, WA. EPA officials there say they're as worried about candy-corn leakage into the aquifers as they are about nuclear-waste seepage.

4. All candy corn was manufactured in 1917 Candy corn is the unwanted byproduct of a failed wartime manufacturing experiment that extruded a food-like substance to make flotation devices for U.S. troops. (But there was a war on, and few noticed this failed experiment). The Defence Department was literally stuck with tons of excess sugary material. It was briefly used as ballast for the U.S. Navy during World War II, but when the sugary substance began rotting the hulls of warships, the government quietly sold its stockpiles of the yellow-and-white goo to candy purveyors, who didn't care about its limited shelf life. Candy companies now sell their extra yearly inventory to Third World Countries, who use it to pave roads.

5. It's not really made of corn!

^ I love candy corn. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/31/bill-mann-candy-corn/3324863/