text:
Unemployment Stories, Vol. Six: 'If It Weren't For My Children I Probably Would Have Killed Myself By Now'
America is in the midst of an unemployment crisis. Each week, we're bringing you true stories from the unemployed. Today: sex work, startups, suicidal thoughts, and more. This is what's happening out there.
I am 28 years old, a recent graduate of a UC and immediately after graduation I was flooded with opportunities for unpaid internships. I interned for [prominent person] and was essentially manipulated to work for free with the promise of a paid position that never materialized. After that, I worked minimum wage at a boutique, making less than when I worked at [a store] while in college (a job I quit so that I could focus on my studies and raise my child without going insane) and while I still work for minimum wage, I have been diagnosed with an ulcer and night terrors from all the stress after not being able to find a job. My story isn't really any different than anyone else who came from middle class or below in my generation: Debt, unpaid internships, single parent, etc. Though with all of the dedication I put forth in my University to "work towards a better future" I had to think quickly or else I wouldn't be able to afford the gas to get my child to school or pay for his piano lessons-not to mention eat. So while not destitute, I still live with my parents. I briefly considered Nancy Botwin-ing myself and selling weed, but fell into selling my panties on the internet, a surprisingly lucrative venture given that all these New York finance bozos were buying their little fetish prizes and tipping $100-$200 each time. How ironic that the same pricks that destroyed our economy were now tossing me little, sordid crumbs so that I could stay afloat. Oh, thank you. What happened after this surprised me, even though I've never demonized sex work, these guys were sending me messages begging for photos, videos and in some cases a romp in a hotel room. Now I have found myself dabbling in the occasional sex work to make ends meet where I meet 212 area code men in the bay area and am essentially a reluctant weird, glasses wearing call girl. I just wanted to work for a nice nonprofit and continue writing on the side. Dang.
That is my story.
The working class life
I grew up in a very stressed family; Grandma was home trying to take care of me, mom was working 40hrs a week and taking my father to and from his job and back to prison when he was done, and my half-sister wanted very little to do with me being 10yrs younger then her.
Needless to say college was NOT an option.
I started out at a McDonalds, and when my Grandma got horribly sick and was in and out of hospitals my managers were giving me tons of grief over having to call off due to family issues. So I quit.
Blockbuster came after that, where my scheduling manager just couldn't grasp the concept that I was taking the bus and therefore could not work before 1pm. I was continually scheduled earlier and then blamed for not coming in on time and then let go.
Next was a little middle eastern restaurant that was wonderful. Up until they closed down because the managers didn't know what they were doing.
When that same middle eastern store re-opened under new management I was called in to be a "cashier". Which included such managerial duties as the store inventory, the wait staff scheduling, and somehow knowing everything that was going on without being told for $8 an hour. One day a maintenance man was talking with MY supervisor in the kitchen, both ignored my questions to what was going on, and then mr. maintenance came out to use the phone. When the owner called a few minutes later and CHEWED me out for letting this maintenance man call him, I decided I was done. I mean, how was I supposed to know what was going on or who he was calling when NO ONE would answer these questions for me. So I walked out, thinking I could find another job pretty easily since I have never had problems before.
Since then I have been proved wrong. I walked out in October of last year and am still searching for a new job.
Since November of last year I have put in 3+ applications into McDonalds, Wendys, Taco Bell, Arbys, Burger King, Subway, every Coney Island in the area, every restaurant and hotel in the area, and any/all Craigslist job opportunities I can find to name just a few.
My boyfriends mom has helped me to get an EBT food stamp card so we're not starving at least.
To top all of this off, my mother had married a man who insisted on working and letting her stay at home, until the day came when he decided (out of the blue) that he was done with her and left. This was after he convinced her to take out a $50,000 mortgage on her home so HE could build himself a decently large building in the back of her yard, a new trailer for his civil war re-enactments, a second trailer and a motorcycle.
Thanks to all that my mother (who is 56yrs old) is having an even TOUGHER time finding a job since she is over weight and hasn't been working in 8+ years.
My food stamps are supposed to cover only me, but now they cover the food for 3 people.
3 people who continually put in applications and resume's everywhere they can and have not gotten a single call back.
We keep going out to pawn shops and onto craigslist and everywhere else to sell anything that we can part with (which has been some very sentimental pieces like my fathers guns ((he died back in 2003)) and some of my grandmothers jewelry) just to try and keep our electricity, phones, and internet working.
My mother just found out that she can cash in the interest that has accumulated on a life insurance policy her mother bought for her back in 1956 (right after she was born), and thank god for that because otherwise we'd lose the internet and electricity the same way we just lost the cell phones. Now my mother worries about what we will do when she dies...
I hope I haven't bored you with my many many complaints about my life, but you did ask people to write in and talk about how it is to be unemployed. And I'll tell you one last thing before wrapping this up; when you get $200 a month on an EBT card, you learn to "love" beef ramen noodles mixed with the cheapest can of vegetable beef soup you can find.
The journalist
I've been unemployed 32 of the last 41 months. After being laid off as a writer and editor for a Viacom website in March 2009 (the year the company posted net earnings of $1.6 billion), it took me until January 2010 to find a contract job that lasted just four months (which I hated, but at least it allowed my unemployment benefits to stretch further) until the work ran out.
Despite applying for upwards of 100 jobs a week - including doing all the right things, carefully crafting cover letters, networking, spending "full-time hours" on the job hunt, even trying to start my own business - it took me until August 2011 to find a full-time job, as an editor at a weekly magazine in Chicago. In the meantime, I did a lot of odd jobs: I taught blow-job classes, served as a transvaginal ultrasound model, proctored law-school exams, took freelance work where I could find it. I have a disability that limits my ability to do intensive physical work like working retail or in a restaurant, but even so I've done day labor and worked retail because there was nothing else. In the end, I just couldn't sustain that sort of physical activity, but I'm not disabled by government standards because I can work, just not doing certain things.
Despite the salary at the magazine being about the same as I earned at one of my first jobs in journalism (14 years earlier), I was thrilled to have a full-time job once again. Sadly, I was laid off in January 2012, when the magazine decided to eliminate the section I edited from its roster.
I have 2-1/2 weeks of unemployment benefits in my account. Even though I worked six months at the magazine, for some reason the government decided I needed to go back on extension benefits from my prior claim. Those are the benefits running out in 2-1/2 weeks. No one can tell me what will happen at that point; will I get to open a new claim, based on those six months of work at the magazine? (One representative at the unemployment office accused me of trying to "double-dip" when I even asked.) Or am I basically screwed (which is my suspicion).
The impact this has had on my life has been tremendous. I was in the midst of a custody scuffle when I was laid off, and I've effectively lost custody of my children as a result of having no money to pursue the case, not to mention that no court will award custody to someone who has no job and a precarious living situation. To make matters worse, I was evicted from my apartment in Chicago; I lived with a friend in a roommate situation there for a while, but the jobs just weren't there in Chicago (as if the past three years hadn't taught me that already).
I decided to move to New York City because it seemed writing/editing jobs were more plentiful here. I have had some success finding freelance work - once again, stretching out my unemployment benefits - and have a free place to stay while I get it all figured out (which is more than many people can say). Because I'm not paying rent, I've been able to make a few trips back to Chicago to see my kids, where they live with their dad, but soon that won't be possible anymore. The idea of not being able to see them on a regular basis is also a very scary one for me. They are older - 15 and almost 10 - but my absence is still felt deeply.
I'm back at applying for dozens of jobs every day, many of them requiring much less experience than what I have. (I have two MAs and 15 years in journalism.) Many of them seem to be positions available only if you have an "in" - I did get some traction with with one of the editors at a freelance job I finished last week, but she's only one person who has a job of her own… she can't exactly drop everything to help me make the connections.
It's becoming increasingly depressing to think about what will happen when my benefits run out in 2-1/2 weeks. I have child support to pay, and I know that it's common nowadays to throw people in jail if they can't pay. I'm applying for everything I see, even things I think I'd hate, just to have a job. It's demoralizing like I'd never have imagined. Four years ago, I had a 401k and six months' savings and a good job. Now, I'm one couch away from being homeless. I've even researched homeless shelters. I don't have family to stay with unless I want to move to a very small town in the South where my job prospects would be even worse, so that's the only next step if nothing pans out. I can't keep staying with my friend for free forever. I don't know when I'd ever be able to see my children if that happens; I'm trying not to think about it.
I hear a lot from people like Mitt Romney that there is a safety net for people. If there is, I haven't been able to find it - and as a journalist with five years of graduate school, I think I know how to do research. I get $105 a month in food stamps, which works out to about $3.45 a day. When I do get unemployment benefits, they total $417 a week after child support. My editing job at the magazine in Chicago netted me about $480 a week, so even working I wasn't in much better of a place than I am now. Even when I had that FT job, I couldn't even come close to paying the minimum on my student loans (about $1,600 a month).
I don't know what can be done, but getting answers from the unemployment office should be easier. There should be job placement help, not just for blue-collar or entry-level workers, but people like me who have experience and education. I've had multiple job-center employees tell me that they can't do anything for me.
This is rambling, I know, but it's a difficult subject to talk about. Many people tell me they "know what it's like" to be unemployed, but these same people have been jobless for maybe six weeks, six months at most. Having two graduate degrees and fifteen years of experience - and being good at what I do - is so demoralizing, that if it weren't for my children I probably I would have killed myself by now.
The would-be startup millionaire
I grew up struggling for money. I've always worked and never been fired. I've always dedicated myself 100% to my job because to not have a job, is to not eat. Today is my third day of unemployment. I worked in finance for fours years before being lured by an up and coming startup. "You'll become a millionaire if you stay with us," the CEO promised a few months in with a look of crazed sincerity. I gave up my private life - working all the time and when I wasn't working, I was thinking about work. Work. Tick-tock. Work. Work. Who cares about friends when I had Work? My relationship began to suffer because I was cheating on my boyfriend night after night with Work. I was doing the job of 3 / 4 people and taking on more and more responsibilities. I received title changes without raises. I celebrated my 30th birthday at my desk with a cake from Work. How sweet. I had a review two days before I was fired and was told I was doing a good job and given 100% of my bonus. The next day I mentioned the equity I had been promised and the raise I had not yet been given. And, the next day, I was told we were going to have to "part ways" as there was no longer a place for me at the company. The CEO, whom I had worked directly with, vacationed with, was told I was "sister from another life", the one who told me I would be a millionaire, and the one who, not even a month before, told me I was a "valuable, trusted employee", did not show his face to fire me. He did not follow up with a "thanks for your contribution" email. He did nothing.
Look, I know work is not "personal". You're supposed to keep your head down and take care of your shit at work. But at a startup, you're like family. You know your in this crazy race together. You drink a beer a midnight with your colleagues at your desk and smile a little, because you know you're contribution can change the world. "I'm a part of the next Apple, the next Facebook, the next Google. Who needs raises? Who needs a life? Work is enough for me." And Upper Management said that often. "You're lucky just to work here." I was "lucky".
After I was sent home, after we "parted ways", I sat stunned on the couch. I cried. I cried a lot. I couldn't eat - save the food; I'm going to need it as I no longer have a job to pay for food (a bit hyperbole but hey). I poured a glass of cheap white wine and started calling old friends and family. A common sentiment was, "I'm so sorry but this is really for the best. You haven't been the same since you started working there." And, to make a long three days short, they're right. I would never change my time at that company for the world. I learned so much - what to do and especially what not to do. But, ultimately, I lost myself at that job. I would never had the courage to quit - even though I thought of it often...
I really hope, for all of us that are unemployed, we have the strength to get off the couch and lay off the wine (at least a little) and get what we deserve - a job where we are valued, where we can make meaningful contributions. But, if not, life is not over. My dad, a vibrant man that went from being the VP of a very successful company, to being an old man running the cashier at WalMart says: "Work is what you do to pay the bills. You make the best of it. I have the longest line at WalMart because people want to talk to me. I know all the football players and ladies in town. I got in trouble for talking too much to customers. Ain't that some shit? Darlin, you're gonna be just fine. Life always goes on. You just keep your chin up and make the best of it."
The pedigreed lawyer
Two years ago I was on top of the world – at least from exterior appearances. Barely past 30, my salary was approximately a quarter million dollars per year, I was living in a luxury high rise with a view of Central Park from my balcony, and it seemed I was on the fast track to a successful career. Now 18 months after losing my job at the end of 2010, I've learned a lot of valuable life lessons but find myself wondering, constantly every day, is there any hope left? The Manhattan apartment is long-gone and replaced with a room at my father's house in the exurbs of Atlanta, a house I helped him buy five years ago. I've applied for over 750 jobs in the last year, but still I wait. This is my story.
We hear a lot of talk about the employment crisis these days, from both sides of our so-called political spectrum. No one has much in the way of solutions, and the options for the unemployed seem to be Republicans that tell me what I need is to have my unemployment cut off – then surely I'll be motivated to find a job. Democrats at least don't think starvation will improve my job hunt, but beyond affording me my luxurious life on unemployment, I hear scant dedication to anything that might actually improve the employment outlook. I remain a voracious consumer of news and from what I see and hear portrayed in the media, the unemployed in this country are generally older, often former factory workers. We hear much discussion of how to address these workers in a nation that may no longer offer employment they have experience in. I feel for these workers and don't mean to diminish their situations – but I was supposed to be exempt from that. In fact, based on what the media says, I don't exist. I attended an Ivy League college and a top 5 law school (at least according to US News' rankings). My first real job, which started shortly after my 25th birthday, paid a salary of $125,000. That salary had doubled within 5 years. I was lucky enough to have the chance to go to some of the top schools in America, and it seemed I was enjoying the rewards of obtaining such a pedigree. Then it ended...
The question I find myself grappling with these days is "is this the best we can do?" I've spent months focusing on not being jealous or angry, and I've largely succeeded. I really am happy for my friends that are having children, and going on vacations, and otherwise moving forward and living their lives. But is this a country where one false move (in my case, working at the wrong law firm) can essentially end your chance at a productive life? I admit I had an arrogance prior to my layoff – I never imagined this could happen to me. I was no conservative, and I sympathized with and believed we could and should do more to help the unfortunate in this country – but I never believed I would be in that situation myself. I was told from childhood on that a good education was the path to a better life – and that if you were willing and able to work hard and had something to contribute, you'd have opportunities in this country. Where are those opportunities?
The most striking thing to me during the coverage of the Occupy Movement last fall was the "counter-protestors" (read: miserable assholes) yelling things like "Get a job!" I would love one! As I mentioned previously, I've applied for over 750 jobs in the last 18 months and continue to apply for 30-100 jobs each month. I've applied for jobs at law firms, scores of jobs with the government, jobs at corporations, jobs at non-profits, jobs for lawyers, jobs for non-lawyers, jobs as a paralegal, jobs as a writer, jobs, jobs, jobs. I've applied for jobs from Seattle to Miami, from San Diego to Boston, and I've applied to jobs overseas. Have work? Will travel. Of course, while employment is improving marginally overall, it hasn't improved in the legal sector. Total legal employment is lower now than it was in 2008, despite the abundance of law schools in this country pumping out nearly 50,000 new lawyers each year. I admit that I have not yet applied to work in fast food or retail as I maintain the hope that somehow, some way, I'll eventually find a position which could eventually lead me back to a semblance of my old life. That said, I don't see an abundance of "Help Wanted" signs at McDonald's or Best Buy. The notion that people can just "Get a Job!" in this market is laughable. The government's own numbers pretend that over 8 million Americans have dropped out of the workforce in recent years; while you may know of someone that struck oil in their backyard and actually retired in their 30s or 40s, I'm confident most of these people are simply unable to find employment. I wonder how they afford food – I fear for my own future when unemployment is cut off.
I continue to have some hope – I keep trying to tell myself that I have great experience and a great background, and eventually that will mean something to someone somewhere. I know I'm hard working - I billed well over 2000 hours as my mother died of cancer in 2009 because the firm expected nothing less. (For the non-lawyers reading, that translates to working 60+ hours most weeks.) I also wonder and worry about the larger country – if finding work is so hard and seemingly hopeless for someone with my background, someone barely into their 30s, what is it like for older workers with fewer credentials?
As another day starts in the exurbs, I sigh. It's another day of nothing. I'll look at the usual job boards. I'll read the 10+ emails I receive each morning with updated job listings. I'll head to the gym. But in general, another day will come and go and nothing will change. Maybe I'll receive a rejection letter or two. Maybe I'll find a new posting for a job that would be perfect – if only they decide to interview me. But really, I just wait. I watch the clock spin in circles. I watch my life pass me by. I wonder how much longer this can last. And I wait.
The Five O'Clock Club
I just read your feature in Gawker..I got my own story to tell.. I worked for nearly 20 years for a major magazine publisher..I was in administrative services..it was one of those jobs I just fell into. The company was cool and heavily involved in the news and entertainment business. The perks were great..books, music, concert tickets. Could not be happier. And then I had the misfortune to have a knee injury..and then another knee injury. Before I was laid off in 2008..I had six surgeries. I did great work..but could not stay on my feet. I was a goner. I accepted it..a business decision. I was more valuable than my supervisor but I had to go regardless.
For almost a year..I just said screw it. I'd go to ball games and apply for jobs. Something will come up. I joined the Five O Clock club..learned about networking and redid my resume countless times. Something will come up..I just know it. The Five O' Clock club was not cheap either. I just finished getting a certificate in business from Baruch..I paid it off with my credit card..huge mistake. Interest rates went off the charts..I started out with 7K debt..it morphed into 30K..literally over night. I had a gym membership that was paid automatically..I could not keep up with it and it just went out of control. I got a 401K. I will be fine..maybe bankruptcy is the way to go.
A friend of mine suggested Green Path..a non profit to help with my bills. I took advantage of them and they are still helping today..got my interest rates down quite a bit. I'm hanging in there. Got recalled to my old job to fill in for a while..three months.. More knee surgery. Did volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity. Thought about career changes..maybe medical coding? Took a class with about 20 cute Puerto Rican girls and me..total rip off..one of the instructors used to council hard core criminals and always was breaking my balls. Another did back alley (not kidding) resume writing deals..literally on the fire escape. Nothing came out of it.
More knee surgery. More rehab. I had to tap into my 401 K to keep up. My health insurance ran out. Then my sister found out she had a tumor in her lower back..she survived breast cancer surgery. We thought she was a goner..the depression for her and I was devastating..but eventually she got a great doctor and it's under control. Both political parties were fighting over a budget and if they could not agree on one there would be economic chaos on Wall Street. Every report I heard said 401Ks could lose as much as 12k from the debacle. This was a hit I could not handle. I bailed out of my plan..huge mistake. Found out I can't declare bankruptcy without a chance my savings would be attacked. So now I pay $600 a month for bills I can't afford. My retirement savings has been cut by 2/3. I need a knee replacement or at least some on going treatments than I'm not covered for so I have pain everyday. Some days are better or worse than others. I can't get a job I can easily do on my feet like Fed EX or UPS..I'm qualified to work for those guys in a pinch. I need to sit..applied for every assistant job under the sun. Applied for some retail outfits as well. Not even a sniff. I've taken every aptitude test that reveals I should be writing or working in a creative gig. Kind of hard to do when you are in your 50s and your competition was watching Sponge Bob Square Pants not too long ago.
Just spoke to a friend of mine who suggested ways to build up my resume..I'll do it but in the end my bills are still here. At least I have pursuits that challenge me..but I want work that will as well. I see guys literally off the boat in my neighborhood that can barely put a sentence together in broken English driving expensive cars. I see obviously well to do Russian women using benefit cards at my supermarket in fur coats. I got a degree..tried to build on it..and had the misfortune to have a bad set of legs. I can't believe there is a political party that thinks universal healthcare is some kind of communist plot to take over America. I can't believe they think people in my position are just fucking lazy or won't apply themselves. When I was little..it was in the late 60s..the future just seemed so amazing. It just seemed the world was going to be ours. Now..I just don't know..I muddle through. Something will come up.
Unemployment Stories Volumes One, Two, Three, Four, and Five.
[Thanks to everyone who wrote in. All stories are being read. To submit your own unemployment story, or to get in touch with someone you read about here, email me.]


text:
Canadians who care about media content, journalistic integrity and fair reporting are anxiously watching for tomorrow's federal budget announcements. Big cuts to the CBC are expected, according to this Huffington Post story:
Cuts to CBC funding expected in the upcoming federal budget could have dramatic implications, touching everything from popular television programming to foreign news bureaus and eliminating hundreds of jobs, observers predict.
The CBC's own story about the predicted cuts doesn't mention the CBC, but it does say, "…many public servants in Ottawa are bracing for staffing cuts, which may not arrive through relatively painless attrition or early retirement packages"
The CBC has been the target of numerous Conservative governments since Brian Mulroney, and suffered successive budget cuts under the Conservatives ever since. The once-vaunted Radio Canada International was reduced from an internationally acclaimed, award-winning short-wave service that was the voice of Canada for millions of listeners worldwide, to little more than a repeater service for the CBC, thanks to budget cuts.
Cuts have crippled the CBC for almost three decades, ever since Mulroney (a humourless, mean-spirited prime minister if ever there was one; he rapidly sank to being one of the most unpopular politicians in Canadian history, in part because of his attack on the CBC).
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, a media watchdog organization, took up the fight to save the CBC last year. A Globe and Mail story from last fall begins,
The CBC is stuck in a "stranglehold" as Conservative MPs attack the broadcaster and threaten to end or decrease its funding, a broadcast watchdog says.
On the Friends website, the latest story says, "New opinion research shows that 6 in 10 Canadians want the Harper Conservatives to keep their election promise to increase or maintain funding to the CBC."
Majority opinions have never caused Harper to change his mind or his direction. He's from the west where the CBC has been demonized as the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation" by the uber-right. One can hardly expect him to have any more sympathy for non-sycophant journalists than Rick Santorum showed for the New York Times recently.
For the right, especially for the American right, media is a tool of the party, not for journalistic truth or objectivity. Worse is that the CBC in the guise of comedic shows like This Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer Report have actually dared to tease and make fun of Steven Harper. Well, they have a long history of poking fun at all parties and all politicians, but some – like Harper – seem to take it very personally.
Instead of growing a thicker skin, he cuts their budget. Harper and Mulroney share some unfortunate personality traits in that.
As the Friends website notes, Harper's cuts are not just cost savings, but rather a strategy to cause the public support for the CBC to dissipate because it won't be able to provide what Canadians expect from a national broadcaster:
Further cuts would be to the bone and make it impossible for the CBC to effectively fulfill its mandate, leaving our national broadcaster open to increased criticism that it's wasting taxpayer money, unfairly competing with private broadcasters for advertising dollars and calls for dismantling. There is no more room for efficiency; every dollar has to come out of programming – off the air, off the screen.
Budget cuts have been stripping Canadian content from the CBC for the last 30 years. It's become more and more American in almost everything it does, while Canadian content and culture suffers from a shrinking venue for exposure of our own material. Harper and his allies seem to prefer American programming – the slavishly sycophant Fox and its ilk – to Canadian programming, but then they also seem to prefer American-style attack politics, so that's no surprise. No wonder Sun media has a place in their hearts.
CBC is ESSENTIAL to continue to connect Canadians from coast to coast. We need to continue to support and increase funding for the CBC to create more Canadian content.
The HuffPost noted,
In addition to prime-time programming, sources familiar with the file told HuffPost the upcoming cuts may lead to the closing of some foreign bureaus and will necessitate employee layoffs.
Barry Kiefl, head of the independent Ottawa-based firm Canadian Media Research Inc. (CMRI), cautions against "taking it for granted that there's going to be a 10 per cent cut," before details of the budget are revealed on Thursday. But he maintains a trim of that magnitude could result in the elimination of 1,000 jobs.
Jobs will not only be lost in the BCB itself, but in Canada's cultural industry: independent filmmakers, producers, directors, script writers and others will have no place in Canada to work:
In addition to stoking concern among CBC employees, (Mary) Darling says the possibility of significant belt-tightening is contributing to widespread uncertainty among the legions of independent producers, such as herself, who create the network's English language dramatic programming.
"People are beyond tense. This is our livelihood. This is how we make our living and send our kids to school," said Darling, who alongside husband Clark Donnelly runs Toronto-based Westwind Pictures, the company behind Little Mosque.
Currently in its final season, the sitcom won't be affected by looming cuts. But if the rumours are true, Donnelly predicts the network won't pick up similar programs in the future, putting several programs Westwind is currently developing in peril.
(Mary Darling is executive producer of the network's hit TV show, Little Mosque of the Prairie.)
The CBC provides us with a stronger national identity. Without it, we would be little more than the 51st state of the USA. Without it, we would have no bulwark against American culture.
It will be a tragic day for Canadian journalism, Canadian culture, Canadian media, Canadian unity and Canadian values if the Harper Conservatives do any more economic damage to the CBC than they have already done over the past three decades. But I suspect they won't rest until the CBC is gutted and dead.
- The Father of Modern English - © March 19, 2023
- Not the Chaucer You're Looking For - © March 17, 2023
- More Venery - © March 12, 2023

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Los Angeles International Private Jet Charter Service & Air Charter Flights
Book Private Jet Charter flights at KLAX – Los Angeles International, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA with West Palm Jet Charter.
Unparalleled Jet Charter Service.
West Palm Jet Charter is an industry-leading private jet charter service provider offering exceptional and unrivaled standards in service, flexibility, efficiency and value by designing customized air travel solutions for each individual customer. Our clients demand the best from us, and we never compromise. We will exceed your expectations by providing world-class jet charter service, exceptional value and absolute flexibility on each and every jet charter flight.
Fly with us often or as little as you like; we will always do our very best to earn your continued business.
[/span4] [/row]


text:
Dextromethorphan/guaifenesin/phenylephrine (By mouth)
Dextromethorphan (dex-troe-meth-OR-fan), Guaifenesin (gwye-FEN-e-sin), Phenylephrine (fen-il-EF-rin)
Relieves nasal congestion and cough due to respiratory tract infection.
Brand Name(s):
Actidom DMX, Ambi 10PEH/400GFN/20DM, Broncotron PED, Broncotron PED drops, Children's Mucinex Multi-Symptom Cold, Children's Robitussin Cough & Cold CF, Deconex DMX, Desgen DM, Desgen Pediatric Drops, Despec DM, Despec DM-G, Despec EDA, Exactuss, G-Supress DX, G-TRON PEDThere may be other brand names for this medicine.
When This Medicine Should Not Be Used:You should not use this medicine if you have had an allergic reaction to guaifenesin, phenylephrine, or dextromethorphan. You should not use this medicine if you have high blood pressure or heart disease. You should not use this medicine if you are using MAO inhibitors such as Eldepryl®, Marplan®, Nardil®, or Parnate®. Do not give any over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold medicine to a baby or child under 4 years old. Using these medicines in very young children might cause serious or possibly life-threatening side effects.
How to Use This Medicine:
Capsule, Tablet, Long Acting Tablet, Liquid
- Your doctor will tell you how much medicine to use. Do not use more than directed.
- It is best to take this medicine with food or milk.
- Swallow the extended-release tablet whole. Do not crush, break, or chew it.
If a dose is missed:
- You must use this medicine on a fixed schedule. Call your doctor or pharmacist if you miss a dose.
How to Store and Dispose of This Medicine:
- Store the medicine in a closed container at room temperature, away from heat, moisture, and direct light.
- Ask your pharmacist, doctor, or health caregiver about the best way to dispose of any outdated medicine or medicine no longer needed.
- Keep all medicine out of the reach of children. Never share your medicine with anyone.
Drugs and Foods to Avoid:
Ask your doctor or pharmacist before using any other medicine, including over-the-counter medicines, vitamins, and herbal products.
- Make sure your doctor knows if you are using MAO inhibitors such as Eldepryl®, Marplan®, Nardil®, or Parnate®. Tell your doctor if you are using antiyhypertensives such as guanethidine, methyldopa, mecamylamine, or reserpine.
- Make sure your doctor knows if you are using tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, doxepin, nortriptyline, Elavil®, or Sinequan®.
- Make sure your doctor knows if you are using beta-blockers such as atenolol, labetalol, metoprolol, nadolol, propranolol, timolol, Inderal®, or Toprol®.
- Make sure your doctor knows about all the other medicines that you are using.
Warnings While Using This Medicine:
- Make sure your doctor knows if you are breastfeeding.
- Make sure your doctor knows if you have diabetes, enlarged prostate, glaucoma, heart disease, high blood pressure, or an overactive thyroid.
Possible Side Effects While Using This Medicine:
Call your doctor right away if you notice any of these side effects:
- Allergic reaction: Itching or hives, swelling in your face or hands, swelling or tingling in your mouth or throat, chest tightness, trouble breathing
- Anxiety, restlessness, or nervousness.
- Decrease in how much or how often you urinate.
- Depression.
- Fast heartbeat.
- Headache or dizziness.
- Lightheadedness.
- Pale lips or pale skin color.
- Seizures.
- Trouble breathing.
If you notice these less serious side effects, talk with your doctor:
- Nausea.
- Weakness in your body.
- Tremor.
If you notice other side effects that you think are caused by this medicine, tell your doctor
Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You may report side effects to FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088
Last Updated: 1/27/2017


text:
Big Ten considers eliminating game vs. FCS opponents
The Big Ten has agreed to no longer schedule Football Championship Subdivision opponents during non-conference play, Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said Tuesday during an appearance on his radio show.
"The non-conference schedule in our league is ridiculous," Alvarez said, via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "It's not very appealing.
"So we've made an agreement that our future games will all be (Football Bowl Subdivision) schools. It will not be FCS schools."
The plan will take at least two more seasons to go into effect, however. Wisconsin is scheduled to play Tennessee Tech in 2013; several other Big Ten teams have set dates with FCS opponents in 2014, making 2015 or 2016 the earliest season this plan could go into effect, barring any changes to existing schedules.
"What we've got to do is upgrade (non-league schedules)," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com this week. "It doesn't make any sense to be playing people from different divisions with fewer scholarships."
The Big Ten's new stance runs contrary to the one held by the Southeastern Conference, which has multiple teams playing FCS opponents each week during non-conference play. On Nov. 17, for example, seven of the 11 SEC games featured an FCS team.
Dropping FCS opponents is one of several major topics discussed by the league at this week's Big Ten meetings. Delany, coaches, school presidents and administrators have also discussed scheduling night games in November – typically when the conference plays only afternoon games, ceding prime-time telecasts to other automatic qualifier leagues.
The Big Ten is also considering playing conference games earlier in the season rather than waiting until the conclusion of non-conference play; altering the current divisional lineup to reflect geography, not to mention renaming the current divisions (Legends and Leaders); remaking the current bowl lineup; and playing either nine or 10 conference games.
The Pac-12 and the Big 12 are the only automatic qualifier leagues to play more than eight conference games. For the Big Ten, eliminating FCS opponents is one way to allow for a nine- or 10-game conference schedule while still playing 12 games during the regular season.


text:
Guest Post: How Hyperinflation Will Happen
- Ben Bernanke
- Exchange Traded Fund
- Fail
- Federal Reserve
- Government Stimulus
- Gross Domestic Product
- Guest Post
- Hyperinflation
- Japan
- Main Street
- Nationalization
- New Normal
- Purchasing Power
- Quantitative Easing
- Real estate
- recovery
- Smart Money
- Sovereign Debt
- Too Big To Fail
- Unemployment
Submitted by Gonzalo Lira
How Hyperinflation Will Happen
Right now, we are in the middle of deflation. The Global Depression we are experiencing has squeezed both aggregate demand levels and aggregate asset prices as never before. Since the credit crunch of September 2008, the U.S. and world economies have been slowly circling the deflationary drain.
To counter this, the U.S. government has been running massive deficits, as it seeks to prop up aggregate demand levels by way of fiscal "stimulus" spending—the classic Keynesian move, the same old prescription since donkey's ears.
But the stimulus, apart from being slow and inefficient, has simply not been enough to offset the fall in consumer spending.
For its part, the Federal Reserve has been busy propping up all assets—including Treasuries—by way of "quantitative easing".
The Fed is terrified of the U.S. economy falling into a deflationary death-spiral: Lack of liquidity, leading to lower prices, leading to unemployment, leading to lower consumption, leading to still lower prices, the entire economy grinding down to a halt. So the Fed has bought up assets of all kinds, in order to inject liquidity into the system, and bouy asset price levels so as to prevent this deflationary deep-freeze—and will continue to do so. After all, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
But this Fed policy—call it "money-printing", call it "liquidity injections", call it "asset price stabilization"—has been overwhelmed by the credit contraction. Just as the Federal government has been unable to fill in the fall in aggregate demand by way of stimulus, the Fed has expanded its balance sheet from some $900 billion in the Fall of '08, to about $2.3 trillion today—but that additional $1.4 trillion has been no match for the loss of credit. At best, the Fed has been able to alleviate the worst effects of the deflation—it certainly has not turned the deflationary environment into anything resembling inflation.
Yields are low, unemployment up, CPI numbers are down (and under some metrics, negative)—in short, everything screams "deflation".
Therefore, the notion of talking about hyperinflation now, in this current macro-economic environment, would seem . . . well . . . crazy. Right?
Wrong: I would argue that the next step down in this world-historical Global Depression which we are experiencing will be hyperinflation.
Most people dismiss the very notion of hyperinflation occurring in the United States as something only tin-foil hatters, gold-bugs, and Right-wing survivalists drool about. In fact, most sensible people don't even bother arguing the issue at all—everyone knows that only fools bother arguing with a bigger fool.
A minority, though—and God bless 'em—actually do go ahead and go through the motions of talking to the crazies ranting about hyperinflation. These amiable souls diligently point out that in a deflationary environment—where commodity prices are more or less stable, there are downward pressures on wages, asset prices are falling, and credit markets are shrinking—inflation is impossible. Therefore, hyperinflation is even more impossible.
This outlook seems sensible—if we fall for the trap of thinking that hyperinflation is an extention of inflation. If we think that hyperinflation is simply inflation on steroids—inflation-plus—inflation with balls—then it would seem to be the case that, in our current deflationary economic environment, hyperinflation is not simply a long way off, but flat-out ridiculous.
But hyperinflation is not an extension or amplification of inflation. Inflation and hyperinflation are two very distinct animals. They look the same—because in both cases, the currency loses its purchasing power—but they are not the same.
Inflation is when the economy overheats: It's when an economy's consumables (labor and commodities) are so in-demand because of economic growth, coupled with an expansionist credit environment, that the consumables rise in price. This forces all goods and services to rise in price as well, so that producers can keep up with costs. It is essentially a demand-driven phenomena.
Hyperinflation is the loss of faith in the currency. Prices rise in a hyperinflationary environment just like in an inflationary environment, but they rise not because people want more money for their labor or for commodities, but because people are trying to get out of the currency. It's not that they want more money—they want less of the currency: So they will pay anything for a good which is not the currency.
Right now, the U.S. government is indebted to about 100% of GDP, with a yearly fiscal deficit of about 10% of GDP, and no end in sight. For its part, the Federal Reserve is purchasing Treasuries, in order to finance the fiscal shortfall, both directly (the recently unveiled QE-lite) and indirectly (through the Too Big To Fail banks). The Fed is satisfying two objectives: One, supporting the government in its efforts to maintain aggregate demand levels, and two, supporting asset prices, and thereby prevent further deflationary erosion. The Fed is calculating that either path—increase in aggregate demand levels or increase in aggregate asset values—leads to the same thing: A recovery in the economy.
This recovery is not going to happen—that's the news we've been getting as of late. Amid all this hopeful talk about "avoiding a double-dip", it turns out that we didn't avoid a double-dip—we never really managed to claw our way out of the first dip. No matter all the stimulus, no matter all the alphabet-soup liquidity windows over the past 2 years, the inescapable fact is that the economy has been—and is headed—down.
But both the Federal government and the Federal Reserve are hell-bent on using the same old tired tools to "fix the economy"—stimulus on the one hand, liquidity injections on the other. (See my discussion of The Deficit here.)
It's those very fixes that are pulling us closer to the edge. Why? Because the economy is in no better shape than it was in September 2008—and both the Federal Reserve and the Federal government have shot their wad. They got nothin' left, after trillions in stimulus and trillions more in balance sheet expansion—
—but they have accomplished one thing: They have undermined Treasuries. These policies have turned Treasuries into the spit-and-baling wire of the U.S. financial system—they are literally the only things holding the whole economy together.
In other words, Treasuries are now the New and Improved Toxic Asset. Everyone knows that they are overvalued, everyone knows their yields are absurd—yet everyone tiptoes around that truth as delicately as if it were a bomb. Which is actually what it is.
So this is how hyperinflation will happen:
One day—when nothing much is going on in the markets, but general nervousness is running like a low-grade fever (as has been the case for a while now)—there will be a commodities burp: A slight but sudden rise in the price of a necessary commodity, such as oil.
This will jiggle Treasury yields, as asset managers will reduce their Treasury allocations, and go into the pressured commodity, in order to catch a profit. (Actually it won't even be the asset managers—it will be their programmed trades.) These asset managers will sell Treasuries because, effectively, it's become the principal asset they have to sell.
It won't be the volume of the sell-off that will pique Bernanke and the drones at the Fed—it will be the timing. It'll happen right before a largish Treasury auction. So Bernanke and the Fed will buy Treasuries, in an effort to counteract the sell-off and maintain low yields—they want to maintain low yields in order to discourage deflation. But they'll also want to keep the Treasury cheaply funded. QE-lite has already set the stage for direct Fed buys of Treasuries. The world didn't end. So the Fed will feel confident as it moves forward and nips this Treasury yield jiggle in the bud.
The Fed's buying of Treasuries will occur in such a way that it will encourage asset managers to dump even more Treasuries into the Fed's waiting arms. This dumping of Treasuries won't be out of fear, at least not initially. Most likely, in the first 15 minutes or so of this event, the sell-off in Treasuries will be orderly, and carried out with the idea (at the time) of picking up those selfsame Treasuries a bit cheaper down the line.
However, the Fed will interpret this sell-off as a run on Treasuries. The Fed is already attuned to the bond markets' fear that there's a "Treasury bubble". So the Fed will open its liquidity windows, and buy up every Treasury in sight, precisely so as to maintain "asset price stability" and "calm the markets".
The Too Big To Fail banks will play a crucial part in this game. See, the problem with the American Zombies is, they weren't nationalized. They got the best bits of nationalization—total liquidity, suspension of accounting and regulatory rules—but they still get to act under their own volition, and in their own best interest. Hence their obscene bonuses, paid out in the teeth of their practical bankruptcy. Hence their lack of lending into the weakened economy. Hence their hoarding of bailout monies, and predatory business practices. They've understood that, to get that sweet bail-out money (and those yummy bonuses), they have had to play the Fed's game and buy up Treasuries, and thereby help disguise the monetization of the fiscal debt that has been going on since the Fed began purchasing the toxic assets from their balance sheets in 2008.
But they don't have to do what the Fed tells them, much less what the Treasury tells them. Since they weren't really nationalized, they're not under anyone's thumb. They can do as they please—and they have boatloads of Treasuries on their balance sheets.
So the TBTF banks, on seeing this run on Treasuries, will add to the panic by acting in their own best interests: They will be among the first to step off Treasuries. They will be the bleeding edge of the wave.
Here the panic phase of the event begins: Asset managers—on seeing this massive Fed buy of Treasuries, and the American Zombies selling Treasuries, all of this happening within days of a largish Treasury auction—will dump their own Treasuries en masse. They will be aware how precarious the U.S. economy is, how over-indebted the government is, how U.S. Treasuries look a lot like Greek debt. They're not stupid: Everyone is aware of the idea of a "Treasury bubble" making the rounds. A lot of people—myself included—think that the Fed, the Treasury and the American Zombies are colluding in a triangular trade in Treasury bonds, carrying out a de facto Stealth Monetization: The Treasury issues the debt to finance fiscal spending, the TBTF banks buy them, with money provided to them by the Fed.
Whether it's true or not is actually beside the point—there is the widespread perception that that is what's going on. In a panic, widespread perception is your trading strategy.
So when the Fed begins buying Treasuries full-blast to prop up their prices, these asset managers will all decide, "Time to get out of Dodge—now."
Note how it will not be China or Japan who all of a sudden decide to get out of Treasuries—those two countries will actually be left holding the bag. Rather, it will be American and (depending on the time of day when the event happens) European asset managers who get out of Treasuries first. It will be a flash panic—much like the flash-crash of last May. The events I describe above will happen in a very short span of time—less than an hour, probably. But unlike the event in May, there will be no rebound.
Notice, too, that Treasuries will maintain their yields in the face of this sell-off, at least initially. Why? Because the Fed, so determined to maintain "price stability", will at first prevent yields from widening—which is precisely why so many will decide to sell into the panic: The Bernanke Backstop won't soothe the markets—rather, it will make it too tempting not to sell.
The first of the asset managers or TBTF banks who are out of Treasuries will look for a place to park their cash—obviously. Where will all this ready cash go?
By the end of that terrible day, commodites of all stripes—precious and industrial metals, oil, foodstuffs—will shoot the moon. But it will not be because ordinary citizens have lost faith in the dollar (that will happen in the days and weeks ahead)—it will happen because once Treasuries are not the sure store of value, where are all those money managers supposed to stick all these dollars? In a big old vault? Under the mattress? In euros?
Commodities: At the time of the panic, commodities will be perceived as the only sure store of value, if Treasuries are suddenly anathema to the market—just as Treasuries were perceived as the only sure store of value, once so many of the MBS's and CMBS's went sour in 2007 and 2008.
It won't be commodity ETF's, or derivatives—those will be dismissed (rightfully) as being even less safe than Treasuries. Unlike before the Fall of '08, this go-around, people will pay attention to counterparty risk. So the run on commodities will be for actual, feel-it-'cause-it's-there commodities. By the end of the day of this panic, commodities will have risen between 50% and 100%. By week's end, we're talking 150% to 250%. (My private guess is gold will be finessed, but silver will shoot up the most—to $100 an ounce within the week.)
Of course, once commodities start to balloon, that's when ordinary citizens will get their first taste of hyperinflation. They'll see it at the gas pumps.
If oil spikes from $74 to $150 in a day, and then to $300 in a matter of a week—perfectly possible, in the midst of a panic—the gallon of gasoline will go to, what: $10? $15? $20?
So what happens then? People—regular Main Street people—will be crazy to buy up commodities (heating oil, food, gasoline, whatever) and buy them now while they are still more-or-less affordable, rather than later, when that $15 gallon of gas shoots to $30 per gallon.
If everyone decides at roughly the same time to exchange one good—currency—for another good—commodities—what happens to the relative price of one and the relative value of the other? Easy: One soars, the other collapses.
When people freak out and begin panic-buying basic commodities, their ordinary financial assets—equities, bonds, etc.—will collapse: Everyone will be rushing to get cash, so as to turn around and buy commodities.
So immediately after the Treasury markets tank, equities will fall catastrophically, probably within the next few days following the Treasury panic. This collapse in equity prices will bring an equivalent burst in commodity prices—the second leg up, if you will.
This sell-off of assets in pursuit of commodities will be self-reinforcing: There won't be anything to stop it. As it spills over into the everyday economy, regular people will panic and start unloading hard assets—durable goods, cars and trucks, houses—in order to get commodities, principally heating oil, gas and foodstuffs. In other words, real-world assets will not appreciate or even hold their value, when the hyperinflation comes.
This is something hyperinflationist-skeptics never quite seem to grasp: In hyperinflation, asset prices don't skyrocket—they collapse, both nominally and in relation to consumable commodities. A $300,000 house falls to $60,000 or less, or better yet, 50 ounces of silver—because in a hyperinflationist episode, a house is worthless, whereas 50 bits of silver can actually buy you stuff you might need.
Right now, I'm guessing that sensible people who've read this far are dismissing me as being full of shit—or at least victim of my own imagination. These sensible people, if they deign to engage in the scenario I've outlined above, will argue that the government—be it the Fed or the Treasury or a combination thereof—will find a way to stem the panic in Treasuries (if there ever is one), and put a stop to hyperinflation (if such a foolish and outlandish notion ever came to pass in America).
Uh-huh: So the Government will save us, is that it? Okay, so then my question is, How?
Let's take the Fed: How could they stop a run on Treasuries? Answer: They can't. See, the Fed has already been shoring up Treasuries—that was their strategy in 2008—'09: Buy up toxic assets from the TBTF banks, and have them turn around and buy Treasuries instead, all the while carefully monitoring Treasuries for signs of weakness. If Treasuries now turn toxic, what's the Fed supposed to do? Bernanke long ago ran out of ammo: He's just waving an empty gun around. If there's a run on Treasuries, and he starts buying them to prop them up, it'll only give incentive to other Treasury holders to get out now while the getting's still good. If everyone decides to get out of Treasuries, then Bernanke and the Fed can do absolutely nothing effective. They're at the mercy of events—in fact, they have been for quite a while already. They just haven't realized it.
Well if the Fed can't stop this, how about the Federal government—surely they can stop this, right?
In a word, no. They certainly lack the means to prevent a run on Treasuries. And as to hyperinflation, what exactly would the Federal government do to stop it? Implement price controls? That will only give rise to a rampant black market. Put soldiers out on the street? America is too big. Squirt out more "stimulus"? Sure, pump even more currency into a rapidly hyperinflating everyday economy—right . . .
(BTW, I actually think that this last option is something the Federal government might be foolish enough to try. Some moron like Palin or Biden might well advocate this idea of helter-skelter money-printing so as to "help all hard-working Americans". And if they carried it out, this would bring us American-made images of people using bundles of dollars to feed their chimneys. I actually don't think that politicians are so stupid as to actually start printing money to "fight rising prices"—but hey, when it comes to stupidity, you never know how far they can go.)
In fact, the only way the Federal government might be able to ameliorate the situation is if it decided to seize control of major supermarkets and gas stations, and hand out cupon cards of some sort, for basic staples—in other words, food rationing. This might prevent riots and protect the poor, the infirm and the old—it certainly won't change the underlying problem, which will be hyperinflation.
"This is all bloody ridiculous," I can practically hear the hyperinflation skeptics fume. "We're just going through what the Japanese experienced: Just like the U.S., they went into massive government stimulus—hell, they invented quantitative easing—and look what's happened to them: Stagnation, yes—hyperinflation, no."
That's right: The parallels with Japan are remarkably similar—except for one key difference. Japanese sovereign debt is infinitely more stable than America's, because in Japan, the people are savers—they own the Japanese debt. In America, the people are broke, and the Nervous Nelly banks own the debt. That's why Japanese sovereign debt is solid, whereas American Treasuries are soap-bubble-fragile.
That's why I think there'll be hyperinflation in America—that bubble's soon to pop. I'm guessing if it doesn't happen this fall, it'll happen next fall, without question before the end of 2011.
The question for us now—ad portas to this hyperinflationary event—is, what to do?
Neanderthal survivalists spend all their time thinking about post-Apocalypse America. The real trick, however, is to prepare for after the end of the Apocalypse.
The first thing to realize, of course, is that hyperinflation might well happen—but it will end. It won't be a never-ending situation—America won't end up like in some post-Apocalyptic, Mad Max: Beyond Thuderdome industrial wasteland/playground. Admittedly, that would be cool, but it's not gonna happen—that's just survivalist daydreams.
Instead, after a spell of hyperinflation, America will end up pretty much like it is today—only with a bad hangover. Actually, a hyperinflationist spell might be a good thing: It would finally clean out all the bad debts in the economy, the crap that the Fed and the Federal government refused to clean out when they had the chance in 2007–'09. It would break down and reset asset prices to more realistic levels—no more $12 million one-bedroom co-ops on the UES. And all in all, a hyperinflationist catastrophe might in the long run be better for the health of the U.S. economy and the morale of the American people, as opposed to a long drawn-out stagnation. Ask the Japanese if they would have preferred a couple-three really bad years, instead of Two Lost Decades, and the answer won't be surprising. But I digress.
Like Rothschild said, "Buy when there's blood on the streets." The thing to do to prepare for hyperinflation would be to invest in a diversified hard-metal basket before the event—no equities, no ETF's, no derivatives. If and when hyperinflation happens, and things get bad (and I mean really bad), take that hard-metal basket and—right in the teeth of the crisis—buy residential property, as well as equities in long-lasting industries; mining, pharma and chemicals especially, but no value-added companies, like tech, aerospace or industrials. The reason is, at the peak of hyperinflation, the most valuable assets will be dirt-cheap—especially equities—especially real estate.
I have no idea what will happen after we reach the point where $100 is no longer enough to buy a cup of coffee—but I do know that, after such a hyperinflationist period, there'll be a "new dollar" or some such, with a few zeroes knocked off the old dollar, and things will slowly get back to a new normal. I have no idea the shape of that new normal. I wouldn't be surprised if that new normal has a quasi or de facto dictatorship, and certainly some form of wage-and-price controls—I'd say it's likely, but for now that's not relevant.
What is relevant is, the current situation cannot long continue. The Global Depression we are in is being exacerbated by the very measures being used to fix it—stimulus is putting pressure on Treasuries, which are being shored up by the Fed. This obviously cannot have a happy ending. Therefore, the smart money prepares for what it believes is going to happen next.
I think we're going to have hyperinflation. I hope I have managed to explain why.
So my big question is, can anyone refute the logic presented here? Are our Treasuries really that toxic? Is our deflationary situation really divergent enough from Japan's Lost Decade that we could end up following in the footsteps of the Weimar Republic? Certainly this scenario is possible, but is it plausible?


text:
If there were such a term as noir-lite then Macao (1952) would have to feature as a prominent example. Taking its lead from the likes of The Big Steal and, more especially, His Kind of Woman, the movie uses some standard characters and situations but drops the harder-edged cynicism and fatalism that one normally expects to find. As a result, we wind up getting a moderately entertaining picture that passes the time but never delivers the kind of sickening gut punch a film noir ought to. The chaotic nature of the production probably contributed significantly to the less than satisfactory final product. However, there are casting issues involved too, but more on that later.
Exotic settings have long been a favourite of Hollywood movies, and the Orient has a special flavour and mystique of its own. Macao, the Portuguese colony, had the kind of murky reputation that suits the world of noir down to the ground. The story revolves around the arrival of three strangers – Nick Cochran (Robert Mitchum), Julie Benson (Jane Russell) and Lawrence C Trumble (William Bendix) – in this corrupt and largely lawless locale. What's not clear is the reason for these individuals turning up; Julie says she's looking for a job as a singer, Trumble says he's a salesman, and Cochran says he's just hoping to turn a buck whatever way he can. Regardless of what they say, it's soon apparent that one or more of this ill-matched trio is out to bring down local underworld and gambling kingpin Vince Halloran (Brad Dexter). He's wanted by Interpol but can't be touched as long as he remains within Macao's three mile limit; so a plot involving stolen diamonds is cooked up to appeal to his avaricious nature and lure him far enough out for the authorities to nab him. At the heart of the story is the dynamic between Cochran and Julie – he helps her out of a tight spot and she repays him by lifting his wallet, he gets threatened with deportation and she bails him out, and so on. This cagey romance runs parallel to the business with Halloran, and it seems at times like there are two different movies fighting for dominance. In the end it's the lighter elements that prevail and the more sinister aspects are only dealt with during the climax. Generally, it's a schizophrenic kind of picture that fails to deliver adequately through its lack of decisiveness. There are a number of effective scenes that, taken individually, prove satisfying either for their smart-ass comedic dialogue or their tense stylishness. However, they sit uncomfortably side by side and the shift of emphasis is a clumsy affair.
It's rarely good news when a film experiences a change of director during production, and the further along it is when the switch takes place the greater the damage is likely to be. Josef von Sternberg had already shot a significant amount of the script when on set disagreements led to his departure and replacement by Nicholas Ray. The credits show von Sternberg as the director but it's hard to be sure how much of the finished movie is down to him; Cochran's escape from Halloran's clutches and subsequent pursuit through the docks at night do seem to carry his stamp though. That's easily the most visually impressive sequence in the whole movie, as Cochran stumbles and slips through a set draped with trawler nets that resemble some massive spider web that's been spun across the waterfront to ensnare him. Additionally, the scenes in Halloran's gambling house hark back to von Sternberg's The Shanghai Gesture, but never achieve anything like the intoxicating decadence of the earlier film. On top of all the other turmoil, the script was undergoing constant revision and being written on the fly, with Mitchum apparently contributing. Mitchum and Russell were essentially playing to type and their chemistry is a large part of what ensures Macao remains watchable. I enjoy seeing William Bendix in anything but he overdoes the mugging in this one and his part suffers as a result. A bigger problem with the casting though concerns Brad Dexter and Gloria Grahame: Dexter is simply too wooden and passive to convince as the threatening figure he's supposed to be, and Grahame is criminally wasted in an underwritten role that she reportedly didn't want to play in the first place.
The R1 DVD of Macao from Warners is a good one that is sharp and has strong contrast in the crucial night scenes. If the film itself is a weak one then the disc extras go some way towards making up for that. There's a nice commentary track with Eddie Muller, Jane Russell and Stanley Rubin. Also, we get a half hour of TCM Private Screenings with Russell and a very ill Mitchum chatting to Robert Osborne. I couldn't recommend the movie to anyone just getting into film noir as it's too watered down to be in any way representative. While it's passably entertaining, it's realistically more likely to appeal to Mitchum/Russell/von Sternberg (delete as appropriate) completists.


text:
It seems that it is the time of year for colourful headlines about an impending big freeze. We had them at this time last year, which prompted our Chief Executive to write an opinion piece in The Times.
Now we have very similar stories again, with the front page of the Daily Express declaring 'Coldest winter freeze on way' and warning that temperatures are set to plunge as low as -15C.
There have been other stories elsewhere along similar lines, with some saying that the Met Office is briefing the Government about a cold winter ahead.
So what are the facts behind the headlines?
Some of the stories have taken a cue from parts of our current 30-day forecast. Today's forecast for 26 November to 10 December reads as follows:
As is usual, there are uncertainties in the forecast for this period, but there are signs that the changeable conditions will continue through the start of this forecast period. There is also a signal for temperatures to be close to or just below the seasonal average. Into December, although there are no strong indications that any particular weather type is going to dominate, on balance colder, drier conditions than at present are favoured, rather than milder, wetter weather, especially across the southern half of the UK.
However, perhaps what the newspapers have failed to pick up on and report to their readers is that there is still a great deal of uncertainty about exactly what weather we will see – as there often is when looking at timescales of over five days ahead.
The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature and snowfall for the end of this month, let alone for December or even the winter as a whole.
With regards to us 'briefing the Government on a cold winter', this is related to our three monthly outlook for contingency planners.
This is a complex product designed to help contingency planners making long-term strategic decisions based on risk exposure. However, it's not useful for most other people as it doesn't give one forecast for what's ahead – rather it outlines potential scenarios and their associated probabilities.
It's worth noting that while contingency planners use our three month outlook to inform long-term decisions, they make their operational decisions on our five day forecasts and warnings.
These will always provide the best possible guidance on any periods of cold weather, frost or the likelihood of snow, giving detailed local information across the UK.
Ultimately, we're heading into winter and we expect winter to be colder than the rest of the year – but it's too early to say exactly what temperatures we can expect or where and when we might see snow.


text:
UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.
58 S.Ct. 390
82 L.Ed. 488
No. 199.
Argued Jan. 5, 6, 1938.
Decided Jan. 17, 1938.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Fendall Marbury, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Messrs. R. K. Wise, of Columbia, S.C., and Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether the Economy Act1 repealed section 401 of the War Risk Insurance Act2 and thereby deprived veterans and their beneficiaries of 'automatic insurance.' In this suit, brought by the son of a soldier who died in service, both the District Court3 and the Circuit Court of Appeals4 were of the opinion that the Economy Act did not terminate the rights of a beneficiary of automatic insurance. We granted certiorari limiting consideration to the question of the repeal of the law providing automatic insurance.5
During the World War, it was the policy of the government to allow soldiers one hundred and twenty days after enlistment or drafting within which to apply for and purchase insurance. For this period, it was intended that they be protected as though they had bought government insurance. In furtherance of this policy, Congress provided that all veterans, who died or became totally and permanently disabled within one hundred and twenty days after their entrance into active service, should be automatically 'deemed to have applied for and to have been granted insurance.'
It is here contended that the words of the Economy Act repealing 'other allowances' and 'laws * * * pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance' are broad enough to include a repeal of automatic insurance. With this contention we cannot agree.
Repeals by implication are not favored. A law is not to be construed as impliedly repealing a prior law unless no other reasonable construction can be applied.6
While the Economy Act explicitly repealed all laws which granted 'medical or hospital treatment, domiciliary care, compensation and other allowances, pension, disability allowance, * * * retirement pay * * * and all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance,' Congress did not include 'automatic insurance' in this detailed list of benefits repealed.
The words 'other allowances' have a well settled meaning. 'Allowances,' in veterans' legislation, in the Veterans' Bureau, and in Army terminology,7 has never been considered synonymous with, or inclusive of, automatic insurance; this word ordinarily refers to extra and special items (in addition to regular compensation) such as nurse hire, training pay, and 'travel pay and allowances.'8
The words 'all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance' refer only to laws which are enactments upon the subject of yearly renewable term insurance. Section 401 did not grant yearly renewable term insurance, nor is it an enactment upon that subject. It provided for those soldiers who died in service before they had an opportunity to purchase yearly renewable term insurance or any other type of insurance. This law, therefore, did not pertain to yearly renewable term insurance but to protection for soldiers who never had and never could obtain yearly renewable term insurance.
It is to be remembered that automatic insurance applied to that particular group of American soldiers who either were killed, died, or became wholly or permanently incapacitated before they had a reasonable opportunity to obtain insurance of any kind. It may be that Congress did not believe it proper to economize at the expense of those veterans who came out of the army with health completely destroyed or to the detriment of the beneficiaries of soldiers who lost their lives in service without a reasonable opportunity to apply for insurance.
Certainly the reason which prompted the passage of the express provisions of section 401 is such that, in the absence of subsequent legislation equally express, they are not overthrown by mere inference or implication.9 Only clear and unequivocal language would justify a conclusion that benefits, provided by a grateful government because of death and permanent incapacity of its soldiers, are to be wholly withdrawn for reasons of economy. Special provisions benefiting either soldiers who became incurably helpless in the army or the dependents of soldiers who died or were killed in the service of their country cannot justifiably be repealed by implication.10 There is no irreconcilable conflict between section 401 and the Economy Act and effect can reasonably be given to both.11
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
Mr. Justice CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 17, Act of March 20, 1933, c. 3, 48 Stat. 11, 38 U.S.C.A. § 717: 'All public laws granting medical or hospital treatment, domiciliary care, compensation and other allowances, pension, disability allowance, or retirement pay to veterans and the dependents of veterans of * * * the World War, * * * are hereby repealed, and all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance are hereby repealed, but payments in accordance with such laws shall continue to (June 30, 1933) the lst day of the third calendar month following the month during which this Act is enacted.'
Section 401 of the War Risk Insurance Act, as amended Dec. 24, 1919, c. 16, § 12, 41 Stat. 371, 375: 'Any person in the active service on or after the 6th day of April, 1917, and before the 11th day of November, 1918, who, while in such service, and before the expiration of one hundred and twenty days after October 15, 1917, or one hundred and twenty days after entrance into or employment in the active service, becomes or has become totally and permanently disabled, or dies or has died, without having applied for insurance, shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been granted insurance, payable to such person during his life in monthly installments of $25 each. * * * If he shall die either before he shall have received any of such monthly installments or before he shall have received two hundred and forty of such monthly installments, then $25 per month shall be paid to * * * his child: * * * Provided, however, That no more than two hundred and forty of such monthly installments * * * shall be so paid.'
14 F.Supp. 132.
4 Cir., 89 F.2d 572.
302 U.S. 673, 58 S.Ct. 28, 82 L.Ed. —-.
United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043; United States v. Noce, 268 U.S. 613, 45 S.Ct. 610, 69 L.Ed. 1116; see Cope v. Cope, 137 U.S. 682, 11 S.Ct. 222; 31 L.Ed. 832.
See, as to meaning of 'allowances,' Jones v. United States, 60 Ct.Cl. 552, 567; United States v. Landers, 92 U.S. 77, 23 L.Ed. 603.
An illustration of the meaning of 'allowances' appears in that section 17 of the Economy Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 717, which is relied upon as the repeal, to wit: 'That, subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe, allowances may be granted for burial and funeral expenses and transportation of the bodies (including preparation of the bodies) of deceased veterans of any war to the places of burial thereof in a sum not to exceed $107 in any one case.'
Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.S. 257, 17 S.Ct. 302, 41 L.Ed. 708.
Cf. United States v. Greathouse, 166 U.S. 601, 17 S.Ct. 701, 41 L.Ed. 1130.
Cf. Washington v. Miller, 235 U.S. 422, 428, 35 S.Ct. 119, 59 L.Ed. 295; see, also, Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503 et seq., 56 S.Ct. 349, 352, 80 L.Ed. 351.
The following state regulations pages link to this page.


text:
There was plenty of buzz about the Washington Post building being sold to shore up the books. But when the paper's staff was convened for a meeting on the afternoon of August 5, they were in for a shock: the family-owned newspaper itself was being sold.
The sale, to Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, has made global headlines, not least because of the paper's iconic place in modern journalism, thanks to its Watergate investigation.
Not least because a digital titan was the "white knight" riding in to save a dead-tree medium.
The low value of the sale has also set alarm bells ringing of the mortality of the print medium, as indeed has the ease with which the Katherine Graham family has parted with a one-town, one-industry paper they had so affectionately, so assiduously nurtured into a global brand.
Here, Anant Goenka, the scion of the family-owned Indian Express group, analyses the sale and its aftermath in the Indian context.
by ANANT GOENKA
"Comparing WaPo's price to Tumblr & Instagram is stupid. Guess what? Great journalism is a worse business than social networking! Who cares?" A tweet from the Atlantic's Andrew Golis.
Here's why he's wrong.
The Washington Post brand—a role model for journalism around the democratic world, and an aspiration in countries that don't enjoy free press like Singapore and China—once considered priceless, now has a value.
Even the Hindustan Times, a thinly traded stock, has a value of Rs. 2,250 crore today that is based only on their profit and loss, and doesn't factor in real estate or the brand.
WashPo's value at Rs. 61 to the US dollar is Rs 1,550 crore.
This is relevant as it marks a shift in the way news media companies are valued.
Newscorp, Disney and New York Times didn't value Wall Street Journal, ABC (and ESPN) or the International Herald Tribune like PE funds at 25 times profit after tax.
They believed they were bidding for the brand.
Twenty years ago, when the New York Times bought over Boston Globe, they valued it based on current revenues, expected future revenues from joint ad selling, cost efficiencies from scale, and, importantly, value of the Globe's brand: possibly calculated by assigning a certain dollar value to each paid subscriber.
World over, news companies weren't just valued by their business success, but for intangibles such as ability to influence public perception, discussion and political agenda, and the brand recall as well. And for good reason.
It's no small feat for a brand to be recognized by every household in America.
McDonalds, Ford, Elvis Presley during his time, these are brands every American has heard of. Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, CBS, and other media companies, with a fraction of the turnover of McDonalds or Ford, are names known to every American.
How do you assign a value to that?
Similarly, Red Sox owner's purchase of the Boston Globe at a value of 70 million dollars three days ago puts a pretty low value to a brand that is known to every citizen in Massachusetts.
Aside from the fact that the sale shows that proprietors are willing to exit without assigning any major value to the brand, it also shows that proprietors have given up, maybe without trying enough, finding ways to monetize a brand either by innovative brand extensions or franchise operations beyond the core product.
You can't blame them. Experiments world over have shown that audiences are sticky to the first medium and don't transfer across.
The most commercially successful radio channels, TV stations and magazines were started by a team of people dedicated to their platform and didn't have much to do with the core business.
Take Time Out for instance, present in every major city, owned by very autonomous franchises. There isn't any city where the destination city happenings/blog site is TimeOut.com.
Not Bangalore, London, Mumbai, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Prague or St. Petersburg.
It's too soon to tell if the sale of Washington Post is good for journalism or not.
It'll depend on the maturity and seriousness with which the new owner decides to run the paper with.
The trend of billionaires owning newspapers will only benefit journalism if they are as ruthless with the bottom lines of their news companies as they would be of any other company they have a stake in.
Because for any industry to flourish, bad business models and poorly run companies in the industry must perish quickly.
Companies that do journalism the world over will benefit only when Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and other billionaire owners use their wealth of knowledge, experience in their areas of specialization and deep pockets to experiment with the goal of creating a business model that sustains itself.
This is why I believe Network 18's sale to Reliance was a disservice to the news industry in India – it allowed a business that was far too expensively run to survive longer.
And the sale, now in its second year, will only help the industry when, with Reliance's business acumen, the Network 18 group can find a way to be profitable (inclusive of interest cost).
Sure, it's legitimate strategy to bleed the competition if you can sustain your loss, but to have a sugar daddy reinforcing poor business will soon lead India to an environment with only vested interest business media owners.
Incidentally, the Indian Express and its owners have no other business interests. The Hindu and Ananda Bazaar Patrika are other such companies.
In the fields of education, healthcare and news media, being purely "for-profit" has always seemed to be a little bit of a conflict of interest. But it is at times like these that we remind ourselves that a self-sustaining business model is the most important trait of a company that wants to be consistent in its impact on society
Also read: RIL has no direct stake in media companies


text:
Nail Your Novel
- Home
- About
- Books for writers
- FAQ: I'm a new writer: which book should I read first?
- FREE Nail Your Novel Instant Fix: 100 Tips For Fascinating Characters
- My writing process: the picture tour
- Nail Your Novel: A Companion Workbook
- Nail Your Novel: Why Writers Abandon Books and how you can Draft, Fix and Finish With Confidence
- Reviews of Nail Your Novel
- Who's tweeting about Nail Your Novel …
- Writing Characters Who'll Keep Readers Captivated: Nail Your Novel
- Writing Plots With Drama, Depth & Heart: Nail Your Novel
- Consultancy
- Courses
- Email me
- News
Posts Tagged novel covers
Publishing schedule for indie writers – who to hire and when
Posted by Roz Morris @Roz_Morris in How to write a book, self-publishing on October 14, 2012
I had an email the other day from a writer who wanted to hire me to critique his novel, and said he'd already had it proof-read and copy edited at considerable expense. He wasn't pleased when I pointed out that his money had probably been wasted.
Most professional critiques will raise enough points for a major rewrite, so you need to be prepared for that. Paying to get your manuscript copy-edited and proofed before this is not terribly sensible.
But if you've never been through the publishing process before, how do you know when to hire what help?
Here's a critical path.
1. Write, revise etc. Send to beta-readers. Do you need to have the manuscript proof-read for them? No. Just try to make it as clear of errors as you can. There may be a lot of changes to come. When they give you feedback, revise as necessary.
2. When the book is the best you can make it, hire a professional editor.
3. When you get the report back, allow plenty of time for an in-depth rewrite. You may not need this, of course, but too many first-time writers tell me they've allowed just two weeks to whack through points raised in my notes. But what if I said a couple of characters needed to be spliced together, a sub-plot needed to be strengthened, your novel's middle had a sludgy bit where nothing happened, the relationship between a pair of characters needed more complexity, your dialogue needed more spice? Any one of those points would probably take you more than a few weeks to sort but these are typical problem areas. Even seasoned novelists might find a critique throws up a fundamental problem – and so they know to allow plenty of time for this phase.
Why couldn't these problems be spotted by beta readers? Obviously it depends who your beta readers are, but they tend not to have the book doctor's eye. They'll react like laypeople and fans of the genre. They're extremely good for highlighting places they're confused, losing interest, don't believe what's happening and characters they like and don't like. But not for the real diagnosis and surgery.
4 Once you've rewritten – and preferably run the new version past some more readers, you're ready for copy-editing.
What's copy-editing? It's checking the niggly details. Does Fenella always have blue eyes? Have you got a consistent style for spellings and hyphenation? Are the facts straight, as far as facts are relevant? Does the timeline work? Do any characters accidentally disappear? Are passages repeated from the inevitable cutting and pasting that went on in all the editing phases? As you can see, there will be a lot more changes from this stage. So sort all these questions out and only then…
5 …. proof-read or hire someone to do this. Proof-reading is for the final text, when you are ready to publish.
Another big mistake authors make is to get their cover designed too early. Yes, it's so exciting to have a cover; believe me, I know. It means you're Really Going To Publish It. But your cover must reflect the emotional promise of the book.
With some genres that will be easy because the story elements won't change, but if your thematic emphasis might, you might not be fit to discuss covers until you've done your post-critique rewrite.
Don't get your cover designed until you've made a final decision about the title. The title is part of the visual design, and a designer will position pictures, textures and so on so that they fit with the shape and size of the words. The images might have been chosen to go with the words too. If you change the title, chaos beckons (and probably more expense).
Once you've made the decision to self-publish and do it properly, it's easy to panic about things being rough. But don't rush to complete too quickly. Use my schedule to make sure you're not putting the cart before the horse.
Thanks for the pics John Kannenberg and Ron Dough
Do you have any advice to add? What mistakes do you see writers making when they hire professional help? Have you had to learn the hard way yourself?
You can find tips for researching, outlining and what makes a robust story in my book, Nail Your Novel – Why Writers Abandon Books and How You Can Draft, Fix and Finish With Confidence. Available on Kindle and in print. You also might like my multimedia course with Joanna Penn – more than 4 hours of audio and slides with an 86-page transcription – find it here.
authors, beta readers, book covers, book doctors, copy editing, cover design, creative writing, editing, editing services, editorial services, editors, how to write a novel, independent authors, indie authors, literature, My Memories of a Future Life, novel covers, polishing, proof reading, publishing, Rewriting, Roz Morris, self-publishing, title, titles, writing, writing a novel - Nail Your Novel, Writing Characters Who'll Keep Readers Captivated: Nail Your Novel, Writing Plots With Drama, Depth & Heart, writing routine
- Join 26,190 other subscribers
Subscribe here
Recent Posts
- In search of enhanced weirdness – novelist Kate Brandt @kbrandtwriter March 20, 2023
- Once more with feeling – some notes about description March 12, 2023
- Your first pages – 5 manuscripts critiqued at @Litopia by literary agent @AgentPete @AJ_Dickenson and me! March 10, 2023
- 'Let the narrative bend where it wants to' – memoirist Joseph Lezza @lezzdoothis February 21, 2023
- When machines write books: will AI writing threaten authors' livelihoods? February 12, 2023
- How do you market literary fiction, especially as an indie author? Guest spot at @IndieAuthorALLI February 9, 2023
- 'The sound of a typewriter brings me happiness' – historical fiction and non-fiction author Cordelia Biddle @AuthorBiddle January 17, 2023
Search me
Seen regularly at ...
Authorised personnel only
Don\'t miss a post: subscribe to Nail Your Novel
- Join 26,190 other subscribers


text:
FRIDAY, Aug. 15, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- When children ask if they can have contact lenses, parents need to carefully consider the pros and cons, an expert says.
"They can be better for sports activities, because they don't break as frames and the lenses of glasses can, and they provide better peripheral vision for sports, or driving, if your teen is of driving age," Bernard Lepri, an optometrist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said in an agency news release.
In some cases, contact lenses improve vision more than eyeglasses, especially in children who are very nearsighted, he said.
But parents also need "to remember that contact lenses are medical devices, not cosmetics," Lepri said. "Like any medical device, contact lenses should be used only if they can be used safely and responsibly. And only under the supervision of your eye care professional."
Serious eye injuries can occur if contact lenses are not removed at the first sign of a problem, Lepri said.
Contact lenses account for about one-fourth of the more than 70,000 childhood injuries and complications from medical devices treated each year in U.S. emergency departments, according to a 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics.
In most of those cases, problems arose because of poor hygiene and irresponsibility, Lepri said.
"Eye care professionals typically don't recommend contacts for kids until they are 12 or 13, because the risks are often greater than the benefits for younger children," Lepri said.
"But age isn't the only issue -- it's also a question of maturity," he added.
When considering whether a child should have contacts, parents need to assess how well the youngster handles other responsibilities, especially personal hygiene. "It takes vigilance on the part of the parents. You need to constantly be looking over your child's shoulder to make sure they are properly caring for their lenses," Lepri said.
More information
The American Academy of Pediatrics has more about children and contact lenses.
This article: Copyright © 2014 HealthDay. All rights reserved.


text:
Open content
Open Content is when someone creates something and lets others copy it or change it without having to ask for permission. Any media can be open content, from text and pictures to video and sound.
When someone creates something (like a picture or book), they can make that work "open". This means that other people are allowed to copy it and change it if they want. Something that is open content may be free of charge, but it does not have to be.
The Simple English Wikipedia is open content. So are other Wikipedias. If a person changes open content or makes new open content, everyone can give it to anyone else, or even sell it. It is never needed to ask permission to do this, because the people who wrote the text already gave their permission when they clicked the "save" button.
The rules that say how people can use, change and pass around open content are called a license. A license explains exactly what you are allowed to do with the content that falls under it. Licenses are often written in difficult lawyer language (legal jargon), but many licenses have summaries that are much easier to understand.
The makers of open content get to choose what license to use for their work, and everyone else has to follow it. Only the maker, who owns the copyright, can change it to another license. Most open content licenses say that when others change the work, they must also declare it to be open and under the same license. This is called share-alike and means that anything based on work will always be open content.
All the content in Wikipedia is open under the rules of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License, a very well-known open content license. Another well-known open content license is the GNU Free Documentation License.


text:
Of course, much of the color in these images isn't natural, but instead the result of analysis by a polarizing microscope. But thanks to such analysis we know exactly where these space rocks came from: the solar system's weirdest asteroid.
Generally speaking, when a meteorite hits Earth, we can only identify where it came from in the vaguest of generalities, identifying it either as a relic of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, of the much more massive deposits of material found beyond Neptune, or occasionally from the Moon or Mars. In this particular case, the precise chemical composition of these meteorites reveals exactly where they came from, as a NASA astronomer explains:
Part of the group classified as HED meteorites for their mineral content (Howardite, Eucrite, Diogenite), they likely fell to Earth from 4 Vesta, the mainbelt asteroid currently being explored by NASA's Dawn spacecraft. Why are they thought to be from Vesta? Because the HED meteorites have visible and infrared spectra that match the spectrum of that small world.
The hypothesis of their origin on Vesta is also consistent with data from Dawn's ongoing observations. Excavated by impacts, the diogenites shown here would have originated deep within the crust of Vesta. Similar rocks are also found in the lower crust of planet Earth. A sample scale is indicated by the white bars, each 2 millimeters long.
Via NASA.


text:
Crowd Analytix- the Bangalore based Indian startup is moving fast in the
data scientist contest space (so watch out Kaggle!! )
Churn (loss of customers to competition) is a problem for telecom companies because it is more expensive to acquire a new customer than to keep your existing one from leaving. This contest is about enabling churn reduction using analytics.
To join, go to – http://www.crowdanalytix.com/contests/why-customer-churn/