text:
Bizzy enables business developers and investors to easily find, understand and follow companies. Gain access to our database of E-commerce companies in Aartselaar. Search for companies by activity, revenue, employees, location, and more.
Province HQ
City HQ
our data and insights
Smart and up-to-date data
Our proprietary algorithms are constantly scanning official sources, company websites, socials and news to deliver up-to-date and reliable business data and insights.
We collect company data about more than 10 million businesses in Belgium and the United Kingdom.
Decision makers
We have links to over 16 million directors, shareholders, and founders in our database.
Since last year we have processed over 160 million official publications and annual accounts.
We generate and push over 80,000 updates per month on companies and decision makers.


text:
Consider a canoe: the aluminum frame blistering in the sun, its young passengers careful not to stand for fear of capsizing, sweating from the effort of paddling, dismayed when, after a swim, they find their vessel has floated 50 meters downstream. Then consider The Boy Mechanic Makes Toys canoe: shaded by a simple awning, stabilized by crafty pontoons, rooted by a shrewd anchor and power-boosted by a rudimentary motor. This new book takes play time—indoors and out, for young and old—from the hum-drum of store-bought amusements to the thrill of home-spun invention, all with the honest nostalgia of diagrams and explanations reproduced from original Popular Mechanics pages circa the early 1900s. Projects range from the simple cipher code to the ambitious backyard rollercoaster, but never fail to introduce elegance and intrigue into the pursuit of keeping kids—and parents—contentedly occupied. —Jancy Langley
The Boy Mechanic Makes Toys is available now at Barnes & Noble for $9.95.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Rs. 1864
|Product Id
|Your Saving
|Rs. 635
|Delivery Time
|4-7 Days
|Shipping Charges
|Stock Condition
|Free Shipping In India Only
|7 days Replacement Guarantee
|International Shipping is now available. (Check Shipping Charges here)
Fabric : Polyester
Sleeves : Full Sleeves
The pants has 2 welt pockets at sides
Size : Large
Highly durable, moisture management and regular slim fit
Person that deliver is really nice guy. Thank you for proper day delivery ??
Santosh Tandale ( 2023-02-14 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Good quality,, value for money ????, low prize,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..............................
Karthik ( 2023-02-10 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Gloves are good, but the delivery partner experience can be made much better
Adhish ( 2023-02-06 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Good quality according to the price , not much heavy good fit
Abinash Sahoo ( 2023-02-01 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Quality super,low cost,super and thank you.Thank you Khelmart.lowest price super quality
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Trying this brand for the first time. Got a really good first impression. Friends were surprised too, for the reason, it being cheap yet feels so premium. Really very nimble racket. Loved it!
Himanshu Sonowal ( 2023-01-25 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Few days back i got this racket, played couple of days, loves the feeling , looks durable, light weight and sturdy. Simply great racket in this price. Delivery was also on time, khelmart??
Vishal ( 2023-01-23 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Lining windlite 900 is an excellent bat, very satisfied
Riaz ( 2023-01-16 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Excellent fit, however yet to use it while playing. Finish of the shoe is brilliant. Thank you Khelmart.
Sunil Nair ( 2023-01-12 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Excellent shoe,style and quality verry good.And most comfortable
Sovit ( 2023-01-08 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Very good spikes shoes at an affordable price
Balaji S Naidu ( 2023-01-06 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Good Job, Good Products, Nice Delivery, Good Packaging
Amreek Singh ( 2023-01-05 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
I have been using Muscle power 29 from 2017, the experience with this racquet is excellent. Again in 2023 I bought the same racquet , best suited for single players and those who play from back, racquet is lighter and able to hit powerful smashes. Packing quality from Khelmart is appreciable, they kept a long wooden stick along with the racquet to avoid breakage. Thank you Khelmart
Priyatham K ( 2023-01-05 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Best bat under 400 with light weight
Prateek ( 2023-01-03 )
Verified Khelmart Buyer
Quality wise super and looking good, that to triple zipper bag. best buy for me.
Verified Khelmart Buyer


text:
Richard Gordon – December 31, 1925 – November 1, 2011
Film producer Richard Gordon died on November 1st at New York Presbyterian Hospital after suffering from heart problems over the last six months. He was 85.
Born in London on December 31st, 1925, Richard, "Dick" to all who knew him, shared a life-long love of films with his elder brother, and fellow producer, Alex, who died aged 80 in 2003. While schoolboys, the brothers started fan clubs for their favourite stars, Gene Autry and Buster Crabbe. During World War II, Dick joined the Royal Navy. His knowledge of German, acquired at school, led to him heading a translation and interrogation unit. During his war service, he was still able to indulge his passion by organising film programmes for enlisted men. His particular affection for horror films earned him the nickname "Dracula."
Dick, Bela and Alex
Courtesy of http://www.moviemonstermuseum.com/
After being demobbed in 1946, the brothers pursued careers in the film industry. While Alex handled publicity at Renown Pictures, a small film distributor which would later move into film production, Dick worked in the publicity department of Pathe Pictures, the distribution arm of Associated British. They supplemented their earnings by writing film reviews and articles, but their opportunities were hampered due to post-war paper shortages, which limited print runs of the fan magazines they were targeting. Realising that their ambition to become film producers were unlikely to be realised in their homeland, they pooled their savings and emigrated to America in November, 1947. Setting up in New York, Dick found work as an assistant sales manager for Jack Hoffberg's distribution company and freelanced as a representative for several British film outlets, while Alex became a booker for Walter Reade theatres.
Bela and Dick on the set of Mother Riley Meets The Vampire (1951)
They also interviewed film stars for British film magazines. When they learned that Bela Lugosi would appear in a summer stock production of Arsenic and Old Lace in Sea Cliff, twenty miles outside of New York, in August, 1948, they determined to meet and interview him. Lugosi not only consented to the interview, but also invited the brothers to dine with him and his wife at a local restaurant, where he regaled them with stories of his glory days and confided his current career woes.
Bela, intrigued by the brothers' talk of his continued popularity in Britain and their contacts within the British film industry, contacted them several months later and asked them to try find him film and theatre work in Britain. He also offered them the opportunity to take over management of his affairs. Alex, having recently started working for his childhood hero, Gene Autry, was too busy to devote his energies to helping Bela, so Dick set to trying to generate interest in Bela in a production of Dracula among West End producers. Despite his growing network of contacts within both the film and theatre industries, Dick found selling Bela and Dracula to British producers to be an almost impossible task. It would not be until 1951 that he was able to negotiate a British revival tour of Dracula and Bela's appearance in Mother Riley Meets The Vampire. Much to Dick's consternation, the production of Dracula proved to be fraught with difficulties and failed to secure a planned run in the West End. Whenever he recalled the tour in later life, he would lament his lack of experience at the time and express his frustration at getting Bela involved in what Dick viewed as a disastrous venture.
Dick's two films with Boris Karloff
Dick had more success with his other enterprises. In 1949 he set up Gordon Films Inc., which imported and distributed British and other foreign films. After moving into setting up co-production deals, Dick decided that "If I was going to do it for somebody else, I could do it myself!" From 1958 he produced a string of films now regarded as cult classics, including Boris Karloff's The Haunted Strangler and Corridors of Blood, both made in 1958. In the same year he produced Fiend Without a Face, followed in 1959 by First Man Into Space. His last credit as a producer was for Inseminoid in 1981. He continued to run Gordon Films until his death. Dick always remained at heart a film fan who, as his friend, the writer Tom Weaver said, "lived and breathed movies." In his later years, he became a popular guest at film conventions in America and Britain.
Tom Weaver's book-length interview with Dick (BearManor Media, 2011)
Despite his feelings about the British tour of Dracula, when Frank Dello Stritto and I wrote the story of 1951 in "Vampire Over London – Bela Lugosi in Britain," almost 50 years later, he was an enthusiastic collaborator. His memories and his insights were invaluable to our research. Without him, the book would have been much different. Frank last met him in June at this year's Monster Bash. "He'd had some recent health issues and was using a cane, but he was as alert and witty as ever. It never occurred to me that it would be the last time that I would see him. I wish that I had spent more time with him then." Summing up his personal feelings, Frank said, "Dick could be mercurial and opinionated, but also caring and funny and generous. All were part of his charm. 'Charm' is a carefully chosen word; I saw it in many ways as I came to know him. I was always captivated by him, and I shall miss him." (Andi Brooks)
Related articles
My Favorite Vampire by Alex Gordon
1951 British Dracula Tour – Newspaper Articles And Memorabilia
1951 British Dracula Tour – Exclusive Interviews With The Cast & Company


text:
A couple of months ago, I received an email from a book publisher asking if I was interested reading and then reviewing a book on the fleas blog. I periodically get such emails and usually don't even reply to these types of inquires for a couple of reasons: 1. I'm not really what you'd call a book worm. I can honestly say I haven't actually sat down and read a book for 15 years (not bragging here). I'm just more of a magazine guy. 2. I'm scared that I'll get either bombarded with emails from some stranger trying to sell me a book, or worse, it's some sort of scam. But on this occasion, something in me said OK (maybe it was because it was a book about a cocker spaniel). So I replied with a Yes and forgot about it.
A few weeks passed and I came home from work and found a little brown package in the mailbox. I excitedly opened the package to see what was waiting for me inside and there was the book I agreed to read – Katie Up and Down the Hall by Glenn Plaskin. I thumbed through it and was happy to see there were pictures to help me along the way. I told you I'm not a book worm! That night I sat down and started reading and was pleased to find that not only were there pictures, but the chapters were pretty short too.
In the first few chapters, we meet Glenn Plaskin and learn that he's a single guy working and living in New York City as a celebrity interviewer for the New York Times. We meet Katie (named after Katharine Hepburn who happens to be a friend of Mr. Plaskin) his beloved companion for over 15 years, as he picks her up from a breeder as a pup. In the remaining chapters, we learn how a beautiful little blonde cocker spaniel brought five strangers living on the same hall in an apartment building in NYC and "herded" them into a family. These neighbors struggle with job loss, single parenting, 9/11, and even death. But don't worry, there are happy times too like birthday celebrations and games of racing up and down the hall.
I'm not going to give you a book report and tell you what happens in the end because that would be cheating, but I will tell you what it isn't. It isn't a collection of stories of how cute Katie is and how she did this funny thing at this inappropriate time. It is WAY better than that.
This being my first book review, I'm going to say I'm thrilled that I was chosen to read it and oh so happy that I responded to that email. If you are a book reader (or not I guess 'cause I read it!), or if you happen to be looking for a really great Christmas gift to get for a member of your family, this is the one. You won't be disappointed.


text:
This item is temporarily out of stock. However, we can notify you as soon as this product becomes available.
Thank you
We have received your request and you will be notified as soon as this product becomes available.
In order to keep our prices as low as possible, all CreateForLess order subtotals must be at least $10. This helps us save on labor costs when packing your order so we can extend the savings to you!
Shop all Cricut Infusible Ink
Cricut Infusible Ink Transfer Sheet that produces stunning, vibrant, professional, and permanent heat transfers. Unlike an iron-on transfer or vinyl application, where artwork is attached on top of a base material, these transfers becomes one with the material itself. The results are bright, seamlessly smooth transfers that never flake, peel, wrinkle, or crack. Requires compatible Infusible Ink blank (sold separately) and Cricut EasyPress 2 or heat press that reaches 400 degrees. Includes 4 - 12 x 12 inch sheets. Western Sweetheart.


text:
HCSC-LAUNDRY v. UNITED STATES(1981)
A cooperative hospital service organization cannot qualify for exemption from federal income taxation as a charitable organization under 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, but instead may qualify only if it performs one of the services listed in 501 (e) (1) (A). This conclusion is supported both by the principle of statutory construction that a specific statute, here subsection (e), controls over a general provision such as subsection (c) (3), particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned, and by the legislative history. Since laundry service was deliberately omitted from the list of services in subsection (e), petitioner, a nonprofit corporation organized to provide laundry services for exempt hospitals and an exempt ambulance service, is not entitled to tax-exempt status.
Certiorari granted; 624 F.2d 428, affirmed.
Petitioner HCSC-Laundry is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation. It was organized in 1967 under the law of that Commonwealth "[t]o operate and maintain a hospital laundry and linen supply program for those public hospitals and non-profit hospitals or related health facilities organized and [450 U.S. 1, 2] operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes that contract with [it]." 1
Petitioner provides laundry and linen service to 15 nonprofit hospitals and to an ambulance service. All these are located in eastern Pennsylvania. Each organization served possesses a certificate of exemption from federal income taxation under 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501 (c) (3). 2 Each participating hospital pays petitioner annual membership dues based upon bed capacity. The ambulance service pays no dues. Petitioner's only other income is derived from (a) a charge for laundry and linen service based upon budgeted costs and (b) a charge of 1 1/2 cents per pound of laundry. Budgeted costs include operating [450 U.S. 1, 3] expenses, debt retirement, and linen replacement. The amounts charged in excess of costs have been placed in a fund for equipment acquisition and replacement.
No part of petitioner's net earnings inures to the benefit of any individual.
Petitioner was formed after the Lehigh Valley Health Planning Council determined that a shared, nonprofit, off-premises laundry would best accommodate the requirements of the member hospitals with respect to both quality of service and economies of scale. The Council had investigated various alternatives. It had rejected a joint service concept because no member hospital had sufficient laundry facilities to serve more than itself. A commercial laundry had declined an offer for the laundry business of all the hospitals, and most of the other available commercial laundries were not capable of managing the heavy total volume.
Petitioner's laundry plant was built and equipped at a cost of about $2 million. This was financed through loans from local banks, with 15-year contracts from 10 of the hospitals used as collateral. Petitioner employs approximately 125 persons.
In 1976, petitioner applied for exemption under 501 (c) (3) from federal income taxation. The Internal Revenue Service denied the exemption application on the grounds that 501 (e) 3 of the code was the exclusive provision under which a [450 U.S. 1, 4] cooperative hospital service organization could qualify as "an organization organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes" and therefore exempt. Because subsection (e) (1) (A) does not mention laundry, the Service reasoned that petitioner was not entitled to tax exemption.
Petitioner duly filed its federal corporate income tax return for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. that return showed taxable income of $123,521 and a tax of $10,395. The tax was paid. Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed a claim for refund of that tax and, when the Internal Revenue Service took no action on the claim within six months, see 26 U.S.C. 6532 (a) (1), petitioner commenced this refund suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of petitioner, holding that it was entitled to exemption as an organization described in 501 (c) (3). 473 F. Supp. 250 (1979). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, reversed. It held that 501 (e) was the exclusive provision under which a cooperative hospital service organization could obtain an income tax exemption, and that the omission of laundry services from 501 (e) (1) (A)'s specific list of activities demonstrated that Congress intended to deny exempt status to cooperative hospital service laundries. 624 F.2d 428 (1980). [450 U.S. 1, 5]
Because the ruling of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with decisions elsewhere, 4 we grant certiorari, and we now affirm.
This Court has said: "The starting point in the determination of the scope of `gross income' is the cardinal principle that Congress in creating the income tax intended `to use the full measure of its taxing power.'" Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77, 82 (1977), quoting from Helvering v. Cliford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 (1940). See 61 (a) of the Code, 26 U.S.C. 61 (a). Under our system of federal income taxation, therefore, every element of gross income of a person, corporate or individual, is subject to tax unless there is a statute or some rule of law that exempts that person or element.
Sections 501 (a) and (c) (3) provide such an exemption, and a complete one, for a corporation fitting the description set forth in subsection (c) (3) and fulfilling the subsection's requirements. But subsection (e) is also a part of 501. And it expressly concerns the tax status of a cooperative hospital service organization. It provides that such an organization is exempt if, among other things, its activities consist of "data processing, purchasing, warehousing, billing and collection, food, clinical, industrial engineering, laboratory, printing, communications, record center, and personnel (including selection, testing, training, and education of personnel) services." Laundry and linen service, so essential to a hospital's operation, [450 U.S. 1, 6] is not included in that list and, indeed, is noticeable for its absence. The issue, thus, is whether that omission prohibits petitioner from qualifying under 501 as an organization exempt from taxation. The Government's position is that subsection (e) is controlling and exclusive, and because petitioner does not qualify under it, exemption is not available. Petitioner takes the opposing position that 501 (c) (3) clearly entitles it to the claimed exemption.
Without reference to the legislative history, the Government would appear to have the benefit of this skirmish, for it is a basic principle of statutory construction that a specific statute, here subsection (e), controls over a general provision such as subsection (c) (3), particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned, both in fact being parts of 501 relating to exemption of organization from tax. See Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 761 (1961).
Additionally, however, the legislative history provides strong and conclusive support for the Government's position. It persuades us that Congress intended subsection (e) to be exclusive and controlling for cooperative hospital service organizations. Prior to the enactment of subsection (e) in 1968, the law as to the tax status of shared hospital service organizations was uncertain. The Internal Revenue Service took the position that if two or more tax-exempt hospitals created an entity to perform commercial services for them, that entity was not entitled to exemption. See Rev. Rul. 54-305, 1954-2 Cum. Bull. 127. 5 See also 502, as amended, of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. 502. This position, however, was rejected by the Court of Claims in Hospital Bureau of Standards and Supplies, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 91, 158 F. Supp. [450 U.S. 1, 7] 560 (1958). After expressly noting the uncertainty in the law, 6 Congress enacted subsection (e). See Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-364, 109 (a), 82 Stat. 269.
In considering the provisions of the tax adjustment bill of 1968 that ultimately became subsection (e), the Senate sought to include laundry in the list of services that a cooperative hospital service organization could provide and still maintain its tax-exempt status. The Treasury Department supported the Senate amendment. See 114 Cong. Rec. 7516, 8111-8112 (1968). At the urging of commercial interests, however (see Hearings on Certain Committee Amendments to H. R. 10612 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 608 (1976)), the Conference Committee would accept only a limited version of the Senate amendment. In recommending the adoption of subsection (e), the managers on the part of the House emphasized that shared hospital service organizations performing laundry services were not entitled to tax-exempt status under the new provision. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1533, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 43 (1968); Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and Means, Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, Explanation of the Bill H. R. 15414, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 1, 20 (Comm. Print 1968).
Later, in 1976, at the urging of the American Hospital Association, the Senate Committee on Finance proposed an amendment that would have added laundry to the list of services specified in subsection (e) (1) (A). Hearings on H. R. 10612 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 2765-2772 (1976); S. Rep. No. 94-938, pt. 2, pp. 76-77 (1976). The amendment, however, was defeated on the floor of the Senate. 122 Cong. Rec. 25915 (1976). [450 U.S. 1, 8]
In view of all this, it seems to us beyond dispute that subsection (e) (1) (A) of 501, despite the seemingly broad general language of subsection (c) (3), specifies the types of hospital service organizations that are encompassed within the scope of 501 as charitable organizations. Inasmuch as laundry service was deliberately omitted from the statutory list and, indeed, specifically was refused inclusion in that list, it inevitably follows that petitioner is not entitled to tax-exempt status. The Congress easily can change the statute whenever it is so inclined. 7
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
[ Footnote 2 ] Subsections (a) and (c) of 501, to the extent pertinent here, read:
[ Footnote 3 ] Section 501 (e) reads:
[ Footnote 4 ] Among the cases in conflict with the Third Circuit's ruling are Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 60, 591 F.2d 620 (1979), and United Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 384 F. Supp. 776 (SD Ind. 1974). See also Chart, Inc. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 10 (DC 1979) (appeals pending, Nos. 80-1138 and 80-1139 (CADC)).
Decisions in accord with the ruling of the Third Circuit include Hospital Central Services Assn. v. United States, 623 F.2d 611 (CA9 1980), cert. denied, post, p. 911, and Metropolitan Detroit Area Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 634 F.2d 330 (CA6 1980). See also Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T. C. 213, 231 (1980) (reviewed by the court, with four dissents; appeal pending, No. 80-3596 (CA5)).
[ Footnote 5 ] Since the enactment of subsection (e), the Internal Revenue Service has adhered to its view that laundry service provided by a cooperative hospital service organization is not entitled to exemption under 501. See Rev. Rul. 69-160, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 147; Rev. Rul. 69-633, 1969-2 Cum. Bull. 121.
[ Footnote 6 ] See S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 200-201 (1967); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1030, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 73 (1967); 114 Cong. Rec. 7516, 8111-8112 (1968).
[ Footnote 7 ] We do not agree with the suggestion made by the Court of Claims in Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl., at 67, 591 F.2d, at 624, that Congress "may have wished not to encourage cooperative hospital laundries by new tax exemptions, to which commercial laundries made vehement objections, yet to leave such laundries free to obtain from the courts the exemptions that existing law might afford them." The extended hearings, the Committee considerations, and the floor debates all reveal that Congress was well informed on the issue and made a deliberate decision. We necessarily recognize that congressional choice.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
Today the Court summarily decides that 501, read in light of the legislative history of 501 (e), requires that nonprofit cooperative hospital laundries be denied an exemption from federal income tax, even though they may satisfy the requirements of 501 (a) and 501 (c) (3). In my opinion, the Court's summary disposition is ill-advised because a full understanding of the question presented in this case requires an examination of the history underlying the present state of the law with respect to the tax status of cooperative hospital [450 U.S. 1, 9] service organizations. When the statute is read against that background - indeed, even when it is read in isolation - its plain language unambiguously entitles this petitioner to an exemption.
In 1950, Congress amended 101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 by adding to that section a paragraph dealing with so-called "feeder organizations." Revenue Act of 1950, 301 (b), Pub. L. 814, ch. 994, 64 Stat. 953. This paragraph was subsequently reenacted without substantial change as 502 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 1 In 1952, the Treasury Department adopted a regulation designed to implement the feeder provision of 101. Treas. Regs. 111, 29.101-3 (b). 2 Although this regulation did not specifically [450 U.S. 1, 10] address cooperative hospital service organizations, it did indicate that the Treasury considered cooperative ventures operated by tax-exempt entities for the purpose of providing necessary services to those entities nonexempt feeder organizations. 3
The Internal Revenue Service first applied this regulation to cooperative hospital service organizations in a 1954 Revenue Ruling, Rev. Rul. 54-305, 1954-2 Cum. Bull. 127. In that Ruling, the Service held that a corporation organized and operated for the primary purpose of operating and maintaining a purchasing agency for the benefit of its members - tax-exempt hospitals and other charitable institutions - fell within the feeder regulation and thus was not entitled to an income tax exemption. The corporation at issue realized substantial [450 U.S. 1, 11] profits from its operations and distributed only a portion of those profits to its members. Ibid. Accordingly, the Service found that the corporation was operated for the primary purpose of carrying on a trade or business for profit within the meaning of 101 of the 1939 Code. This Revenue Ruling, and the regulation on which it was based, are the sources of the Treasury's pre-1968 position that cooperative hospital service organizations were not entitled to tax-exempt status.
The first judicial consideration of this position came in 1958 in Hospital Bureau of Standards & Supplies, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 91, 158 F. Supp. 560. 4 In that case, a group of nonprofit, tax-exempt hospitals formed a nonprofit corporation to act as their joint purchasing agent and to perform certain research functions on their behalf. The corporation brought suit against the Government to recover income taxes assessed for 1952 and 1953, alleging that it was entitled to a tax exemption under 101 (6) of the 1939 Code, the predecessor of present 501 (c) (3). The Government opposed the claimed exemption, arguing primarily that the corporation was a feeder organization under Treas. Regs. 118, 39.101-2 (b) (1953). The Court of Claims held that the feeder provision was inapplicable in that case because the corporation was not organized and operated for the primary purpose of carrying on a trade or business for profit as required by the statute, even though it had reported net income for the two tax years in question. 141 Ct. Cl., at 95-96, 158 F. Supp., at 563-564. Accordingly, the court ruled that the corporation was entitled to a tax exemption under 101 (6). 5 [450 U.S. 1, 12]
Almost 10 years passed before the next important development in this area. In 1967, in connection with the Social Security Amendments of 1967, the original version of 501 (e) was proposed as an amendment to 501. The proposed amendment provided that a cooperative hospital service organization would be exempt from income taxation as long as it satisfied certain requirements, among them a requirement that it perform only services which, if performed by the member hospitals themselves, would constitute an integral part of their exempt activities. See S. Rep. No. 744, Social Security Amendments of 1967, Report of the Senate Committee on Finance, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 201-202, 318-319 (1967). The legislative history indicates that laundry services were considered within the scope of the proposed amendment. Id., at 201. The legislative history also indicates that Congress was aware of the Treasury's belief that such cooperative ventures were not tax exempt because of the Code's feeder provision. Id., at 200-201. 6 However, the Senate Report noted as well that the Court of Claims in Hospital Bureau, "the leading case in point," had rejected the Treasury's position. S. Rep. No. 744, at 201, and n. 1.
The proposed amendment was not accepted by the House in its original form. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1030, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 73 (1967). Rather, during 1968, 501 (e) in [450 U.S. 1, 13] its present form was enacted into law as part of the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968. 7 The 1968 legislative history is set forth in adequate detail in the majority opinion, ante, at 6-7, and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 624 F.2d 428, 433-434 (CA3 1980), and does not warrant repetition here. 8 As I read that legislative history, it establishes that Congress deliberately omitted laundry services [450 U.S. 1, 14] from 501 (e) and clearly intended that joint hospital laundries not be entitled to claim an income tax exemption under 501 (e). These conclusions are reinforced by Congress' rejection in 1976 of a proposed amendment to 501 (e) that would have added laundry services to that subsection's list of eligible services. See ante, at 7.
Despite the enactment of 501 (e) in 1968, it was not until 1980 that a federal court decided that nonprofit cooperative hospital laundries were not entitled to an income tax exemption under 501. 9 Between 1968 and 1980, six federal courts rejected the Treasury's contention that hospital service organizations providing services other than those listed in 501 (e) were not entitled to claim an exemption under 501 (c) (3). 10 These courts also rejected the Treasury's alternative contention that, even if such entities were not automatically excluded from consideration under 501 (c) (3), they nonetheless were nonexempt feeder organizations under 502 (a) and Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b). In 1980, however, three Courts of Appeals concluded that 501 (e) provides the exclusive [450 U.S. 1, 15] means by which a hospital service organization may acquire an income tax exemption. 11 These courts relied primarily upon the 1968 and 1976 legislative history cited by the majority. The decision of the Third Circuit, the first in this series of Court of Appeals decisions, is presently before us.
In the District Court in this case, the Government argued, as it had on five previous occasions, that because Congress deliberately omitted hospital laundries from 501 (e), it necessarily followed that they also were outside the scope of 501 (c) (3). See 473 F. Supp. 250, 252 (ED Pa. 1979). The District Court rejected this argument, choosing instead to align itself with the then-unbroken line of precedent. Id., at 253-254. 12 The District Court also rejected the Government's alternative argument based upon 502 (a). On appeal, the Government abandoned this argument, see 624 F.2d, at 432, n. 6, and relied solely upon 501 (e). 13 Thus, as [450 U.S. 1, 16] shaped by the proceedings below, the question presented here is whether Congress, in enacting 501 (e), intended that cooperative hospital service organizations must qualify for tax exemption under that statute or not at all. The Court concludes that the statutory language and legislative history require an affirmative answer to that question. Neither factor, in my judgment, supports the Court's conclusion.
Correct analysis of the income tax exemption provisions at issue in this case should focus upon the language of the statutory provision which actually creates the exemption. That provision is 501 (a), which states:
Applying this plain statutory language to the facts of this case, it is clear that, but for 501 (e), petitioner is entitled to a tax exemption under 501 (a) and 501 (c) (3). It is undisputed that petitioner satisfies the requirements of 501 (c) (3). 15 Therefore, under 501 (a) petitioner is exempt from taxation unless one of the two express exceptions identified in that subsection applies. The District Court found 502 inapplicable because petitioner was not operated on a "for profit" basis. 473 F. Supp., at 254-255. This finding has not been challenged by the Government. Section 503 is simply irrelevant in this case. Therefore, the plain language of the relevant statutes clearly states that petitioner is a tax-exempt organization.
The majority overrides this plain statutory language by construing 501 (e) as an exception to the broad charitable [450 U.S. 1, 18] exemption created by 501 (a) and 501 (c) (3). Construed in this manner. 501 (e) operates to deny a tax exemption to organization that otherwise satisfy the express statutory requirements for exemption. The 501 (e) exception itself, however, is not express: rather than identifying particular organizations as nonexempt, 501 (e) identifies particular organizations as exempt and, apparently by implication, denies all similar but unlisted organizations the exemption otherwise available under 501 (a) and 501 (c) (3).
The Court silently dismisses the fact that 501 (a) and 501 (c) (3) contain no reference indicating that 501 (e) is to have this limiting effect; the necessary connection between the statutes is supplied instead by the Court's finding that 501 (e) is "interrelated" with and "closely positioned" to 501 (c) (3). Ante, at 6. It cannot be denied that 501 (e) is close in position to 501 (c) (3). But a statute's text is surely more significant than its physical location. 16 And to state, as the majority does, that 501 (c) (3) and 501 (e) are "interrelated" is to substitute conclusion for analysis. Apart from their proximity to one another, the only express relationship between these statutes is that certain entities described in 501 (e) are to be treated as charitable organizations under 501 (c) (3) for federal income tax purposes. Nothing in any of the relevant statutes suggests that 501 (e) is to have the effect of denying an exemption to organizations that satisfy the requirements of 501 (c) (3). When Congress wanted a statute to have such an effect, it had no difficulty making its intention unmistakably plain, as is evident from 501 (a)'s reference to 502 and 503. The language Congress employed [450 U.S. 1, 19] in 501 (e) reflects an intention to enlarge, not to reduce, the category of organizations entitled to exemption under 501 (c) (3). 17
The Court supports its interpretation of 501 with a discussion of legislative history. However, this discussion makes no reference to the legislative history of the statutory provisions primarily at issue in this case, 501 (a) and 501 (c) (3). Instead, the Court focuses upon the legislative history of 501 (e). In my opinion, insofar as the Court relies upon this legislative history, its decision rests upon a non sequitur. Because the text and legislative history of 501 (e), which was enacted in 1968, persuade the Court that petitioner is not entitled to an exemption under that section, the Court concludes that petitioner also is not entitled to claim exemption under 501 (c) (3), which was enacted in 1954. 18 Unless the later statute limited the scope of the earlier statute, the conclusion is not supported by the premise.
The legislative history of 501 (e) might support the Court's position if it unambiguously revealed: (1) that Congress in 1968 believed that no cooperative hospital service organization could satisfy the requirements of 501 (c) (3) and it therefore enacted 501 (e) to extend a tax exemption to certain entities previously not entitled to exemption; or (2) that Congress in 1968 believed that cooperative hospital [450 U.S. 1, 20] service organizations were at least arguably entitled to tax exemption under 501 (c) (3) and it enacted 501 (e) to withdraw this exemption from some, but not all, of these entities. The legislative history provides persuasive support for neither proposition.
In my opinion, 501 (e) unambiguously granted a tax exemption to certain entities that arguably already were entitled to an exemption under 501 (c) (3). There is absolutely no evidence that the 1968 statute was intended to withdraw any benefits that were already available under the 1954 Act. Proper analysis, therefore, should focus on the question whether petitioner would have been entitled to an exemption under pre-1968 law.
The 1954 Act created a broad category of exempt organizations, including corporations "operated exclusively for . . . charitable . . . purposes." That hospitals could qualify for exemption has always been clear. The question whether a cooperative organization formed by a group of tax-exempt hospitals to provide services for the hospitals could also qualify for exemption was less clear. As discussed in Part I, supra, prior to 1968 the Treasury took the position that such a cooperative was a "feeder organization" within the meaning of 502 of the Code. 19 This position, however, was rejected by the Court of Claims which - quite properly in my opinion - held that such a cooperative was not a "feeder" and was exempt under what is now 501 (c) (3). See Hospital Bureau of Standards & Supplies, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 91, 158 F. Supp. 560 (1958).
As a matter of history - presumably because cooperative service organizations were fairly common in the hospital industry [450 U.S. 1, 21] - the 502 issue arose in disputes between the Treasury Department and hospital affiliates. Conceptually, however, there is no reason why the identical issue could not arise if other tax-exempt entities, such as schools or churches, might find it advantageous to form cooperatives to perform some of their essential functions for them. 20 In any event, when the issue was brought to the attention of Congress in 1967 and 1968, the focus of the dispute still concerned hospital affiliates. Congress then made an unequivocal policy choice rejecting the position of the Treasury and granting an unambiguous exemption to cooperative hospital service organizations performing certain described functions. 21 Nothing in the 1968 legislation explicitly or implicitly qualified the exemption previously available under 501. 22 [450 U.S. 1, 22]
Section 501 (e) does not confer an exemption on cooperative educational or religious service organizations. 23 If such organizations would previously have been exempt under 501 (c) (3), should the 1968 Act be construed to have withdrawn the exemption by reason of the fact that Congress saw fit to confine the benefit of its clarifying amendment to "cooperative hospital service organizations"? I think the answer is clear and that the same answer should apply to a hospital cooperative that is not expressly covered by the 1968 Act. Its tax status should be evaluated on the basis of the remaining relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. [450 U.S. 1, 23]
I recognize that both in 1968 and in 1976 attempts were made to extend the explicit 501 (e) exemption to encompass hospital laundry cooperatives and that these attempts were rejected. This legislative history proves nothing more than what is already plainly stated in the statute itself: the 501 (e) exemption is not available to petitioner. That is equally true of a cooperative educational service organization. But that fact does not evidence any intent by Congress to withdraw whatever exemption would be available to such organizations under other provisions of the Code.
Nor does logic compel the conclusion that Congress intended to withdraw a pre-existing exemption. As a matter of tax policy, nothing that I have read provides any obvious legitimate basis for giving hospital service organizations more favorable treatment than other charitable service organizations, or for giving a data processing or food service organization better treatment than a laundry service organization. Furthermore, I cannot accept the kind of reasoning - which unfortunately may characterize our summary dispositions - that interprets a statute that was plainly intended to do nothing more than extend a certain benefit to some taxpayers as though it were intended to withdraw a benefit otherwise available to other taxpayers.
I respectfully dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] Section 502 (a) provides:
[ Footnote 2 ] The feeder regulation was subsequently redesignated Treas. Regs. 118, 39.101-2 (b) (1953). This regulation, insofar as relevant to this case, appears substantially in its original form as Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b), 26 CFR 1.502-1 (b) (1980). It provides, in pertinent part:
[ Footnote 3 ] These cooperative ventures apparently were considered feeder organizations whether or not they were operated for the purpose of generating profits. Despite the fact that the governing statute, 502 (a), is applicable only to organizations "operated for the primary purpose of carrying on a trade or business for profit," the implementing regulation, 1.502-1 (b), does not mention the "for profit" requirement. In several cases rejecting the Treasury's contention that cooperative hospital service organizations are nonexempt feeders, the courts have emphasized the Treasury's failure to take into account the "for profit" requirement of the statute. See, e. g., Hospital Bureau of Standards & Supplies, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 91, 95-96, 158 F. Supp. 560, 563-564 (1958); Hospital Central Services Assn. v. United States, 40 AFTR 2d 77-5646, 77-5648 (WD Wash. 1977); Community Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 43 AFTR 2d 79-934, 79-939 to 79-940 (ED Mich. 1979); 473 F. Supp. 250, 254-255 (ED Pa. 1979) (case below); Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T. C. 213, 234-235 (1980) (Tannenwald, J., dissenting), appeal pending, No. 80-3596 (CA5).
[ Footnote 4 ] Justice Stanley Reed, then recently retired from service on this Court, sat by designation as a member of the Court of Claims in the Hospital Bureau case.
[ Footnote 5 ] The Commissioner never expressly announced a nonacquiescence in this decision. However, in an apparent response to the Hospital Bureau case, the feeder regulation, 1.502-1 (b), was amended in several respects in 1963. See T. D. 6662, 1963-2 Cum. Bull. 214, 215-216. See also Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, at 219.
[ Footnote 6 ] Under the heading "Present law," the Senate Report contains the following statement:
[ Footnote 7 ] Section 501 (e) provides, in pertinent part:
[ Footnote 8 ] See also Metropolitan Detroit Area Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 634 F.2d 330, 334-335 (CA6 1980).
[ Footnote 9 ] The Internal Revenue Service, shortly after enactment of 501 (e), ruled that 501 (e) did not provide an exemption for hospital service organizations that performed laundry services. Rev. Rul. 69-160, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 147. The Service also ruled that because laundry services were not among those listed in 501 (e), a joint hospital laundry service could not claim a tax exemption under 501 (c) (3). Rev. Rul. 69-633, 1969-2 Cum. Bull. 121.
[ Footnote 10 ] See United Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 384 F. Supp. 776 (SD Ind. 1974); Hospital Central Services Assn. v. United States, 40 AFTR 2d 77-5646 (WD Wash. 1977); Metropolitan Detroit Area Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 445 F. Supp. 857 (ED Mich. 1978); Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 60, 591 F.2d 620 (1979); Community Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 43 AFTR 2d 79-934 (ED Mich. 1979); 473 F. Supp. 250 (ED Pa. 1979) (case below). See also Chart, Inc. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 10 (DC 1979), appeal pending, Nos. 80-1138, 80-1139 (CADC), in which the District Court held that an organization that qualifies for exemption under 501 (e) may nonetheless also claim the broader exemption provided by 501 (c) (3).
[ Footnote 11 ] See 624 F.2d 428 (CA3 1980) (case below); Hospital Central Services Assn. v. United States, 623 F.2d 611 (CA9 1980), cert. denied, post, p. 911; Metropolitan Detroit Area Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, supra.
In Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T. C. 213 (1980), appeal pending, No. 80-3596 (CA5), a sharply divided Tax Court held that a nonprofit cooperative hospital laundry was not entitled to tax exemption under 501, because of the feeder regulation, Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b). However, as explained in note 13, infra, the Tax Court's reasoning is in conflict with that in the above-cited cases and, in fact, supports the position of the petitioner in the instant case.
[ Footnote 12 ] See cases cited in note 10, supra.
[ Footnote 13 ] In Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, the Tax Court, over the dissent of four judges, accepted the Government's argument that the hospital laundry cooperative was a "feeder organization" under 502 and Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b) and therefore nonexempt. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions of Judge Tannenwald and Judge Wilbur, I disagree with that decision. What is significant about the Tax Court's holding, however, is that even the majority did not accept the [450 U.S. 1, 16] Government's present contention that 501 (e) precludes any tax exemption for a laundry cooperative even if it is not a feeder organization under 502. The Tax Court observed that laundry services had been intentionally omitted from 501 (e), but nonetheless went on to consider 502 (a) and Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b). This inquiry would have been wholly unnecessary if, as the Government argues in this case, hospital service organizations not listed in 501 (e) are not entitled to claim an exemption under 501 (e) (3). For, as explained in Part II-A, infra, 502 operates to deny a tax exemption to certain organizations which otherwise would be entitled to exemption under 501 (c) (3).
[ Footnote 14 ] Section 501 (c) provides, in pertinent part:
[ Footnote 15 ] After rejecting the Government's contention that 501 (e) controlled this case, the District Court found that petitioner is a charitable organization within the meaning of 501 (c) (3). 473 F. Supp., at 254. Although it reversed the District Court's decision, the Court of Appeals did not disturb this finding. Rather, it concluded that petitioner was not entitled even to attempt to qualify for an income tax exemption under 501 (c) (3), because 501 (e) exclusively governs the tax status of cooperative hospital service organizations. Thus, the Court of Appeals considered its inquiry ended once it was established that petitioner provided a service not listed in 501 (e).
[ Footnote 16 ] If Congress, in a wholly separate section of the Tax Code, had clearly stated that all hospital service organizations except those specifically enumerated shall be denied income tax exemption, the Court would not decline to give that statute effect merely because it was not a part of 501. Similarly, in this case it seems to me that 501 (e)'s position cannot take the place of a congressional declaration that certain organizations be denied tax exemption.
[ Footnote 17 ] Indeed, several courts have specifically concluded that 501 (e) was intended to expand, not to contract, the category of organizations eligible for tax exemption under 501 (c) (3). See, e. g., Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl., at 67, 591 F.2d, at 624; 473 F. Supp., at 253; Metropolitan Detroit Area Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 445 F. Supp., at 860; United Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 384 F. Supp., at 781.
[ Footnote 18 ] In fact, 501 (c) (3) had as its predecessor 101 (6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. However, for purposes of the analysis in the text, the precise point of origin of 501 (c) (3) is unimportant; it is sufficient that 501 (c) (3) was enacted well before 501 (e).
[ Footnote 19 ] According to the Treasury, hospital cooperatives were denied tax exemption, not because they failed to satisfy the requirements of 501 (c) (3), but because, in the Treasury's judgment, they were feeder organizations and thus within an express exception to the charitable exemption provisions. See Rev. Rul. 54-305, 1954-2 Cum. Bull. 127; Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b).
[ Footnote 20 ] Indeed, in its feeder regulation the Treasury clearly indicated that its opposition to tax exemption for cooperative service organizations was not limited to hospital cooperatives, but rather extended to all cooperative service organizations formed by two or more tax-exempt entities. See Treas. Reg. 1.502-1 (b).
[ Footnote 21 ] It seems clear from the legislative history that Congress was aware that cooperative hospital service organizations were at least arguably entitled to exemption prior to 1968. Several passages in the legislative history indicate that Congress knew that the Treasury believed that such organizations were not entitled to exemption; nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress approved of this position. See S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 200-201 (1967); 114 Cong. Rec. 7516 (1968); id., at 8112. Congress also was aware that the Treasury's position was based primarily upon 502 (a), rather than 501 (c) (3), and that its position had been rejected by "the leading case in point." See supra, at 12.
[ Footnote 22 ] In fact, since the Treasury's opposition to tax-exempt status for hospital service organizations was based on 502, rather than 501 (c) (3), it is more reasonable to construe the enactment of 501 (e) as a congressional attempt to limit 502, rather than 501 (c) (3). Some of the language of 501 (e) supports this view. For example, 501 (e) (2) provides that a cooperative hospital service organization qualifying for exemption under that subsection must allocate or pay to its members all net earnings within 8 1/2 months after the [450 U.S. 1, 22] close of its taxable year. Section 502, which was the congressional response to the series of "destination of income" cases culminating in the famous case involving the New York University School of Law's noodle factory, C. F. Mueller Co. v. Commissioner, 190 F.2d 120 (CA3 1951), was directed precisely at organizations which funneled their net income to tax-exempt institutions. Thus, organizations which might otherwise reasonably be considered feeder organizations are entitled to exemption under 501 (e). However, there is no reason why a cooperative organization that operates on a nonprofit basis and does not funnel earnings back to its members, such as the petitioner in this case, cannot qualify for an income tax exemption under 501 (c) (3). Such an organization, deprived of the shield of 501 (e), should nonetheless be tax exempt if it can avoid challenge as a feeder on its own merits.
The conclusion that 501 (e) was designed as a shield for certain organizations that otherwise would be considered nonexempt feeders is also supported by the fact that the exemption available under 501 (e) is more restrictive than that available under 501 (c) (3). As the District Court in Chart, Inc. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 10 (DC 1979), appeal pending, Nos. 80-1138, 80-1139 (CADC), observed, organizations which qualify for tax exemption under 501 (c) (3) are able to operate with a great deal more flexibility than those qualifying under 501 (e). Id., at 13-14. Congress may well have designed 501 (e) to provide a limited form of tax exemption for previously nonexempt feeder organizations.
[ Footnote 23 ] Section 501 (f) is entitled "Cooperative service organizations of operating educational organizations," but it is not analogous to 501 (e). Section 501 (f) concerns organizations organized and operated to invest funds on behalf of educational institutions and to pay the resulting income to these institutions. [450 U.S. 1, 24]


text:
An introduction to UNIX/LINUX, 26 February 2020
This training seminar provides a first introduction to the UNIX/LINUX environment. It is aimed at new users of UNIX and will discuss UNIX skills required to work on a typical HPC cluster. Topics include manipulating files and directories, editing file contents and the development of simple scripts, such as required for job submission.
The event is organised as an informal lunchtime seminar – you are welcome to bring your lunch along. It addresses users who have recently started using LUNARC systems and prospective users considering using LUNARC system in the near future.
The seminar will be held in English.
Time and location
The event will be held on the 26th February from 12:30 to 14:00. The venue will be room 5124 on the 5th floor of V-Building on the LTH campus.
Please register using the registration form
Questions and queries regarding the course should be directed to Lunarc, using the support form.


text:
The future of immigration reform is, for now at least, not up to House Speaker John Boehner. It is in the hands of a group of moderately conservative Republican senators who have to decide whether their desire to solve a decades-old problem outweighs their fear of retaliation from the party's right wing.
These senators are clearly looking for a way to vote for a bill that is the product of excruciating but largely amicable negotiations across partisan and ideological barriers. But these Republicans — they include Bob Corker, John Hoeven, Susan Collins, Dean Heller and Rob Portman — want enough changes in the measure's border security provisions so they can tell tea party constituents that they didn't just go along with a middle-of-the-road consensus.
Here's their problem: Changes that so complicate a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants as to render it meaningless are (and should be) unacceptable to supporters of reform, including most Democrats. But if the GOP senators accept something short of this, they will face furious attacks from the hard-core opponents of any move toward large-scale naturalization of those who came here illegally.
In the end, there is no way around their dilemma. If they want a bill, they will have to take political risks.
Boehner got a lot of attention the other day for what appeared to be a firm statement that he would not let an immigration bill through the House without majority support from Republicans. On its face, his statement would seem to doom reform, given where that majority now seems to stand.
But as he typically (and, in his partial defense, perhaps necessarily) does, Boehner left himself wiggle room. "I have no intention of putting a bill on the floor that will violate the principles of our majority and divide our conference," he said.
Ah, yes, and let's remember that this week's "intention" does not necessarily determine tomorrow's strategy. It's in Boehner's interest to keep the large right-end of his caucus at bay and to stake out a hard line to extract as many concessions from the Senate as he can. In the House at the moment, tomorrow is always another day.
What will matteris not how many Republican votes he gets but whether a majority of his caucus quietly decides that passing immigration reform is better for the party than blocking it is. Many in such a majority might actually vote against a bill they privately want to see enacted. By doing so, they could satisfy their base voters back home while getting the immigration issue off the political agenda and ending the GOP's cold war with Latino voters.
This is not unduly cynical. Many essential laws have passed because legislators found a way to balance their political needs with their convictions. The movie "Lincoln"is instructive on the matter.
Such calculations explain the tensions among Senate Democrats over the best way forward. Politico recently reported on differences between Sen. Charles Schumer, the leading architect of the compromise bill, and Sens. Dick Durbin and Harry Reid, the majority leader.
Schumer is more willing to accept further compromises in order to get broad Republican support. He wants 70 votes for a bill, believing that a big margin would increase pressure on the House to act. He also wants to deprive Republicans of the chance to use procedural complaints as an excuse for voting no.
Durbin and Reid are wary of giving any more ground. They want to preserve negotiating space with the House and believe that enough Republicans already know they have to support reform. They see the House as so unpredictable that watering down the bill may not, in any event, be very helpful.
Here's the potential positive news for immigration reformers: This difference may produce, if unintentionally, a good cop-bad cop dynamic that could keep the key group of Senate Republicans from undercutting the bill. Schumer can be open to a variety of border security changes, as long as they don't disrupt the path to citizenship. He can also be clear that there are limits on how far his party can go in providing the swing Republicans with political cover.
Which brings it all back to Corker and his allies. A Congressional Budget Office reportTuesday, showing that immigration reform could cut some $900 billion from the deficit over the next two decades, should make it easier for them to make a deal. But in the end, they have to choose: Which side are they on?
Read more from E.J. Dionne's archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more on this topic:
George Will: On immigration, Charles Dickens matters
Greg Sargent: John Boehner is bluffing on immigration
Jennifer Rubin: Immigration reform isn't dragging Rubio down
Robert Kagan: Immigration reform can prove U.S. strength and security
Mark Everson: Tweaking the Senate's immigration plan
The Post's View: Immigration reform, while flawed, moves forward in Senate


text:
[M] Intel Ivy Bridge-E 4960X CPU Review (LN2 inside) – madshrimps
After upgrading the performance of the mainstream platform by the Haswell family, the Intel engineers also devoted time to perform an overhaul on their high end platform, LGA 2011. The Sandy Bridge-E was a worthy successor of the old and aged LGA1366. Intel waited close to two years for manufacturing the new high end flagship CPU model available to the masses, this in contradiction with the launch schedule on some previously leaked roadmaps. As with the transition from Sandy to Ivy Bridge on the LGA1155 socket, we spot many similarities with the new Ivy Bridge-E. A die shrink to the 22nm process and alike architectural improvements should boost the performance and efficiency. Time to unravel the brand new Intel flagship LGA2011 CPU: the i7-4960X CPU.
via [M] Intel Ivy Bridge-E 4960X CPU Review (LN2 inside) – madshrimps.


text:
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which came into force in 1987 and to which more than two thirds of the world's nations are parties, bans torture and other abusive treatment of any person, as well as forcibly transferring a person to a nation when there is reason to believe that the person will be tortured. Parties to the treaty must periodically report and answer questions on their compliance before the Committee against Torture in Geneva. The convention restates much of an earlier General Assembly declaration (1975), and the earlier Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966; in force, 1976) also banned torture. In addition, agreements sponsored by regional international organizations also forbid the practice, as do the Geneva Conventions. Despite these international agreements, Amnesty International indicated (2007) that there were reports of the use of torture or other forms of abuse by security or police forces in 102 nations in 2006.
The utility of torture in obtaining useful information from individuals is a matter of debate, and the arguments on both sides rely on anecdotal evidence. Torture is most often justified, even by those who oppose its use generally, in situations where interrogators seek to obtain information from a suspect who has knowledge of an imminent and devastating attack. Whether a terror suspect who had knowledge of a
ticking timebomb would divulge any useful information under torture likely depends on the psychology of the suspect. That tortured individuals divulge false information is known to be true, and an instance of this was reported to have contributed to the Bush administration's belief that Iraq had helped train militant Islamic terrorists. Studies also have shown that extreme stress can detrimentally affect memory, suggesting that torture, especially if prolonged, might in fact impair recall.
The United States, which regularly denounces the use of torture and abuse internationally in the State Dept.'s well-regarded Human Rights Reports, found itself the object of international criticism when, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Justice Dept. and other administration legal officials construed international strictures against torture narrowly so as to expand the harsh
enhanced interrogation techniques that could be used, especially by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), when questioning suspected terrorists. Defense Dept. officials asserted (2003) that, as commander in chief, the president was not bound by the international commitments the United States had made concerning the use of torture and could approve any technique that would protect national security. U.S. government officials also argued that harsh treatment was not torture if an interrogator did not intend to torture a prisoner. Some have contended that such arguments directly contributed to reported abuses of terror suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base and to notorious abuses of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison. The United States also has transferred lesser terror suspects for detention and interrogation to countries where those suspects were citizens even when those countries were listed in State Dept. reports as using torture, although U.S. officials ostensibly have obtained guarantees against the use of torture in such cases.
U.S. officials subsequently (2004) issued guidelines that called torture abhorrent and retreated on many points from earlier memorandums, but it remained unclear to what degree Bush administration considered the CIA to be bound by U.S. law and international agreements. Revelations concerning Bush administration memorandums and practices led Senator John McCain, who had himself been tortured while a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, to seek (2005) legislation banning cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of terror suspects in U.S. custody, no matter where they are held. It was reported in 2007 that in 2005 the Justice Dept. secretly approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics, including simulated drowning (
waterboarding), by the CIA. In 2009 it was reported that that the treatment of at least one person held at Guantánamo Bay had met the legal definition of torture and that a secret 2007 International Committee of the Red Cross report had concluded that CIA treatment of some detainees constituted torture. In 2008 President Bush vetoed legislation that would have required the CIA to adhere to U.S. army interrogation standards, but in 2009 President Obama banned any methods that could be considered torture. A Senate Intelligence Committee report whose conclusions were publicly released in 2014 provided details on the use of torture by the CIA in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, relying on the CIA's own documents, and asserted that the CIA's claims of the usefulness of brutal interrogation were contradicted by its own documents. The Senate report largely echoed a nonpartisan review of interrogation and detention practices after 2001 that was released in 2013.
See K. J. Greenberg and J. L. Dratel, ed., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (2005); D. Rejali, Torture and Democracy (2007); J. Jaffer and A. Singh, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (2007); A. M. Dershowitz, Is There a Right To Remain Silent?: Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment after 9/11 (2008); M. Cohn, ed., The United States and Torture (2011); R. M. Palitto, ed., Torture and State Violence in the United States (2011); M. Fallon, Unjustifiable Means (2017).
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2023, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: Crime and Law Enforcement


text:
NEW YORK – Robert Galinsky is skeptical about claims by producers of ABC's 'The Bachelor' that they've had a hard time finding black singles willing to be on the show.
Back when he was an acting teacher, Galinsky's students were predominantly white. But now that he tries to help people break into show business as operator of the New York Reality TV School, about half of his students are racial minorities.
The nearly all-white racial makeup of 'The Bachelor' (and its spinoff, 'The Bachelorette') has simmered as an issue for years. Now it's the focus of a lawsuit filed last week by two black men from Nashville, Tenn., who say they were given little consideration when they tried to get on the show.
Through 16 seasons, all of the men given star billing to search for a mate were white. Same with the women in the seven seasons of 'The Bachelorette.' Two Hispanic contestants have been selected winners; the rest were all white.
The pattern extends to the pool of would-be mates, even when producers were aware critics were talking about the issue. None of the women vying for the bachelor's hand during the past four seasons were black, and one was in Season 12. That's one black woman out of 130, according to a review of the casts posted online.
'These shows have been very intentional in the gender and race stereotypes that they've created,' said Jennifer Pozner, author of 'Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV.'
'It would be very, very difficult for people of color to miss the message that not only is this show not meant for you, but we as producers of 'The Bachelor' do not want you to see yourself in a romantic starring role. You don't get to play prince and princess. You don't get to fantasize about love,' said Pozner, a media critic who has questioned the show's racial makeup since its first season.
One of the Nashville men who sued, 26-year-old teacher Christopher Johnson, said he was stopped immediately when he went to a casting call for 'The Bachelor' and asked what he was doing there. He said he was told to hand in materials, and never got a call-back or tryout.
Warner Horizon Television, which produces the series, called the complaint 'baseless and without merit.' The company said producers 'have been consistently – and publicly – vocal about seeking diverse candidates for both programs.'
The lawsuit quotes Michael Fleiss, creator of the series, telling 'Entertainment Weekly' that 'we always want to cast for ethnic diversity. It's just that, for whatever reason, they don't come forward. I wish they would.'
Galinsky said he believed there's little concern about diversity within the network unless it helps make money.
'Once you have a good thing going in this industry, you don't want to mess up the formula,' he said.
The lawsuit points out that dating shows with diverse casts like 'Flavor of Love' and 'I Love New York' demonstrate proven interest among blacks in these shows. Other popular reality series, including 'Survivor,' 'Dancing With the Stars' and 'American Idol,' seem to have no trouble achieving a diverse cast.
On the face of it, ABC would not seem to have a fear of interracial relationships. One of its dramas, 'Scandal,' features a white president who has an affair with a black woman.
There would also seem to be few societal barriers. A Pew Research Center study released in February found about 83 percent of Americans say it is 'all right for blacks and whites to date each other,' and about 63 percent said they'd be fine with it if a family member married outside their race.
But resistance grew with age, according to the survey. Only 55 percent of whites ages 50 to 64 expressed acceptance of a mixed-race marriage in the family. Acceptance dropped to 38 percent among whites age 65 and older.
The median age of a typical viewer of 'The Bachelor' is just over 50, the Nielsen company said.
Perhaps reflecting what they see on the screen, the show's audience is overwhelmingly white: 88 percent of 'The Bachelor' viewers this season were white, with 11 percent black or Hispanic. Viewership for the typical prime-time network show is 74 percent white, Nielsen said.
Those numbers have been consistent: The audience for the debut season of 'The Bachelor' in 2002 was 90 percent white.
Eric Deggans, a media critic for the Tampa Bay Times who has also written about the issue, noted that casting a minority bachelor would raise questions for the show: Would that white audience feel excluded if mostly minority women are brought on to try and strike up a relationship? Would people object to seeing a bachelor date many women outside his race?
'It's been my experience that TV executives are pretty cynical about how TV audiences react to race,' Deggans wrote. 'And the last thing ABC wants is a cycle of 'The Bachelor,' topped by a minority male, where audiences watch less and less, providing an embarrassing display and hobbling a key franchise.'
Posner said that she believed many of the show's advertisers, both traditional and through product placement, prefer to see a primarily white audience and will pay more to get access to it.
More awareness of the issue can't hurt, she said.
'I hope that the lawsuit will get people to start to question why the longest-running dating franchise on network television is being produced as if we're in the 1950s segregated South,' she said.


text:
Shared libraries
From RISC OS
RISC OS Dynamic Linking and Shared Libraries: A User's View
The soloader package contains all of the components required to use dynamically linked C programs under RISC OS. These are:
Dynamic loader/linker (ld-riscos/so/1)
This is currently based on V1.9.9 of the Linux dynamic loader (the version, I believe, before it was merged into GLIBC). This version was chosen over the latest, due to its relative simplicity.
SOManager (Shared Object Manager)
This is a RISC OS module which provides object and memory management for the dynamic loader. Although the dynamic loader does manage objects itself, this is only on a per client basis as it has no knowledge of other clients using the same libraries. It therefore relies on SOManager for information regarding the state of any libraries in the system.
*SOMStatus gives the state of the system, showing any clients and libraries currently registered. It is normal for libraries to remain present after clients have deregistered. Libraries are allowed to remain idle (i.e. unused by any client) for a set period of time before being removed. This improves system performance when, for example, command line tools that use the same libraries are run in quick succession.
Runtime libraries
These consist of libunixlib, libgcc and libm which are the basic libraries required to run C programs.
Additionally, C++ is supported by the use of libstdc++ which is available separately.
Building shared libraries
Some effort has been made in to making the building of shared libraries under RISC OS as close to that of Linux as possible, so that documentation that was written for Linux may also apply to RISC OS.
Compiling code for shared libraries
When compiling code for a shared library, it is necessary to inform GCC that global data must be treated differently. Although the code for a library may be shared by several programs at once, this is not true for its global data. It is important that each program that uses the library be given its own copy of that library's data. This requires that the -fPIC command line switch be passed to GCC so that it can generate special code to handle the access of this data. Note that -fpic is not the same as -fPIC.
Linking generally
GCC automatically searches for dependant libraries within any directories defined by the RISC OS path GCCSOLib: When !SharedLibs is first run it adds its own library directory (i.e. SharedLibs:lib) to this path so that GCC can find any libraries it holds. This includes the shared versions of the runtime libraries. It is important to use the correct compiler driver to perform the linking, ie, gcc for code written in C and g++ for code written in C++. This ensures that the correct options and dependant libraries are added to the linker command line. If a project mixes C and C++, then g++ must be used to perform the link.
Linking code for shared libraries
As for Linux, when linking a shared library, it is necessary to specify the -shared flag to indicate that this is intended to be a shared library. In addition to a filename, a library can also have an internal name embedded within it. This is called its soname. It is advisable when linking a shared library to give it a soname using the linker flag:
-soname=lib<name>.so.<major version>
-Wl,-soname=lib<name>.so.<major version>
if using gcc to perform the linking. The major version number is optional. You should use the Unix naming convention e.g. libname.so.1 for the soname as the dynamic loader will translate it to RISC OS format when searching for dependant libraries.
Shared library naming
In linux there is a scheme which most libraries adhere to when it comes to naming (although it is not essential). This scheme is also used under RISC OS in an effort to keep the same flexibility and to allow future support for multiple versions of the same library. In order to implement the Linux naming convention a simple symbolic linking system is employed in a similar manner to Linux. This allows the same file to be referenced by more than one name without duplicating it and is achieved by using a special link file which is given the filetype &1C8 (Symlink).
In this scheme, every shared library has three references, the shared library itself, the runtime link and the compiler link:
The shared library: lib<name>/so/X/Y/Z
The runtime link: lib<name>/so/X
(a symlink to lib<name>/so/X/Y/Z)
The compiler link: lib<name>/so
(a symlink to lib<name>/so/X/Y/Z)
The dynamic loader uses the soname, given to a library at build time by the static linker, to find the library - this is the runtime link. When the static linker (ld) is given a library on its command line, e.g. -lUnixLib, it uses the compiler link to find the library.
The symlinks are not an OS wide solution, but merely extra functionality added to Unixlib and the static/dynamic loaders. A utility to create these symlinks is supplied.
Note that it is not mandatory to use the naming convention described above, libraries can simply be called lib<name>/so and placed in !SharedLibs.lib, however, this is not very flexible as it doesn't allow multiple versions of the same library.
Compiling code for dynamically linked executable
Compiling code for an executable that is to be dynamically linked does not require any special flags. In fact it is important that -fPIC is never used for such code. This is different from the Linux case where using -fPIC for executable code is possible, although with a minor performance cost. However, under RISC OS, -fPIC compiled code used in this manner will fail to run correctly.
Linking code for dynamically linked executable
Whether GCC generates dynamically or statically linked executables depends on what type of libraries it finds at link time. If a shared version of any required library is found then GCC will default to dynamic linking. On the other hand, if only archive (static) libraries are available, then GCC will default to static linking. If static linking is required regardless of what libraries are available, then this can be forced using the -static option.
C++ code
Compiling C++ code for dynamic linking is as above, although it is important to use the g++ compiler driver for linking as this adds the necessary options for linking against libstdc++. Global object construction/destruction is implemented and the order of execution is:
1) UnixLib initialisation
2) Shared library global object initialisation
3) Executable global object initialisation
4) main() called
5) Executable global object destruction
6) Shared library global object destruction
UnixLib is initialised before global objects which means that UnixLib resources can be used in their constructors.
Running ELF executables
ELF executables have the filetype &E1F. When such a binary is run, RISC OS uses this filetype to determine that SOMRun, a Shared Object Manager command should be called to deal with it. SOMRun examines the ELF binary to see if it is statically or dynamically linked. If the former, then it can pass control directly to the ELF binary. If on the other hand it is dynamically linked, then control passes to the dynamic loader which ensures that any libraries that are required are present. It then performs the dynamic linking before finally passing control to the binary.
The environment of the dynamic loader can be set on a per client basis by setting a RISC OS system variable with a name based on that of the executable:
<program name>$LD$Env
If the program name is !RunImage or ends in -bin (ignoring case), then the program is assumed to be an application and the application name, minus the '!' character is used instead. If a system variable based on the program name is found not to exist, then LD$Env is used instead. This allows a common environment to be shared by many clients, whilst at the same time, allowing specific clients their own.
In either case, the environment contains a space separated list of variables that the dynamic loader will use, e.g.,
set Firefox$LD$Env "LD_WARN=1 LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/Firefox:"
set LD$Env "LD_WARN=1"
If neither type of variable is defined, then the environment is assumed to be empty and ignored.
The following variables are recognised:
LD_WARN Not for general use - used by ldd (which is not yet supported).
LD_LIBRARY_PATH A comma separated list of paths for finding shared libraries other than the standard place (which must be in RISC OS format).
LD_BIND_NOW Forces the dynamic loader to resolve *all* dynamic links before running the binary. This is the opposite of lazy binding where only the functions used are resolved.
LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS Forces the dynamic loader to display the dependencies of the binary rather than run it. Also used by ldd.
The support module SOManager provides five useful commands:
SOMStatus [clients | libraries] If libraries (or the letter l) is given as the parameter, then list all libraries registered with the Shared Object Manager. If clients (or the letter c) is given as the parameter, then list all clients registered. Omitting the parameter lists all libraries and clients.
SOMAddress <Address in hexadecimal or decimal> Given an address, report the library that contains it and also the offset from the start of the library file where the address lies. If the given address is preceded by 0x, then it will be treated as hexadecimal otherwise it is assumed to be decimal.
SOMRun <filename> Examines the given ELF executable to determine whether it is dynamically or statically linked, and runs it accordingly.
SOMExpire [<n>h] [<n>m] Allows the expiry time of any libraries used in the future to be set. If no parameter is given, then it returns the current setting.
SOMHistory Display some basic details about the last five clients to deregister.
Text relocations
Text relocations must not exist within shared libraries. Such relocations usually take the form of an absolute pointer embedded in the code of a library that points to a specific location. The dynamic loader cannot resolve a text relocation and will reject it causing the program to fail with an error similar to:
<program name>: Text relocation of data symbol 'xyz' found: SharedLibs:lib.xyz/so/1 (offset 0x63C0)
The error tells you which library contained the offending relocation and the offset from the start of the library file to where the relocation occurs. This makes it much easier to find the containing file and function to determine what went wrong. It's not unusual for the symbol name, as shown above, to be blank. This indicates a relocation for a compiler generated symbol.
There are a number of reasons why a text relocation may occur, for example:
a) -fPIC was not used to compile the code.
b) A static library was linked in.
c) Hand written assembler was not written with a shared library in mind.
It's possible to determine whether a library contains text relocations without requiring it to be run through the dynamic loader first. By using:
readelf -d <library file>
the contents of the dynamic segment can be listed. If a TEXTREL entry is shown (even with a value of 0x0), then the library contains text relocations and will fail at runtime. Further information on relocations in the library can be obtained using:
readelf -r <library file>
although which are text relocations is not often clear cut, as confusingly, they are often shown as R_ARM_RELATIVE. By using the offset field, it is usually possible to work out which relocations lie within the text segment of the library.
Known problems
ldconfig is supplied in the !SharedLibs bin directory. This is a utility used in Linux to generate the cache used by the dynamic loader and to generate library symlinks. Under RISC OS it can be used to generate the cache, but it does not yet generate the symlinks. A ready built cache is supplied, but it is still uncertain whether RISC OS benefits from the cache and ldconfig. ldconfig may be improved in the future to make it more useful, but for now it is supplied for interest only.
Dynamic linking to the SharedCLibrary is not supported due to technical difficulties, however, static linking does work.
ELF - Executable and Linking Format
Client - Program or application that is dynamically linked and registered with the Shared Object Manager.
Shared library - A collection of routines and associated data that is shared between several clients and registered with the Shared Object Manager.
Static linker - The program used to perform the last stage (usually) of generating an executable or library at build time. Under RISC OS, it is called ld and is part of GCC.
Dynamic loader - A special shared library that can dynamically link itself before doing the same to the client and the libraries the client requires.
Dynamic linking - The process by which symbols in a library are connected to another library or executable at runtime.
Object - A client or shared library.
Public R/W segment - The global data used by a library. It is part of the library, but partitioned off into a separate section. This data is never used directly by an object. Instead it is used to initialise a client's own private copy when ever required.
Private R/W segment - A section of memory created at runtime which is copied from a library's public R/W segment. Each client has its own copy of the global data for every library it uses.
PLT (Procedure Linkage Table) - A table of code entries, one for each dynamically linked function used by an object. The first entry always calls the dynamic resolver.
GOT (Global Offset Table) - A table of values that allow shared code to access global data.
Dynamic Resolver - A routine contained within the dynamic loader that is responsible for dynamically linking functions at runtime when they are first called.
Technical details
A technical view of the shared library system may be found in docs.Technical in !SharedLibs - see the latest version from SVN.


text:
Sometimes when I feel like making myself uncomfortable over my own buried prejudice, I head over to Harvard's Project Implicit to take some of their bias tests. Turns out, I have a slight anti-fat bias, which is fucked, because I'm fat. But it's better to know, and to work on this shit, than to not — right? That's what I tell myself.
You can also take implicit association tests to figure out how bad your unconscious biases is about gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and more. It's a veritable smörgåsbord of things people are conflicted about because, well, society.
But how do you overcome the biases that we all have? Ones that exist because they were taught to us early, and then reinforced daily in many small and large ways through cultural codes. Because even though I work hard on body acceptance, and even though I know fat people are exactly the same as thin people (except fatter!), there's still something in me that views fat as bad. I don't like it, and I want to work on it.
In this snippet from Andrew Sullivan, Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard, the co-author of the new book Blindspot and an expert on these hidden biases, speaks with Tamar Gendler of Yale about how to best rid ourselves of these biases. It sounds fairly simple, which is good, because WORK UGH AM I RIGHT?
Turns out that if people are faced more with counter-stereotype images and assumptions — "the opposite of the one the culture typically pushes us towards" — it can greatly affect their thinking. Asking people to think about the other person in a positive way doesn't work, but interventions that relied on giving counter examples ended up producing large shifts.
Apple MacBook Air Laptop
Powerful performance
The M1 chip delivers 3.5x faster performance than the previous generation all while using way less power. Get up to 18 hours of battery life.
Banaji mentions how she built a screensaver that had counter-stereotype images in it — including a New Yorker cover with a construction worker woman in a hard hat breastfeeding her baby. The hope is that seeing enough images like this will make her more open, and that when a young woman comes into her office with a great idea, she'll be more inclined to not judge the woman for her youthful voice, dress, whatever, and instead be able to focus on the woman's ideas.
In other words, she can learn to treat the young woman in a respectful, thoughtful way that's usually reserved for able-bodied white men in our culture. You know, normal people.
This is something we've heard before — repeatedly seeing diverse bodies makes us more comfortable with diverse bodies — and it makes sense. The more you encounter something, the less weirded out you are by it. It becomes just another, "OK, that's a thing," instead of it being good or bad.
We all have unconscious biases, and it's exciting to think that with some conscious effort, we can change.
Weirdly, for me, forcing myself to look at my reflection in a full-length mirror — clothed or naked, I mix it up! — has helped, as well. It's probably the same thing as the counter example, because I'll often do most anything to avoid looking at a mirror. That's an issue because when I don't look at me, it's always a bit shocking to see what I look like in photos. That has to at least be part of the reason people cry in weight loss commercials about how they didn't know how fat they were until they saw a photo.
Perhaps it's because they just never looked at yourself in the mirror, and appreciated what your body looks like? Looking at myself, and other fat women, takes the shock away, and I just begin to see my body for what it is — a body. No, I don't look like most people on TV (that aren't "before" pictures), but I'm teaching myself that's not a bad thing.
Not to get too trite about it, but my body is good. It can breathe, and laugh, and solve problems. It can play the drums (poorly), hug my dogs, and walk up flights of stairs. My body is lucky and (for lack of a better word) privileged in so many ways, and I'm thankful. It's fat and it's good.
Now, I'm off to look at some fatshion blogs, do some naked jumping jacks in front of a mirror, and then take that damn test again.


text:
During his first visit to the facilities of the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) in Tuzla today, the US Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, H.E. Charles L. English said that the work of ICMP is critical to the process of justice and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as other parts of the region affected by the conflicts of the 1990's.
Accompanied by ICMP Director-General, Kathryne Bomberger, the ambassador visited ICMP's center where all blood reference samples are collected by ICMP from relatives of the missing and all bone samples received from government authorities are processed. After being bar coded they are sent to ICMP laboratories in Sarajevo and Banja Luka for DNA analysis. Once extracted, the DNA profiles are entered into ICMP's database and matched. The ambassador also visited the Podrinje Identification Project (PIP), which was specifically created to assist in the identification of persons missing from the 1995 fall of Srebrenica.
"It is my somber privilege to be here to see first hand the important work being done by the International Commission on Missing Persons. I use the term somber, because such a Commission should never have to exist. But the horrors of the 1992-1995 war here have necessitated its existence. I commend the Commission on their outstanding efforts to provide closure to the families of all the victims," English said following his visit to ICMP's Identification Coordination Division (ICD) in Tuzla. "For families, the value of finally knowing the fate of their relatives, no matter how painful, is immensely important".
"Without the initiative and foresight of the US Government, there would be no ICMP today. ICMP is an international commission that was created at the behest of the US Government in 1996 and we are grateful to the United States for the immense financial and political support it has provided to ICMP since the beginning of its work. Without their continued support, as well as the support of other ICMP donor countries, our work would be impossible", Bomberger said.
ICMP assists governments in the process of locating, recovering and identifying missing persons through the use of forensic archaeology, anthropology and DNA science. ICMP made its first DNA match on November 16, 2001 and till today over 13,000 different individuals were identified, of which over 10,000 are from Bosnia and Herzegovina and over 5,000 from the 1995 fall of Srebrenica. ICMP provides policy assistance to governments in the establishment of appropriate laws and mechanisms to address the missing persons issue and it strengthens the ability of civil society groups and family members of victims to engage in this important humanitarian and human rights issue.
The work of ICMP is supported by the Governments of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Switzerland, Greece, Germany, the Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. The C.S. Mott Foundation provides funding to ICMP for the "Paths to Reconciliation" project.


text:
Whether you're interested in developing a workable spending and savings plan, getting out of debt, taking a look at your credit report, buying a home, or planning for your financial future,
Space City Credit Union
wants to help. That's why we've provided access to free and confidential financial counseling and education through BALANCE.
Copyright © 2009 BALANCE


text:
Related Posts
- "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master." – Commisioner Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri (game from Firaxis)
- "The best of dreams can be just as painful as the worst of nightmares as they remind you of what is lacking in your own reality." – Unknown
- If you don't start working on your dreams now, very soon someone will hire you to work on theirs.
- "Don't you find it odd," she continued, "that when you're a kid, everyone, all the world, encourages you to follow your dreams. But when you're older, somehow they act offended if you even try." – Ethan Hawke, The Hottest State.
- "I'm sick of following my dreams…" -Mitch Hedberg OC


text:
October 14, 2013
Muslim families in Montgomery County are pushing to make the Islamic holy day Eid al-Adha a full-fledged school holiday.
Muslim leaders have started a petition in recent weeks and have won support from some elected leaders and religious groups. Montgomery County has a growing Islamic population, though there are no county or census figures on the Muslim community.
This year, the Eid al-Adha holiday falls on Tuesday. Some families plan to keep their children home from school, even though they will miss classes and sporting events. But they point out that school is closed for Christmas, Good Friday, Easter and for the Jewish holidays Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
"It's like we don't feel equal to other people who get their holidays off," said Hannah Sharim, 14, who is a sophomore at Northwest High School in Germantown.
Former state legislator and co-chair of the new Equality for Eid Coalition Saqib Ali said this is a civil rights issue.
School officials said they give excused absences to students who are absent for religious holidays but that they can't legally close schools for religious reasons. They said granting a day off requires a secular reason, such as minimizing the impact on instruction because of high absenteeism rates on a holiday.
The school board asked staff to examine attendance on Muslim holidays last year, but the numbers showed little impact on attendance.
In the 1970s, Montgomery schools began giving students the day off for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah.
"Our understanding is that decision was made for operational reasons," schools spokeswoman Dana Tofig said.
Muslim leaders object to the county's focus on absenteeism to justify an official day off. Some families have often sent their children to school on the religious holiday so that they wouldn't miss instructional time. But leaders said Christian and Jewish holidays haven't been under the same scrutiny.
"We think it's not right when there are different standards for different people," Ali said.
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/muslim-families-push-montgomery-county-for-school-holiday-to-mark-eid-al-adha/2013/10/14/82d971cc-34d8-11e3-89db-8002ba99b894_story.html