Thursday, February 28, 2013

FOXNews.com: Yahoo's Mayer is like a controlling parent who does not trust her children

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Yahoo's Mayer is like a controlling parent who does not trust her children
Feb 28th 2013, 19:26

Yahoo! Chief Executive Officer Marissa Mayer's decision to end her company's "working from home" policy sounds like a controlling parent who does not trust her children to do their homework. 

This unfortunate decision primarily and negatively impacts working moms and dads who need the flexibility to manage and balance their work and home lives. Mayer, a young mom at the helm of the digital tech giant, built a nursery for her child in the office (which she paid for with her own money) yet is all for limiting childcare options for other working parents.

Many of Mayer's employees don't have her resources. Along with her office nursery, Mayer can easily afford full-time help to raise her child. A "no work from home" policy adds unnecessary stress and creates negative morale among Yahoo employees, especially for working moms and dads who are juggling their schedules and balancing their work and family life.

Sure, Mayer needs to eliminate abuses in the system. If employees are irresponsible and not completing their tasks, then she should make changes, cut costs, and get rid of 'unproductive' staff; especially since she is desperately trying to turn Yahoo's fortunes around. 

To do that Mayer should make workers accountable for their results and cut the "fat," but not punish those workers who rely on the work from home policy. Her changes seem outdated, extreme and not responsive to the realities of today's families and workplace.

Yahoo is one of the most sophisticated technology companies in the world and by now should have figured out how to use its resources efficiently and effectively. Nowadays businesses across the country depend on iPads, iPhones (thank you Steve Jobs) and Blackberries to be more productive and get work done in a timely fashion.

Mayer wants to build "one" Yahoo by encouraging her workers to spend time together. Building work relationships are important, but her uncompromising approach actually hurts them in the long term. A better solution would have been to cut down on telecommuting and request that individuals go into office meetings certain times a week.

Eliminating the work from home policy altogether leaves little room for parents to have a flexible schedule. Some people work best in the early morning or late at night after the children go to bed. In fact, 80 percent of Americans continue working after they leave the office. Many times creative ideas come in the middle of the night or in one's garage. Just ask Bill Gates.

Mayer's drastic approach may help cut "the excess fat" in the company, but along the way she will be sacrificing talented and creative women and men who may need the flexibility to be successful both at home and at work. 

One lesson I've learned is that a happy home leads to a productive work life. If the children and spouse are unhappy, then that employee can't concentrate at work, especially if they're chained to their desk for eight hours or more.

Working moms across the country were thrilled when Mayer became the youngest woman CEO in the country. However, her recent action is incredibly disappointing and backwards. 

As a young mom herself, she would be greatly admired if she could find ways to support her employees instead of treating them like irresponsible children. Working moms and dads have enough stress managing their lives and don't need a controlling boss to make their work environment intolerable.

Yahoo executives believe in the power of the laptop as long as it is chained to their employees' cubicle in corporate headquarters. I suppose it would drive Mayer nuts to know that I'm writing this post from my kitchen table and will make deadline even after I changed the baby's diaper and prepared lunch.

Mercedes V. Schlapp is a mother of 5 daughters and co-founder of Cove Strategies.  She was Director of Specialty Media at the White House under President George W. Bush.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Marissa Mayer deserves a break from seriously stupid media coverage

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Marissa Mayer deserves a break from seriously stupid media coverage
Feb 28th 2013, 19:00

Yahoo! has a new CEO named Marissa Mayer. She just had a baby. She was criticized during her pregnancy for how she would or would not take maternity leave. Basically everything the lady does appears to be criticized.

But the newest media outrage is perhaps the stupidest, most selfish bottom feeding outrage the media can muster.

Marissa Mayer has decided that employees can no longer telecommute. They must get into a Yahoo! office.

How dare she. The outrageous reporting is both entirely predictable and easily would be the stupidest media coverage in American today except for all the leftwing reporters under 50 attacking Bob Woodward for daring to criticize their idol. That story is like Elijah versus the cult of Baal and I don't even care for Woodward. But I digress . . .

In many of the stories about Yahoo! — at the Atlanta Airport today CNN was running one — outraged women everywhere were attacking this new mother for disrupting their lives.

After all, telecommuting works at Google. Heck, it works at RedState. I live and work in Georgia and my office is in Washington.

But what the stories are either ignoring or downplaying is that Yahoo! is a struggling, failing, flailing company. Perhaps we should give Marissa Mayer the benefit of the doubt that the status quo is not working and maybe the media might want to ponder whether Yahoo! has determined that telecommuting, as done at Yahoo!, is not working.

Telecommuting can work if there's a strong team and culture at a company. Given the turn over at Yahoo! no one could say that about the company for now.

But instead the media will pump out the outrage over a business decision.

Perhaps all the people outraged over the outrageousness of a business making a decision to improve itself might consider that perhaps Yahoo! decided it would rather have employees come into offices, renew relationship, and foster new team building instead of firing everyone and going out of business.

Would you rather work in an office or see the company sink? Maybe what works at other places isn't working at Yahoo! and maybe, just maybe, we should give the lady who saved Flickr a chance to prove she's right. Piers Morgan is going to discuss this tonight from what I hear. I hope he is willing to raise this angle.

This article originally appeared on Red State

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama is the closest thing to Nixon we've seen in 40 years

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Obama is the closest thing to Nixon we've seen in 40 years
Feb 28th 2013, 20:30

It is not without a bit of irony that, in the 40 years since the explosion of the Watergate story, Bob Woodward would again be under attack from the White House for trying to tell the truth. But this time the attack is coming from a Democrat. 

While Barack Obama may not share the Nixon pedigree, he and his White House are the closest thing to the Nixon regime of any that we have seen since then -- both in the extent of their paranoia and their willingness to suppress the truth and push the boundaries of law.

In my lifetime, in over 40 years in national politics, Mr. Obama is the only president who comes close to rivaling Richard Nixon for fundamental disingenuousness.

In my lifetime, Barack Obama is the only president who comes close to rivaling Richard Nixon for fundamental disingenuousness.

However, some things never change, just as Woodward and Bernstein were attacked then by the establishment mainstream media for daring to question a president -- or do a story that they wouldn't touch -- they are once again attacking Woodward the way they did when he and  Carl Bernstein pursed Watergate.

As the youngest person on Nixon's enemies list in 1972, I am particularly sensitive to a White House where they have utter disregard for trampling on dissent and on the rights of individuals.

Since Benghazi, when I raised the alarm about a media that was not only willing to blatantly support one political party or one political a candidate but for the first time seemed willing to suppress or ignore the facts and truth as related to a disaster of American foreign policy, my fear has been that we are now on a slippery slope. Almost everything since then has helped to realize that fear. Chuck Hagel, the sequester, Mr. Obama's speeches -- all of these have revealed a mainstream press that has absolutely decided to wear its bias openly as outriders of the Obama administration. Except for one issue -- when the president refused to allow reporters to cover him and Tiger Woods playing golf together. Now that's something they can get riled up about.

What this Woodward, White House sequester battle highlights is the crisis in our democracy. Not so much for what it says about Mr. Obama and his administration but for what it says about the establishment press and all the members of my own party.

During Watergate, there were a number of Republicans who were willing to stand against the president of their party in defense of the United States of America.

Sadly, as as Democrat, I must confess, that today there is no Democratic Senator or member of the House who appears to be willing to publicly put the country ahead of Barack Obama's White House.

As important as these other issues are, however, nothing rivals Benghazi. 

During the Chuck Hagel confirmation fight, it was revealed that to this day, neither the public nor the Congress know the names of those who were evacuated out of Benghazi. Nor have we ever seen the transcripts of the interviews which were conducted immediately after the event.

The White House's excuse, that this information cannot be revealed because of an FBI investigation, is eerily and frighteningly similar to Nixon telling H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman to "turn off" the Watergate investigation as it threatened national security.

Sadly, it now appears that Director Mueller and the FBI are willing to serve, once again, as an instrument of cover up for an administration -- this time following a tragedy in which 4 Americans are now dead.

As much as I have always admired Bob Woodward and admire now him in the sequester fight and for his willingness to take on the White House, I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment that this man, who did such a service for the country 40 years ago, has essentially taken himself off the boards of the Benghazi fiasco. I wish that if Woodward were to get in a fight, he would do it on an issue that really matters to the safety of the United States.

Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for  President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of "Campaign Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on "FoxNews.com Live."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: The new Grenada -- an island paradise and astonishing medical research hub

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
The new Grenada -- an island paradise and astonishing medical research hub
Feb 28th 2013, 14:00

St. George's, Grenada –  Many Americans may know about the Caribbean island of Grenada only if they remember the 1983 US military operation, when American armed forces expelled a Cuban communist force and secured the safety of several hundred American medical students.  

That successful mission was, indeed, a great moment for the Reagan administration, and the people of Grenada remember it well.  Right in the middle of the medical-school campus, there's a memorial to the 19 Americans who gave their lives in Operation Urgent Fury.   

In fact, the 30th anniversary of Urgent Fury is coming up this October 23, and the islanders are planning a commemoration.  

Perhaps Grenada's most unique feature is its medical school, which has grown from a few hundred students thirty years ago to some 4,000 students today, from 140 countries.

Yet Grenada is much more than the site of a Cold War incident; Grenada is an English-speaking, independent island nation of some 108,000.  Indeed, this visitor can attest that many Grenadines are Fox Fans.  

Grenada has all that one would expect from a tropical vacation destination; the waters are bright blue, the beaches are pristine, the cliffs are spectacularly steep, and the hilly land is a lush and verdant green. And yet perhaps the most unique feature of the island is the medical school, which has grown from a few hundred students thirty years ago to some 4,000 students today, from 140 countries.

Indeed, under the leadership of its founder, Chancellor Charles Modica, St. George's University  has expanded to include four different schools--medicine, veterinary medicine, arts and sciences, and a graduate student program; the sprawling $250 million campus is the largest employer on the island.  While some  foreign medical schools have gotten a bad rap for their academics, St. George's proudly points out that its students actually outscored US and Canadian students in the 2011 US Medical Licensing Exam.   

In fact, in 2011 and 2012, St. George's University placed more doctors into first-year US residency positions than any other medical school in the world; some 11,000 St. George's-trained doctors are currently practicing in the US.  At a time when doctor shortages are looming in the US, this is, for sure, good news.  

Yet St. George's is also a resource to the world.  Since Grenada is closer to South America than North America, and relatively closer to Africa, St. George's has made the most of its global-south-oriented location; the school has a major academic partnership, for example, with the African nation of Botswana.  

Moreover, many of St. George's faculty and alumni are involved in medical missions.  One alumni medical missionary is Dr. Chauncey Crandall, a cardiologist in affluent Palm Beach, FL--and yet through the Chadwick Foundation, created in honor of his late son, Dr. Crandall serves the medical and spiritual needs of the poorest of the poor in Haiti, Africa, and Latin America.  

Meanwhile, St. George's itself has carved out a niche in the study of tropical diseases.   In Grenada and much of the Caribbean, a significant percentage of the population is infected with Human T-Lymphotropic Virus type I. In most people, HTLV-1 is asymptomatic, the virus just going along for the ride.  But in some cases, HTLV-1 nestles in the spinal cord and causes progressive loss of motor control in the legs, affecting other bodily functions as well.  HTLV-1 is also extensive, we might note, in parts of North and South America, as well as Africa, the Middle East, the Philippines, and even Japan.

HTLV-1 is, in fact, a kind of virological cousin to the dreaded HIV/AIDS, and so as part of its ongoing research efforts, St. George's invited Dr. Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of the HIV/AIDS virus back in the 80s, to speak at the school on February 12.   

Gallo addressed some 1,000 students and members of the St. George's community, surveying recent epidemiological history.  He recalled that the 20th century witnessed three great epidemics, all due to viruses, or more precisely, retroviruses

The first great epidemic was the Spanish Flu of 1918-1920, which killed at least 50 million people around the world.  As with all epidemics, it burned itself out, but not before killing five times as many people as died in World War One.

The second epidemic was polio, which afflicted millions in the 40s and 50s.  Happily, thanks to the Salk Vaccine, introduced in 1955, polio has been all but eliminated in the US, and mostly snuffed out around the world.   

The third epidemic was HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, which, when it developed into AIDS, has killed some 30 million.  Yet thanks to the vision of Gallo and others, treatments for  HIV/AIDS have been created that saved many millions of lives--although, even so, in 2011, the disease killed 20,000 Americans and another 1.7 million around the world.   

Thus the clear lesson: It's infinitely better to thwart an epidemic, as in the case of polio and HIV, than simply to let it run its course.  

In an interview after his speech, Gallo marveled at the intensity and diversity of the students, as they thronged around him afterward, politely pressing him with their detailed follow-up questions; many of the students, of course, come from countries devastated by AIDS.  Gallo summed up his experience in these crisp words: "The campus here is beautiful, the people are kind, and the students are on fire."

Gallo himself has had an interesting life story.  As a child growing up in Connecticut, he watched his sister die of leukemia, and that tragic witness inspired him to go to medical school, then to work at the National Cancer Institute in the 1960s. There he helped pioneer a scientific paradigm shift--the realization that many kinds of cancer are caused by viruses.  

Moreover, Gallo points to evidence that many other illnesses--from arthritis to autism to bi-polarity to diabetes--could have a viral component.  That is, viral infection at an early age could have a slow, persistent, and cumulative effect on the body.  And virus nexus could be the story, too, of many different kinds of auto-immune diseases, from gluten intolerance to lupus to muscular sclerosis.  As a result of this understanding, in 1996, Gallo created the Institute for Human Virology, a part of the University of Maryland, to further life-improving, and life-saving, research.

Meanwhile, in the US, the once-robust system of medical research and development, which made it possible to develop the polio vaccine and effective treatments for HIV-AIDS, seems to be breaking down.  And that breakdown, we must observe, not only puts America at risk, but also the world.

A case in point is the current fiasco of the latest flu vaccine.  As the Associated Press observed  
on February 21, "It turns out this year's flu shot is doing a startlingly dismal job of protecting older people, the most vulnerable age group."  According to the Centers for Disease Control, the vaccine is proving only nine percent effective in those 65 and older.    

Indeed, the overall "pipeline" of new medicines and new medical devices is drying up. A look at page eight of a US Food and Drug Administration document reveals the fall-off in new medicines approved by the FDA, and the same sort of fall-off is seen in new medical devices as well.  

We might pause here to note that the problem is far larger than just an overly restrictive FDA.  For decades, the life-sciences industry has been besieged by an innovation-killing alliance of regulators, trial lawyers, and price-controllers, and the problem portends to get only worse--that is, if the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, puts further downward pressure on medical investment and entrepreneurship.  

The idea of restraining health care cost-inflation is meritorious, to be sure, but the issue is the means, the "how."  Health care history tells us that simple rote price controls can squelch innovation--and yet such controls don't stop people from getting sick.  And if people get sick, that's expensive, no matter what the regulations might say.    

Today, for example, Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a $200 billion-a-year hit on the US economy, and rising fast--and there is no effective treatment whatsoever.  In other words, all that AD expenditure goes to what can be deemed as "futile care."  Such care might be a humanitarian necessity, of course, but it's not going to make people better.  

Indeed, in the absence of an AD cure, such expenditures will go on forever.  And yet at the same time, price controls on the chronic care of AD victims will be unpopular and thus perhaps impossible to impose.  

So what's left, then, for the Independent Payment Advisory Board to cut? Perversely, the real impact of IPAB will be to stymie AD research, because research is speculative and future-oriented, and thus it lacks a strong here-and-now constituency, such as nursing homes full of patients, all of whom will vote in the next election.   

So it's easy to see IPAB squeezing down on future pharmaceutical revenues, while not touching nursing-home expenses.  Such a compromise adaptation might be politically necessary, but from the point of view of America's long-term health strategy, it would be catastrophic.  The long term goal should be to cure AD, and that takes research, not more bedpan-changers.   

An even more acute instance is antibiotics, which have also been squeezed by the same forces of regulation, litigation, and price-restriction.  If we don't have new antibiotics, we will indeed spend less on antibiotics--but then we will spend more on the illnesses that antibiotics no longer cure.  

As USA Today reported in November, "Deadly CRE [Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae] bacteria are showing up in hospitals and other health care facilities across the country and there is virtually nothing to stop these 'superbugs' at this point."  And CBS News adds that superbugs--the best known of which is MRSA--are implicated in many of the 99,000 deaths, and 1.7 million infections, that occur in hospitals every year.  

The problem is that medical sciences's evolution has not kept up keep up with bacterial evolution.  Indeed, as page two of this chart shows, the number of new antibiotics coming on to the market has collapsed, even as the "superbug" plague has worsened.  Again, while it costs money to create new antibiotics, it costs more money to treat illness.  And it costs even more when productive lives are lost.  

So what can be done?  How can we restart our medical pipeline of effective treatments and cures?   In Washington, it's possible to see a new bipartisan consensus emerging on behalf of more medical research, based on the reality that it's the only smart and sustainable way to drive down future medical costs.  After all, a cure is cheaper than care.

Just on February 19, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) published an op-ed in The Minneapolis Star-Tribune in which she declared:

"I'm proud to be known as one of the leading penny-pinchers in Congress, but investing in medical research to find cures, or even postponing the onset of diseases, will provide dramatic savings in the long term — not to mention incredible quality-of-life benefits."

Here in America, we can hope that such wisdom gets policymakers thinking about saving money by saving lives. It's smart, it's humane--and it's also the best way actually to save money on serious illness.   

Yet in the meantime, here in St. George's, the founding chancellor of this expanding school, Charles Modica, has some further big ideas.  

Modica figures that since he managed to start up a medical school out of nothing, creating medical-education benefits for the world, then maybe he could manage the same for medical research and development.  That is, extend the entrepreneurial vision of St. George's and Grenada to the actual creation of better treatments and cures--to take yet another step in the worldwide advancement of medicine. Moreover, as he puts, it Grenada could be a medical "free trade zone," sort of like a Hong Kong for health care.

That is, if the US is throttling its cure pipeline, then maybe Grenada could start another cure pipeline, on its own sovereign territory, where it could set its own rules. "Grenada is a small island, 21 miles long, 7 miles wide--and so we're nimble."

Modica has no intention of cutting corners; his plan is to make his medical R&D effort totally transparent to local and international observers.  Indeed, the more ethically transparent his effort is, the better, because he needs international investment, as well as talent.  Both big money, and big brains, are called for.  

Yet if Modica can succeed in this new effort, the whole world will be a winner, as well as the people of Grenada.  And who knows: Maybe the US will be reminded that it, too, has the capacity to prosper by making cures.  If that happens, then the whole world will be able to look forward to healthier, and wealthier, 21st century.  

James P. Pinkerton is a writer and Fox News contributor. He is the editor/founder of the Serious Medicine Strategy blog.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: 'An asteroid headed to earth!' -- what Obama and the media are missing in sequester drama

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
'An asteroid headed to earth!' -- what Obama and the media are missing in sequester drama
Feb 28th 2013, 17:49

President Obama warns that if Congress allows automatic budget cuts known as the "sequester" to happen:

"Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off... tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care... Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, causing delays!"

The media is hysterical, too.

"Watch out! Like the asteroid headed to earth, they're coming -- $86 billion in automatic budget cuts," CNN anchor Carol Costello warned.

For once, some parts of government might face a real cut. But it's not a big cut -- entrepreneurs have to make cuts like that all the time.

It sounds like politicians finally got serious. But they haven't. Here is a chart -- based on this new CBO report - showing what happens to government spending with and without the sequester:

There's hardly any difference! Spending will still rise to a ruinous $4.5 trillion (vs. 4.6 trillion without the sequester).

It is true that some parts of government would be cut. The sequester would come almost entirely from discretionary spending.

Discretionary spending, after adjusting for inflation, would fall about 7% in 2013 and then another 5% in 2014, before holding steady. 

Good! 

For once, some parts of government might face a real cut. But it's not a big cut -- entrepreneurs have to make cuts like that all the time.

The sequester is a start. But to save America, we need to address the biggest unsustainable programs: Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: The truth about assault weapons bans and background checks

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
The truth about assault weapons bans and background checks
Feb 28th 2013, 15:50

With Senate Judiciary Committee meeting this week, it's likely that new gun control bills will be drafted very quickly. There are in essence two parts to the bills: the part that deals with the  "assault weapon ban" and the part that deals with "universal background checks." The first one faces long odds of passage, but the second might well pass.

Democrats will undoubtedly push for an assault weapons ban. The ban has become a central tenant of the Democratic party, with Obama's calls and even Michelle Obama claiming crimes are being committed with "automatic weapons." Senator Dianne Feinstein is pushing hard to reinstitute the earlier assault weapon ban, which she had originally enacted in 1994.

Proponents of an "Assault Weapons Ban" often argue their point by posing the question: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?"

From 1994 to 2004, we banned both so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. But the ban simply did not do any good. 

They obviously imply that the weapon must be a military weapon not designed for hunting. But they are simply plain mistaken. It has just been made to look like a military weapon. The semiautomatic Bushmaster functions identically to a small game hunting rifle. Indeed, the caliber of bullet it fires is too small to be used legally to hunt deer in most states.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun, not a machine gun, like those used in the military. One pull of the trigger releases one bullet. With a machine gun (or automatic), one pull of the trigger releases many bullets.

Generally, people need semi-automatic guns for self-defense. As Vice President Joe Biden's recent gaffe about recommending people fire two warning shots from a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun so amply illustrates. The recoil from such a shotgun may be too much for a smaller person. I know of seven cases during just this past December where at least ten shots were fired defensively. They involved instances where 2, 3, or even 4 criminals had broken into people's homes.

The assault weapon ban also faces one very big obstacle. We have been there, done that. From 1994 to 2004, we banned both so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. The ban was very similar to what is proposed now, with guns banned because they looked like military weapons or had rather arbitrary, cosmetic criteria.

But the ban simply did not do any good. 

Despite plenty of studies by criminologists and economists, none of the academic criminologists or economists who have studied this have found any benefits from the law. One of the studies was even funded by the Clinton administration. Yet, this study too concluded: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)." 

Seven years later, in 2004, the authors of that report (Chris Koper and Jeff Roth) published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice together with a fellow criminologist (Dan Woods). Yet again, they could not discern any benefit: "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

The old ban banned semi-automatic guns purely based on their looks or whether they contained two or more features such as bayonet mount, folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher fittings. The new rules list 157 banned guns by name because of their looks and would ban other guns if they have just one of those features.

Yet, these minor differences have already been tried by states such as California and Connecticut, and, again, neither criminologists nor economists have found any benefits from these state level laws either.

What is so maddening here is that the proposals are trying to split semi-automatics into two groups: the "bad" ones and the "good" ones, but there is no sensible criteria used to distinguish the two. While Democrats know that there is absolutely no chance of passing a law that will ban all semi-automatics, they want to appear as if they are "doing something" by trying to ban some of them.

As for the second part of gun control measures, expanded background checks, the likelihood of passage is stronger, but the case for expanded checks is weak. Again, research by others as well as my own keeps failing to find that background checks lower crime rates.

Possibly that isn't really too surprising. Background checks are just one way of stopping criminals from getting guns and even more extreme methods have failed. Even when guns were banned in Washington and Chicago or even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland and Jamaica, criminals still got guns and murder rates rose after the bans.

To make their case in favor of expanded background checks, impressive numbers have been repeated over and over again. President Obama claims "40% of guns are purchased without a background check" and that background checks have "blocked 1.7 million prohibited individuals from buying a gun."

Both claims are simply false.

The 40% number is actually 36%, and refers to transfers, not sales. It would only be accurate if family inheritances and gifts were reclassified as "purchases." 

The 36% number was based on a small survey from 1991 to 1994, most of which came before the Brady Act took effect on Feb. 28 1994, with the act introducing the requirement that all federally-licensed dealers perform checks.

Similarly, the supposedly 1.7 million prohibited individuals prevented from buying a gun make no sense whatsoever. What we have is 1.7 million "initial denials." Again, it is a big difference.

Truth is, these government databases are rife with flaws. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the anti-terror "no fly" list? By Obama's method of counting, that means the "no fly" list stopped five flights by terrorists. 

Hardly.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of those "initial denials" after preliminary reviews. Further review found that at least a fifth of the other 6 percent were also wrongly stopped from buying guns.

The current flaws in the background-check system may be an inconvenience for many, but for some it means dangerous delays. Some people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-spouse or companion will find themselves defenseless.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of these laws can cost lives. Talking about only the benefits of more laws and not their costs isn't going to make anyone safer.

John R. Lott, Jr., writes frequently for FoxNews.com. An economist and former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, he is also a leading expert on guns. He is the author of several books, including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge? (Regnery Publishing 2013)." Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama's false alarms

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Obama's false alarms
Feb 28th 2013, 10:00

In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of "sequester" in late 2011.

His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board -- on domestic and military spending. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. They did so either because they lacked the political fortitude and the political will to designate specifically the unconstitutional and pork barrel federal spending projects to be cut, or because they thought that with the debt of the federal government then approaching $15 trillion (it is now $16.6 trillion and growing), any reductions in spending money the government doesn't have are preferred to no reductions. So, instead of enacting a budget, and instead of recognizing that much of its spending is simply not authorized by the Constitution, Congress enacted the so-called sequester legislation, and the president signed it into law.

The good thing about these sequesters is that they will force the president to prioritize.

The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Congress does not feel bound to obey the laws it has written; hence it has disregarded the legal requirement of a budget. Without a budget, the president has great leeway as to how to allocate funds within each department of the executive branch of the federal government.

Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending. The reductions amount to about two cents for every planned dollar of increased spending for every federal department.

The question remains: What part of each federal department (Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, etc.) will suffer these reduced increases? Here is where this sequester experiment gets dicey.

The president -- who once championed the idea of sequesters and even threatened to veto any congressional effort to dismantle them -- now has decided he can't live without that additional 2 percent to spend. So, he has gone about the country trying to scare the daylights out of people: Prisoners will be released from federal prisons, soldiers won't have enough bullets in their weapons, we will need to endure five-hour waiting lines at the airports, Social Security checks will be late, and similar nonsense.

If the fears Obama predicts do come to pass, we will have only him to blame. Remember, the sequesters only cut planned increases in spending. Suppose the president planned to hire 100 more soldiers for the Army and agents for the TSA and air traffic controllers for the FAA. Is the president required to hire only 98 of them? Well, under the law, he has a choice. He can hire all 100 and cut back elsewhere, or he can make do on 98 percent of what he has determined are the government's additional needs. But he cannot just intentionally release prisoners or weaken the military or inflict maddening delays on the flying public in order to make his fearful warnings come to pass.

His job is to uphold the Constitution, to make the executive branch of the federal government work. The president has taken an oath to "faithfully execute" his office. The words of the oath are prescribed in the Constitution. The word "faithfully" requires him to enforce the laws whether or not he agrees with them. It also requires him to enforce the laws in such a manner that they make sense -- so that the federal government basically performs the services we have grown to expect of it.

I know, we have grown to expect more of the federal government than the Founders dreamed, and far more than we can possibly pay for, and infinitely more than the Constitution authorizes. But that's the good thing about these sequesters: They will force the president to prioritize.

If he prioritizes so that we stay free and safe, so that the government does what we basically have paid it to do, he'll be doing his job and saving us a tiny bit of cash. But if the president enforces the laws so that they hurt rather than work well just so he can say "I told you so" rather than "I'll work with you," then he will be inviting his own political misery or even his own impeachment. And we will have sunk deeper into the abyss of fear, division and red ink that already engulfs us.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: President Obama's accelerating abandonment of principle

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
President Obama's accelerating abandonment of principle
Feb 27th 2013, 19:40

How ironic is the recent news that President Obama engages in crony capitalism and that he doesn't always play by the rules? 

Our righteous president has often leveled such charges against America's corporate leaders, suggesting they skirt the law of the land, and that the playing field is not level for ordinary people. How disappointing then to find a pattern of favoritism and hypocrisy emerging from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The most recent revelation concerns health insurance exec Sara Horowitz, who recently won a tax-free $340 million federal loan to set up insurance co-ops in three states as part of the ObamaCare program. This, despite the fact that her company, Freelancers Insurance, has earned distinction as the "worst" insurer two years in a row in her home state of New York and that the firm has been pummeled with unusually high consumer complaints. 

President Obama's "do what I say not what I do" tendency threatens his credibility.

Why would such a dismal performance find favor with the feds? Maybe because Ms. Horowitz and President Obama go way back – back to before the latter was a player on the national scene. Back to when she and Obama together launched liberal think tank Demos along with George Soros, jointly joined that outfit's board, and before Obama's caretakers managed to get the record of that alliance scrubbed from Demos' website. Ms. Horowitz and Mr. Obama are long-time cronies.

This is perhaps small beans. But it is part of a "do what I say not what I do" tendency on the part of Mr. Obama that threatens his credibility. 

Consider the emergence of Organizing for Action (OFA), a super PAC in all but name that will lobby for the president's agenda using his former campaign staff and monies donated by rich supporters. Some $50 million is expected to be raised by the outfit, which will make it, according to the New York Times, one of the best funded lobbying groups in the country.

Nearly everything about this group, from its staffing by Obama apparatchiks to its tax-exempt status to its solicitation of funds from folks looking to become ambassadors, flies in the face of the president's former condemnation of such secretive influence-peddlers.

Because the group is being set up as a tax-exempt "social welfare group" it is, as the Times points out, not bound by rules that govern federal campaign limits or that preclude Obama aides from raising money. The paper concludes that the new organization will "self-regulate." Just like hedge funds.

What does this mean? It means that the White House can solicit large gifts from private individuals and from corporations to help advance Mr. Obama's priorities, without having to play by campaign finance rules. 

Organizing for Action has already spent $500,000 funding rallies in support of gun control efforts and will doubtless bus supporters to applaud future appearances by Mr. Obama when he speaks out in favor of immigration control or climate change. This kind of thing happens in North Korea and Venezuela, where despots hire cheering audiences; I'm not aware that it has happened in the U.S. before.

OFA claims on its website that it will not engage in partisan politics, yet one of its first moves was to launch a costly national ad campaign targeting GOP lawmakers in support of gun control legislation. It is sailing, shall we say, close to the wind. So is President Obama.

The president has been especially critical of corporate fund-raising. Who can forget his unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court for its decision allowing corporate campaign donations in the Citizens United case? Obama 2.0 has no such qualms. Not only were corporations "invited" to fund the second inaugural party, they are also being solicited for OFA.

President Obama has switched ponies not only on financial matters. Contrary to his early criticism of Bush 43's alleged power grabs in the name of anti-terrorism, Obama's administration has invoked the so-called state secrets privilege to counter lawsuits over warrantless wiretapping – defenses political commentator and former cable news anchor Keith Olbermann called "radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used." 

The president's use of drones to kill American citizens, and refusal to turn over documents explaining the legal justification for such adventures, also echo Bush policies he once denounced.

While the president appears comfortable with his access to high-tech assassinations, he apparently doubts that successors will use those same powers for the best interests of the nation. It has emerged that in the months leading up to the election, the White House toiled over codifying presidential use of targeted drone killings, just in case he was not reelected.

Campaigner Obama accused President George Bush of exerting excessive authority to wage war; Obama's refusal to get authorization from Congress to intervene in Libya is thought by many to have been unconstitutional. 

In 2007 he also described Bush 43's use of executive orders as "an unacceptable abuse of power at home." This from the man who, because he is so inept at negotiating with Republicans and even Democrats in Congress, has spawned an increasing number of executive orders on issues ranging from cyber security to gun control to immigration policy. When Obama promised to "reach across the aisle," no one expected his reach to extend across both aisles.

Presidents react with frustration to the limits of their power. They also change course once in office. But President Obama's accelerating abandonment of principle is profound, and keenly disappointing.

Liz Peek is a writer who contributes frequently to FoxNews.com. She is a financial columnist who also writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter@LizPeek.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Will Obama and the Pentagon do the right thing when the sequester arrives?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Will Obama and the Pentagon do the right thing when the sequester arrives?
Feb 28th 2013, 12:30

The sequester—Washington's mindless across the board budget cuts—is here. The question is whether the president will unilaterally grant flexibility to federal agencies to apply a measure of common sense in cutting fat, not muscle.

The White House claims it has no authority to allow intelligent cuts in spending as long as there is a stalemate with Congress. Even though the president has already made a series of decisions to interpret the law as he sees fit and no one has stopped him. 

He has exempted military pay from sequestration, along with the entire Veterans Affairs department. He also decided that war spending is subject to the budget ax; but that aerospace and defense manufacturers needed not follow the law and issue layoff notices last fall...just before the election.

The question is not whether sequestration will hit, but whether President Obama will allow it to hit the right targets and whether the Pentagon will meet the challenge.

The problem is that these are not the first defense cuts under Barack Obama. In fact, the president has been reducing military capability, capacity and budgets since entering office while generously growing other federal domestic spending. 

In his first two years in office, the administration cut a combined $400 billion from defense plans and programs, leading to the cancellation of key weapons systems, including the F-22, the Army's Future Combat Systems, the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and nearly 50 other major programs. 

In 2012, the Pentagon was directed to reduce another $78 billion in unidentified efficiencies and the current budget requests absorbs tranche one of the debt ceiling deal, which contains roughly a half trillion in military spending cuts over the next decade.

Together, these military reductions total almost $1 trillion—and that's before sequestration.

Pentagon leaders have until now taken the easy way out by targeting two pots of money for the biggest hits: modernization and readiness: Modernization is the military's investment in the future, while readiness pays for a healthy force today. Worse, these cuts are not saving substantial sums of money. 

This constantly-delayed modernization is causing the costs of maintaining rapidly aging legacy fleets to balloon. This has accelerated a readiness crisis in the force as well as deployments that are unexpectedly lengthened for servicemembers, parts for equipment that are cannibalized, units not set to deploy or experience downgraded readiness and supplies, while breakdowns are more frequent and maintenance is degraded.

The Navy offers a glimpse of the problems facing all the armed forces. Last year, for example, equipment failure prevented a U.S. Navy ship from meeting a commitment at sea twice in seven months' time. In 2011, a full half of the Navy's aircraft were not combat ready, and nearly a quarter of the Navy's fleet failed the yearly inspection

Over the past five years, Navy inspections have found that a growing number of surface warships aren't ready to fight: The ships are in bad physical shape, carry broken equipment, insufficient spare parts, and can't even rely upon their advanced weapons and sensors.

America's military readiness crisis is not new, but it is new to the headlines. So, now what?

Pentagon leaders must stop targeting low-hanging fruit and cutting inefficiently. Instead, the sequester should force Obama's Pentagon to confront the primary drivers of imbalanced defense spending, including military and civilian bureaucratic overhead, excess infrastructure, and runaway compensation costs. It is no secret that these are areas in need of reform.

An emerging bipartisan consensus, including former Obama administration officials, acknowledges that the time for this change is overdue. But if the real problems are so widely recognized, why have leaders so far failed to achieve real change? The short answer is that they lack courage and commitment.

When trying to slash excess overhead and infrastructure, Pentagon leaders should aim to shrink the bureaucracy while preserving core military capabilities. To do this, they need to begin collecting better information internally. 

The Pentagon does not currently assess the most affordable mix of military, civilian and contractors in its employment. Next, the department must develop tools to effectively match supply and demand for internal labor in order to understand which jobs may be eliminated and which competencies need additional staffing.  Without these simple tools at its disposal, it is not surprising the Pentagon has thus far been unable to size the workforce correctly.

Similarly, efforts to close additional bases have been unsuccessful. The 2005 base closure round was so poorly handled that it poisoned the trust between the Hill and Pentagon. 

It is time for creative solutions. 

One proposal of note by a senior Air Force official, for example, is for the Pentagon to select installations for closure based on the community's interest in conversion and their ability to thrive in commercial redevelopment.

The sequester is law and will take effect Friday. In the face of continued defense cuts, Pentagon leaders face a stark choice: they can continue to do business as usual, raiding readiness and modernization or make the tougher but ultimately necessary step of addressing long-term challenges. Wholesale reform may not be easy, but it is the only responsible path forward. 

The question then, is not whether sequestration will hit, but whether Obama will allow it to hit the right targets and whether the Pentagon will meet the challenge.

Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). She has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress and at the Pentagon.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

FOXNews.com: ABC claims Michelle Obama's remarks about 'automatic weapons' cut for time

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
ABC claims Michelle Obama's remarks about 'automatic weapons' cut for time
Feb 27th 2013, 18:37

Editor's note: the following commentary originally appeared on the NewsBusters blog.

Tuesday ABC's "Good Morning America" edited out an inaccurate assertion by First Lady Michelle Obama that the gunman in a Chicago killing used an "automatic weapon."

Regarding the death of teenager Hadiya Pendelton, Mrs. Obama asserted, "And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn't need." This quote appeared online, but not in the February 26 interview with Robin Roberts that aired on the network.

The Chicago Tribune explained, "...a day after her homicide on Jan. 29, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the gunman possibly used a revolver because no bullet casings were found at the shooting scene — as there would be if a semi-automatic or automatic weapon had been used."

No ABC show on Tuesday or Wednesday offered an explanation as to why the network helpfully covered up for the first lady's error.

On "World News," a snippet of the interview was played, but only Mrs. Obama talking about when her teenage daughters might start dating.

"Nightline" skipped the interview completely.

On Wednesday, GMA made no mention of the controversy.

ABC did offer a statement to the website Mediaite: "The full story was posted to our website in advance of the interview being broadcast. The edits made to Robin's interview with the First Lady were made 'solely for time.'"

Such a statement laughably ignores the fact that GMA featured the first lady for two segments totaling eight and a half minutes. The second segment featured Mrs. Obama cooking. Yet, it was the seven (or so) seconds in which the first lady made a newsworthy gaffe that had to go?

The Washington Times's Emily Miller explained how ABC deceptively edited the segment:

The transcript of the interview, which was taped on Friday, February 22, shows that Mrs. Obama said this of Miss Pendleton (italics mine):

"She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn't need," she said. "I just don't want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first."

However, when the interview aired on "Good Morning America" on Tuesday, viewers heard the first lady said this:

"She was absolutely right. She did everything she was supposed to do. She was standing in a park, with her friends, in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. And she was caught in the line of fire. I just don't want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first."

ABC edited the response visually by using a cutaway in the middle of the answer of Ms. Roberts listening.

Instead of at least allowing viewers to see Obama's remarks, the GMA segment that aired focused on hyping her secret appearance at the Oscars as something "straight out of 'Argo.'" The eight and a half minute segment featured no tough questions.

It's not as though Roberts is incapable of asking tough questions when interviewing a first lady. On October 22, 2007, the journalist wondered in an interview with First Lady Laura Bush if the United States should be exporting generosity and not "our bombs."

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. You can find him on Twitter @ScottJW.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why sequestration aka a national 'detox' program is just what America needs

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Why sequestration aka a national 'detox' program is just what America needs
Feb 27th 2013, 19:00

The $1.2 trillion in across the board budget cuts called "sequestration" -- beginning with $85 billion that is expected to kick in on March 1 -- is just what the doctor ordered: a detox protocol for a nation addicted to entitlement spending and bloated budgets in every facet of government.

No addict likes the idea of going into a detox unit. Why?  Because it hurts. He knows that, while Librium or methadone will be used to make getting off drugs easier, the final result will be to leave his system without alcohol or heroin, and without the detox meds that mimic them.  In the end, he will be left to face reality and deal with it, without false, chemical courage.

The way that detox works is to reduce addictive medication slowly, but surely—to taper off. With every reduction in Librium or methadone doses, the mind may react with anxiety, and the body may react with a rising pulse rate. While seizures are to be avoided (but are almost never fatal), the patient has to be made to understand that it won't be painless to reverse the dependency on intoxicants for which he is responsible.  

No pain, no gain.

The American drug of choice is wild partying with entitlement spending and bloated budgets in many government agencies and departments.

The American drug of choice is wild partying with entitlement spending and bloated budgets in many government agencies and departments.  

This drug has allowed our people to feel better than they should about their economic circumstances, their educational system, our ability to defend our nation and our own abilities to sustain our lifestyles—whether those lifestyles are propped up by free cell phones, or funny money Medicare insurance, or programs to bail out bankrupt companies and forgive home mortgages that people legally contracted to pay, or manic spending sprees on roads, bridges and federal buildings built with money printed by the Federal Reserve (which is an oxymoron).

The only reason detox is any good, by the way, is that it can set the stage for a period of sobriety, making amends and coming up with strategies for living the truth, instead of living a lie. 

This amounts to coming up with real solutions to problems, rather than dodging them by deluging them with more drugs. Genuine creativity is kindled by heartfelt desire, necessity and, often, some amount of suffering.  It is short-circuited by slight of hand, laxity of mind and anything that artificially makes one believe things are better than they really are—like alcohol or marijuana or heroin or government handouts paid for with borrowed funds or fake currency.

Without access to the drugs of rampant entitlements, as we begin to get sober, we will have to be more creative in delivering needed services to those poor people who truly need help.  We will need to be more creative in the ways in which we incentivize entrepreneurs to truly power our economy with courageous investment and bold ideas. We will need to be more creative in the ways we defend our country and spread liberty around the globe.

So, while sequestration (for which, you may read detoxification) will, perhaps, hurt, we should be more concerned if it does not.  Because that would mean that we could have been detoxed faster, ridding ourselves of toxins sooner and demonstrating (no small thing) our resolve to bear some pain in order to make real gains.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.