Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Enough Is Enough It’s time for Washington to cut Egypt loose.

Enough Is Enough

It’s time for Washington to cut Egypt loose.



With blood in Egypt's streets and a return to a state of emergency, it's time for Washington to stop pretending. Its efforts to maintain its lines of communication with the Egyptian military, quietly mediate the crisis, and help lay the groundwork for some new, democratic political process have utterly failed. Egypt's new military regime, and a sizable and vocal portion of the Egyptian population, have made it very clear that they just want the United States to leave it alone. For once, Washington should give them their wish. As long as Egypt remains on its current path, the Obama administration should suspend all aid, keep the embassy in Cairo closed, and refrain from treating the military regime as a legitimate government.
These steps won't matter very much in the short term. Cairo has made it very clear that it doesn't care what Washington thinks and the Gulf states will happily replace whatever cash stops flowing from U.S. coffers. Anti-American incitement will continue, along with the state of emergency, violence and polarization, the stripping away of the fig leaf of civilian government, and the disaster brewing in the Sinai. It won't affect Secretary of State John Kerry's Israel-Palestine peace talks and the Camp David accords will be fine, too; Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi can't manage his own streets, and it's unlikely he wants to mess with Israel right now.
The hard truth is that the United States has no real influence to lose right now anyway, and immediate impact isn't the point. Taking a (much belated) stand is the only way for the United States to regain any credibility -- with Cairo, with the region, and with its own tattered democratic rhetoric.

More FP CoverageEGYPT IN CRISIS

  • Mubarak Still Rules
  • 'They Struck Us Down Like Animals'
  • 'We've Never Seen in Egypt's History This Many Attacks Against Journalists'
It's easy to understand Washington's ambivalence in the immediate aftermath of the July 3 coup. Nobody ever had any illusions that the military seizing power, suspending the constitution, and imprisoning President Mohamed Morsy quacked, as John McCain rather regrettably put it, like a duck. At the same time, the seemingly robust public support for the coup, longstanding uneasiness about the Muslim Brotherhood, the appointment of well-regarded technocrats to high-level government positions, and strong Gulf Cooperation Coucil support for the new regime stayed the Obama administration's hand. It seemed prudent to many in Washington to wait and see how things would play out, especially given the intense arguments of those defending what they considered popular revolution. It didn't help that neither the United States nor other outside actors knew quite what they wanted. Few particularly wanted to go to the mat for the Muslim Brotherhood or a Morsy restoration, and Washington quickly understood that this was not in the cards. But they also didn't want a return to military rule.

Follow vam_27 on Twitter

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Baltimore police officer got a call about a ‘vicious’ pit bull and this is what happened next

Baltimore police officer got a call about a ‘vicious’ pit bull and this is what happened next


Dog pic - Baltimore police officer got a call about a 'vicious' pit bull and this is what happened next

Officer Dan Waskeiwicz of the Baltimore City Police received a call one day when he was on duty stating that there was a “vicious dog” terrorizing a neighborhood and he needed to help. When he got to the scene, people were yelling at the pit bull as it ran around in a frenzy.
Officer Waskeiwicz writes in his letter to Modified K9:
I followed the dog into an ally to see how it was acting. Going on my own approach, being a dog lover, I got out of my car and called the “vicious dog” over to me. The dog came over with it’s tail between it’s legs and panting. I grabbed my water bottle and the dog sat down next to me and began licking my pants. I started giving the dog water. I brought the dog over and waited for the pound to show up.
It was then that he decided that he couldn’t bear to see the dog go, knowing it would likely be euthanized.   Dan decided instead to take the dog home himself.  He jumped in the back seat of the cruiser with the “vicious” canine, and it was clear that he’d made the right decision.
Dog+pic Baltimore police officer got a call about a vicious pit bull and this is what happened next
via Modified K9
Officer Waskiewicz named the dog Bo and introduced him to his other two dogs.  The crew hit it off with no problems.  Bo had shown signs of neglect from his previous home, but he made a speedy recovery.
543610 10100574214730926 5515898 50477082 124133479 n Baltimore police officer got a call about a vicious pit bull and this is what happened next
via Modified K9
Officer Waskiewicz even got the Certificate of Appreciation from the Baltimore Humane Society for his efforts!

Follow vam_27 on Twitter

Latest Research on the Effects of Alcohol on Your Waistline Moderate alcohol drinkers gain less weight over time than people who abstain, some studies show.

Latest Research on the Effects of Alcohol on Your Waistline

Moderate alcohol drinkers gain less weight over time than people who abstain, some studies show.



It isn't just the beer that contributes to beer bellies. It could also be the extra calories, fat and unhealthy eating choices that may come with moderate drinking.

Calorie Counts

Getty Images
Pina Colada: A 6 oz glass has approx. 460 calories. Ingredients like pineapple juice and coconut are high in calories.
Getty Images
Red Wine: A 5 oz glass has approx. 125 calories. Considered a good choice for its anti-inflammatory properties.
Getty Images
Regular Beer: A 12 oz glass has approx. 150 calories. An alternative: light beer, which averages about 100 calories.
Getty Images
Margarita: A 6 oz glass has approx. 280 calories. Snacks like guacamole and chips might be hard to resist.
A recent study found that men consume an additional 433 calories (equivalent to a McDonald's double cheeseburger) on days they drink a moderate amount of alcohol. About 61% of the caloric increase comes from the alcohol itself. Men also report eating higher amounts of saturated fats and meat, and less fruit and milk, on those days than on days when they aren't drinking, the study showed.
Women fared a bit better, taking in an extra 300 calories on moderate-drinking days, from the alcohol and eating fattier foods. But women's increase in calories from additional eating wasn't statistically significant, the study said.
"Men and women ate less healthily on days they drank alcohol," said Rosalind Breslow, an epidemiologist with the federal National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and lead author of the study. "Poorer food choices on drinking days have public-health implications," she said.
The findings dovetail with controlled lab studies in which participants generally eat more food after consuming alcohol. Researchers suggest that alcohol may enhance "the short-term rewarding effects" of consuming food, according to a 2010 report in the journal Physiology & Behavior that reviewed previous studies on alcohol, appetite and obesity.
But other studies have pointed to a different trend. Moderate drinkers gain less weight over time than either heavy drinkers or people who abstain from alcohol, particularly women, this research has shown. Moderate drinking is considered having about two drinks a day for men and one for women.
"People who gain the least weight are moderate drinkers, regardless of [alcoholic] beverage choice," said Eric Rimm, an associate professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard Medical School and chairman of the 2010 review of alcohol in the federal dietary guidelines. The weight-gain difference is modest, and "starting to drink is not a weight-loss diet," he said.
The various research efforts form part of a long-standing debate about how alcohol affects people's appetites, weight and overall health. Researchers say there aren't simple answers, and suggest that individuals' metabolism, drinking patterns and gender may play a role.
Alcohol is "a real wild card when it comes to weight management," said Karen Miller-Kovach, chief scientific officer of Weight Watchers International. At seven calories per gram, alcohol is closer to fat than to carbohydrate or protein in caloric content, she said. Alcohol tends to lower restraint, she notes, causing a person to become more indulgent with what they're eating.
Research bolstering the role of moderate drinking in helping to control weight gain was published in 2004 in the journal Obesity Research. That study followed nearly 50,000 women over eight years. An earlier study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1994, followed more than 7,000 people for 10 years and found that moderate drinkers gained less weight than nondrinkers. Studies comparing changes in waist circumference among different groups have yielded similar results.
Dr. Rimm said it isn't clear why moderate drinking may be protective against typical weight gain, but it could have to do with metabolic adjustments. After people drink alcohol, their heart rate increases so they burn more calories in the following hour.
"It's a modest amount," he said. "But if you take an individual that eats 100 calories instead of a glass of wine, the person drinking the glass of wine will have a slight increase in the amount of calories burned."
Food choices could also play a role. Some studies suggest that women who drink alcohol eat fewer sweet foods, possibly because alcohol stimulates the same pleasure center in the brain as sweets, said Dr. Rimm. That isn't seen as consistently in men.
Men have more of the alcohol dehydrogenase group of enzymes that metabolize some alcohol in the stomach than women, said Andrea N. Giancoli, spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a professional organization.
One theory for what this might mean is that women's bodies divert alcohol not being broken down in the stomach to a different metabolic pathway that results in more calories being burned, said Ms. Giancoli, a registered dietitian near Los Angeles. As a result, fewer calories from alcohol may be stored in women as fat, she said.
Another factor is drinking patterns. A 2005 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology looked at data from 45,896 drinkers. It found that as the quantity of drinking increased from one to four drinks in a day, the subjects' body-mass index increased.
"People who drank the least often but drank more on the days that they drank had higher BMI," said Dr. Breslow, who co-authored the study.
Dr. Breslow's latest study, which found caloric intake increases with moderate drinking, didn't look at associations between alcohol and body weight or track food choices and diets over time. She suggested that people who increase their caloric intake with moderate drinking one day might compensate the next day by consuming less.
The study, which appeared in the May issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and included 1,864 mostly moderate drinkers.
Another study, which looked at data from nearly 16,000 individuals over a year, concluded that as alcohol consumption increased there was a decline in diet quality.
That research was published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 2010.
David Jensen, a 56-year-old who considers himself overweight, says cutting his daily drink or two helped him reduce nighttime snacking. "You have a glass of wine and then it's, oh man, I need cheese with that, or I need chocolate. You end up eating all this other stuff," said Mr. Jensen, who lives near Seattle and works as a translator for financial clients.
Last year he stopped drinking for five months and lost just over 10 pounds "with really no effort," Mr. Jensen said.
But once he started drinking again his weight went up and he is back to where he started.

Follow vam_27 on Twitter

the most powerful domestic violence ad ever produced


the most powerful domestic violence ad ever produced




Follow vam_27 on Twitter

Friday, August 2, 2013

Office Bullies Pick on Their Unattractive Co-Workers



Whether or not your unfriendly workplace Johnny Lawrence or Regina George is aware of it, he or she is singling out at least one type of victim with his or her cruelty: less-attractive colleagues.
That’s one of the unhappy conclusions in a study titled “Beauty, Personality, and Affect as Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior Receipt,” recently published in the journal Human Performance. Conducted by professors Brent A. Scott of Michigan State University and Timothy A. Judge of the University of Notre Dame, the experiment drew on a pool of more than 100 health-care professionals. The test subjects were photographed and “evaluated for physical attractiveness by those otherwise unfamiliar with the study,” says Judge in an e-mail. Yes, this experiment began with the scientific equivalent of Hot or Not.
After being rated based on their looks, the subjects were then asked about “the degree to which their co-workers treated them in an uncivil manner at work.” The results, as they say, weren’t pretty.
The subjects who were considered unattractive reported incidents of being tormented. “It is not merely the characteristics of the [bully] that drive bullying behavior at work—as has mostly been the assumption in past research,” says Judge. “The characteristics of the targets of bullying are important as well. We found that both the inner (personality) and outer (physical attractiveness) influence the degree to which others behave in a negative way toward us at work.” In other words, if you’re unattractive and lack self-confidence, you could be unwittingly “inviting” a bully to ruin your day.
While many people may believe that this type of behavior is confined to high school cafeterias, workplace bullying has come to light in recent years as a serious issue. “Counterproductive work behavior,” as it’s otherwise known, is characterized by abuse, aggression, antisocial behavior, incivility, social undermining, and workplace deviance, according to Scott and Judge. Or, as Joe Grimm, editor of the book The New Bullying: How Social Media, Social Exclusion, Laws and Suicide Have Changed Our Definition of Bullying, told Bloomberg Businessweek last year: “In a lot of workplaces, it’s just considered part of workplace culture: browbeating, intimidation, cutting people off, and being the loudest in the room with an opinion.” In a survey last year, CareerBuilder reported that 35 percent of employees said they had been bullied at work.
Bullying can be costly, as well. A Gallup poll in 2008 of more than a million workers revealed that an “overbearing boss” was the No. 1 reason employees quit their jobs. “If you quit because of bullying, it would take a company twice your annual salary to replace you: flying in job candidates, hiring, and training,” said Grimm.
According to Judge, the point of their study was awareness. “We know from substantial research that physical attraction influences hiring decisions, earnings, career success, and now how our colleagues treat us at work,” he says. “Very few of us would admit that we take attractiveness into consideration in how we treat our co-workers—yet our study suggests that we do.”
But if you’re the target of a bully at work, and confronting your tormentor or calling on a supervisor hasn’t panned out, there’s always another option before quitting: the crane.


Follow vam_27 on Twitter

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Apple, Google Among Top U.S. Companies Parking Cash Offshore To Reduce Taxes, Study Says



Apple may get the brunt of the attention for its use of offshore havens to offset the taxes it pays in the U.S., but it’s hardly alone.

Six of the biggest names in technology — Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard and Google – ranked in the Top 15 of the 100 publicly-traded companies (as measured by revenue) with the most money held offshore, according to a new report called “Offshore shell Games” by U.S. PIRG, a federation of public interest research groups.

“Many large U.S.-based multinational corporations avoid paying U.S. taxes by using ac¬counting tricks to make profits made in America appear to be generated in offshore tax havens—countries with minimal or no taxes,” the group says in its 35-page report on the legal loopholes used to shift profits offshore. “By booking profits to subsidiaries registered in tax havens, multinational corporations are able to avoid an estimated $90 billion in federal income taxes each year. These subsidiaries are often shell companies with few, if any employees, and which engage in little to no real business activity.”

The Top 15 companies for 2012 are: General Electric, Apple, Pfizer, Microsoft, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Citigroup, Cisco Systems, Abbott Laboratories, Procter & Gable, Hewlett-Packard, Google and PepsiCo. Together, they held $776 billion off shore through a combined 859 tax haven subsidiaries.

Source: US PIRG

Here are some of the other findings from the report, which says the use of tax havens is “ubiquitous” among the 100 companies it studied:

• As of 2012, 82 out of the top 100 publicly-traded U.S. com¬panies operated, collectively, 2,686 subsidiaries in tax haven ju¬risdictions. Those jurisdications included Ireland,

• Only 21 of the top 100 disclose what they would expect to pay in taxes if they didn’t keep profits off¬shore. “All told, these companies would col¬lectively owe over $93 billion in additional federal taxes. To put this enormous sum in context, it represents close to the entire state budget of California and more than the federal government spends on education.”

• The 15 companies with the most money offshore hold a combined $776 billion overseas., which is 66 percent of the approxi¬mately $1.17 trillion held abroad by the 100 companies studied.

• The average tax rate these companies currently pay to other countries on this income is just 6.9 percent, well below lower the 35 percent statutory U.S. corporate tax rate.

The group notes that these companies aren’t doing anything illegal, but rather “gaming” the tax code system. It makes recommendations for closing some of those loopholes, including